Victoria 3: i have fear

[Deliberus]

Never played that game but I:R has (or had) a similar market system and for me its crap. You just end up trading the highest quantity of goods possible without any consideration of another better approach because, really, there isnt any other.

Victoria 2 its still the best economic system (as how world and countries market works, disregarding SoI's that are bugged) in any paradox tittle for me by far, and when i mean far i mean "a million light years" far.

I agree that the economic system is the best but the trade economy is beyond busted.

Did you know that Vic 2 has a top to bottom trade system? (Where ALL resources are distributed to the greatest powers first and the worst nation last). So even if you produce a valuable resource like coal, you cannot even use it because the major powers gobble it all up for their steel factories!

 

[Guedes]

I agree that the economic system is the best but the trade economy is beyond busted.

Did you know that Vic 2 has a top to bottom trade system? (Where ALL resources are distributed to the greatest powers first and the worst nation last). So even if you produce a valuable resource like coal, you cannot even use it because the major powers gobble it all up for their steel factories!

No, thats not entirely correct. If you produce one good than you have entire access to it in your domestic market. What you described only happens at the world market which is constituted of the "leftover" goods that didnt got consumed by the nations at their domestic market first (i.e. exported goods).

So yes, if you produce a valuable resource like coal you can use it even if the major powers want to gobble it all for their steel factories.

 

[Amtep]

I am a bit worried how difficult it will be to make a single warfare system to handle the great changes taking place between 1836 and 1936. So, yeah, good luck to the dev team assigned. You may well need it.

The simple solution is to do it badly For example you could treat airplanes as a type of artillery...

 

[Vlad123]

The problem are cannot exist the "embargo" in Vic2, i like exist the resource transport like Hoi4, wit the difference can if i block your import of Steel you cannot produce anything (for exemple) or if i block your import of food (because you need to import for your large Population) you start to starving and start to have War exaustion more higher... these small things are missing in vic2

 

[chrism2012]

I agree with the OP's post that Paradox' latest games have gotten more (and more) streamlined / simplified to increase the appeal to mass users (e.g. HOI4's missing HQ-system for divisions/corps like in HOI3 etc.).
On the other hand, all core mechanics (province management, city buildings, unit production, tech trees, stats and modifiers, combat etc.) seem to have generally improved in I:R, HOI4, (EU4?).

Since Victoria 2 is quite unique in its overall game mechanics (pops, buildings, trading + market system, pre-modern combat development etc.; especially industrialization though), the prerequisites for Victoria 3 would be quite high.

However, with current I:R v2.0 and HOI4 (also EU IV in some degree) I think there's a somewhat solid fundament to actually start development of Vic 3.

 

[Vlad123]

I agree with the OP's post that Paradox' latest games have gotten more (and more) streamlined / simplified to increase the appeal to mass users (e.g. HOI4's missing HQ-system for divisions/corps like in HOI3 etc.).
On the other hand, all core mechanics (province management, city buildings, unit production, tech trees, stats and modifiers, combat etc.) seem to have generally improved in I:R, HOI4, (EU4?).

Since Victoria 2 is quite unique in its overall game mechanics (pops, buildings, trading + market system, pre-modern combat development etc.; especially industrialization though), the prerequisites for Victoria 3 would be quite high.

However, with current I:R v2.0 and HOI4 (also EU IV in some degree) I think there's a somewhat solid fundament to actually start development of Vic 3.

I hope my fear are "fake"...

 

[chrism2012]

I hope my fear are "fake"...

I hope so too, but after so many years I'd rather like any (bad?) Victoria 3 development than no Vic3 at all. Anyway, it will be the last project from Paradox I'm interested in...

 

[LordKelvins]

They really need a small battle screen where you can set your units and then watch the battle in real time

No, if they keep in constant v2 original main body and the main contents of the circumstances to do so, I really believe that you will smell the burning smell of your CPU
. Besides, it is point!

 

[Laveley]

The problem are cannot exist the "embargo" in Vic2, i like exist the resource transport like Hoi4, wit the difference can if i block your import of Steel you cannot produce anything (for exemple) or if i block your import of food (because you need to import for your large Population) you start to starving and start to have War exaustion more higher... these small things are missing in vic2

Those things are missing for a good reason; they didn't existed (or were rarely adopted) in the game time period.

In fact, at that time, the economic model largely adopted by the most powerful nations of the world, called mercantilism, advocated completely the opposite; if your nation needs steel and food my nation will sell yours as much steel and food as possible, so your nation food and steel industry will bankrupt or never develop because it got cheaper to buy from my nations industry (which thanks to your nations import got much bigger now). All your nations income and precious resources will come to my nation because your nation need to buy all steel and food from us (dont you dare to buy from that other nation called France even if their food and steel are cheaper than ours- > SoI mechanic rationale explained here) and lastly your nation will be utterly economically dependent from mine and stripped out of your riches because your nation got dependant of my nation food and steel (even though your nation could probably have developed a self sufficient food and steel industry by itself given due time).

Thats pretty much mercantilism is a nutshell: favorable trade balance, metalism, imperialism and colonialism.

Theres no space for denying other nations to buy our stuff, even if they are our "enemies ". At most we will prohibit our pet nations to buy our enemy nations crap insted of our crap.

In fact, nations that tried to "embargo themself " of not buying the shit produced by powerful GP's of the time, adopting politics of isolationism, like Japan, often times would suffer military threats of interventions by the GP's.

 

[Vlad123]

Those things are missing for a good reason; they didn't existed (or were rarely adopted) in the game time period.

