|
Semi-crossposting from the Paradox thread, but I'm extremely excited for this and especially excited that Wiz is heading this up and seems to know what makes Victoria so special as a series. Count me in as an instant preorder despite never preordering anything.
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:From the reddit thread: DDDOUBLEPOST https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
BgRdMchne posted:I could easily gp Belgium with only expanding in Africa ...and also in Victoria II
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 03:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/martin_anward/status/1396856289234456581?s=21 Regarding political parties, put me down as a vote against them. I found it very limiting in V2 how certain policies could only be enacted with certain parties (eg economy type) and like the idea of tying politics more directly to the electorate’s wishes.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
The other limitation of war should be force projection. It was (and for the most part still is except for superpowers like the US) difficult and expensive to move soldiers from your capital to halfway across the globe. You would be losing troops to disease, it would take months, and they wouldn’t be ready to fight as soon as they step off the boat. Likewise, even moving navies halfway across the world was a major logistical challenge. You were either Great Britain and had to maintain naval bases loving everywhere or you were Russia and lost half your fleet to the *stupidest* loving accidents by the time they made it to Vladivostok.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Re dependents, I was actually thinking about that the other day. Anyone know how this worked in Vic2? I know that pops were just men, and there was an invisible multiplier to account for women and children. Did losing military pops in war kill their dependents too? Correct. Every pop represented 4 people (wife and 2 kids) and losing a pop from war deleted the whole family. So representing a pop with different numbers of workers and dependents does open up new avenues of simulation, eg families with 10 kids, aging population, veterans and widows etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm puzzled on the level of centralization having an effect in of itself on institutions; in some ways being highly centralized could make it easier to implement reforms, while a decentralized nation can more easily resist such reforms. I think the implication is more that a highly centralized state, while possibly able to implement reforms more quickly, also bears a higher central bureaucratic cost to do so. Think Soviet Russia for example. Whereas a more decentralized state may reform slower, but if you delegate management to the locals (eg US state and county and city management) it requires a smaller federal government and lower bureaucratic cost to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I hope there's some kind of consumer confidence or equivalent because there should be some means of delineating between nations like the US who become the world's reserve currency post-war and can basically print an unlimited amount of money without worrying about inflation and Yugoslavia/Greece/Argentina whose economies took a tumble trying to print their way out of debt without a strong enough economic foundation to support it. Hey if Victoria 3 incorporates modern monetary theory I might die of happiness.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Taxation is literally used in the real world to fight inflation. If the entity don't spent it, the money supply is reduced, which leads to deflation. It is essentially reverse minting. Hey you can’t say that, that’s heterodox Modern Monetary Theory!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:HoI's last diary was about rail guns so if V3 doesn't launch with a train designer, and a track designer, we riot Going to need to direct the Soviet forces from my armored train with printing press. Also going to need to manage 3 different incompatible rail gauges through my march to Berlin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Yeah my reading is that incorporated states are basically the economic parts of cores from previous games, but homelands are the diplomatic part. Although the dev responses do note that you get a claim if an incorporated state is taken from you, but I imagine it needs to be a full Homeland state to trigger revanchism/get really good CBs. I kind of hope that this split of incorporated states and homelands puts cores down for good. Cores in V2 were extremely limited and artificial feeling. They didn't easily change. And one of the most important parts of Victoria to me, and also it sounds like to the design team, is this possibility of taking your nation in a new direction, growing it, and having the game and its systems acknowledge the work you've put in. I want it to be possible for Britain to firmly integrate parts of India with enough effort, not just leave them as colonial states for the rest of the game. I want it to be possible for the US to conquer Canada and admit every Canadian province to the Union. And Victoria 2's system just didn't account for this very well. The former with Britain would never happen because you would never be able to get enough British bureaucrats into India to incorporate a state, and while you probably could incorporate Alberta as a US state, it would never be considered a core. It feels like the older more hardcoded Paradox generations than EU4, where with enough time and points you could core any state and with limited exceptions remove other cores.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Can't wait to play as the UK and raise my prestige so high that no one else qualifies to be a great power. Would have to be shockingly high. You could raise it high enough so that no one is within 75% of you, but they could still be a great power by having 3 times the average prestige. So unless you raise the average so high that no one else is 3 times above it (hard since there are probably over a hundred nations at game start given that China is rank 80), you'll still have some standouts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U5FltMuWDo You can build railroads manually, state by state in the old interface. Schools are abstracted as an education law for public school system. Also using your national focuses to promote clergy to an optimum amount of 4% will improve literacy over time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Yeah I think the real innovation this will have over Vic 2 is the expanded diplomatic options. Really looking forward to being able to apply pressure to get what I want without necessarily going to war. Great Game and all that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
As someone who was really hyped for the diplomatic play system, I’m overall very pleased. I think it represents that diplomatic maneuvering prior to war very well while also simulating the tendency for brinksmanship to get out of hand and lead to catastrophic Great Wars. My only concern would be the inability to change your demands after the war begins. Historically, WW1 is a great example of how the ultimate peace terms might look completely different from what the initial war goals might have been. And from a player’s perspective, if I do really well on a war, I want the freedom to take more than I originally planned. One century is a short timeframe for the game, truce timers are long, and it would suck to get into a knock down, drag out war with the AI for one province. This is a more general complaint that I have with the Paradox style war score system though. I find it thoroughly unrealistic that if I have utterly defeated an enemy, have an army sitting in their capital, occupied 100% of its territory and gotten that 100% war score, that I can’t take off much larger chunks of it and/or annex it outright. Yes, they might be unruly, rebellious, hard to control, cause overextension etc, but from an international legal standpoint gently caress it, why not. There should be more natural limits to taking territory than war score.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's not really what happened in reality outside of a few particular cases (EG: The Mongols) - there probably wouldn't be much of a military history of the world if every war ended in total annexation of the loser. Someone would've done a world conquest in 2000 BC and we'd have lived under the Finno-Ugrian One World Government ever since. Granted, but usually that's because countries will give in to reasonable terms prior to a complete and total occupation. But in cases where one side was completely and utterly defeated, annexation or wholesale creation of client states was much more common. In the time periods immediately preceding (Napoleonic Wars, creation of Spain and confederacy of the Rhineland as client states, wholesale annexation of the lowlands) and following (WW2, complete splitting of Germany, creation of the Iron Curtain and Soviet republics etc) the Victoria timeframe, annexation or puppeting after complete and total subjugation was the norm. And if WW1 had ended with the complete destruction of the Central Powers forces and occupation of Berlin, I doubt that Germany as a state would still exist, for example. Again, I grant that most wars between major powers throughout history have not ended in total annexation (although plenty of wars between one major and one minor power did!). But, most wars between major powers throughout history did not result in the equivalent of a Paradox 100% war score either. In fact, I'm curious to know if there are good historical counterexamples of where in a war with the complete occupation of a power's capital and countryside where the invaders agreed to limited terms. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
yikes! posted:Franco-Prussian war OctaviusBeaver posted:French territory was left intact after the Napoleonic Wars. The Republic was destroyed though so I guess it depends on how you count it. Alright, you got me with the Franco Prussian war, although I'll quibble that they just occupied Paris, not the entire French countryside and in fact had significant difficulties attempting to do so. Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, I'll counter that while Napoleon's armies were defeated, Paris was not seiged, and Napoleon was forced to abdicate by the French themselves. I'd argue that that's a good example of a state recognizing when it was definitively defeated before reaching 100% warscore via exhaustive occupation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:They maybe weren't equal powers at the time (but it wasn't Great Power vs minnow either), but the Mexican-American War? Vera Cruz, Mexico City, and several other major cities were occupied. But there was a negotiated treaty and not an unconditional surrender. I don't remember this part of my American history as well, but I'm pretty sure there was a major movement in the US to actually just straight up annex Mexico, and that the main reason they didn't was 1) racism against making Mexicans American citizens and 2) what was going to be done about slavery in all this new territory. That is, it was a political decision in the US not to annex Mexico outright rather than one forced by an arbitrary warscore. I'd translate this into "Paradox terms" as the Mexican-American war ending with a warscore ~90% with the US choosing to take the easily core-able and culture-matched territory rather than taking territory with poor, low-literacy and wrong-culture pops. Or in EU4 terms taking only easiliy core-able and culture-matched territory rather than wrong-culture territory to avoid overextension. Which is probably one of the loving nerdiest things I've ever written.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:You realize that by twisting yourself into knots to defend your argument, you're actually arguing for the other side by admitting that historically it's not as simple as occupying enemy territory and forcing an unconditional surrender/annexation. I acknowledge the historical reality that annexing vast swathes of land is not feasible due to all the factors noted above—population resistance to occupation, internal politics, etc. and the thread has been good about providing counter examples. My one specific goony gripe is that the limiting factor in both EU4 and Victoria to how much you can annex is warscore rather than these other historical realities. It irks me that I can achieve a complete victory and feel artificially limited. To provide a more constructive counterexample: in HOI4 you absolutely can achieve a complete victory and make vast changes to the map. The limiting factor is mostly that you’re competing with your fellow victors about what changes you want. The limitations flow more naturally from the victory system. To tie this back to Victoria 3: I really like the diplomatic play system as proposed, but what I balk at is that it feels like you’re artificially limited in your demands. If you’re pushing towards a complete victory, it would be nice to be able to expand your demands to accommodate this, maybe through a second diplomatic play that plays out among the victors of that side regarding what demands get added. Victoria 2 already had a system like this—as a war played out you could add more demands so long as you had a prior casus belli for it and sufficient jingoism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
quote:The second pillar, War is Strategic, is exactly what it sounds like. In Victoria 3, all decisions you make regarding warfare are on the strategic level, not the tactical. What this means is that you do not move units directly on the map, or make decisions about which exact units should be initiating battle where. Instead of being unit-in-province-based, warfare in Victoria 3 is focused on supplying and allocating troops to frontlines between you and your enemies.  11/10 GOTY 2022 or 2023 congrats Wiz, you've made the perfect Victoria. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Gort posted:Huh. The principles sound very cool, at least. It also sounds easier for an AI to handle than specifically moving regiments around. Not only that but an AI can't game it with perfect micro of units, either. Between front-based wars and diplomatic plays potentially ending a war before it begins, I think a lot of tedium of slowly occupying a country in a war you're obviously going to win will be removed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:There was a game called realpolitik that attempted it. It had potential but some balance issues and was janky even when working. I figure pdox should be able to iterate on it better than a broke rear end indie studio. I played Realpolitik. It was okay. It had Victoria elements including a focus on your internal economy, resources, etc, though no pops explicitly. Its war system was good but needed reworking. You had a pool of units--troops, tanks, planes, and ships. Ships were only used to provide transport to overseas wars--you couldn't start an overseas war without at least one ship. Otherwise no significant naval component. The other 3 units were used in operations. Each side could run one operation at a time, things like "Secure the cities" or "Tank offensive", etc. Each operation used a certain amount of units and provided a certain amount of warscore or enemy units destroyed if it succeeded. Operations were opposed by the enemy's forces. It sounds good and worked well on the small scale. But if two major powers got into war with each other, the limitation of running one operation at a time meant neither side could weaken the other fast enough to win a war. Your only hope would be to blitz to a 100% warscore victory and force a capitulation within the first month or two of mobilization. Otherwise, your opponent could rebuild troops faster than you could kill them, and neither side would be able to claim victory. I had multiple instances were India and China would be locked in a hellwar for over 2 decades, one side or the other trying to make the final push to the capital, but not quite making it, as the other side furiously built more units.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Vichan posted:Generals being tied to focus groups will make for interesting scenarios. One could think of the USA’s star general Lee who has strong ties to southern plantation owners, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Dev diary sounds good. I like how they are presenting fronts, I like how you will still have battles and see fronts advance. I think this will assuage some who were worried that things would get too abstract. I’m thinking of future modding capabilities and wonder if you can have triggered traits for leaders/generals etc. eg you just define the trait and its required conditions and it gets automatically applied to any leader in the game that qualifies. Eg all US generals get a “manifest destiny” trait or every Russian Tsarist general gets a “dangerously incompetent” trait.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
If you're the type of mapgame player who plays not to paint the map but to craft a story or create your ideal country, Victoria is the closest series to your ideal gameplay. Because its mechanics reflect the entire country--not just provinces, not just armies, but every living person in the country--it shows better than any of Paradox's other games what it really means to your people and your nation when you do something. If you expand your industry, your country prospers not just because a number went up on an abstract development counter but because that industry means your pops are earning wages and making goods that other pops want to consume. If you go to war, your pops will suffer for it, not just because an abstract war exhaustion counter went up but because some of them loving died, they're gone, and you can't get them back.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
Everything I’ve heard about war sounds good so far. I like that you have different strategies for your army, although I question the difference between Mass Conscription as an army policy vs just conscripting during wartime, as they state that’s a separate option you can do regardless of your policy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Dev diary up: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/victoria-3-dev-diary-26-peace-deals.1501154/ Edit: I continue to like everything they’re doing with diplomacy. This is a major advance from the standard warscore system. It’s not about the absolute warscore per se—it’s about how well you as a country and people are weathering the fighting and devastation vs how well they are, how well each side is at reaching their wargoals, and the relative willingness of your populace to go to war. Hopefully there’s something in that system to account for the size of the war and the possibility of a years long Great War as well. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Dec 2, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Other people have mentioned tech sharing agreements, which would be cool. What would be really cool is if you could have an asymmetric tech sharing agreement where the high tech country shares the tech in exchange for diplomatic influence, for example. Like how foreign investors would come into undeveloped countries with capital and build influence with railway and factory.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
