Yes, I agree that characters are needed. Although since we don't have many characters in Victoria II its kind of hard to estimate what character system they will use in Victoria III.
- 1
- 1
Proposal(s) for Victoria 3
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would guess that a similar system to Crusader King could work well, possibly separating the characters out into groups (politicians, artists, writers, ECT), with events to boost prestige for great works of art, as well as possibly increasing support for certain reforms (such as with Charles Dickens's work raising awareness of the plight of the lower classes). Politicians could be used to fill government roles, such as filling cabinet and Prime Minister roles depending on their party allegiances. It probably wouldn't be as in-depth as CK but opinions between characters could fuel emergent events that mirror real life (e.g. Prussian politicians take issue with the publications of Marx and exile him from Prussia).
- 1
Haven't poked around here in years and can basically not remember a single idea from here, so please forgive me if I'm saying things that may have already been discussed. I'm just going to drop my two cents.
The Victorian era, while an age of vast societal change, is geopolitically dominated by only a select few countries (HOI has this problem too, but the WW2 setting justifies this drawback I suppose). Most people can get behind Middle Ages or WW2, but the Victorian age is generally still a niche period in gaming overall. (EU4 still starts off in the late middle ages). The time period in Victoria 2 has also always been a bit short in comparison to other games - a tick of a day and only 100 years (a tick in HOI at least represents an hour). While I personally may be weird enough to enjoy getting my literacy up and just playing the economy as a minor country until 1880, that's admittedly half the game that just went by. Most people will consider it a shame only getting to start really throwing their weight around in the last few decades after spending most of the time just preparing. I think we can all agree we want to have time to make the most of our underdog choices if we don't always select the Big 8 at game start.
Make the game start on the 15th of February 1763
Reasons:
1. An extra 73 years of playtime (and to be wasted on increasing literacy)
2. Corresponds roughly with the first baby steps of the Industrial Revolution (at least according to a number of historians).
3. It's specifically right after the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Hubertusburg, which ended the Seven Years' War - France is kicked out of North America and Prussia retains Silesia, and basically is acknowledged as a Great Power.
4. Gameplay avenues are vastly increased:
4.1 The Americas during this period rebelled against their overlords, meaning you can now actually play them during this period and not just after the fact (for a time at least as a vassal state until certain events or triggers fire I suppose).
4.2 Alternatively Britain, Spanish and Portuguese players can attempt to maintain their control over the Americas if they're skilled enough.
4.3 India isn't just a source of British manpower and tax revenue (yet), and the subcontinent can be an interesting theatre on its own like in CK and EU.
4.4 Europe itself is a bit more interesting in terms of countries. Poland, pre 1st partition, the Crimean Khanate and Venice still exist and Sweden still controls Finland and Western Pomerania while Denmark controls Norway.
5. I'm of the opinion that Victoria's mechanics surrounding revolutions against the old monarchical order is just basically made for the French Revolution. EU4 does good with its way of interpreting it, but things like mobilisation and liberal ideology just seems to fit better in Victoria imho. And let's be honest, playing an EU4 game all the way to the 1800s isn't something everyone does unless you're very dedicated.
The economy is a cool thing
Don't be afraid to accurately model a global economy and actually make it a selling point that sets it apart from the mostly abstracted mechanics of most other paradox map painters. Also please do not get rid of accurate pops, I want to know exactly how many Greek artisans there are in Sevastopol at all times. (no really, this is literally not sarcasm, I am this crazy)
Double down on Victoria's strong-point: Ideological Chaos
If one of the fun aspects of CK is not only historical religion, but custom religion, why not unleash the collective insanity of players by adding even more niche ideologies (or even custom ideologies?) for Victoria 3? Take advantage of the cultural/political mayhem of this period. anarchoprimitivistball.jpeg
The Victorian era, while an age of vast societal change, is geopolitically dominated by only a select few countries (HOI has this problem too, but the WW2 setting justifies this drawback I suppose). Most people can get behind Middle Ages or WW2, but the Victorian age is generally still a niche period in gaming overall. (EU4 still starts off in the late middle ages). The time period in Victoria 2 has also always been a bit short in comparison to other games - a tick of a day and only 100 years (a tick in HOI at least represents an hour). While I personally may be weird enough to enjoy getting my literacy up and just playing the economy as a minor country until 1880, that's admittedly half the game that just went by. Most people will consider it a shame only getting to start really throwing their weight around in the last few decades after spending most of the time just preparing. I think we can all agree we want to have time to make the most of our underdog choices if we don't always select the Big 8 at game start.
Make the game start on the 15th of February 1763
Reasons:
1. An extra 73 years of playtime (and to be wasted on increasing literacy
)2. Corresponds roughly with the first baby steps of the Industrial Revolution (at least according to a number of historians).
3. It's specifically right after the signing of the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Hubertusburg, which ended the Seven Years' War - France is kicked out of North America and Prussia retains Silesia, and basically is acknowledged as a Great Power.
4. Gameplay avenues are vastly increased:
4.1 The Americas during this period rebelled against their overlords, meaning you can now actually play them during this period and not just after the fact (for a time at least as a vassal state until certain events or triggers fire I suppose).
4.2 Alternatively Britain, Spanish and Portuguese players can attempt to maintain their control over the Americas if they're skilled enough.
4.3 India isn't just a source of British manpower and tax revenue (yet), and the subcontinent can be an interesting theatre on its own like in CK and EU.
4.4 Europe itself is a bit more interesting in terms of countries. Poland, pre 1st partition, the Crimean Khanate and Venice still exist and Sweden still controls Finland and Western Pomerania while Denmark controls Norway.
5. I'm of the opinion that Victoria's mechanics surrounding revolutions against the old monarchical order is just basically made for the French Revolution. EU4 does good with its way of interpreting it, but things like mobilisation and liberal ideology just seems to fit better in Victoria imho. And let's be honest, playing an EU4 game all the way to the 1800s isn't something everyone does unless you're very dedicated.
The economy is a cool thing
Don't be afraid to accurately model a global economy and actually make it a selling point that sets it apart from the mostly abstracted mechanics of most other paradox map painters. Also please do not get rid of accurate pops, I want to know exactly how many Greek artisans there are in Sevastopol at all times. (no really, this is literally not sarcasm, I am this crazy)
Double down on Victoria's strong-point: Ideological Chaos
If one of the fun aspects of CK is not only historical religion, but custom religion, why not unleash the collective insanity of players by adding even more niche ideologies (or even custom ideologies?) for Victoria 3? Take advantage of the cultural/political mayhem of this period. anarchoprimitivistball.jpeg
- 3
- 2
- 1
I think that perhaps the problem with only 100 years to play may be to either make one click per hour or make it like there's six clicks per day; Late Night, Morning, Noon, Afternoon, Evening and Midnight.
While I personally wouldn't mind moving the start date back the main problem is Napoleon. Without a French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars the whole set up for the rest of the 19th century is obliterated. While you can reasonably make a case for a alternative timeline in which Napoleon won, without the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars to spread the revolutions' ideals and smack around the old order, there's essentially nothing like the actual 19th century which is breaking loose from both agricultural societal dominance and from aristocratic dominance of said society with a storm of new ideas developed and sometimes tried out. And I think that playing in a game set in the actual 19th century is a bit of the selling point.
Yes, Pdx games are alternative history, but I think this could leave things so out of wack that we're not even playing in an alternative 19th century anymore.
While I personally wouldn't mind moving the start date back the main problem is Napoleon. Without a French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars the whole set up for the rest of the 19th century is obliterated. While you can reasonably make a case for a alternative timeline in which Napoleon won, without the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars to spread the revolutions' ideals and smack around the old order, there's essentially nothing like the actual 19th century which is breaking loose from both agricultural societal dominance and from aristocratic dominance of said society with a storm of new ideas developed and sometimes tried out. And I think that playing in a game set in the actual 19th century is a bit of the selling point.
Yes, Pdx games are alternative history, but I think this could leave things so out of wack that we're not even playing in an alternative 19th century anymore.
- 1
Oh dear Lord no. A day a tick with an added 73 years is an increase of, well, 73%.
Meanwhile having 6 ticks a day for 100 years is an increase of 500% from Victoria 2, which is way too much imho. Even just 3 ticks is 200%, still way too much and doesn't really add anything to the game besides just waiting even longer for things to happen. This would be counter-productive.
The Seven Years War that has been concluded by 1763 and the debts it incurred on Britain and France were large factors in both the American and French Revolutions, so thus these events should justifiably trigger and be basically unavoidable. Assuming Victoria 3 only has 2 start dates like in Victoria 2, a 1836 start can still be present if one wishes to have a slightly more settled world. My point is that the appeal of Victoria 3 is greatly increased if players are allowed to get more involved in a period that usually in EU4 is not at all accurate if their games reach the 1800s. And assuming Victoria 3 is as rigid as Vicky 2 in terms of how much conquests can actually be done without getting crazy infamy, then with some triggered events and pre-coded peace deals (a sort of setting like with historical focuses in HOI) the world can end up more or less recognisable by 1936.
- 1
The real-life mechanics of combat were vastly different between 1763 and 1936, and I don't see how one game can adequately portray both. Victoria 2 handled the transition from formed ranks to trench warfare poorly, with the 20th Century conflicts being rather awkward, so throwing in another half-century of change and going from pre-Napoleonic warfare to post-WWI would be even harder to deal with.
Nappy is a major sticking point, as even a few minor changes to his successes and ultimate failure could have had an enormous impact on how the world developed from there. Basically, without "rails" to get past the Napoleonic wars with few unanticipated changes, the 19th Century in most campaigns probably wouldn't look anything like our reality. You essentially have to begin AFTER Napoleon's defeat. Unfortunately, EU4 doesn't handle the Napoleonic stage very well either , because the world has already had several hundred years to evolve in a totally different manner than IRL, so Napoleon and the rise of France might not make any sense under the circumstances (France didn't even exist by 1600 in a couple of my EU3 campaigns). The Napoleonic Wars really need their own game, as does WWI and its aftermath.
Nappy is a major sticking point, as even a few minor changes to his successes and ultimate failure could have had an enormous impact on how the world developed from there. Basically, without "rails" to get past the Napoleonic wars with few unanticipated changes, the 19th Century in most campaigns probably wouldn't look anything like our reality. You essentially have to begin AFTER Napoleon's defeat. Unfortunately, EU4 doesn't handle the Napoleonic stage very well either , because the world has already had several hundred years to evolve in a totally different manner than IRL, so Napoleon and the rise of France might not make any sense under the circumstances (France didn't even exist by 1600 in a couple of my EU3 campaigns). The Napoleonic Wars really need their own game, as does WWI and its aftermath.
- 2
It can be later a DLC with alternative start date and early mechanics.
- 2
- 2
I have always thought that this game should start at the beginning of the French Revolution in 1789 & EU should finish there as the period of the beginning of the industrial age is more suited to Victoria.
- 3
Am I the only one who thinks the game shouldn't extend much further into the past than 1821 or perhaps, if there is any real demand for it, 1815? (and even 1815 is too far tbh). Why can't people just appriciate that Victoria is it's own thing and not the massive sandbox/abstraction/map painter that EU4 is? The massive changes to the map in the short time span that was the French Revolutionary Wars wouldn't be handled well by a Vic2 sequel if it also has to deal with the Concert of Europe and a semblance of a Balance of Power. The 1848 Revolutions are also a great place to let the political order shatter, giving newcomers some calm to figure out what is going on with the rest of the game before really delving into politics.
Perhaps 4 ticks per day is a lot, maybe just two, one in the morning and one in the evening, where, for combat purpouses, the tick over the day has the actual combat and the one over the night is calmer (although, especially late game, casualties will still be taken)
Perhaps 4 ticks per day is a lot, maybe just two, one in the morning and one in the evening, where, for combat purpouses, the tick over the day has the actual combat and the one over the night is calmer (although, especially late game, casualties will still be taken)
- 4
- 1
Hello, I accidentally created a new thread and I forgot this existed, so I probably should post this here
I've recently noticed quite a bit of Victoria 3 talk since two things happened 1. The ten year anniversary of Victoria 2's launch and 2. The launch of Crusader Kings 3. I decided to make an analysis of what should change from Victoria 2. So here I go
Nations: The world map is missing quite a bit of post and pre colonial nations, I am sure Europe could add more german states like Waldeck and Saxe-Lauenburg
Culture: Some cultures are missing and overlooked like the Cajuns/Cadiens of Louisiana or Bretons and are associated with larger culture, I would love to see a bit more of these cultures to gain representation
Ideologies: While pretty good, It still doesn't show groups that are important to the time period such as Syndicalists or Anarcho-Conservatives
Economy: Since the people who made Victoria 2's ecomony left Paradox years ago, I would recommend taking the EU4 economy system and adapt it for 100 years instead of 400 as that would make the economy similar eough so that existing Victoria players won't be confused
Time: The game should go back to 1821 simply because EU4 ends there and there is a 15 year gap between the end of EU4 and the Start of Victoria 2, I think It would be interesting as that could show events such as the Latin War for Independence or the colonization of Australia
Graphics: The map is fine for a 2010's game however the game needs to look more beautiful aesthetically to be comparable to EU4/CK3/HOI4,
Cores: The function of adding and removing cores is a nice feature and I think the Victoria series could put a nice spin on the concept than what's used in EU4
The function to keep playing after the end date: EU4 and HOI4 have this function, I am sure Victoria fans would love to play Victoria beyond the end date of 1936, Maybe they don't have HOI4 or maybe they like Victoria a lot
Conclusion: Is Paradox going to make this, Yes, but my list?, No, I am only a fan but I think Victoria 3 is on the Horizon
This is a bit of a lengthily post but I think everyone needs to see this
I've recently noticed quite a bit of Victoria 3 talk since two things happened 1. The ten year anniversary of Victoria 2's launch and 2. The launch of Crusader Kings 3. I decided to make an analysis of what should change from Victoria 2. So here I go
Nations: The world map is missing quite a bit of post and pre colonial nations, I am sure Europe could add more german states like Waldeck and Saxe-Lauenburg
Culture: Some cultures are missing and overlooked like the Cajuns/Cadiens of Louisiana or Bretons and are associated with larger culture, I would love to see a bit more of these cultures to gain representation
Ideologies: While pretty good, It still doesn't show groups that are important to the time period such as Syndicalists or Anarcho-Conservatives
Economy: Since the people who made Victoria 2's ecomony left Paradox years ago, I would recommend taking the EU4 economy system and adapt it for 100 years instead of 400 as that would make the economy similar eough so that existing Victoria players won't be confused
Time: The game should go back to 1821 simply because EU4 ends there and there is a 15 year gap between the end of EU4 and the Start of Victoria 2, I think It would be interesting as that could show events such as the Latin War for Independence or the colonization of Australia
Graphics: The map is fine for a 2010's game however the game needs to look more beautiful aesthetically to be comparable to EU4/CK3/HOI4,
Cores: The function of adding and removing cores is a nice feature and I think the Victoria series could put a nice spin on the concept than what's used in EU4
The function to keep playing after the end date: EU4 and HOI4 have this function, I am sure Victoria fans would love to play Victoria beyond the end date of 1936, Maybe they don't have HOI4 or maybe they like Victoria a lot
Conclusion: Is Paradox going to make this, Yes, but my list?, No, I am only a fan but I think Victoria 3 is on the Horizon
This is a bit of a lengthily post but I think everyone needs to see this
- 5
The earlier you go, the scarier liberalism and revolution has to be.
- 1
The one used in the Golden Century and Emperor is the one I am talking about
This still leaves the question, which economic system? EU4 does not have a proper economic system. It's the most simple it can be, use money to build buildings, make more money, build more buildings. More is always better. Trade goods are just a thing on the map which decide the production value and trade worth added to that node. There is no real production of goods, no consumption of goods, there are no production chains, no real global trade other than a global pile of ducats you fight for a share of instead of trade of actual goods. If by "Golden Century and Emperor" you mean the things added to trade companies (I bought them at the same time so I don't know which feature is of which dlc/patch) that's just more of the same, more building = more money = more building. I don't really want to shit on EU4 since it's a fine game for what it is but Victoria 3 will be a much, much worse game that her lovely predecessor if it uses EU4's "economic system".
- 1
I'd say that's not really a good idea, particularly as EU4's is based on mercantilism, which was replaced with free trade during the early victorian period. Victoria's economy system helps reflect that with it's production, marketplace and tariffs systems (although the world market place has major issues, with one dev in this thread saying:
)
Also:
As far as I know while one of the devs who worked on Victoria 2's economy did leave, they returned to Paradox a year or so ago (I may be wrong with this). Also this quote seems to suggest that no-one understands Victoria 2's economy system. To paraphrase Wiz, another Dev, Paradox does understand the system, its just so over-engineered that it is extremely hard to de-bug if they change anything.
- 1
Well I reread the comments and did a bit more research and from my realization, Victoria 2's economy system could stay with minor changes 1. Get rid of the awful change trade policy decision and integrate in into the political parties and 2. Rewrite the code of Victoria 2's system to make it easier to mod and debug for as I realized that the system is quite hard to mod, edit and change
- 1
- 1
- 1
Modabbility is certainly not a bad thing (although the amount of bad alpha's, mods that are nothing but teasers on a discord and reddit and mods filled with useless walls of text and minigames has me thinking otherwise). Trade policy is already tied to parties, and the only time I have seen such a decision is in the HPM mod. It just kind of seems you have never played Victoria 2 and instead only watched it via let's plays or channels like ISP
- 1
No, I have played the game and I have noticed the decision in HPM and I see it as a another waste of time so I noticed to integrate the policy as a another part of the policies made by the parties like economy and immigration so I realized that putting in the basegame would make the party policies a bit more accurate as the policies affect more of the game than the desicion does which I see as underrepresented as trade is extremely important to the era
I'm not even sure what Anarcho-Liberals are meant to be in Victoria 2. They are described as being Laissez Faire incarnate, and reflect that in their economic and social policies, but have a Dictatorship as their enforceable government type. I almost feel that a theoretical Victoria 3 should bar them from forming rebels but give them popularity in certain pops (such as capitalists) and modify their policies and government types to be able to be run as a state in some form while keeping their more anarchy-capitalist mentalities (smiler to how HOI4 Spain has tried to represent anarchists and a feasible government they could form).
- 1
- 1