• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #114 - The Great Game

16_9.png

Hello. This is Victoria, and today I will be covering much of the Great Game-themed narrative content which is coming in Sphere of Influence. This will be the first dev diary covering narrative content, with the second covering minor nations in the Great Game and other related content.

The Great Game

Throughout the nineteenth century, Russia and Britain competed with one another for influence in Asia. This period of rivalry was known colloquially as the Great Game, beginning in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and expanding over time to include struggles for influence in areas as far away as Korea and China.

The new Great Game objective diverges from the more sandbox-oriented objectives by serving as a guided tour of this period in history. Whilst much of the content involved in the Great Game is available to owners of Sphere of Influence during every playthrough, the Great Game objective contains objective subgoals designed to guide the player through this content and represent the progress of the Great Game as a whole.

To ensure the best experience, the Great Game objective is only available for the six historical participants specified below—Russia, Britain, Persia, Kabul, Herat, and Kandahar.

DD114_01.png

Upon launching the Great Game, the first thing one will see is a list of objective subgoals, along with the subgoal which represents the core of the Great Game. The Great Game objective mixes country-specific and generic objectives—whilst both Britain and Russia have the objective of securing influence over Persia or creating an Afghan protectorate, they also have country-specific objectives which will be covered later in the diary.

DD114_02.png

The Great Game core subgoal is where the progress of each nation in the Great Game is tracked. Completing each subgoal will benefit the nation that completes it, pushing the bar to the right or the left. The bar will also drift in one direction or another each year, according to differences in national prestige and market GDP.

As can be seen here, there are three currently unopened questions in the Great Game—the fate of the Caucasian states, and the struggle for influence over Afghanistan and Persia. These are victories to be had. Both Britain and Russia have made advances before the game’s start, with Britain benefiting from their successful expedition through the Hindu Kush and into Bukhara in 1831, and Russia benefiting from enforcing the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828. In the Great Game, Victories represent conflicts within which both powers vie against one another, and advances represent more technical, military, or diplomatic achievements.

DD114_03.png

When the journal entry concludes, the position of the bar will determine whether the Great Game has a victor, or whether neither power was able to gain supremacy. The power that wins the Great Game will receive a prestige and Power Bloc cohesion bonus, and the nation which is defeated will be humiliated in the eyes of the world.


DD114_04.png

DD114_05.png

Of course, the Great Game does not always have a winner. Contrary to the views of the imperial administrators vying over the territories of Central Asia, the people which reside there have agendas of their own. If, whilst playing as a Central Asian or Persian power, one pushes both Britain and Russia out of the region, the Great Game will be forced to a close with both Great Powers being humbled.

Generic Content


Whilst both Britain and Russia have their unique national priorities, the core of the Great Game lies in the battle for leverage over Central Asia. Both Great Powers have generic subgoals for acquiring influence in this region.

Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, for example, one may establish a protectorate over all the nations in the region—but the process does not stop there. The power which successfully establishes a protectorate over Afghanistan must keep it for ten years, without any Afghan states slipping out of their grasp.

DD114_06.png

At the game’s start, Afghanistan’s borders are quite different from what they were at the end of the period. This is owed to the Anglo-Russian Agreement of 1895, in which Russia and Britain jointly decided upon the borders of the Afghan state. Once Afghanistan unifies, a journal entry modelling this will appear for both Britain and Russia, along with an objective subgoal for those playing the Great Game.

DD114_07.png

The Pamir Delimitation journal entry represents the negotiations between Britain and Russia to determine the borders of Afghanistan. Depending on the borders of Afghanistan at the beginning of the process, the journal entry will present a variety of different proposals, permitting the Great Powers to grant or claim a varying amount of land.

Pictured: Britain has decided that Afghanistan’s southeastern border should be drawn along the Indus River, whilst Russia has decided upon giving it some territory in the North.
DD114_08.png

Once both Great Powers have agreed to a treaty, it is presented to Afghanistan, which has the option to accept or refuse. If Afghanistan refuses, the Great Powers will need to do another round of negotiation, this time with additional coercive measures available to them.


DD114_09.png

DD114_10.png

DD114_11.png

If Afghanistan continues to refuse or the Great Powers fail to come to a deal, negotiations will break down, and overlapping claims will almost guarantee future wars in the region.

Pictured: Some of the shapes that a post-Pamir Delimitation Afghanistan may take. Some of these may prove more viable than others.
DD114_12.png


Persia

The requirements for successfully completing the subgoal to secure influence over Persia is similar to Afghanistan, with the caveat that the territorial integrity of Persia must be maintained, at least to some extent. The fluid borders and expansionist ambitions of Persia, which will be shown in more detail next week, mean that Persia may take many shapes over the course of a game.

DD114_13.png

Himalayan Exploration

Throughout the late nineteenth centuries, European explorers constantly attempted to penetrate through the Himalayan Mountains, to chart the Tibetan Plateau and determine the best routes for a military expedition into the interior of China. Sphere of Influence adds a new expedition into the Himalayas, with ramifications for the Great Game if successfully completed.

DD114_14.png

Whilst your explorers survey the roof of the world, they may come across many things, from mountains higher than any seen before, or fascinating wildlife.

DD114_15.png

In addition to the risk of losing life or limb to both frostbite and the wildlife’s claws, any European expeditions trespassing into this region will run the risk of causing diplomatic incidents with China. It is best to tread cautiously, lest the expedition be sent back humiliated—or not come back at all.

DD114_16.png

Country-Specific Content

In the Great Game objective, the majority of objectives are country-specific. In many cases, these objectives are linked to journal entries that are available for a country in any playthrough, with the objectives serving as a way to point out specific journal entries and grant the player points in the Great Game for completing them.

The Caucasian War

For example, in Russia, the “Secure the Persian Border” objective is tied to a new journal entry that is available for Russia at the game’s start.

DD114_17.png

The Caucasian War is a conflict that has been raging for some time at the beginning of the game, beginning with the Russian attempt to annex Circassia in the mid-eighteenth century. In 1836, the Caucasian Imamate and Circassia continue to resist Russian domination of the region, making much of the region effectively ungovernable. Russian control of the South Caucasus is exerted primarily through the Georgian Military Highway—a route constantly threatened by the unrest in the North Caucasus. If Russia loses control of the North Caucasus, it is certain to lead to the loss of the South as well.

DD114_18.png

Whilst the Caucasian War journal entry is active, events will intermittently fire, covering various situations related to the war. The options in these events often increase devastation in the region, which will make things more difficult for the Imamate and Circassia, at the cost of spilling out into Russian-controlled regions as well.

DD114_19.png

DD114_20.png

DD114_21.png


Once Russia has either successfully researched certain technologies or reached the end of its starting truce, the war may be escalated into a full-scale conflict, which permits the use of ordinary diplomatic plays against these nations.

DD114_22.png

Upon escalating the war, the Russian armed forces in the Caucasus will present the historical Milyutin memorandum to the government. Accepting this memorandum will please the command of the armed forces, but lead to the historical outcome of the Caucasian War—the devastation of the region, depopulation, and the forceful expulsion of much of the Circassian population to the Ottoman Empire.

DD114_23.png

Circassia and the Caucasian Imamate also have content related to the conflict, which will be shown off in the next dev diary.

The rest of the Caucasian War requires the Sphere of Influence DLC, but the content pertaining to the Milyutin memorandum and brutal depopulation of the Caucasus does not. Whilst this is a gruesome event in history, it is also not something which can in good conscience be overlooked.

Kazakhstan

As of 1836, the Kazakh steppes have been under the Russian Empire for several decades. The power of the Khan has recently been abolished, and the Kazakh zhuzes placed under the command of various Russian-appointed agha-sultans. However, this system of administration is beginning to fray. Early in the game, Russia will receive an event notifying them of the rise of Kenesary Kasymuli, a Kazakh aristocrat who has come to spearhead Kazakh resistance against Russian rule.

DD114_24.png

When this event occurs, a new unresolved victory appears in the Great Game central subgoal, and a new subgoal, along with its corresponding Journal Entry, appears.

DD114_25.png

DD114_26.png

The Pacification of the Steppes journal entry is completed by slowly and peacefully annexing the Kazakh protectorates, and fails if the Kazakh protectorates’ liberty desire rises too high, or if ten years pass without successfully achieving this goal.

DD114_27.png

Whilst the journal entry is active, events pertaining to Kenesary’s rebels will fire, possibly interfering with the liberty desire of Russia’s Kazakh subjects.

DD114_28.png

In addition to firing events for Russia, Kenesary will also fire events for the Kazakh zhuzes and the Central Asian khanates, giving them a chance to side with Kenesary when he eventually launches his final play for control of Kazakhstan.

DD114_29.png

If Russian rule is sufficiently disrupted, and Liberty Desire reaches too high a value, Kenesary will seize control of the Uly Zhuz and launch his independence war against Russia, along with the allies that he’s collected along the way.

DD114_30.png

DD114_31.png

If Russia can successfully crush the revolt, they will gain progress in the Great Game—but it has far more to lose than to gain. Whilst Britain is not necessarily aiding Kenesary, his victory will represent a coup for Britain, as Russia now has much more work to do to reach Afghanistan.

DD114_32.png

If Russia succeeds, it will have an opportunity to menace the other Central Asian Khanates, and, upon researching Civilising Mission, unlock a new journal entry—the Conquest of Turkestan.

DD114_33.png

DD114_34.png


Other Russian Subgoals

Throughout the course of a game, Russia will periodically unlock additional subgoals which will advance its position in the Great Game. These subgoals represent various historical aims of Russia, and are exclusive to the Great Game objective.

The Codify the Chinese Border subgoal represents the Russian Empire’s desire for the various territorial concessions in Central Asia and Outer Manchuria signed away by the Qing Empire in the mid-nineteenth century. The acquisition of Outer Manchuria was instrumental to the ability for the Russian Empire to project power into the Pacific Ocean, a situation which eventually led to British concerns over the integrity of their Pacific colonies and their later alliance with Japan.

To complete this subgoal, Russia must both acquire these territories from China, and force China to abandon claims on the territory. If a non-player China has been weakened by the Opium Wars and other calamities, the options to sign the Treaty of Aigun, Beijing Treaty, and Chuguchak Protocol provided by the Ruler of the East Journal Entry are a perfect way to see this goal through whilst minimising both the risk of war and the negative implications of a revanchist China on the border.

DD114_35.png

The Acquire Manchurian Concessions subgoal also relates to the relations between China and Russia, and is triggered by the Russian acquisition and incorporation of a state in Outer Manchuria. This subgoal encourages Russia to acquire a treaty port in Manchuria, and construct the historical Chinese Eastern Railway, which served as the furthest Eastern branch of the trans-Siberian railway until the opening of the Amur River Line in 1916.

DD114_36.png

With the Russian acquisition of Outer Manchuria also comes ambitions to secure a protectorate over Korea. Korea was considered to present a risk in the hands of a foreign power as a staging point for the decapitation of Russia’s Far Eastern naval assets. Historically, the Russian Empire contended diplomatically with Japan for influence in Korea following the first Sino-Japanese war, a period which would meet its climax with a Japanese-sponsored coup killing the Queen of Korea and forcing the King to flee to the Russian embassy.

This period of heightened tensions between the modernising Empire of Japan and Russia would cool for a brief period with the establishment of several agreements that would establish a balance of power in Korea. These agreements would come to an end following the end of the Russo-Japanese war, and the later Japanese conquest of Korea. The Secure a Korean Protectorate subgoal represents an alternate route—the ambition of both Nicholas II and factions within his government to establish full Russian control of Korea.

DD114_37.png

British Subgoals

In the 1830s, British citizens and ships played a role in assisting Circassia against Russia. Whilst Britain was historically unwilling to escalate its involvement in Circassia beyond occasional shipments of weapons or volunteers dispatched by private citizens, it considered exerting influence into the Black Sea to be in its national interest.

The Disrupt the Russian Caucasus subgoal represents the various initiatives amongst British civil and political society to assist Circassia, and react to what they saw as the threat of Russia taking control of the Ottoman Empire if it could consolidate its territories in the Caucasus.

DD114_38.png

The Expand British India subgoal represents the desire to expand the territories controlled by the East India Company into Burma and modern-day Pakistan. A strong East India Company, or British Raj, may serve as a valuable counterweight to Russian influence in the region, and a centre from which Britain may project power into the remainder of Asia.

DD114_39.png

The Contest the Russian Pamirs subgoal represents an abortive attempt in 1902 by Britain to seize control of the Pamir Mountains and establish an independent buffer state through a deeply unsubtle method—a direct military incursion with cooperation from Afghanistan.

Whilst this proposition was historically rejected by the British government before materialising, the acquisition of Tajikistan by Russia will present Britain the opportunity to launch the proposed invasion. If Britain can manage to seize Tajikistan or establish a new Tajik state in its power bloc, it will gain a decisive advantage in the Great Game.

DD114_40.png

The final unique subgoal for Britain is to counter Russian Pacific Influence. This represents the historical Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902, which was formed in reaction to the strengthening of the Russian presence in its Far Eastern territories. This subgoal is triggered by Russia developing naval bases in Outer Manchuria, heralding an incoming threat to the British fleet in the Pacific.

DD114_41.png

Next week, I will cover the content for minor nations involved with the Great Game, as well as how sandbox mode works with the new content. And that is all. Thank you for reading.
 
  • 123Like
  • 59Love
  • 25
  • 17
  • 6
Reactions:
I feel like that as content designers you cannot program infinite journal entries so you have to focus on some (historical) cases. The rest is done with (sometimes barebones) game mechanics.
This is exactly why people want fewer features to be implemented as journal entries, and are asking for changes that make the game mechanics less barebones instead.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd rather have more of this and the Brazil journal entries than generic content that happens everywhere and gets boring. Especially if this model means Russia gets improved with this DLC, because I've avoided playing as them so far
While I like good fleshed out Stories I have to disagree with you here on your generic stance.

I'm not too happy that certain paths are only available for certain countries when the underlying principle could happen between multiple nations.
Yes historically it happend between russia and the UK.
Why should it happen when Russia is a rump while the Ottomans are a superpower and threatening German Interests in the Russian lands?

The worst example is HoI IV in my view.
There are numerous great mechanics but they are all only for the specific country, not other countries who, depending on your playstyle could happen there as well
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd much rather have neatly tailored content representing the historical great game, which has its roots in events before the game start date, than a generic "great game-esque" system
I think we disagree on the feasability and even on the opportunity of making a "great game" mechanic.

The only semi-railroaded journal entries I currently like are the unification ones, because they feel like they fill a gap while interacting with other mechanics of the game. They don't feel out of place. There are nationalist forces in Italy and Germany, Romania kind of feels like they have things in common, Great Colombia was a thing very recently...

I'll say, though, that I find the Schleswig-Holstein entry too specific. Germany could have unified without invading Denmark.

One comment here is that those who think like me are "overreacting", but seeing the trend in Paradox games over the last few years, I beg to disagree.

Voice of the People could have given us a "pretender" mechanic, which would have been open for any country having had a surviving competing dynasty over the last 100 years and have been a tool for countries having deposed their dynasties in-game to retrieve them. Instead, it gave us a boring France-unique "content".

Collossus of the South could have started tackling nation buildings in the Americas and eslewhere. Instead, we got buttons and objectives to integrate brazilians.

In a game built around pops and buildings, the devs have done little use of them when it came to stitch new mechanics, with the lauded exception of the investment rework we'll have once SoI goes out.
 
  • 9
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I think we disagree on the feasability and even on the opportunity of making a "great game" mechanic.

The only semi-railroaded journal entries I currently like are the unification ones, because they feel like they fill a gap while interacting with other mechanics of the game. They don't feel out of place. There are nationalist forces in Italy and Germany, Romania kind of feels like they have things in common, Great Colombia was a thing very recently...

I'll say, though, that I find the Schleswig-Holstein entry too specific. Germany could have unified without invading Denmark.

One comment here is that those who think like me are "overreacting", but seeing the trend in Paradox games over the last few years, I beg to disagree.

Voice of the People could have given us a "pretender" mechanic, which would have been open for any country having had a surviving competing dynasty over the last 100 years and have been a tool for countries having deposed their dynasties in-game to retrieve them. Instead, it gave us a boring France-unique "content".

Collossus of the South could have started tackling nation buildings in the Americas and eslewhere. Instead, we got buttons and objectives to integrate brazilians.

In a game built around pops and buildings, the devs have done little use of them when it came to stitch new mechanics, with the lauded exception of the investment rework we'll have once SoI goes out.
Furthur more, most of these contents are achievable by modding. There're already some good flavour mods now, and PDX have to spent more developing time working on their own feature content to make themselves better -- which occupied some of their time on things that can only be done by PDX alone -- gameplay. mechanics, balances, etc.

But I still consider that the Great Game is the best feature content of Vicky3 and its mods for now, though there seems to be an abuse about the JEs themselves. A single UI on featured general mechanic should be cool, just like the decision UI of HOI4... Modders have digged so deep in the graphical and art presentation of decision UI.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Are there any passive effects on the participating nations in the Great Game journal entry based on the current balance of power in the overall journal? The individual sub events have effects of course, and there's prestige gain etc for the winner if the Great Game is completed. Is there any difference in say Great Britain having the balance of power be 60-40 in their favor vs 90-10 in their favor?

For example, I could imagine if Britain had the Great Game 90-10 in their favor, they could have passive effects like a prestige bonus for Great Britain (smaller than what winning would give), countries in the Persia/Central Asia region outside the British and Russian spheres could be more likely to gain pro-British lobbies, and Russia could face increased war exhaustion gain when fighting against another nation involved in the Great Game. Different benchmarks for the balance of power could give different effects than these as well.

Could such effects be modded in when recreating this type of contested international journal entry?
 
  • 1Love
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'll be honest: this doesn't look like content I'd ever want to engage with. If we had mechanics like limited wars and Diplo Play negotations then adding Journal Entries that interact with those mechanics for flavor and to steer things in plausible history-adjacent directions would be great. But instead we're getting an overcomplicated web of JEs trying to do everything on their own. Come on, JEs are a great feature but they can't replace proper game mechanics.

Especially when reading the DD it's very hard for me to understand which JE flows from which, what it does and what paths are available to take. And the whole "Great Game objective that's not in the sandbox mode" thing only made things more messy. I'm starting to miss Focus Trees, despite their issues at least they had a clear visual representation.

When I'm going to want to play in this region I think I'll first take time to sit down and mod all of this out. It'll be a blander experience for sure, but without hundreds of premade goals, subgoals and railroading it'll probably be a better one. I want a GSG, not a CYOA.
That was basically my first thought as well. Now I'm basically excluded from playing Russia or GB unless I want to be forced into conflict with the other one. And the minors they are fighting over are now basically unplayable. Oh great, now I'm being partitioned or forced into a protectorate because of railroaded "mechanics". How fun...

A generic mechanic to allow great powers to compete over a region without actually going to war would be great. You could even call one between Russia and GB over Central Asia "The Great Game". As it is though, it sounds somewhere between bad and meh.

I don't spend much time caring about journal entries. I actually ignore all of them except the ones that are forced on me (like reconstruction) Their completion steps are either trivial and I complete them accidentally or are trying to force me to do things I don't actually want to do but for some reason I'm supposed to want to? Like, the military hegemon one. Why should I need to conquer half the world to be the undisputed military power? The USA certainly never did that and I don't think many would dispute it's military might. Or the one to make protectorates out of your colonies. Why would I ever want to do that? Vassals are totally useless. Or, honestly any of the ones here. Why should I want to participate in the great game? What's motivating me as a player into conflict with this other power other than arbitrary mechanics and the fact that it happened in real life?
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
That was basically my first thought as well. Now I'm basically excluded from playing Russia or GB unless I want to be forced into conflict with the other one. And the minors they are fighting over are now basically unplayable. Oh great, now I'm being partitioned or forced into a protectorate because of railroaded "mechanics". How fun...
Long term cordial relationships between GPs should be extremely hard to maintain, the geopolitics of the period are completely built around fear of countries being "left behind" in the race for global supremacy and conflict with other GPs (either directly or via proxy) should be one of the overarching parts of the gameplay experience as a great power.

The fact that the game has to date done a very poor job of making these relationships as fractious as they should be doesn't mean that introducing some actual tension is a bad thing (both with the specific GG content and other diplo changes)
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't see why guided content and systems can't coexist, and I think they do already. This is the sphere of influence patch. With diplomacy, foreign policy and union content that affects all nations equally.

This dev diary is about the great game, something that happened in the 19th century, the time period the game is about. It happened to Britain, the country whose monarch the game and period are named after. It happened due to geographic and political causes that by 1836 were nearly unavoidable, Russia and Britain were both already superpowers by 1836. This is good content, its worth making and I'm glad paradox is adding flavor like this.

Some of the flavor paradox has added so far kind of sucked, but I know it doesn't do much good to launch a game without events. I think JE's like Jack the ripper could be given another pass by the dev team now, but that's a topic for another thread and was an issue in victoria 2 as well(wickedness must be stamped out!)

Imagine the game with no guided content at all. I think it's good that there is a reasonable path to forming romania now, if the game was an unlimited sandbox wallachia wouldn't be a fun country to play. People complain about journal entries like the great game but the outcry would be far louder if countries weren't getting any content developed for them.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't see why guided content and systems can't coexist, and I think they do already. This is the sphere of influence patch. With diplomacy, foreign policy and union content that affects all nations equally.

This dev diary is about the great game, something that happened in the 19th century, the time period the game is about. It happened to Britain, the country whose monarch the game and period are named after. It happened due to geographic and political causes that by 1836 were nearly unavoidable, Russia and Britain were both already superpowers by 1836. This is good content, its worth making and I'm glad paradox is adding flavor like this.

Some of the flavor paradox has added so far kind of sucked, but I know it doesn't do much good to launch a game without events. I think JE's like Jack the ripper could be given another pass by the dev team now, but that's a topic for another thread and was an issue in victoria 2 as well(wickedness must be stamped out!)

All in all, this is great content in my opinion.
These Great Game mechanics are just asking to become a universal mechanic where in certain (strict?) criteria, two Great Powers can compete over the long-term with diplomacy and influence instead of short violent decisive wars with concrete wargoals.
 
  • 7
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 1
Reactions:
On my part, extremely worrying the amount of railroading this has.

Instead of improving the game mechanics to allow for these situations to happen naturally, we just had a completely railroaded eventchain/ JE chain, thats not even available on sandbox/MP.

The Great Game, at the end of the day, is a conflict of interests between two GP's over a region where its more important to get protectorates/vassals than direct control. The only special about it its the name.

There is perfect plausability that there could have been a Great Game between USA and UK over south america, UK and France over indonesia, France and Spain over the berber coast...

Sadly, the game does not represent this.

Instead, it forces the player into actions that by how the game is made, the player would not be taking usually.

There exists no limited warfare/supply chains/guerrilla warfare, so the player is forcefully limited on the caucasus only.

There exists no advantage to having protectorates over direct control , so the player instead is forced to protectorate persia.

There exists no mechanics for negotiating with other GP's so the player instead gets some scripted buttons for it.

There exists no mechanics for conflict of interests, so the game instead has the countries railroaded, without posibility of adapting to the actual game, a rising ottomans will not interfere in the great game, a isolationist Russia or UK will still be interested on it.
Actually there was absolutely no "perfect plausibility" of this happening during the 19th century.

The great game is basically the cold war of that time. The Royal Navy ruled the waves unchallenged and Russia proved to be unconquerable on land due to the size of its territory. Reason why the great game "organically" happened during that time and that those two rivals went full proxy wars until the emergence of Germany.

Saying what you're saying is basically the same as saying "there is a perfect plausibility that today's Italy is able to annex Brasil and challenge the USA for naval superiority". It's not even remotely plausible, not even in 50 or 100 years, and probably never, simply because of the current geopolitics inertia.
 
  • 6Like
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks fantastic, I hope this level of complexity and content can be brought to other great events and conflicts of the century, like the Carlist Wars (espec given the games start date)
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Actually there was absolutely no "perfect plausibility" of this happening during the 19th century.

The great game is basically the cold war of that time. The Royal Navy ruled the waves unchallenged and Russia proved to be unconquerable on land due to the size of its territory. Reason why the great game "organically" happened during that time and that those two rivals went full proxy wars until the emergence of Germany.

Saying what you're saying is basically the same as saying "there is a perfect plausibility that today's Italy is able to annex Brasil and challenge the USA for naval superiority". It's not even remotely plausible, not even in 50 or 100 years, and probably never, simply because of the current geopolitics inertia.
The conditions that create it are the end of the napoleonic wars, everything is in place at the start of the game. If it was something that evolved after the game started railroady would be more of an issue but jimkoons is right, this specific case is a consequences on ongoing conditions of the start of the game, ones probably too big for the game to simulate naturally. It can't even really replicate the concert of europe let alone unintended consequences of it like the great game. It wasnt just they were two super powers, but two superpowers with specific treaties, territories and historical relationships to other nations that meant they guaranteed each other certain rights while being rivals.
Austria-Prussia have another unique relationship that couldn't be sweapped out for any two german powers of relative size.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like that as content designers you cannot program infinite journal entries so you have to focus on some (historical) cases. The rest is done with (sometimes barebones) game mechanics. France should already be able to do some things just with the power block mechanic on their own.
Yeah, focusing more on mechanics(such as extending the border drawing to all nations(??)) allowing them to negotiate without constant war would be nice. So really this whole JE should just be incorporated into general mechanics in some form(but performance fix must come before that or my potato can't play :(
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't see why guided content and systems can't coexist, and I think they do already. This is the sphere of influence patch. With diplomacy, foreign policy and union content that affects all nations equally.

This dev diary is about the great game, something that happened in the 19th century, the time period the game is about. It happened to Britain, the country whose monarch the game and period are named after. It happened due to geographic and political causes that by 1836 were nearly unavoidable, Russia and Britain were both already superpowers by 1836. This is good content, its worth making and I'm glad paradox is adding flavor like this.

Some of the flavor paradox has added so far kind of sucked, but I know it doesn't do much good to launch a game without events. I think JE's like Jack the ripper could be given another pass by the dev team now, but that's a topic for another thread and was an issue in victoria 2 as well(wickedness must be stamped out!)

Imagine the game with no guided content at all. I think it's good that there is a reasonable path to forming romania now, if the game was an unlimited sandbox wallachia wouldn't be a fun country to play. People complain about journal entries like the great game but the outcry would be far louder if countries weren't getting any content developed for them.

Agreed – I feel like people are being unreasonable here in what they're asking for.

We're getting some very dynamic gameplay updates with ownership and subjects which will scale well. What are the Great Game mechanics that would scale while being historically authentic? Maybe you could add some broader mechanics for fighting over strategic regions, but that looked very different in Southeast Asia and Africa. Dividing up a border state? It might be cool to make it dynamic depending on where a border lands, but it seems difficult to scale that for dozens of potential countries.

I think people are being a bit unreasonable. I don't want to just say "be grateful for what you're getting" but it's pretty clear the dynamic changes already coming are proving difficult to finalize. I don't think we could realistically revamp that and still get a useable final product.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Very much not a fan of this. But then again, I'm also annoyed when the US doesn't manage to conquer her modern borders. So maybe I just don't know what I want. Still feels too railroaded for me, and it's designed to be exactly that, basically. A guided experience. My hunch is that it'll be fun once or twice, and then it'll become annoying.

I agree with the people who say negotiating state borders and the like should be part of diplo plays and peace deals, not a one off mechanic.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
What are India and Punjab, chopped liver? :D

Do an independent India, or an activist Punjab, have any way to play the Great Game for themselves? And what happens to the Great Game if India becomes independent?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
As regards the issue of people feeling like the rewards for completing journals aren't a good incentive to do so, maybe the opposite effect could help? Make not completing or failing them so painful that you want to avoid it at all costs?
Ex. Whichever country loses The Great Game instantly losses GP status, which basically means a feeding frenzy on them?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or disagreeable, this is a serious idea.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
As regards the issue of people feeling like the rewards for completing journals aren't a good incentive to do so, maybe the opposite effect could help? Make not completing or failing them so painful that you want to avoid it at all costs?
Ex. Whichever country loses The Great Game instantly losses GP status, which basically means a feeding frenzy on them?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic or disagreeable, this is a serious idea.
It seems a bit overpowered to stack the individual factors of the Great Game (which you would want to do anyways) with a big bonus/malus at the end. E.g., if you're Russia and you win, you control all of Central Asia and possibly parts of Pakistan/Afghanistan/Korea. That's a pretty significant reward on its own.
 
  • 6
Reactions: