|
The title should have been "War is a continuation of politics by means other than mana"
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
I just hope that I never have to deal with never ending rebel whack a mole that ruined my carefully organized army stacks out of the blue that happens even in democratic nations.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 04:36
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:It's easier to set up interesting conflicts right off the bat than to program a game that will have a recognizable world war one style conflict go off correctly eighty years down the line. And then the possibility of Napoleon in South America.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 04:32
|
|
|
South America starting on fire I think would work really well for experienced players who want to try their hand at forging their own destiny in a trial by fire; especially if it actually models things like the various larger than life personalities like Simon Bolivar running about; and combat/war is a bit more complex than the current EU4/V2 system of raising regiments and smashing stacks against other stacks or worrying about your debt/war exhaustion et cetera; commanding an insurgency could be fun and Paradox has a lot of untapped ground it could try its hand at with asymmerical gameplay.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 05:56
|
|
|
It would be neat if V3 models how the organization, structure, training, and doctrine of armies developed both organically, as a result of wartime experience, and innovation so raising and keeping an army in the field in 1836 feels different from in 1870 and different again by 1916.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
I've had multiplayer games that simulated the Great War / Total War fairly well. Massive armies; digging in; lots of casualties over small number of provinces changing hand, your economies being shredded to dust and the war dragging on because no one wants less than total victory. But this is with Vanilla Victoria II.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:If they improve the battle AI a bit it'd be amazing in Vicky if you couldn't directly control your troops, only give general orders. I wanna feel like Lincoln cycling through AotP generals or sack Field Marshal after Field Marshal as the years of static front drag on. Saaaame.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
I feel like parties should be dynamic if they exist at all; having parties that were hard coded and tied to specific dates doesn't really make a lot of sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Oh gosh, please don't listen to dumb fans afraid of change. Parties were terrible and often broke the game. For instance: That rebel doom spiral was the worst thing about Victoria 2 and I hope its avoided/fixed. If only because needless micro is annoying at best to unmanageable at worst.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:We can leave Parties to the expansion a few expansions from now, the one where you can pay $30 to experience "Coalition Government Simulator" and have fun with: A video game that lets you essentially play as Lincoln trying to wrangle votes for the Abolition amendment would be pretty dope.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
You'd think whether it's EU, Victoria or HOI that the AI should be vastly more troublesome then they are, especially where amphibious warfare is considered. Being able to pay attention to multiple fronts simultaniously; able to consistently follow up on island hoping contains, not leaving troops marshalling in the rallying zones (I forget what the word for this is) for too long; being able to accurately judge when to strike with a small force to exploit a gap/weakness and when to strike and follow through with a larger force after preparing for months in advance. I wish the AI could consistently do this.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Vickynomics slides (10 short points about the in-game economy) Excited for which contentious real world economic theories/systems paradox ends up implicitly/accidently modeling as correct.  My money is on free trade.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Can the game be modded to model how Serbia is the most awesome country in the world with the greatest history? I was astoundingly ignorant of the glory of Serbia until I played some mods that corrected the various inaccuracies of Serbian history.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Why would Shogunate Japan not be united? It had basically been united and at peace (and prospering which is an important element of why and how Japanese modernization and industrialization was possible and so rapid) with a very strong central government in Edo (which I'm pretty sure was the largest city in the world until London overtook it as the industrial revolution got going). Japanese history during the period is a little complex. The Shogunate while powerful, is kinda more like if you had the Holy Roman Empire with the Emperor as a figurehead and Wallenstein controlling the government. IIRC you had dozens if not over a hundred feudal domains that were vassals and the modernist/restoration faction and the shogunate faction in the Boshin War were made up of these feudal domains. The Shogun's influence had waned considerably due to the opening up of Japan to foreigners. You could use something similar to the V2 China mechanic with the subnations to reflect this as an example. Having Japan start unified in the base game is more of a contrivance to make running Japan convenient for the player but isn't accurate.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
Beamed posted:It's a LOT more accurate than depicting independent nations instead of a unified Japan. The Shogunate was highly centralized, as can be shown by how swiftly the Boshin War was handled and the Restoration began. The Shogunate clearly wasn't very centralized given it had to deal with a full blown civil war in which it lost. You're confusing how quickly the feudal domains allowed themselves to be re-centralized under the Imperial court and the resulting new government/Diet with how they were in the 50 some-odd years leading up to it. Feudal Japan is still Feudal Japan. Plenty of European feudal nations looked centralized from the outside until they weren't thanks to the feudal/social contract the landed nobility held with the King. And the power balance between the Shogun and the Daimyo changed from reign to reign.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Losing a civil war rapidly is itself indicative of high centralization, though? How? I think you would need to actually explain your point; because the other feudal daimyo's being like "we're signing up to the winning side now, Mikaido Banzai!" doesn't mean the new government was able to utilize the previous levers of state to quickly bring the nation back into control. Likewise the Soviets had to slowly crush the various rebellions, secession movements, and renment armies even after the White armies were decisively defeated and the political will collapsed with the Tsar's execution; it still took time to incorporate everything back together and multiple rounds of talks and committees to hammer out new state constitutions. BBJoey posted:Making the case that Tsarist Russia was actually a decentralised state because it lost a civil war ????? Tsarist Russia isn't a feudal society by 1917, and as I note above would actually contradict Beamed's argument since after the Red's won they weren't able to at all quickly get things back under control. Japan in the 1850's however is absolutely a feudal society, I'm pretty sure I pointed that out when making this argument. Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I don't understand this argument. Do you also support every US state being separate from the federal government in DC? Because clearly they had a lot of their own power. Honestly now that I think about it yes; to represent things like Kentucky being neutral during the war and Virginia having its own secession. Remember that a big reason for the power of the federal government is that Congress had control over the territories. Separate is also not the same thing as independent and this is honestly the time period where the give and take relationship between the central government and its "provinces" can be best represented for what it puts on the table and the internal and domestic issues these various nations had. For example in the 1880's Germany was still struggling to fully integrate the incorporated German states that Prussia unified with; plus the whole hassle between Austria and Hungary. Honestly to handle this in a consistent yet nuanced fashion across the board could provide incredible benefits to the gameplay and immersion factors; in addition to properly modeling why the "unrecognized" states could be ripped apart by European powers once the logistical means was available to exploit Africa. For something like Russia you'd have something like Stellaris's district system where states are assigned to an administrative zone and a governor (a CK like character entity with traits, etc) appointed to invoke your rule; who might get ideas about separating or might join one side or yours or stay out of a civil war altogether if cohesion and stability are low enough. This is why you as the player might try to value loyalty over competence; with having both being the outstanding exception. Gaius Marius posted:Yes actually but the argument reanir is making still doesn't hold up I'm not sure if people understand my argument, my argument is that Japan is a feudal society; much like say, Medieval France or the Holy Roman Empire. The Shogun had a great deal of power but this power was still at behest of the feudal contract between the Shogun (Liege Lord) and Daimyos (Subjects) and that just how powerful the Shogun is, just as how powerful the US Federal government is/was; changes with the times. With the Shogun's power crumbling towards the end of the Bakufu due to the Shogun being unable to keep the foreigners out. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure Daimyo's in addition to the fact they had their own armies/retinues, had a great deal of autonomy as to how to run their domains and there was a limit to how much the Shogun could in practice interfere before risking rebellion. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 02:28 on May 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
Clarste posted:I am not the person who originally made that post, but my assumption is that it's because the rest of the nation was eager and willing to rally around the winner, instead of immediately falling apart and needing to be re-united over a span of decades. In other words, the entire nation saw it as a question "who is ruling us, Japan" rather than "let's take down the weak ruler and declare independence". Which implies a very centralized government and national identity. Yeah that doesn't make any sense to me but that could be my polisci education talking. It would make sense for a bunch of administrative units to be like, "You now have the mandate of heaven, we bow to your will" like in some periods of Chinese history because well, the previous Emperor is dead or captured, the bureaucracy that maintains the empire is now in the hands of the usurpers. They have the levers of the state and their command to compel obedience and they have no real base of power in the provinces they government and depend on the Imperial court for their authority. These lower level polities bending the knee to the new King because that's the way the winds are blowing indicates the opposite, a decentralized state that's not able to easily compel obedience through a variety of means; but instead is local rulers seeking to either gain rank and boons from the new rulers by rushing to bend the knee before their rivals do; and local rulers seeking to ingratiate themselves to the new rulers to also maintain their existing rank and privileges and to continue their obligations to the feudal conflict as is. See also the "Keys to Power". To put it this way, if you look at it from a Machiavellian perspective; Machiavelli in the Prince gives two examples of states; the highly centralized state ruled by "the Sultan" and the decentralized state ruled by the "King", the King is decentralized and easier to invade because the barons are easier to pry away from the King and use them as a toe hold. The Sultan has no such weaknesses; his lieutenants owe their position 100% to the Sultan and hold no inherent legitimacy or claim to those positions and can be removed and dispensed with at will. A civil war or rebellion is extremely difficult to pull off, and requires the Sultan to be extremely weak. I think how a civil war concludes doesn't have a whole lot to do with how decentralized it officially on paper is and there's better tools to analyze it; but its a saliant point to make that the Shoguns power weakened considerably, opening up the subjects to ally each other and rebel to restore the Emperor's powers because of that. The resulting quick reconsolidation under a new government isn't to do with how centralized or decentralized Japan was and these arguments are kinda bad when the simplest explanation is that surrendering quickly lets them keep their heads and some influence/say/leverage in the new social post-revolutionary order. Many got to leverage their previous station for positions in the government after the samurai class was abolished and so on. Charlz Guybon posted:The Kaiserreich was pretty decentralized. It was basically a custom's union with a unified foreign policy. Bavaria, Wurttemberg and Saxony had their own armies. All the states had their own suffrage laws. Now, Prussia dominated because they controlled the Northern 2/3rds of the Empire, but that was not set in stone. I think "decentralized" especially by 1914 isn't quite right, but there was definitely a period of time where the Kaiserreich is by modern standards yeah fairly "decentralized" but yeah that's my point; there's a lot of versatility to the idea of juicing up the Substate mechanic and the Stellaris district system to form a new nuanced and immersive gameplay to represent the path towards centralization of state power during the period.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
Also like, the US is slowly starting to wake up as a power and the geopolitical european rivalries are heating up; a capable diplomat can keep the Europeans off of China with minor concessions.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
Mans posted:This is a video game. We want to play Victoria 3, which is a video game that was recently announced. This is like saying "It's a story for children" when someone wants to dig into the themes of a piece of literature. The fact is "video game" doesn't mean a game can't both be fun (or rather, engaging) and historically accurate at the same time, or can't derive its engagement from carefully crafted systems that (and this is important) convey a substantial sense of immersion by seeming to be accurate in how things work and behave. If you read the follow up posts I made and not just responding to the first post out of context of the rest of the discussion you'd have seen how I continue on to carefully justify this and suggest a system that would be fun/engaging because it presents interesting period accurate and immersive challenges to the players.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:This is something where the "local markets" thing could work really well - since fundamentally the problem all those old nations had was not really that they were just like, arbitrarily worse than everyone else, but that they did not have access to modern technology due to either decisions made by their own heads of state (as in the case of Japan or China and their extremely isolationist trade policies), or that they simply were not recognized as legitimate states capable of making trade agreements and were treated as "terra nullius" free for colonization, like most of Africa. So as an unrecognized nation the main challenge would be "if you can't make it yourself, you can't get it at all". This would still realistically handicap the unrecognized nations, while also still allowing them the potential to catch up by say, investing in their own military tech and just going "we'll just make our own artillery then". Although it seems like it would also make sense that lacking access to certain materials would hinder your technological development - I don't know if they are going to model this but it seems like something that wouldn't be hard to do (i.e. it would be a lot harder to develop new guns if you don't have any models to study. You could still do it, but it's more work). Much of Japan's (and later China's) modernization was fueled by imports of machinery/technology/knowhow independent of their ability to domestically produce it. For example both Japan and