Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Arcvalons]

The thing I want the most is a deeper political system. With more parties/ideologies, a proper parliament, etc.

 

[gustavotoniato]

Another thing I really wanted is for not stupid things like Minas Gerais not to have any province that has iron ore

 

[Xuanzue]

paradox has released some good mechanics in the last 10 years that coul be used in vic3.

hoi4 focus trees -> industrialization trees.
eu4 institutions -> inventions (tractors)

I'm still sure that no GSG will be announced this PDXCON

 

[Awesomealan1]

The one thing that captivates me in these games more than any is the political alternate history. I'd love if Victoria 3 had the most expansive politics/ideology system yet, either in the base game OR as a massive DLC overhaul.

Think of how custom religions work in Crusader Kings, mixed with the Ideology Spread in Hearts of Iron, and of course, the pop system of Victoria. Victoria 3 would be the perfect way to introduce complex historical or custom political ideologies, each with specific laws, ethics, etc, that could then spread to other countries through natural means or through your efforts as a player - potentially leading to political uprisings like the communists or fascists during the early stages of World War I and II, and also setting the stage for political alliances and arms races. It could even be implemented in the form of a crisis, where a political ideology poses a threat to the world at large and countries need to set their stance towards it, like denouncing the rise of fascism and communism (or custom ideologies) and then waging wars over stopping the spread of said ideology - Which inadvertently might start World War I.

But that's jumping the gun though, because the game starts much earlier than World War I, so there's so much room to grow in the early game. In the early game, you could potentially form branch ideologies that follow previously established ones, but the more that time passes, the more you're able to upgrade/alter the specific laws and other details, causing it to eventually become its own, solidified ideology. Think of it, not only would it be an incredible base-game mechanic, but it would also be a gigantic template for the modding community to make complex alternate history mods using this ideology system - the possibilities would truly be endless.

A big part of the Victorian era was also the personal relationships between rulers and their offspring, Victoria being a glaring example. I'd love if rulers appeared like how we see them in Hearts of Iron 4, but with a little more to do like in Crusader Kings - just with a Victorian flair. Depending on how you guide the ruler, they could switch or lean into ideologies - and depending on their relationships with other rulers, the ideologies could spread in that way as well. But outside of politics, I'd like to see a more complex ruler system where, let's say you're playing as Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, there could be random events that pop up and allow you to make decisions that could steer you in both ahistorical and historical paths. One of the best things to come out of Hearts of Iron - especially the modding scene - is the use of pop up events to help dictate where you go as a ruler/nation. I don't think things should be too reliant on pop ups to where you'd be making massive changes and could make some fatal errors at the misclick of a button, but just something that helps customize playthroughs and gives variety in the way that Crusader Kings offers, even if you're just playing as the same nation 20 times.

There could also be events for political/royal marriages, like how we've seen in games like Crusader Kings and somewhat in Europa Universalis, where civil wars could occur in monarch countries if the throne is contested - either by a royal family member or an anti-monarch revolution - which of course swings back into the ideology aspect of my idea.

TL;DR, more in-depth ideology system (including in-game development of custom ideologies) and more in-depth rulers, please. PLEASE.

Other, potentially out-there ideas:

1. Earlier than 1836 Start Date, keep the 1936 End Date
2. Retain the Pop System, expand it and refine it, but do not simplify it in a way that ruins things. No Mana system. We don't need another Imperator Launch.
3. A Victoria 2-EU4 merged Tech system. Institutions for major techs, simple tech system (click and wait to unlock) for basic techs.
4. Massive policy system (which ties into the ideology/political system, see massive book I wrote above).
5. Custom railways with development/institution/ideology spread surrounding them - Following the real life Industrial Revolution.

 

[Ratgar]

I'd love if rulers appeared like how we see them in Hearts of Iron 4, but with a little more to do like in Crusader Kings - just with a Victorian flair.

Supposing there is a Victoria 3, I would think this is something inevitable to be in it, because of the changes at Paradox since Victoria 2. Ever since then, there has been a pretty well established model of two kinds of smaller DLCs: additions of mechanics and additions of flavor. Flavor almost always comes with some form of portraiture type element, fleshing out the smaller or more niche characters.

Back when Vicky 2 came out, there were fewer visualizations like this in the games, but I think Paradox for good or for ill caught on to the fact that games can be continually updated at what is probably substantially lower cost by increasing the amount of visual additions and portraiture elements. Art is far far more amenable to release timetables than code, you can hire as many artists as you want and see faster and faster results unlike hiring more coders, and it is very rare that people actually object to game changes that involve the addition of visual stuff like this. Strictly from a business standpoint, I think such features score high on Paradox's list nowadays.

I would go so far as to say that without such a feature, Vicky 3 will probably not get made, because Paradox wouldn't commit capital to a product which they cannot milk in the same way. You could take the view that they have previously put forward, that the art side largely funds the mechanics side of DLC's, or a more cynical one, but either way I think this is a fairly safe bet that any Vicky getting made will leave greater room for this sort of thing.

 

[The Goldfinch]

Properly sophisticated diplomacy is all I ask for. Sphere and aggressive expansion mechanics need to be remade from the scratch

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Supposing there is a Victoria 3, I would think this is something inevitable to be in it, because of the changes at Paradox since Victoria 2. Ever since then, there has been a pretty well established model of two kinds of smaller DLCs: additions of mechanics and additions of flavor. Flavor almost always comes with some form of portraiture type element, fleshing out the smaller or more niche characters.

Back when Vicky 2 came out, there were fewer visualizations like this in the games, but I think Paradox for good or for ill caught on to the fact that games can be continually updated at what is probably substantially lower cost by increasing the amount of visual additions and portraiture elements. Art is far far more amenable to release timetables than code, you can hire as many artists as you want and see faster and faster results unlike hiring more coders, and it is very rare that people actually object to game changes that involve the addition of visual stuff like this. Strictly from a business standpoint, I think such features score high on Paradox's list nowadays.

I would go so far as to say that without such a feature, Vicky 3 will probably not get made, because Paradox wouldn't commit capital to a product which they cannot milk in the same way. You could take the view that they have previously put forward, that the art side largely funds the mechanics side of DLC's, or a more cynical one, but either way I think this is a fairly safe bet that any Vicky getting made will leave greater room for this sort of thing.

Your thoughts about the possibilities for Vicky 3 to go in new and more personality-driven directions represent quite well how Paradox has evolved in how it appeals to its customer base. For myself, I don't want to see any of that. I want them to produce as sophisticated a game as possible that tracks the social, economic and political evolution of major countries in the 19th century. I don't want a game where you can conquer the world from Bolivia.

But for people with my point of view, here's the problem -- Paradox clearly doesn't want to do that anymore. Look at how Hearts of Iron has evolved, with dev diaries lovingly detailing alt-history pathways for exceedingly minor countries like Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. So instead of getting a desperately needed new National Focus tree for Italy, for which we will probably have to wait another year or two (!) and pay for yet another dlc, we get this, countries that allow you to play Hearts of Iron as if it were a map-painter.

I so much wish that we could all have our cake and eat it, too. I wish that Paradox's games could be developed on parallel tracks, so that you could choose between dlc content that enhances core game mechanics and historical immersion, and dlc's that offer more alt-history spinoffs. Now they try to do both, and it doesn't really work all that well. But to do as I suggest would surely not pay the bills adequately.

 

[Ratgar]

I don't want a game where you can conquer the world from Bolivia.

Personally, I don't mind it, so long as you doing so happens not through gamey nonsense but through some sort of actual interesting engagement with pops, goods, and 19th century power politics. So, it should be really hard in other words, but totally doable.

