Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[RELee]

Victoria with horse trading? More of my compatriots would play even though they don't own computers. They would buy them just to practice horse trading.

 

[Luckierexpert]

I think I've written about this before but I am not certain. Yet, I would ask that horses is made into a trade goods in Victoria III. The reason for this is the huge uses that horses played for transportation before motor vehicles became good and cheap enough to do it instead and also for the importance of finding horses and replaced lost mounts seems to have been a serious consideration for the cavalry all the way to the Boer War and probably into the Great War.

As such I would propose that "Horses" is a trade goods that's kind of necessary for both civilian and military uses.

*****

In fact I wonder if there shouldn't be a kind of window in the economy part of the UI about transportation. A window that details how much capacity your infrastructure as for roads, railroads and shipping and also how many horses for pulling wagons, trains, ships and later trucks you have for keeping things up to speed.

This could be unnecessary detail but it could also add a piece of details to help us organize our economy better so that for example we can use limited resources on specific parts we want to advance as opposed to having it all spread out, given the economical focus of the game. But I know this could develove into pointless minutia as well.

My main uncertainty of having horses as a trade good is if there was a large scale trade in horses internationally during the time period or if nations relied on their domestic stock? This could justify certain goods being designated as domestic only, such as non-tinned food or more specific foods like fruits, or indeed horses. Horse supplies for cavalry units does make sense, as you need guns and ammunition to supply infantry and supplies of tanks and planes for the WW1 units.

 

[Sbrubbles]

First they would need to change it so that some goods aren't in the world market. Concrete, for example, was never traded internationally. If the system was made in a way that some goods could only be traded locally, then fruits and fish would need to be that to some degree.

If this was possible, then yeah, horses could be put in this category.

 

[Gurkhal]

I've been reading a little about the history of the France post-Napoleon in the 19th century, and listening a bit to a podcast about this era which got me thinking a bit about what one could do in regards to France specific content in Victoria III.

To start with I think there could be three main political paths for France to take, with an additional fork in the road for at least one of them. That is is France could walk on the path of the Monarchy, the Empire or the Republic. Each one with certain advantages and disadvantages.

Such as improved diplomatic standing with other Conservative and Reactionary governments for the Monarchy but also a nobility and clergy that is very influential and get a cut of the state's gains and a place in its administration but also is very loyal to the monarchy.

That the Empire get a more loyal officer corps and more political space to manouver with reforms and such but must play a game with no ideology having a default position in their trench, so to speak.

While the Revolution can go in many directions, most will likely offend French Conservatives and Reactionaries to no end and also make the rest of Europe pretty suspicious and trigger happy if France should engage in European wars.

In the case of picking the Republic Path I could see there being an additional choice between Liberalism and Socialism. All of them essentially being how to related to the legacy of the French Revolution and what it means. All from France going into Jacobine mode to a "live and let live" approach. This is probably the path with the most possible options to pick from.

 

[Simon B]

France post-Napoleon in the 19th century, and listening a bit to a podcast about this era

Which podcast is that?

 

[demanvanwezel]

idea for a new terrain-type: port city

currently the navy and army are completely seperate at all times, sure the army can take the navy port and prevent it from repairing and the navy can prevent the army from crossing a strait and can potentially kill it by destroying a transport but that's it
also in vicky a navy is not very usefull except to prevent an opponent from invading, not so much use as an offensive tool, also ad ultimum you cannot take territory with a navy alone and you can't win wars without that

historicly however there were many times that a navy fired upon the army and vice versa, also many wars were won with navies alone and they even occupied cities
so here's the idea: when an army tries to enter a port city but a navy is present then a battle will ensue where the navy shoots upon the army, infantry and cavalry will not be very effective but artillery will work as intended with the ships themselves largely functioning as artillery (so more effective if there were troops inside)
also navies can attempt to enter enemy port cities and occupy them with the same kind of battle ensuing
the new terrain type is because this wouldn't work on every coastal province, there's no reason why rome oughtn't be a coastal province but there's no way for rome to be occupied by a navy realisticly

examples of such battles: new orleans during the ACW, port arthur during the russo-japanese war, istanbul during the 1887 russo-turkish war (the british send a fleet to protect the turks against the russians which lead to a ceasefire), the attempt at breaching the dardanelles by the british and french with ships alone prior to gallipoli (WW1), the anglo-zanzibar war

 

[Gurkhal]

port arthur during the russo-japanese war

I feel that I must protest against this example. It may be nitpicking but since the Russo-Japanese War is one of the conflicts I find most interesting in the era I will say that it would make a poor example of a navy capturing a port.

The port was besieged for about five months by a large Japanese land army, with naval support it should be added, but most of the fighting was to my knowledge done by the Japanese army against Russian fortifications on land. And this include the final capture of the 203 Meter Hill which provided the Japanese with a vantage point from which to direct the artillery bombardment of the port proper, and the ships inside of it, which lead to the Russian surrender.

EDITED: But otherwise I like the idea of navies being more useful in war and to be able to capture and defend ports and such.

 

[demanvanwezel]

I feel that I must protest against this example. It may be nitpicking but since the Russo-Japanese War is one of the conflicts I find most interesting in the era I will say that it would make a poor example of a navy capturing a port.

The port was besieged for about five months by a large Japanese land army, with naval support it should be added, but most of the fighting was to my knowledge done by the Japanese army against Russian fortifications on land. And this include the final capture of the 203 Meter Hill which provided the Japanese with a vantage point from which to direct the artillery bombardment of the port proper, and the ships inside of it, which lead to the Russian surrender.

EDITED: But otherwise I like the idea of navies being more useful in war and to be able to capture and defend ports and such.

well yes, that's exactly the point, in the current game the japanese artillery would never even touch the russian ships and that wasn't an example of a navy capturing a port but rather of a land army attacking a port with a navy in it

 

[Gurkhal]

4. The option to form your own political party with desired policies (such as an interventionist Liberal party in the UK). Getting this party into power could be a struggle and would need limits based on party issues (no Planned economy, Moralistic Liberal parties) but could be an interesting option and seems to be in line with some of Paradox's more recent design ideas (such as the glut of customisation options CK3 offers).

I've been thinking a ittle about this suggestion. I think this could be cool but I also see it as potentially being overpowered with creating snowflake dream parties or potentially being so restrictive that it doesn't add much to the game.

For example religion has in CK3 been greatly expanded on to make customization more viable and meaningful so I am a bit interesting in seeing how you envision this ability to customize parties would work with, for example, forms of government?

*****

More social reforms

And personally I wouldn't mind more social reforms such as the issue of marriage and divorce, property owning, who can actually legally run a business, crime policy if its harsh or soft and for rehabilitation or punishment and so on. This naturally risk of running into meaningless minutia but personally I like getting into these details and so see how each little reform could have a small impact by themselves but could together transform society.

EDITED: Took away a part.

 

[Luckierexpert]

I've been thinking a ittle about this suggestion. I think this could be cool but I also see it as potentially being overpowered with creating snowflake dream parties or potentially being so restrictive that it doesn't add much to the game.

For example religion has in CK3 been greatly expanded on to make customization more viable and meaningful so I am a bit interesting in seeing how you envision this ability to customize parties would work with, for example, forms of government?

I'd argue you should be able to create your dream parties but that it is restricted in a realistic way (either by needing convince present party members to change policy or getting sufficient party support in the population) or just utilising a similar cost system as CK3 does with piety to modify a religion. How these policies interact with the other systems would probably be a big deciding factor on what you could do. I'd see keeping overarching ideals for a party (stuff like economic policy) as these tended not to change without substantial social and political pressure, but with others more open to change (such as cultural acceptance, although that would need to be handled carefully).That being said, it would probably only be worth it if there was sufficient customisation options as you listed.

For forms of government, I'd probably use the system Victoria II currently uses (i.e the political reforms and head of state dictate whether you're a absolute monarch, Prussian Constitutionalism or HMs government, or a democracy act). I'd also add in separate upper and lower houses for different political reforms, as many nations either adopted the upper and lower house models from various European nations and the US or started with two houses and abolished their upper house. It could also give a interesting angle on internal politics, as the UK had issues just before WW1 due to disagreement between the house of commons and house of lords on social reforms, which effecting lead to the removal of the absolute veto the lords had before.

