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.
Currently playing an unciv, and not a speck of Cattle, Fish, or Fruit gets past China, not that much is even available to them after every civilized country takes all they want. 20 years into the campaign, none of my pops can even meet their basic needs for lack of those products. The world market desperately needs an overhaul.
Worse, in all of SE Asia and China, there are only one or two provinces with fish, none with cattle, and only a few with fruit. Europe gets it first, despite lack of sufficient shipping capacity to deplete entire economies during that historical timeframe. In the early stages of the game, it should probably be more difficult to get stuff onto the world market to get cash than to keep at least a pittance of what your own country produces.
Worse, in all of SE Asia and China, there are only one or two provinces with fish, none with cattle, and only a few with fruit. Europe gets it first, despite lack of sufficient shipping capacity to deplete entire economies during that historical timeframe. In the early stages of the game, it should probably be more difficult to get stuff onto the world market to get cash than to keep at least a pittance of what your own country produces.
The recent discussion about the upper house and elections reminded me of one thing I desperately desire in Vicky 3: Different governmental structures for different nations. The USA, Great Britain and the Chinese Empire all had different governments, and should have different mechanics to reflect that.
- 3
no clue if someone has proposed this but my idea is that transporting goods should have a transporting cost. so that people pay a bit to have transport your goods from other places which depends on how far is it, how good infastructure and tech you have. which would make so that you can just transport stuff from other side of the world for literally no cost.
- 1
It's been discussed, but not recently. I agree that transport should affect price, but tracking individual buyers and sellers for every product would likely be difficult. In my opinion, transport of goods should initially be limited, and expand as your economy, ports, and international connections grow. The early-game problem would be getting your goods ONTO the world market, to get cash. The mid-game problem would be trying to keep enough of the product OFF the market to meet domestic needs. The cost of transport to the closest market could be borne by the seller by reducing the money actually received, and the cost to bring it from the nearest market that has a source, to your country, could be included in the price to the buyer.
- 2
my idea for solving this issue would be a new middle class pop called "shopkeepers" or so, they'd buy the goods from the local artisans/capitalists/aristocrats and people buy their goods from them, shopkeepers would also buy needed goods from other shopkeepers in other regions at the normal price + an additional cost inversely proportional with infrastructure percentage (port level give a bonus, however if your port is blockaded though then your shopkeepers can't buy goods from overseas anymore) + some tarrifs if it's from another country if the country has some
Bonus points if the shopkeepers hold a small amount of inventory from day to day, so goods don't magically vanish if not sold instantly.
good idea: it could be tied in the stockpile system where the government pays them to hold a certain number of military gear for the soldiers stationed locally providing some sort of passive income
A new minor suggestion about warfare from me.
Coastal Batteries
This is an idea I got from several wars of the period, and concerning a feature of war that could be pretty important: Coastal batteries.
The idea here is that its either a building, like a fort, or a defensive unit that can be created and simply engage ships that comes near in combat and do damage on them to protect either coastlines or ports from attacks from the sea. OR that fortresses by the sea would have a function to fight it out with enemy ships coming to them. Like I think that Fort Sumpter, unless I'm mistaken, for example was built to protect a harbor from attacks from the sea.
Many cities with ports had these during the period and personally I would find it a good defensive solution as well as a interesting challenge if ports were so defended.
Coastal Batteries
This is an idea I got from several wars of the period, and concerning a feature of war that could be pretty important: Coastal batteries.
The idea here is that its either a building, like a fort, or a defensive unit that can be created and simply engage ships that comes near in combat and do damage on them to protect either coastlines or ports from attacks from the sea. OR that fortresses by the sea would have a function to fight it out with enemy ships coming to them. Like I think that Fort Sumpter, unless I'm mistaken, for example was built to protect a harbor from attacks from the sea.
Many cities with ports had these during the period and personally I would find it a good defensive solution as well as a interesting challenge if ports were so defended.
- 2
The remains of numerous examples of 19th Century coastal forts and coastal batteries still remain, including the battery guarding NY City's harbor. HOI3 has AA batteries which operate similarly, but against aircraft instead of ships.
- 3
I'd suggest a overhaul of the colonisation system, as currently its either too easy for great and secondary powers to colonise (especially for nations like the UK, France, Denmark and Germany that start with footholds in Africa or can easily take away another nations foothold early on (such as Germany vs Denmark)) or it gets too difficult as nations run out of colonisation points (which happened to me in a UK run, losing out in Africa due to my points being tied up in Canada). It also means that smaller nations that historically did colonise a small amount (such as Liberia and Ethiopia) lose out as they're not secondary powers and are stuck with their tiny slither of land.
One part to help solve this could be the addition of more nations (especially in Africa) to take up more of the colonising land, which some mods already do. There are stack loads of nations or groups that nations rose out of during the time period:
I'd also probably push for great powers to seek to sphere these smaller nations in the early game, offering economic and political advantages to sphering over conquest and colonisation. This would change as the game progressed (possibly through political and social advancements) which would then make annexing or conquering sphered nations more acceptable, with possibly crises as nations squabble of exact colonial boarders. The question is though how do you build a system to annex a sphered nation without it being overpowered or sending a message of "these nations just accepted being colonised", which just didn't happen. This could tie into a system to examine or meddle with the internal politics of a sphered nation, to represent the political skulduggery that came with the influence of Great powers, as well as annexed protectorates still having their original government or a local government as a form of indirect rule, offering some benefits (reduced unrest vs directly ruled states, better production in factories and farms by better relations with native populations) but offering drawbacks as well (e.g. difficulty enforcing certain rules in indirectly ruled areas).
Then, of course, would be how the emergence of nationalism and other events spawned independence movements, which would probably start turning up in the late game (1890-1936) and I would like a system that is more than just a rebel group. A system specifically for independence movements could be interesting and viable as separate from rebels or pressure groups for laws, as that period also saw European independence movements gain more steam in areas like the Balkans, Central Europe and Ireland, although I'm not sure how such a system would work or be enjoyable to interact with for the player. Then there's the issue of how nations that didn't exist at the game seeking independence, with India probably being the obvious example, and that should said countries get independence how they don't just explode into the smaller nations that came before (namely the princely states in India). A system for pan-nationalism could help solve this, although this could bring its own problems.
One part to help solve this could be the addition of more nations (especially in Africa) to take up more of the colonising land, which some mods already do. There are stack loads of nations or groups that nations rose out of during the time period:
I'd also probably push for great powers to seek to sphere these smaller nations in the early game, offering economic and political advantages to sphering over conquest and colonisation. This would change as the game progressed (possibly through political and social advancements) which would then make annexing or conquering sphered nations more acceptable, with possibly crises as nations squabble of exact colonial boarders. The question is though how do you build a system to annex a sphered nation without it being overpowered or sending a message of "these nations just accepted being colonised", which just didn't happen. This could tie into a system to examine or meddle with the internal politics of a sphered nation, to represent the political skulduggery that came with the influence of Great powers, as well as annexed protectorates still having their original government or a local government as a form of indirect rule, offering some benefits (reduced unrest vs directly ruled states, better production in factories and farms by better relations with native populations) but offering drawbacks as well (e.g. difficulty enforcing certain rules in indirectly ruled areas).
Then, of course, would be how the emergence of nationalism and other events spawned independence movements, which would probably start turning up in the late game (1890-1936) and I would like a system that is more than just a rebel group. A system specifically for independence movements could be interesting and viable as separate from rebels or pressure groups for laws, as that period also saw European independence movements gain more steam in areas like the Balkans, Central Europe and Ireland, although I'm not sure how such a system would work or be enjoyable to interact with for the player. Then there's the issue of how nations that didn't exist at the game seeking independence, with India probably being the obvious example, and that should said countries get independence how they don't just explode into the smaller nations that came before (namely the princely states in India). A system for pan-nationalism could help solve this, although this could bring its own problems.
- 5
@Luckierexpert
I like your ideas. Colonization is a complex historical phenomenon since it often wasn't the result of a central government deciding to expand it's borders. Often colonial companies or individuals moved the border forward, like in India (East India Company), Canada (Hudson Bay Company), the United States (private migration, local land deals, gold rush or the Hawaiian coup) and even East Africa (German East Africa Company).
