|
Zeron posted:Well I imagine the idea is that holding a country more powerful than yours in your grip is more awe inspiring than holding a OPM with no army. The consequences of a subject having a better military/economy than yours is that they're likely to beat you up/be too troublesome to hold onto and stop being your subject. If you can hold on to them in spite of that, well you deserve the acclaim. It doesn't matter if India has a bigger military/economy than the UK if they aren't stopping either from being used primarily to the benefit of the UK. Well there is no such thing as India in 1836. There's the British Raj, the princely states, and a few outliers like Punjab. I'd kinda like the Raj and the princely states to work the opposite way. The British Raj's army should be primarily sunk into garrisoning the Raj and its borders and the subcontinent should be a massive security concern for Britain and a key to its supremacy. You shouldn't be able to just send a few million indians to fight France or the US without mortally compromising the Raj. Even in the world wars most of the british indian army was busy garrisoning British India.
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
I know Paradox has the Vampire the Masquerade license. There was a Victorian sourcebook for Vampire and they're coming out with Victorian: Mage soon! Any Steampunk expansion should be a straight up Technocracy playthrough. Sons of Ether style!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Well there is no such thing as India in 1836. There's the British Raj, the princely states, and a few outliers like Punjab. I'd kinda like the Raj and the princely states to work the opposite way. The British Raj's army should be primarily sunk into garrisoning the Raj and its borders and the subcontinent should be a massive security concern for Britain and a key to its supremacy. You shouldn't be able to just send a few million indians to fight France or the US without mortally compromising the Raj. Even in the world wars most of the british indian army was busy garrisoning British India. In 1836 there's still the EIC. Though in alot of ways it already functions in ways similar to the later British Raj. EIC/Raj really needs to be its own unique subject type I think, one that can conduct its own foreign policy and wage war and have war waged on it without necessarily dragging in the overlord and can have subjects (lots of them) of its own. Also one thing you could do with the EIC (and not the following Raj) is to reflect it only being partially nationalized in 1836 and essentially being an entity whose overriding purpose was to deliver profits to its shareholders, so you'd basically have that all of the profit (though there were massive costs to incur before that, maintaining its large sepoy armies, though alot of that was actually financed by loans from Hindu and Jain bankers) generated by the EIC goes back to the shareholders, with the government having a share but the rest being owned by aristocrat and capitalist pops back in Britain, with the potential to make them very rich and potentially (with the right policiies) generating alot of investment funds for England, but crucially none in India.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Yeah I'm not sure about subject military power being good for your prestige. Their military victories, sure, but the size of their military sounds like the opposite of prestige enhancing to me, should it surpass or even equal that of the overlord. Like, I see it as the overlords thinking of themselves as lovely parents and the subjects as kids, they're proud that they beat another kid (or even a parent) in a fight, but if the kid's getting as big as the parent then that becomes an avenue of mockery. Same with their GDP - them not being a failure is good, but them being more successful than yours is kinda embarassing. Counterpoint may be Britain in WWI?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:You forgot giving the first option a bump in militancy tbf this is basically accurate to how the politics of the era worked. of course, all of those absolute monarchs took the high militancy options because they were deeply reactionary rather than because they were crypto-socialists, unlike the typical v2 player's strategy of dragging out the resolution of the political question (i.e. giving liberals a huge middle finger because laissez faire sucks) in order to gin up enough fear in the ruling class to make them cave on the social question my favorite absurd thing about v2 is that you can choose a socialist ruling party as an absolute monarch in europe without having austria or prussia come down on you like a ton of bricks. there's no sense that the various powers are ideologically committed in any way, which couldn't be further from the overall historical narrative of the 19th century Jazerus fucked around with this message at 05:49 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 05:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4_xa8C5Jvg
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 06:26
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:In 1836 there's still the EIC. Though in alot of ways it already functions in ways similar to the later British Raj. IIRC the EIC was so staggeringly corrupt that it needed government bailouts on more than one occasion, despite having a GDP larger than that of the Home Islands.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
That was basically all of the British Colonial Empire. I don't think any of it really made money for the British state outside the second order effect of taxable commerce. But it made shitloads of money for individuals on the make, which is the short answer for why it kept expanding basically. It has a real Late Republican Rome sort of thing going on, just with parliament instead of civil wars.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 06:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Wiz posted:Without going too much into detail I can say that the aim is have fewer but more dangerous rebellions, and more forms of 'limited' civil unrest so the constant first resort of angry pops isn't rising up and marching on the capital. We also want all rebellions to have the potential for foreign involvement. A lot of the stuff in that post sounds good, but this one sounds very important to me. One of the most tiring things in Vicky2 was the rebellions, I've quit games before just because I became immediately exhausted seeing tons of medium sized rebel stacks all around my multi-continent empire. And they seemed to happen every few years or so sometimes. Seriously unfun.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That was basically all of the British Colonial Empire. I don't think any of it really made money for the British state outside the second order effect of taxable commerce. But it made shitloads of money for individuals on the make, which is the short answer for why it kept expanding basically. I don't think any colonial empire was meant to be beneficial to the state itself, they were all intended to profit the elites within that state
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:I don't think any colonial empire was meant to be beneficial to the state itself, they were all intended to profit the elites within that state I mean, so was the state itself so
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 09:49
|
|
|
the HOI4 approach of "do you think the state or the rebels are right?" and the side you pick being the side you play is a very good idea, and it'd be cool if it were systemic in vic3 rather than being a bunch of nation-specific bespoke events like in HOI4
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 09:54
|
|
|
Gort posted:I mean, so was the state itself so Indeed. I'm just pointing out that looking at colonies from the perspective of the state's revenue is missing their true purpose.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:My favorite absurd thing about v2 is that you can choose a socialist ruling party as an absolute monarch in europe without having austria or prussia come down on you like a ton of bricks. there's no sense that the various powers are ideologically committed in any way, which couldn't be further from the overall historical narrative of the 19th century
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 10:07
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:That was basically all of the British Colonial Empire. I don't think any of it really made money for the British state outside the second order effect of taxable commerce. But it made shitloads of money for individuals on the make, which is the short answer for why it kept expanding basically. The British would not have been able to afford their navy without their empire, and they would not have had an empire without the navy. Once the ball got rolling it continuously reinforced itself.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 11:21
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I feel like it shouldn’t even have to be a socialist party. Any kind of liberal or nationalist group in power should piss off reactionary powers. Or even supporting one of those groups incidentally. Russia stopped Prussia with a sternly worded letter in 1848, because it was seen to be siding with nationalist rabble. Russia also stopped Hungary, but with a military intervention.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 12:31
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:IIRC the EIC was so staggeringly corrupt that it needed government bailouts on more than one occasion, despite having a GDP larger than that of the Home Islands. The EIC needing bailouts (and gradually becoming more and more government-controlled) wasn't really because it was corrupt, as much as it was because the model for how it administered its Indian holdings, particularly in regards to taxation, was basically unsustainable. Pretty much all of its revenue went to the shareholders back in England (where it enabled alot of corruption, because alot of that money was put into winning elections in rotten boroughs and such) who did not put that money back into local Indian economies. EIC taxation wasn't really harsher or more unfair than that of the previous Mughal and other Indian rulers, but the crucial difference was that that that old nobility had through building palaces, mosques/temples, comissioning art and various other ways elites use money, put alot of that back into the local economies, creating large classes of professional artisans and other craftsmen who could do well for themselves and all that, as the EIC gained more and more direct control of Bengal and began making most of its money through extracting money through taxation (rather than trade, which had largely been mutually beneficial) it eventually got to a point where a large sector of the old sophisticated economy began disappearing, leading to a collapse of the Bengal economy (particularly when famine hit, which the EIC was not prepared to alleviate) and dramatic loss of tax revenue (and EIC stock value). Of course there was also lots of corruption and abuse of power, particularly it's often noted that it was super easy for just about anyone armed and shameless enough to pose as an EIC official (or as Company Sepoys) and go about extorting 'tolls' and 'taxes' out of people, and the EIC never reall seemed to have the resources or willingness to actually look into this (well, the local authorities of the Company on the ground who were worried about this and blew the whistle on it did want to deal with it, but they were almost always denied the means by the headquarters back in London). Randarkman fucked around with this message at 15:20 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:tbf this is basically accurate to how the politics of the era worked. of course, all of those absolute monarchs took the high militancy options because they were deeply reactionary rather than because they were crypto-socialists, unlike the typical v2 player's strategy of dragging out the resolution of the political question (i.e. giving liberals a huge middle finger because laissez faire sucks) in order to gin up enough fear in the ruling class to make them cave on the social question I think this depends, many political groups as long as they took a pro-monarch stance could potentially be put in power as reformers. You had moments with Monarchs wishing to fix things that were wrong with their society and institute reforms; which of course pissed off the reactionaries; whether it be the nobles, merchants and so on depending on the issues. Emperor IIRC Leopold of Austria had to justify to the nobility instituting meritocratic reforms by appealing to the fact that Imperial China had a meritocracy open to the non-nobility but were unquestionable an Imperial form of government (as part of a trend of sinophilia among European