Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

[Luckierexpert]

Very much so. The industrial revolution reached different parts of the world at different times and for example in my country the guilds were not abolished and a, kind of, free market and excercise of trade, until in 1864.

Not to mention that I am a little attracted to the idea that you could devise a system as opposed to take on a whole package at once.

This is a good idea, non-westernised nations would probably benefit from a separate economic system from the westernised nations, even through they both operate in the global market.

In a similar vein, I'd back other industrial buildings aside from factories, such as workshops and plantations, which can be built by both westernised and non-westernised nations, which would give the latter more to do with their economy pre-westernisation rather then just waiting for economic advancements from the westernisation process.

 

[Gurkhal]

In a similar vein, I'd back other industrial buildings aside from factories, such as workshops and plantations, which can be built by both westernised and non-westernised nations, which would give the latter more to do with their economy pre-westernisation rather then just waiting for economic advancements from the westernisation process.

This is something I totally agree with and in particular I would like there to be a bit more on the agricultural sphere of the economy. Yes, industrialization had a urban drive in it, but to my knowledge there was also many local factories producing for local markets and great improvements in the agriculture that made it need far less manpower and produce more foodstuff and so allow for an urbanization in the first place.

I know we've discussed the idea of two essentially two separate economic and pop spheres between rural and urban as well as agricultural reforms in the past. And I think that the ability to not just build factories but invest in plantations, as mentioned above, as well as ranches, drainage of swamps and clearing of forests, better breeds of cattle and so on and on. For states like UK, France etc. this might not be terribly important but for agricultural focused states, like for example Argentina, it would be both more engaging and probably helpful to be able to interact with your economy even while you don't have the resources for a great industrial nation.

***

And I wonder what could be done in regards to banking in this game? Either through reforms or some kind of interaction between the state and banks. Be it a Great Power government steering the banking sector or a smaller country dealing with said banks based in much more powerful states' capitals.

One could both see the banks lending money to governments as well as perhaps government programes with advantageous loans to farmers and small businesses to get the economy moving and modernizing.

 

[deannnkid]

It actually don't mean that. I don't mean that there would be only three systems but there are three main systems from which to implement, or not implement, aspects from. State capitalism would thus be a mixture between Capitalism and Planned with perhaps a sprinkle of Guilds within it.

The basic idea is thus that the player could customize, as Paradox seems to move in the direction of, their system as opposed to take a whole package one way or another. To my knowledge most economical systems are not theoretically pure but a mix of theory, ideology, practicality and ad-hoc solutions. This idea is meant to simulate that reality, as I understand it.

'

Very much so. The industrial revolution reached different parts of the world at different times and for example in my country the guilds were not abolished and a, kind of, free market and excercise of trade, until in 1864.

Not to mention that I am a little attracted to the idea that you could devise a system as opposed to take on a whole package at once.

I guess my issue then is the same with Victoria 2 in that it makes it seem as though a government planned economy is something different from state capitalism when in reality it is one of two forms of state capitalism as seen in the USSR.

 

[PedroLuiz]

I just wanted to say that I had a dream the other week that Vicky3 got announced.

So now my expectations are set very high.

Good thing you posted that in my birthday, so my expectations are even higher

 

[Renegade3231]

I’d like to see a custom political party designer that follows the mechanical structure of the new CK3 religion designer.

 

[10CentJimmy]

I’d like to see a custom political party designer that follows the mechanical structure of the new CK3 religion designer.

That's an interesting idea. I definitely like the idea of customization, and it would also be useful to have dynamic updates of ideology/policy.

For me, a more involved election system for the open democracies would add new flavor to the game. Some other ideas:
- Investing funds in specific parties to increase visibility beyond national focus,
- Noting historical or ahistorical politicians and personalities that pop up during the right time periods or inflection points
- party newspapers to spread information or disinformation/ propaganda

 

[Gurkhal]

I’d like to see a custom political party designer that follows the mechanical structure of the new CK3 religion designer.

This is idea has been mentioned before and the great question is, how to prevent one from creating essentially perfect parties?

 

[Zhetone]

also I don't like the idea because to me it goes against the spirit of Victoria, which is that so much of it is hands off. It works in CK3 because it's a roleplaying game, but Victoria is the paradox series which has the most elements working on their own, with very little player input.

