Will each countries have a specific bonus or mechanic?

[Atreides]

Would far prefer Vic3 to use asymmetrical game play than whatever you want to call the style of at release Imperator and CK3.

Whether that is achieved through technology, cultural events, or even some form of EU4 style country modifiers - I really don't care. Every nation having a nearly identical play experience gets very old, very quickly.

 

[cloudwasher]

Railroading a specific country into outcome X? No I don't want to see that.

What I would love to see is specific mechanics surrounding certain regions. For example, some special mechanics regarding the interactions dealing with the minor Germanic states at the beginning of the game. I'd love to have Bavaria, Prussia, Austria, and maybe even more Germanic states having a diplomatic pathway to unification (or stopping it) of Germany, and maybe something similar with Italian states.

Likewise, seeing some special mechanics surrounding Opium wars in China/East Asia or the rush to colonize Africa and whether it ends in a peaceful conference or all out war would also be fun.

 

[Arizal]

While I understand the wish for « flavour », I hate national ideas, mission trees and national focuses and really hope for the simulation to be able to represent a big number of different situations with, at most, flavour events strapped on existing mechanics meant for everyone.

Many people seem to think this is impossible, and yes, many things won’t be « fleshed out » at release. Every pet country won’t have its situation perfectly represented at start.

Yet if the mechanics are not too boring, in the sense that they don’t equilibrate in the first ten years, they might be able to portray endemic problems, fault lines in countries which created civil wars or revolutions that wouldn’t be so easy to avoid.

Ideally, the Spring of People’s should stem from greater literacy and a temporary gap in consumption. Then conservatives elements would or wouldn’t take the power back.

Unification of the United States (Texas), Romania, Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia, etc. could be represented by mechanics of national peaceful unions or colonial unions. Centrifugal forces could break apart Austria as much as the USA, Russia and the USCA. No need for events creating… forcing the exact historical outcome.

Edit : Besides, which « bonuses » or mechanics are you thinking about that wouldn’t be applicable at least in theory to other countries?

 

[Buttons12345]

Would far prefer Vic3 to use asymmetrical game play than whatever you want to call the style of at release Imperator and CK3.

Whether that is achieved through technology, cultural events, or even some form of EU4 style country modifiers - I really don't care. Every nation having a nearly identical play experience gets very old, very quickly.

Issue is that the bonuses are extremely gamey and immersion breaking in nature. The biggest idea style divergence should be in pop culture (preferred government, job, quality of life expectations) and starting culture differences. In EU IV for example it's very artificial that Prussia has the best overall army and Poland has the best cavalry pretty much regardless of player actions outside of tech differences. France from the 15th to 19th centuries can never hope to match the winged hussars in terms of quality. Beyond that there is no reason nations should be pushed towards specific playstyles outside of those rendered difficult of infeasible due to starting position (eg. Russia supporting an African empire when its nearest port is in the Black Sea or Portugal trying to carve out a European empire when it will struggle to match the army of Spain let alone France or Germany.

 

[天皇の神風]

Railroading a specific country into outcome X? No I don't want to see that.

Not so much about railroading, but in 1836 plenty of nations have some consolidated "doctrines" so to speak.
Prussia for exemple, the Army with a State, in Vic 2 if i take a country with a similar population, invest in military tecnology and turn pops into soldiers and officer, in one decade we can turn this country into a new Prussia.
The way i see, the prussian culture should make Prussia more prone to have a huge military. If we look at history, Otto von Bismark came to be Minister President of Prussia bcoz he was the only willing to take the position in the middle of a political crises were liberals woudn't allow a new budge for the army. Not funding the Prussian Army was such a huge crises that it treatened the very existence of the Prussian State.
Its not about railroading, but about what each country is and how it works.
However, i'm very much in favor that if you want to reform Prussia to the point that in 1900 Prussia is a pacifist merchant country, i think we should have those choices and tools to do it.

 

[Arizal]

Not so much about railroading, but in 1836 plenty of nations have some consolidated "doctrines" so to speak.
Prussia for exemple, the Army with a State, in Vic 2 if i take a country with a similar population, invest in military tecnology and turn pops into soldiers and officer, in one decade in turn this country into a new Prussia. The way i see, the prussian culture should make Prussia more prone to have a huge military. If we look at history, Otto von Bismark came to be Minister President of Prussia bcoz he was the only willing to take the position in the middle of a political crises were liberals woudn't allow a new budge for the army. Not funding the Prussian Army was such a huge crises that it treatened the very existence of the Prussian State.
Its not about railroading, but about what each country is and how it works.

OR, the country is more militaristic because it has more officers and soldiers per capita than others. This comes at the expense of other sectors. And if you want to create such an ethos in other countries, then you have to invest at least 20 years into it to increase the power of the military interest group, which might prove to be difficult in countries which aren't that much militarists (at the time) like the USA or Great-Britain.

