Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #16 - States

[Lord Hoosier]

Why would the US have a claim on Quebec? They never actually claimed Quebec after 1783. Even in the War of 1812 it was over naval access to the Great Lakes and Mississippi, not anything to do with territorial claims on Quebec, and even that had been resolved for two decades by the time of the game's start.

Fair enough, though I am still curious to see how the US fits in mechanically. Especially as their split from the UK was more political/economic than necessarily cultural. The Revolutionaries still claimed they wanted better rights in the Empire right up until they split (Olive Branch Petition). A lot of early US history has the nation grappling with how English (their culture and language) or French (their main ally in the Revolution and where they got much of their philosophy from).
A lot of these mechanics seem like they would work very well replicating nationalism in places like Italy and Germany, but seem a bit unusual when applied to the United States at this point. Most notably example their expansion westwards was both nationalist (Manifest Destiny) but also imperialist in that the nations they conquered were either Native American or Latin American (Mexico).
I am not saying change them, just curious how the US will be represented by them. For most other nations I think these look good.

;~

Then again I would bet my bottom dollar PDS will sell us "Victoria III: Manifest Destiny" to make their situation flavorfully represented.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Why would the US have a claim on Quebec? They never actually claimed Quebec after 1783. Even in the War of 1812 it was over naval access to the Great Lakes and Mississippi, not anything to do with territorial claims on Quebec, and even that had been resolved for two decades by the time of the game's start.

If the war had gone better, the United States absolutely would have taken Canada. It might have been less important than British attempts to control American trade and aid to Tecumseh, and probably would not have lead to war all on its own, but the War Hawks had a major boner for conquering it.

Also, it wasn't totally divorced from anger at British aid to Native Americans resisting American expansion. Canada was the route by which British arms were getting to Tecumseh and his coalition.

But overall, I agree. By 1836 the US should not have claims on all of Canada. It should have claims on the Maine border, though, and I hope there's content for the Aroostook War and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty (though it might be handled dynamically by the existing diplomatic system rather than through events).

 

[ThemisTsousis1998]

Questions
can those split states,have their own weapons and armies,religions etc?

Can (if this is possible i hope we can have it) those states be playable and moddable through modding support for example change name for example like (based on religion) American Muslim community have custom flags,units but if we cannot have it in states have it general through modding support?

and finally can we (and i hope dear devs of Paradox) have some lf those states as separatists-rebels-insurgents(and playable with custom flags etc)?

Thanks for your time

 

[Heatth]

Questions
can those split states,have their own weapons and armies,religions etc?

Can (if this is possible i hope we can have it) those states be playable and moddable through modding support for example change name for example like (based on religion) American Muslim community have custom flags,units but if we cannot have it in states have it general through modding support?

and finally can we (and i hope dear devs of Paradox) have some lf those states as separatists-rebels-insurgents(and playable with custom flags etc)?

Thanks for your time

I don't think you understand what "state" mean in this context. "State", in game, is just the name given to a specific area in the map. Split or not, they aren't countries.

Now, you can have countries that are the size of a single state, like Luxemburg or Texas. These are playable like all other nations and have their own armies, etc.

 

[ThemisTsousis1998]

so they cannot form countries as i understand

 

[Freger]

If a split state in its entirely makes up a country, we name that split state after the country for the sake of brevity. So the split state of Luxemburg is called Luxemburg instead of Luxemburgian Wallonia.

New English New England is dead

 

[hilmar]

Things is, pop distribution by province was not a core feature of vic 2. In fact, for most part, it basically didn't matter at all. Factories were state based, that meant craftsmen, clerks and capitalists were all only relevant on a state level, not on a province level. Similarly, bureaucrats and officers only mattered in a state of national level, with no provincial effect. Soldiers being in a province level was more of an annoyance than anything as it could lead to multiple provinces not having enough to fill a brigade. Artisans existed on a province level but might as well not, as it made no difference whatsoever where they lived. It was really only the RGO related POPs (aristocrats, farmers, laborers and slaves) that mattered on a province level, but the RGO system wasn't good in the first place and the Vic3 equivalent system is much better, despite being state centered. And to top it all off you could never interact with POPs all the stuff you could actually do gameplay wise either effected the whole nation (budget) or a whole state (national focus).

So the whole POP living in provinces thing in Vic2 is mostly a useless feature that you can't really interact with. For most practical purposes the POPs might as well be living in states even in that game. What gameplay exactly are we missing?

By that logic you can remove the states and have the pop distribution on a country level, it will remove bloat. If there is territory exchange, just use an algorithm to transfer some pop and resources. Some things are better suited on a country level, some on state level and some on province level, RGO equivalent and pops being the case for provinces.

Vic2 had many, many flaws, some of them you have pointed out, but since this is a new game there would be many ways of handling such flaws, as the devs have demonstrated in previous dev diaries. However, POPs were the heart and soul of victoria games, in this case they have cured the disease by killing the patient. How would you properly represent things like culture and religion in for example the balkans? This is the age of nationalism, it was hugely important for this time period and should be reflected as such.

 

[Heatth]

By that logic you can remove the states and have the pop distribution on a country level, it will remove bloat.

That isn't the same logic at all. I never said anything about bloat, I talked about mechanics. If you are just ignoring what I actually write I don't think I will waste time arguing with you.

 

[hilmar]

There are far, far more provinces in Vicky 3 than in 2 or 1. And while POP distribution by province lead to interesting visual information on the map, it wasn't really that important mechanically as Heatth pointed out.

Interesting visual information on a map is what most paradox games are built around and is the reason i got into paradox games in the first place. Why would you add in new provinces if they are just empty space? The only reason i can think of is HOI level of warfare, which would be a strange priority for a Victoria game. If it is only warfare, then they should spilt provinces into empty space regions, not states.

 

[JKComposer]

Why would you add in new provinces if they are just empty space? The only reason i can think of is HOI level of warfare, which would be a strange priority for a Victoria game.

Warfare, Urbanization and colonization are the three mechanics we know thus far that rely on smaller provinces. We don't know much about how colonization outside of it being on a province-by province basis, but urbanization is something that wouldn't have been possible to show at least not on-map with Victoria 2-sized provinces.

 

[Spartakusbund]

Interesting visual information on a map is what most paradox games are built around and is the reason i got into paradox games in the first place.

That’s certainly part of it, sure, but it’s not the only appeal. And it’s not like there won’t still be plenty of interesting visual information on the map. More, probably, given what we’ve already seen with cities and railroads. And there very well could be heatmaps for things like religion and ethnicity.

Why would you add in new provinces if they are just empty space? The only reason i can think of is HOI level of warfare, which would be a strange priority for a Victoria game. If it is only warfare, then they should spilt provinces into empty space regions, not states.

We’ll have to wait and see why there are so many provinces. I hope it means a focus on economic warfare: severing rail lines a la the March to the Sea.

However, you’re ignoring the other huge benefit of moving away from provinces: RGOs are now dead, and thank god for that. Now it won’t be the case that I can only raise cattle on an arbitrarily limited amount of territory, and can instead do it anywhere there’s arable land.

 

[harold lorre]

for example in 1848 in Italy it was assumed an Italian confederation headed by the pope in 1859 a Piedmontese north and a confederation or autonomous states to the south with Rome only as capital. i think with a traditional victoria 2 map and an old ai is not enough how to simulate it?

 

[JKiller96]

Will many areas of the United States have homelands for certain Native American tribes? Will these tribes be able to gain independence through some miracle act?

 

[Nibbes]

Will many areas of the United States have homelands for certain Native American tribes? Will these tribes be able to gain independence through some miracle act?

That is likely something they cover in DLC. The issues with natives many do lack concept of a nation state and many are not always originally from there. One reason the natives often put up more resistance in American west vs some past eras of compromise/cooperation at some level is after the trail of tears many do not see compromise as wise option anymore and will fight until end to not repeat being driven more westwards. The trail of tears made integration and compromise nearly impossible because the "five civilized tribes" that willingly acculturated somewhat got screwed over by the federal government which is one reason Indian territory sided with the Confederates. Much of the local natives in plains are semi nomadic too.

For Native American homelands I can only think of few that would be easier to cover. The five civilized tribes before the trails of tears. We have maps showing their range before depuration out west for all of them. Out west I can only think of Apache, Lanoka(already in game), and Metis in Canada.

I do want alternative to trail of tears where I can add the five civilized tribes as accepted cultures then use them to assimilate other natives. Also would homeland dynamic play well with reservations?

 

[Nibbes]

I don't think you understand what "state" mean in this context. "State", in game, is just the name given to a specific area in the map. Split or not, they aren't countries.

Now, you can have countries that are the size of a single state, like Luxemburg or Texas. These are playable like all other nations and have their own armies, etc.

I think the poster is wondering about domestic politics and demographics. For example, Russian Empire has Pale Settlement which helps them restrict the rights of Jews and keep them mostly in one place. Or how later Soviet Union created a Jewish SSR in Far East. Zionism and ethnic homelands like this have multiple examples from this era. For example, South Africa makes "homelands" to deport and isolate certain African ethnic groups.

Other examples could include US sponsored African American settlements in Liberia or even promotion of "black homesteads" out west which gives African Americans their own state without US and some guaranteed political power. Or Jewish state in Alaska from Jews fleeing Russian Empire.

Or to use the other poster Muslim American example, lets say US lets in bunch of Muslims for whatever reason in game or they somehow immigrate there. If enough come to one state or region they form new unique Muslim American culture and that state can be considered "homeland" for them now

 

[hilmar]

That’s certainly part of it, sure, but it’s not the only appeal. And it’s not like there won’t still be plenty of interesting visual information on the map. More, probably, given what we’ve already seen with cities and railroads. And there very well could be heatmaps for things like religion and ethnicity.

We’ll have to wait and see why there are so many provinces. I hope it means a focus on economic warfare: severing rail lines a la the March to the Sea.

However, you’re ignoring the other huge benefit of moving away from provinces: RGOs are now dead, and thank god for that. Now it won’t be the case that I can only raise cattle on an arbitrarily limited amount of territory, and can instead do it anywhere there’s arable land.

I think we can all agree that Vic2 has its limitations, but a 10 year old game is not were we should set the bar. For example, I was hoping hoping for some sort of new dynamic state border system instead of sticking to the old pre-determined Vic2 state borders. So we will still get things like Nice 1-province state called something like Sardinian Provence because France is eventually "supposed" to take it from Sardinia, but at least it is not a step backwards.

A new province-based RGO equivalent system would be far better than having the map consisting entirely of empty provinces. The game philosophy of Vic3 is supposed to be national gardening were you can have an interesting game without ever going to war, so having your nation consist entirely of empty provinces is a huge step backwards, I simply dont understand this design choice. Maybe the devs have some magic trick up their sleeve, i sure hope so but i doubt it. Maybe a mod will fix things in the future, i waited 10 years, i can wait a little longer...

 

[hilmar]

Warfare, Urbanization and colonization are the three mechanics we know thus far that rely on smaller provinces. We don't know much about how colonization outside of it being on a province-by province basis, but urbanization is something that wouldn't have been possible to show at least not on-map with Victoria 2-sized provinces.

Thanks for the information, it is much appreciated. Urbanization is a relevant topic for the period, if there is a deeper urbanization mechanic that requires lots of small empty provinces i would like to hear more about it, but it would still in no way justify removing all pops and resources from provinces. Warfare should never be prioritised above pops in a Vicky game, and colonizing empty provinces devoid of population and resources sure sounds boring.

 

[Spartakusbund]

I think we can all agree that Vic2 has its limitations, but a 10 year old game is not were we should set the bar. For example, I was hoping hoping for some sort of new dynamic state border system instead of sticking to the old pre-determined Vic2 state borders. So we will still get things like Nice 1-province state called something like Sardinian Provence because France is eventually "supposed" to take it from Sardinia, but at least it is not a step backwards.

A new province-based RGO equivalent system would be far better than having the map consisting entirely of empty provinces. The game philosophy of Vic3 is supposed to be national gardening were you can have an interesting game without ever going to war, so having your nation consist entirely of empty provinces is a huge step backwards, I simply dont understand this design choice. Maybe the devs have some magic trick up their sleeve, i sure hope so but i doubt it. Maybe a mod will fix things in the future, i waited 10 years, i can wait a little longer...

Why do you assume that provinces are empty?

 

[harold lorre]

I think we can all agree that Vic2 has its limitations, but a 10 year old game is not were we should set the bar. For example, I was hoping hoping for some sort of new dynamic state border system instead of sticking to the old pre-determined Vic2 state borders. So we will still get things like Nice 1-province state called something like Sardinian Provence because France is eventually "supposed" to take it from Sardinia, but at least it is not a step backwards.

A new province-based RGO equivalent system would be far better than having the map consisting entirely of empty provinces. The game philosophy of Vic3 is supposed to be national gardening were you can have an interesting game without ever going to war, so having your nation consist entirely of empty provinces is a huge step backwards, I simply dont understand this design choice. Maybe the devs have some magic trick up their sleeve, i sure hope so but i doubt it. Maybe a mod will fix things in the future, i waited 10 years, i can wait a little longer...

more space should be given to individual cities than to fixed maps, because borders always change according to governments: cities can be on either side of the border depending on the time. by the way, can the names of cities and states and regions be changed? , for example if for some reason history changes and Washington loses the role of capital and the status of dc is useless in an alternative line,

 

[Alex0597]

The most important thing I've taken away from this is that the American flag dynamically changes depending on the number of states. I wonder what the capped out flag looks like?