Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Gurkhal]

I was thinking about something else and then it struck me a way to add more ideologies to Victoria III in a way that should not clutter us with a thousand insignificent minority positions in parliament but still allow for a more diverse set of political schools of thought than what is present in Victoria II.

*****

So my idea is to have political ideologies divided into Ideological Families (Conservatism, Socialism, Liberalism, Fascism) and these are divided into Ideological Traditions (For example in the case of Socialism; Marxism, Reformism (Soc. Dem.), Anarchism and so on) and then finally there are Ideological Schools (Further sub-divisions).

The trick to keep these from becoming to many is to only allow them to splinter at a certain limit in % of the Population following it. To give players more agency perhaps it could also be so that the player gets to decide a bit on how the split goes. If the player really don't want splitting things up then perhaps choices can be made to reduce the split or even prevent it. Or for that matter, hasten a split so that the player quicker gets access to a particular ideology they are looking for.

Now the exact procentage of it can be debated and such but I think it could be an way to get more ideologies into the game without cluttering the pie chart but still allow us to have more ideologies in the game.

EDITED: Slimmed down the text a bit, I hope its still understandable.

 

[Gurkhal]

And another thing. I'd love to see more inventive ways for people to fight back against the government than just revolts when Con and Mil gets high enough. All manner of POPs and parties should be able to raise all manner of hell for a government that tries to conduct politics against their interests.

I don't mean it should be impossible to play, but if you're playing a country with a storng aristocracy, then turning things over to a meritocracy should involve essentially a showndown and perhaps some kind of clever plan or tactic in order to tackle this powerful aristocracy as opposed to only watching POP and Mil. The aristocracts should essentially have ways to undermine and counter-attack such a government beyond revolts.

Same with workers, farmers, clergy, military and so on and on.

EDITED: Perhaps depending on difficulty. On easy the internal opposition don't have many clever things to respond with but on higher difficulties then internal politics are as hard as foreign politics.

 

[luxfelix]

And another thing. I'd love to see more inventive ways for people to fight back against the government than just revolts when Con and Mil gets high enough. All manner of POPs and parties should be able to raise all manner of hell for a government that tries to conduct politics against their interests.

I don't mean it should be impossible to play, but if you're playing a country with a storng aristocracy, then turning things over to a meritocracy should involve essentially a showndown and perhaps some kind of clever plan or tactic in order to tackle this powerful aristocracy as opposed to only watching POP and Mil. The aristocracts should essentially have ways to undermine and counter-attack such a government beyond revolts.

Same with workers, farmers, clergy, military and so on and on.

EDITED: Perhaps depending on difficulty. On easy the internal opposition don't have many clever things to respond with but on higher difficulties then internal politics are as hard as foreign politics.

Shhh... don't give the workers the idea of going on ~ s t r i k e ~ ...

Also, don't make an enemy of the Duke of Revoltland, he is the married to the Kaiser's daughter and would... complicate our foreign relations with a rising power...

Oh... the middle class... well, maybe we want them to emigrate to America if they can't be content here...

 

[Barbosovod]

What I have missed in Victoria 2 is education system, universities, professors, students. An extremely expensive, slow to develop toy. Capricious professors, students prone to rioting. Production of educated POPs (clerks (engineers), bureaucrats) depends on education level or number of students. In reality research efficiency is not linear proportional to finances, massive investment only attracts to science less talented people, so one can use known formula
research points/day = A*log(1+B*money) for some parameters A,B.
So greater finances yield more research, but increment quickly decreases. A, B may also be variable.

 

[vyshan]

Two interconnected ideas I had for Vicky3 would be the cabinet and Political Party Characters.

The cabinet would work similar to the ministers in Hearts of Iron 3 though probably geared more towards the era. So instead of minister of armaments you might have the secretary of trade or the secretary of the colonies, just to name two ideas.

The people who get to sit on the cabinet are politicians and politicians. The idea here is that each political party would have a number of politicians attached to it. This would work similar to how great families in Imperator have a number of characters attached to them. Characters in vicky3 would have similar attributes to Imperator Characters, so you have prominence, wealth, charisma, and so on. To raise character's skills it might be good to appoint them as governors of your colonies, or have them run for local elections.

