Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[adriankowaty]

That was before, so yeah, it was for free, no infame or such stuff.

At least you had to deal with uprising. And buy up local peasants to make sure, that they'll kill rebels for you .

 

[nagi0330]

Support Multi Byte please...Victoria 3

 

[Moppy771]

Rename "Boers" to "Afrikaners".

Using "Boers" is comparable to using "Frisians" when referring to "Dutch".

And make culture groups that assimilate easier within each other, while it is opposite for different groups.
As in, it's easier for a German to convert to British (example: both belonging to a "Northern European" Culture Group), than to say, Zulu (Bantu/Southern African Culture Group).

And make it possible to have more than one primary culture, I'd say max two for arguments sake. While you can add more accepted cultures if conditions are met.

Also, new culture generation: If I as the British release New Zealand as a dominion, all the primary pops (in this case "British") instantly change to "New Zealanders". It just feels odd that only Canadians are sort of represented.
Conditions for this to occur should for example be "pop is primary culture, primary pop is on another continent, primary pop is within independent dominion, primary pop is at least 3% of dominion population".
If conditions aren't met, the primary pops will remain the same culture instead of changing into a brand new one upon independence.

 

[luxfelix]

Should there be any account for having pops of another culture when that pop belongs primarily to a country you're at war with?

 

[MrTrt]

We could surely use some form of decentralization. Maybe a tier system. Unitary state-Federation-Confederation or something along those lines.

 

[Moppy771]

Rename "Boers" to "Afrikaners".

Using "Boers" is comparable to using "Frisians" when referring to "Dutch".

And make culture groups that assimilate easier within each other, while it is opposite for different groups.
As in, it's easier for a German to convert to British (example: both belonging to a "Northern European" Culture Group), than to say, Zulu (Bantu/Southern African Culture Group).

And make it possible to have more than one primary culture, I'd say max two for arguments sake. While you can add more accepted cultures if conditions are met.

Also, new culture generation: If I as the British release New Zealand as a dominion, all the primary pops (in this case "British") instantly change to "New Zealanders". It just feels odd that only Canadians are sort of represented.
Conditions for this to occur should for example be "pop is primary culture, primary pop is on another continent, primary pop is within independent dominion, primary pop is at least 3% of dominion population".
If conditions aren't met, the primary pops will remain the same culture instead of changing into a brand new one upon independence.

I also think a tier system of groups that determine how hard it is to assimilate to the lowest cultural value (in red):

European>Northern European>Scandanavian>Swedish
European>Northern European>Germanic>Low German("North German" is such a low quality label)
European>Northern European>Germanic>Dutch

In this scenario, there should be a higher chance for the Dutch pops to become Low German (both being "Germanic") than for the Swedish pops to change to Low German.

So for an African>Southern African>Bantu>Zulu it will be extremely hard to change to Low German or even impossible. (Since the percentages would stack and the sum may reach or even go beneath 0% chance of assimilation)

The reason I emphasise so much on this is because there seems to be a discrepancy between those who think "cultures" should indicate "ethnicity","race" or "language", when you have a unified French culture (no Occitan) and Swiss culture (which is technically 3 languages in one country but represented as 100% "Swiss" in-game), and when you have Flemish, but no Frisian.

A system such as this makes everything more logical.


Also remove dialect cultures that just add to the confusion like "Flemish". How can you have "Flemish" if not "Hessian" and "Frisian"? The main difference between Flemish people and Dutch people besides slight dialect is because Flemish people are primarily Catholic while Dutch are primarily Protestant.

And of course, as the groups match up, it is easier (less conditions required) to add an accepted culture.
In a game=irl context you would have a united Germany with 2 primary cultures (Upper German (South) and Low German (North).

 

[Tabris01]

Also remove dialect cultures that just add to the confusion like "Flemish". How can you have "Flemish" if not "Hessian" and "Frisian"? The main difference between Flemish people and Dutch people besides slight dialect is because Flemish people are primarily Catholic while Dutch are primarily Protestant.

And of course, as the groups match up, it is easier (less conditions required) to add an accepted culture.
In a game=irl context you would have a united Germany with 2 primary cultures (Upper German (South) and Low German (North).

THe cultures in Victoria are not about language but about nationality. I rather doubt a flemish in Belgium would see himself as dutch, but a hessian very much as german

 

[Moppy771]

THe cultures in Victoria are not about language but about nationality. I rather doubt a flemish in Belgium would see himself as dutch, but a hessian very much as german

And Germans saw themselves as South and North "nationalities"? (bigger than just "culture" and dialect) no, this was paradox trying to represent two dialects. Where is the "Austrian" nationality? Why are there Bosniaks when they did not exist in the political sense yet? (They were regarded as Muslim Serbs/Croats exclusively)

With what you said in mind, Frisians certainly see themselves as Frisians first, then Dutch. Same for Scottish saying they're Scottish. They do indeed see themselves as different "nationalities". Yet in-game they are grouped as Dutch and British.

And I never said it should represent languages. This is why this is all confusing, because it's very arbitrary and subjective.

 

[Tabris01]

And Germans saw themselves as South and North "nationalities"? (bigger than just "culture" and dialect) no, this was paradox trying to represent two dialects. Where is the "Austrian" nationality? Why are there Bosniaks when they did not exist in the political sense yet? (They were regarded as Muslim Serbs/Croats exclusively)

With what you said in mind, Frisians certainly see themselves as Frisians first, then Dutch. Same for Scottish saying they're Scottish. They do indeed see themselves as different "nationalities". Yet in-game they are grouped as Dutch and British.

And I never said it should represent languages. This is why this is all confusing, because it's very arbitrary and subjective.

If I misunderstood that part about language I'm sorry.

However, I didn't say, VicII handles the "culture" stuff perfectly

And there always was a strong divide between north and south in Germany (and which partially I still observe today) so at least until the unification it should stay that way IMHO.

 

[Moppy771]

If I misunderstood that part about language I'm sorry.

However, I didn't say, VicII handles the "culture" stuff perfectly

And there always was a strong divide between north and south in Germany (and which partially I still observe today) so at least until the unification it should stay that way IMHO.

I'm suggesting that, because this is highly confusing, instead of cherry picking who are distinctive groups, and who are not, a structured tree of groups would make this easier.

It doesn't necessarily have to be my proposal but there should be a tendency for Dutch to more easily convert to Low German than for a Spaniard to do the same.

We can argue all day about what cultures should be in the game or not, but that wasn't my main point.

 

[General WVPM]

I'd argue that the Flemish are a subculture of Dutch, just like we have 'Brabanders' (Dutch people from Brabant).
They'd have some dialect and local culture, but wouldn't be regarded as a separate group by anyone but the Dutch probably, since other cultures would think them to be Dutch.

(modern) Italians and Germans could be seen as the same, German would be the culture with many subcultures, same for Italy.
Only Italians or Germans would know about those groups and notice the differences between them.
Same for British and Australian or New Zealandish.

The outside world would just see them as British until they get their own country and we need to use a special term because Australian British would quickly turn into Australian.

 

[Moppy771]

I'd argue that the Flemish are a subculture of Dutch, just like we have 'Brabanders' (Dutch people from Brabant).
They'd have some dialect and local culture, but wouldn't be regarded as a separate group by anyone but the Dutch probably, since other cultures would think them to be Dutch.

(modern) Italians and Germans could be seen as the same, German would be the culture with many subcultures, same for Italy.
Only Italians or Germans would know about those groups and notice the differences between them.
Same for British and Australian or New Zealandish.

The outside world would just see them as British until they get their own country and we need to use a special term because Australian British would quickly turn into Australian.

I suggested dynamic culture creation for dominions if you read my previous posts.

If we go with "nationalities" then Australians/New Zealanders/Canadians/South Africans ect ect certainly qualify. They don't consider themselves "British" imo, upon independence at least.

 

[Acularius]

I suggested dynamic culture creation for dominions if you read my previous posts.

If we go with "nationalities" then Australians/New Zealanders/Canadians/South Africans ect ect certainly qualify. They don't consider themselves "British" imo, upon independence at least.

To be honest, and through national education... the mythology goes that we really didn't feel Canadian until the Battle of Vimy Ridge (Our little piece of Europe). I can't speak for the other Commonwealth countries in regards to this.

"We went up Vimy Ridge as Albertans and Nova Scotians. We came down as Canadians" -Un-identified Canadian veteran

Arguably until this point we were only united under the British Empire and the desire to confederate against the Americans... militarily, that was the point of the Canadian Rail and to do that we confederated. (There were economic and First Nations considerations as well, one of which we all agreed with and the other is something we still deal with to this day, and not very well unfortunately.)

Quebec is still rather 'meh' about the whole thing. (Granted, that's what I've learned, not what I know)

 

[Zavaleta]

Maybe this has been suggested before but it would be fun and historical to make revolutions and the birth of new ideologies dynamic.

Make the emergence of socialism and anarchism an event that gets triggered by a revolution happening in a country with a certain technology level (studied ideology tech for instance). This would simulate how the socialist parties and anarchists emerged from the experience of the 1848 revolution. The same could be done with communists at a later more advanced date, to simulate the birth of communist parties after the Russian revolution.

Also, revolutions should destabilize neighboring countries and spread just as happened in 1848, which was continental in scope and impact. Honestly, 1848 should be a partly scripted event that triggers following certain conditions, like the Protestant Reformation in EU4.

 

[General WVPM]

Maybe this has been suggested before but it would be fun and historical to make revolutions and the birth of new ideologies dynamic.

Make the emergence of socialism and anarchism an event that gets triggered by a revolution happening in a country with a certain technology level (studied ideology tech for instance). This would simulate how the socialist parties and anarchists emerged from the experience of the 1848 revolution. The same could be done with communists at a later more advanced date, to simulate the birth of communist parties after the Russian revolution.

Also, revolutions should destabilize neighboring countries and spread just as happened in 1848, which was continental in scope and impact. Honestly, 1848 should be a partly scripted event that triggers following certain conditions, like the Protestant Reformation in EU4.

I like the idea, but socialism somewhat existed before 1848, even as early as the 1820's.

I like your way of thinking though, but maybe it should be less about when an ideology is enabled and more about when people start caring.
In V2, pops are less liberal the moment socialism is enabled. This is simply because before that, they get a boost to popularity (probably to counter conservatives).

 

[Zavaleta]

I like the idea, but socialism somewhat existed before 1848, even as early as the 1820's.

I like your way of thinking though, but maybe it should be less about when an ideology is enabled and more about when people start caring.
In V2, pops are less liberal the moment socialism is enabled. This is simply because before that, they get a boost to popularity (probably to counter conservatives).

Yeah, I was thinking about the way socialism in Vic2 is tied in the favor text to the Communist Manifesto, which was a direct product of 1848. Agreed socialists should exist from the start of the game to be historical. But it would be fun if their spread and impact was dynamically tied to revolutions in the game that spread like wild fire across the map and force players to quickly adapt.

 

[TrueCroatian]

Remove 2+ million rebelions.

 

[adriankowaty]

Remove 2+ million rebelions.

And 30mln+ ones

 

[grommile]

Remove 2+ million rebelions.

Getting rebellions that big usually takes real effort.

 

[Paul93]

Only one proposal (or maybe plea): don't make vic3 a nerfed/dumbed down version of vic2.