China bought warships from Britain/France/Germany while they worked to expand their shipbuilding industry to the point of launching their own domestic designs. What's interesting about Japan's situation is before the Boshin War you had local domains buying western military equipment. So in the Substate 2.0 idea you could have your local administrations doing their own imports/exports at certain costs to stability/influence of the central government. The main challenge is that buying modern technology isn't just buying a single steam engine, since it breaks down, its buying a bunch of equipment in batches, their parts, and advisors/engineers to work and maintain it; which involves needing to allow a foreign firm access to your country. So the cost is one issue that is challenging for many nations like China whose budget surplus's collapsed due to British textiles outcompeting them; and poor harvests, and civil unrest. The suggestion that reactionaries are going to get upset with all of this change happening too fast I think hits the nail on the head on top of other issues like letting trade companies access to your interior which then gives their home country influence over you, demanding concessions where they can secure their peoples safety, the ability to extradite them for crimes instead of being tried in local courts; there's a whole rear end system you can design around it.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:Spending a lot of dev time modeling a perfectly simulated Japan for people who really like James Clavell/body pillows is insanity. Simulate it with pops and move on. What are you talking about? Can you elaborate in what way you're responding to what I said? I made sure to take steps to show how the system can be broadly applied across the board and would be a solution to a number of different issues with the genre. CharlestheHammer posted:Realistically Vicky 3 will have a poo poo ton of ahistorical stuff, like all paradox games. You may not notice it because it’s not in your personal sphere but it will exist. If you can’t give a gameplay reason for it to exist then there isn’t really a justification for it There's also a lot of stuff that can be done that are both aid in immersion and have compelling gameplay and balance justifications. The logistics one is actually pretty big.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:you could say the same about literally any place on earth getting special mechanics or a detailed starting scenario. And conveniently enough the system that can make a convincing attempt at modeling the Japanese situation would also be good at modeling Germany.  The actual position I made though is not "spend lots of time perfectly crafting a historically accurate 1840's Japan" its "model a system that is robust that can model any nation during the time period and puts you in the actual hot seat of what world leaders actually worried about at the time" which consistently follows the premise/goal of Victoria 3 being basically a zen bonsai tree nation management game. CharlestheHammer posted:To be honest the logistics stuff sounds moretedious than fun, but I was more referring to the Japan stuff, modeling it doesn’t really seem to accomplish anything No one is saying that the game shouldn't be ahistorical and no one is saying Japan should be perfectly accurate though, the context I was discussing isn't that to be clear; its that given certain facts about how Japan and by extension the rest of the world work, it would be pretty cool and fun and add to immersion to come up with a model that works across the board; you can have your cake and eat it thrice. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:I'm addressing your repeated desire for a studio to have it's 35k-50k (salary) per month tech employees spend a lot of time modeling your ideal 1836 Japanese start. It is weird to be that focused on something in a 1.0.0. Honestly the counter argument for giving US states more independence makes a lot more sense to me, at least from a gameplay perspective. Hrm, somehow this doesn't seem like an accurate representation of my arguments and position. You get kinda close though because I did say that US states should be represented with a similar system, but it doesn't make sense to me that you'd be up for a system to only apply to some nations and not others; that's more work than what I suggested. CharlestheHammer posted:He’s saying a western based game cares about western scenarios more. Which while I don’t think is the complete story also isn’t wrong It is contradictory and undercuts their point though; because weebs are a huge market who would actually line up for good Japan content.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:i think the only solution to these dilemmas is to apply the hegelian dialectic: That travel between walled cities to avoid the zombies. Wait, was it Vicky that also had a zombie invasion event? Honestly I hope the game blends in more mechanics from Railroad tycoon and similar.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Honestly support for weird Steampunk/Dieselpunk alt-history military equipment like zeppelins and Red Alert poo poo would be pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 22:36
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:Unironically, because time spent developing dumb goggles-and-gears scenarios could be better spent modeling the unique real world economic and political circumstances of 19th century Persia. If Victoria 3 is successful enough I think they'll have no problem expanding the team to crank out expansion content. We can have both Steampowered spider tanks AND historically accurate Persia!
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
The size of the US army in the lead up to the Civil War should only really be limited due to emergent gameplay reasons that keep to the spirit of the US's geopolitical and domestic political situation but not something that's enforced rigidly on you. For example, suppose after the US-Mexico war the vast majority of your pops and their interest groups just hate the idea of tax payers funding expensive wars; especially northern pops who don't want to fund the expansion of slavery. Eeeeeeh? Eeeeh? Eh? See how that works out? Then you have to pay political costs with your political capital (perhaps a resource that accumulates according to various modifiers and actions, like Grace in CK2), opportunity costs where maybe funding a larger US army means making concessions with Southerners to get around Northern intransigence. But if you want to have a larger army and give slavers the bird then you need to make gaurantees that the new states are free states which of course risks provoking the US Civil War a decade early, perhaps before you're ready for it. Also honourary mention that an improved version of the substate system could model something like the National Guard units that would form the initial core of the Confederate Army; you could make a system that whenever states/districts break away and form a breakaway nation/rebellion the local units get donated to the "main" army of the rebelling army so they start with a army directly under their control made up of the guard/militia units and the states regen the units they just donated; ala the levee system from CK2 in a way. And if you don't want to have to play by those rules then you can keep the Federal forces as-is at their post Mexico War draw down size and not have to settle the issue of slavery immediately and instead kick the can down the road! Just like in real life! AnEdgelord posted:The only problem I could see with this is that the US in most games it is going to fight the Mexican-American War right before the Civil war and they shouldn't be crippled in a way that's gonna get in the way of fighting that war The way I imagine it should work is that when you go to war you have some sort of subsystem to pass War Time wars to raise funds, expand the army etc that similar to the policies in Hoi4 only become available due to high jingoism/revanchism or because you're at war; but once you're out of the war there needs to be a political or economic pressure to start a draw down until your tech/laws/etc get to the point you can keep that expansion going (like the European states engaging in an arms race and Germany/UK passing social welfare reforms to have the political support and healthy population to sustain that build up). The US historically demobilized quite significantly after each conflict keeping an easily expandable core of officers and NCOs which is somewhat of a special case but that can be modeled by the US's interest groups/pops being firmly anti-military until around WW1 to force that sort of elastic snapback to the pre-war normal. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 27, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 00:17
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:CK1 had a good system for making you demobilize/sending the levees home afterward: they made them expensive as f*ck and if you kept them raised too long you went super bankrupt. I can't remember if that was true in Vicky 1 as well (It's true in EU4, for sure). I feel like that "finance" in general could be better. There's more to national budgets than revenue vs expense and a black box of "loans"; V2 was more interesting because you could "borrow" indirectly from other countries once you exhausted the ability of your pops to own your debt. But it isn't clear to me if POPs or other nations actually made money off the interest. Things like war bonds, treasury bills; gold vs fiat currency; interest rates; an albeit abstracted system like this might help with being able to afford a war while at war, and then force you to realize that keeping that massive military going post-war is unsustainable and get you to try to like; sell off excess arms to developing nations to make back some money. That's another thing, I wish "Firms"/corporations/international businesses/finance are a thing. Like Krupp or Colt competing to arm the industrializing unrecognized nations; maybe the military-industrial complex is also a lobby that wants more arms spending and wars so they make a profit. And also with international finance/banking an additional source of loans after exhausting t-bills and bonds. Of course as your financing ability improves and your industry and tax base develops the easier it is to maintain a standing army; as part of the political system laws you could pass could be things like the Income Tax (also a war time measure), abandoning the gold standard (also a war time measure that became permanent), and additional duties and dues, fees, and taxes on various goods (i.e Russia passing a vodka tax) to raise revenues and support a larger army and the late game arms race. I've seen games where people built like 100 Dreadnaughts, and scrapped all other ships to max out on the mil score; this really shouldn't happen and I think the military but navies in general should be way more expensive and that getting certain techs like ironclads there's reasons why they weren't hundreds of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted: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. I think this could be partly alleviated by a combination of an improved Hoi4 and Hoi2 "range" system. Ship's can't pathfind if there isn't the range to get there. The range of ships is improved by also improving and expanding the port facilities. You can also limit/bottleneck the construction of a massive fuckoff navy by having something like a manpower pool for sailors like in EU4, perhaps split sailors from soldiers who are needed for your fishing and merchant marine fleets. It costs a certain amount of sailers to maintain a fleet and if you suddenly lose a whole chunk of sailors it should make it "harder" to recouperate your fleet until your sailors recover. Also I feel like the return of EU4's "Navy Tradition" could work out here, it takes 2 years to build a battleship but a century to build a naval tradition. China can't just build 10 Ford-class sized supercarriers and expect to compete. You need years of training and fleet exercises. You should be incentivized to have your ships traveling around, patrolling, doing port calls, the more your ships are sailing the more expensive it is but the more you accumulate naval tradition which affects how far your ships can go without being crippled by the point you get somewhere. Less accidents, better cohesion, better tactics. You can counterbalance this by having a way to say "I have only a Brown water fleet" for coastal/port defence which gives you a similar advantage to max naval tradition proportional to how close to your own waters your operating in; submarines excepted. A more granular system of how heavy armaments and hardened steel production works, separate shipyards from factories and ports could also help reflect the bottlenecks different nations had. The Kaiserreich had a great deal of difficulty producing enough heavy guns for the ambitious naval expansion plans and so on. Obviously you want to balance this so it mostly runs itself and the player only "directs" things like with foci, you don't want to replace one form of factory clicker micro with a different kind of cookie clicker micro. In short there should be more to your navy size and ability to project force then just spaming fleet facilities. Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, with the number of provinces they have, unless they have a frontline system like HOI4 then they are either going to have a nightmarish micro intensive combat system, or a completely different military setup from previous games. Like theaters that you pour resources, men, and officers into rather than directly controlled units. I hope it's something that changes over the course of the game, starting like EU4 warfare but transitioning towards Hoi4 warfare so you have a weird middle ground somewhere around the time of the Franco-Prussian war.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:Clearly Victoria 3 needs an in-depth ship designer which is both needlessly opaque and over-complicated while also having just one or two actually competitive designs that require scouring multiple threads on the paradox forums to figure out. I feel like when it comes to navies where these things are (a) big, thus take a long time to build (b) expensive (c) tech moves quickly: the result is probably "any battleship on hand is better than a better one tomorrow", so the incentive is slap a new turret on a design and start building immediately in smaller batches then waiting forever for enough "Naval XP" and the right tech to have a fleet of "optimal designs"; actually having a system where you actually need a navy operating at all times and I think it all shapes together as "just do what you want" instead of people needing to be optimal like with Hoi4 division templates which was annoying. Maybe having shipyards that take time to accumulate shipbuilding XP would help avoid the worst of it, can't build the optimal design if you don't have a solid grasp on welding yet at the yard. Kinda like how originally you had province by province "inventions" firing to give the province a specific modifier.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:lollllllllllllll The sad thing is they actually believe this and aren't just trolling.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted: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 Don't think of it as wanting a detailed alt-hist world slave trade simulation; just think of it as suggesting a robust system wide applicability and symmetry so modders aren't stuck with mechanics that don't make sense and they can't adjust to suit their needs. Like a robot steampunk mod. Where the production and purchase of steampowered gun turrets who can somehow tell friend from foe might make sense to have a dynamic underlying system.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:In Russia serfs were also used in industry for a long time. IIRC during the time of Peter the Great tzar has allowed weapon manufactories to buy or rent serfs from aristocracy. Later aristocrats themselves sometimes tried to create businesses. Some serfs became known actors and bought themselves. Some became merchants - aristocrats rarely managed estates themselves and quite often a village would have someone managing selling grain on the market to pay their master. Naturally those people got rich sometimes and even if they didn't they probably stopped being farmers. But of course it's a thing you can easily abstract, restricting serfs to lower classes and making factory worker serfs a rarity. This makes a good case for having something like a spectrum of bondage status for pops, similar to stellaris's slavery mechanics. Because it sounds like serfs are functionally similar to slaves but with extra steps. That they can be bought/rented in addition to not being free is I think what groups them with chattel slavery. With a spectrum we can also represent the gulags and political prisoners for Proletarian Dictatorships. Vasukhani posted:vicky II where soviet style communism is objectively the best type of gov being anti tankie is deffo a take On the other hand, its also a very inefficient economy with a lot of wasted pops working in unprofitable factories for the sole purpose of "make number bigger" (quotas) and a LF economy with comparable population but with enough sufficient literacy and a critical mass of capitalists is going to outperform planned economy nearly everytime. And of course the constant rebellions a Prol. Dictatorship has to inevitably deal with. I can see it happening because there can be times it hits too close to home.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Spectra are harder to make game mechanics around though Are you doubting the glory of sliders comrade?  More seriously is you could have something similar to stellaris with drop down boxes and different categories. You could create a dropdown box that even lets you abolish any kind of imprisonment.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, if we're going to get into spectrums of unfree labor, you really can't ignore the colonies, where even though the colonial power officially banned slavery, debt peonage was very common. In regards to the main point (representing the unfree labour from colonialism) You can segregate it a bit, like in some cases its because of the Trade Company that's administering the colony right? I think the Belgian Congo being directly administered by the King and being one of the worst atrocities was a bit of an outlier? The choices of whether to integrate the colonies into the home country (like France did, where I think after a point everyone got French citizenship?) or delegated down to dominions; and the process of trying to unfuck up the colonies could be a part of the game's challenge. Do you throw your morality to the winds for a short term benefit now but then probably cost yourself those colonies in independence movements later; or do you immediately try to crack down on the various interests groups that would really like to continue feeding on that and risk anger at home from your elites? CharlestheHammer posted:I mean at that point you have to model the internment camps for the western colonies or the arrests that happened during the war for being dissidents but those are mostly only gonna be useful as role playing and doesn’t accomplish much Internment camps don't make much sense to model as they were largely POW camps or either extremely specific to just one conflict (the Boer War) or took place after the time period of the game. While an early Socialist revolution could happen so it makes sense to model gulags. Where it makes sense to model unfree labour from "western" nations is things like convict colonies like Australia (because there is a non-trivial economic effect). Representing the extraction of wealth/labour from colonies in a similar abstract way makes more sense to me.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean there was also the US and it’s fairly brutal dealing with the Philippines and if we are assuming early events firing then it should be possible for any country dealing with potential colony break aways This actually gives me a thought. What about having something like the "government in exile" mechanic from Hoi4; to represent independence movements? Instead of being a Number That Goes Up (militancy/consciousness); you actually have an AI entity that based on a random seed that determines its outlook, tries to win either more autonomy, or equal rights within the empire all the way to straight up independence (Your Bolivar types vs Sir Wilfred Laurier types). And the more radical the pops get the more changes the AI ticks up towards starting to advocate for independence and a player can play as these movements; and try to combine and take over other movements in a parallel game; imagine being able to play as the Communist International? So the more brutal the player/AI is, the more powerful you as a radical movement gets to recruit militants, conduct an insurrection, and try to break away. But if they play nice, there's a chance to try to get independence movements to stand down and chill as moderates gain legitimacy and slowly become more willing to negotiate for dominion status.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
Mans posted:It's doubly weird to let communist revolutions to open "gulags". The GULAG had no relevant economic contribution to the soviet economy and their peak was during the war, specifically due to prisoners of war. This isn't historically accurate, first, the gulags were used to develop the remote reaches of siberia; so at a minimum different socialist governments could use them to spur development of their frontier zones; provided something like up to on average 50% of the USSR's raw materials quote:In game terms, what would it accomplish? Let communist states create gulags for economic and political bonuses, which is an absolutely horrifying and whitewash thing to do? Not having gulags, and not representing the horrors of colonialism, can also be argued to whitewash history. Representing it would help give the player insight into the history of the era; much like that "Trains" boardgame. And provides a mechanism that spurs social change; either the collapse of soviet regimes back into democracies, or for colonial empires to break up into commonwealths or independent states and the end of colonialism. Under the argument that it could happen earlier.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 17:13
|
|