Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 2 17560 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Yes, there was a Vicky1 to HOI2 converter with the Victoria: Revolutions expansion. Lots of the late game techs added in Revolutions were the early game techs in HOI2, eg Flying Circus Doctrine. So if you researched it in Vick1, you would start with it in HOI2.
 
Sarius1997 said:
Speaking of which. I´d also like either an redefinition of primary culture, or the possiblity to have more than one in a country. It´s just weird that facists and reactionaries want to treat South Germans badly in Germany.
Click to expand...
I also think that multiple primary cultures is a must, lots of countries (all union countries, for instance) would benefit from that.
 
1) Rebels should be more than generic anarchist brigades popping up every now and then in whack-a-mole fashion to be crushed until you let them take your capital. Give rebels actual armies with generals and brigades from the player's army defecting to them if their political preferences align. Make political rebels form quasi-nations with pops and infrastructure that can secede from the rest of the country and wage war (for example, Communist Russia fighting against the Russian Republic as opposed to 100k communists under anarchist flags just popping out of nowhere in random provinces in the latter...). Make foreign nations be able to recognize one or the other side as the legitimate government and intervene in the rebellion/civil war. Alternatively the game could have both; a rebellion would just have to grow big enough to turn into a full-blown civil war. Make rebellions of different ideologies fight eachother; no more fascists marching against the monarchy alongside communists, under the anarchist flag.

2) Make war goals achieveable differently. As it stands in Vicky 2 you basically have to occupy every province of the enemy nation to even have a hope to achieve the more ambitious war goals. Though if you think about it in terms of realism, if say GB was occupying 100% of the Russian Empire it wouldn't be pursuing cessation of some lousy Crimea; it would be breaking Russia apart and completely neutering it for decades to come. Make warscore automatically progress in the winning side's favor in protracted wars. Make blockades and bombardments affect the war score heavily. Don't just focus on occupation. Diplomatic pressure could also play a part, there could be a system of diplomatic backing for warring sides, the one who gets the most diplomatic support from major powers accumulates warscore faster.

3) Somehow it should be easier for lesser nations to colonize. Unless your name is GB, France or Portugal most of the time your wildest ambitions are going to be limited to racing for Tunis, Oman or Egypt and hoping to colonize a few lousy provinces from there before BRITISH AND FRENCH AFRICA covers everything. And that's while sacrificing other research for a colonization tech rush. I don't know how to achieve it, but I wish...perhaps colonization should be done on provincial level rather than state level, and have some other prerequisites rather than random research. Also since Vicky 2's shtick is colonialism anyway they could add more entertaining stuff in that sphere like colonial wars, native rebellions, perhaps tribal nations that could be sphered and manipulated against each other.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I personally would like to kill the Worldmarket with a sharp axe.

And make something a bit closer to V1, where you have more control of your resources.
 
  • 29
  • 29
  • 9
Reactions:
Johan said:
I personally would like to kill the Worldmarket with a sharp axe.

And make something a bit closer to V1, where you have more control of your resources.
Click to expand...
I think the control over the resources should depend on which economic system/policy is in place.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I dunno if going back to the more abstract V1-style economics would be wise, tbh. It was just as hard to get your head round V1's market, and even once you had it didn't make a blind bit of sense, even if it did give the player more control (after he'd spent 6 months getting to grips with how the economy worked). V2 players tend to appreciate the simulation aspect of the game a great deal, and get annoyed when the find its limits, so I'd predict an Angry Backlash from the existing fan base if the design team scaled sim elements back rather than pushing them further.

IMO, the real problems with the economy came from V2 being kind of caught half way between the newer, outright simulation style market (the parts where the POPs traded amongst themselves rather than with the Shadowy Bankers of the omnipresent, infinitely wealthy WM), and the older V1-style game market mechanics that totally distorted it (we were still stuck with ranked buying order; goldmines turned out to be totally incapable of covering the expansion of the money supply; money was essentially treated as an accumulated resource in itself). A lot of the difficulties involved in balancing the V2 WM are a result of interacting with these V1 holdovers, rather than an inherent problem with WM itself; simply replacing goldmines with a simple fractional reserve banking system and doing away with buying order completely would largely remove the major headaches. Combined with the elimination of price caps and floors and a better migration model, and it'd likely be able to find equilibrium by itself and cut back month and months of balance work.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I think, too, a return to the V1 system would unwise and would remove much of the simulation semi-realism that we love.

I agree with Nauselus that the World Market should be shared instead of working by buying order. On the other hand, I think there coud be other ways to improve the system without fractional reserve. After all, the gold-standard is characteristic of the timeframe, along with slow and consistent deflation. Removing price caps and floors, and maybe scaling better precious mineral tech with general pop growth and productivity, could work in that way.

On a side note, would it be possible for nations not to accumulate absurd ammounts of money in their coffers? Maybe the effect of needs covered by pops should be more harsh, so there would be incentive to keep the taxes and tariffs to the minimum possible. This would free a lot of money sitting in nation accounts for the economy to move on.
 
Johan said:
I personally would like to kill the Worldmarket with a sharp axe.

And make something a bit closer to V1, where you have more control of your resources.
Click to expand...


This post, of course, confirms that Vicky III is in development.

Personally, I'd like to see various innovations in the Pop Demand Mod (better colonization, more decisions and events, and the financial service and power generation 'factories') make it into Vicky III. Along with more music.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Speaking of music, would be great to have a more romantic era style music. Not necesarily Brahms or Wagner, but the orchestration and style of current music makes me feel out of time frame (while I still like it after 2 years). Current sounds more like 2nd half 20th century film soundtrack.
 
I say, if it pans out as being fun, go for it! :D
 
  • 1
Reactions:
gja102 said:
Speaking of music, I'd love that Kinks song to be licensed.
Click to expand...

I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love.
Include it as a secret bonus song that only plays for Great Britain between 1838 and 1902?

Definitely like the idea of era-specific music, too; ragtime and jazz will give you a reason to play to the end of the game! Though I do definitely also want to hear some proper pop music (POP music, haha) from Strauss in the Vicky III soundtrack - the waltzes are great, but the polkas are better.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I would like to see three kind of political reforms, linked to national values:
- Liberty Political Reforms: authoritarism <-> individual liberty
- Equality Political Reforms: Capitalism <-> Socialism (not including social reforms who have their own category).
- Order Political Reforms: Society and local governments strong authority <-> State strong authority

I'd also like if the kind of regime or the colonization would be a political issue and if structural policies effects would be moved from political parties effects to enacted reforms effects as they should. Only conjectural policies effects should be based on parties.

Anecdotally, I think that there might have a good use for one more pop, the miserable, who generate criminality and earn from criminality. They would represent the lumpenproletariat.
 
Uhg no libertarian political compass crap please
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
If the World Market is removed in favour of returning to Victoria 1's economic model, I will probably not purchase Victoria 3. It is essential to my enjoyment of the game that Victoria 3 focuses on simulation where possible.
 
Last edited:
Having State (+ sphere and colonies) / Continental / World Market might be interesting however if correctly done.
 
V1's market was an open system, while V2's is a closed system. The market had infinite money, and always bought all production. The market then held them in big stockpiles until people wanted to buy them. Pops and factories drew their raw materials from the government's own stockpiles, too.

This had a number of advantages; it essentially acted as a middle-man, which is a desirable aspect of the system (though wealthy 'merchant' pops could perform the same role if provided with a factory-like stockpile). It also meant that there was never a danger of the game running out of money (a constant problem in V2, where cash growth can never keep up with industrial expansion, causing liquidity crunches; a relatively straight-forward fractional reserve banking system can cover that, though). Money can also be used as a resource under such a system, while in V2 any money the player has on hand is automatically bad for the economy as a whole (since if it's in your pocket, it can't be spent by the population). Oh, and the whole thing is massively easier to balance and script than the V2 economy, which is so hilariously complex that any approach to balancing is largely a matter of sticking random numbers in and running the sim to see what happens (I'd guess this is largely why Johan would prefer to do away with a V2-style WM).

The downsides include that it's pretty immersion-breaking when you understand how the thing works; the market is largely incapable of boom and bust, it can't generate a depression by itself (where V2 was only too prone to doing so), and you can't exercise the same level of macro-control as V2 allowed (since V2 is a closed, zero-sum market, you can do a number of pretty awesome manipulations if you understand what you're doing; this simply cannot be done in V1's non-closed system). Also, the nature of the market meant that basically all economic systems in V1 were state capitalist in practice. Besides this, the many armchair economists who love V2 find any deviation from a 'pure' system to be marginally offensive (despite there being no agreement between us all on what a 'pure' system actually is).


Anyway, we shouldn't read too much into Johan's statement - a direct, 100% return to V1 economics would be largely impossible with most of the other elements in V2 (unemployment, automatic promo/demo etc), and I doubt he'd want to revisit it too closely anyway (I remember at least one interview where he described Vicky 1 as impossible for the player to understand and riddled with mistakes).
 
  • 5
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back