However, i'm very much in favor that if you want to reform Prussia to the point that in 1900 Prussia is a pacifist merchant country, i think we should have those choices and tools to do it.

Well, I suppose if you battle for a century against the junkers, and manage to not be overthrowned, you could reform Prussia, but then you might be pressured by your neighbour, as central Europe isn't the most quiet place in the world.

 

[天皇の神風]

OR, the country is more militaristic because it has more officers and soldiers per capita than others.

Is it more militaristic bcoz it have more officers and soldiers or does it have more officers and soldiers for being more militaristic?
Could the Prussian spirit be simply translated by spawning more soldiers and officers?

 

[geogus]

I would like nations to have some cultural flavor, but as many have pointed not arbitrary bonus because pop simulator.

The question is, what these flavors might be?
Larger tea demand for brits?
Cossacks change jobs for soldiers faster?
I do t have many sufgestions, would like suggestions

 

[天皇の神風]

I would like nations to have some cultural flavor, but as many have pointed not arbitrary bonus because pop simulator.

The question is, what these flavors might be?
Larger tea demand for brits?
Cossacks change jobs for soldiers faster?
I do t have many sufgestions, would like suggestions

I really liked the idea that diferent cultures might behave diferently. Like, i don't expect Swiss and Americans to have an ounce of monarchism, but Germans, Russians and Austrians do. Or perhaps how french pops are a bit more explosive, etc.

 

[Arizal]

Is it more militaristic bcoz it have more officers and soldiers or does it have more officers and soldiers for being more militaristic?
Could the Prussian spirit be simply translated by spawning more soldiers and officers?

That's a good point. Everything isn't material, we can agree on that. Those immaterial things like pride and confidence are much more difficult to render in a game than the quantifiable things.

However, how did this militarism affect Prussia other than by making it very difficult to pacify (in your view)? Even if it's only that, then you would be forced as a player to engage more with the army than someone playing as, say, Portugal. Maybe Prussia could also start with some "good" military laws (if you insist on saying they were better than comparable nations).

We know the interest groups currently can draw support from many types of pops. A modifier making it more likely for Prussians (alone) to support the military would be horrid. We have to have a reason for this, something replicable over the course of either a few years or a generation. Maybe "recent invasion of the country" and "recent victories" could work. After all, the Prussia of old was obliterated by Napoleon (slight exaggeration here, sorry) and was left as a rump State, which managed to reform itself militarily and to win a decizive victory against France.

Something akin to the "revanchism" mechanic from EUIV, cristallized by a stunning military victory and a very favorable peace treaty (Prussia gained Westphalia), could probably be seen as an in-game cause of Prussia's military popularity.

However, we then turn to Austria and Russia, who both gained a lot from the Napoleonic wars. For Russia, it was still an autocracy and the Tsar saw himself as the gendarm of Europe until the Crimean War, so the narrative fits. Nobody said that a militarist faction in power necessarily means that the good laws and social organizations are there to back it. For Austria, it was treated far more gently by Napoleon (lost less territories), so maybe it wouldn't start with such a modifier.

In addition, we could also explain France's relative weakness during the era by reffering to the wars of the Revolution and the Empire, saying that France was exhausted demographically and its intelligentsia was disheartened by its ultimate defeat, which wasn't followed by some eclatant victory.

Here is a map of Europe in 1812 to show how butchered Prussia was and how comparatively intact Austria was. (That said Prussia’s conquests that were removed by Napoleon were recents and were replaced by Westphalia)

 

[Buttons12345]

Is it more militaristic bcoz it have more officers and soldiers or does it have more officers and soldiers for being more militaristic?
Could the Prussian spirit be simply translated by spawning more soldiers and officers?

It's more militaristic policies is because it policies supported a focus on the army, it's military is better because it has more officers and soldiers. The Prussian army wasn't good because there was some magical "Prussianess" that made Prussians better officers, it was because of its organization and the fact that the best and brightest in Prussia tended towards military service as a way to climb the social ladder instead of civil law or civilian politics.

These bonuses are ultimately just magical "Prussianess" or "Frenchness" or "Americaness" and magically and arbitrarily make these people better at things. Prussia should have a better military at the start and better (proportional at least) ability to improve their military further, but that should be due to technology, government, public policies, and populations, not some magical force that gives you a +3 to hit when using a Mauser rifle the minute you move from Hannover to Prussia, or the minute Germany united into the German empire despite being a Bavarian factory worker.

 

[Buttons12345]

That's a good point. Everything isn't material, we can agree on that. Those immaterial things like pride and confidence are much more difficult to render in a game than the quantifiable things.