intelligentsia like iirc Leibnitz? Who advocated for adopting aspects of Chinese culture that was seen as superior at the time in the 1700s). I could see a socialist party being appointed as long as they had taken pains to assert "We aren't like those troublesome socialists, we don't want to overthrow the monarchy and risk chaos, we just want to make the monarchy BETTER!", i.e the Labour Party. But yes inherently destructive social movements (as seen by the various Monarchies) should absolutely require some kind of response, or a strong incentive to the player to DO SOMETHING to restore order, or risk it spilling over into their own country. Similar to the Revolution Mechanics in late game EU4. If a country's government is acting too friendly towards the movement it should give neighbouring countries very delicious CBs to enforce order. The attempts by like the Ottoman Empire and Russia to reform their societies though shouldn't prompt something like this unless something like the Russian 1905 Revolution happens and then spirals out of control; like the 1917 Revolution and the resulting civil war in fact 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I know Paradox has the Vampire the Masquerade license. There was a Victorian sourcebook for Vampire and they're coming out with Victorian: Mage soon! They couldn't be assed to do that for Crusader Kings themselves and let it be a mod.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I know Paradox has the Vampire the Masquerade license. There was a Victorian sourcebook for Vampire and they're coming out with Victorian: Mage soon! From playing some CKII and a ton of Stellaris, their storytelling us much stronger with history than it is with fantasy settings. Looking forward to the mods though! Story based mods at least for HoI tend to be really good.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
need cyberpunk grand strategy rpg with extraterritorial corps and then someone needs to make a shadowrun mod after, probably the only cyberpunk rpg with detailled enough world data over a long enough timespan to make a grand strategy game out of
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
You probably cant talk about it yet, but can slave pops be traded as goods? Or have a slave trade good that increases/decreases the size of the relevant slave pop. At the very least there needs to be some way to get or move slaves other than natural pop growth.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
 e: non snarky reply - i think by 1836 most of the world had abolished the slave trade entirely, even if slavery remained to some degree (the united states nonwithstanding). and abolitionism was rapidly accelerating worldwide. i think in this time period, slaves would mostly be fixed in place, unless there were some mechanic to undo anti-slavery laws. how did vicky 2 handle this, i can't remember? hot cocoa on the couch fucked around with this message at 20:16 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Yeah, by the start date slaves weren't allowed to be imported into the United States.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:
Slavery wasn't really modelled in V2 tbh. The slave pops were completely static and did not grow or migrate. As a slavery nation any new states you admitted you could decide free or slave state, but if there weren't pre-existing slaves in the state there never would be. They also don't interact with the needs system at all because they can never have money. If you banned slavery it instantly converted all the slaves to regular pops, and if you reinstated slavery you would never have any slaves unless you conquered another slave owning nation. Edit: It was also weirdly hardcoded so no mod ever really fixed it either, at most they implemented an event to give them some pop growth every few years. Zeron fucked around with this message at 20:37 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
The oceanic slave trade is pretty conclusively over by the time the game starts but there should probably be some kind of mechanism to move existing slave populations internally to nations. Primarily the US obviously, expanding slavery to the newly acquired western territories should actually.... spread slavery, if only so my John Brown's Free States of America run has a slave-US big enough to put up a satisfying fight.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Ah. I had thought the slave trade ended slightly after the start date.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:33
|
|
|
yeah oceanic slave trading was largely over by the time the game starts but the US had a gigantic internal slave trade
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Denmark banned the slave trade as "early" as 1792, with Britain following up in 1807 and actually trying to enforce it on other countries (including Denmark de facto it has to be said.) So yeah, it was much reduced by the start of the game. Still, the Atlantic Slave Trade survived until 1870, and even had a resurgence in the US in the years leading up to the Civil War. I can see why you'd want to not push the slavery angle even more, but from an entirely detached perspective, slaves as goods do actually make sense in terms of the design goals of Vicky and where the world was at the start of the game. Raskolnikov38 posted:yeah oceanic slave trading was largely over by the time the game starts but the US had a gigantic internal slave trade A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 20:41 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
It'd be interesting to include slavery is a proper contentious issue; especially for megacampaigns where maybe there's alternate histories where slavery is still going strong and its the minority of nations who are trying to fight the slave trade and to make it possible for Abolition to be a more robust mechanic that any nation can try to deal with. I.e see Serfdom in Russia.TwoQuestions posted:From playing some CKII and a ton of Stellaris, their storytelling us much stronger with history than it is with fantasy settings. Looking forward to the mods though! Story based mods at least for HoI tend to be really good. I think the storytelling has been stronger whenever its been reliant on emergent gameplay. I.e like Dwarf Fortress.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
The Atlantic slave trade was also not the only international slave trade. There was the Trans-Saharan trade which continued through the 19th century. Maybe instead of treating pops as trade goods, with all that implies, they can have some migration of enslaved pops between nations with legal slavery within the same market.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:The Atlantic slave trade was also not the only international slave trade. There was the Trans-Saharan trade which continued through the 19th century. This sounds like there should be two-three elements to this. -That there being groups of slavers (aristocrats or capitalists with the later being more predisposed to be abolitionists) who engage in owning people as their "investment" to make money; either from RGOs or V3 equivalents, factories, and infrastructure (Presumably the South would have used slaves to maintain their railroads? To unload/load ships?). -Routes determined by the locations of these groups. If they are within the same nation on the same continent, then you get an overland route made where the slave pops migrate between. Or if on different continents, then they follow one of the sea routes; or a combination of both. -The existence of maritime nations and their political stance towards slavery. Anti-Slave trade maritime nations may attempt to interdict sea traffic to disrupt the trade, presenting a CB for their rivals in a world where most nations are on par with each other and no single nation has a preponderance of naval power; and that slavery attitudes vary without consensus (to make it interesting for alt hist scenarios/conversions from EU4). As the majority of sea routes become closed to the slave trade due to the UK or a majority of nations deciding its time to use their naval power to patrol for the slave trade and put a stop to it; the price of slaves go up and the political cost to trying to ban slavery goes up, resulting in more reactionaries in nations with abolition movements and a higher likelyhood of civil war. On the flipside; if the majority of nations continue to support the slave trade you could have "Opium War" like situations of big nations forcing smaller nations to keep the slave trade legal so they have a market for their pops; and reverse-1812 press gang situation where maybe you now have maritime naval nations providing conveys for the slave trade to protect them from abolitionist naval nations; setting up a prelude to a Slavery Question World War.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Ricky represented the Russian serfs as slave pops, which while maybe insensitive to American ears, does have some historical value. Rather than a formal and specific slave pop, you could have an "enslaved" or "bonded" condition which applies to certain pops and then policies to show the differences. Policies could include chattel, representing race-based and heritable American, Caribbean, and Brazilian slavery; classical, representing captured and not heritable slavery throughout the Middle East; and serfdom, representing the specific status of some accepted cultures who nevertheless cannot internally migrate and are treated worse. However if the devs want to lean away from making Vicky 3 into Slavery Simulator 2021 and just use a really simple system that would certainly be understandable.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Please give me the option if, when siding as the slaves in an uprising against the Confederacy, when I win the rebellion, I can turn around and enslave the former slaver pops. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
I don't particularly want a detailed alt-hist world slave trade simulation I just want the US and Brazil to deal with some historical-ish realities of their pre-existing slave populations
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
They could do something where slaves can't move on their own but if an aristocrat from a slave holding territory moves to another territory where slavery is legal they bring a portion of the original place's slaves with them. Trans Saharan slave trade can probably be modeled with pop growth modifiers on either side. E.g. -2% growth to all poor pops where the slaves are being taken, +2% to slave pops on the destination side. Maybe some rich/middle class pops in between get extra money as a result. Don't need to make it more complicated than that. Treating serfdom as slavery is also a reasonable simplification. American slavery was brutal but not unique in the space of human atrocities.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
My idea would be to make it so slave pops have specific free pops assigned as their owner, and their owners would take slaves with them when moving. This would at least model the spread of slaves to new slave states. e.g. in the american south you'd have a 1000-sized aristocrat pop with a 3000-sized slave pop attached to it. Half the pop moves to Texas and takes 1500 slaves with it. If they were to create this kind of "attachment" system for slave/owner pops, I'm going to do thing thing gamers do and say it'd be easy, actually, for them to create a system of trade between potentially slave-owning pops where they can transfer slaves between each other for monetary gain. Though I'd agree that modeling internal slave trades would be of limited usefulness. The first part of this idea at least seems like it'd be a relatively simple solution to model most of the slave movement in the era that could work with the mechanics they're building for the game. I wouldn't be surprised if it's something they already have in mind. (modelling slaves as being autonomous but just with restricted rights always seemed weird) edit: People have come up with similar ideas while I was typing this, so I guess we're all in agreement basically 
Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 21:49 on May 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
It'd make sense if the slaver class were able to have a high standard of living off the back of their slaves while still having poo poo all for their investment pool, to represent the South's lack of available capital compared to the north and their subsequent problems with industrialization. It'd probably work for Russia too if serfs were treated similarly.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
This is the kind of discussion that inevitably ends with goons claiming that Wiz is a racist, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Local man invents poster to get mad at
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2021 22:41
|
|
