Q&A Roundup

[Eruth]

Speaking of "Alt Formables" -- I've always been of the mind that in Paradox games, there should be an option for formables at minimum thresholds that become "custom" for a player.
Example - if the threshold is at 50x Provinces or more (or a weighted total based on pops or other power/industry metrics), that once you get beyond that threshold, you get a "Decision" to self-name an entirely new formable with a mission tree (if game calls for such) of a certain type. Think: parallel to forming Prussia, or UK, except you the player are forming something that never occurred in history, but you have achieved enough provinces/mass/power that you can make that decision yourself and potentially unlock a "custom mission tree builder" and/or preset tree(s) of various types based on your government type and/or regional location, etc.

Germany and the UK make sense as formables because there’s a definite idea there—unite all the German peoples or the entire island. Forming a random blob in southeast Europe or Western Africa doesn’t really have an idea behind it. Especially in Vic3 where tags don’t have special national spirits/mission trees and the he time period is associated strongly with nationalism, it seems bad from a thematic & gameplay perspective.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

Germany and the UK make sense as formables because there’s a definite idea there—unite all the German peoples or the entire island. Forming a random blob in southeast Europe or Western Africa doesn’t really have an idea behind it. Especially in Vic3 where tags don’t have special national spirits/mission trees and the he time period is associated strongly with nationalism, it seems bad from a thematic & gameplay perspective.

That's not accurate if one has conquered and assimilated their people. Our real-world North Africa wouldn't be the alt history North Africa if massive cultural unification and/or purges of competing cultures (and people) were conducted.

What if Joseph Stalin or Mao were a North African warlord instead, and killed off 100 million of his own people to bring alignment. You lack vision because it does not consider the awful realities of what some nations and their leaders accomplished, to achieve the capability to make such a formable entity. There is more than just geography alone, that brings alignment.

 

[Eruth]

That's not accurate if one has conquered and assimilated their people. Our real-world North Africa wouldn't be the alt history North Africa if massive cultural unification and/or purges of competing cultures (and people) were conducted.

What if Joseph Stalin or Mao were a North African warlord instead, and killed off 100 million of his own people to bring alignment. You lack vision because it does not consider the awful realities of what some nations and their leaders accomplished, to achieve the capability to make such a formable entity. There is more than just geography alone, that brings alignment.

The USSR & Communist China were built off of pre-existing countries that had formed from a unified ethnic group THEN conquered and subjugated foreign peoples who were often non-too-happy about it

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

The USSR & Communist China were built off of pre-existing countries that had formed from a unified ethnic group THEN conquered and subjugated foreign peoples who were often non-too-happy about it

And all of that, that you mentioned, could take place at many other spots on the planet, but fortunately it just wasn't a cookie cutter that many others embraced. Remember, the size of the "unified ethnic group" that is your baseline variable -- does not matter, if they're willing to purge off any competing ethnicities. Mao just happened to purge 100 million. What would a theoretical North African equivalent of Mao purge off? Basically the Social Math works like this: My People minus Everyone Else = My People in charge.

 

[Eruth]

And all of that, that you mentioned, could take place at many other spots on the planet, but fortunately it just wasn't a cookie cutter that many others embraced. Remember, the size of the "unified ethnic group" that is your baseline variable -- does not matter, if they're willing to purge off any competing ethnicities. Mao just happened to purge 100 million. What would a theoretical North African equivalent of Mao purge off? Basically the Social Math works like this: My People minus Everyone Else = My People in charge.

But that has nothing to do with being a formable. Mao didn’t conquer a bunch of places, kill the descenters, and proclaim China; China had existed for thousand of years prior to the Vic timeframe, he just revolutioned it and then killed a bunch of people.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

But that has nothing to do with being a formable. Mao didn’t conquer a bunch of places, kill the descenters, and proclaim China; China had existed for thousand of years prior to the Vic timeframe, he just revolutioned it and then killed a bunch of people.

October 1st, 1949, Mao "formed" the People's Republic of China (PRC). PRC did not exist before that day. The thousands of years of "China" and dynasties are not what the PRC formed to be.

You're smoking something. What "China" was before the PRC is analogous to England, in the progression of England-to-UK (in proportional terms of population and aligned people). It was massive. What you see on the "map of China" doesn't provide the subset details for separation of cultures and separation of powers that in fact - did exist in China. We in the West generalized what was inside that box. Entire cultures in China were slaughtered and/or assimilated into the Borg of greater China (again, more accurately labeled PRC once formed). You know that Szechuan food on the menu in (Americanized) Chinese restaurants? Szechuan was its own culture and "nation" yet doesn't exist any more. Just like many subsets no longer exist when the "formable" takes over.

My point is that if you have enough power and influence, you can take over any "box" such as "China" and form it into something like PRC. Whether you start with one single Province and later own 100+ Provinces, and do your "Mao Purge" or whatever - any/all locations on this planet could be assimilated into a Borg of a formable nation, with enough sheer power and will behind it. In the Real World, we're lucky we didn't have the Mao of North Africa, the Mao of South America, the Mao of Oceania, etc. If we did, we'd have a lot more "People's Republic of _____"

 

[Limabot]

October 1st, 1949, Mao "formed" the People's Republic of China (PRC). PRC did not exist before that day. The thousands of years of "China" and dynasties are not what the PRC formed to be.