Victoria 2 also had revanchism and pluralism, plus pro-military and jingoism, which I wouldn't mind ideologies effecting job preference, makes sense for jingoists to heavily prefer military service if a career is possible while pacifists pretty much run away from the military.

 

[kviiri]

While a good part of the replayability offered by came from emergent factors such as ressource availability, geography and population, country specific content also played an important role in Victoria 2.

The popularity of mods such as HPM or HFM as well as the criticism Imperator got on release for the lack of country specific flavor are proofs that country specific content is something the community wants.

While I am not in favor of bland arbitrary modifiers, things such as events, decisions and maybe even laws or political systems definitely have their place as a way to add flavor.

I don't think the comparison to Imperator is a particularly good one. It's supposed to be a very different kind of game compared to Vicky 3. Crusader Kings also has much less historical country-specific flavor compared to Europa Universalis, because of a different focus. Different games need different things.

I would prefer for the differences in countries to arise emergently from the simulation, without the need of artificial variables. No +10% combat efficiency for Prussia, no +50% navy cap for Britain, none of that please. However, there are some things that will be hard to represent without some specific modifiers, so a degree of compromise is of course needed.

Therefore I'd suggest as a compromise that any bonus modifiers provided are immaterial in the sense that they do not affect raw output values, but rather POP behavior and tendencies. Examples that sound like this have already been mentioned: Prussian POPs have a preference for monarchism, British POPs have a preference for tea. Prussians could also culturally consider military employment more prestigious increasing the attraction of soldier jobs. From this type of modifier and sufficiently well-crafted starting scenarios for each country, I think we will have the variance in playstyle without sacrificing the sandbox. This transition should take decades, of course: building up a tradition from scratch is not a fast process.

Furthermore, I would prefer for all of these modifiers to be dynamic in the sense that a country can gain or lose them. A nation that devotes itself to military should be able to develop a similar cultural appreciation for their army as Prussia has, a nation that provides its populace plentiful tea can develop a tea culture similar to Britain. And likewise, should Britain be dry of tea for a few decades, the Stiff Upper Lip kicks in and the tea culture will gradually shift towards more affordable luxuries with the younger generation.

 

[Limbojack]

I'm sure each country will have unique flavor events and decisions, but in my opinion, that's more than enough. I don't want artificial bonuses or abstract game systems for every nation unless they actually represent something unique about the nation. Any attempt at adding special mechanics to every tag will probably result in a lot of weirdness going on, and that's not necessary. France will feel different than Austria simply because they face different challenges.

 

[Stein14]

I think a lot should also go through interest groups. Prussian interest groups support more of a large army. British interest groups want a large fleet. Russian peasant interest groups may want an end to pseudo serfdom.
And even in individual countries, an interest group could exist twice with different wishes. E.g. in the US southern and northern versions.

 

[[Q]uik]

Hopefully not ^^'

 

[Topias]

I'm definitely more concerned about a lack of flavor and countries feeling increasingly similar after a few decades than some limited railroading. EUIV-style traditions obviously aren't ideal for this game, but the pop-level cultural differences we've heard about do sound promising. I do wonder if they're enough, though. Even in that context I'd prefer if, say, the British affinity for tea was railroaded and not something that could go away or change into something that ends up feeling random.

This is subjective on my part, of course, but I think Imperator has demonstrated that flavor should be taken seriously.

 

[wthree]

I'll echo others in that I would be very against flat bonuses to specific countries. Can they be given as rewards for specific events? Maybe. But having static bonuses is a detriment to gameplay, and I'm happy to hear they're not going that direction. I also doesn't think it actually adds anything in terms of making countries feel unique.

What I do think would be good, again as others have said, would be modifiers attached to cultures, that represent the history of those pops. But I would also like to see plenty of opportunities for these to be modified over time. E.g American upper classes may be more adversed to authoritarianism, but with effort you can change this. Or a country that gets access to a large amount of tea colonies can encourage their populous to drink more.


I think the key to Victoria, and what made each country feel unique, was situational. In other words, events and uniqueness should come from the situations they are in, and not coupled to the country. I.e the American civil war shouldn't necessarily be ties to America, but any country in that situation (which granted, would primarily be America). Not everything can be modelled of course, and unique events and decisions should still be included.

 

[Arizal]

Not specific "bonuses" per say, but I wonder how they will portray specific countries like China, Japan and the Ottoman Empire. For Japan, there should be a sense that the Emperor eventually tops, helped by an indutrialist oligarchy, the ruling conservative shogun, and for China, well, it should be hopelessly impotent : corrupt, decentralized to the extreme and with very low litteracy and infrastructures. For the Ottomans, there should be a sense of decline, as the country is stalling, burdened by the privileges it gives to the occidentals and having the self governing religious minorities slowly turning towards nationalism. That one might be the most difficult to get right.