I mean the USA went in this exact period from being a tiny fringe country considered by Europe unimportant to being pretty much the world superpower by the end of WW1 (although I think at the time this was not fully appreciated, but economically it was true.) In theory, though Bolivia doesn't benefit from the same economic resources as the US, a potential South American Union could have formed in the wake of all the South American independence movements instead of sectionalism. United, it isn't impossible that South America could have been something of a heavy weight. At that point, supposing South American ideas and politics became as influential as the US's in the period, it would actually be somewhat plausible that Bolivia in the form of a United South America could have been forming a global empire abroad. But bringing that all about should force the player to overcome realistic limitations, economically, politically, and I think especially logistically. South America doesn't have the same exact raw resources as North America, a player should have to actually leverage the advantages it does have in this period: rubber, spices, certain minerals and ores not found elsewhere etc in order to develop as quickly through different means, all while overcoming the environmental obstacles of their position.

It isn't the ambitions that should be curtailed, instead I think the game should be a economic and political classroom for the player that might even teach them a thing or two about how countries behind economically could succeed today, instead of a surface level mana grinder.

And to the point of Paradox understanding that easy visual stuff sells, I hope they take this lesson in the direction Ford is doing with their new F150 EV: it may be an overly large truck appealing to American machismo sensibilities, but these concessions allow an electric vehicle to be made in the first place. So long as what's under the hood (metaphorically) is good, its a positive development.

 

[Awesomealan1]

I mean the USA went in this exact period from being a tiny fringe country considered by Europe unimportant to being pretty much the world superpower by the end of WW1

This is a great point and is essentially my mindset when I imagine smaller or unimportant countries for the time period suddenly becoming powerhouses in alt history scenarios.

Would 1936 Switzerland being a WW2-causing, Fascist superpower makes sense in the context of start date 1836 Switzerland?

The answer is no, not really. But it could happen. Many different variables are at play, and different things could happen to Switzerland prior to World War I, for some reason related to in-game events and player choice. It could be that Switzerland rescinds its policy of Swiss Neutrality and rejects the Treaty of Paris' clause for them, either influenced by the rise of nationalism or by public demand for participation in external wars, ultimately becoming a power hungry dictatorship. It could even be due to a different country declaring war on Switzerland, disobeying the Swiss Neutrality and, potentially, starting World War I over it. Let's say World War I is fought over Switzerland now at this point. Italy, Germany, and Austro-Hungary want a slice of Swiss cheese for their sandwiches for some reason. In comes the Entente aiding Switzerland, the Entente win in 1918, and Switzerland demands successions from the Alliance due to their transgressions, carving up small pieces of northern Italy, southern Germany, and western Austro-Hungary. Now, late 1920's Switzerland has a taste for blood and resentment towards its neighbors for their acts of aggression, an end to its neutrality and a rising, hate-filled sentiment towards Germans, Italians, and Austro-Hungarians. In comes a fascist dictator, which the people accept wholeheartedly, and now we have a blood-thirsty, Fascist Switzerland that is about to cause World War II.

Now, of course, I can't tell you the specific people involved and every specific detail of that scenario - It's off the top of my head. I'm sure some people will read it and think it's a mess of errors and that it would never make any sense, but it's just an example. Before, saying Switzerland is a WW2-causing, Fascist superpower makes no sense. But now, at least partially, you have a reason for why that's reality in this one specific scenario.

What I basically described is the situations we all go through when we play these games, we make new history in the context of our own history, we play simulators and try new things, anything is possible. The game that I think showcases this the most is Europa Universalis, but others have that ability too. The smallest of events can radically alter the course of history, and we should recognize those events and their impact. With that said, there's plenty of room for real life history to compliment that. HOI4 has a pretty great historical/ahistorical dimension to it, all with the click of a button. This of course applies to pop-ups and focus trees, but a similar system could work in Victoria 3, letting everyone have their cake and eat it too and letting players opt-in or opt-out of a more historical experience.

If you lived in 1836 and took a look at the United States, saying they are going to become the biggest superpower in 100 years, there would be reasonable room for doubt. But, with what we know about history, of course it makes complete sense. The same could be said for a plethora of countries and scenarios. Massive 180-turnarounds for certain countries should be hard to do, like in the Switzerland example - but the choice of doing it should be available.

