Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Orinsul]

I still argue for V2/3 to have politicians the same as it has generals. Not adding in whole new systems but twisting existing ones, but each party has a leader, historical or random depending on whats in the files or events ousting historics or etc.
With a trait and a background same as generals, only effecting party electability/support modifiers instead of battle ones.

 

[Simoleum]

I keep thinking of stuff lol. I sure hope the developers will take into account everything that has been written here

Moving your capital should definitely be included.. As well as certain bonuses for capitals (immigration/migration, life-rating, IDK). With subsqeuent reactions from people. (Maybe a decrease in militancy when you move a capital out of an exposed area, like bordering someone youve been at war with?) and in total just a whole fleet on new options and choices so that you REALLY get immersed. Selling, buying, giving provinces and more. A tweaked infamy system, and definitely more on crisis .
But this is pretty much included in what I said about stuff thats been in EUIV and HoI3 thats just basic Paradox-evolution in their games.

It's crazy how good this game is, and whats even more crazy is the amount of potential it has thats unused.

 

[User29]

Moving capital doesn't make a ton of sense for this time period, outside of Africa(which in Vanilla is like what, 2-3 countries? ) Nobody moved their capital except Italy moving it to Rome, I don't think moving capitals is worth the time.

 

[Acularius]

MY two points that would make Victoria series greater would be a "Trade Network". Naval Yards connect to Nodes and the Merchant Marine transports goods across all the nodes. Access to Nodes using docks or specified land provinces.

Introduce some of Hearts of Iron military system. Not the whole thing, but I would rather have the HOI military system than the EUIV one.

 

[User29]

MY two points that would make Victoria series greater would be a "Trade Network". Naval Yards connect to Nodes and the Merchant Marine transports goods across all the nodes. Access to Nodes using docks or specified land provinces.

Introduce some of Hearts of Iron military system. Not the whole thing, but I would rather have the HOI military system than the EUIV one.

More trade and simplified HoI military, sounds good, I think stuff from March of Eagles would be good too.

 

[Orinsul]

The new HoI-IV military commands system would work with the EU type armies to get rid of the tedium of wars. Then you'd get to stick with the simplified, consolidated armies but still get streamlined out of the crazy micromanagement of paradox wars.

 

[Sarius1997]

Moving capital doesn't make a ton of sense for this time period, outside of Africa(which in Vanilla is like what, 2-3 countries? ) Nobody moved their capital except Italy moving it to Rome, I don't think moving capitals is worth the time.

Don´t forget Russia. But, apart from that you´re right.

 

[User29]

Don´t forget Russia. But, apart from that you´re right.

Ah of course. And Turkey, but all 3 of these have decisions already in game

 

[Jokolytic]

More comprehensive governments that don't need to be reliant upon revolutions. For example, a monarchy that can adopt Fascist government mechanics without revolution for a Duce. Also, anarchist governments and irreligious populations.

 

[Kingpoleon]

Moving capital doesn't make a ton of sense for this time period, outside of Africa(which in Vanilla is like what, 2-3 countries? ) Nobody moved their capital except Italy moving it to Rome, I don't think moving capitals is worth the time.

Canada moved it's capital during the 1850's, America about fifty years before game start, Australia during the 19th century, British India in 1911, and etc. source: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/Capital-City-Relocation.htm

 

[Simoleum]

Canada moved it's capital during the 1850's, America about fifty years before game start, Australia during the 19th century, British India in 1911, and etc. source: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/Capital-City-Relocation.htm

Also you might want to move it if your game evolves that way. I dont want a capital bordering another country, for example, and I'm sure the AI wouldn't either lol (if programmed)

 

[xBasilisk]

They should add in a system (called maybe territorial desire) that makes nations want territory with valuable resources or large amounts of accepted or primary POPs. If a nation takes territory they have enough territorial desire for, they get free cores. A special NF can be used to increase territorial desire for bordering regions/provinces, while another can be used to force non-accepted POPs to move to a nearby nation, thereby quelling the root cause of territorial desire.

Revolts could also get territorial desire as well, meaning that nationalists will spawn more often in regions considered their most desired areas. Nations with high amounts of territorial desire from rebels look bad on a global scale and gain mild infamy through occasional events. On the flipside nations with low territorial desire from nationalists have lower infamy gain and faster assimilation.

Some historical examples of things fitting the description of territorial desire are America's Manifest Destiny and the Russian lust to defend Christendom in the Ottoman Empire's lands.

 

[User29]

Canada moved it's capital during the 1850's, America about fifty years before game start, Australia during the 19th century, British India in 1911, and etc. source: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/Capital-City-Relocation.htm

Canada didn't exist in the way our game map would call it a country(yet) America is pre-game timeframe.

Australia moved it a single province over and in the last 10 years of the game, plus it isn't a commonly played nation, I think it's okay to skip that one and leave it to mods.

India has a decision to move capital(but I wouldn't swear that it's in Vanilla, but I'm still pretty sure!)

Anymore? So far Australia is the only one I can't definitively explain away but I mean really, one province over(in the game anyways) It really isn't a big deal.

 

[Simoleum]

xBasilisk's post made me remember something I've thought about before:
There should be not only the normal cores, but possibily "historical cores". Say countries that can lay claim to a piece of land they or a predecessor nation owned hundreds of years ago. This should be like 6-8 infamy (half of aquiring a non-core area) as it gives a more valid reason for a casus-belli than other stuff. I don't know if it's feasible or smart though lol.

 

[MrTrt]

xBasilisk's post made me remember something I've thought about before:
There should be not only the normal cores, but possibily "historical cores". Say countries that can lay claim to a piece of land they or a predecessor nation owned hundreds of years ago. This should be like 6-8 infamy (half of aquiring a non-core area) as it gives a more valid reason for a casus-belli than other stuff. I don't know if it's feasible or smart though lol.

I think the game should make a difference between 'cores' and 'claims'. Argentina may have a 'claim' in the Falklands but it's in no way a core. The Manifest Destiny or the Ostend Manifesto should give claims, not cores. Morocco should have a claim on Melilla, but again in no way you can consider it to be a core, and I could carry on listing all the day. Essentially it would work the same way as your 'historical cores'. Also, a country for example could remove their claims on a territory (for example, when seeking for alliances) while cores can never be removed.

 

[sealy300]

xBasilisk's post made me remember something I've thought about before:
There should be not only the normal cores, but possibily "historical cores". Say countries that can lay claim to a piece of land they or a predecessor nation owned hundreds of years ago. This should be like 6-8 infamy (half of aquiring a non-core area) as it gives a more valid reason for a casus-belli than other stuff. I don't know if it's feasible or smart though lol.

Well historically speaking, it makes perfect sense, even countries today use such a CB....

I also think a "greater Countries" System should be implemented, after the first Great War or a certain tech, nation states (Not Land Based Empires) should claim their "Natural Territory" for Example: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan. It would require the extreme parties, for example Fascist, Maybe Communist, Nationalist/Reactionary (IMO they are both the same IG), and claim a culturally similar area, for example:
France; would Claim (COnsidering they have all of TODAY's Territory) Wallonia, French Switzerland and Sardina & THe French Minority in Northern Italy (Excluding Savoie).
Germany: well, we all know that one.
Netherlands: Belgium, Picardie & the Pas de Calais, and the Bakker-Schut Plan.
UK: I have having issues with this one, if Ireland is independent, then that, however a United UK has little to claim, one could argue The Eastern Coast of the USA, although that is tenuis.
The United States of America: Basically Monroe Doctrine, with annex Canada, Although Personally I would add decision to Accept the Quebecois and the "British" Canadians.
Greece: Byzantium
Spain: And Iberian Dream would be the main aim for Fascists in Spain, although Franco didn't really do much to even attempt that goal, so it is maybe not that likely.
Russia: If the Empire has fallen, Retaking Ukraine, Belarus and the rest of the Empire is likely, and that is actually what the Soviets did.
Others would need fleshing out.

FInally, my last would be having differences in political dictatorships, Even in Nazi Germany, not everyone in the Reichstag, or Hitler's council was a full blown Fascist, some of then were Reactionaries, devoted to Germany (See General Von Stauffenberg), and in the Kremlin, we see the same dynamics, totalitarians Vs. Reformists, Having such differences in such a dictatorship, modeling this would be the issue, since the populus aren't normally voting for their representatives, it is hard to say who would be Fascist or who would be Reactionary. Also the Term Fascist doesn't Automatically imply Nazis or Mussolini's Blackshirts, I think that reactionary and revolutionary fascists should have different parties, as well different dictatorship governments, with Revolutionaries having only the "Leader" as Head of Everything, and reactionaries having a monarch, which would be an issue for a dictator, since monarchs can time-to-time disagree with the "Leader", possible leading to a revolution against your Fascist state.

Also, coups, 'nuff said.

 

[Simoleum]

Well historically speaking, it makes perfect sense, even countries today use such a CB....

I also think a "greater Countries" System should be implemented, after the first Great War or a certain tech, nation states (Not Land Based Empires) should claim their "Natural Territory" for Example: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan. It would require the extreme parties, for example Fascist, Maybe Communist, Nationalist/Reactionary (IMO they are both the same IG), and claim a culturally similar area, for example:
France; would Claim (COnsidering they have all of TODAY's Territory) Wallonia, French Switzerland and Sardina & THe French Minority in Northern Italy (Excluding Savoie).
Germany: well, we all know that one.
Netherlands: Belgium, Picardie & the Pas de Calais, and the Bakker-Schut Plan.
UK: I have having issues with this one, if Ireland is independent, then that, however a United UK has little to claim, one could argue The Eastern Coast of the USA, although that is tenuis.
The United States of America: Basically Monroe Doctrine, with annex Canada, Although Personally I would add decision to Accept the Quebecois and the "British" Canadians.
Greece: Byzantium
Spain: And Iberian Dream would be the main aim for Fascists in Spain, although Franco didn't really do much to even attempt that goal, so it is maybe not that likely.
Russia: If the Empire has fallen, Retaking Ukraine, Belarus and the rest of the Empire is likely, and that is actually what the Soviets did.
Others would need fleshing out.

FInally, my last would be having differences in political dictatorships, Even in Nazi Germany, not everyone in the Reichstag, or Hitler's council was a full blown Fascist, some of then were Reactionaries, devoted to Germany (See General Von Stauffenberg), and in the Kremlin, we see the same dynamics, totalitarians Vs. Reformists, Having such differences in such a dictatorship, modeling this would be the issue, since the populus aren't normally voting for their representatives, it is hard to say who would be Fascist or who would be Reactionary. Also the Term Fascist doesn't Automatically imply Nazis or Mussolini's Blackshirts, I think that reactionary and revolutionary fascists should have different parties, as well different dictatorship governments, with Revolutionaries having only the "Leader" as Head of Everything, and reactionaries having a monarch, which would be an issue for a dictator, since monarchs can time-to-time disagree with the "Leader", possible leading to a revolution against your Fascist state.

Also, coups, 'nuff said.

lol glad it made sense!

Also I think that liberating countries should be a lot less infamy after for example nationalism and imperialism or something, or for countries with freedom/democracy as a national order. At least more prestige for countries with freedom as national order.

 

[CaptRobau]

I don't how other might feel, but I always felt that in Victoria the European/Great Power wars could use some limitation. While the Concert of Europe soon lost its power, there was a tenuous balance of power. It was unthinkable for Russia to invade the UK for Southwest England in the 19th century. While the AI almost never does such strange conquests anymore, it's still possible for a human player to wage that war with little to no opposition (as long as one doesn't do it too often, which would increase the infamy too high). As far as I know 19th century, all wars in Europe where land was exchanged were fought over cores/claims. The GPs only conquested in Africa and Asia. It wasn't an era of constant inter-GP conflicts, but about beating up smaller neighbors on which you have cores (Italian unification and the Papal States) or beat up less civilized countries to create a colonial empire (Scramble for Africa). For the situations where this was different there is the Crisis/Great War system.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Please add heads of state/government and diplomats who are actual characters. It would work just like Hearts of Iron, and if necessary, heads of state can always be imaginary figures. I want to see a President Clement Vallandigham for 1860 Southern Democrats in the US, or Prince von Metternich defusing crises with his -20% tensions bonus (or something).

 

[Orinsul]

Please add heads of state/government and diplomats who are actual characters. It would work just like Hearts of Iron, and if necessary, heads of state can always be imaginary figures. I want to see a President Clement Vallandigham for 1860 Southern Democrats in the US, or Prince von Metternich defusing crises with his -20% tensions bonus (or something).

V2 already has the solution in it's generals for how to combine historical and dynamic/random. No need to look to other games for the example.

I feel the primary purpose of them should be in effecting elections though rather than national effectiveness, but diplomacy would also make sense.