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

[Secret Master]

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 cotton 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.

So, all of those countries were overshadowed by their more industrialized neighbors over the course of the game's time frame? That's what you examples tell me. Your examples also reinforce the need for empire; New Zealand and Australia weren't fully independent countries throughout most of the period. They were economically bound to Britain. Which, for the record, I also think the game does a fair job of mimicking.

I'm not saying agriculture wasn't important, or that mineral wealth wasn't important in the period. But what I am saying is that the big industrialized countries had all the others dancing to their tune. If you want to play in the sandbox with the big kids, you need to industrialize. You aren't going to do that with agrarianism and serfdom. (Hell, serfdom isn't even friendly to plantation style agriculture.)

The irony is that the ridiculous over-the-top industrialization we can get up to in a game of Vic3 also makes rural commodities and jobs more important over time. Due to limits on resource and agriculture buildings, we can't have a huge rural sector feeding our industries. But boy do those miners and agriculture workers make a solid living feeding my industries. They'll just never be as politically important as they might otherwise be due to those same limits. You can't have 45 million farmers in a state because, well, there aren't that many farms. But you can have 45 million factory workers in a state. (And yes, I've actually done that.)

the existing IG system and does nothing to model the changing tide of 19th century conservatism where Romantic Conservative parties

I think it can do this, but it's clunky and subject to RNG.

Like, I had Andrew Jackson become an abolitionist. But I see what you mean. In most cases, the landowners eventually become marginalized. I think that the "end of history" aspect you mention is tied to how quickly and efficiently you can industrialize. While I complain about the lack of natural resources to feed my industries, it does not escape my notice that I have cities with populations that make NYC and LA today look "meh" in terms of sheer population. I have urban/rural demographics that look like 2010 in 1890. In those situations, of course you are not going to see rural POPs outnumber those pesky socialists in the cities. Arguments about the Corn Laws? No, I don't think I've heard of such a thing. The few rural voices that supported the Corn Laws were long since drowned out by the overwhelming tide of trade unionists and industrialists. Well, that and the overwhelming number of rural workers in my colonial empire that long since flooded the market with cheap grain.

 

[Froonk]

There is a lack of dynamism in the game without player touch, it feels like playing EU4 late game. Victoria 2 felt different in this regard, where a lot of things in and out of your country happened if you would let the game run without clicking anything.

 

[Vernichtere]

there really isn't that much to do at the moment other than building.

The AI will never be competitive in terms of war. But domestic politics is in dire need of improvement.

 

[0watcherinthewater0]

there really isn't that much to do at the moment other than building.

The AI will never be competitive in terms of war. But domestic politics is in dire need of improvement.

Vic 3 is one of the rare paradox games where I think the AI actually could be competitive in regards to war, if they have the right tech priorities. The lack of micro prevents a lot of player abuse that would otherwise make the AI less competitive.

Just make the AI better in regards to supply and reserves, so that a random naval invasion can’t just destroy them, and they don’t lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers to attrition, and I think it could work well.

And in terms of things other than construction to do, managing interest groups, legitimacy, and radicalism is an interesting dynamic, especially if you’re trying to reform a country significantly, and it offers a trade-off between rapid economic vs rapid political development.

 

[Oxymore]

Vic2’s lategame had to contend with the rise of fascist and communist movements, leading to turmoil, revolutions, conflicts and, well, stuff happening.

Any reasonably managed nation in Vic3 will be an unshakably stable multicultural social-democrat utopia with happy integrated colonies before the turn of the century.

Isolationist theocratic ethnostates? Militarist authoritarian regimes with local democratic institutions? Libertarian trade empires? Egalitarian agrarian idylls?
The political ingredients are there, it should be possible to turn domestic politics into a real game system with goals, challenges, strategies and rewards.
At the moment it feels more like another tech tree to ‘complete’. Only annoying rng and useless characters.

 

[MatthewP]

Edited out accidental part.

Vic2’s lategame had to contend with the rise of fascist and communist movements, leading to turmoil, revolutions, conflicts and, well, stuff happening.

Any reasonably managed nation in Vic3 will be an unshakably stable multicultural social-democrat utopia with happy integrated colonies before the turn of the century.

Isolationist theocratic ethnostates? Militarist authoritarian regimes with local democratic institutions? Libertarian trade empires? Egalitarian agrarian idylls?
The political ingredients are there, it should be possible to turn domestic politics into a real game system with goals, challenges, strategies and rewards.
At the moment it feels more like another tech tree to ‘complete’. Only annoying rng and useless characters.

it was not my experience at all that vic2 presented serious late game internal challenges to a competent player. The worst case scenario was lots of super weak rebels which were just busywork to mop up, and I can’t believe anyone genuinely wants to go back.

That said, I agree that this game needs more turmoil, pushback and threats to prevent the player from just following the garden path. The threat of rebellion and IG anger is solid, but it goes away too completely once progress is made IMO. Maybe unpopular law changes should create lots of radicals for a while after.

I think there should also be more benefit to not going the default liberal route, but I’m not sure how to make it work. You do want the player to be able to make progress, so it would be very problematic if the early regressive laws were as strong as the liberal ones. Also in a general sense it’s historically accurate that this type of progress would be beneficial for the country.

The root issue is that the player isn’t playing as the ruling class of their country, so the fact that liberalization (again, generally) hurts that class isn’t an issue, when historically it was the main obstacle to change. This tension between what’s good for the country and what’s good for the rulers is tough to model when the player is kind of existing in a space between those groups.

 

[Znikii]

The root issue is that the player isn’t playing as the ruling class of their country, so the fact that liberalization (again, generally) hurts that class isn’t an issue, when historically it was the main obstacle to change. This tension between what’s good for the country and what’s good for the rulers is tough to model when the player is kind of existing in a space between those groups.

Not really, as you said it yourself in the earlier paragraph we lack significant turmoil/pushback from plebs vs elite & accepted vs discriminated. The real question is how to model and implement this struggle into a fun and engaging gameplay mechanic...

The other question about whatever agrarian idlys and other styles of running a country is obviously the question of fine-tuning the balance, game play and historical plausibility. And everyone will have a different answer for that...

 

[MatthewP]

Not really, as you said it yourself in the earlier paragraph we lack significant turmoil/pushback from plebs vs elite & accepted vs discriminated. The real question is how to model and implement this struggle into a fun and engaging gameplay mechanic...

Sure, I agree. But having the player in the position we are in makes it a lot harder to model. Of course paradox should still try to do it as well as they can. I think they’ve actually made quite a good start, and hopefully it’ll get even better.

 

[Znikii]

Sure, I agree. But having the player in the position we are in makes it a lot harder to model. Of course paradox should still try to do it as well as they can. I think they’ve actually made quite a good start, and hopefully it’ll get even better.

Not necessarily since current position is similar to the silent protagonist in fps/rpg games, so each player can choose who will he favour. Which also aligns well with the more sandboxy nature of victoria 3.
But yea, I concur. Base game is a great foundation for future expansions. Cant wait

 

[FryFroFella]

I think political movements need to be really expanded in importance. It should be harder to pass laws without a political movement for them, maybe impossible in the absence of any political movement and the difficulty of passing the law depending not only on IG support but relative strength of political movement. I also dont think political movements should be intrinsically tied to IGs as they are currently, since currently it creates an unrealistic and 2 dimensional system in which its impossible to have a popular demand among one sector of society that no one in or eligible for admission into the halls of power is willing to touch. Ive never seen a game where demand for minimum wage was a serious issue without there also being a strong enough Trade Union IG to put in government and grant minimum wage without much thought or work. Even if 90% of Laborers are in Rural Folk, Devout, and Landowner IG's, there should still absolutely be a possibility for them to throw their weight behind a movement for workers protections etc if things are bad enough. The IG system is nice and elegant and fun to explore at first, but its almost TOO elegant imo, removing a lot of the potential for tensions that requite creative solutions. You can usually preemptively address the demands of pops that matter, and if you dont do it preemptively, those demands being dangerous in the first place (e.g. there are enough Machinists to make a proletarian revolt a threat) are 9 times out of 10 always accompanied by readymade solutions (e.g. enough Machinists to be a threat means theres enough to have strengthened the Trade Union IG to the point where you just put them in government and fix it). It makes playthroughs feel a lot more procedural than they should.

 

[MatthewP]

I think political movements need to be really expanded in importance. It should be harder to pass laws without a political movement for them, maybe impossible in the absence of any political movement and the difficulty of passing the law depending not only on IG support but relative strength of political movement. I also dont think political movements should be intrinsically tied to IGs as they are currently, since currently it creates an unrealistic and 2 dimensional system in which its impossible to have a popular demand among one sector of society that no one in or eligible for admission into the halls of power is willing to touch. Ive never seen a game where demand for minimum wage was a serious issue without there also being a strong enough Trade Union IG to put in government and grant minimum wage without much thought or work. Even if 90% of Laborers are in Rural Folk, Devout, and Landowner IG's, there should still absolutely be a possibility for them to throw their weight behind a movement for workers protections etc if things are bad enough. The IG system is nice and elegant and fun to explore at first, but its almost TOO elegant imo, removing a lot of the potential for tensions that requite creative solutions. You can usually preemptively address the demands of pops that matter, and if you dont do it preemptively, those demands being dangerous in the first place (e.g. there are enough Machinists to make a proletarian revolt a threat) are 9 times out of 10 always accompanied by readymade solutions (e.g. enough Machinists to be a threat means theres enough to have strengthened the Trade Union IG to the point where you just put them in government and fix it). It makes playthroughs feel a lot more procedural than they should.

I don’t know. It seems like what

-trade unions are in government demanding minimum wage
-there are a bunch of pops who really want minimum wage
-instead of supporting the trade unions, they start a revolution against the trade unions demanding exactly the thing the trade unions want.

 

[FryFroFella]

I don’t know. It seems like what

-trade unions are in government demanding minimum wage
-there are a bunch of pops who really want minimum wage
-instead of supporting the trade unions, they start a revolution against the trade unions demanding exactly the thing the trade unions want.

No I dont think that should happen either, sorry if I was unclear. I just think it should be far more likely to end up in a situation where there are a lot of pops demanding minimum wage but Trade Unions arent nearly powerful enough to come into government and pass those laws without a probable reactionary revolt, forcing you to need to find other ways to deradicalize the movement (cheaper goods, higher paying industries, stronger police, etc).

 

[MatthewP]

No I dont think that should happen either, sorry if I was unclear. I just think it should be far more likely to end up in a situation where there are a lot of pops demanding minimum wage but Trade Unions arent nearly powerful enough to come into government and pass those laws without a probable reactionary revolt, forcing you to need to find other ways to deradicalize the movement (cheaper goods, higher paying industries, stronger police, etc).

Ah I see. That makes sense then. I think there’s no simple fix that would make it happen without causing other issues but I agree it should be a goal of a future politics rework.

 

[FryFroFella]

Ah I see. That makes sense then. I think there’s no simple fix that would make it happen without causing other issues but I agree it should be a goal of a future politics rework.

Yeah, I just feel that generally political solutions feel both too intuitive and too accessible in a way that turns them into reflex for any semi-experienced gsg player, which heavily influences the feeling of "ok but what do I actually focus on." For all Vicky2's very real flaws, the economy felt like a means to an end most of the time, but in such a way that successfully managing it made diplomatic and military successes much more meaningful because a lot of work was put into the economic logistics, overall making the game immersive and satisfying in a way I think that Victoria 3, for all its good parts, really lacks.

Another thing I'd like to see on the political fronts is management of internal IG politics (maybe a few character-abstractions at a time vying for control and different approaches to ideologies/personalities reconciling or competing), which would allow for both more player agency as well as (potentially optional) complexity.