Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Orlov Kruskayev]

I can just say a lot of vague concepts and features I want in Victoria III, but I can't code for sheathe. So I have no idea on hard they would be to implement.


More importance to navigable rivers, flow of trade goods, supply lines, local markets, more difficulty to access goods from hard to reach areas, some more focus on infrastructure like source of power and link it to the geography of places more closely (of course, I can't build my railroads through the alps early on, apparently. But I can make the whole of Africa into a gigantic railroad system, expand throughout the Amazon, etc. I those cases, PDM made a good work looking through how places developed but still) Specific areas that serve best as ports to link your trade goods to the global market. Some kind of sailor pop (I'd be happy if we could divert from fishing farmers(or coastal workers in general), soldiers and officers if it's so hard to implement this.) These would need to change how the economy works, because not all goods would be on the market all the time. And access to the world market to compete would be a huge deal. Also, tariffs would be greatly improved. If you have local markets and know through where the goods come, maybe you can also know WHERE they are coming from. A tariff system on specific goods and specific countries (enforced, perhaps, by the navy) would be nice.


There are many more and people already posted a lot of very very good suggestions, from the silly simplest of them (goddamn I'd love to see the map unfolding when I loaded the game. Really, just that. Or maybe the map being drawn from terra incognita in EUIV for that matter. And, a revamp on the financial and banking system, the factories and the politics.



But deep inside I know the resources are limited and this is already a niche game. Either they make all of us mad to appeal to the public or they chose and pick which of those they believe they can code in time with the team available. I do strongly believe the devs are keeping an eye here and there, because the great thing about this forums is how close we are to the staff and how we just happily voice our preferences out loud, with detail and everything. But I won't be holding my breath. I love Victoria II, I want the greatest game of all time to be Victoria III but, well. We are few.

 

[Satyros]

Playable Anarchists .

More depth in the ideologies aspect of the game .

 

[Tirunus]

Playable Anarchists .

How would that even work? You play as the government.

 

[AureliusBob]

Ive been thinking on some idea's on great power dynamics

First, international politics is not always limited to 8 GP's, there is unipolarity, bi-polarity and multipolarity within the system. With that being said, the Victoria era was always multi-polar, however, none of us were playing China in 1900...

GP status should depend on relative distributions of power. For example, why should Brazil, with a 95 military score, be a great power when I have a 5000 military score as USA? A bit of an exaggerated example, but some of us on the forums have gotten that high.

We can base GP status on a percentage of the #1 score or something of the sort. For example, the cutoff for GP status could be 50% of the first place score. That way it starts turning into a less polar world if one power becomes too powerful. Then this is where a balance of power would come into play. The less polarity in the world, the more weak states are tempted to align against that power.

Also it can create a sort of creates a "boss" once you get to the point where you feel like quitting when you are too powerful and dont feel challenged.

 

[mbrasher1]

I know these are small scale items, but they fall into the category of changes that make for more fun per click.

1. A way of automating hunting for rebels within my sphere. I usually sphere all of S America and it takes some work to manually put down rebellions. Besides Brazil, many of the nations cannot seem to do it. Likewise, Ottomans are a large place, and have difficulty with large revolts.
2. Turning off/on rebel hunting globally. When you have a huge rebellion and you need every of your 100 stacks to help out, it'd be nice to do a global change. Likewise, When you have a dedicated rebel hunting force in peacetime and you switch to war, you have to manually remove the rebel hunting feature. Otherwise, you get units that are placed in a defensive position (like surrounding a giant encirclement battle in Berlin) who want to waltz to a different province. It can cost you the encirclement or lose some defense bonus on terrain (if you are keeping a reserve on a good defensive province.

 

[spiller68]

I know these are small scale items, but they fall into the category of changes that make for more fun per click.


2. Turning off/on rebel hunting globally. When you have a huge rebellion and you need every of your 100 stacks to help out, it'd be nice to do a global change. Likewise, When you have a dedicated rebel hunting force in peacetime and you switch to war, you have to manually remove the rebel hunting feature. Otherwise, you get units that are placed in a defensive position (like surrounding a giant encirclement battle in Berlin) who want to waltz to a different province. It can cost you the encirclement or lose some defense bonus on terrain (if you are keeping a reserve on a good defensive province.

that is a huge pain when they run of when your at war. i think this should be in vicky 3 it will save a lot of time and effort.

 

[Chroper]

In Victoria III I would like to see more ways to spend money. After 10 or so years I start to feel that money doesn't mean much in Victoria II.

 

[Pellaken]

Some other new ideas:

-
-

EUIV style diplomats.

-
-

Additional Reforms.

At least double the current number, if not more.

Also, disconnect reforms from being simply Political or Social. Each reform would stand on it's own and have it's own chances of being supported by the various parties.

-
-

More variety in political parties.

Tied in to the above. Parties can have modifiers tied to them that allow them to act in ways they would otherwise not act.

For example, a Nationalist party might have a modifier attached to it that allows it to sit in coalition with Fascists, if the jr partner.

A Communist party might have a modifier attached to it that prohibits it from sitting in coalition with socialists.

-
-

Additional governments, following two or more tracks. For example:

--Order
Absolute Monarchy
Limited Monarchy
Democratic State
Dictatorship (various)

--Liberty
Traditional Monarchy
Constitutional Monarchy
Democratic Republic
Dictatorship (various)

--Equality
National Monarchy
Peoples Monarchy
Democratic Nation
Dictatorship (various)

These would be similar to one another, but could differ. For example, a "National Monarchy" may allow socialists to be appointed to the government, while a "Absolute Monarchy" may prohibit Liberals from doing so.

A "Democratic State" may be formable when you have the secret ballot and voting, while a "Democratic Republic" might become possible for any 'elected' upper house

Also - and this is debatable - you could limit the various kinds of dictatorship based on the national ideal. Anarcho-Liberals for example could never form a dictatorship in a country based on Order, nor Fascists in a country based on Equality, not Communists in a country based on Liberty.

etc etc

This would allow nations to develop slightly differently and hopefully more realistically.

 

[Bargey]

I have a very vague request, but it is EXTREMELY important to me. DO NOT DUMB DOWN VICTORIA 3. I know it is tempting to sell to a broader audience by dumbing it down, but Victoria is meant to be full of complicated statistics and etc. And without that, I feel like Vicky 3 would not be a game I would buy

 

[General WVPM]

I have a very vague request, but it is EXTREMELY important to me. DO NOT DUMB DOWN VICTORIA 3. I know it is tempting to sell to a broader audience by dumbing it down, but Victoria is meant to be full of complicated statistics and etc. And without that, I feel like Vicky 3 would not be a game I would buy

I hope they keep the paradox tradition alive; make a complicated game that is manageable and learnable.

 

[horngeek]

As far as complexity goes, my instinct would be to make Victoria III easy to learn but hard to master, really.

 

[Pellaken]

I'd also like to see the start date adjusted. 1831 for sure, perhaps even back to 1821 to meet up with EU, but, I think most of the 1821-1831 era would be better covered under EU than Vicky. Perhaps 1827 as the cut off date for both?

 

[horngeek]

I, too, would like the ability for the EUIV and VIII enddates to meet up.

 

[Sarius1997]

I'd also like to see the start date adjusted. 1831 for sure, perhaps even back to 1821 to meet up with EU, but, I think most of the 1821-1831 era would be better covered under EU than Vicky. Perhaps 1827 as the cut off date for both?

TBH i really think that EU already has very big problems simulating everything from 1750 on, as around this time the colonial dissent started to rise (still badly simulated by EU), and the first big manufactures (essentially early factories) come into rise. With 1815 EU loses all right to continue, as the napoleonic wars are the last thing that´s simulated better by EU then Vic. 1815 is IMO the perfect start date for Vicky. But i still hope that one day we see Vicky starting in 1763 (as it makes sense from then on, slowly)

 

[Pellaken]

TBH i really think that EU already has very big problems simulating everything from 1750 on, as around this time the colonial dissent started to rise (still badly simulated by EU), and the first big manufactures (essentially early factories) come into rise. With 1815 EU loses all right to continue, as the napoleonic wars are the last thing that´s simulated better by EU then Vic. 1815 is IMO the perfect start date for Vicky. But i still hope that one day we see Vicky starting in 1763 (as it makes sense from then on, slowly)

I could support this; though IMHO, the dates could use a radical change by adding a new game to take place during the US Independence and Napoleonic Eras.

 

[AureliusBob]

I could support this; though IMHO, the dates could use a radical change by adding a new game to take place during the US Independence and Napoleonic Eras.

Agree, I've never managed to go further than 1750's in any of my hundreds of EU games...Either got my "goal" or became too powerful.

In Victoria, most of my "great wars" involve either doomstacks parading around Africa or one European country (Austria) getting completely rolled over but still being on the "winning side" and carrying on afterwards like nothing ever happened.

EU series hasnt done the Napoleonic wars justice and Victoria hasnt done WW1 justice, could use a change to make at least one event the main focus.

 

[Sarius1997]

I could support this; though IMHO, the dates could use a radical change by adding a new game to take place during the US Independence and Napoleonic Eras.

Yeah, would be a good idea, as with the current mechanics neither EU nor Vicky can truely support this age. And just imagine the nightmare of balancing the still rather strong China in 1760. XD

 

[Pellaken]

Agree, I've never managed to go further than 1750's in any of my hundreds of EU games...Either got my "goal" or became too powerful.

In Victoria, most of my "great wars" involve either doomstacks parading around Africa or one European country (Austria) getting completely rolled over but still being on the "winning side" and carrying on afterwards like nothing ever happened.

EU series hasnt done the Napoleonic wars justice and Victoria hasnt done WW1 justice, could use a change to make at least one event the main focus.

I've asked a few times, and each time was told flat out and clearly "no" that PDS would not be making a WW1 game. I suspect the reason is they have a contract with someone else to do this era, as Paradoxes "no" answers are very rarely that clear.


On Victoria 3

A lot of the problems faced at high-end play are due to money vanishing. Weather though interest or building costs (forts) etc, money disappears from the code either by convenient design or by accidental bug.

One of the big things, IMHO, is making sure this does not happen in Victoria 3. I'd be willing to wait a few extra months for the game if it was robust enough to handle this. I firmly believe that if it is a very robust game - I'm talking CK2 robust - that it could smash sales records and move PDS from a "big 2 games" company to a "big 3 games" company.

 

[AureliusBob]

A lot of the problems faced at high-end play are due to money vanishing. Weather though interest or building costs (forts) etc, money disappears from the code either by convenient design or by accidental bug.

How can they fix this though? A thought...

The game simulates a global economy based only on goods, but should they try to abstract services as well based on foreign and domestic firms? That way when you build forts, railroads, factories..etc, the money goes back directly into the pockets of capitalist POP's, which they in turn use to pay labor/buy goods.

For example, lets say you are playing Abu Dhabi and you westernize quickly and whatnot. Once that oil well springs up in Dubai, you can either extract oil by assignoing your inefficient/low tech domestic firms or hiring out foreign advanced firms. Like how it happened in real life (Albeit much later than the Victoria era)

 

[aprof]

I'd like to see a revised form of mobilization for war. I'd suggest a three tier system (each researchable though most/all civilized nations will start with the first), of Volunteers, Conscription and Compulsory Service. All would still draw forces from farmers and laborers, but the quality and speed of the troops raised would differ. The nation can equip cavalry and artillery as well as infantry, but must have a stockpile of equipment for those arms.

Volunteers: This is the form of mobilization for war used by the United States through the 19th century. Both the USA and CSA adopted Conscription halfway through the American Civil War, but the USA returned to a Volunteer system up to the Great War. It is the least costly in terms of military spending during peacetime. Upon mobilization, there would be a call for Volunteers which would greatly increase the manpower pool which would allow the nation to form units. Limiting factors would be the stockpile of military goods available restricting how many units can be raised, and volunteer units will begin at lower organization and morale levels which will raise to the nations normal level slowly over time (this would reflect the need for learning military drill before committing green troops to combat).

Conscription: This represents those nations such as Great Britain, France and many other civilized nations which adopted the practice of requiring those in active military service to follow with a term in reserves. The level of peacetime military spending will determine the organization and morale level of the troops upon mobilization. Peacetime military spending will reflect reserve training and maintenance of adequate stockpiles of equipment. The troops mobilization with be average with a slightly lower morale and organization level which will rise in time to the nation's normal level. (Basically troops thrown immediately into combat will suffer, but if mobilization allows time to restore then the troops will be no different from the standing army.)

Compulsory Service: This would be the German system of requiring all eligible males to military service followed by service in reserves. Peacetime military spending would be the most expensive to maintain the quality of troops' training and equipment, but the benefit is that there would be no difference between the standing army and reserves in organization and morale upon mobilization.

How would this work on the interface? Perhaps a checkbox to choose which system is in effect. Once the tech is learned that opens a system for mobilization, then that choice is available - the unlearned choice(s) being greyed out. This would set the military spending slider to reflect the spending needs. Also there should be at least a one year cooldown on switching systems. (In real life it was more like 3-4 years to implement changes.) I can see that many would game the system and always go back to Volunteers, then switch to Compulsory Service right before declaring war without some 'safeguards'. I'd suggest that size of stockpile and spending would contribute largely to the size of the mobilization.