I don't like the idea of having the player take a major role in political developments, Pops are meant to do that. Political parties should be somewhat dynamic, and that's an element that Victoria 2 could have improved upon (parties changed but in a railroaded manner) but I don't want it to be players making parties. Player influence in elections should be the same as in Victoria 2; you nudge things a little via election events and other methods, but you don't pick what happens directly.

 

[DominusNovus]

I’d like to see a custom political party designer that follows the mechanical structure of the new CK3 religion designer.

also I don't like the idea because to me it goes against the spirit of Victoria, which is that so much of it is hands off. It works in CK3 because it's a roleplaying game, but Victoria is the paradox series which has the most elements working on their own, with very little player input.

I don't like the idea of having the player take a major role in political developments, Pops are meant to do that. Political parties should be somewhat dynamic, and that's an element that Victoria 2 could have improved upon (parties changed but in a railroaded manner) but I don't want it to be players making parties. Player influence in elections should be the same as in Victoria 2; you nudge things a little via election events and other methods, but you don't pick what happens directly.

Vicky 2 could have had dynamic parties without too much work. Semi-dynamic required only the simplest of modding: allow for the historical evolution of party platforms by creating new parties with similar/same names but different issues that are created at appropriate years.

I don’t know if it would work to have the trigger for the party creation to be more dynamic than just a year, but its easy to imagine it if it would.

 

[Tomray94]

To be honest I would like to see more player interference in politics.

At the current stage it almost entirely impossible to get the extreme ideologies to power through elections and even if you manage it they still won't hold enough seats to really change anything. You have to go out of your way to engineer and min-max tiny details on various states and hope for certain events.

This is one of the main reasons why democracy is not so popular in the game. When combined with laissez-faire and free trade, it single-handedly knocks you out of any meaningful engagement with the political and economic systems, taking away half the game mechanics in the process. I love the pops-centric approach, but making electoral events affect the results more and significantly increasing the effects of the electoral laws would not change the game radically I think.

 

[Kovax]

I've had a few campaigns where the political system simply failed to allow the player to address major problems. Picture having 3+ Militancy and 2.7 Million pops in a movement for a strongly demanded Social reform, and you can't pass it. 47% of the upper house, mostly Liberal, would do it, but not 50%+. The Conservatives are down to less than 10% representation, which in itself is ridiculous. Ten years and 4 major revolts later, one with 1.75 million Jacobins which left every one of my armies reduced to hollow shells, followed by a second revolt of 450K more Jacobins while un-sieging the provinces from the first revolt, with elections in between the revolts, and I STILL couldn't pass it. Eventually, I had to force a change of government and then back again several times, whenever it became possible, just to raise Militancy enough to pass the @#$% law. Then I had all that militancy to deal with.

The political system needs an overhaul.

 

[Gurkhal]

To be honest I would like to see more player interference in politics.

At the current stage it almost entirely impossible to get the extreme ideologies to power through elections and even if you manage it they still won't hold enough seats to really change anything. You have to go out of your way to engineer and min-max tiny details on various states and hope for certain events.

This is one of the main reasons why democracy is not so popular in the game. When combined with laissez-faire and free trade, it single-handedly knocks you out of any meaningful engagement with the political and economic systems, taking away half the game mechanics in the process. I love the pops-centric approach, but making electoral events affect the results more and significantly increasing the effects of the electoral laws would not change the game radically I think.

I think it would radically change the game and do so as an improvement.

 

[General WVPM]

I think constitutional reforms require a 2/3rds majority instead of > 50%. I know some real life countries use different requirements, but 2/3rds is the norm. Perhaps in Victoria 3 it depends on the country/law?

 

[Gurkhal]

I think constitutional reforms require a 2/3rds majority instead of > 50%. I know some real life countries use different requirements, but 2/3rds is the norm. Perhaps in Victoria 3 it depends on the country/law?

True. In my country there must also be two 2/3 votes with an election between the two votes in order to prevent shenanigans. I don't know what other measures other countries have to protect their constitutions but there you have it.

 

[Zhetone]

I've had a few campaigns where the political system simply failed to allow the player to address major problems. Picture having 3+ Militancy and 2.7 Million pops in a movement for a strongly demanded Social reform, and you can't pass it. 47% of the upper house, mostly Liberal, would do it, but not 50%+. The Conservatives are down to less than 10% representation, which in itself is ridiculous. Ten years and 4 major revolts later, one with 1.75 million Jacobins which left every one of my armies reduced to hollow shells, followed by a second revolt of 450K more Jacobins while un-sieging the provinces from the first revolt, with elections in between the revolts, and I STILL couldn't pass it. Eventually, I had to force a change of government and then back again several times, whenever it became possible, just to raise Militancy enough to pass the @#$% law. Then I had all that militancy to deal with.

