• 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've been thinking about some things that might make Vicky 3 more interesting but never thought about sharing it anywhere until today's retrospection that touched on one of them. I don't know if anyone would be interested in them, but here they are (or at least the two ones I remembered - I should've written them down back when I thought of them):


POP Leaders

A population leader for each POP on a province level, with all POPs of a certain type, ethnicity, religion, also voting to elect a national representative. This could also be divided by the resource produced e.g. a representative of all coal miners in the country etc.

This would allow you, as a government, to negotiate with POP leaders and try and sway them on certain issues. It would also make their demands on a province and national level more clear.

The leaders themselves could have their own stats, like influence, determining just how much sway they hold over their community. This, in turn, would help make sure they are not all-powerful in determining the opinion of the whole POP. Let’s say this stat goes from 1 to 100 determining the percentage of the population that follows his lead.

This could help better simulate communication with natives and also, in some point, represent the emancipation of slaves and women. You could also use those POP leaders as ministers, increasing their loyalty, possibly at the expense of that of other POPs.

This would introduce elements from other games like Crusader Kings (in character interaction) and Democracy (ministers as representatives of POP groups).


Resources

I remembered I had a similar idea after reading the pitch for Vicky II. Why not have (at least) two different resources produced by every province (one for labourers and one for farmers). This would be more realistic as there is hardly any province in the world that does not produce at least some amount of food.

This could also emulate the way farmers would opt for mining jobs, for example. It would also give you another thing to fiddle with in provinces – cutting farming land at the expense of mining, or cutting logging grounds at the expense of cattle farms, etc.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Making south america more enjoyable should be nice, i dont think there is a pdx game where they have any flavor, (thank god for mods though) also trying to industrialize when none of your provinces have coal or iron is a bitch, when in reality brazil and most of the andes have considerable iron reserves.
And immigration, the usa gets too much railroady bonuses by decision, and most other american nations can't keep up.

To be fair, Latin American nations never got a big industry going on, we always bought things after selling raw resources and getting money for them.

If something we need a system were we could buy advanced weapons and equipment from the Great Powers of our choice like we have always done.
 
To be fair, Latin American nations never got a big industry going on, we always bought things after selling raw resources and getting money for them.

If something we need a system were we could buy advanced weapons and equipment from the Great Powers of our choice like we have always done.

I think you are more knowledgable about this than I am. But I feel that I must ask as as to how the game can be structured so that players playing in South America can have a challange, yes, but also a possibility to do what didn't happen and turn a Latin American country into an industrial powerhouse?
 
I really don't know how to greatly improve the military system from Vic2 to Vic3, maybe put a system of more elaborate supply lines by land and by sea maybe. Maybe put some things from the march of the eagles, like the army reserve, and the battle tactics for the Victorian era. Unfortunately in the two most recent of the paradox, it has been making battles more and more like eu4. I really don't think it would be historically correct to place the HOI warfare, for most of that time there were still a lot of battles between 2 army in a more closed terrain, and no soldiers' fronts pushing the enemy's front as it is in the HOI
 
To be fair, Latin American nations never got a big industry going on, we always bought things after selling raw resources and getting money for them.
you can speak for Chile, Brazil has a robust history of producing many industrial products locally and exporting goods to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (not in the same level as Europe, USA or Japan but it's way better than how it's represented in VIc 2)
 
when in reality brazil and most of the andes have considerable iron reserves.
expanding on that, Brazil entered the Second World war on the condition that the USA would pay for a Steel mill on the northeast of Minas (a region that produces a lot of Iron) while in Vic 2 it produces Coffee (even in agricultural terms the region was known for the production of bananas, not Coffee)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
you can speak for Chile, Brazil has a robust history of producing many industrial products locally and exporting goods to Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay (not in the same level as Europe, USA or Japan but it's way better than how it's represented in VIc 2)
Brazil and Mexico are the exceptions to some extent, but the majority of Latin American countries always got their stuff from the Great Powers, even more in the XIX century.
 
I really don't know how to greatly improve the military system from Vic2 to Vic3, maybe put a system of more elaborate supply lines by land and by sea maybe. Maybe put some things from the march of the eagles, like the army reserve, and the battle tactics for the Victorian era. Unfortunately in the two most recent of the paradox, it has been making battles more and more like eu4. I really don't think it would be historically correct to place the HOI warfare, for most of that time there were still a lot of battles between 2 army in a more closed terrain, and no soldiers' fronts pushing the enemy's front as it is in the HOI

This has been discussed before to a great extent. The best version, in my opinion, was to essentially have the conditions of warfare be a transformative journey between essentially EU4 to HOI kinds of wars. Warfare in the Victorian Age saw a monumental shift and the military system will need to simulate this. Field armies should absolutley be a dead thing in 1910, or so, while fully manned frontlines should be an impossibility in 1840.
 
We shoul learn from HoIIV and EUIV in terms of wastelands. Siberia, Deserts, Africa, Australia, jungle - damn lot of our planet wer eliterally impassable for military units. And EUIV with HoIIV learned it the hard way with AI's inability to cope with pathfinding and attrition.
Yes, Victoria covers race for Africa but that does not mean it should be posible to do as HoIIV did - to make all african lands passable. That was extremely unfun to deal with and even worse for AI. Most multiplayer rules back then statedhow african 1-infrastructure provinces should be avoided just to make game session fun instead of a slog.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
To be fair, Latin American nations never got a big industry going on, we always bought things after selling raw resources and getting money for them.

If something we need a system were we could buy advanced weapons and equipment from the Great Powers of our choice like we have always done.
Apart from the fact that with enough effort they could industrialize substantially, especially in the late game due to almost all countries in south america having oil
,Argentina had a sizeable arms industry and made most of our guns in the 20th century,

I have no knowledge of the 19th century,also with the saltpeter mines in chile(most of the saltpeter in the world was made here)there could be an arms industry in that era.

A way to make south america more enjoyable would surely be trying to take in more immigrants, in the current version of the game the usa has an absolute monopoly on immigration, and it doesn't matter if they are carpet sieged every 10 years,there should be a way to take the title of the land of the free from the USA

To be fair, Latin American nations never got a big industry going on, we always bought things after selling raw resources and getting money for them.

If something we need a system were we could buy advanced weapons and equipment from the Great Powers of our choice like we have always done.
Depends,the possibility of industrializing was always there, it came to light during the world wars where The Import substitution industrialization became very popular, and there were fledgling industries that were later put off by the cheap goods that came from the world powers.

expanding on that, Brazil entered the Second World war on the condition that the USA would pay for a Steel mill on the northeast of Minas (a region that produces a lot of Iron) while in Vic 2 it produces Coffee (even in agricultural terms the region was known for the production of bananas, not Coffee)
Also Oil, there isnt any oil RGOs in Brazil when it is one of the largest oil producing countries in the area, also the oil Rgo in Argentina is wrongfully located
 
Last edited:
I have no knowledge of the 19th century,also with the saltpeter mines in chile(most of the saltpeter in the world was made here)there could be an arms industry in that era.

That would be too expensive for the era, imagine trying to open a computer factory with a bunch of uneducated peasants as workers and incompetent "sons of someone important and without qualifications" as bosses, it was way cheaper and effective to just buy weapons/ships from a Great Power, even today most of our countries get their "killy things" from other places.... and for a reason. (and as i said earlier, Brazil and Mexico are always the exception to this rule to some extent)
 
That would be too expensive for the era, imagine trying to open a computer factory with a bunch of uneducated peasants as workers and incompetent "sons of someone important and without qualifications" as bosses, it was way cheaper and effective to just buy weapons/ships from a Great Power, even today most of our countries get their "killy things" from other places.... and for a reason. (and as i said earlier, Brazil and Mexico are always the exception to this rule to some extent)

also buying guns was a way of diplomacy for minor powers, you're not going to just attack the guy whose buying your guns, it was also a good way to get your army modernised, "sure thing mr germany, sell us your new guns, btw can you send over a few guys so you can teach our men how to use them?"
it can also be used as a foot in the door for extra investments or to gain support for a war you're planning
setting up your own arms industry is only really handy if you wanted to set yourself up as a neutral nation free of foreign influence or if you were a GP
 
