Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Ratgar]

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?"

I think that one current problem with Vicky 2's government reform system is that it basically lacks substantial amounts of hysteresis. The path a government takes to arrive at its present laws and form is not really present in that you can basically jump around between unrelated values, with the only limits being that you have to do this in steps. A more historical system I think would be to somehow give a certain kind of directionality to each country's government progression, a story if you will of how each government becomes what it is. I know this is a little vague on what I mean, but I guess what I'm suggesting is something to reflect how people in a country are aware of past changes and struggles (or the lack of them) and how this has I think a profound effect on the political values of a population, and consequently the changes in a government.

I know that plurality in Vicky 2 sort of hints at this with it's tooltip describing an awareness of past political achievements and revanchism does too a little bit, but these are pretty much unidirectional values. I think it would be great if you could have some measure of underlying values in a population that maintained a constancy and found multiple manifestations as different political ideals. Political ideals change with the times, but the underlying values I think change more slowly. Political parties do not so much wax and wane as evolve into each other.

At the end of Vicky 3 I hope not to see a political pie chart evenly divided between every political strain existing between 1790 and 1930, nor should there be endgame parties which every country naturally settles on. Politics and the government should be an interesting conclusion with the imprint of past events, yet a predominance of current ones.

 

[moscal]

From
https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria2/comments/h10kwv

 

[Ratgar]

From
https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria2/comments/h10kwv

That would be a beautiful thing to have unique weapon production in Vicky 3, though of course I don't think such nitty gritty details as buttplates and trigger would be appropriate, rather I'd suggest break it down like this:

Weapons have a few simple stats such as for small arms their accurate range, fire rate, reliability, and crucially caliber/compatible ammunition type. Unlike in HOI, ammunition should remain a separate item, that can be updated while keeping the gun the same giving it a modifier to accurate range for instance . Throughout the entire period of Vicky, and especially in the earlier half, it was extremely common for older weapons to be used with newer ammunition. For instance adapting older rifles to the Minie Ball, or changing the explosives used in artillery shells to newer powder or some such. Furthermore, it should be possible (and quite necessary) to take a stock of smooth-bore muskets and rifle them, or rebore them to fit a new caliber which you have stocks for, or to change from flintlock to percussion cap. One of the major tasks during this period was also dealing with the multiplicity of ammunition types on the battlefield.

Finally, different companies should produce different models of weapons, and to ensure that they develop along different lines there should be some civilian demand for them as well as government demand. Before the American Civil War there was a combination of the government founded arsenals developing arms, and the private industry. Things the private industry developed were often more advanced and farsighted, for instance the lever action henry rifles, but they were more expensive and the ammunition especially was in short supply and incompatible. These sorts of scenarios played out all over the world, and led to interested choices for combatants in the period. You could do your best to standardize heavily around one tech, but as time goes on it will become more obsolete, it will not benefit from the advances of smaller arms producers.

Some simple version of this, not down to too heavy of details, but at least preserving some of the interesting differences between manufacturers for instance, would go a huge way towards making Vicky's combat and economy more interesting. Gloss over some of the smaller details, and just group manufacturers by general types that can be compatible. Give a few steps at which guns can be retooled, and a few steps to the ammunition.

 

[Balesir]

That would be a beautiful thing to have unique weapon production in Vicky 3, though of course I don't think such nitty gritty details as buttplates and trigger would be appropriate, rather I'd suggest break it down like this:

I broadly agree, but you might want to add in some interaction with culture/society and law. As far as I can tell, the accelerated development in the USA of "mass production" methods and breech loading (which was related because of the intercangeability needed) came about largely due to the lack of entrenched vested interests in the (young) US of A compared to Europe. In particular, crafts guilds seem to be implicated in France and the UK.

 

[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.

To my experience in Victoria 2 money may be a problem just in early phase, I use to finish having hundreds million on account with no opportunity to invest it in any profitable way which is disappointing. The logarithmic formula proposed above (pretty realistic, by the way) lets invest almost any sum to the research without seriously breaking the game's balance.

 

[loup99]

From
https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria2/comments/h10kwv

It looks nice graphically, but far too detailed and obscure for minor benefit, in my view. Otherwise it ends up as one of those features you don't want to engage with and just click on "automate".

 

[Gurkhal]

It looks nice graphically, but far too detailed and obscure for minor benefit, in my view. Otherwise it ends up as one of those features you don't want to engage with and just click on "automate".

It could be so, but I honestly feel there should be micro- and macromanagement option to many things in this game. So that we can micromanage the areas we want and let the AI manage the areas we are not terribly interested in.

So that if the military aspect don't interest me much, then I can macromanage that together with the AI. But if I want to go down deep into the military parts then that should be possible. And yes, in the Victoria II combat system these details might be of minor importance. But if the combat system is redesign to cope with, for example, more detailed weapon choices and developments from the player then there's no reason to think that Pdx would not be able to make it meaningful and interesting.

