• 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:
People say that but then we complain as a community that the game feels too bland and every country plays the same (remember Imperator?).

Personally I welcome these journal entries and hope that we will have more in the future so that when I play USA, UK, France, Russia, I don't feel like I am playing any other country with exactly the same goals and objectives.

Grand game strategy are not supposed to be sandbox only, there is also an historical part in that genre. It is not Civilization.
I have mixed feelings on this:

I agree that JEs are a great way to add uniqueness to the way that each country plays, and I think that these JEs will specifically make Russia, Britain, and Central Asia much more interesting to play.

But, I also get feeling a little disappointed when there are journal entries simulating phenomena that could be done with whole new systems. For example, for a while, I’ve been thinking about a mechanic of guerrilla wars that could eventually escalate to open war, and the Circassian and Kazakh conflicts here seem like they could be perfectly suited for that sort of thing. But they’re simulating those instead using sui generis JEs. It feels like a restriction of the ambition of the game.

But, I also feel like these specific JEs and mechanics don’t really restrict changes in the future, and I also appreciate the unique gameplay that these introduce.
 
Last edited:
  • 14Like
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
I can see that effort was put into this, and it's some good flavour, but here is the potential problem:

Will the player even have a reason to do this besides the roleplay element?
Seriously, in this dd you are talking about expanding influence in central asia, the pacific ocean and you are talking about pacific fleets, and the black sea.... But the problem is, the game doesen't have the proper mechanics in place to make geography matter, to feel like it has impact, to then force you to engage with this system for actual tangible gains, while enjoying some flavour too.

Russia had to acquire these ports in the black sea and pacific ocean to have warm water ports, to trade from there and have naval bases, but why do that in a game, where there is no supply system for navies and armies? No supply range for navies, which if they leave, they will start attrition. There are no actual ship units (for now, i know it has been propised...), so no need for ship repair or maintenance, and therefore no need for naval base network for resupplies and repairs. Also there is no difference between warm water ports, and useless frozen costline, so why would russia bother doing all of this, instead of sitting there and gdp maxing?

Talking about the transsiberian railroad....Why? The unit travel time is not influenced by geography, harsh terrain, or supplies, Units moving from europe don't take the time they should to get to asia, they get there too fast, and with no attrition, (also, funny how attrition is "turned on" only when you are at war, and only if you are at a front lol) so what railroads are we talking about? What trans siberial railway, why bother?

This is good for rp i guess, but beyound that, it's just reading the events and trying to rp it, with no actual impactful benefits, that could be attained with a more optimal paly. I doubt that this will make an actuall impact, be actually usefull gameplay wise.... Why bother, when I can assamble a 150k army, teleport them quickly to central asia or Korea, and roll over anyone i don't like, and occupy all by just starting a diplo play? There is no attrition based on supply after all, there is no significant downside committing an army like that.... engaging with the system should feel worth it i think.

At least occupations and annexations by these flavour events could reduce radicals from conquest, or give cores, make it so if annexed it is already incorporated or something.....or give some meaningfull bonuses at least within this game's bounderies.... because in the current state of this game (with logistics not existing) this would be the only thing that makes it worth engaging with this system (besides roleplay i guess).
This. Main thing holding this game back for me is exactly this lack of importance of the overall world, I literally couldn't care less about Asia when playing Russia or the UK other than the regular things like the Opium wars ( which are hardcoded ) and a war every once in a while where I just steamroll because geography and politics, contrary to what the game presents you, really doesn't matter that much. Gets in your way in a bad way, bothering you at times that you have to engage with these mechanics, not a good look for a "complex society builder", specially one that advertises itself as a game where politics matters more than war - both are still lacking.
 
  • 12Like
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
I guess they do let you plan ahead. The JE system is completely opaque if you are playing for the first time.

I am not sure Focus Trees are much better for first-time players. People who have been playing Hoi4 for years of course know the various focus trees like the back of their hand.

But put a first-time player in front of the more recent gigantic (dare I say cluttered and overextended?) focus trees, and I'm sure they will struggle to make sense of it.

So even (and maybe especially) in that respect, Journal Entries are an improvement over Focus Trees.
 
  • 4
  • 4
  • 2Like
Reactions:
People say that but then we complain as a community that the game feels too bland and every country plays the same (remember Imperator?).

Personally I welcome these journal entries and hope that we will have more in the future so that when I play USA, UK, France, Russia, I don't feel like I am playing any other country with exactly the same goals and objectives.

Grand strategy game are not supposed to be sandbox only, there is also an historical part in that genre. It is not Civilization.

Mechanics can be locked to region, culture, political structure, or religion instead of Tag. Tag based mechanics are the worst kind of mechanics.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 2Love
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Objectives aren't compatible with multiplayer at the moment. This may be subject to change in the future.
This is sad to see. The content looks great, why isn't it compatible with multi-player? Playing the Great Game against a friend sounds like a lot more fun than against the AI. This, along with the OOS issues in the current patch, make it seem like Paradox doesn't consider multi-player to be a priority.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
This is sad to see. The content looks great, why isn't it compatible with multi-player? Playing the Great Game against a friend sounds like a lot more fun than against the AI. This, along with the OOS issues in the current patch, make it seem like Paradox doesn't consider multi-player to be a priority.
Multiplayer needs to be functional (as a SP-only person, I think it's a real bummer you folks are getting sync issues and I would like Paradox to fix those for you), but once it is functional, SP is naturally going to take priority because most players of Paradox GSGs never play an MP session.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Lots of guided content, with very weak mission rewards. I know it'll be controversial but I think this approach is beyond ideal! My only fear is for some of the scripting to falter over the course of a campaign.

It's also always a concern that when content like the great game gets added it makes other areas of the game look shallow until they get addressed, like the Monroe doctrine. Then the discussion becomes "well if that needs content too, are we just going to put the whole thing on rails?" But I think it's better that the game has content like this than that it doesn't. Just as long as the outcomes are free-form and any plausible result can be modeled sensibly.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Players often transfer British India in the game, which leads to the failure of the British Empire in the Great Game. Can the player's country take over the Great Game from Britain?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The only content that's specific to the Objective are a few very light Journal Entries that serve as a "progress tracker" through the Great Game, so you can think of picking the Objective as more of a "quick-start" to play in one of the most interesting regions affected by the expansion's new mechanics and narrative content. All the meaty stuff in the Great Game is available to expansion owners playing in the relevant countries (as well as AI countries, of course) in any game mode, including Sandbox, just as in e.g. Colossus of the South. Sorry if that was unclear!

I assume this relates to the development challenge of giving trackable goals to players so they can stay engaged in the strategy your post had mentioned earlier in another thread. Would you consider adding these sort of specific or regional objectives that only track progress to other regions? Such as the content for the previous two DLCs, as well as perhaps non-DLC content to represent some of the important events in the century, like Japanese imperial ambitions, US becoming the leading economic powerhouse, unifying Germany and whatever else?

Maybe AI could be made to (roughly) follow such objectives too if they are introduced, leading to more plausible historical outcomes with AI behavior, which nevertheless can be altered by player or failed by AI.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, all this content is neat! I'm concerned though, with the way the military system currently is (a far better state than the original but still) and the glaring inability of States to use military tech above their means, that any war I'm the Great Game with Circassia and the Kazakhs is a foregone conclusion.

Whilst a Russian loss should certainly be highly favoured, won't this make it feel more like a minor delay at worst or an easy path to earn points at best?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
(on country-specific JEs vs. universal mechanics)

People say that but then we complain as a community that the game feels too bland and every country plays the same (remember Imperator?).


I think only because content is not country-specific does not mean it has to feel bland and generic and make every country play the same.

In the early versions of the game, the Jack the Ripper Journal Entry popped up all the time. Although I do not remember the specific conditions under which it fires, it surely felt as if it could happen with any country, and JEs like it contribute to making every country feel the same. You simply knew it was going to fire eventually.

So what has been added to the game since then (mostly through VotP and CotS) is country-specific content. This tends to be well-researched and can be fun, but it is scripted to appear for a specific country (or set of countries). This certainly goes a long way to making these countries feel unique. And I'd never argue to get rid of it all.

Among the disadvantages of this approach, however, are that
  1. it will take a lot of effort (and thus time) to fill the map with curated content like this, and
  2. it goes to the opposite extreme: in an effort to make every country feel unique, it locks certain content behind playing certain countries.

An example that is often discussed is the Paris Commune, which can happen for France. Proponents of a more abstracted JE content design say: don't hardcode the Commune to happen in France. Rather, specify a set of conditions (e.g.: country must have had the Springtime events, lost recent war, lots of radicals, etc.) and let the Commune emerge organically if the social, economic and political conditions are right. Stictly speaking, this would no longer be country-specific content: it would be quite likely that the Commune happens in France - but it might also become the Vienna Commune. Conversely, it would be highly unlikely to happen in Lanfang or Peru (and I don't mean just because of the Springtime JE being a prerequisite), thus still making sure countries feel distinct when playing - something that very generic content (like the Jack the Ripper JE) does not achieve.

It seems that SoI has some cases that would be awesome if they were abstracted in this way rather than being specific to a limited set of countries. While having the whole Great Game emerge organically as the result of two great powers clashing is probably impossible, I agree with others that it would be great if some of the aspects could be turned into organically emerging content. An alt-history great game-ish situation in South America between the US and a Great Power Spain, for example, could benefit from having mechanisms to renegotiate borders. As would the Berlin Conference on Africa - which, of course, would not be hardcoded as the "Berlin Conference", but would organically emerge from the specific conditions, i.e., if one of the Great Powers.... you get the gist.

I don't think this would make the game "bland".

TLDR; country-specific content is not the only way to distinguish countries and make playing them less samey.
 
  • 10Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Grand strategy game are not supposed to be sandbox only, there is also an historical part in that genre. It is not Civilization.

I am not against fluff content, but they should really be only there when it would not be reasonable or engaging for the game mechanics to represent them otherwise. There is a reason different countries pursued different objectives strategically historically, that's because they had different circumstances and goals. If the game can't represent these mechanics for why Russia would play differently than Brazil, then ultimately fluff content just ends up just being a bandaid solution. It has been stated very well in an earlier post by @Loco_HUN, why would Russia do any of this content if they have none of the reasons they did any of them during the Great Game?

Countries not playing differently has a lot to do with their starting configuration not being distinct enough in terms of game mechanics, if they faced different challenges based on their demographics, economics and geography then countries could play a lot more differently even if they all pursued the same singular gameplay goal. Ironically, there is no fluff content in Civilization but same leader/civ can play very differently depending on their start location and relevant tiles nearby. That's why it is a game with such high replay value even without any railroaded fluff content.
 
  • 9
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
@Froonk The wild dream I have is that all those disjointed and terrible "flavor" mechanics could one day be transformed into genuine global mechanics. They feel like bandaids, but the wound is rotting underneath.

The worry I have each time I see a new one is that it won't ever be done, so each new "flavour" journal entry, mission tree, focus trees, etc. reduces the expected scope of the game.

For example, I would be so mad if the complex nationalities problems were reduced to a few journal entries for Austria-Hungary and Poland.
 
  • 14
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
@Teutonic_Knight_2000 @Revolutin 11 I mean no disrespect, but as someone who hate mission trees with passion, I can believe that you find them better than journal entries, but for me whatever the form they are in, they are still country-exclusive mechanics, and save from some possible explanations, their presence in a game meant for simulating an era in history is difficult to swallow.
That's fair. I don't like country-exclusive mechanics myself because it acts as a messy bandage patch on bigger root cause problems.

I mean, all of the Great Game content here is pretty useless to me because there is no sense of geography or terrain in this game. Fighting in the Himalayas is only slightly harder than on a plains province which is 100% silly because fighting pitched battles in the Himalayas during this time should be very costly if not plain impossible. There are no army frontage restrictions to these provinces, you could have 100K armies clashing near Everest, which is just bonkers.

Loco_HUN makes some great points which are similar to mine. What is the point of creating the Trans-Siberian railway here? No point at all, there is barely enough attrition from the geography itself, there is no distance-based attrition, no terrain-based attrition. Since attrition only turns on when armies are mobilized, there is nothing preventing max barracks in the middle of the Sahara or in the Himalayas. There is no infrastructure to worry about. This is all gamey and lackluster simulation in the worst sense.

So if you are going to have the Great Game take place in the Persian/Afghanistan area, maybe incorporate the actual mechanics that would actually make it hard to conquer the area, hence the "Great Game" instead of just slapping content into a military system that does not support what the content is trying to simulate or suggest.

As for Journal Entries vs Mission Trees vs National Focuses, if I have to pick one, I will pick the one that shows all the possible choices and future decisions. Journal Entries sucks the most here. (To be clear, they all suck...)
 
  • 9Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I am not against fluff content, but they should really be only there when it would not be reasonable or engaging for the game mechanics to represent them otherwise. There is a reason different countries pursued different objectives strategically historically, that's because they had different circumstances and goals. If the game can't represent these mechanics for why Russia would play differently than Brazil, then ultimately fluff content just ends up just being a bandaid solution. It has been stated very well in an earlier post by @Loco_HUN, why would Russia do any of this content if they have none of the reasons they did any of them during the Great Game?

Countries not playing differently has a lot to do with their starting configuration not being distinct enough in terms of game mechanics, if they faced different challenges based on their demographics, economics and geography then countries could play a lot more differently even if they all pursued the same singular gameplay goal. Ironically, there is no fluff content in Civilization but same leader/civ can play very differently depending on their start location and relevant tiles nearby. That's why it is a game with such high replay value even without any railroaded fluff content.

I have been playing Paradox games for 14 years now. Many, many players have made the same propositions over the years, and still, these "mechanics to represent complex patterns" are yet to appear in any paradox games...
Those "bandaids" are the bread and butter for historical immersion in paradox games and I largely prefer that over a bland sandbox game because players foresee mechanics we have never seen in a game before... But maybe I simply lost my youthful naivity & hope ;)
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
An example that is often discussed is the Paris Commune, which can happen for France. Proponents of a more abstracted JE content design say: don't hardcode the Commune to happen in France. Rather, specify a set of conditions (e.g.: country must have had the Springtime events, lost recent war, lots of radicals, etc.) and let the Commune emerge organically if the social, economic and political conditions are right. Stictly speaking, this would no longer be country-specific content: it would be quite likely that the Commune happens in France - but it might also become the Vienna Commune. Conversely, it would be highly unlikely to happen in Lanfang or Peru (and I don't mean just because of the Springtime JE being a prerequisite), thus still making sure countries feel distinct when playing - something that very generic content (like the Jack the Ripper JE) does not achieve.

Literally, and I say this without a hint of exaggeration, there would be a [Capital] Commune in every single country in Europe every single game and suffer from the same fate as the God awful Jack The Ripper event you mentioned. Like, at the very least, there will be a Berlin Commune in every single game due to Prussia's inability to win the Brothers War, several Communes in Italy due to the San Marco Rebellion, a London Commune when GB inevitably gets a revolution due to Anti-Monarchy agitators, and an Istanbul Commune.

It's how it be for the AI.

I personally prefer having curated and scripted content for specific countries when it involves flavour and events, I actually like that, and want the mechanical stuff to be global. As in, no special power bloc locked only to certain tags or cultures or what have you. Just give those specific tags and cultures JE's that incentivize them to go down that particular power bloc type. But that said, I understand wanting stuff to be more modular and systemic but I do genuinely feel a lot of the wants expressed in this thread for the systemic changes are just -- plainly put -- absolutely bonkers and delusional.

God almighty do I bloody wish Diplo Plays will get changed to incorporate some of the buttons shown in the Afghan borders JE and become systemic one way or another. But it's delusional to expect that to be part of this expansion and weird as hell that people give the impression they would rather not have the JE and options at all if they can't get a systemic change. Whether it's intended or not, a lot of the posts in the thread (and other threads whenever the discussion arises between systemic and scripted comes about) give off that impression.
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I have been playing Paradox games for 14 years now. Many, many players have made the same propositions over the years, and still, this "mechanics to represent complex patterns" are yet to appear in any paradox games...
Those "bandaids" are the bread and butter for historical immersion in paradox games and I largely prefer that over a bland sandbox game because players foresee mechanics we have never seen in a game before... But maybe I simply lost my youthful naivity & hope ;)

I would generally agree for Paradox games overall, however there are two things here. One is the obvious elephant of the room, Victoria 2, became a cult classic because it relies more heavily on stimulation of game systems than overt fluff. Prussia and Austria alone play very differently in Victoria 2 just because of their starting demographics, literacy, resources and what they border without any need for fluff events, you could remove all the fluff decisions from both and they would still feel vastly different (Prussia would be somewhat weaker without its unique tech school).

Moreover, while I also agree that fluff is important since history is also about colorful characters, events, incidents and accidents that can't be represented purely with game mechanics, I feel and I see this voiced often that a lot of new paradox content relies way too heavily on tailored railroaded fluff content at the expense of mechanics. We can see this change especially in EU4 where new content has been synonymous with country-specific mission trees and modifiers while this wasn't necessarily the case when the game first released.

So the idea that this has always been the case and nothing has changed seems verifiably false, when rather the direction has been to opposite.

Now for matter of Victoria 3, I actually believe Victoria 3 is generally doing a good job at trying to ground things in mechanics rather than fluff. Developers are aware (as they had stated before), a lot of players of Victoria 3 are players who like to read data and manipulate it indirectly with game mechanics in a plausible simulation and the fact that many here have an almost kneejerk reaction to any railroaded or hardcoded content is a testament to that as well.

When I look at Sphere of Influence, the two main things which are being added are the Power Blocs and the change to ownership, both of these things are fundamentally mechanical changes that can simulate different outcomes with gameplay dynamics. In light of that, the additions regarding Great Game are mostly a sideshow and I believe this does speak to fact that Victoria 3 tries to lean more heavily on the game systems than tailored content, with the latter mostly being added as side content. Which is a good thing and makes me look forward to future DLC and patches more.
 
  • 11Like
  • 4
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
God almighty do I bloody wish Diplo Plays will get changed to incorporate some of the buttons shown in the Afghan borders JE and become systemic one way or another. But it's delusional to expect that to be part of this expansion and weird as hell that people give the impression they would rather not have the JE and options at all if they can't get a systemic change. Whether it's intended or not, a lot of the posts in the thread (and other threads whenever the discussion arises between systemic and scripted comes about) give off that impression.
Based on Paradox history, "we wrote a bunch of DLC content which we don't want to rework so we're not changing this core mechanic to make it better" isn't exactly just speculative, I can totally empathise with those who would prefer "do this well, or not at all"
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Based on Paradox history, "we wrote a bunch of DLC content which we don't want to rework so we're not changing this core mechanic to make it better" isn't exactly just speculative, I can totally empathise with those who would prefer "do this well, or not at all"
EU4 and its consequences have been a disaster for Paradoxian Gaming: A Deepdive into the 2010s

I can empathize as well to a point, but I'd personally rather have it best as it can be than not have it at all personally, doubly-so with the direction PDX is taking where the mechanics themselves aren't locked behind the DLC which means they can actually be worked on.
 
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions: