Victoria 3 Timeline and Bookmark Ideas

[AbZeroNow]

EU4 just doesn't seem to simulate the early modern period/Industrial revolution as well as Victoria, hence why I want it to start in 1736.

EU4 is much more abstract in its demographics. Vic2 has a pie chart showing the different demographics, whereas EU4 is one culture or another. That works well for the medieval period/renaissance but not so well for 18th and 19th century's, where immigration between countries ramped up.

Also the Industrial Revolution is basically entirely absent from EU4, despite beginning around 1760.

And it also misses the political tribulations of the American and French Revolutions.

CK2 doesn't simulate the 15th Century very well either, and EU4 isn't really the best game for the War of the Roses(but yet that is after CK2's timeframe). But CK2 is the Medieval period, EU4 is Renaissance/Early Modern/pre-Napoleonic so Vicky 3 would be ideally post-Napoleonic to WW1.

Ideally, I think Vicky 2 should be from 1815 to 1914. Congress of Vienna to Franz Ferdinand's assassination.

Also gunpowder is absent from CK2 despite being used in the 14th and 15th Century in warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Middle_Ages

So I think Vicky 3 would be fine with a 1815-1914 timeframe(would be mostly Victorian and Edwardian eras).

 

[CaptainCrape]

CK2 doesn't simulate the 15th Century very well either, and EU4 isn't really the best game for the War of the Roses(but yet that is after CK2's timeframe). But CK2 is the Medieval period, EU4 is Renaissance/Early Modern/pre-Napoleonic so Vicky 3 would be ideally post-Napoleonic to WW1.

Ideally, I think Vicky 2 should be from 1815 to 1914. Congress of Vienna to Franz Ferdinand's assassination.

Also gunpowder is absent from CK2 despite being used in the 14th and 15th Century in warfare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Middle_Ages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_artillery_in_the_Middle_Ages
So I think Vicky 3 would be fine with a 1815-1914 timeframe(would be mostly Victorian and Edwardian eras).

If they change up how great war mechanics work, I think 1816-1936 would work.

99 years is just...off

 

[CaptainCrape]

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).

Yes, the game should definitely be longer (Look how fast a Vic2 timelapse is compared to a HOI3 one:

).

But... going anything past ~1936 would be out of it's boundaries.

Even ~1600-~1900 would be better than that.

 

[Spartanlemur]

1821 and 1861 to begin with. Then they should do a Napoleonic expansion which takes us back some years, and adds lots of scripted content (because it would be fun to rewrite history at the Napoleonic wars. 1914 could be done as a special expansion to really flesh out WW1, or it could come with the base game.

And then they could release a mega expansion pack taking the game into the modern day at the end of the game's cycle. It would probably be a lot better than HoI4 at representing it given the focus on economics and internal politics (the modern day mods for Vicky 2 are some of the best modern day experiences out there).

HoI4 might best not be considered part of the standard Paradox timeline, given that it is a wargame taking place over a very short period of time. Very fun, but it's too scripted for importing saves to be honest. I'd rather have an underwhelming WW2 in Victoria 2 which leads us into the modern age than no modern age game, and iirc Paradox said they would never do a dedicated modern age game.

So basic timeline: 1821 - 1836. Final timeline: 1792 - 2100.

Though if Paradox change their mind on a Cold War to modern period game (which would be great), then final timeline: 1792 - 1936.

 

[yourworstnightm]

1821 and 1861 to begin with. Then they should do a Napoleonic expansion which takes us back some years, and adds lots of scripted content (because it would be fun to rewrite history at the Napoleonic wars. 1914 could be done as a special expansion to really flesh out WW1, or it could come with the base game.

And then they could release a mega expansion pack taking the game into the modern day at the end of the game's cycle. It would probably be a lot better than HoI4 at representing it given the focus on economics and internal politics (the modern day mods for Vicky 2 are some of the best modern day experiences out there).

HoI4 might best not be considered part of the standard Paradox timeline, given that it is a wargame taking place over a very short period of time. Very fun, but it's too scripted for importing saves to be honest. I'd rather have an underwhelming WW2 in Victoria 2 which leads us into the modern age than no modern age game, and iirc Paradox said they would never do a dedicated modern age game.

So basic timeline: 1821 - 1836. Final timeline: 1792 - 2100.

Though if Paradox change their mind on a Cold War to modern period game (which would be great), then final timeline: 1792 - 1936.

Nah, first of all Vicky don't do modern wars well, it's system isn't really even working for WW1, it's more a system for 19th Century wars.
And while it does socio-economics well for the time it represents it wouldn't do well with representing the socio- economic shifts past WW2 (more women in the work force, rise of computer science, automatization, switch from heavy industries to the service based society and then to the digital age)

 

[Spartanlemur]

Nah, first of all Vicky don't do modern wars well, it's system isn't really even working for WW1, it's more a system for 19th Century wars.
And while it does socio-economics well for the time it represents it wouldn't do well with representing the socio- economic shifts past WW2 (more women in the work force, rise of computer science, automatization, switch from heavy industries to the service based society and then to the digital age)

Well, I mean I agree about WW2, and even WW1 (this is the part Vicky 2 is not good at), but we haven't seen any wars since 1945, and I'd say the "modern period" only really began after WW2. You have the Cold War (mostly proxy wars and ideological sphering), and more recently, we've seen demographic changes (mass migration and low birth rates), alongside economic struggle. This century is looking to be a struggle between globalisation+unification and protectionism+nationalism. Victoria's core systems can actually model this well, especially if Paradox were to add in a nukes system as part of a DLC.

I would MUCH prefer a dedicated game, but if we can't have that, a Victoria expansion would at least give us something.

By the way, I don't see how the things you mention (women working, computerisation, the internet etc.) pose a problem for the economic system. Changing things there seems like it would be only a moderate change to the way the game works - very reasonable to achieve.

 

[General WVPM]

By the way, I don't see how the things you mention (women working, computerisation, the internet etc.) pose a problem for the economic system. Changing things there seems like it would be only a moderate change to the way the game works - very reasonable to achieve.

V2 has teleporting goods, which somewhat resemble today's ultralow transport costs (compared to 19th century and before).

 

[Meeg]

I'm really hoping for a Victoria 3 as I love that period in history.
My first paradox game was EU3. Then I got really into CK2 (I also have EU4). Whereas the current CK and EU are both pretty new and are always getting updated, Victoria is a lot older so I'm waiting for a new version to come out (as happened with HOI).

 

[Nirmara]

1836 enable the devs to use census data simply didn't exist before that date. Even then, they had to take later census for some countries or rely on projection to guess the pop. The HPM mod is doing a great job at correcting the starting pops but even in this case, it involve a lots of guessing.

If they can get good population projection, 1815 for the congress of Vienna could be a good starting date.

As for bookmarks, getting the starting population right for all countries is so much works for the devs that I wouldn't be expecting more than the starting one.

 

[DrTjr]

I personally would love to see(and play in) a Mega campaign from 769 to 1950 from CK II to EU IV to Vic III to HoI IV with Vic III having three start dates (1821 being the earliest) and two more that would put focus on aspects of Vic III that the other Paradox grand strategy games don't focus on.

 

[solidprice]

If paradox called me at some random time and asked me what time/bookmark V3 should have?

I'll have from 1821 to 1936.
Perfect fit in between EU and HOI.

I'll have 2 bookmarks by default:

1. 1821 for 100% fleshed out focus.

2. ~1860 for just before American Civil War.


3. DLC bookmark for early 20th century bookmark for just before the great War.
Why a little before?
So you can have some HOI level shenanigans but optionally somewhat railroaded if you want to renact ww1.

 

[gja102]

I genuinely don't understand why people say that there can't be any overlap between Paradox game timeframes.

I always imagined that the number of people that do grand campaigns are pretty small, but in any event, why would an overlap prevent a conversion? Surely it just means you can pick the right time to convert your alt history across (so you don't have to convert in the middle of a big war)?

The revolutionary period is barely experienced by EUIV players - and in that game, it forms a kind of 'late game challenge'. In a Victoria game that began in, say, 1765, the revolutionary period would be an exciting early - mid game proposition that would shape how the remainder of the campaign played out (similar to how the age of exploration and the reformation defines the start of EUIV). Playing through the revolution in Vicky, with its greater emphasis on internal politics, would be completely different to the EUIV offering.

Overlaps are good, surely?

 

[VoodooEconomist]

Also, CK2 end date is 1453, EU4 starts in 1444...

 

[Texas_Jack]

I genuinely don't understand why people say that there can't be any overlap between Paradox game timeframes.

I always imagined that the number of people that do grand campaigns are pretty small, but in any event, why would an overlap prevent a conversion? Surely it just means you can pick the right time to convert your alt history across (so you don't have to convert in the middle of a big war)?