one of the problems V2 suffers from is that each country is essentially the same with some minor differences here and there but they don't seem to ever had a past history which shows them how to conduct their internal and external politics and industry
taking a bit from HOI3's strategic goals and HOI4's national ideas and then taking note of vicky's ahistorical nature I've come up with a new sort of system

national goals: bassicly there are country-specific goals some of which are unlocked at the start and most of which will unlock based on things happening in and around the country, wether or not you succeed in these goals will give bonusses or penalties and these will persist unless you decide to give up on a goal (huge prestige penalty, large increase in MIL and CON, bassicly only whenever you cannot ever succeed in such a goal)
as an example I've developed a few starting goals named: lessons of the napoleonic wars
brittain: wooden wall: have a larger fleet then the next 2 european GP's combined, against hegemony: have no european mainland GP reach a score larger then the next 2 european mainland GP's combined
france: master of europe: have the most score of any GP in europe, doctrine of offence: during a war always be on the attack and in your enemy's teritory
austria: president of the german confederation: don't lose any german land to foreign powers, also don't let the NGF or germany form, master of italy: don't let italy form and prevent other GP's from gaining influence (except for sardinia)
russia: policeman of europe: prevent any liberal revolutions in central europe
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
one of the problems V2 suffers from is that each country is essentially the same with some minor differences here and there but they don't seem to ever had a past history which shows them how to conduct their internal and external politics and industry
taking a bit from HOI3's strategic goals and HOI4's national ideas and then taking note of vicky's ahistorical nature I've come up with a new sort of system

national goals: bassicly there are country-specific goals some of which are unlocked at the start and most of which will unlock based on things happening in and around the country, wether or not you succeed in these goals will give bonusses or penalties and these will persist unless you decide to give up on a goal (huge prestige penalty, large increase in MIL and CON, bassicly only whenever you cannot ever succeed in such a goal)
as an example I've developed a few starting goals named: lessons of the napoleonic wars
brittain: wooden wall: have a larger fleet then the next 2 european GP's combined, against hegemony: have no european mainland GP reach a score larger then the next 2 european mainland GP's combined
france: master of europe: have the most score of any GP in europe, doctrine of offence: during a war always be on the attack and in your enemy's teritory
austria: president of the german confederation: don't lose any german land to foreign powers, also don't let the NGF or germany form, master of italy: don't let italy form and prevent other GP's from gaining influence (except for sardinia)
russia: policeman of europe: prevent any liberal revolutions in central europe

This sounds like a good idea but isn't this similar to the mission trees that EU4 has implemented. The missions your suggesting also seem a bit too all or nothing (e.g assuming that similar mechanics are brought over from Victoria II, the NGF will form most games, either by Prussia or from German unification rebels, which would fail the German confederation mission for Austria). Guiding missions sounds like a good idea but I'd argue they need to have smaller steps to help guide a nation, either down historical or ahistorical paths, as well as give them unique flavours (Possibly one path for Austria being to fight the Ottomans and carve out their own colonial empire in the Middle East).
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
also buying guns was a way of diplomacy for minor powers, you're not going to just attack the guy whose buying your guns, it was also a good way to get your army modernised, "sure thing mr germany, sell us your new guns, btw can you send over a few guys so you can teach our men how to use them?"
it can also be used as a foot in the door for extra investments or to gain support for a war you're planning
setting up your own arms industry is only really handy if you wanted to set yourself up as a neutral nation free of foreign influence or if you were a GP

Sounds like a good idea. Could also be useful for westernising nations, forcing you to approach a great power for importing guns and military advisers, rather than just waiting for research points.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The game needs more in general for minor and undeveloped countries to do. Historically, they often worked with a major power in order to obtain weapons, machine tools, and most importantly, expertise in certain fields of interest. In the game, all you can do is sit and wait for some GP to sphere you, and hope that there are some left over products for your army and pops to buy. It's a purely passive process, in a situation where the player should be able to initiate negotiations.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A rather long while back I wrote a pretty large post on the issue of cavalry in Victoria III. And in case that was to much I'd like to make the suggestion that in a battle a side can achieve "cavalry superiority". As I imagine it this would for the first half of the game give a significent boost to the "winner"'s cavalry and be of great value for the first half of the game before it starts to become less important, and finally almost irrelevant when aircrafts overtake cavalry as the primary source of reconnaissance on the battlefield.

