Victoria 3: the 1960 german unification play comes with a few complications

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Victoria 3: the 1960 german unification play comes with a few complications

«‹›456 »

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

Hmm, not sure I like importing CK ruler traits to Victoria 3...

# ? Aug 4, 2022 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 11:12

Plan R: Oct 5, 2021; For Romeo

sexpig by night posted:

"Jeffery, what's in that big buzzing box?"

"No idea but for god's sake don't touch it!"

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/pacific-northwests-murder-hornet-gets-a-new-name-for-reasons-that-may-surprise/

Spoiler they're now called "Giant Hornets" I say as one lands on you and harpoons your chest and you scream.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 01:30

Hellioning: Jun 27, 2008

HannibalBarca posted:

Hmm, not sure I like importing CK ruler traits to Victoria 3...

Great Man history is dumb but people's personalities and foibles still help shape the world. As far as things go, 'our leader spends a lot on parties so we have less money but look fancier' is about the level that I would want leader traits to be.

Honestly I prefer it to the Vicky 2 model, where the person the game is named after is basically irrelevent.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 02:12

The Narrator: Aug 11, 2011; bernie would have won

HannibalBarca posted:

Hmm, not sure I like importing CK ruler traits to Victoria 3...

I'm fine with it so long as they're not huge swings and it can't be powergamed. Ideally it's Head of Goverment and not head of state (except maybe in autocracies? I don't care about Victoria but it would be good to have the potential for an idiot Kaiser who passes everyone off). It'd be great to have small traits that can impact the AI too, so Britain suddenly replaces a Russophilic PM with a Russophobe and the alliance is strained.

Even if it's something predictable like every leader has a positive and a negative trait, it can go a long way to building some flavour. IIRC V2 has leader traits that ever so slightly tweak general/admiral stats and behaviour.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 03:56

BBJoey: Oct 31, 2012

Imo it makes a lot of sense to be able to differentiate to some degree say a Germany lead by Frederick III and a Germany led by Wilhelm II.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 04:14

FishBulbia: Dec 22, 2021

Hot take, the personality of the leader and the advisors they surrounded themselves with mattered a lot when it came to 19th century events like revolutions

# ? Aug 4, 2022 04:20

Radia: Jul 14, 2021; And someday, together.. We'll shine.

ok but this is a videogame, and leader traits aren't why i think any of us play victoria

# ? Aug 4, 2022 04:32

HerpicleOmnicron5: May 31, 2013; How did this smug dummkopf ever make general?

I think they're definitely important for generals, especially in the new military system. I also think getting rid of annoying leaders with bad traits by provoking a revolution sounds cool and fitting to the time.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 04:44

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Lady Radia posted:

ok but this is a videogame, and leader traits aren't why i think any of us play victoria

i think they'll be cool. the mechanical effects don't seem to be very large and they'll be interesting hooks for paradox to attach AI personalities to. for autocratic states the personality of the leader matters a lot, just look at the leadup to ww1

# ? Aug 4, 2022 05:04

Plan R: Oct 5, 2021; For Romeo

Lady Radia posted:

ok but this is a videogame, and leader traits aren't why i think any of us play victoria

+10% entrenchment tells the tale.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 05:53

Hellioning: Jun 27, 2008

Lady Radia posted:

ok but this is a videogame, and leader traits aren't why i think any of us play victoria

I mean, yes, because they didn't exist before.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 06:10

ThatBasqueGuy: Feb 14, 2013; someone introduce jojo to lazyb

I liked them in modded v2

# ? Aug 4, 2022 06:15

Radia: Jul 14, 2021; And someday, together.. We'll shine.

Jazerus posted:

i think they'll be cool. the mechanical effects don't seem to be very large and they'll be interesting hooks for paradox to attach AI personalities to. for autocratic states the personality of the leader matters a lot, just look at the leadup to ww1

yeah i think current relatively small implementation is fine. there's just this weird goon vibe from EU4 that I get where everyone wants every Paradox game to be part-Crusader Kings, just because they listened to the most recent Revolutions podcast series

# ? Aug 4, 2022 06:38

ilitarist: Apr 26, 2016; illiterate and militarist

In this era quite a few political leaders were assassinated and it had a big impact - even the failed ones. If leaders are in the game then they should suffer from such events. But if the leaders are very important then it would be very irritating to lose them to unrest. So I want them to be mostly flavour and a product of circumstances rather than a driving force.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 07:18

Eiba: Jul 26, 2007

This discussion is kind of interesting because it doesn't really seem like a '+10% to this -10% to that' kind of trait warrants it. That's not a 'great man' defining trait. It's just a bit of flavor.

But apparently there are much more meaningful leader traits. "Abolitionist" and "feminist" in particular. Generally you can only enact laws that one of your ruling interest groups supports. If you've got, say, the militarists and the landholders you're not even going to get the option of abolishing slavery. You'd ordinarily need the intelligentsia or some other group that naturally opposes slavery. Unless the leader of a faction happens to have the "abolitionist" trait.

I vaguely recall one of the AARs I remember reading from their Discord had an early attempt at pushing one of those things that ended up failing to succeed because the leader of an interest group died and his successor did not have the same trait.

I think that's actually a kind of interesting and plausible illustration of something between pure historical materialism and nonsense "great man" theories. No one's will shaped history per se, but the somewhat arbitrary disposition of this one person somewhat arbitrarily in a position of power could result in a vastly different outcome.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 08:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Eiba posted:

This discussion is kind of interesting because it doesn't really seem like a '+10% to this -10% to that' kind of trait warrants it. That's not a 'great man' defining trait. It's just a bit of flavor.

But apparently there are much more meaningful leader traits. "Abolitionist" and "feminist" in particular. Generally you can only enact laws that one of your ruling interest groups supports. If you've got, say, the militarists and the landholders you're not even going to get the option of abolishing slavery. You'd ordinarily need the intelligentsia or some other group that naturally opposes slavery. Unless the leader of a faction happens to have the "abolitionist" trait.

I vaguely recall one of the AARs I remember reading from their Discord had an early attempt at pushing one of those things that ended up failing to succeed because the leader of an interest group died and his successor did not have the same trait.

I think that's actually a kind of interesting and plausible illustration of something between pure historical materialism and nonsense "great man" theories. No one's will shaped history per se, but the somewhat arbitrary disposition of this one person somewhat arbitrarily in a position of power could result in a vastly different outcome.

This also seems like a pretty good way to allow people more freedom to change specific aspects of their country, rather than having to drag the entire sphere of politics there through mechanisms that make far less sense politically - but without making it a straight up build-a-political-system situation. It being tied to people who can die would also encourage you to carry out these reforms even when it might not be the most opportune moment, which is also much more interesting gameplay than political development being essentially linear.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 09:53

Poil: Mar 17, 2007

Looks more like EU4 traits than CK3 traits to me.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 13:56

Wiz: May 16, 2004; Nap Ghost

Eiba posted:

This discussion is kind of interesting because it doesn't really seem like a '+10% to this -10% to that' kind of trait warrants it. That's not a 'great man' defining trait. It's just a bit of flavor.

But apparently there are much more meaningful leader traits. "Abolitionist" and "feminist" in particular. Generally you can only enact laws that one of your ruling interest groups supports. If you've got, say, the militarists and the landholders you're not even going to get the option of abolishing slavery. You'd ordinarily need the intelligentsia or some other group that naturally opposes slavery. Unless the leader of a faction happens to have the "abolitionist" trait.

I vaguely recall one of the AARs I remember reading from their Discord had an early attempt at pushing one of those things that ended up failing to succeed because the leader of an interest group died and his successor did not have the same trait.

I think that's actually a kind of interesting and plausible illustration of something between pure historical materialism and nonsense "great man" theories. No one's will shaped history per se, but the somewhat arbitrary disposition of this one person somewhat arbitrarily in a position of power could result in a vastly different outcome.

Abolitionist and Feminist are ideologies, not traits. Leader ideologies are definitely more significant than traits most of the time.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 15:23

AAAAA! Real Muenster: Jul 12, 2008; My QB is also named Bort

Poil posted:

Looks more like EU4 traits than CK3 traits to me.

I like how the EU4 traits have an effect on the game. "Oh shoot I cant call this ally to a war because they kinda like the target and the ruler is malevolent" or "oh nice I got a gift from the enemy of my enemy in this war".

# ? Aug 4, 2022 15:33

ilitarist: Apr 26, 2016; illiterate and militarist

Wiz posted:

Abolitionist and Feminist are ideologies, not traits. Leader ideologies are definitely more significant than traits most of the time.

I wonder if those are dynamic. If there are political assassinations, for example, I imagine the son of a murdered king being more reactionary.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 16:00

Mandoric: Mar 15, 2003

Eiba posted:

This discussion is kind of interesting because it doesn't really seem like a '+10% to this -10% to that' kind of trait warrants it. That's not a 'great man' defining trait. It's just a bit of flavor.