You're smoking something. What "China" was before the PRC is analogous to England, in the progression of England-to-UK (in proportional terms of population and aligned people). It was massive. What you see on the "map of China" doesn't provide the subset details for separation of cultures and separation of powers that in fact - did exist in China. We in the West generalized what was inside that box. Entire cultures in China were slaughtered and/or assimilated into the Borg of greater China (again, more accurately labeled PRC once formed). You know that Szechuan food on the menu in (Americanized) Chinese restaurants? Szechuan was its own culture and "nation" yet doesn't exist any more. Just like many subsets no longer exist when the "formable" takes over.

My point is that if you have enough power and influence, you can take over any "box" such as "China" and form it into something like PRC. Whether you start with one single Province and later own 100+ Provinces, and do your "Mao Purge" or whatever - any/all locations on this planet could be assimilated into a Borg of a formable nation, with enough sheer power and will behind it. In the Real World, we're lucky we didn't have the Mao of North Africa, the Mao of South America, the Mao of Oceania, etc. If we did, we'd have a lot more "People's Republic of _____"

However, the PRC didn't gain any claims on territory that wasn't claimed by the ROC before it, so it functioned more as a regime change than anything. A better allegory for this would be the Kingdom of England becoming the English Commonwealth, where despite a notable rebranding, England didn't substantially change its national identity. Secondly, the destruction of the smaller Chinese cultures was an affair that started centuries before the PRC, so claiming it's exceptional in this regard compared to its predecessors is odd. Finally, (at least under Mao himself), the majority of the deaths came through a mix of incompetent agricultural management and a desire to purge political dissidents, which affected the Han majority just as readily as it did the other Chinese peoples.

 

[EGaffney]

It’s not that people in China are better at it, it’s that that particular technology is a closely guarded secret that foreigners didn’t have access to. I do find it a bit odd that foreigners can’t buy/steal/extort it tho.

As you notice, it's a tenuous distinction between tech and innate ability, if this is a tech non-Chinese people can't normally access because they are not Chinese.

 

[Eruth]

As you notice, it's a tenuous distinction between tech and innate ability, if this is a tech non-Chinese people can't normally access because they are not Chinese.

They can’t access it because it’s an ancient tradition that the people who know about won’t share and that outsiders have limited opportunities to try and invent themselves. That has nothing to do with innate ability.

 

[EGaffney]

They can’t access it because it’s an ancient tradition that the people who know about won’t share and that outsiders have limited opportunities to try and invent themselves. That has nothing to do with innate ability.

Hm? Nobody mentioned innate ability before me. The original comment was that "Some people are better at certain things than other people, a natural result of culture, interests, and motivations". This, at least, is clearly modelled by giving sericultural bonuses to the tag China (as opposed to Chinese states owned by other countries, for example). So China has an innate ability to make silk which other countries almost never access.

 

[Eruth]

Hm? Nobody mentioned innate ability before me. The original comment was that "Some people are better at certain things than other people, a natural result of culture, interests, and motivations". This, at least, is clearly modelled by giving sericultural bonuses to the tag China (as opposed to Chinese states owned by other countries, for example). So China has an innate ability to make silk which other countries almost never access.

Maybe I'm dumb but that collection of sentences, in the context of this discussion, did not convey a coherent message. Could you please rephrase your point?

 

[EGaffney]

Sure. China gets a tech other countries don't get. Tech in V3 reflects not only technical knowhow but also culture, interests and motivations, e.g. Professional Sports or Colonialism. Tech is permanent; you can't unlearn it. And tech is country-level, rather than being a state trait tied to local building and POPs. If nobody else can get the tech, the implication is that these are innate to a country. "Being hard to steal" is unhistorical - the mere practice of sericulture was liberated from China a millennium before the V3 era. The much simpler explanation is that China gets a buff for culture, interest, motivations, and that this doesn't change during the game. If you don't like this implication, don't blame me, take it up with Paradox - I'm not saying it's good content.

 

[heniska]

Sure. China gets a tech other countries don't get. Tech in V3 reflects not only technical knowhow but also culture, interests and motivations, e.g. Professional Sports or Colonialism. Tech is permanent; you can't unlearn it. And tech is country-level, rather than being a state trait tied to local building and POPs. If nobody else can get the tech, the implication is that these are innate to a country. "Being hard to steal" is unhistorical - the mere practice of sericulture was liberated from China a millennium before the V3 era. The much simpler explanation is that China gets a buff for culture, interest, motivations, and that this doesn't change during the game. If you don't like this implication, don't blame me, take it up with Paradox - I'm not saying it's good content.

Probably an attempt to appeal to the Chinese market. It's all about the euro bills in the end. Though I doubt a game like Victoria will even get approved in China.

 

[Eruth]

Sure. China gets a tech other countries don't get. Tech in V3 reflects not only technical knowhow but also culture, interests and motivations, e.g. Professional Sports or Colonialism. Tech is permanent; you can't unlearn it. And tech is country-level, rather than being a state trait tied to local building and POPs. If nobody else can get the tech, the implication is that these are innate to a country. "Being hard to steal" is unhistorical - the mere practice of sericulture was liberated from China a millennium before the V3 era. The much simpler explanation is that China gets a buff for culture, interest, motivations, and that this doesn't change during the game. If you don't like this implication, don't blame me, take it up with Paradox - I'm not saying it's good content.

I can agree with that take.

 

[Nuclear Elvis]

My overall concern with the Vicky series, having played V1 and V2, is that given the short window of time in which the game takes place - the pace of change in prior Vicky games was never "spiked" enough for extreme revolution/national change events.

For example, Russia went "all in" (or die) when the Bolshevik Revolution hit. The metrics didn't just keep creeping along - it was like a total overhaul. Elites/Aristocrats removed in mass numbers from society. So the old Vicky games with slider bars and the slow creep of "change" never could keep up and show these dramatic purges/societal "replacement" activities.

I just wonder how Vicky 3 will potentially improve upon that, to really show a "purge" or replacement scenario, where a societal change starts to rapidly accelerate who wins/loses (and thus, who is still in the economic engine of the nation).

And just the opposite as well - if I play a Vicky 3 game in which I am trying to STOP revolution, even though I know it's ahead of me -- such as playing Russia, and instead of the game being "on rails" to 100% of the time result in Bolshevik Revolution, what if I play Russia as a pascifist/isolationist nation that stays out of World War, and instead I am constantly trying to improve the quality of life for Russian citizens for my entire play through? Will I still face the Bolsheviks ~80 years after game start, no matter what I do to improve Russia? I hope you see my point, that the Vicky 3 game should accomodate some "change the world" pathways where if the gamer puts in an effort, they "change history" and avoid the extreme disasters as occurred in the Real World. In fact - give an Achievement for that, for keeping Russia from Revolution.

 

[Eruth]

My overall concern with the Vicky series, having played V1 and V2, is that given the short window of time in which the game takes place - the pace of change in prior Vicky games was never "spiked" enough for extreme revolution/national change events.

For example, Russia went "all in" (or die) when the Bolshevik Revolution hit. The metrics didn't just keep creeping along - it was like a total overhaul. Elites/Aristocrats removed in mass numbers from society. So the old Vicky games with slider bars and the slow creep of "change" never could keep up and show these dramatic purges/societal "replacement" activities.

I just wonder how Vicky 3 will potentially improve upon that, to really show a "purge" or replacement scenario, where a societal change starts to rapidly accelerate who wins/loses (and thus, who is still in the economic engine of the nation).

And just the opposite as well - if I play a Vicky 3 game in which I am trying to STOP revolution, even though I know it's ahead of me -- such as playing Russia, and instead of the game being "on rails" to 100% of the time result in Bolshevik Revolution, what if I play Russia as a pascifist/isolationist nation that stays out of World War, and instead I am constantly trying to improve the quality of life for Russian citizens for my entire play through? Will I still face the Bolsheviks ~80 years after game start, no matter what I do to improve Russia? I hope you see my point, that the Vicky 3 game should accomodate some "change the world" pathways where if the gamer puts in an effort, they "change history" and avoid the extreme disasters as occurred in the Real World. In fact - give an Achievement for that, for keeping Russia from Revolution.

The devs are trying to make this one of the least railroaded PDX games aside from the CK series. Almost everything occurs organically so if the conditions exist for a Russian revolution then something will happen, but it no one wants to revolt the. No one revolts.

 

[FleetingRain]

Jason Swanson​

Waterloo, IA

Stats​

Career Wins
2
Top 10s
15
Total Events Fished
84
Winnings
$20,213

https://majorleaguefishing.com/anglers/jason-swanson-267511/

Abiral Ghimire (Nepali:अबिरल घिमिरे, born 9 September 1999) also known as Abiral Himalayan Cheetah (アビラル・ヒマラヤンチーター) is a Nepalese kickboxer, currently fighting in the super-welterweight division of K-1. A professional competitor since 2017, he is the current HEAT Middleweight champion.

Abiral Ghimire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

With combat he meant war, not kickboxing.

 

[Metz]

The cultural specialization bonuses can work if it’s used on a strata basis for a country with a main culture as opposed to the whole culture being blanketed with it.

 

[Znikii]

Phenomenal QA, so much great and promising info here, ty DEV team. Really looking forward to play Vicky3

ps: Paul Depre & @Wizzington could you please make one dev diary where you go extravagantly deep into how disagreements between different economic schools shaped the implementation of taxation and consumption in Vicky3 please.

And happy new year to the team.

 

[Kostyarik7]

SenatorSnowBear: Will we see models of trains move around the railways on the map? Will they go 'choo choo' if we zoom in close enough? The latter question is very important to me.
Michael "Ofaloaf" Kundak-Cowall: The trains do indeed travel around on the map and go choo choo! In fact, the trains even go chugga chugga.

Very nice!!