Twitter teaser 06/10 - East India Company as Great Power?

[Al-Khalidi]

He mentioned them "for instance". That doesn't mean the others will all retain their place, just because he didn't also use them as examples of how the GP list might change.

Yes but we have a very clear reason (tier empire kingdom) that explains what might be the reason of advantage of Ottomans over Prussia compared to vic2 which was the question asked by Muezzinzade so idk what you are arguing here exactly.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Yes but we have a very clear reason (tier empire kingdom) that explains what might be the reason of advantage of Ottomans over Prussia compared to vic2 which was the question asked by Muezzinzade so idk what you are arguing here exactly.

I'm arguing that trying to explain why the nation rankings are how they are in a screenshot from that has been explicitly stated to likely change by release is about as silly as seeing a [turnip factory] in every state and bringing up historical [turnip production] statistics, instead of saying "The [turnip distribution] isn't finished yet."

 

[Al-Khalidi]

I'm arguing that trying to explain why the nation rankings are how they are in a screenshot from that has been explicitly stated to likely change by release is about as silly as seeing a [turnip factory] in every state and bringing up historical [turnip production] statistics, instead of saying "The [turnip distribution] isn't finished yet."

Dude I give you answer that Ottomans WILL have a major boost in prestige because of being empire compared to kingdom. This is something that we know. OFCOURSE everything CAN change bcz game isn't finished yet. Thats a very smart thing to say. With this argument you can basically close EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION so idk why you took part in this discussion in the first place
I'm giving a dude a certain and specific answer to his question and you jump with "BUT GAME IS NOT FINISHED YET! " Yes, it isn't. Thank you kindly for this info

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Dude I give you answer that Ottomans WILL have a major boost in prestige because of being empire compared to kingdom. This is something that we know. OFCOURSE everything CAN change bcz game isn't finished yet. Thats a very smart thing to say. With this argument you can basically close EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION so idk why you took part in this discussion in the first place
I'm giving a dude a certain and specific answer to his question and you jump with "BUT GAME IS NOT FINISHED YET! " Yes, it isn't. Thank you kindly for this info

You mean when I "jump in" 3 pages later, talking to a much larger group of people, with developer confirmation that this exact mechanic is going to change. You're welcome.

 

[Hertzila]

Dude I give you answer that Ottomans WILL have a major boost in prestige because of being empire compared to kingdom. This is something that we know. OFCOURSE everything CAN change bcz game isn't finished yet. Thats a very smart thing to say. With this argument you can basically close EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION so idk why you took part in this discussion in the first place
I'm giving a dude a certain and specific answer to his question and you jump with "BUT GAME IS NOT FINISHED YET! " Yes, it isn't. Thank you kindly for this info

You seem to be vastly over-estimating the extent to which a country's tier gives them prestige. From the dev diary:

• The Tier of a Country (whether it’s considered a City-State, Principality, Kingdom or so on) gives it a little bit of base-level Prestige. This is inherent to a specific nation and can only be increased by forming a new, more glorious nation.

Emphasis mine. A "little bit of base-level Prestige" is not a "major boost". By any reasonable read, a successful nation should have the vast majority of their Prestige be composed of the other elements than their tier. I would not be surprised if a highly successful nation would have like, under 5% of their Prestige sourced from tier. If a nation's Prestige ever comes mainly from tier, by all accounts they're a failed state, not a Great Power.

 

[unmerged(760025)]

Emphasis mine. A "little bit of base-level Prestige" is not a "major boost". By any reasonable read, a successful nation should have the vast majority of their Prestige be composed of the other elements than their tier. I would not be surprised if a highly successful nation would have like, under 5% of their Prestige sourced from tier. If a nation's Prestige ever comes mainly from tier, by all accounts they're a failed state, not a Great Power.

You should have quote the dev diary a little longer. It clearly said that country tiers are inherent to a nation and can only be changed by forming a new more glorious one.
The way I understand it, country tiers has nothing to do with what kind of government type your country has and is more about how prestigious certain countries are perceived compare to others. Both the leader of the United Kingdom and Madagascar may call themselves king but one position is clearly more prestigious than the other.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

You should have quote the dev diary a little longer. It clearly said that country tiers are inherent to a nation and can only be changed by forming a new more glorious one.
The way I understand it, country tiers has nothing to do with what kind of government type your country has and is more about how prestigious certain countries are perceived compare to others. Both the leader of the United Kingdom and Madagascar may call themselves king but one position is clearly more prestigious than the other.

What you're saying doesn't seem to reply to anything in the post you quoted.

That post: "Tiers don't affect prestige by a huge amount"
You: "Tiers are based on which tag you're playing as."

 

[unmerged(760025)]

What you're saying doesn't seem to reply to anything in the post you quoted.

That post: "Tiers don't affect prestige by a huge amount"
You: "Tiers are based on which tag you're playing as."

You are right my answer wasn't very clear.
What I was trying to say was that Hertzila should have extended his quote a little because the next sentence in the dev diary clearly stated that country tier had nothing to do with what kind of government your country had, something that directly contradicted the argument of the person he was arguing with.

 

[Lorehead]

I believe the diary gives us a different answer. They mention that prestige greatly depends on tier (principality, kingdom, empire). Ottoman Empire is, well, an empire, while Prussia is kingdom. Difference must be bigger than gdp and army score differences at this point. This is a more likely reason imo.

Well, Victoria was merely Queen of Great Britain, but Empress of India. And there’s some truth to that. Supposedly, when her daughter Victoria married the heir to the Kingdom of Prussia, and then her father-in-law became Emperor of Germany, Queen Victoria of England did not want her own daughter, the future Empress Victoria of Germany, to outrank her someday. I don’t know whether she was really jealous of her daughters’ titles or not, but she absolutely did think that formally giving herself an Empress title would increase the British Empire’s prestige.

 

[Hertzila]

You are right my answer wasn't very clear.
What I was trying to say was that Hertzila should have extended his quote a little because the next sentence in the dev diary clearly stated that country tier had nothing to do with what kind of government your country had, something that directly contradicted the argument of the person he was arguing with.

It, is there? It says pretty clearly that: "This is inherent to a specific nation and can only be increased by forming a new, more glorious nation." In other words, it's all tag-specific.

And I might be misunderstanding what Al-Khalidi is arguing about, but I think they were talking about country tiers, not country governance forms. "Kingdom" and "Empire" were tiers in previous Paradox games, so it makes them convenient short-hands for tiers, even if Victoria ends up naming them differently. And going by the screenshot, "Kingdom" at least is a country tier rank in Vicky 3. It may be a form of governance (or I suppose monarchy is, at least) but it's also a country tier.

 

[pheonicia]

Idk if tag prestige will matter a ton, if we're talking about numbers in the thousands (since qing starts with over 1000 prestige and I imagine that GB and france will be able to exceed that in short order) an extra 50 or 75 or even 100 isn't that much of a change.

 

[Muezzinzade]

You mean when I "jump in" 3 pages later, talking to a much larger group of people, with developer confirmation that this exact mechanic is going to change. You're welcome.

Yes, they said that mechanic can change, similarly to 99% of dev diaries. So your comment basically says: "No, you can't talk about the game because IT CAN CHANGE. i AM VERY SMART". Than you for this invaluable contribution to discussion. I wouldn't figure it out on my own.

Dude I give you answer that Ottomans WILL have a major boost in prestige because of being empire compared to kingdom. This is something that we know. OFCOURSE everything CAN change bcz game isn't finished yet. Thats a very smart thing to say. With this argument you can basically close EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION so idk why you took part in this discussion in the first place
I'm giving a dude a certain and specific answer to his question and you jump with "BUT GAME IS NOT FINISHED YET! " Yes, it isn't. Thank you kindly for this info

The fact that Ottoman prestige might be significantly higher because of tier is exactly the reason I was looking for. Thank You for underlining this.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

You seem to be vastly over-estimating the extent to which a country's tier gives them prestige. From the dev diary:

Emphasis mine. A "little bit of base-level Prestige" is not a "major boost". By any reasonable read, a successful nation should have the vast majority of their Prestige be composed of the other elements than their tier. I would not be surprised if a highly successful nation would have like, under 5% of their Prestige sourced from tier. If a nation's Prestige ever comes mainly from tier, by all accounts they're a failed state, not a Great Power.

Why are you talking about a "succesful state" when question was about the situation at the game start? Ofcourse later it won't matter. The point is the beginning. In case of Persia given on the screenshot we see that prestige for tier is a major part of their prestige. At the beginning prestige amounts for gdp and army might not be too high. So it's obvious that prestige of tier matters a lot. Ottomans are 6th and Prussia is 7th. Prestige for lowest Great Power is around 200 as given in France screenshot. Tier for kingdom is 50 so it's reasonable to assume that for empire is 100. So idk what exactly you mean by "VASTLY overestimating extent to which a country's tier gives them prestige." I'm not too much into maths but difference of 50 compared to 200 seems rather important. Your china example is completely irrelevant here as proven by me giving 200 as more likely number.
I remind you that difference between Ottomans and Prussia was the question and this prestige difference seems very relevant here

 

[Hertzila]

Tier for kingdom is 50 so it's reasonable to assume that for empire is 100.

Is it though? We know the tiers are not straight from Europe Universalis or Crusader Kings. There aren't just three, but at least four (city-state, principality, kingdom, empire) and Wiz was just like "And so on, etc." about them. It seems just as reasonable to conclude that the base Prestige of an Empire is 60. Granted, we have no idea how much Prussia and Ottoman's actually have Prestige, so maybe they're neck-and-neck and ten extra would shift them around. But that's a complete assumption.

At the beginning prestige amounts for gdp and army might not be too high.

Also, not-final numbers. If you want to base conclusions on them, alright then, but the whole point of the giant WIP sticker on the screenshots is to point out that the numbers will change. (Actually, nevermind, it seems they've noticed how the WIP sticker did nothing to prevent in-depth arguments about the numbers and no longer put that there. ) WILL. Wiz even explicitly said as much in the comments, the formula for calculating these is getting reworked. They've laid out their design idea that the base Prestige should not account for much. If the design idea and screenshots contradict each other, it seems more logical to assume that the numbers will shift than to expect them to be set in stone.

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Is it though? We know the tiers are not straight from Europe Universalis or Crusader Kings. There aren't just three, but at least four (city-state, principality, kingdom, empire) and Wiz was just like "And so on, etc." about them. It seems just as reasonable to conclude that the base Prestige of an Empire is 60. Granted, we have no idea how much Prussia and Ottoman's actually have Prestige, so maybe they're neck-and-neck and ten extra would shift them around. But that's a complete assumption.

Also, not-final numbers. If you want to base conclusions on them, alright then, but the whole point of the giant WIP sticker on the screenshots is to point out that the numbers will change. (Actually, nevermind, it seems they've noticed how the WIP sticker did nothing to prevent in-depth arguments about the numbers and no longer put that there. ) WILL. Wiz even explicitly said as much in the comments, the formula for calculating these is getting reworked. They've laid out their design idea that the base Prestige should not account for much. If the design idea and screenshots contradict each other, it seems more logical to assume that the numbers will shift than to expect them to be set in stone.

Hm, I could make a reasonable bet that the difference between kingdom and empire will be much bigger, at least twice the amount - otherwise, why even bother with tiers?
As for second point, yes, ofcourse numbers are not final because the game is not finished. I assure you I know it very, very well But I think majority of activity on this forum is commenting on what is being revealed so I see zero point in repeating that "BUT IT CAN CHANGE" every time someone comments on the revealed information which, I believe, is the point of this thread.

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

How many divisions do Walmart and Amazon have?

...now that I think about it...how many divisions did the EIC have?
Serious question

 

[unmerged(760025)]

...now that I think about it...how many divisions did the EIC have?
Serious question

Someone answered that in the dev diary :

It's historically accurate, though? I don't know what position exactly they should be at game start, but around #8 sounds plausible to me. In terms of army, they had an army of up to 250,000 men in the early 19th century. Yes, that is larger than the standing peacetime armies of most nations of the time. For comparison, according to Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, in 1830, in terms of standing armies, France had 259,000, Prussia had 130,000, and Austria had 273,000. Whether or not the soldiers of the East India company were as effective man-for-man as the European powers is a different matter entirely, but their equipment in 1830s at least was comparable. That doesn't mean that they can send armies of 100s of thousands off to fight wars outside of India - the vast majority of those troops need to stay in the subcontinent. 250k men might sound like a lot, but for a subcontinent that is comparable in size and population to Europe, that is barely adequate to maintain control and keep the peace.

In terms of economy, although in 1836 they didn't control the entire subcontinent yet, the GDP of the territory the BEIC control is easily above nations like Spain, the Ottomans, and the Netherlands. India is a big place, and it has a lot of people. If you think GDP is a terrible measurement (I certainly think its a terrible measurement in this time period for a nations "power"), you can look at manufacturing output instead. In terms of manufacturing, although India was not very industrialized, neither were nations like Spain or the Ottomans to an extent. Although it's per capita output is very low, India's sheer size meant that its manufacturing output was well above those two countries in the 1830s.

TLDR: the EIC being around #8 in the 1830s makes sense. It probably should drop rankings gradually as the years go by, though. I'd imagine that by the 1860s they no longer should be in the top 10.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Yes, they said that mechanic can change, similarly to 99% of dev diaries. So your comment basically says: "No, you can't talk about the game because IT CAN CHANGE. i AM VERY SMART". Than you for this invaluable contribution to discussion. I wouldn't figure it out on my own.

You seem to be ignoring the number of people arguing about who should be which rank, and whether the ones in the screenshot were correct. Which, y'know, kind of changes the context of what I said.

Also, maybe be careful of your tone?

 

[Kaige]

I

One question remains though that is perhaps worthy of another thread (but was sort of asked here) - Ottomans are higher than Prussia in the ranking while in vic2 were significantly lower, what is the reason of such change? What matters more/less than in vic2?
My only guess is that it must have something to do with population or GDP, as I doubt that Ottomans would have higher prestige or stronger military than any other GP at that point, freshly after losing Greece, being defeated by russia and receiving humiliating beating from ex-vassal Egypt...

In Victoria 2, Industry contributes to your GP score but not RGO or Artisan production; Prussia starts off one of the most industrialized nations, the Ottomans don't have a single factory.

In Victoria 3, your whole GDP is considered, and the Ottoman gdp is probably similar or even greater than the Prussian gdp.

Basically Victoria 2's rankings unfairly emphasized industry. Agricultural/RGO/Shopkeeper economies should remain higher ranked for longer in Victoria 3.

 

[Muezzinzade]

I

In Victoria 2, Industry contributes to your GP score but not RGO or Artisan production; Prussia starts off one of the most industrialized nations, the Ottomans don't have a single factory.

In Victoria 3, your whole GDP is considered, and the Ottoman gdp is probably similar or even greater than the Prussian gdp.

Basically Victoria 2's rankings unfairly emphasized industry. Agricultural/RGO/Shopkeeper economies should remain higher ranked for longer in Victoria 3.

This makes perfect sense, plus other explanations offered connected to prestige from country tier.