In fact, at that time, the economic model largely adopted by the most powerful nations of the world, called mercantilism, advocated completely the opposite; if your nation needs steel and food my nation will sell yours as much steel and food as possible, so your nation food and steel industry will bankrupt or never develop because it got cheaper to buy from my nations industry (which thanks to your nations import got much bigger now). All your nations income and precious resources will come to my nation because your nation need to buy all steel and food from us (dont you dare to buy from that other nation called France even if their food and steel are cheaper than ours- > SoI mechanic rationale explained here) and lastly your nation will be utterly economically dependent from mine and stripped out of your riches because your nation got dependant of my nation food and steel (even though your nation could probably have developed a self sufficient food and steel industry by itself given due time).

Thats pretty much mercantilism is a nutshell: favorable trade balance, metalism, imperialism and colonialism.

Theres no space for denying other nations to buy our stuff, even if they are our "enemies ". At most we will prohibit our pet nations to buy our enemy nations crap insted of our crap.

In fact, nations that tried to "embargo themself " of not buying the shit produced by powerful GP's of the time, adopting politics of isolationism, like Japan, often times would suffer military threats of interventions by the GP's.

Yes...but in war...

 

[Amtep]

A friend once told me that in every war the Netherlands has ever been in, there have been Dutch merchants selling weapons to the other side

 

[scriptkiddy]

. I mean for God sake, in Stellaris you can genocide as much as you want but the game still sucks due to how the mechanics works.

It probably won’t suck if it were the Imperial Japanese determined exterminators who genocided Chinese communists and fed on Thai human livestock. But that’s never going to happen, well, at least not in a vanilla title from PDX.

 

[Will Steel]

For me, Victoria 2's military system was a major dumb down from the Vick1 military system in every way. The devs tried to shove EU3 into it, and failed.

If they made a Victoria 2 with all the missing or dumbed down features from Vicky1 added back (especially the military, the way RGOs could be improved, and ability to manually conscript and train pops), removed the hardcoded nonsense, made things more clearer, and added all the engine improvements and flexibility achieved by PDS in the last 10 years, and just called it "Victoria 3", I would likely still buy it.

 

[D.Knight]

For me, Victoria 2's military system was a major dumb down from the Vick1 military system in every way. The devs tried to shove EU3 into it, and failed.

If they made a Victoria 2 with all the missing or dumbed down features from Vicky1 added back (especially the military, the way RGOs could be improved, and ability to manually conscript and train pops), removed the hardcoded nonsense, made things more clearer, and added all the engine improvements and flexibility achieved by PDS in the last 10 years, and just called it "Victoria 3", I would likely still buy it.

A true old guard. How different was Vicky I anyway?

 

[jamhaw]

I won't even buy it unless it has a 1914 start, that was always my favourite scenario.

 

[jamhaw]

A true old guard. How different was Vicky I anyway?

Vicky 1 was honestly pretty terrible despite the number of hours I sank into it. Very buggy (and that's aside from the fact that by default you could only play a single one of the great powers as the others were greyed out, I was so proud of myself when I figured out an exploit around that silly rule).

That said, once you had the expansion Revolutions and a couple mods it's one of the greatest games ever made.

 

[JakopDalunde]

For me, Victoria 2 has the best and most interesting game design of all PDS games - from a concept perspective. It really is a diamond in the rough. It just needed a lot more polishing.

The mere thought of the Victoria 2 game design with modernized game mechanics/QoL and the production value of todays PDS makes me dizzy of excitement.

 

[Amtep]

It probably won’t suck if it were the Imperial Japanese determined exterminators who genocided Chinese communists and fed on Thai human livestock. But that’s never going to happen, well, at least not in a vanilla title from PDX.

Well, no, because it's ahistorical. You'd have to get an alternate history mod. But I don't understand why people (not just you) keep making these claims.

- I:R has slavery as a core mechanic
- I:R lets you reduce prized cities to rubble and slaughter 3/4th of the population after they surrendered
- CK2 and 3 have incest and baby murders
- CK2 had satanic cannibalist orgies. I'm sure the CK3 version will come in a DLC
- EU4 has events for the triangle slave trade and "slaves" as a trade good
- Vic2 has the NSDAP and lets you form Nazi Germany
- Vic2 lets you go fascist with any state and they added names for most of them

Paradox really doesn't shy away from historical atrocities in their games. Or even historical fictions like those cannibalist orgies.

 

[scriptkiddy]

Well, no, because it's ahistorical. You'd have to get an alternate history mod. But I don't understand why people (not just you) keep making these claims.

What is ahistorical?

JAPANESE troops practised cannibalism on enemy soldiers and civilians in the last war, sometimes cutting flesh from living captives, according to documents discovered by a Japanese academic in Australia. In most cases the motive was apparently not shortage of food, but 'to consolidate the group feeling of the troops', said Toshiyuki Tanaka yesterday in a telephone interview from Melbourne. The revelation adds more evidence to the toll of atrocities carried out by Japanese soldiers during the Second World War, only weeks before Japanese troops are due to be posted overseas for the first time in five decades as part of the UN peacekeeping operation in Cambodia. Japan's Asian neighbours have expressed strong reservations about the use of the troops. In recent months evidence has also come to light about the forced recruitment of Asian women as prostitutes, or 'comfort women', for the Japanese army. Mr Tanaka, a 43-year-old scholar from Fukui in western Japan, is working at the Political Science Department in Melbourne University. The documents he found concerning cannibalism include captured Japanese army memos as well as sworn statements by Australian soldiers for war crimes investigations. Mr Tanaka says he has amassed at least 100 documented cases of cannibalism of Australian and Indian soldiers as well as Asian forced labourers in New Guinea. He has also found some evidence of cannibalism in the Philippines.

 

[Amtep]

... which is nothing at all like whole pops being turned into food for the general population. Your source even specifically says that it wasn't done for food supply.