So that's the real issue here. Making alt history scenarios make sense within the context of decisions, events, and player choice. That's what I would like to see, and why I understand Paradox's decision to lean a little more into alt history. It's fun. People like fun - as much fun as people like us who look at maps and charts and graphs can have, at least.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Personally, I don't mind it, so long as you doing so happens not through gamey nonsense but through some sort of actual interesting engagement with pops, goods, and 19th century power politics. So, it should be really hard in other words, but totally doable.

I mean the USA went in this exact period from being a tiny fringe country considered by Europe unimportant to being pretty much the world superpower by the end of WW1 (although I think at the time this was not fully appreciated, but economically it was true.) In theory, though Bolivia doesn't benefit from the same economic resources as the US, a potential South American Union could have formed in the wake of all the South American independence movements instead of sectionalism. United, it isn't impossible that South America could have been something of a heavy weight. At that point, supposing South American ideas and politics became as influential as the US's in the period, it would actually be somewhat plausible that Bolivia in the form of a United South America could have been forming a global empire abroad. But bringing that all about should force the player to overcome realistic limitations, economically, politically, and I think especially logistically. South America doesn't have the same exact raw resources as North America, a player should have to actually leverage the advantages it does have in this period: rubber, spices, certain minerals and ores not found elsewhere etc in order to develop as quickly through different means, all while overcoming the environmental obstacles of their position.

It isn't the ambitions that should be curtailed, instead I think the game should be a economic and political classroom for the player that might even teach them a thing or two about how countries behind economically could succeed today, instead of a surface level mana grinder.

And to the point of Paradox understanding that easy visual stuff sells, I hope they take this lesson in the direction Ford is doing with their new F150 EV: it may be an overly large truck appealing to American machismo sensibilities, but these concessions allow an electric vehicle to be made in the first place. So long as what's under the hood (metaphorically) is good, its a positive development.

Ok, fair enough. I'll grant this. Hell, even in Vicky 2 you could take a comparatively minor country a long way -- perhaps not to #1, but pretty far. Your point is, and I entirely agree, you have to do so within the social, economic, military and political limitations of the game scenario. So, for example, no idiotic mission trees, no "achievements" -- at least, not for me.

Your post mentions what is most brilliant about Victoria -- it's a classroom in 19th-century history, in all its ramifications. No other game I know of has ever achieved something so ambitious and so comprehensive, despite all of its flaws. So of course within that "classroom," you can see what happens when Bavaria leads the formation of a unified Germany and then achieves a political union with Austria, thus inheriting all of its ethnic stresses. Or you can try to unify South America under Bolivian leadership. What I would hate to see, however, is a bland framework of superficially differentiated countries against the backdrop of which conquering the world as China, or Persia, or Bolivia is more or less the same experience as doing so as France or Russia.

I hope that clarifies my concerns.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

While we're sitting around waiting for the announcement. I want to share something that one of the betas from the first Victoria -- name withheld to protect the NDA scofflaw! -- once told me. He related to me how, virtually up to the day before the game went gold, everyone connected with it was furiously creating little scripts for the POPs in individual countries. If' you've ever looked at the starting history files in Vicky 2, you will see that a lot of that work would be repetitive and boring as hell -- so many POPs of this ethnicity and political orientation and religious belief in one province, copy and paste ad infinitum, and then tweak the template to allow for different political ideologies, religious beliefs, education, and so on through thousands of individual files. Absurd, right? But also completely brilliant, because it was in all of those little differentiations that the game found its soul. Is Paradox ready to devote THAT level of detail to the game again? Sure, by now they probably have little executables that can crank out the necessary files without errors -- one certainly hopes so! But is anyone paying enough attention to make sure that at least in the beginning the 20 or so most important countries have the proper nuance and complexity in their mix of POPs? If they manage to work at that level of detail, then I'll know there's real hope for the game.

 

[Ratgar]

What I would hate to see, however, is a bland framework of superficially differentiated countries against the backdrop of which conquering the world as China, or Persia, or Bolivia is more or less the same experience as doing so as France or Russia.

I hope that clarifies my concerns.

Herein lies the interesting paradigm to me however. It is precisely in this "universalization" that occurs in expressing every country's unique circumstances within the common framework of pop's goods, and laws that instead of blandness, comes fascinatingly fractal like divergences and unique circumstances. You take every country, work out how they are all similar by making this shared logical framework, and in doing so you create the potential for far more uniqueness. Because instead of having to make ad hoc rules to explain every historical occurrence that happened , they actually succeeded somewhat in striking upon some major driving forces in history (basically historical materialism with some added fun), and the logic of the game whether realistic or not is compelling enough to make great stories when you see it play out under different circumstances.

I've said similar things a million times in too many threads but that is fundamentally the genius of Victoria that need not have been expressed through even a particularly well functioning game to shine through.

They don't need to program Russia to be backward or the USA to be dominant with unique Russian nerf factors or US exceptionalism buffs, they simply setup the circumstances by which this will probably happen and it usually happens. They can then have the more special circumstance where other countries exhibit the characteristic that either of those two did at different times and different places as long as the circumstances give rise to them. All the time otherwise spent making each individual country have its own unique code that influences it can instead by spent writing code that influences any country that finds itself in similar circumstances. This in essence the difference between a video, and a video game. Vicky at its best is not just a prescripted story, it is a Markovian Process storytelling determined only by its just previous state, every value of which the player can slowly shake up and arrive at new outcomes still plausible.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Well, as I said in my second post, in my opinion it's in the genius of the highly differentiated mix of POPs that you get that the game's fine-grained uniqueness.

 

[Lorehead]

I like the idea of custom ideologies, but I would make them develop more organically. If you’ll let me be a bit indulgent again:

Elections have three stages: the primary, the general election, and forming a government.

In the primary, the pops all vote on what the platform of the party they voted for last time should be. There should be limits on how much a party can change in one election cycle (to prevent absurd scenarios like the US Republicans becoming the party of conservative Southerners and African-Americans all becoming Democrats, at least within the time limit of the game) but there shouldn’t be a limit on how much they can change over time.

In the general election, each pop sums up its attraction factors and picks a party. People who are happy should usually vote for the incumbent, but unhappy pops should mostly vote by profession and education (so, for example, most dissatisfied poor highly-educated people should go Communist, well-off educated people or poor uneducated people would turn to other philosophies). Taking a lot of casualties in a war, not being able to buy their needs, and losing cores to other nations should be some of the things that make everyone upset. People should also generally favor their own self-interest, and some possible planks in the platform should just be straight-up pandering, like subsidizing a particular industry or even a pop type. This probably sums up the pop’s attraction factors to all parties and splits its support in proportion.

Pops can not only pick a party that exists, but one that could potentially exist. If enough do, that party will form to contest the following election. Communist parties probably have to wait for Karl Marx to be born, but they would appear in each country, not when they historically did, but when a significant number of the nation’s people are ready to vote for Communism. Parties that are similar to each other should not activate in the same cycle, but there is no reason why parties with almost no overlap couldn’t. The options should not be limited to historical, organized parties: many different ideologies can be factions within a party. A party whose support is critically low can also disappear.

If one party wins an outright majority, it of course forms a government. Otherwise, it needs to negotiate with other parties to agree on a governing platform. If one party is so far ahead that no other two parties can form a government, it picks the one or two other parties it needs to compromise the least with and forms a coalition government. If there are more than one party that could form a government, the two leading partied both make an offer to one party that would put it over the top, and then the kingmaker party decides what deal to take (or they both proposed to each other and form a unity government). Finally, if no coalition is possible, the country has a caretaker government that cannot make any big decisions.

Once the coalition has agreed to enact certain policies, failing to carry them out should lead the ruling coalition to collapse.

The player should have a lot of influence over this, including promoting particular economic interests, directly campaigning for a party in a region, making people happy or mad at the party in power, changing the economic and educational profile of the country. and electoral reform to change who can vote.

 

[Lorehead]

Another thing that brought to mind: women.

Vicky 2 abstracted them away. This usually worked pretty well: most women in this time period married a man and contributed to their household. We can usually consider pops to consist of entire families, which the simulation groups by the profession of the head of household.

There are a few cases, though, where it would be worth the complexity of representing women as a separate game icon. One is when a large number of men die in war, or a large number of men settle in a colony, creating a gender imbalance. Another is that women gained the right to vote in many countries, and did not always vote the same way as their husbands.

Therefore, some of the men in each pop could be bachelors, who in the game would probably be represented as less productive, happy and fertile (since it represents the economic output of one person rather than two). If there are a large number of unmarried women, they might be represented as lower/middle/upper-class female pops. In this time period, they might be allowed to work as educators, and they would have some babies out of wedlock. Historically, war widows (and women who had never married because so many men their age were dead) were important in expanding the welfare state in several countries.

Unmarried men and women should match up, but very slowly if they are different social classes, religions or ethnicities. They should also be more likely to emigrate to another province with an available spouse for them. Gay marriage would be anachronistic in the base game, but might be modded in.

 

[Ivanacco1]

Another thing I really wanted is for not stupid things like Minas Gerais not to have any province that has iron ore

Yeah, at least give us the capability to prospect for resources. there are a lot of resources in south america that arent thoroughly exploted,Also the amount of oil extracted shouldnt directly be tied by population, because if that were true then the arabian peninsula wouldnt be so rich.

Another thing that brought to mind: women.

Vicky 2 abstracted them away. This usually worked pretty well: most women in this time period married a man and contributed to their household. We can usually consider pops to consist of entire families, which the simulation groups by the profession of the head of household.

There are a few cases, though, where it would be worth the complexity of representing women as a separate game icon. One is when a large number of men die in war, or a large number of men settle in a colony, creating a gender imbalance. Another is that women gained the right to vote in many countries, and did not always vote the same way as their husbands.

Therefore, some of the men in each pop could be bachelors, who in the game would probably be represented as less productive, happy and fertile (since it represents the economic output of one person rather than two). If there are a large number of unmarried women, they might be represented as lower/middle/upper-class female pops. In this time period, they might be allowed to work as educators, and they would have some babies out of wedlock. Historically, war widows (and women who had never married because so many men their age were dead) were important in expanding the welfare state in several countries.

Unmarried men and women should match up, but very slowly if they are different social classes, religions or ethnicities. They should also be more likely to emigrate to another province with an available spouse for them. Gay marriage would be anachronistic in the base game, but might be modded in.

Unless there is massive revamp of the code i dont think this is happening, having double the amount of pops will cause more problems with running the game and will make things slower if you dont have a beastly pc.

 

[gustavotoniato]

The idea of having men and women represented in a different way is quite interesting, especially when we think that wars can create situations of demographic imbalance such as that which occurred at the end of the Paraguayan war, where most of the male population was exterminated.

 

[General WVPM]

paradox has released some good mechanics in the last 10 years that coul be used in vic3.

hoi4 focus trees -> industrialization trees.
eu4 institutions -> inventions (tractors)

I'm still sure that no GSG will be announced this PDXCON

I'm not sure if this post was sarcastic, but I'll take the bait anyhow.
HOI4 focus trees are a terribly dumbed down representation of industrialization. Instead of investors opening factories that grow naturally or governments investing in industry, HOI4 focus trees are just a guaranteed win which cost a set amount of time. This is the opposite of what makes Victoria 2 so awesome: the sandbox style. In Victoria 2, if you have the tech and the money, you can build factories. Multiple factories parallel? Sure!
There is no railroaded focus tree forcing you down a path. You are in control and it works great. Please avoid focus trees.

(I don't have enough experience with EU4 to judge that suggestion.)

 

[PedroLuiz]

(I don't have enough experience with EU4 to judge that suggestion.)

the institution system is a good idea, but badly executed, it wanted to make a less harsh westernization system, but it lead to a homogenized world, many institutions spawning in Asia by the AI and the gamey dev to spawn the institution strategy

 

[moscal]

1. Steam mana
2. Coal mana
3. Slavery anti-mana

:trollface: