Victoria 3 Timeline and Bookmark Ideas

[icedt729]

Yeah the Vicky economy is extremely complex and extremely difficult to balance. So besides the time-intensive process of research and filling in POP info, you've also got a lot of time spent making sure those numbers don't lead to an immediate global depression.

Can we get @Naselus in here for some of his wisdom?

 

[Bella Gerant]

Ah, I see. Now I can tell why CK2 and EU4 have so many start dates (and the ability to change the date).

But still, 1-2 in the base game and 2 for DLC wouldn't be that bad.

Sarcasm aside, literally none of the post 1453 EU4 start dates are balanced. Try out the 7 Year's War scenario as Prussia. Or the 80 Year's War as the Netherlands. If I remember correctly, Korea's development stays the same through the centuries despite the fact that 1/3 of the peninsula's arable lands were razed in the Imjin Wars in the 1590s and millions starved to death.

The EU4 team doesn't add anything new to the later start dates because less than 5% of all games are played after the default date.

Besides, CK2 and EU4 don't actually track population percentages and minority groups (it's just primary culture, primary religion) whereas some provinces in 1836 have 5+ culture groups (which becomes extremely important when it comes time for crises and unrest). Considering the Qing Empire suffered 20-70 million deaths during the Taiping Rebellion (and all the millions others displaced during that time) and the fact that you'd have to track these massive population changes and all the minorities rather than just note what province belonged to whom and what culture/religion dominated.

The point is that it'd be better to have one very good start date rather than split the effort everywhere and have messy, poorly balanced starts (the 1861 start for House Divided is...not especially good).

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Ah, I see. Now I can tell why CK2 and EU4 have so many start dates (and the ability to change the date).

But still, 1-2 in the base game and 2 for DLC wouldn't be that bad.

Yep. And I don't even bother with the CK2 and EU4 start dates that weren't added in DLC, because while they exist, they tend to have major, glaring issues.

If I had to prioritize, I'd go in this rough order:
1837
1861
1914
1821
1881
1792

 

[Riotkiller]

1914-1936 would be pretty silly a game. The Great War Mechanic was the step in the right direction to doing WW1 properly; and I'm sure that a new game would let them hone that so that a dynamic great war or two, with all the earth-shattering consequences, does happen.

The more start-dates there are, the far harder it is to get sources for accurate POP demographics. I believe they said somewhere in the V2 forums that 1836 had been the earliest they could get reliable sources for. Could that be pushed back to about 1820? Possibly, possibly not. But there's no way in hell they could get reliable sources for pre-Napoleonic times (or even worse; slap bang in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars). It's just not possible. Making balancing horrible.

I'd be happy with just one start date. Maybe they'll do 1861 as well, maybe not. But 1836 is already tiers ahead of everywhere else because presumably PDS still have access to the sources they used for that start date in V2.

Given the extortionate amount of time that start-dates take up; I'd much much much rather this was used to get a functional world economy (ideally with some sort of simulation of trade routes so that submarines can have the deadly effect they actually had in real life - I definitely remember it being said in V2 that submarines cannot work with the V2 economy). The economy is what makes Victoria such a special game. It's really what will sell the game - not whether the game starts in 1820 or 1836.

That being said; if 1861 is in from the start this time and 1836 remains the start date then I do think an earlier start date to allow for the Latin American revolutions and the Greek & Serbian Wars of Independence could be a very interesting DLC - IF they can get a hold of reliable sources for demographics. For the base game I think 1836 is the best in terms of time and resources though. The less effort they have to spend researching and entering all that demographic data; the more effort they can spend on making an even better game.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

1914-1936 would be pretty silly a game. The Great War Mechanic was the step in the right direction to doing WW1 properly; and I'm sure that a new game would let them hone that so that a dynamic great war or two, with all the earth-shattering consequences, does happen.

The more start-dates there are, the far harder it is to get sources for accurate POP demographics. I believe they said somewhere in the V2 forums that 1836 had been the earliest they could get reliable sources for. Could that be pushed back to about 1820? Possibly, possibly not. But there's no way in hell they could get reliable sources for pre-Napoleonic times (or even worse; slap bang in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars). It's just not possible. Making balancing horrible.

I'd be happy with just one start date. Maybe they'll do 1861 as well, maybe not. But 1836 is already tiers ahead of everywhere else because presumably PDS still have access to the sources they used for that start date in V2.

Given the extortionate amount of time that start-dates take up; I'd much much much rather this was used to get a functional world economy (ideally with some sort of simulation of trade routes so that submarines can have the deadly effect they actually had in real life - I definitely remember it being said in V2 that submarines cannot work with the V2 economy). The economy is what makes Victoria such a special game. It's really what will sell the game - not whether the game starts in 1820 or 1836.

That being said; if 1861 is in from the start this time and 1836 remains the start date then I do think an earlier start date to allow for the Latin American revolutions and the Greek & Serbian Wars of Independence could be a very interesting DLC - IF they can get a hold of reliable sources for demographics. For the base game I think 1836 is the best in terms of time and resources though. The less effort they have to spend researching and entering all that demographic data; the more effort they can spend on making an even better game.

The Great War mechanic... by which I mean the Great War mechanic in the PDM mod, Paradox's take on it was pretty lame... allows you to create A WW1, but not necessarily THE WW1. Sometimes you just want to play THE WW1.

I'd also argue that it ought to be pretty easy to get demographics for 1881, and it would allow for players to play a game that's focused on competing once the world has already settled into shape.

Maybe 1837 and 1881 would be the best dates, with a 1914 date for the Great Wars expansion (with improvements to trench warfare, submarine raiding, aviation, and so on) and an 1861 date for the American Civil War expansion (I'm not sure what features you'd try to hawk with it). I really would like to see 1821 and 1792 implemented, and I'd argue that 1821 would be pretty easy (considering that Concert of Europe already has it), but I'd understand if 1792 was just way too much trouble.

To a large extent, Paradox could just build on the work that modders have already done with Victoria II.

 

[CaptainCrape]

1914-1936 would be pretty silly a game. The Great War Mechanic was the step in the right direction to doing WW1 properly; and I'm sure that a new game would let them hone that so that a dynamic great war or two, with all the earth-shattering consequences, does happen.

The more start-dates there are, the far harder it is to get sources for accurate POP demographics. I believe they said somewhere in the V2 forums that 1836 had been the earliest they could get reliable sources for. Could that be pushed back to about 1820? Possibly, possibly not. But there's no way in hell they could get reliable sources for pre-Napoleonic times (or even worse; slap bang in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars). It's just not possible. Making balancing horrible.

I'd be happy with just one start date. Maybe they'll do 1861 as well, maybe not. But 1836 is already tiers ahead of everywhere else because presumably PDS still have access to the sources they used for that start date in V2.

Given the extortionate amount of time that start-dates take up; I'd much much much rather this was used to get a functional world economy (ideally with some sort of simulation of trade routes so that submarines can have the deadly effect they actually had in real life - I definitely remember it being said in V2 that submarines cannot work with the V2 economy). The economy is what makes Victoria such a special game. It's really what will sell the game - not whether the game starts in 1820 or 1836.

That being said; if 1861 is in from the start this time and 1836 remains the start date then I do think an earlier start date to allow for the Latin American revolutions and the Greek & Serbian Wars of Independence could be a very interesting DLC - IF they can get a hold of reliable sources for demographics. For the base game I think 1836 is the best in terms of time and resources though. The less effort they have to spend researching and entering all that demographic data; the more effort they can spend on making an even better game.

The great war mechanic was stupid. Hence, why I want a balanced start date for it and a DLC to focus on it. (They should've had WW1 in HOI4 to be honest, just with 2 separate timelines, like 1910-1922 for WW1 and 1936-1948 for WW2, so they are both 12 years.)

I still think they could get away with at least 3 start dates. 1821 (or 1836), 1861 and 1914.

 

[CaptainCrape]

Sarcasm aside, literally none of the post 1453 EU4 start dates are balanced. Try out the 7 Year's War scenario as Prussia. Or the 80 Year's War as the Netherlands. If I remember correctly, Korea's development stays the same through the centuries despite the fact that 1/3 of the peninsula's arable lands were razed in the Imjin Wars in the 1590s and millions starved to death.

The EU4 team doesn't add anything new to the later start dates because less than 5% of all games are played after the default date.

Besides, CK2 and EU4 don't actually track population percentages and minority groups (it's just primary culture, primary religion) whereas some provinces in 1836 have 5+ culture groups (which becomes extremely important when it comes time for crises and unrest). Considering the Qing Empire suffered 20-70 million deaths during the Taiping Rebellion (and all the millions others displaced during that time) and the fact that you'd have to track these massive population changes and all the minorities rather than just note what province belonged to whom and what culture/religion dominated.

The point is that it'd be better to have one very good start date rather than split the effort everywhere and have messy, poorly balanced starts (the 1861 start for House Divided is...not especially good).

I know, Paradox needs to work on balancing more. The 7 years war might as well be called the 7 years massacre because that's what it is. I watched the war in observer mode once and Prussia was destroyed in 6 months.

In fact, Paradox needs to take into account the times when small countries won big wars all odds, it actually happened quite a bit during EU4's timeline, 7 years war and 80 years war were good examples of that, and Persia won against the massive ottomans too if I am not mistaken.

 

[EU3NOOB]

What's likely to happen is that VickyIII will ship with an 1836 start date since they already have the data available, all they'd need to do is balance it for the new features of VickyIII. I mean why put all that research to waste? They might even do an 1861 start date as well (they have the data as well), but this is less likely upon release.

Then, they may do an additional start date, maybe 1821, but that's it.

Creating start dates out of no where is really difficult for the Vicky series.

 

[CaptainCrape]

What's likely to happen is that VickyIII will ship with an 1836 start date since they already have the data available, all they'd need to do is balance it for the new features of VickyIII. I mean why put all that research to waste? They might even do an 1861 start date as well (they have the data as well), but this is less likely upon release.

Then, they may do an additional start date, maybe 1821, but that's it.

Creating start dates out of no where is really difficult for the Vicky series.

1821 would be a good idea because that would allow Vic3 to have EU4 save compatibility, and it's not too far behind 1836. Also, I doubt they would have an 1821 DLC because that's only 15 years earlier than 1836 and 1821 didn't really have a lot going on, at least not enough to justify a DLC.

 

[War_lord]

The absolute earliest they could set the start date would be 1821. If we get another start date besides the Grand campaign, it's likely to be 1861. End date should be somewhere in the 1920's, I've always felt 1936 was a really arbitrary end date for Victoria

 

[frolix42]

Also, the player should be able to freely change the date like in EU4 and CK2.

One of the devs, in an EU4 DD, said that 99% of all EU4 games started in 1444 and therefore PDS is unlikely to have the changeable start dates in the future.

I totally support development decisions which allow the focus to be on dynamic events. If scrapping the 1939 start in HoI4 gave that team more time to fix HoI4 before release, I would be all for scrapping the date which few people play.

1821 would be a good idea because that would allow Vic3 to have EU4 save compatibility, and it's not too far behind 1836. Also, I doubt they would have an 1821 DLC because that's only 15 years earlier than 1836 and 1821 didn't really have a lot going on, at least not enough to justify a DLC.

I think Early Nationalism (f.e. IRL Greece) and Early Industrial Revolution (f.e. IRL UK) would be an excellent major DLC for EU4, combined with a timeline extension to 1836.

 

[vyshan]

I think Early Nationalism (f.e. IRL Greece) and Early Industrial Revolution (f.e. IRL UK) would be an excellent major DLC for EU4, combined with a timeline extension to 1836.

I dissagree. I think that EU4 handles the late game(french revolution era) poorly and it certainly would handle the early 19th century even worse. More over it makes far more sense for that era to be in Vicky3 IMO.

 

[Alesayr]

I would say two start dates is reasonable, but many start dates is quite complicated. HOI IV is a good model regarding start date. 1 significantly before the "major action" and 1 on the dawn of the major action.

I hate the small number of start dates in hoi4, and desperately hope they add more in the future. While I agree that asking for year by year changes in the future is futile, and pointless anyway since they aren't often used, I bounce around in later startdates all the time. In ck2 1081 and 1337 are some of my favourite starts. In eu4 I mainly start in 1444 but I've had some fun 1776 games at times. I was really sad that there wasn't a 1941 start in hoi4, I wanted to be able to start just as operation barbarossa was about to begin!

I think a reasonable compromise is to cut back the day-by-day time chooser you can use in crusader kings and eu4, and reduce playable starts to just the bookmarks

 

[Philthy]

I think a reasonable compromise is to cut back the day-by-day time chooser you can use in crusader kings and eu4, and reduce playable starts to just the bookmarks

That might be viable. It really is a tricky question (thus all the debate.)

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Id prefer just an 1821 start due to balance (and being compatable with EU4). How many people are going to play a later date? I imagine the American Civil War start is popular due to playing as the confederacy, but you can choose your side when the war starts naturally.

 

[Alesayr]

That might be viable. It really is a tricky question (thus all the debate.)

mm, it's definitely a tricky decision. Honestly I'd rather they have too many than not enough, but there's a question of how much development time you're willing to sink into it (Paradox, if you're reading I'm willing to do the "boring" nitty gritty research of the later startdates!)

 

[Enriador]

Victoria III can follow the "long 19th century" (1789-1914) in more than one way; my favorite would be 1821-1936 for a more streamlined experience (from the end of EU4 to the start of HoI4).

Besides, I think just one bookmark would be cool - it's where, eh, 90% of people play. Let modders add and balance as many bookmarks they want to! But if I had to add one besides the starter one these would be 1861 (American Civil War, and the start of a decade where pretty much everybody everywhere was at war) and 1911 (Italo-Turkish War, also the onset for the Great War and the interwar period).

 

[yourworstnightm]

1821 should be the start for a smooth transition from EUIV (though don't expect an official converter, I don't think PDS will make that mistake again). 1836 was just chosen originally for Vicky 1 to make Texas playable. 1821-1936 to fill the gap between EU IV and HoI IV would suffice.

 

[AbZeroNow]

First bookmark should be June 9, 1815(end of the Congress of Vienna).

 

[VNodosaurus]

When the expansions are done with, assuming the game is a success, I think a 1789-1989 (or 1792-1991?) span would be reasonable. 1821 or 1836 as the initial start date, with a few more (1789, 1861, 1913, 1945) coming later. 100 years just isn't a lot of time, especially when compared to EU4's 400 or CK2's 550 (Hearts of Iron is a wargame, not a nation-building one), and while secondary bookmarks would take more effort in Victoria than in EU or CK, they'd also be likely to attract more interest due to covering a better-known period.

I suspect the economy system would be substantially changed in V3, enough to avoid the late-game issues in V2. Getting demographic information would be an issue, but past a certain point you can make details up for the sake of game balance. And I feel that 1790-1990 or so is a convenient span neatly delineated both by ideology (from birth to shattering) and by industry (from the First Industrial Revolution to the Information one).