More social reforms

And personally I wouldn't mind more social reforms such as the issue of marriage and divorce, property owning, who can actually legally run a business, crime policy if its harsh or soft and for rehabilitation or punishment and so on. This naturally risk of running into meaningless minutia but personally I like getting into these details and so see how each little reform could have a small impact by themselves but could together transform society.

Modifying a nations rule on stuff like marriage, property etc, would be really interesting, as people forget how much that changed between the start of the Victorian era to WW2.

 

[Gurkhal]

Join with foreign rebels

Here's something else that I'd like to see. An oppertunity to join forces with rebels in other countries. There could absolutely be some restrictions to prevent it from a total oppertunistic "I win" button, but some form of it would be useful.

For example say that I play as France and after having lost some territory to Prussia there's a pro-France nationalist uprising breaking out, I think that I should be able to intervene to support the rebels. Either with a military alliance and war with Prussia or sending money, advisors and weapons to the rebels.

 

[Gurkhal]

Here's another small idea I had.

Spain and the Spanish Empire in the Americas

As I've understood it, Spain came very late to recognize the independence of the Latin and South American states in the 19th century. Given how its a possible strategy to recreate he Spanish Empire in the Americas to the south of the US I think that perhaps Spain should have a decision to do, or not to do, recognize these states?

The basic idea is that if Spain does recognize then they get better relations with the American states and also essentially normal relations as well as a loss of infamy to the size and number of states that are recognized.

If Spain would not recognize then relations with American states are caped at +50 and but in return they get a significent boon to create casus belli towards these states. Perhaps even a special casus belli to re-create their empire in the Americas.

 

[FOARP]

I see a lot of discussion of various numerical factors within the game (militancy etc.) but obviously this game would be greatly improved by simply doing away with 90% of the numerical game-play, which is both not transparent and not fun. It is ultimately the cause of a lot of end-game problems as well, for example the "war every five years" problem comes from certain stats getting maxed out and never declining.

On the subject of rebels, the HOI4 system is far superior to that of Vicky and I hope what gets implemented is basically this.

 

[Luckierexpert]

Here's another small idea I had.

Spain and the Spanish Empire in the Americas

As I've understood it, Spain came very late to recognize the independence of the Latin and South American states in the 19th century. Given how its a possible strategy to recreate he Spanish Empire in the Americas to the south of the US I think that perhaps Spain should have a decision to do, or not to do, recognize these states?

The basic idea is that if Spain does recognize then they get better relations with the American states and also essentially normal relations as well as a loss of infamy to the size and number of states that are recognized.

If Spain would not recognize then relations with American states are caped at +50 and but in return they get a significent boon to create casus belli towards these states. Perhaps even a special casus belli to re-create their empire in the Americas.

This could be interesting, although if there is a 1815 start date (which to me seems like the earliest start point for a possible Victoria sequel), then this could be expanded out to include greater fighting in the Spanish America Wars of Independence, with clashes lasting through to 1833:

Spanish American wars of independence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[orangebra]

I think Vic3 internal politics could rework political and social reforms. e.g Vanilla Vic2 don't have prohibition of child labor. Budget could be limited by laws. Laws could be organized by political spectrum and aproved by absolute power or political majority in parliament, depending on Nation type of government. It could be more interesting for internal focused gameplay.

 

[DominusNovus]

I just wanted to say that I had a dream the other week that Vicky3 got announced.

So now my expectations are set very high.

 

[Luckierexpert]

I think Vic3 internal politics could rework political and social reforms. e.g Vanilla Vic2 don't have prohibition of child labor. Budget could be limited by laws. Laws could be organized by political spectrum and aproved by absolute power or political majority in parliament, depending on Nation type of government. It could be more interesting for internal focused gameplay.

I definitely agree. Victoria II is the best of paradox's game for playing tall (at the moment), and is more punishing for those who try and expand too aggressively. More internal mechanics would be great to help with those who do play tall, so adding in more reforms would be step in the right direction.

 

[Gurkhal]

Playing Tall and Conquests

I know that Paradox like to create map painters, so maybe this would fit for more for a mod, but I personally think that perhaps the presence of nationalism in, well, the age of nationalism could be used to prevent blobbing?

What I mean by that is that if you conquer a territory without the same integrated cultures as you yourself have, then you get a massive minus to that territories output and that they are prone to rebellion or at least spawning events that creates some problem for the conqueror. The purpose of this would be that mindlessly painting the map would create an overextension of the player and so force the player to focus its resources on keeping hold of what they've got as opposed to become a steamroller.

Mechanically I propose that an un-integrated culture should cause problem accoriding to their consciousness and that cultures who are not integrated should fast become aware they are not integrated when under a new dominion.

What I would hope to simulate by this would be to either create a place for the new cultures conquered or that there are better alternatives to simple conquest in creating client states and such to faciliate new territory.

It should in short often be more advantegous to create a sphere of influence than an All World Empire.

Yes, there are examples of the kind of empires I oppose in the shape of for example the US but I think that some kind of special mechanic of trait for the US would be more suitable than try to make that an example for the rest of the world.

 

[Kovax]

The mechanisms you suggest are already a standard part of several Paradox games, including the EU series. Even after 50 years and becoming a core province in EU3, they still have a cultural difference penalty that can lead to revolts during other periods of crisis, and there are several random events that apply to them as well. Changing the culture of a province to your own can be done in EU3, but it's either a random event with a very long Mean Time to Happen (MTTH), or else a forced conversion requiring your National Focus, several Magistrates and Colonists, and a set of penalties that don't go away until the province converts (in an average of around 50 years) or you voluntarily end the attempt. Cultural difference penalties also apply to Victoria 2 to a lesser degree, where pops of non-accepted cultures typically have higher rates of militancy. In all of those cases, you need to retain some sort of nearby garrison, because the odds of a revolt are significantly increased.

What would make sense, in many cases, would be to require at least a token garrison of any non-core province, and to a lesser extent, any province without a majority of accepted pops, or face a high probability of a revolt. Without sufficient capacity to provide the necessary military units and maintenance costs, you simply can't expand beyond your means, or use large numbers of non-accepted pops to garrison other non-accepted pops. Victoria 2's mechanism to grant cores randomly makes it a bit awkward, since I've seen provinces become cores after only about a decade or less, with only about 10% of the pops being "accepted". It's silly to see some poor remote province in the African interior suddenly become a core of your European country. Integrating the pops to get an actual majority of your accepted culture may take far longer than the game covers.

 

[Gurkhal]

The mechanisms you suggest are already a standard part of several Paradox games, including the EU series. Even after 50 years and becoming a core province in EU3, they still have a cultural difference penalty that can lead to revolts during other periods of crisis, and there are several random events that apply to them as well. Changing the culture of a province to your own can be done in EU3, but it's either a random event with a very long Mean Time to Happen (MTTH), or else a forced conversion requiring your National Focus, several Magistrates and Colonists, and a set of penalties that don't go away until the province converts (in an average of around 50 years) or you voluntarily end the attempt. Cultural difference penalties also apply to Victoria 2 to a lesser degree, where pops of non-accepted cultures typically have higher rates of militancy. In all of those cases, you need to retain some sort of nearby garrison, because the odds of a revolt are significantly increased.

What you say is not wrong factually but what I wanted to make a point about, no matter how badly it was made, was that this issue of culture, core and so on should be a greater issue in Victoria III than in most Paradox games so that creating client states in various forms should be made a more viable alternative.

What I want to say is that direct blobbing should take more work than it normally does in Pdx GSG and that alternatives, such as client states and such, should be boosted to offer a viable alternative to traditional Paradox blobbing.

What would make sense, in many cases, would be to require at least a token garrison of any non-core province, and to a lesser extent, any province without a majority of accepted pops, or face a high probability of a revolt. Without sufficient capacity to provide the necessary military units and maintenance costs, you simply can't expand beyond your means, or use large numbers of non-accepted pops to garrison other non-accepted pops. Victoria 2's mechanism to grant cores randomly makes it a bit awkward, since I've seen provinces become cores after only about a decade or less, with only about 10% of the pops being "accepted". It's silly to see some poor remote province in the African interior suddenly become a core of your European country. Integrating the pops to get an actual majority of your accepted culture may take far longer than the game covers.

I like this idea a great deal.