But apparently there are much more meaningful leader traits. "Abolitionist" and "feminist" in particular. Generally you can only enact laws that one of your ruling interest groups supports. If you've got, say, the militarists and the landholders you're not even going to get the option of abolishing slavery. You'd ordinarily need the intelligentsia or some other group that naturally opposes slavery. Unless the leader of a faction happens to have the "abolitionist" trait.

I vaguely recall one of the AARs I remember reading from their Discord had an early attempt at pushing one of those things that ended up failing to succeed because the leader of an interest group died and his successor did not have the same trait.

I think that's actually a kind of interesting and plausible illustration of something between pure historical materialism and nonsense "great man" theories. No one's will shaped history per se, but the somewhat arbitrary disposition of this one person somewhat arbitrarily in a position of power could result in a vastly different outcome.

At the end of the day, though, that person needed to get the idea from somewhere (not necessarily having it taught, though that should obviously be a route; Prince Gautama leaving the palace and seeing peasant pops with basic needs not met should be enough even if it is rather inchoate.) And they needed it to be a plausible enough idea for it to enter the conversation as a societal change rather than just, say, Washington's personal manumissions upon death as he maintained the institution of slavery, or Grant's being quite friendly with assimilated native Americans and subsequent increased conviction that the solution to governance of the plains was forced assimilation.

Since Vicky's class evolution/devolution mechanic is right there, and provides a convenient tool for simulating this, I'd prefer to see it split between a personality trait along the EU lines, mostly governing which (hostile, friendly, warlike, peaceful, x-phile, x-phobic, spendthrift, penny-pinching) options are taken when the AI sees multiple acceptable courses, and ideological focuses around particular laws, which can be rolled from the preferred policies of the character's class in the character's tag, but also the classes the character's class promotes to, the classes it demotes to, and the ruling classes in its allies, enemies, and major trade partners.
This would cover reformers and archconservatives both, and have the potential to produce in the same country i.e. the bureaucrat V. I. Ulyanov, who for personal reasons rolled quite a few laborer interests and was in a position to put them into force when militancy from war exhaustion led to a successful revolt, and the bureaucrat B. N. Yeltsin, who for personal reasons rolled quite a few capitalist and clergy interests and was in a position to put them into force when militancy from slipping GP status led to a successful revolt.
As its primary weight should be local, it would primarily start coming into play when there was a significant political disconnect between rule and demands, and simulate for example how the US abolished slavery yet maintained the planter class as a significant political force for centuries beyond rather than turfing them out of power beyond the checkbox-change. But the international factor would allow for a more organic simulation of everything from 1868 Japan to 1991 USSR, requiring a tag to either go big and find or create a sphere with similar values or accept (possibly to its own benefit, viz. that 1868) that the great power ranking is a big club and they'd better try to be in it lest they be hit with it.
The roll could also be adjusted between mainstream-weighted and radical-weighted based on militancy or particular events like that assassination example, providing additional reasons to try to keep that number down even if a revolt isn't a security worry and avoiding the playstyle of hitting reforms precisely when they keep rebels to a manageable number. Can't keep the aristocratic cabinet in place with its bonuses PLUS collect the reforms if you can't find a single aristocrat willing to part with any more power.

Or maybe it wouldn't reach a satisfying balance before it collapsed into Smartian "your alien race's big buttcheeks require +2 toilet paper consumption, and all purchased spaceships are now nonfunctional as the plumbing can't handle it" oversimulation. I dunno.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 18:00

ThaumPenguin: Oct 9, 2013

New diary, featuring everyone's favorite Karl Marx

https://twitter.com/PDXVictoria/status/1555222277888692224

# ? Aug 4, 2022 18:32

VideoWitch: Oct 9, 2012

drat I was hoping for dynamically generated Karl Marxs

# ? Aug 4, 2022 20:45

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

will we be able to seduce karl marx

# ? Aug 4, 2022 20:51

Nicodemus Dumps: Jan 9, 2006; Just chillin' in the sink

VideoWitch posted:

drat I was hoping for dynamically generated Karl Marxs

Karls Marx

# ? Aug 4, 2022 20:53

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

Kaarl Marx

# ? Aug 4, 2022 20:57

karmicknight: Aug 21, 2011

ThatBasqueGuy posted:

I liked them in modded v2

Yeah, politicians having personalities is a cool thing in modded v2.

# ? Aug 4, 2022 20:57

DJ_Mindboggler: Nov 21, 2013

FishBulbia posted:

Hot take, the personality of the leader and the advisors they surrounded themselves with mattered a lot when it came to 19th century events like revolutions

Yeah, personalities still mattered a whole lot in this era (as they still do, but even more so). It should be somewhat relevant if your government is being led by a Bismarck vs. a Wilhelm II.