It’s almost like an extreme libertarian-left ideology army uniform is hard to find *because such an ideology would be opposed to compulsory military service*. Did the CNT-FAI have a uniform?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:there's a whole low-key genre of these hybrid management/VN games, and they seem to keep getting reinvented every so often. i know a lot of them are taking off directly from king of dragon pass or from princess maker (the often-skeevy game series that inspired long live the queen.) hanako games (the dev of LLTQ) made a bunch. more recently, there's been yes your grace and suzerain. you could probably find a hundred less-polished games that are vaguely similar on itch.io: some because they're traditional VNs with a lot of work put into their management aspects, and some because they've been inspired by princess maker, king of dragon pass, or papers please. I'll chime in and say if you like Victoria 3, you'll probably like a playthrough of Suzerain. You play as the newly elected president of a troubled eastern European republic in a fictional world that obviously approximates the political conditions of the 1950s. Will you work to reform the broken constitution to democratize the country? Or gently caress with the rules to stay in power as a dictator? Lean capitalist or communist? Join NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or stay unaligned? Set your priorities to spend your limited budget, but don't forget you're trying to simultaneously pull your country out of a recession, keep a belligerent neighbor from declaring war for your poo poo, keep your uppity generals from doing a coup, and win election. A tough needle to thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:I really like how technology spreads from place to place, I forget if that was in a dev diary or not. I understood what they were meaning to say, but the statement "If you don't research machine guns you'll still find out what they are... eventually" sounded a lot more ominous than I think they intended.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
I think the objection is that either: 1) the starting unrecognized status is hard-coded, in a game where the trend has been moving away from hardcoding and towards dynamic outcomes or 2) it is dynamically generated at start, and if so how because there doesn’t seem to be an obvious mechanism for it Personally I’m fine with hardcoding the start condition. There’s no point in trying to simulate all of history before game start.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 15:44
|
|
|
Does nation rank count for anything game mechanics-wise anymore? In Victoria 2 your ranking mattered a lot because it put you higher on the list to purchase goods on the world market.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
At last that East vs West stolen code is going to be put to good use!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:On that note I recommend that everyone play Suzerain, game's good Correct. If you want a CYOA about guiding your fictional roughly 1950s European nation out of dictatorship, reforming its political and economic systems, deciding between alignment with the East or West vs staying nonaligned, and (end game possibility) possibly fighting off an invasion from your neighbor depending on your alliance and military choices, you’ll love Suzerain. I’m always a big cheater when it comes to these games, and played with unlimited budget and personal funds, and still had a great time without spoiling my sense of achievement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Yeah, so long as the mechanic is “ports buy clippers from the national market or from trade partners”, then Norway offering shipping would be modeled by Norway selling clippers to trade partners. Now one related question would be how widely clippers can be sold. My understanding is that there is no longer a “world market” that sells goods not purchased on the national market. Instead you have the national market and trade partners only. So there’s no great way to represent Norway selling shipping to everyone, globally.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
I picked Ottomans because they're a great vertical slice of the game. You have a major power (don't know if they're a great power at start like in Vicky 2 or just a regional power) that's crumbling and in need of political and economic reform. It has core territory and vassal states vs colonies (depending on how Egypt is represented). It has a role to play in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and potentially India. It has a variety of cultures and religions to deal with. It has an army that it will likely need to use. The only features it probably doesn't cover are the naval game, China, and immigration.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:actual q: is this the grammatically correct way to phrase this sentence? adding the correct 'a/an' variation (or its vs. theirs etc.) when using parenthesized text has always been a huge question mark for me My personal take is yes. A/an should be based on pronunciation, not grammar, and if I were speaking the sentence I would say "Tending an *slightly lower and quieter tone* economically *return to regular tone* walled garden." With pronunciation there's no way for the listener to distinguish between a parentheses, a dash, or nothing at all, all of which are really just different representations of a speaking method.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
I like the idea of production methods becoming available before they’re feasible to implement for a couple reasons: 1) It gives the player a new goal to work towards. “I need to acquire a source of oil so I can upgrade this.” The goal is open ended; the oil source might be acquired through conquest, trade agreements, market access, or internal development if available. There’s a sense of discoverability here. 2) It allows a determined player to make a choice to switch to something costly if they’re executing an “out there” plan and are willing to take the trade off. Eg “I absolutely need this resource produced at max efficiency to prepare for the next war / max my prestige / dominate this market and prevent competitors developing their own domestic supply.”
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Frankly I thought that the fact that the leak is *roughly* in the right shape as what they said it would be and appears to have most of its key mechanics implemented is great news. The foundation is solid. There's tweaking and polishing to go, but that's par for the course for Paradox games anyway. I remain hyped.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2022 06:38
|
|