 

[loup99]

It could be so, but I honestly feel there should be micro- and macromanagement option to many things in this game. So that we can micromanage the areas we want and let the AI manage the areas we are not terribly interested in.

So that if the military aspect don't interest me much, then I can macromanage that together with the AI. But if I want to go down deep into the military parts then that should be possible. And yes, in the Victoria II combat system these details might be of minor importance. But if the combat system is redesign to cope with, for example, more detailed weapon choices and developments from the player then there's no reason to think that Pdx would not be able to make it meaningful and interesting.

What PDS seem to be wanting to do is to have all areas equally interesting and player-managed, since in the HoI3 -> HoI4 switch they removed a lot of areas that could be left to AI control. On the other hand they also oversimplified things like politics and government, which I hope they won't do with a V3.

 

[Kovax]

As long as Paradox leaves it open for modification, that's probably good enough. I don't think that half or more of the players would really want to get that far into the details of development of one specific item, especially if that's multiplied by some significant number of specific items (long guns, pistols, cannons, caissons, wagons, various ship types, and so on).

 

[Gurkhal]

What PDS seem to be wanting to do is to have all areas equally interesting and player-managed, since in the HoI3 -> HoI4 switch they removed a lot of areas that could be left to AI control. On the other hand they also oversimplified things like politics and government, which I hope they won't do with a V3.

Entirely true. But in my opinion I disagree with that design philosophy when taken so far as in HoI4, and I don't claim to be some form of expert in that game at all. But there are things that needs to be added for the "Victorian Experience" regardless if there's a big or small part of the fan base that wants to invest themselves into it. I think that the simplified way of developing games got Paradox burnt with Imperator's release and hopefully they won't make it to simple or esoteric either.

As long as Paradox leaves it open for modification, that's probably good enough. I don't think that half or more of the players would really want to get that far into the details of development of one specific item, especially if that's multiplied by some significant number of specific items (long guns, pistols, cannons, caissons, wagons, various ship types, and so on).

Half the player base is a perfectly good reason to allow customization if you want it, and let there be an option to let the AI handle it as well. For example I am not terribly interested in the economy (shock!!!) but more interested in social, military and cultural aspects. Yet to get the Victorian things I am interested in I'll simply have to manage the economic stuff so that I can get because that's how the game is designed according to the period its about.

 

[FOARP]

My preferred weapons implementation: when you research the next weapon-tech you get presented with options as to which version of that weapon you want. For example, you get to choose between a cheap mass-produced weapon and a more accurate but more expensive weapon.

Example: I research "Magazine Rifles". I am then presented with a choice between weapons sold by two or three different companies. For example I am presented with a choice the Lee-Enfield, and the Gewehr 98, each having different stats. Based on which weapon I choose I then have to pay the cost of re-equipping with that weapon. I can also upgrade that weapon, or revert back to the other weapon (but lose any upgrades).

 

[Luckierexpert]

My preferred weapons implementation: when you research the next weapon-tech you get presented with options as to which version of that weapon you want. For example, you get to choose between a cheap mass-produced weapon and a more accurate but more expensive weapon.

Example: I research "Magazine Rifles". I am then presented with a choice between weapons sold by two or three different companies. For example I am presented with a choice the Lee-Enfield, and the Gewehr 98, each having different stats. Based on which weapon I choose I then have to pay the cost of re-equipping with that weapon. I can also upgrade that weapon, or revert back to the other weapon (but lose any upgrades).

I'd argue you could just unlock all those options when you research the new tech. Then you have to get factories to produce that weapon, either by converting state-run arms factories to produce it or convincing capitalist run factories to swap to the new weapon type.

I'd personal prefer these different rifles to be separate products to produce, as that would do a good job in showing how long it takes to re-fit an army with modern firearms as technology advanced. It would also give you a stockpile of outdated weapons, either to keep for dire situations or to sell to other nations (such as westernising nations like China and Ethiopia).

 

[Gurkhal]

I'd argue you could just unlock all those options when you research the new tech. Then you have to get factories to produce that weapon, either by converting state-run arms factories to produce it or convincing capitalist run factories to swap to the new weapon type.

I'd personal prefer these different rifles to be separate products to produce, as that would do a good job in showing how long it takes to re-fit an army with modern firearms as technology advanced. It would also give you a stockpile of outdated weapons, either to keep for dire situations or to sell to other nations (such as westernising nations like China and Ethiopia).

I agree and I'd like to add a support argument in addition to that. Namely that differentiating between various weapons also means that you can't create a super stockpile to be used across the game. That rifles which can't be sold for like two or three decades will simply have to be a cashiered as they are simply so far behind that no one wants to buy them anymore. Thus creating a bit of urgency in getting surplus material on the market and get it sold within reasonable time frame. Same with suddenly getting out rifles from the 1850s to equip reserves to fight in a 1920s war.

EDITED

Something else I'd like to see is the separation of POPs between rural and urban life in the same province.

And that there's a "forum" kind of mechanics to represent political demand on the street, and a more detailed interaction with those demands and opinions.

 

[tului]

All this discussion of micromanagement made me think of a Paradox MMO like Eve Online but Vicky III

 

[RELee]

All this discussion had me start up a game as Sweden. I don't think I ever played a game as Sweden before. I'm going to be a sweetheart nation full of pacifists and rich middle-class citizens.

Nah. I'll still be a jerk player.

 

[Gurkhal]

Another minor suggestion from me regarding Victoria III warfare.

Guerillas and guerilla warfare

I've been thinking a little about how guerillas and their way of warfare can be done. The idea is that guerillas can't stop a regular army on its own but that it can, especially if unchecked, become a big enough thorn in an army's side that the tables can be turned on them.

The suggestion I have is that when a guerilla force is in a province then that province will have a deteroriated output and any units in it will suffer extra attrition damage from guerilla ambushes and attacks. And that normally regular army units can't engage guerillas in standard battle.

So what can be done against guerillas is that an army's units can be toggled to a "anti-guerilla" stance which allows them to engage guerillas. But at the same time be much less effective in engagements with regular enemy units and also increase the militancy for the populations where they are active as the brutal methods of counter-insurgency of the 19th century could be, to my understanding, pretty nasty.

 

[Ratgar]

So what can be done against guerillas is that an army's units can be toggled to a "anti-guerilla" stance which allows them to engage guerillas. But at the same time be much less effective in engagements with regular enemy units and also increase the militancy for the populations where they are active as the brutal methods of counter-insurgency of the 19th century could be, to my understanding, pretty nasty.

The thing to take into account with any sort of rebel sentiment mechanic is you want it to avoid annoying micro. I think having unrest be a separate mapmode, having to manually spread troops between provinces as the unrest rises, etc is annoying and doesn't add a lot to the games fun.

What you want to have is a system that preserves the choice of dealing with unrest harshly, softly, or not at all, and having tradeoffs that don't make it a no-brainer every time to do the same thing, so the strengths of each strategy should be strongly dependent on say the abundance of manpower or the degree of militancy. I think a better system is an offmap one like HOIV, but instead of microing every separate occupied territory just allow us to send troops and equipment to a pool for all anti-resistance measures if we want, and set an overall response of harshness, conciliation, or no response.

I think to make it an interesting system though they should further make it one in which harsh measures can never really fully stamp out resistance, rather they strongly increase it's militancy while lowering overall pop participation. If the government represses all resistance harshly, it should send any movement into a decline while radicalizing those who remain. Whether the movement dies out entirely should depend on other relevant conditions that caused it to arise in the first place though, so that if you have a movement for socialism it should depend on huge social inequality. You can repress the movement but only if conditions improve should it go away.

And further, I think that the expenditure necessary to repress movements should be much larger than say HOIV, and thus represent a greater tradeoff.

 

[Gurkhal]

The thing to take into account with any sort of rebel sentiment mechanic is you want it to avoid annoying micro. I think having unrest be a separate mapmode, having to manually spread troops between provinces as the unrest rises, etc is annoying and doesn't add a lot to the games fun.

What you want to have is a system that preserves the choice of dealing with unrest harshly, softly, or not at all, and having tradeoffs that don't make it a no-brainer every time to do the same thing, so the strengths of each strategy should be strongly dependent on say the abundance of manpower or the degree of militancy. I think a better system is an offmap one like HOIV, but instead of microing every separate occupied territory just allow us to send troops and equipment to a pool for all anti-resistance measures if we want, and set an overall response of harshness, conciliation, or no response.

I think to make it an interesting system though they should further make it one in which harsh measures can never really fully stamp out resistance, rather they strongly increase it's militancy while lowering overall pop participation. If the government represses all resistance harshly, it should send any movement into a decline while radicalizing those who remain. Whether the movement dies out entirely should depend on other relevant conditions that caused it to arise in the first place though, so that if you have a movement for socialism it should depend on huge social inequality. You can repress the movement but only if conditions improve should it go away.

And further, I think that the expenditure necessary to repress movements should be much larger than say HOIV, and thus represent a greater tradeoff.

I am forced to agree that this is a more elegent solution than mine. I don't play HoI4, I am afraid, so I wasn't aware that Paradox had already found a good way to handle this, but I am happy they have. I also like your ideas about the longer term effects of suppression.

*****

Officer Factions

But to make a new suggestion, I have been reading a little about Imperial Russian and British armies in the late 19th century and the Great War. What strikes me is the factionalism of officers helping each other to positions and often championing certain views and the opposition between these factions. I believe that in regards to the British army it was called "Rings". For example the "Wolseley Ring".

Wolseley ring - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We've already discussed the idea of political characters tied to parlament and parties and that its important to prevent a perfect meritocracy so that the people with the best skills for a job may not have the political opinions that you want in your government. Thus you must either make do with less talented people or accept political changes in the direction that these more talented people want.

I think the same could perhaps be done in the army. Now almost all general and admirals will, unless something really dramatic has happened, be of Conservative political ideology, so there's little to find there in terms of factionalism.

So what I propose is that generals and admirals are divided into factions based on fighting doctrine and prefered political course, most importantly in the case of foreign and imperial/expansionist policy. Generally that people in the same faction have positive personal relations so that screwing over one member of a faction means getting worse relation from the rest of the faction unless this person can be screwed over for some actual and acceptable reason. Thus allow the player to, just as with political parties, pick generals and admirals with more considerations than just merits. The idea is that the more people from a faction that hold command, and in particular can gain prestige from combat commands, the more they will be able to influence the doctrines of the army or navy.

And that could also be political as like minded generals who feel they are getting pushed out into the cold can make for a recruiting ground for military leadership to resistance against the government pushing them out.

 

[Ratgar]

I am forced to agree that this is a more elegent solution than mine. I don't play HoI4, I am afraid, so I wasn't aware that Paradox had already found a good way to handle this,

In many ways I feel the mechanics developed for the latest Hearts of Iron in the areas of military production, military movement, and the passive side of rebel suppression have been the perfect learning experience for Paradox were they to make another Vicky soon.

Hearts of Iron's factory system of producing discrete units of goods is very similar to a simplified form military good production in Vicky, but I think they have found better balance in many ways that a potential Vicky could benefit from.

The delegation of fronts and creation of plans in HOI would also be a perfect addition to a Vicky 3, with one small tweak. Early in the game, I think they could essentially turn all low infrastructure territories into truly impassable terrain for all but the smallest divisions, to make pitched battles between large groupings of armies inevitable, and not have the A.I. or non-micro obsessed human players bleed their armies dry in every low province area all the time. Slowly as infrastructure tech improve these territories should unlock, rather than just having the supply limit increase. You could still suffer from attrition, but radical as it may be I think gameplay would be vastly improved if the A.I. was actually unable to order formations into provinces with too low infra for their size. Campaigns should develop much more along axes of attack like mountain ranges, railroads, etc, then simply being an even carpet along a front line. But at the same time, I think a frontline mechanic still makes sense for the period, just restricted to much closer flanks, and flanking maneuvers. The fact is that in any conflict up until the 1900's, it was not enough to simply find some tiny section of front to exploit and ram troops behind, yet neither was there an absence of frontline in campaigns, you had hybrid warfare in every major conflict. It should still be possible to send single brigades say down a mountain valley with low infrastructure that larger formations cant go, but they should face off with similar sized enemies, and to a large degree we should be able to bottle smaller enemy divisions up at the opening to such low infrastructure zones with the presence of larger divisions in a manner somewhat similar to how EU4 forts work but with troops. Thus the control of frontlines could be the same from start to finish in the game but as time goes on the gaps which are automatically generated in the lines get filled in on their own slowly, to the point where we reach WW1. Each side in a conflict should have the same limits, it should be assumed that they can benefit equally from existing infrastructure even though that wasn't always the case, because it is much more important for gameplay that one side cannot constantly outflank the other, and not a huge amount is lost in reality. When one side was so much further ahead in technology where this would be significant, they will probably still win any war anyways through weapons being better.

So what I propose is that generals and admirals are divided into factions based on fighting doctrine and prefered political course

I agree with this wholeheartedly, there is a great potential for a fun and interesting mechanic wherever a natural tradeoff choice exists, and here I think there is. Were Vicky to treat any type of character in government or out of it as having skill characteristics, and political/factional ones, then any manner in which they let us choose between them would naturally develop such a trade-off. The key though, always has to be that they give meaningful weight to the benefits and drawbacks. In theory HOI4 has many "choices" of politicians, design companies, and generals, but because they utterly failed to make the choices carry significant weights, or give viable paths for many alternatives, or make the choices function in any significant manner differently from one another, it becomes little more than one more meaningless button to always press when you play. You always go for the best choice, because it rarely changes with circumstances. That must be fought tooth and nail if they want to make the same thing in Vicky interesting and worthwhile.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

I would like to see extensive automation. I still dread rebellions in Russia pre-patch when you had hundreds of provinces with 1 unit of rebels in each. That was the most annoying experiences in V2.