This also means that a coalition government is more interesting because then you might have to appoint a politician from another party into your cabinet.

thoughts on this idea?

 

[Lamartine]

Two interconnected ideas I had for Vicky3 would be the cabinet and Political Party Characters.

The cabinet would work similar to the ministers in Hearts of Iron 3 though probably geared more towards the era. So instead of minister of armaments you might have the secretary of trade or the secretary of the colonies, just to name two ideas.

The people who get to sit on the cabinet are politicians and politicians. The idea here is that each political party would have a number of politicians attached to it. This would work similar to how great families in Imperator have a number of characters attached to them. Characters in vicky3 would have similar attributes to Imperator Characters, so you have prominence, wealth, charisma, and so on. To raise character's skills it might be good to appoint them as governors of your colonies, or have them run for local elections.

This also means that a coalition government is more interesting because then you might have to appoint a politician from another party into your cabinet.

thoughts on this idea?

This comes up a lot, and I like this idea of ministers, governors, and families, but I can't quite think of how to make it work

It could open up some fun gameplay, but to me it would need to:
- present players with consistently interesting choices
- not require players to micromanage positions (esp. if you're assigning cabinet posts after every election)
- not take away from Victoria's ethos that you're playing the spirit of a nation.

The last point is the trickiest for me. On some level, figures like Bismarck, Nicholas II and Lincoln made a huge impact on their nation's history. It would be odd to not capture that impact in gameplay in some way. But it's a balancing act to acknowledge that impact without distracting from the broad historical forces they operated within and that form a core part of Victoria's gameplay.

 

[Kovax]

But it's a balancing act to acknowledge that impact without distracting from the broad historical forces they operated within and that form a core part of Victoria's gameplay.

Any good "historical" game has to be a balancing act between giving the player enough freedom to make the game interesting and staying at least within spitting distance of the constraints of the timeframe, which keeps the game at least plausibly "historical". I see it as a potential opportunity to expand the game, but not without its share of teething issues and balance readjustments until it's "right".

 

[Jagdze]

So when the vic3 is out? 2022? what are your guesses?

 

[Kovax]

So when the vic3 is out? 2022? what are your guesses?

Clearly, they're waiting for the 200th Anniversary of the birth of Queen Victoria. Don't hold your breath in the mean time.

 

[Jagdze]

well it should have been last year then.. Since she was born 1819

 

[Gurkhal]

This comes up a lot, and I like this idea of ministers, governors, and families, but I can't quite think of how to make it work

It could open up some fun gameplay, but to me it would need to:
- present players with consistently interesting choices
- not require players to micromanage positions (esp. if you're assigning cabinet posts after every election)
- not take away from Victoria's ethos that you're playing the spirit of a nation.

The last point is the trickiest for me. On some level, figures like Bismarck, Nicholas II and Lincoln made a huge impact on their nation's history. It would be odd to not capture that impact in gameplay in some way. But it's a balancing act to acknowledge that impact without distracting from the broad historical forces they operated within and that form a core part of Victoria's gameplay.

Sounds excellent. But one thing I feel that I must push is that the political parties should have agendas of their own, including throwing a wrench into the machine if they get screwed over. That means that if the player forms a coalition between parties but then kind of screws one of the parties, that party should totally be able to leave the coalition and not just suffer it because the "spirit of the nation" says so and they get destroyed by losing their voter support from a failure to get anything through.

Essentially that the more disperse a coalition is, the harder it should be to get them keeping together.

EDITED

And also that in Victoria II, the system works too clean, by far too clean. There should be an entire system for corruption, misuse and abuse of office and political power, malpractices, wilful incompetence and the like to affect almost every sphere of the nation from government, to military, to industry and so on. I realize and respect there are parts where Paradox don't want to go, but really the Victorian period should be presented in a much dirtier and malfunctioning way than it is in Victoria II without going into bad places.

And in fact the player should totally be able to build a utterly corrupt scam of a democracy with a system for all manner of dirty tricks to keep their favored party in power regardless of what a representational vote would say.

EDITED II

Hell, if a Great Power defeats another Great Power under certain conditions in the period of 1865-1910 then there could be an illness formed which affects militaries until they have suffered sufficient losses in war. That bad thing is called "The Cult of the Offensive" just to name one thing of the many less than good things that can happen and which needs to be fought against.

 

[Gurkhal]

As many have probably ntoed there's a mechanic in the coming CK3 to create your own creed of a faith. Given the dynamic and experimental way of the Victorian Age where many old ways was cast aside for new solutions, I thought that something similar might be possible in Victoria III.

And the idea I have is that perhaps we could create our own political systems? I did consider the possibility to create our own sub-ideologies but given how overwpowered these could be I settled on the government suggestion.

 

[Luckierexpert]

As many have probably ntoed there's a mechanic in the coming CK3 to create your own creed of a faith. Given the dynamic and experimental way of the Victorian Age where many old ways was cast aside for new solutions, I thought that something similar might be possible in Victoria III.

And the idea I have is that perhaps we could create our own political systems? I did consider the possibility to create our own sub-ideologies but given how overwpowered these could be I settled on the government suggestion.

Thats a good idea, although I'd probably keep the main government types available in Victoria 2 at the moment (Absolute Monarch, Prussian Constitutionalism, HM's government, Democracy and the various dictatorships) as the major government types and roll in the voting, press, political party and other political policies into this system. The system in CK3 looks like it could be a nice fit but that would also depend on other political changes that are implemented.

 

[Gurkhal]

Thats a good idea, although I'd probably keep the main government types available in Victoria 2 at the moment (Absolute Monarch, Prussian Constitutionalism, HM's government, Democracy and the various dictatorships) as the major government types and roll in the voting, press, political party and other political policies into this system. The system in CK3 looks like it could be a nice fit but that would also depend on other political changes that are implemented.

Indeed. Personally I would divided the system into monarchy, democracy and dictatorship and then let us have several different versions of these base forms. In part to anchor the customization in something.

One thing I've been thinking about is a suggestion for a more advanced set of government divided into branches like: Executive, legislative and judicial.

The executive are appointed to give direct mechanical effects to the state, the legislative needs to be on board to get reforms passed while the judicial arm have, here based on the American system, a number of supreme judges who can stop or delay reforms (in exchange for a backlash from those supporting the reform against the parties that the judges are affiliated with) and reduce or promote political corruption on a systematic scale and more.

 

[Ratgar]

Indeed. Personally I would divided the system into monarchy, democracy and dictatorship and then let us have several different versions of these base forms. In part to anchor the customization in something.

That is pretty much what Vicky 2 already does when you think about it, in that the various reforms represent the different ways the government of the country could be structured. As you change them the government type name also changes.

I would just like to see a greater amount of granularity to the political reforms, and more choices that feel significant and make countries like the USSR, and Qing China play and feel different. Victoria already is the most interesting game when it comes to reform in that it is a major struggle with different influences to get things changed in a country, rather than just being a button you spend mana on to get a meaningless modifier. They should lean into this, make more of the gameplay around changing or keeping things the same, and having greater effects from the changes you can make. Reforms should have real mechanic differences wherever possible, such as say the difference between a draft and a professional army. It isn't just a modifier, it is a critical difference in how the country functions which has tradeoffs either way. I freaking love that mechanic, it feels so natural and is just fun.

And one thing they really need to fix is the ability to do various exploits like swapping parties continuously as a monarchy to raise consciousness, allowing you to pass reforms rapidly. They shouldn't make it impossible to rapidly change, rather from a gameplay perspective it is necessary that they give rapid change drastic drawbacks, as well as making no changes and sticking with the least progressive autocracy have drastic drawbacks. Each path though should have ways in which it really shines, rather than being good in all cases.

 

[Luckierexpert]

That is pretty much what Vicky 2 already does when you think about it, in that the various reforms represent the different ways the government of the country could be structured. As you change them the government type name also changes.

I believe what Gurkhal was suggesting was an adaptation of the existing system with a similar system to what appears to be presented in CK3 for religious doctrines. There would still be a HM's government or Prussia Constitutionalism government in the new system but allow for more in-between groups rather than rigid definitions.

Indeed. Personally I would divided the system into monarchy, democracy and dictatorship and then let us have several different versions of these base forms. In part to anchor the customization in something.

One thing I've been thinking about is a suggestion for a more advanced set of government divided into branches like: Executive, legislative and judicial.

The executive are appointed to give direct mechanical effects to the state, the legislative needs to be on board to get reforms passed while the judicial arm have, here based on the American system, a number of supreme judges who can stop or delay reforms (in exchange for a backlash from those supporting the reform against the parties that the judges are affiliated with) and reduce or promote political corruption on a systematic scale and more.

I'd probably just split it into Monarchies and Republics, as dictatorships did occur in the time period with a monarch also being present as the head of state (such as Fascist Italy or a loose definition of the Japanese Shogunate). The idea of working with the different branches of government also sounds like a nice idea. It could also allow for more branches to be added depending on the nation (such as the Examination and Control branches of the Republic of China).

 

[Gurkhal]

That is pretty much what Vicky 2 already does when you think about it, in that the various reforms represent the different ways the government of the country could be structured. As you change them the government type name also changes.

No and no.

Political reforms in Victoria II is a very shallow way to try and simulate political change that is very uninteractive with the player. It rather really is just a set of levers and buttons to press in a machine room in order to manipulate the two values of Mil. and Con. There's simply very little immersion or oppertunity for political tactics to simulate the many political battles or interesting times during the period of 1836 to 1936.

I believe what Gurkhal was suggesting was an adaptation of the existing system with a similar system to what appears to be presented in CK3 for religious doctrines. There would still be a HM's government or Prussia Constitutionalism government in the new system but allow for more in-between groups rather than rigid definitions.

Very much so. I've already mentioned "Napoleonic Monarchy" as an alternative previously in the thread and this is an attempt to build on the idea that domestic politics and the way government is structure can be made much deeper and allow us to simply do many more things.

I'd probably just split it into Monarchies and Republics, as dictatorships did occur in the time period with a monarch also being present as the head of state (such as Fascist Italy or a loose definition of the Japanese Shogunate). The idea of working with the different branches of government also sounds like a nice idea. It could also allow for more branches to be added depending on the nation (such as the Examination and Control branches of the Republic of China).

I did also consider for a time to have it a two way street but came down against it. Monarchy in my opinion is different from dictatorship in that in a monarchy its a royal family who are the heads of state and where these are chosen. In a dictatorship its also a single person but hereditary principles are not the foundation. I agree there isn't a perfectly clear-cut way to divided monarchy from dictatorship in every case but consider the difference between Sulla and Seleukos. Sulla is a dictator who takes power on behalf of his political party and does not pass it on hereditary or make his family hold a special position in society over other noble Optimates families. Seleukos does pass on power hereditary and also makes himself formally king and takes his family into a special position. Thus he is a monarch.

It can be a bit difficult to express but in general I think that there are some differences in style, associations and ideological baggage coming with each form of one-man-rule.

 

[Balesir]

Hmm, monarchs were sometimes used as figureheads for dictators, as were "democratic" parliaments; maybe this is a function within the government: source of legitimacy. Add that to identification of the executive, legislature and judiciary and I think you have the makings of a religio- sorry, government.

 

[Gurkhal]

Hmm, monarchs were sometimes used as figureheads for dictators, as were "democratic" parliaments; maybe this is a function within the government: source of legitimacy. Add that to identification of the executive, legislature and judiciary and I think you have the makings of a religio- sorry, government.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt, so, thank you for your agreement.

 

[Balesir]

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt, so, thank you for your agreement.

Well, I wasn't specifically agreeing or disagreeing with individual posters (which was why I didn't post as a "reply"), but rather trying to pick out of the conversation what I thought were interesting points and clarify them in my mind, then post about them. I think this system really has legs: a "government" made up of four parts:

1) Source of Legitimacy: could be an established monarchy, a (pseudo-?)democratic body, an army, a religious hierarchy or "something else?"

2) An Executive: could be an individual, a bureaucratic ministry, a party, military or religious hierarchy or "something else?"

3) A Legislature: could be an individual, a unicameral or bicameral elected or appointed body, a bureaucratic department or "something else?"

4) A Judiciary: could be elected, appointed, oligarchic, religious or military - or "something else?"

If elements are placed into the game for these possibilities in each nation/state, possibly with options to promote/demote and combine/amalgamate them, I can see the germ of an interesting government system emerging. It "just" (heh) needs someone to take elements and ideas out of what everyong has been saying, above, and codify it into a sufficiently varied and comprehensive system.