It was more often seen as a business venture or a religious/humanistic (abolitionism) effort instead of a simple conquest.
Ruling whole continents shouldn't be easy either. Conquering divided tribes or setting local petty kings against each other can pave the way for a colonial empire. Keeping such an empire together is much more difficult and we've seen in the 20th century. In some cases the homeland might be against the colonial effort (see King Leopold's private Congo colony).
I do agree that some mechanic to annex 'uncivilized' spherelings could work. It could be an event or decision, like the Doctrine of Lapse. A diplomatic action would be better (as explained below).
As for resistance to colonial rule, I see a large role for the Great Powers. Communists or Asian powerhouses might try to liberate colonies by supporting rebels or invading outright. Without outside help or true nationalism, rebellions will likely be localized and fail. For example, the in Sepoy Rebellion several Indian states supported the British against other Indian states. I suppose this is already represented by the independence movements for the original Indian states.
I like your ideas. Colonization is a complex historical phenomenon since it often wasn't the result of a central government deciding to expand it's borders. Often colonial companies or individuals moved the border forward, like in India (East India Company), Canada (Hudson Bay Company), the United States (private migration, local land deals, gold rush or the Hawaiian coup) and even East Africa (German East Africa Company).
It was more often seen as a business venture or a religious/humanistic (abolitionism) effort instead of a simple conquest.
Ruling whole continents shouldn't be easy either. Conquering divided tribes or setting local petty kings against each other can pave the way for a colonial empire. Keeping such an empire together is much more difficult and we've seen in the 20th century. In some cases the homeland might be against the colonial effort (see King Leopold's private Congo colony).
I do agree that some mechanic to annex 'uncivilized' spherelings could work. It could be an event or decision, like the Doctrine of Lapse. A diplomatic action would be better (as explained below).
As for resistance to colonial rule, I see a large role for the Great Powers. Communists or Asian powerhouses might try to liberate colonies by supporting rebels or invading outright. Without outside help or true nationalism, rebellions will likely be localized and fail. For example, the in Sepoy Rebellion several Indian states supported the British against other Indian states. I suppose this is already represented by the independence movements for the original Indian states.
Last edited:
- 4
I'd think it would be better as a a mechanic built into the sphering system rather than events and decisions, as the events for annexing the Indian princes in Victoria II are a bit dodgy and its not clear what you have to do to get it done, and I'd be worried that decisions could take up so much room, especially if you have a lot of un-westernised nations in your sphere. EU4 does use diplomatic options with vassals but this has the same issues of player interest and message as I mentioned before. Of course a custom mechanic could have the same problems, so it would be dependent on how it's designed.
I agree with great powers and local powers undermining colonial rule by supporting resistance or independence movements, especially with Japan or a westernised China. Could be a system secondary powers use in place of sphering, allowing for some means of influence without being a great power while also offering a path to undermine great powers or opposing secondary powers (such as the Netherlands and Ottomans, with they colonial and conquered empires). This could also make playing secondary powers more interesting and assist in "tall" playstyles.
Possibly one idea to handle the shift from localised independence movements to pan-national ones (such as the Indian National Congress, the various groups within Austro-Hungary and Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam and others) would be to possibly implement something similar to EU4's institutions, allowing for ideas to spread to states either naturally or through a nations embracing them. For this example, say nationalism is one such spreadable idea giving bonuses to nations that embrace it, like infamy free cases belli's and lower unrest in core pops, with the idea's spreading to core populations quickly but spreading slower to non-core pops slower, possibly also being slower if they are in a colonial sate. If is spawns around 1850, a similar time that it can be research in Victoria 2, the UK may embrace it around a similar time, with a slow drip to their colonies, possibly faster in some more than others. As the states in a colony adopt the idea, they flip from supporting a local state (such as an annexed princely state in India), to supporting a unified nation (India in this example).
- 1
Tbh, this is something that I think could be substantially improved. There is no difference between the form of goverment of Japan, China, Persia an Indian princely minor and some of the African countries. China had strong regional goverment and an overarching state that could put a million men in the field at the start of the period, whilst most African countries lacked developed bureaucracy. There is also a substantial difference among even African state. Sokoto shouldn't just be a bigger blob than Benin and Zulu could have its relatively impressive military better modelled - I'd love to see a path for west African unity, or for a supercharged Zulu conquest of the South. That aside, we do defo need better models for national governments.
- 1
Nice suggestion for the diplomatic actions. I updated the post.
As for the independence movements, if we take a look at the British empire, you can see a real change in the movement before let's say 1900 and after that. This is partially because other colonies got some form of independence, but also because the colony contributed a lot during the world wars and gained next to nothing in return (no spoils of war). The locals hoped supporting the empire would lead to them being rewarded with independence. Perhaps Victoria 3 can take inspiration from hoi4's puppet mechanics when it comes to war.
If you look at the Dutch East Indies or Algeria, you can clearly see that the educated locals realize that the west is not all powerful and start to plot rebellions. I suppose education should thus be a factor for a unified independence movement.
Another factor to consider, which we can clearly see in the USA is that if you are a liberal country with equality for all European males, the other groups will want that too. You can also see it in the Indian example, as British dominated colonies got some form of self rule. This resulted in India and Egypt feeling slighted and also demanding self-rule. From what I understand this was much less of a factor in Russian colonies as it was an absolute monarchy. So liberal governments should expect a more unified independence movement from the colonies compared to authoritarian regimes.
I hope this way we can model it more realistically than simply EU4 institutions.
- 1
- 1
My solution is this: A tiered market system.
It would go, from (smallest to largest) Province -> to Small Region -> to Large Region -> to Global Market. There would also be two kinds of trade: Internal Trade and International Trade.
Provinces with trade with each other within a small region then the small region would then trade within the large region and then the large region would trade within the global market.
The scale at which you can trade would be limited first by your nation's geopolitical rank. Great Powers can potentially trade globally, secondary powers, civilized and uncivilized nations can only trade regionally. However, if a great power wants to trade globally they actually have to work for it, meaning having bases within range of a given region or having basing rights with a nation in that region. Also if you want to trade with a nation you need a trade agreement with said nation, which might have to be enforced through war.
Also, just because you can't trade in a region doesn't mean your country's goods won't make it there. That's where indirect trade comes in. Let's say a Canadian region (British Empire) buys up some American goods, those goods can now be traded in regions that the British have access to, meaning France, which doesn't directly trade with the US (no trade agreement) can buy American goods from the British. However, direct trade has priority so if the Americans sign a trade agreement with the French the French will prefer to buy directly from the Americans for American goods.
This means trade would no longer be automatic at a global level. However, internal trade is mostly automatic and holds priority over international trade, unless global goods are cheaper than local goods. Example: If Egyptian cotton is cheaper than Southern cotton then Northern textiles will buy their cotton from Egypt rather than the South.
This dovetails nicely into another topic semi related to trade: Provincial and small region policy support. Different provinces and regions will support various policy issues. For instance the agricultural American South in the above example would support higher tariffs, whereas the North would support lower tariffs. This is of course dynamic and if the American South becomes more industrialized and slavery outlawed they will likely change their tune on tariffs.
Also, tariffs are now targeted at regions and great power nations. Each new tariff passed creates a new tariff slider for that country/region.
Honestly, you probably don't really need to worry too much about this one. Paradox in recent games has shown an interest in fleshing out individual regions and (important) nations in their flavor packs, so this is likely to be done. But otherwise, agreed.
- 5
hey! I'd forgotten about this old thread. Reading the first post I want to update my thoughts
1 - I don't know what I was on about national focuses, ignore that.
2 - The new CK3/Imperator engine seems a way better candidate for the game than the EU4 engine.
3 - I encourage the devs to take a look at Factorio and Satisfactory. No, building a game like that is not ideal, but rather, taking some ideas *from* those games on "how to build up industry" might be a good guide to helping the Vicky 3 economy system be more easily understood
4 - I very much want way more politics. More intrigue. More interaction. I know that it is a 100+ hour commitment, but I strongly suggest the devs listen to the entire run of "Revolutions" podcast. A game that starts in 1753 and ends in 1936 would cover all but one of the revolutions covered in the podcast.
1 - I don't know what I was on about national focuses, ignore that.
2 - The new CK3/Imperator engine seems a way better candidate for the game than the EU4 engine.
3 - I encourage the devs to take a look at Factorio and Satisfactory. No, building a game like that is not ideal, but rather, taking some ideas *from* those games on "how to build up industry" might be a good guide to helping the Vicky 3 economy system be more easily understood
4 - I very much want way more politics. More intrigue. More interaction. I know that it is a 100+ hour commitment, but I strongly suggest the devs listen to the entire run of "Revolutions" podcast. A game that starts in 1753 and ends in 1936 would cover all but one of the revolutions covered in the podcast.
- 3
I think age and sex demographics would add a lot to the mechanics, so pops have different age bands and have a chance to promote to be older depending on the age range or die depending on medical technology and crime rates and such.
For example soldiers are going to be mainly young men, so if thousands die in battles in a war then it's going to mess up the working age population and birth rates, you might have to implement programs to train women to work in factories, or allow polygamy and encourage large families, or attract young male immigrants with sponsorships and business grants (perhaps from colonies, or the ability to open borders to certain countries and change visa requirements, maybe alliances and relations affect it as well) which is going to change the race and culture makeup of a nation.
Younger people could have their literacy rates influenced a lot more since they will be the ones in school, so if you all of a sudden spend a lot on education then you'll get a young generation with high literacy that will make a good workforce once they age, and your previously uneducated populous dies off over time, and laws on years of schooling will change at what age a pop starts becoming productive and going in to jobs and will also make education cost more.
Older people might make better teachers and business people, or just earn more money since they will have been promoted in their jobs. Having a large retired population is going to weigh down the economy with social security spending and little income contributions, so maybe you change the retirement age or don't support them at all and leave them with just their own savings, but maybe life expectancy will have an effect on your prestige, or it will spur emigration to countries with paths to citizenship and better state retirement.
There's loads more stuff that could be implemented like child mortality depending on vaccinations and generational divides in political views etc. Would be really cool to see in Vic3, or maybe I'll try to mod it in!
For example soldiers are going to be mainly young men, so if thousands die in battles in a war then it's going to mess up the working age population and birth rates, you might have to implement programs to train women to work in factories, or allow polygamy and encourage large families, or attract young male immigrants with sponsorships and business grants (perhaps from colonies, or the ability to open borders to certain countries and change visa requirements, maybe alliances and relations affect it as well) which is going to change the race and culture makeup of a nation.
Younger people could have their literacy rates influenced a lot more since they will be the ones in school, so if you all of a sudden spend a lot on education then you'll get a young generation with high literacy that will make a good workforce once they age, and your previously uneducated populous dies off over time, and laws on years of schooling will change at what age a pop starts becoming productive and going in to jobs and will also make education cost more.
Older people might make better teachers and business people, or just earn more money since they will have been promoted in their jobs. Having a large retired population is going to weigh down the economy with social security spending and little income contributions, so maybe you change the retirement age or don't support them at all and leave them with just their own savings, but maybe life expectancy will have an effect on your prestige, or it will spur emigration to countries with paths to citizenship and better state retirement.
There's loads more stuff that could be implemented like child mortality depending on vaccinations and generational divides in political views etc. Would be really cool to see in Vic3, or maybe I'll try to mod it in!
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
I don't know about that, I think it would overly complicate a very straightforward and well-done system in my opinion. The population in Vic 2 is already divided into recruitable males and overall population. I can see how such a system would add further depth to the social policies though. The generational divide would be a bit arbitrary if implemented, unless it worked in a somewhat dynamic fashion (liberal government does really well in 1859 to 1864, older voters in 1888 vote mostly liberal due to that good governance etc).
Last edited:
- 3
Yeah. People would probably need a Cray to run the game.
- 1