I agree.
Two major patches should follow each DLC, rather than the Patch, DLC, Patch pattern.
It should be:
DLC/Patch, Free Balance/Feature Patch, Major Bugfix Patch, DLC/Patch...
- 3
Proposal(s) for Victoria 3
- Thread starter Pellaken
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree.
Two major patches should follow each DLC, rather than the Patch, DLC, Patch pattern.
It should be:
DLC/Patch, Free Balance/Feature Patch, Major Bugfix Patch, DLC/Patch...
Just make real addons again. One per year. And then a few patches to fix the bugs and balance.
- 5
I think the current DLC model is fine. If you made more patches between DLC then more of the free stuff in DLC patches would juts get milked out into more patches. They already make enough free content relative to the amount we have to buy. And if they only made a few expansions like back in the bad old days then the games would never get as good.
- 5
- 3
- 1
In CK2 it sucks with some Bugs and they don't even try to fix them. If we are lucky they fix it with the next DLC, but often they just accumulate them. One month before release of a DLC I never start a game because every safe game will be broken. Every 3 month they release one, so there are 2 month I can play effectively.
I miss the old times.
- 4
The Vicky 2 policy is fine. Two expansions and other DLC that are purely cosmetic. In EU4's case, they decide to put important game mechanics into DLC, causing non-DLC players to feel limited
- 3
- 1
- 1
True, though I'd argue that an 1815 start date would be the best start date.
This seems like a bad idea. For example, all of the European great powers would be defending every country in Europe whenever any war broke out in Europe.
That seems interesting. How would this work with forming Italy and Germany though?
There are just 4 major changes that I want to see. I want it to be easier for countries outside of the Americas to attract immigrants. I want to get rid of the primary culture population size limits on national foci. I want to make it so that conquering states with smaller populations gives less infamy (seriously, adding the war goal to conquer Hong Kong from Portugal shouldn't cost the same amount of infamy as conquering Sicily, Provence, Leon, New York, or other high population states). And, most importantly, there needs to be an easy guide that explains how the game works (like the Civilopedia in Civilization games). Maybe there could even be something like the advisors in Civilization games. It's just way too hard to learn how to play Vic 2 and even after playing for a while I still get surprised by mechanics that I didn't even know existed. For example, I decided to let rebels take over my country for the first time a few days ago since my militancy wasn't getting high enough to enact reforms. I didn't know that that would remove every country in the world from my sphere and cause all of my alliances to break. How could I have possibly known that? The game does nothing to explain the mechanics to players, even though it is a really complicated game, and it should.
- 2
The problem isn't the amount of content.
The issue is:
1) Major reworks that kill saves are too frequent.
2) Major problems that are relatively easily fixable in patches are left unfixed for months until the DLC comes out.
We need a dedicated fix patch between free-features patches and DLC Patches.
- 5
This. I never understood why the game goes into pre-WW2 era 35 after the Victorian age died, yet fails to cover the 15 year EU4-1836 gap (or the 20 year timeline to the Vienna Congress) which includes exciting events such as the Spanish American independence wars, Greek independence war and the subsequent Russian intervention, the Belgian revolution, as well as the dynamic stage of the industrial revolution in which countries started taking off while others fell behind.
[/QUOTE]
I concur on all of the above. I would add a system of culture groups: for example Andean and Platinean cultures should have minimum penalties if grouped in the same state (and be grouped into a Spanish culture group, for example). And I would change the way in which revolutions function. The rebels-in-the-field style of civil war should be more limited in favour of strikes/coups and governments simply being toppled akin to the 1918 German revolution.
- 1
- 1
Reading this I was thinking that if you started in 1815 you could have a Vienna congress DLC which allowed you to make custom nations and redraw the map before you started playing. So if you wanted to try out a different type of scenario you could make it yourself.
Like a meta in universe scenario editor.
- 4
- 1
Good point, perhaps each country should have ideas, where the United States may defend countries in their continent and even in South America once they unlock that, on top of that they should also have an idea that increases immigration... (though other countries in the western hemisphere as well as Australia and maybe even South Africa buth then nerfed should have that too.) That would be apart from the general immigration boost almost-empty provinces receive.
Well, for Germany I'd say get the land required; Schleswig and Alsace-Lorraine, and either be the dominant German power: at the start this is Austria, but Prussia may wrestle it away in a war (perhaps the title itself should give some boons), or conquer all of (non-Austrian) Germany by hand.
For Italy I think you either need to conquer Venice, or do it through the redshirts, or conquer all Italian states by hand.
This still leaves open countries like Gran Colombia and USCA who may not need to conquer any land to form outside those own states. For those I say become great power and the other members may then join if they wish - and you get cores on them if they refuse...
I honestly expect V3 to be announced next year - CK2 is nearing the end of its development cycle even with all the DLC so there's room for it.
Either that or Paradox just love the salty taste and nutritious flavour of Vicky fanboy tears.
My preferred features:
1) For gods sake give us a move=attack combat system so we can have something that looks like WW1. I'd be perfectly happy to have a simplified cut-paste of the HOI2 combat system.
2) Dynamic civil wars as in HOI4 instead of V2's god-awful red rebels.
3) A solution to the war-every-five-years problem. Preferably just make peace treaties permanent until broken.
Either that or Paradox just love the salty taste and nutritious flavour of Vicky fanboy tears.
My preferred features:
1) For gods sake give us a move=attack combat system so we can have something that looks like WW1. I'd be perfectly happy to have a simplified cut-paste of the HOI2 combat system.
2) Dynamic civil wars as in HOI4 instead of V2's god-awful red rebels.
3) A solution to the war-every-five-years problem. Preferably just make peace treaties permanent until broken.
- 6
- 1
1) Agreed. But I think Move = Attack should implement later in the game, around the time Great War Tech gets unlocked in Victoria II.
So, the game should start with a Civil War-like system, as Victoria II has, but then transitions to Move = Attack when Great Powers all unlock Great War tech.
2) Agreed. Actual Civil Wars and no more massive rebel armies popping up randomly in developed nation every time the King does something the peasants dislike.
3) Interesting idea.
- 2
I don't disagree that 1815 is a good start-date, but I do strongly disagree that Vicky 1 or 2 actually covers the years much after ~1895 in anything approaching a realistic or content-filled way. Simply because the base timeline ticks through the years 1895-1935 doesn't mean it covers them.
Instead the endgame of Vicky typically involves economic weirdness as you either try to deal with ferocious micro of managing a communist state or (the realistic option) let the capitalists handle it. Massive red rebel uprisings are continuous. War doesn't even nearly resemble WW1-era warfare, but you are often locked into fighting them every five years.
- 2
Yes, I tend to agree. I personally used the defines to cap the game in the 1920s, as it feels pointess, weird and outside the game scope to continue any longer.
- 1
I don't know if this idea has already been proposed but something I would really like to be in the game is a improved characterization and visualization of rulers and ministers. In Victoria II, only the Generals and Admirals have a name and a portrait, even a little pop-up when they die. I think it should really help the immersion to have a way to view his cabinet. Rulers were a big deal too during the XIXth century, more in the XXth, furthermore, Victoria is the only Paradox's Game where there is no clear ruler or advisor, there is no reasons why it shouldn't has its own. Rulers and political figures should have their own portraits and characteristic, with events like in EU4. Historical characters could appear too ( in the EU4 way ).
I would really like to see my king living through my game as it's exported from EU4 to Vicky III !
I would really like to see my king living through my game as it's exported from EU4 to Vicky III !
- 8
- 2
The ability to dynamically group provinces into states. I want to gerrymander my constituencies myself.
- 4
- 2
Hi. If I may add, I think Vicky 3 should consider the following suggestion:
I also agree with a suggestion to include corporations here, for they were clearly a prominent feature of the Industrial Revolution.
I also like the suggestion regarding the banks and sovereign states issuing bonds which banks buys.
- Expand on goods and raw materials, to further the line production. I always felt the production or supply chain is an interesting aspect of Vicky 3 and certain other games (e.g. Anno 1404, Banished, Capitalism Lab, and Factorio). Basically, a complex one where you need to take raw materials to make intermediate parts which is then taken to create finished products.
- I would suggest adding Copper, as it had extensive uses and were mysteriously left out of Vicky 2.
- Precious Metals should be split into Gold and Silver. This can also potentially allow Vicky 3 to simulate the problem of gold vs. silver as had been seen in late 19th century American history.
- Diamond could also be added but I'm not sure how that would work in Vicky 3. I know diamonds has non-jewelry application like cutting tools but I think that comes later than Vicky 2 timeframe... I could be wrong.
- Suggest that Sugarcane be added as a raw material and Sugar as a refined good. It was still important in 19th century and was somehow left out of Vicky 2.
- Salt could also be added as a new raw material for Vicky 3. It is still important for most of the Vicky 2 timeframe and I believe they are used for canned food. So it's a sort of mystery to see canned foods being produced in Vicky 2 yet no salt are found in this game.
- We know that engines are an important part of the Industrial Revolution, so I would suggest that different types of engines be made into goods to construct in factories. Specifically, steam engine and electric engine. Goods can be further expanded to include specific things needed for producing those engines. For example, I think batteries is required to produce electric engines. Batteries, then, can be added as an additional good required to build radios.
- We should also consider adding power plants in the late game era, at least after 1880s with relevant technologies researched, for generating electricity that could further boost the input/output efficiency of factories here. And we can also consider adding power lines that works like railroads in which you need to build in each provinces. If we are to go by a suggestion where cities become more important in the game as time goes by, then power lines would simply supply power to RGOs which are often located outside cities in their province.
- Another suggestion to add in telegraph lines that can be constructed like railroads in each provinces. It could be done on either province or state basis. Telegraph, no doubt, had been an extremely useful invention and I imagine it would have an impact on factories in some way, perhaps for communicating orders or something. It would also be extensively used in the militaries as the mid-19th century wars has shown. Similarly, telephone lines could be built to replace the telegraph lines.
I also agree with a suggestion to include corporations here, for they were clearly a prominent feature of the Industrial Revolution.
I also like the suggestion regarding the banks and sovereign states issuing bonds which banks buys.
- 2
- 1
I'd like to see different currencies and complex inflation/deflation mechanics and policies.
- 4
- 1
I think the idea was that political ideas, parties and movements were the main "humanizing" focus of Vicky, along with the POPs themselves of course. Thus no advisors or characters like in CK or EU. Johan also made the argument way back when that the short timespan of the game made it unnecessarily complicated to model a character system that accounts for ahistorical outcomes, like for example Britain suffering a republican revolution in 1842 only to have the monarchy restored in 1845. Who becomes the monarch? Victoria? Is she dead? What then, and so on. But this argument loses its internal consistency when you take into account that they went from pre-generated military leaders in Vicky1 to random leaders in Vicky2. Still, monarchies do need some sort of succession mechanic if you want to model kings and emperors in the game. A EUIV-like system would perhaps suffice for that, but the question then becomes what purpose does it serve? Gameplay purpose, that is.
A character system that could be both fun and serve the game without requiring an extensive succession mechanic would instead be to give leaders to political parties. Like with military leaders they would have traits giving certain bonii or malii to the party they represent. If the party becomes the ruling party the leader then becomes prime minister, if in a constitutional monarchy or president if in a republic. Traits then apply to the whole nation. This could be introduce a dynamic element both in internal and external politics, as an inept leader could make a party collapse or allies abandon your nation, while a good one could make a party rise to the top. Such a character system could tie in well with election cycles, shaking up the status quo naturally. For dictatorships this party leader would represent the dictator himself, and this system would also provide a way for dictatorships to end due to an inept leader. In non-constitutional monarchies it would work largely the same as in democracies with the exception that you can select the party manually, with the subsequent anger from the general population as usual.
- 6
I think the necessity for some type of character system becomes most obvious when you look at the impact people like Otto von Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, or even Theodore Roosevelt had on their nations. Great crises do seem to heighten the importance of individual leaders, while in times of peace mass movements and social forces take much higher precedence, and of course there's a big difference between the impact a monarch can have and the impact a leading politician can have, but it does strike me that there must be some way for all of this to be represented. Perhaps a combination of the EUIV and Hearts of Iron models of leadership could do the job?
Also, on a sidenote, I hope they start the game from 1821 instead of 1836, and that either A) they let you start at any date you want, just like Europa Universalis, or B) they provide more starting bookmarks than just the two from Vicky II.
Also, on a sidenote, I hope they start the game from 1821 instead of 1836, and that either A) they let you start at any date you want, just like Europa Universalis, or B) they provide more starting bookmarks than just the two from Vicky II.
Last edited:
- 2