• 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 #34 - Canals & Monuments

16_9.jpg

Good evening and welcome to this week’s Victoria 3 development diary! Today’s topic is Canals & Monuments, unique buildings with special inputs, outputs, and effects.

The Vatican City is the seat of the Catholic Church and a great asset to the Papal States in Victoria 3. As Europe developed and industrialized, the power of religious authority in national politics declined steeply but never lost its relevance. Can you change the course of history and renew the temporal power of the Pope?
DD34 01.png

Monuments are unique buildings only available in specific states, each with its own 3D model on the map. They make use of some of the more interesting aspects of the production methods system; just as buildings can output Goods, they can also output both national and local modifiers, Capacities, and effects on the pops working there. The Vatican City for instance outputs the Influence capacity as well as greatly increasing the political strength of the Devout Interest Group. Meanwhile the White House adds a multiplier to your national Bureaucracy output as well as increasing the amount of political strength Pops gain from votes. Not all Monuments are present at the start date. Some, like the Eiffel Tower, must be constructed, and Monuments are significantly more costly and time-consuming to construct than standard buildings. Monuments are subsidized by government funding, so if you decide that a Monument is unaffordable or that you aren’t interested in its effects (for instance if you as communist Italy no longer want to Church to wield so much power) you can simply defund them. On release we intend to have eleven different Monuments in total.

The Panama Canal links the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Finally completed in 1914 after decades of planning and construction, ships no longer had to take the long and treacherous route around South America to travel between the East and West. Yes, we can see the trees and houses in the Canal - we’ll fix it!
DD34 02.png

Like Monuments, Canals are unique buildings with a special set of inputs and outputs. But the true allure of constructing a Canal is that it allows you to create new connections between sea nodes, allowing ships to travel through the isthmuses of Panama and Suez. This significantly reduces the Convoy costs for trading and supplying armies across vast ocean distances, as well as your vulnerability to unscrupulous rivals trying to disrupt your supply lines.

We use the Journal Entry system to track the progress of your canal survey. Behind the scenes a variable is increased every month until the goal is reached, which triggers the completion event. The Journal Entry also acts as a reminder that you are spending a lot of Bureaucracy on this project, and that it will eventually be made available again once the survey is complete.
DD34 03.png

Constructing a Canal is far from trivial. Before any work can begin, an extensive survey of the region needs to be conducted, costing a hefty chunk of Bureaucracy for the surveyor for around 3 years. Either the owner of the state or a Great Power with an Interest in the region can conduct a survey. Any number of countries can potentially conduct their own surveys and compete to build the Canal themselves.

We’ve made the conscious decision to avoid starting wars or Diplomatic Plays through scripted content wherever possible, instead offering incentives for the player to start their own Plays and encouraging the AI to pursue Journal Entry goals. In this case, the player has the option to either gain a Claim on Sinai or to improve relations with the owner country, helping you along your chosen path but not locking you into a particular course of action.
DD34 04.png

Once you’ve completed your survey, the path diverges depending on whether you own the appropriate land. If you already own either a Treaty Port or the whole state region you can simply begin constructing the canal, but if not you’ll need to find a way to acquire it, either through monetary or coercive means. A Decision becomes available allowing you to purchase a Treaty Port in the appropriate State Region in exchange for a series of very large weekly payments, assuming you can convince the local rulers to part with the port. You might however decide that you’d rather keep your money and start a Diplomatic Play for a Treaty Port or the entire State Region (the former will cost you a lot less Infamy), which might lead either to a peaceful concession to your demands or to war.

And that’s all for today! Next week I’ll be handing you over to one of our Content Designers to talk about Expeditions and Decisions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 202
  • 172Like
  • 28
  • 17Love
  • 5
  • 3Haha
Reactions:
I have to say this is the first time I have 100% disagreed with a dev diary. I really don't see how monuments are different from innate national bonuses-- something multiple devs have called a bad idea. The phrases "America is is better at bureaucracy because its America" and "America is better at bureaucracy because it controls the White House" are essentially the same. You said the former would make the game worse, but the latter makes it better. I don't see why.

It also just seems weird that this thing that is clearly meant to reflect some intangible cultural or political impact is taken away if you lose the building. It makes sense that the Pope is naturally better at diplomacy than everyone else, but why is that no longer the case if he loses Rome?

I just don't get this decision at all. You said you don't like granting tags advantages just for *being* that tag, but any argument you could levy against that you could also levy against monuments. You may as well say America's enfranchised pops are more powerful than everyone else's because they're America rather than because they own a building. And for all that, I fail to see what it *adds*. How does this make the game better?
 
  • 31Like
  • 21
  • 4
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
There are a many reasons for this:
  • Monuments are positioned manually on the map to ensure they fit into the landscape and city hubs. It would be virtually impossible to ensure the Statue of Liberty seamlessly meshes with every coastline unless we painstakingly went through every single coastal state and experimented with its placement there. This means doing this for all states (currently over 700) for all monuments in the game (currently 11) to ensure we place every single monument in the game in a unique position.
  • Many of these monuments are already in place at the start of the game. Nevertheless, if we did have a system where you could build the Eiffel Tower anywhere, then we ought to also have a system where you could build Vatican City somewhere else if you razed it. This means that for consistency we ought to be manually positioning the Vatican City in every single state even though it's unlikely to ever be built elsewhere.
  • Should countries be allowed to build duplicates? After all, if the White House gives such a sweet bonus then shouldn't France or China be able to build the White House too? At that point these buildings become not really special in any way - the White House becomes just a "Bureaucracy Multiplier Palace", the Eiffel Tower just a "Prestige Tower", etc.
  • Some of these monuments are ancient, like Angkor Wat, and are special for this very reason. While you might be able to destroy these in-game, the idea of rebuilding them just doesn't make sense. The idea of another country rebuilding them in another place doubly doesn't make sense.
As should be clear from the above, making monuments generic and buildable by anyone would not only take inordinate time and effort for the development team compared to what it adds to the game, but also cause them to lose a lot of their unique appeal and introduces many strange exception cases that also has to be dealt with. This means we were left with two options: historical monuments in predefined places, or no monuments in any places. We felt it would be a missed opportunity to not acknowledge the enormous feats of engineering countries often engaged in for prestige during this era, so we went with door number one.

I'd honestly rather monuments were just delayed to a future update than be implemented as they are currently. But I realize that isn't going to happen, so hopefully they end up as something decent by the time of release.

Solution 1: Put gameplay ahead of art, and let the models sometimes spawn in wonky places. Civilization has SeaHenge, I don't think people will be bothered by a few assets clipping. Worst case you have an option in a menu to disable monument assets on the map.

Solution 2: Have every monument be on the same footprint, then you only need to check each state once to ensure there is a good monument location. A limit of only one monument per state seems fine.

I'll also note that just because a monument can be built anywhere, doesn't necessarily mean it needs the ability to be re-built in a different spot. Especially for monuments existing at game start.
 
  • 20
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
...burn Vatican? I mean, surely burning an iconic location for Catholic Christianity, and to a degree Christianity overall, should be a horrible idea for anyone who happened to conquer it in this time period? It should cause substantial unrest and hatred?

I think monuments like this shouldn't be in the game, but if they are, I think they should mainly be prestige or influence or some other not directly tangible things. Surely the political strength of the Devout faction isn't dictated by whoever possesses Vatican, but rather by the Papal government form? However, being the Pope probably was pretty prestigeous in the catholic world even in the 1800s, and conquering Vatican as Ottomans probaly still would've been prestigeous, even if also politically very risky. After all, there probably was a great reason why Vatican was left independent when Italy unified, and I doubt it was the personal piety of Victor Emmanuel II.
Actually the Vatican wasn't independent for a good chunk of the game's time frame. Italy captured Rome from the Papal States in 1870 and the independence of Vatican City wasn't established until 1929. In between that time the Pope had no political independence. The Popes in turn refused to acknowledge the Italian state and actually told Catholics to not participate in the Italian government (the opposite effect of controlling the Vatican in game; while most Catholic Italian didn't listen to the Pope here a decent number did, which in game terms would be a decrease in support for the government and political power for Devout IGs). Although several attempts by Italy were made to negotiate a settlement, it was only in 1929 that the Vatican was willing to accept the loss of 1870 and move on.

And yeah, burning down the Vatican would definitely receive widespread international condemnation. Even among non-Catholics, I expect reactions would be the negative reactions to the burning of the Summer Palace during the Second Opium War heightened by an order of magnitude.
please tell me that big steel lady in long island won't make pops fell ways into immigrating there...
Honestly the Statue of Liberty giving a small bonus to immigration would be much more reasonable than most of the bonuses from monuments that have been mentioned. It should be less important than political freedoms or economic opportunities in attracting immigrants, but the symbolic effect of the Statue of Liberty still had some effect.
An earlier dev diary mentioned that upon occupying a state, the occupier wouldn't be able to demolish buildings in that state, to prevent the gamey strategy of an opponent deleting all your factories if they managed to occupy a state.

If the monuments are indeed just another building, then I'd expect this limitation to demolishing would also apply. That said, I would appreciate a Big Red Button of sorts which did appear when you occupy a state containing a monument where you can blow it up.
Why is that gamey? Burning your enemy's industry on your way out if you think you can't hold the area is not all a "gamey" strategy but rather one that is a reasonable option reflective of real life, albeit it would likely be condemned as barbaric by other countries and could diplomatically isolate you. If anything it's prevent it that is gamey.
There are a many reasons for this:
  • Monuments are positioned manually on the map to ensure they fit into the landscape and city hubs. It would be virtually impossible to ensure the Statue of Liberty seamlessly meshes with every coastline unless we painstakingly went through every single coastal state and experimented with its placement there. This means doing this for all states (currently over 700) for all monuments in the game (currently 11) to ensure we place every single monument in the game in a unique position.
  • Many of these monuments are already in place at the start of the game. Nevertheless, if we did have a system where you could build the Eiffel Tower anywhere, then we ought to also have a system where you could build Vatican City somewhere else if you razed it. This means that for consistency we ought to be manually positioning the Vatican City in every single state even though it's unlikely to ever be built elsewhere.
  • Should countries be allowed to build duplicates? After all, if the White House gives such a sweet bonus then shouldn't France or China be able to build the White House too? At that point these buildings become not really special in any way - the White House becomes just a "Bureaucracy Multiplier Palace", the Eiffel Tower just a "Prestige Tower", etc.
  • Some of these monuments are ancient, like Angkor Wat, and are special for this very reason. While you might be able to destroy these in-game, the idea of rebuilding them just doesn't make sense. The idea of another country rebuilding them in another place doubly doesn't make sense.
As should be clear from the above, making monuments generic and buildable by anyone would not only take inordinate time and effort for the development team compared to what it adds to the game, but also cause them to lose a lot of their unique appeal and introduces many strange exception cases that also has to be dealt with. This means we were left with two options: historical monuments in predefined places, or no monuments in any places. We felt it would be a missed opportunity to not acknowledge the enormous feats of engineering countries often engaged in for prestige during this era, so we went with door number one.
Why exactly do you think it's unreasonable to build Angkor Wat somewhere else but that it would make perfect sense to build Vatican City somewhere else? What's the great difference between the two? The significance of the Vatican isn't that it's a bunch of big, old churches. It's that it's that it's the ancient seat of the Papacy. The papacy could conceivably transfer somewhere else but even then there's a degree of prestige and legitimacy associate with the Vatican itself which wouldn't carry over.
Regarding Vatican City and how it grants additional power to the clergy regardless of state religion, it's mainly a result of the fact that we can't trigger a Production Method on religion - it's not a Law, or a Tech, or another Production Method. If time permits we might add that functionality, which would then easily let us change the behavior of Vatican City depending on the state religion of the controlling country.
This seems less an argument for implementing the Vatican as is and more an argument implementing it at all. If you can't implement something in a way that actually makes sense, why implement it at all?
 
  • 15
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Pro starting move as UK: declare a war for Maryland, Paris and all other really useful monument places.
Honestly, I see the monuments as an incentive for specific people to buy the game because they are there rather than something that would enhance the gameplay. I can see the financial logic working here, it is worth it to hear the bad gameplay complaints from people who are anyways going to buy the game than miss out on potential sales because someone thought a building that defined his nation/religion is missing.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
And if the Ottoman Empire conquers Rome and don't want their Devout IG to gain additional political strength from having taken control of the Vatican, they (or anyone who controls it) can certainly burn it to the ground.
So... how does this work in the context of war? I'm a little fuzzy on how armies work at all, since we're not manually controlling them anymore. If one is playing as, say... Britain, can one occupy Washington and burn the White House? If there are hostile nations in control of either side of the Suez Canal, will ships become unable to pass until relations improve?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Pro starting move as UK: declare a war for Maryland, Paris and all other really useful monument places.
Honestly, I see the monuments as an incentive for specific people to buy the game because they are there rather than something that would enhance the gameplay. I can see the financial logic working here, it is worth it to hear the bad gameplay complaints from people who are anyways going to buy the game than miss out on potential sales because someone thought a building that defined his nation/religion is missing.
That doesn't follow at all. Paradox's whole business model is based off getting repeat customers who keep buying expansions. You get people to buy expansions by making the gameplay good enough to retain their attention between releases. Therefore superfluous monuments are a bad idea. In addition, if this market of people who will only be interested in the game if a certain world wonder is in it really exists, you could cater to it by including the monuments in ways that affect the gameplay very little.
 
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD neondt and the extra info from you and Iachek, and some very interesting features – I look forward to seeing how they play out :)

A couple of thoughts – all very much ignoreable, but in case useful:
  • The White House seems a bit of an odd choice for a pro-democracy icon (American democracy as an institution has always been a bit wobbly (possibly because they went so early?) – amongst other issues, the gerrymandering troubling it today is not a new thing) – would it make more sense to have these kind of bonuses for the capital building of all democracies, rather than just the US? Other effects for the White House could be tailored to integrating immigrants (particularly if you don’t already have the Statue of Liberty) or perhaps something a bit more nationalist/jingoistic?
  • A totally teeny-tiny thing, but it might be nice to have three sections to the Panama canal, one raised, as a visual representation of the differing heights of different sections, and the numerous actual locks in the canal. This may be a bit tricky with planned animations and so on, though.
  • 11 is quite a small number, particularly if the likes of the White House are making the grade (it's an iconic US building, for sure, but I'm not sure it's any more iconic, adjusted for the "US soft power factor" (ie, lots of movies with the White House in it - which wouldn't be a factor for much of the game's timeframe) than numerous other Government buildings - Russia's Kremlin, for example, or even Britain's Houses of Parliament). There'll necessarily be a lot of subjectivity as to relative importance of monuments, and having a few more in from the get-go might reduce the "arbitrariness factor". That said, I appreciate if the resources aren't available, and it's something that's planned to be built up over time.
the White House becomes just a "Bureaucracy Multiplier Palace"

I've nothing against the White House as a monument per se, but as best I understand, the US aren't standouts at either bureaucracy (at any point) or democracy (in the second half of the game - they've got something of an edge in the first half). It seems strange that the US has a building that, if effort is expended, gives them some kind of bonus to management, that other nations don't get. It just doesn't feel terribly immersive.

As I see it, the trick with both monuments and characters is to sprinkle them into the gameplay for flavor and historical immersion, without making them so central and important mechanically that they start to dominate.

In terms of the modifiers these provide, one thought might be to steer clear of "direct competitive modifiers" - for an EU4 example, discipline is a big one, where some countries by dint of their tag/national ideas, have better discipline than others. In EU4, they don't (or at least didn't at the start) necessarily have the mechanics to model some of these things, but I'd personally (ie, I understand if others would enjoy it - I'm not saying it's necessarily an objectively bad thing - just not for me) find it a shame if Prussia in Vicky 3 had an army that fought better just because it happened to have the Brandenburg Gate, say, or Britain's navy had combat bonuses because it had Nelson's Column.

No maritime-themed pic today, but a maritime-themed Vid - here's HMS Hood transiting the Panama Canal in 1924 (it's only a minute long):

 
  • 13Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I really don't see how monuments are different from innate national bonuses.

They aren't. The only difference is that you are ok with some innate bonuses, but not with others. Why is it ok for some nations to start with more techs than others, or rivers that weren't really navigable by ships at the time to allow some countries to build more factories, but prestige from certain very prestigous buildings? Innate bonuses will be a thing in some form, regardless of monuments being added or not.

Whether or not certain monuments grants realistic bonuses or not is a different matter.

And for all that, I fail to see what it *adds*. How does this make the game better?
If the game is successful it will help fund future additions to the game. That is the main reason it is added, and it is the main reason it is added in the way it is. Monuments are probably one of the few features where Paradox is actually able to do a rough estimate of how much value it actually adds to the game, they will however never tell you what it is.
 
  • 19
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why is that gamey? Burning your enemy's industry on your way out if you think you can't hold the area is not all a "gamey" strategy but rather one that is a reasonable option reflective of real life, albeit it would likely be condemned as barbaric by other countries and could diplomatically isolate you. If anything it's prevent it that is gamey.
Oh I definitely agree, it's a decision I'm not thrilled about, I was paraphrasing what the devs mentioned as their rationale. That said, since Devastation will reduce throughput of factories and state infrastructure, theoretically the same end effect will happen to states occupied by enemies, just without the tedium of having to remember which buildings were present, and rebuilding them all once the war is over. So I see why they designed it the way they did, though it would be nice to have a few more things you can mess with.
 
There are a many reasons for this:
  • Monuments are positioned manually on the map to ensure they fit into the landscape and city hubs. It would be virtually impossible to ensure the Statue of Liberty seamlessly meshes with every coastline unless we painstakingly went through every single coastal state and experimented with its placement there. This means doing this for all states (currently over 700) for all monuments in the game (currently 11) to ensure we place every single monument in the game in a unique position.
  • Many of these monuments are already in place at the start of the game. Nevertheless, if we did have a system where you could build the Eiffel Tower anywhere, then we ought to also have a system where you could build Vatican City somewhere else if you razed it. This means that for consistency we ought to be manually positioning the Vatican City in every single state even though it's unlikely to ever be built elsewhere.
  • Should countries be allowed to build duplicates? After all, if the White House gives such a sweet bonus then shouldn't France or China be able to build the White House too? At that point these buildings become not really special in any way - the White House becomes just a "Bureaucracy Multiplier Palace", the Eiffel Tower just a "Prestige Tower", etc.
  • Some of these monuments are ancient, like Angkor Wat, and are special for this very reason. While you might be able to destroy these in-game, the idea of rebuilding them just doesn't make sense. The idea of another country rebuilding them in another place doubly doesn't make sense.
As should be clear from the above, making monuments generic and buildable by anyone would not only take inordinate time and effort for the development team compared to what it adds to the game, but also cause them to lose a lot of their unique appeal and introduces many strange exception cases that also has to be dealt with. This means we were left with two options: historical monuments in predefined places, or no monuments in any places. We felt it would be a missed opportunity to not acknowledge the enormous feats of engineering countries often engaged in for prestige during this era, so we went with door number one.

Hence the following.

1) It should not be possible to build any monuments during play, or any monuments that can be build should be buildable in any State.
2) If monuments are buildable, you've got a robust State modifier system to hang these structures onto, no 3D model siting required.
3) Any monuments that exist should have reasonable effects depending on their owner, or the structure of their owner's politics.
4) There is a difference between a unique building system and a monument system. Specific instances of specific types of monument could be a unique building represented on the map, while a generic monument marker could be placed on the map for non-unique instances, if there is one placed on the map at all.
5) A monument should have either very modest effects, but useful ones, or it should be somewhat potent, offer prestige and be very expensive to operate.
6) There is nothing wrong with being the first to build a monumental structure creating greater prestige.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
it was only in 1929 that the Vatican was willing to accept the loss of 1870 and move on.

In a treaty brokered by Da Musso, of all people. To grease up the deal he even paid for the land lost by the Papal States iirc - tho I can only imagine any figure paid being symbolic at best, there is no way any real transfer of wealth could compensate for what was, what, some 5% of all land in Italy?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Regarding Vatican City and how it grants additional power to the clergy regardless of state religion, it's mainly a result of the fact that we can't trigger a Production Method on religion - it's not a Law, or a Tech, or another Production Method. If time permits we might add that functionality, which would then easily let us change the behavior of Vatican City depending on the state religion of the controlling country.
Honestly, if you can’t do it right, then don’t do it at all.
  • Monuments are positioned manually on the map to ensure they fit into the landscape and city hubs. It would be virtually impossible to ensure the Statue of Liberty seamlessly meshes with every coastline unless we painstakingly went through every single coastal state and experimented with its placement there. This means doing this for all states (currently over 700) for all monuments in the game (currently 11) to ensure we place every single monument in the game in a unique position.
What I wouldn’t give for a grand strategy game with absolutely no pretense of having nice graphics, so that this issue would never arise. If it were up to me, the only 3-D object in the entire game would be the globe itself, and every single thing depicted on it would be 2-D.
 
  • 32
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I can already see that in two years after release the game will have gone through so many cycles of DLC that basically every nation will have monuments giving special affects like Civilization.
 
  • 26
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Confederate Canada?

Oh way up north in the land of mooses
Bucks, Canucks, and tasty gooses
Right away!
Just say "Eh?"
Every day!
Canada!


Also, achievement idea: As the CSA, occupy Rome using cavalry: "...through the Vatican?!"
 
  • 5Haha
Reactions:
If it were up to me, the only 3-D object in the entire game would be the globe itself, and every single thing depicted on it would be 2-D.

What did 2D maps ever do to you to deserve to be replaced by a clunky 3D globe in games?

I can already see that in two years after release the game will have gone through so many cycles of DLC that basically every nation will have monuments giving special affects like Civilization.
I suspect that would be the preferable outcome for a lot of people on these forums, and Paradox. The Victoria franchise is pretty niche, and the most realistic alternatives are probably another CK3 with close to no updates or another abandoned game like Imperator.

I like neither of those 3 options, but atleast DLC monuments are optional. I don't really care about 11 monuments that will barely affect me being in the base game. It could have been much worse (it could have been mission trees).
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I really hated it when they added wonders to Imperator and I'm a bit meh towards it in CK3. They seem out of place in Victoria 3 mechanics wise and would only encourage players to get x state and y state. Hopefully the devs would just turn all monuments into local bonuses rather than national ones to limit their effect on gameplay.
 
  • 29
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Looks interesting. Could add a lot of flavor if it is expanded.

It's functionality we do want to add, but haven't yet, so it's not something I can promise at release. There's a small bundle of potential mechanics oriented around control of narrow naval passages I'd like to explore, so I don't want to prioritize shoehorning in special mechanics only for canals that will rarely have an impact if we can create something more coherent and universally applicable instead.

I would love to see this implemented sooner rather than later. Even if it is not at release, it would make controlling Canals and territory like Gibraltar much more meaningful. Given we have limited Military options, holding strategic land should be an important influence.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
They aren't. The only difference is that you are ok with some innate bonuses, but not with others. Why is it ok for some nations to start with more techs than others, or rivers that weren't really navigable by ships at the time to allow some countries to build more factories, but prestige from certain very prestigous buildings? Innate bonuses will be a thing in some form, regardless of monuments being added or not.
I'm not saying giving some nations better starting conditions over the others is a bad thing. Its actually a really good thing, a staple of the GSG genre. It is a great benefit to the game for two reasons:
1: Historical accuracy. While I hardly think more realism == better game, no-one can deny that the historical theme is an important part of the franchise. Doing something unrealistic or ahistorical undermines that, and therefore should only be done with good reason.

2: Variety. Starting conditions varying lets you play very different games. If you want to modernize a nation with crushingly large populations but great production potential, play Ming. If you want to start off industrialized, play Great Britain.

Wonders undermine historical accuracy because of how bonkers the bonuses are. Did America really have a more efficient bureaucracy than everyone? Even if it did, why one earth is it the White House that grants that bonus? Why are enfranchised pops more powerful in the White House's country than anywhere else? It makes no sense. While it does add to the variety a small amount, I really feel like these same modifiers would be better applied elsewhere, such as laws. For example, the Pope's influence could be changed from a modifier pinned to Vatican City to a modifier pinned to a law. The Dictatus Papae gives the Pope authority over the global Catholic Church, and therefore greater diplomatic abilities, but the Papal States can't democratize unless the law is removed. Doesn't that sound like a more compelling simulation than the current system?

The only argument I can think to include monuments is 'its cool flavor'. It certainly is, but these bonuses are just plain weird. We could just as easily have monuments only provide a flat prestige bonus. Surely it makes more sense for the White House to make America *look* better without actually making *be* better?
If the game is successful it will help fund future additions to the game. That is the main reason it is added, and it is the main reason it is added in the way it is. Monuments are probably one of the few features where Paradox is actually able to do a rough estimate of how much value it actually adds to the game, they will however never tell you what it is.
I think this will make the game less successful, both financially and creatively. Why do you think this will make the game more successful?
 
  • 24
  • 1
Reactions:
I know there were also plans to create a canal in Nicaragua, and the Russians had plans for a White Sea Canal, the Germans with the Kiel Canal, and the Canadians...

My point is, will we also be able to build these hypothetical projects instead of just the historical ones?
 
  • 3
Reactions: