Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Gurkhal]

Two things. Playing smaller powers and American foreign policy.

In both cases this is more of a formulation of a problem as opposed to a ready solution to it.

*****

Playing a smaller power

Something which I would like to see is good mechanics to allow for smaller countries to make some headway before running into the Great Powers. I don't mean that they should be able to conquer the world but that some headway can be made before a Great Power per necessity steps in. This is something which I've experienced in both Victoria II and also in the more recent Imperator in that it can be damnable hard to find an oppening for a small power to act.

My main example for this is Argentina (which I think I've mentioned before). Since the US rather quickly issues guarentees to all the countries in South America, internal South American wars are impossible since the aggressor will need to tangle with the US, in stark contrast to the many wars in 19th and early 20th century South America. We've previously discussed the Monroe Doctrine might be implemented to allow for the US to counter expansion from beyond the Americas into the Americas, but at the same time allow for wars between American states but I feel this issues stretches a bit further than that.

One solution I could mention is that perhaps wars can be acceptable within spheres? So that if I am sphered by Germany as Denmark, I can still fight it out with countries within that sphere and so gain some room to manouver and expand, as long as I don't try to tackle the Great Power itself. Probably not very historical but its a suggestion I thought that I should mention.

*****

American foreign policy

One of the great problems, in my opinion, is that the US really has no challenger to contend with. China is in a similar situation if they managed to industrialize but I feel its more pronounced with the US. To counter this, and perhaps make it a bit more interesting for the US, is my idea that there's a special mechanic for this country in the shape of a measurement between two extremes of "isolationism" and "internationalism". As I imagine this will mostly be active when the US is a Great Power and so either promote or hamper American politics.

With isolationism colonialism, wars beyond the Americas and alliances with other Great Powers will cost more and actually create dissent. While the opppsite is true. In a Great Power US with high internationalism the people expect the US to throw its weight around on the world scene and make itself felt. And thus failure to "act vigerously" (whatever that actually means) will lead to dissent.

 

[Kazanov]

My main example for this is Argentina (which I think I've mentioned before). Since the US rather quickly issues guarentees to all the countries in South America, internal South American wars are impossible since the aggressor will need to tangle with the US, in stark contrast to the many wars in 19th and early 20th century South America. We've previously discussed the Monroe Doctrine might be implemented to allow for the US to counter expansion from beyond the Americas into the Americas, but at the same time allow for wars between American states but I feel this issues stretches a bit further than that.

In the War of the Pacific (Chile vs Peru-Bolivia) we ignored the US and their meditation (they were in the Peruvian side) ...because they lacked any real force to do anything. In our civil war of 1891 the US supported the government forces and the UK the rebels...the rebels won of course, i think that was the last time we had the capability of directly going against the US policies without consequences.

The thing is, the US was completely unable to exert any real influence in our region until the late 1890s, in one ocassion we even sent a ship to stop the US from bullying Colombia (1) so having the US enforcing anything before the 1890s its innacurate at best. If i like the XIX century its because it was our bloodiest time period and it was basically a Free for all were we fought each other to create our own national myths and heroes.

There are a lot of other things that are innacurate about our region and PDX games, the tech tree for example...we rarely created our own military doctrines and equipment, instead we payed for military missions to come here and teach us how to do things.

For example, in the War of the Pacific (1879-1884) (2) we bought our ships in the UK, our firearms in France and our artillery to Prussia, meanwhile Peru commited the big mistake of buying ships from the US... that gave total dominance in the sea to my country (and that was the first step to victory). All countries used Napoleonic Era military doctrines. Bolivia had an horrible mix of weapons of different sizes and from different countries, that gave them a logistical nightmare.

After the war Peru continued with their French military doctrine and we changed to Prussian Military doctrine because it was better at the time.

Another error that PDX have done with our region is believing that we are "independent nations with independent ideas" but we in reality have always danced the music of the big nations, we sometimes can choose to what big power music we can dance, in the late XIX century some countries like Peru or Ecuador loved to dance to French music (doctrines, ideals, trade), Chile, Argentina and Colombia were more aligned with Germany (we saw the threat that would become the US before most nations).


That is why the XIX century is so interesting, it was before the US had total dominance in our continent and in our affairs (AKA the boring era in gaming terms)


(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_crisis_of_1885
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific

 

[Ratgar]

The thing is, the US was completely unable to exert any real influence in our region until the late 1890s,

To do anything about this, I think a new form of war enthusiasm is in order that is tied in better with the casus belli system. Jingoism as a diffuse concept should be a limiting factor in declaring wars willy-nilly, not just a measure of how eager the population is to arm the military. Maybe having low jingoism should basically directly limit the amount of troops which can be fielded at any time abroad. You can still declare wars as limited by your government type and party platforms, but one's ability to carry out an offensive war should be hampered by this factor of the population.

So in the case of the US, before the rise in nationalism in the 1880's, there should be very little Jingoism, even if there is consciousness and militancy which lead to support for civil war. The US in the period before 1880's did engage in some foreign affairs but they were of relatively smaller influence (with the exception of Mexico, a period of high Jingoism), and even after the civil war the US navy was allowed to become far smaller as things returned to a peacetime budget.

It would not be such a huge change to the current system, I think just a much stronger direct link to the national mood and the ability to field divisions would be in order. Defensive wars should allow one to field larger armies with low jingoism, but only scaled to the threat of the attacker's army, which could then simulate the minor border skirmishes that were extremely prevalent in the period. Neither nation frequently wanted war tremendously, but the military leadership did, and so with their limited resources they tried to start small things without the broader support of the populace.

 

[Balesir]

Interesting thoughts. I also think that there should be some sort of imperative to keep a strong home defence front while engaging in "foreign adventures". For democracies this would be the electorate demanding to stay safe (an opposite impulse or reaction to jingoism, maybe?). For dictatorial regimes it might be the threat of plots and rebellions while the army is elsewhere.

 

[Gurkhal]

In the War of the Pacific (Chile vs Peru-Bolivia) we ignored the US and their meditation (they were in the Peruvian side) ...because they lacked any real force to do anything. In our civil war of 1891 the US supported the government forces and the UK the rebels...the rebels won of course, i think that was the last time we had the capability of directly going against the US policies without consequences.

The thing is, the US was completely unable to exert any real influence in our region until the late 1890s, in one ocassion we even sent a ship to stop the US from bullying Colombia (1) so having the US enforcing anything before the 1890s its innacurate at best. If i like the XIX century its because it was our bloodiest time period and it was basically a Free for all were we fought each other to create our own national myths and heroes.

Very interesting. I will be honest that I don't know much about the history of Latin and South America before the Cold War and very little about the Cold War period as well.

But its interesting information that South Americans were able to fend off the US until the 1890s. I know that the US didn't start to influence the whole of the Americas from the get go in 1776 but I didn't know when it actually started.

When I read what you write here it seems like a pretty interesting set up for the gameplay in that, you've got about 60 years to get your stuff in order an then the US comes like a frost giant from the north to claim dominion. So you'd best be ready to face the Yankees. While I it could be limited I personally this sounds like a pretty cool and interested strategic challenge that can presumably be handled in different ways depending on country you play or your playstyle.

There are a lot of other things that are innacurate about our region and PDX games, the tech tree for example...we rarely created our own military doctrines and equipment, instead we payed for military missions to come here and teach us how to do things.

Interesting. I know that Germany had a big military influence in some countries military culture but I didn't, and don't now, know many details about it. But one thing that I feel that I must ask is even if Latin and South America were not the military theorist trailblazers as perhaps found more common in the US and the European Great Powers at this time. To what degree were the armies of Latin and South America able to keep up with the discussions regarding tactics, application of new technology, lessons gained from other wars and so on? I hope I don't come off as belittling but I just want, if possible, to get some idea about how dependent these militaries were on external expertise.

You mention military missions coming, but that naturally, at least to me, suggest that the people asking for missions were generally able to have an informed opinion on where to turn to for up-to-date instructions in military matters. Or were there other considerations in picking from where to seek a military mission?

For example, in the War of the Pacific (1879-1884) (2) we bought our ships in the UK, our firearms in France and our artillery to Prussia, meanwhile Peru commited the big mistake of buying ships from the US... that gave total dominance in the sea to my country (and that was the first step to victory). All countries used Napoleonic Era military doctrines. Bolivia had an horrible mix of weapons of different sizes and from different countries, that gave them a logistical nightmare.

After the war Peru continued with their French military doctrine and we changed to Prussian Military doctrine because it was better at the time.

I hope you won't mind fi I say so, but this sounds a bit similar to the Meiji Japan's approach to create its national army in that they also, to my understanding, modelled it after first the French and then the German army.

Another error that PDX have done with our region is believing that we are "independent nations with independent ideas" but we in reality have always danced the music of the big nations, we sometimes can choose to what big power music we can dance, in the late XIX century some countries like Peru or Ecuador loved to dance to French music (doctrines, ideals, trade), Chile, Argentina and Colombia were more aligned with Germany (we saw the threat that would become the US before most nations).

Maybe this could be implemented in some form in Victoria III? My own country was really big on Germany up to 1918, after which we started to switch towards the UK and US, which was complete after 1945. So maybe non-Great Powers can "style" themselves after a Great Power and that means that they get a penalty for going against their model but in exchange get some benefits from the strengths of that model? As well as a better diplomatic relation, of course.

To do anything about this, I think a new form of war enthusiasm is in order that is tied in better with the casus belli system. Jingoism as a diffuse concept should be a limiting factor in declaring wars willy-nilly, not just a measure of how eager the population is to arm the military. Maybe having low jingoism should basically directly limit the amount of troops which can be fielded at any time abroad. You can still declare wars as limited by your government type and party platforms, but one's ability to carry out an offensive war should be hampered by this factor of the population.

So in the case of the US, before the rise in nationalism in the 1880's, there should be very little Jingoism, even if there is consciousness and militancy which lead to support for civil war. The US in the period before 1880's did engage in some foreign affairs but they were of relatively smaller influence (with the exception of Mexico, a period of high Jingoism), and even after the civil war the US navy was allowed to become far smaller as things returned to a peacetime budget.

It would not be such a huge change to the current system, I think just a much stronger direct link to the national mood and the ability to field divisions would be in order. Defensive wars should allow one to field larger armies with low jingoism, but only scaled to the threat of the attacker's army, which could then simulate the minor border skirmishes that were extremely prevalent in the period. Neither nation frequently wanted war tremendously, but the military leadership did, and so with their limited resources they tried to start small things without the broader support of the populace.

I like this idea alot. As I mentioned above I also think that we can make jingoism perhaps something of a double edged sword. So that if you raise your jingoism really high then not seeking military solutions to crisises and international issues will create a domestic backlash. Hence some drawback with militarism.

 

[Ratgar]

As I mentioned above I also think that we can make jingoism perhaps something of a double edged sword.

Yes, anything with a gameplay positive should have at least a qualified negative to balance it out. Negative consequences for not launching wars, and not gaining enough in them could be one.

Another question to answer is what exactly creates Jingoism? Should it be modified by the material conditions of the country? Why exactly did it seem to arise at various points in US history for instance? In terms of America's first big surge of Jingoism in the Mexican-American war, there was some time in to the economic expansion of the US with slavery looking for new areas to spread to, but also a political dimension.

A larger question that I think Vicky 2 never really answered well (and I think because it is a dicey real world question to answer) is what gives rise to various political motives in the pops. To a large extent, rather than being able to freely float and modified by organic factors, things like militancy, consciousness, and jingoism depended on a sort of railroaded course of events to propel them along. This created a heavy burden of scripting for interesting gameplay I think, because in the absence of scripted events to generate these a country would be very stable and boring to play. I think that one great, but difficult way to solve this would be to intrinsically tie each pop variable to the economics, essentially to buy in wholesale to the notion of historical materialism. Express Jingoism as a function of material conditions somehow, or at least as a function of other variables which are a function of this, because it is the material conditions in Vicky which are the real energetic and dynamic driver.

Again, this means going to the hilt on historical materialism, but it is a game, it doesn't really matter whether we agree with this or not, I think it fits the setting and would make for better gameplay. The one alternative I think is to guide things like Jingoism, consciousness, militancy, and pop politics with their own separate but equally dynamic system which tries to keep track of rules and actors in the history of politics. I think it would be more complex, but it would preserve the special thing about Vicky 2 that separates it from other games, namely the fractal like dynamism, the calculus at the root of all major interactions that can lead to such interesting and logical outcomes.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

A larger question that I think Vicky 2 never really answered well (and I think because it is a dicey real world question to answer) is what gives rise to various political motives in the pops. To a large extent, rather than being able to freely float and modified by organic factors, things like militancy, consciousness, and jingoism depended on a sort of railroaded course of events to propel them along. This created a heavy burden of scripting for interesting gameplay I think, because in the absence of scripted events to generate these a country would be very stable and boring to play. I think that one great, but difficult way to solve this would be to intrinsically tie each pop variable to the economics, essentially to buy in wholesale to the notion of historical materialism. Express Jingoism as a function of material conditions somehow, or at least as a function of other variables which are a function of this, because it is the material conditions in Vicky which are the real energetic and dynamic driver.

This expresses the problem pretty well, I think, but tying POP mentalities exclusively to their material conditions of existence is probably too restrictive. After all, does such a viewpoint explain the behavior of American voters in 2020? There have been a spate of recent games that have taken to offering a large assortment of disruptive events to shake up gameplay, and I think Vicky 3 would benefit from a similarly rich set of offerings. In other words, let POPs' basic orientation be shaped by economic circumstances, religious affiliations, and so forth, and then let events give them an extra shot of jingoism, or pacifism, or transhumanism, or whatever.

 

[Balesir]

Yeah, it's an area where it's difficult to know what is driving things, but I think there's a place for both (a) a rise of 'selfishness' when what people have is less than they feel they deserve, and (b) "events" such as media magnates (Capitalists, Aristocrats, etc) actively aiming to stir things up via what amounts to private propaganda.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

American foreign policy

One of the great problems, in my opinion, is that the US really has no challenger to contend with. China is in a similar situation if they managed to industrialize but I feel its more pronounced with the US. To counter this, and perhaps make it a bit more interesting for the US, is my idea that there's a special mechanic for this country in the shape of a measurement between two extremes of "isolationism" and "internationalism". As I imagine this will mostly be active when the US is a Great Power and so either promote or hamper American politics.

With isolationism colonialism, wars beyond the Americas and alliances with other Great Powers will cost more and actually create dissent. While the opppsite is true. In a Great Power US with high internationalism the people expect the US to throw its weight around on the world scene and make itself felt. And thus failure to "act vigerously" (whatever that actually means) will lead to dissent.

Well, the same could be said of the UK, too. It's so powerful at the start of the game that no country can come close to challenging it. That aside, here again I think a generous assortment of events, elections and so forth could simulate the pendulum swings between intervention and isolation that you are proposing here.

This reminds me that the entire system of "manipulating" POP choices in elections always struck me as one of the most poorly executed parts of both Victorias. You can see their thinking -- "Well, we've got to give players SOMETHING to do during elections!" But what they came up with wasn't it!

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Yeah, it's an area where it's difficult to know what is driving things, but I think there's a place for both (a) a rise of 'selfishness' when what people have is less than they feel they deserve, and (b) "events" such as media magnates (Capitalists, Aristocrats, etc) actively aiming to stir things up via what amounts to private propaganda.

Exactly. In fact, you could create some very amusing & interesting chains from that premise!

EDIT: PDX needs to look around at what some other games are doing with events. There's a lot to draw from there. For example, one can see some very creatrive stuff being done by games such as Old World, a brilliant 4X game in early release.

 

[Gurkhal]

Yes, anything with a gameplay positive should have at least a qualified negative to balance it out. Negative consequences for not launching wars, and not gaining enough in them could be one.

Another question to answer is what exactly creates Jingoism? Should it be modified by the material conditions of the country? Why exactly did it seem to arise at various points in US history for instance? In terms of America's first big surge of Jingoism in the Mexican-American war, there was some time in to the economic expansion of the US with slavery looking for new areas to spread to, but also a political dimension.

A larger question that I think Vicky 2 never really answered well (and I think because it is a dicey real world question to answer) is what gives rise to various political motives in the pops. To a large extent, rather than being able to freely float and modified by organic factors, things like militancy, consciousness, and jingoism depended on a sort of railroaded course of events to propel them along. This created a heavy burden of scripting for interesting gameplay I think, because in the absence of scripted events to generate these a country would be very stable and boring to play. I think that one great, but difficult way to solve this would be to intrinsically tie each pop variable to the economics, essentially to buy in wholesale to the notion of historical materialism. Express Jingoism as a function of material conditions somehow, or at least as a function of other variables which are a function of this, because it is the material conditions in Vicky which are the real energetic and dynamic driver.

Again, this means going to the hilt on historical materialism, but it is a game, it doesn't really matter whether we agree with this or not, I think it fits the setting and would make for better gameplay. The one alternative I think is to guide things like Jingoism, consciousness, militancy, and pop politics with their own separate but equally dynamic system which tries to keep track of rules and actors in the history of politics. I think it would be more complex, but it would preserve the special thing about Vicky 2 that separates it from other games, namely the fractal like dynamism, the calculus at the root of all major interactions that can lead to such interesting and logical outcomes.

I have to disagree in that historical materialism would be the best way to view things. Not only would it create a very predictable politics in that you can almost always know how the country will develop but also that it don't allow for very much alt-history in terms of the domestic politics.

Like for example if I would like to make a Tsarist Russia run then I would not be able to make that run with any degress of success. If I develop my country my POPs will turn Liberal and Socialist and overturn the monarchy and if I don't, then I'll be carved up or won't make much progress in pretty much any field. No chance for my alt-history scenario to have a possibility.

But I also don't believe that materialism is the only factor that is important in shaping people's outlook. I do not think that material circumstances are unimportant, but not that they are the sole thing to take into account.

 

[Gurkhal]

Well, the same could be said of the UK, too. It's so powerful at the start of the game that no country can come close to challenging it. That aside, here again I think a generous assortment of events, elections and so forth could simulate the pendulum swings between intervention and isolation that you are proposing here.

This reminds me that the entire system of "manipulating" POP choices in elections always struck me as one of the most poorly executed parts of both Victorias. You can see their thinking -- "Well, we've got to give players SOMETHING to do during elections!" But what they came up with wasn't it!

I feel that I must disagree on the UK and USA similarity. The UK will have potential challengers from France and, perhaps most importantly, Germany in Europe and many others who could eye parts of the British Empire across the world. Not to mention revolts to break free from said empire.

The US however is seperated by vast oceans from both Europe and Asia, its territories are one coherent mass and I've yet to see any other American state being able to hold a candle against the US past, say, the 1870s. Hence there needs to be some kind of challenge or opponent that the US can be balanced against. And there just isn't one outside of the US borders and thus we might need to create some internal opposition to prevent the US from freely asserting its power across the globe.

*****

Otherwise I agree that there's little to do in elections. One suggestion from me is that either you pick one party to campaign for and get penalties if that party don't make it into the government OR you can just watch the election unfold and the AI handles you the results.

Its tricky thing given how we play a nation and thus it might be unpopular to tie the player to a specific party or force the outcome of elections to have serious impacts on the game.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Otherwise I agree that there's little to do in elections. One suggestion from me is that either you pick one party to campaign for and get penalties if that party don't make it into the government OR you can just watch the election unfold and the AI handles you the results.

Its tricky thing given how we play a nation and thus it might be unpopular to tie the player to a specific party or force the outcome of elections to have serious impacts on the game.

No, for sure players can't be tied to a party, because the game's point of view makes the player more of an invisible hand that guides both socialists and reactionaries and everyone in between. The player may care which side wins an election or a revoluton, but after the dust settles the player remains in the same position.

Still, governments can do things to influence elections, right? They can start wars. The can end wars. They can raise or lower taxes, etc. So in the run-up to an election, I wouldn't want to dismiss the opportunity for the current government to steer the result. It's just the Vciky 3 should offer a more plausible and less deterministic set of options that are not aimed at the complex preferences of particular POPs.

 

[Ratgar]

I have to disagree in that historical materialism would be the best way to view things. Not only would it create a very predictable politics in that you can almost always know how the country will develop but also that it don't allow for very much alt-history in terms of the domestic politics.

I agree your sentiment, but the problem still remains of making an enjoyable experience that isn't propped up too heavily by specifically scripted events. When things start to get scripted, you run into problems immediately as soon as anything ahistorical happens. To a degree this can be helped by making more complex scripting, for example an event that fires after 1870 in any european country that has colonies in a certain locale, but then this itself limits you still by European countries etc, so if say china suddenly takes off in a slightly more industrialized way and tries to colonize, the experience is utterly boring and bereft of any flavor because all of the colonization mechanics are balanced and scripted for Europe, or Japan.

If instead, we find some decent rationale for why historical events and population changes occured, materialist or otherwise, when some unusual occurence occurs like China instead of Japan westernizing, then you can have a truly immersive experience as any country at any time in the game. The more consequential "rules" which we are able to express and add intrinsically to the game logic, the more the real potential of a game like Vicky 2 unearths itself. There will always be plenty of room for scripting, flavor, and actual historical events tied to specific points in history, but if you ask me that is the natural tendency of Paradox games to agglomerate such things through updates anyways, it needs no encouragement. Play a game like Hearts of Iron as a minor that hasn't been visited by a DLC, or even play a major when you go slightly off the track of where the scripting tries to lead you, and you will see just how boring and predictable a game can be. It doesn't need materialism, but generalized rules and systems should always be preferred to isolated unique scripting.

 

[Kovax]

Play a game like Hearts of Iron as a minor that hasn't been visited by a DLC, or even play a major when you go slightly off the track of where the scripting tries to lead you, and you will see just how boring and predictable a game can be.

.....you mean like Germany in HOI3 placing a guarantee on Nationalist China, and ending up at war against Japan in 1937? There's a lot of leeway in some of the games, not as much in others.

 

[Ratgar]

.....you mean like Germany in HOI3 placing a guarantee on Nationalist China, and ending up at war against Japan in 1937? There's a lot of leeway in some of the games, not as much in others.

I meant more Hearts of Iron 4 with its focus system, which imo is fine for a period and a game which focuses on a single conflict. I just think that Vicky, which is all about creating plausible outcomes guided by the actual existence of pops, the goods, and the politics, should not shy away from doing so. You want to create a feeling of events actually coming to fruition, rather than springing into a surface level existence when you reach the end of a chain that doesn't really depend at all on any easily changed game positions. In Hearts of Iron 4, you can and always do fulfill the exact same focuses pretty much in the same order unless your country gets overrun, and that is not nothing, but it hardly makes for very varied gameplay. Vicky has greater potential to subvert this paradigm, because it is actually keeping track of things which would be relevant in creating world events.

 

[Gurkhal]

Two suggested ideas from me, again. This time its some rather narrow suggestions.

Garibaldi

I've been thinking that perhaps he could be added as a kind of "mercenary" figure who can be approached by liberal governments and independence movements, or given offers directly by Garibaldi, to join their cause and thus offer a very good general to aid them. Potentially also bringing a few regiments of volunteers while he's at it as well.

I suspect that this might also give boost to liberal and independence movements and make the game go more in that direction with added weight in the form of a star general who can give some help.

And also if Garibaldi should be a singular figure or if similar figures could be spawned in the game?

Hughesovka

John Hughes (businessman) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The idea is that a government which is looking to industrialize can offer foreign capitalist characters to bring over a workforce of their own and build factories in the country in question (with some limitations and natural consequences for totally bad moves). The idea would thus be that instead of growing everything yourself you can everything paid for by someone else, including bringing over a work force. Which can naturally lead to tensions and political issues but may be one way to kick-start an industrialization.

 

[Luckierexpert]

I have been thinking over some ideas for non-westernised nations and one I see being a nice addition is a mechanic to balance between internal factions and foreign influences, which is something nations like China and Japan had to deal with (to varying degrees of success). Giving foreign groups privileges or concessions could give houses to westernising processes, while also increasing rebel problems at home (e.g the boxer rebels), while catering tho the internal factions would keep things more stable but raise the spectre of aggression from the great powers. I'd also argue it should be an overall balance and more based on events and policies (e.g. catering to internal factions in China by banning opium but improving foreign relations by opening up more trade), rather than an arbitrary slider of all or nothing, as EU4 has used for some of their religion mechanics, such as the legalism/mystersism slider for islam. I'd also prefer the events more directly involving all the nations affected, rather than just a yes/no event, such as the current Peking convention for Outer Manchuria between China and Russia.

Keeping a similar system could also be interesting for westernised nations that aren't great or secondary powers, such as the Central and South American nations having to deal with American influence and corporations in the time period.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

That's an excellent suggestion. I wonder if the internal-external dynamic culd be made flexible enough to accommodate two situations as diverse as China and Colombia!

Do you guys realize that this thread began over 7 year ago? By now, anything we suggest is just for our own amusement -- undoubtedly he design is so far toward completion that nothing major can be implemented.

But as long as we are amusing ourselves, here's a big thought that has been on my mind. I've been playing a fair bit of Vicky 2 recently, one thing that that sticks out is the possiblity for far more creative use of the historical sandbox than Vicky 2 actually offers. In my perfect, ecstastic-dreamlike Vicky 3, the player is offered the chance to play one of two games -- one that is driven by historical events and constrained by the meta-narrative of the 19th century, so that someone playing Spain or the Ottomans or Austria-Hungary can only accomplish so much, and the other more of a sandbox of situations and possibilities and interesting & unexpected events. In either case, the stable of events in Vicky 3 really needs to become far, far richer than in Vicky 2.

Paradox has never made a game like this, preferring instead to try -- and fail -- to satisfy both crowds with a single game structure. But one can dream . . . .

 

[Ivanacco1]

Making south america more enjoyable should be nice, i dont think there is a pdx game where they have any flavor, (thank god for mods though) also trying to industrialize when none of your provinces have coal or iron is a bitch, when in reality brazil and most of the andes have considerable iron reserves.
And immigration, the usa gets too much railroady bonuses by decision, and most other american nations can't keep up.