The political system needs an overhaul.

I think this can be fixed via other means though, for example making militancy have a higher effect on your ability to pass reforms. For some reason in Victoria 2 you only see conservatives voting for political reform for example when enough pops want a specific reform, rather than when there is militancy (or millions of jacobins grabbing weapons/revolting)

The liberal revolutions of 1848 didn't overthrow the government, they pressured governments to adopt constitutions with some rioting; they didn't "win" but the governments conceded the constitution because they didn't want it to go that far. But in Victoria 2 you can have a million jacobins outside your parliament and no one wants to pass any reforms, even in a democracy. Seems a bit weird.

In other words I would want a system to placate rebels/factions in your society rather than having the specific desire for a reform or waiting for rebels to chop your ruler's head off. This could work for patriot/nationalist rebels too if they implemented a state autonomy system or something similar where you could have regions with greater autonomy, as existed in real life, rather than the fairly boring colony/state dichotomy in Victoria 2.

Brainstorming V3 mechanics is so fun because there are so many possibilities for what the game could have, and there are so many things that were missing in Victoria 2 (though it was somehow a fantastic game regardless)

 

[agonistes]

1) I'd like to see discontent handled differently. Having the same revolts constantly gets old.

2) I fail to see why monarchies can't have reforms. Form of government shouldn't block reforms - if anything, a monarchy should be able to enact reforms more easily. But governments that have democratic leanings could have the possibility for reduced militancy, or at least less of an influential relationship between militancy and consciousness.

3) The above two points could be addressed by finding a new method for handling the nexus of reform and discontent, one with more options and a wider variety of impacts. Something more nuanced. Something with more inputs and more outputs, and more sensitive to things going on in the world, domestic and abroad.

 

[Torakka]

I just wish that Vicky 3 would have customisable message settings, like EU4 and V2 have. HoI4, Stellaris and CK3 lack that customisation and as a result I feel I need to constantly pause and scan the world in order to not miss anything important, while at the same time the notifications those games do offer tend to have "useless" ones cluttering the useful ones.

 

[Torakka]

Victoria 2 already has that. Right click on a message or press escape and go to message settings.
You can also right click a country flag to mark it as interesting, so you get more messages about them.

Yes, I know, I even listed V(ictoria)2 in the quote there. =P
However, Paradox have had a rather worrying trend in their newer games to omit customisable message settings: neither HoI4 or CK3 has them despite earlier HoIs and CKs having them.

 

[Gurkhal]

Here's an idea about how to, possibly, solve the question of Victoria III going from Napoleonic-style field armies to frontlines in warfare.

Quality officers coming from military schools

I imagine that one puzzle to this could be that without an infrastructure of a general staff school and military education facilities then there simply won't be enough generals spawned with sufficient skills and traits, and perhaps rank, to fill out a frontline with enough competence to compete. Instead you may have one or two generals with pretty good skills who can take on so many units while many of the rest, and in a small number, come in with pretty low skills to represent a very limited training and schooling for the task at hand.

When large numbers of officers can go through the education system then the number of potential generals and such that are spawned will increase together with better stats and traits to represent their education. Hence you have sufficient competent people to spread out your troops and command large numbers of troops with success and so on.

I understand that this isn't a silver bullet for the problem but perhaps something that could be part of a solution.

 

[lycurgus]

I think that you just have to look at what the historical factors were to understand the solution. Machine guns were a huge factor.

Barbed wire was perhaps an element too.

V3's game mechanics need to do no more than issue an insane bonus for defence for any divisions equipped with machine guns and on a front that has been mildly fortified.

It'd not be that hard for the very large team (surely, and yet more!) that'll put their mark on V3 to just work out if their model stacks up with history. Late C19 and early C20 is full of examples to work out how outcomes of the strong against the weak should work out.

Land combat should be 'easy' but of course very hard to balance. Sea combat can and should be shaped by the historical arms race. Air combat - pdx have never quite got it right - slightly overpower Zepplins because they're fun though.