Thus aircraft would also compete against cavalry when determining the bonus for cavalry superiority in a battle, or it could be styled "recon superiority" and in that case cavalry will pretty much always lose to aircraft.
 
This sounds like a good idea but isn't this similar to the mission trees that EU4 has implemented. The missions your suggesting also seem a bit too all or nothing (e.g assuming that similar mechanics are brought over from Victoria II, the NGF will form most games, either by Prussia or from German unification rebels, which would fail the German confederation mission for Austria). Guiding missions sounds like a good idea but I'd argue they need to have smaller steps to help guide a nation, either down historical or ahistorical paths, as well as give them unique flavours (Possibly one path for Austria being to fight the Ottomans and carve out their own colonial empire in the Middle East).

well yeah, some of those are supposed to fail and be abandonned (although a good player should be able to keep this from happening) and then new ones picked up, austria had to do an internal overhaul after it lost in italy and prussia formed the NGF after which it never tried to gain controll of germany again
france's master of europe is in this scenario also supposed to be abandonned after germany forms

the goal of the starting goals isn't so much to prevent the player from doing what they want but rather to make him a bit more on equal footing with the ai, sure the player should be able to abandon his goals and pick up new ones
also it's a really good way to guide the AI I think
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So I've been thinking a little about something. That is that while we have as of yet discussed, several times, how a parliament might work, we have yet to discuss how a ruling monarchy might work.

So I'm going to propose some ideas for a court system with political factions for monarchies.

Factions at Court

That is that instead of parties we have factions in the court and that instead of elections we have a system with favor meaning that how well the faction matches the traits of the monarch, the more influence they will have at court and thus a similar role to mandates in the parlament, and from that essentially be alloted a place in government. Favor will come from both how well the faction is considered by the monarch and also how well they managed to rule the country.

This should make a system that's reasonably easy to understand and also make the ruling monarch very much a person that the player should take an interest in since they will affect what faction is important or not. And that events and stuff can happen to make the monarch's traits change, of course.

And from this one can also have a hybrid versions where neither the electorate nor the monarch has all the say in who is in the government or who isn't. That could also make for an interesting mechanic in monarchic and democratic aspects co-exist and pull and push each other. It naturally runs the risk for being annoyings instead or interesting but that's probably a risk one will have to take into consideration.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So I've been thinking a little about something. That is that while we have as of yet discussed, several times, how a parliament might work, we have yet to discuss how a ruling monarchy might work.

So I'm going to propose some ideas for a court system with political factions for monarchies.

Factions at Court

That is that instead of parties we have factions in the court and that instead of elections we have a system with favor meaning that how well the faction matches the traits of the monarch, the more influence they will have at court and thus a similar role to mandates in the parlament, and from that essentially be alloted a place in government. Favor will come from both how well the faction is considered by the monarch and also how well they managed to rule the country.

This should make a system that's reasonably easy to understand and also make the ruling monarch very much a person that the player should take an interest in since they will affect what faction is important or not. And that events and stuff can happen to make the monarch's traits change, of course.

And from this one can also have a hybrid versions where neither the electorate nor the monarch has all the say in who is in the government or who isn't. That could also make for an interesting mechanic in monarchic and democratic aspects co-exist and pull and push each other. It naturally runs the risk for being annoyings instead or interesting but that's probably a risk one will have to take into consideration.

A faction system rather than parties could be nice for non-westernised nations, especially for nations like China. However, I would see such a system being very similar to the parties system, as you'd probably switch to a party based system of different government leaders upon embracing western ideas.

Your idea sounds good but I feel it would need a character system, similar to CK's, to properly be implemented. The character system could work in the wider government systems (such as for prominent politicians like Bismarck, Abraham Lincoln, Marx, Lenin, ECT) but could also just add micro management without adding more depth.

Another idea could be to implement a system that sets the number of seats in the upper or lower house of the government (650 MPs would have each seat giving 0.15% to each party they represent). Limiting a government to just an upper house and shrinking the number of seats from hundreds to just 8-10 (12.5-10% per seat) could be used to simulate a royal council. This could also add on mechanics for the monarch to appoint members of different parties (raising militancy in the faction who's seat you replaced).
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions: