What Now? Or: We Need More to Do Besides the Construction Loop

[Black_Shade]

Greater Germany game, started as Prussia. I stopped expanding my construction sector 20 years ago. I'm out of ariable land in Africa, which I mostly control and have stated (and of course have 25 SOL there too), so there's not much point in trying to continue to build things anyways since there's no resources left to exploit and the people already have their needs met. I'm drowning in money and can't give it away fast enough. What is there to do in the game when you reach this point? I have nothing left to build, my people have every need they have met- luxury furniture and hardwood are the only goods that I'm not wildly overproducing. Diplomacy is a sad joke, with almost no options for interactions and even more fickle allies. The political game ended in 1850 when I got the last law I wanted to pass passed. I last opened the political menu around 1855- literally nothing has changed on the political landscape since then, and I haven't even had to look at a single election outcome, yet look at my radical and loyalist numbers! I've also more or less got the borders I want, minus incorporating Poland and Bosnia of course, while colonizing nearly the whole of Africa, taking most of central Europe, and staying well under the infamy cap at all times.

The problem I'm having is not just that I ran out of things to do in this playthrough in 1870, but that once you get a game to this point you realize just how little gameplay there actually is outside of the construction loop. I can't think of a reason to start up a new game as a different country because of this. There's no differentiation between countries and so little to do besides build your economy, which is identical in literally every country in the game. We desperately need some more engaging gameplay mechanics besides building things!

 

[Slaikkiz]

I Agree. Besides construction the other thing to do is setting up trade routes... and after a while it gets really tedious.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

Build more, produce more, then enjoy an imploding economy once the construction sectors are out of things to build.

Or expand the empire for more resources, Lenin was quite accurate about how these things go.

 

[bilhgl]

You played greater Germany what did you expect, not to become overwhelmingly powerful and so boring to play?
But I agree with the sentiments when you can achieve a 1950s vision of utopia in the 1890s the game's industrialization and urbanization side has too little dept to it.

 

[MfgLuckbot]

What this game needs is more economic crisis that takes time to recover from. If your economy grows too fast there should be a risk of speculation bubbles bursting.

The economy is way too robust. Even if you have a huge crisis the recovery is usually just a few months as all factories still stand and can simply start hiring people again once you made them profitable.

There is no private bankruptcy, no liquidity crisis possible.

 

[Arbus]

Your Germany is not Gross enough.

 

[paulxiep]

It seems the game is more balanced towards playing as a minor nation. I've played minors on both my 1st and 2nd run and really enjoyed/enjoying it immensely.

 

[McRold]

The problem is that the game has four pillars of gameplay and only one feels rewarding: The economy.
Warfare, diplomacy and politics are really weak and uninteresting right now.
And the lack of flavor, unique mechanics and the scarcity of events for most countries certainly doesn't help.

 

[Gort11]

Yeah, I'd say what's missing from the picture is good opposition. Maybe try out some AI mods?

 

[Black_Shade]

Yeah, I'd say what's missing from the picture is good opposition. Maybe try out some AI mods?

This is with AI mods.

 

[za3tarani]

and staying well under the infamy cap at all times.

in vic2, just forming greater germany would give 25 infamy... now it seems like every other game austria ai forms greater germany. a bit ridiculous

 

[BPZ1941]

Build more, produce more, then enjoy an imploding economy once the construction sectors are out of things to build.

Or expand the empire for more resources, Lenin was quite accurate about how these things go.

Which adds more population to consume more resources, so unless you use some very unethical means its a no-go to expand for resources as well. I united all of Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania and half of North America, South America in my market - most conquered + released to get my techs (which were all of them).

I also proceeded to cut my own population by some 70 million, but even with all iron deposits I could find exploited to the max we all entered a recession by 1920 as iron prices rose to 50% above the normal.

 

[Secret Master]

we all entered a recession by 1920 as iron prices rose to 50% above the normal.

Pfft... 50% higher than normal?

Meanwhile I'm conducting imperialism against China and Korea to simply end throughput penalties from lack of iron. I'd be satisfied with 70% above normal because at least then I'd have removed the throughput penalties.

But your post, combined with another experiment by someone else on this forum, shows why soft power is less useful than it could be. The AI doesn't grow its economy nearly as fast as you do, so even if you put half the planet in your market, good luck getting more natural resources than you were using before you added countries to your market. But outright conquest results in acquiring new states with undeveloped mines and logging camps that you can develop to generate the required resources.

but that once you get a game to this point you realize just how little gameplay there actually is outside of the construction loop.

You point out some issues with the AI earlier in your post, and I think these issues are a key to what's going on in other parts of the game. Fickle diplomatic AI and an inability to better communicate what you or the AI wants for joining a play (or why they dump an alliance) hurts that part of the game. And the AI's inability to keep up economically means that you outpace it quickly even when starting from an inferior position.

I also think the research part of the game is balanced so weirdly that I can't decide if its more of an exploit to use too many universities or no universities and just run off tech spread.

which is identical in literally every country in the game

But this is where we disagree. Countries aren't identical. Some of them are similar when they have similar starting positions, but Russia, China, and EIC play nothing like Prussia, Austria, or France. Qualifications are no problem for Prussia or Austria, but as Russia or China, lack of qualifications hindered growth early in the game regardless of how big my construction sector was or what tech I had. And the laws/tax base for these countries are a real problem until you get some legislation passed.

Now, once you get past a certain point, they start to play the same, but that's basically every game in the Victoria franchise thanks to placement of resources and population.

 

[Black_Shade]

And the AI's inability to keep up economically means that you outpace it quickly even when starting from an inferior position.

I also think the research part of the game is balanced so weirdly that I can't decide if its more of an exploit to use too many universities or no universities and just run off tech spread.



But this is where we disagree. Countries aren't identical. Some of them are similar when they have similar starting positions, but Russia, China, and EIC play nothing like Prussia, Austria, or France. Qualifications are no problem for Prussia or Austria, but as Russia or China, lack of qualifications hindered growth early in the game regardless of how big my construction sector was or what tech I had. And the laws/tax base for these countries are a real problem until you get some legislation passed.

Now, once you get past a certain point, they start to play the same, but that's basically every game in the Victoria franchise thanks to placement of resources and population.

I'm running Anbeeld's AI and while the AI is behind me, they aren't THAT far behind- the UK, France, USA, Russia, and Italy are all up over 20 SoL when my screenshot was taken. Spain, Ukraine, and the Ottomans are also pretty close (18-19).

On research, I agree. I hate the passive tech spread. One of the primary reasons why the west ran away from the rest of the world during this era was because of the massive disparity in technology. The passive spread needs to go, and it should be much harder to raise literacy without both good laws and heavy investment in education. Maybe there can still be some passive spread based around having large trade routes, which would also giving some more things to do on the diplomatic side, but most tech in the game should be ones that you researched yourself rather than got for free.

On the countries being identical, I don't agree with your disagree simply because there is a "best" set of laws, and it's universal. The only thing that changes from country to country is how long it takes to get those laws. There's no benefit to sticking with agrarian or empowering land owners. There's no downside to rushing for multiculturalism, guaranteed liberties, and dedicated police force. The only law choice that is even close to being done correctly is the one on womens rights, where there are actually significant choices to be made.

On the qualifications, this is never a problem if you build universities everywhere. In addition to tech, the other thing unis do is significantly boost qualifications; if you're playing some backwater with terrible literacy you can build 2-3 uni's in every high pop province (they are quite cheap to maintain) and you'll never have an issue with qualifications ever again.

I think my biggest gripe of the game, is that the diplomacy+market system is such a huge step backwards from the SoI game in Vic2. It's just terrible. Even if the AI wasn't incredibly fickle, there's so little you can actually do on the diplomatic side that it handicaps the rest of the game. Vic2 system for SoIs and colonization were so much better than what we have now. I know they didn't just want to make a carbon copy of the older game, but most of these new systems are just so clearly inferior to the older ones and detract rather than add to the gameplay that it makes you wonder how they got approved in the first place.

 

[Secret Master]

There's no benefit to sticking with agrarian or empowering land owners.

Should there be? Besides short term political gain (which is already modeled).

How many agrarian powers in the time period weren't overshadowed by wealthier and more industrialized powers (who were wealthier because of their industry)?

On the qualifications, this is never a problem if you build universities everywhere. In addition to tech, the other thing unis do is significantly boost qualifications; if you're playing some backwater with terrible literacy you can build 2-3 uni's in every high pop province (they are quite cheap to maintain) and you'll never have an issue with qualifications ever again.

But that's something you don't have to do with other countries. It's a different playstyle having to overcome terrible literacy and bad qualifications.

Not that I'm saying qualifications aren't easy in the base game. But if you go into a China game and think you're going to just plop down 300 factories with high end PMs in a single state, and they're all going to fill instantly, think again.

 

[Fawr]

The problem is that the game has four pillars of gameplay and only one feels rewarding: The economy.
Warfare, diplomacy and politics are really weak and uninteresting right now.
And the lack of flavor, unique mechanics and the scarcity of events for most countries certainly doesn't help.

I like the political gameplay. The largest issue is the one the OP highlighted - that it ends in success too early (although government legitimacy can be funny/annoying too).

Some other things to try in a new game would be the USA & the Ottomans (who both have quite a few unique scripted things to do, aka different challenges). I imagine that after DLC other countries will look more like these two.

Alternatively try to play the game a different way. What does a communist playthough look like (I assume you went capitalist)? Can you play successfully as a slaver country (with interests in Africa to import slaves in to fill your buildings instead of multiculturalism)? A smaller country may make the military side of the game challenging for longer.

You may still find the game still gets dull after 50 years, but 50 years of a different fun game is still fun isn't it?

 

[Ir0nSlug]

It seems the game is more balanced towards playing as a minor nation. I've played minors on both my 1st and 2nd run and really enjoyed/enjoying it immensely.

I agree, it's also a way to tweak difficulty. My Mexico game had me sweating for the 20 first years and was interesting until 1900 (but that was without the AI mod). Of course, at some point I became stronger than the US and it became like any other game but the early game was great. It would probably have been even better with the AI mod.

Regarding the OP, greater germany is probably the easiest country you could play. The unification is quite easy once you get it and upon formation, once you update the austrian barracks, you are automatically the stronger military power of the world and a huge econ power. Try Mexico, or I don't know, Algeria with an aggressive AI (not sure about this one, France doesn't seem to be interested in taking Algeria most of the time).

 

[Znikii]

View attachment 931191

Greater Germany game, started as Prussia. I stopped expanding my construction sector 20 years ago. I'm out of ariable land in Africa, which I mostly control and have stated (and of course have 25 SOL there too), so there's not much point in trying to continue to build things anyways since there's no resources left to exploit and the people already have their needs met. I'm drowning in money and can't give it away fast enough. What is there to do in the game when you reach this point? I have nothing left to build, my people have every need they have met- luxury furniture and hardwood are the only goods that I'm not wildly overproducing. Diplomacy is a sad joke, with almost no options for interactions and even more fickle allies. The political game ended in 1850 when I got the last law I wanted to pass passed. I last opened the political menu around 1855- literally nothing has changed on the political landscape since then, and I haven't even had to look at a single election outcome, yet look at my radical and loyalist numbers! I've also more or less got the borders I want, minus incorporating Poland and Bosnia of course, while colonizing nearly the whole of Africa, taking most of central Europe, and staying well under the infamy cap at all times.

The problem I'm having is not just that I ran out of things to do in this playthrough in 1870, but that once you get a game to this point you realize just how little gameplay there actually is outside of the construction loop. I can't think of a reason to start up a new game as a different country because of this. There's no differentiation between countries and so little to do besides build your economy, which is identical in literally every country in the game. We desperately need some more engaging gameplay mechanics besides building things!

You won, congratz. Time to start a new run.

edit: What game settings/mods are you using?

 

[Panagean]

Should there be? Besides short term political gain (which is already modeled).

How many agrarian powers in the time period weren't overshadowed by wealthier and more industrialized powers (who were wealthier because of their industry?

Argentina was considered (in some, largely British, quarters) as a rival to America and potential great power in the making until the 1890s on the back of its beef and silver exports. Australia and New Zealand flourished in great part through the sale of beef, lamb and (edit) wool to British consumers and textile mills. Denmark, while certainly not a great power, was considered "the cream front" by its German invaders in the Second World War on the grounds of its high quality of life, supported by beef and pork industries. Russia (and Poland) were so keen to conquer Ukraine during the Russian Civil War in part due to its abundant coal and agricultural surplus (as well as its industry). South American wealth (and culture) is inextricable from beef ranching. American wealth even today is inextricable from vast mineral, hydrocarbon and agricultural resources, as well as its industrial and service sectors.


V3 seems to think, politically and economically, that the 2nd Agricultural Revolution was the countryside's Fukayaman End of History, which is ridiculous. This is a major problem of the existing IG system and does nothing to model the changing tide of 19th century conservatism where Romantic Conservative parties in e.g. Britain and Germany moved to arguably more democratic positions than their liberal counterparts on realising that the the cultural interests of the old aristocracy and the (rural) poor were aligned, and outnumbered liberal or socialist voters. It also ignores the role that individual landowning magnates had in providing the original seeds of liberal reforms (e.g. in Hungary in 1848), or France in 1789).

 

[Question]

Theres the map painting loop of course.