The revolutionary period is barely experienced by EUIV players - and in that game, it forms a kind of 'late game challenge'. In a Victoria game that began in, say, 1765, the revolutionary period would be an exciting early - mid game proposition that would shape how the remainder of the campaign played out (similar to how the age of exploration and the reformation defines the start of EUIV). Playing through the revolution in Vicky, with its greater emphasis on internal politics, would be completely different to the EUIV offering.

Overlaps are good, surely?

Some overlap is alright, but nothing more than a decade or so. Going close to a century of overlap really would cut into EU4, and I struggle to see how, for example, an economic model based around the industrial revolution would fit into going back to 1765.

For Vic3, I'd love to see a Congress of Vienna start date, ever so slightly cutting into EU4, but also dividing up Europe nicely, especially if a "Concert of Europe" type diplomatic system is developed.

 

[gja102]

I see your point about the overlap not being too great, although even if you do take a sixty-odd year bite out of EUIV, that's still a 400-year long game, and it's incredibly rare that EUIV players use the full 400 years.

An eighteenth century start date would obviously have longer to go before you hit full-scale industrialisation, but that could have some advantages to gameplay. You'd be forced to spend more time with the preindustrial, artisan-based economy, and so the demographic changes arising from industrialisation would feel more pronounced. In addition, I feel it might help to ease new players into the economic game - you would have a few decades of controlling a relatively simple, low tech economy, to get into the swing of things before having to tackle more the advanced issues thrown up by factory management.

1836 isn't a bad start date by any means, it just means you're always going to have to deal with a fully hegemonic Britain for the first half of the game. Because of this, I found it rare to see any meaningful alternate history develop in V2 until around 1870ish.

 

[Texas_Jack]

An eighteenth century start date would obviously have longer to go before you hit full-scale industrialisation, but that could have some advantages to gameplay. You'd be forced to spend more time with the preindustrial, artisan-based economy, and so the demographic changes arising from industrialisation would feel more pronounced. In addition, I feel it might help to ease new players into the economic game - you would have a few decades of controlling a relatively simple, low tech economy, to get into the swing of things before having to tackle more the advanced issues thrown up by factory management.

From a gameplay perspective, I totally agree with you.

But, from a "designing the game" perspective, you've got 2 totally different systems to design there. Since Vic3 (should anyway) be focused mainly on economics and internal development, I'd rather see the devs focus on designing and implementing one type of system to capture the complexities of the 19th and early 20th century, instead of worrying about pre-industrial models for the first few decades of gameplay.

Well, considering the time frame of the game, I honestly don't mind a fully hegemonic Britain.

 

[loup99]

My preferred primary startdate is 1821, with the others being secondary. I don't see the interest in going before that though, so I'm opposed to it. Beyond it anything within 1821-1936 seems reasonable.

 

[gja102]

From a gameplay perspective, I totally agree with you.

But, from a "designing the game" perspective, you've got 2 totally different systems to design there. Since Vic3 (should anyway) be focused mainly on economics and internal development, I'd rather see the devs focus on designing and implementing one type of system to capture the complexities of the 19th and early 20th century, instead of worrying about pre-industrial models for the first few decades of gameplay.

Personally, I don't think there is as quite a sharp divide between the 18th and 19th centuries as to need two different systems. Politically, I am always struck by how incredibly similar the French and Russian revolutions were, despite being over a century apart. The same gameplay model should cover both.

Economically, yeah, I can appreciate why, at face value, starting in the preindustrial era seems silly for an industrialisation game - but remember that, even in the standard V2 timeframe, most of the world remained preindustrial for most of the game, so it wouldn't hurt to make playing without factories a little more interesting.

 

[Rubidium]

But the industrial revolution and associated politics are really the heart of V2. The later back you go, the more you have to stretch those systems, and the less likely you are to get anything approximating reality. It's really hard to have a game model the vast upheavals of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars AND the relative stability of the Congress of Europe.

From a practical point of view, anything before mid-1820s or so means that the New World is still mostly colonies (and going back pre-1783 means it's entirely colonies), which eliminates a lot of interesting opportunities.

 

[Tibi088]

I personally would prefer 1815 as starting date. Modelling the Napoleonic era would be a pain in the ass and even if they do it right - which is a big if - it has a huge potential that things end up vastly different than OTL 1815 even if Napoleon looses. 1815 is on the other hand easily doable with current mechanics - the most they would need to do is doing something with the Latin Americans, the greeks and the belgians. So im strongly against including Napoleonic era but I see ne problem starting in 1815 and dont know why would it be a good idea to push it back into 1821. Latin America would be much more interesting for sure with an 1815 start date. As for end date: i dont think it should go much after OTL WWI so around 1920.