Substates and Federalism are Coming with National Awakening

[TitaniumMan91]

Again, you assume they would get base construction the same as a normal tag, but that's a faulty assumption: why should they?

No, my assumption is we're adding a whole lot of nothing that wouldn't actually improve the game. I now have 2 different people telling me 2 different versions, that of course the substates in the US wouldn't have free construction/that of course they would have construction, for example. It's creating pointless complexity because people have a wildly ahistorical idea of how autonomous US states actually were relative to the actual subject nations that such a system would work for. Hungary should be a separete entity akin to a PU+, but an American state was no more autonomous than a British county.

I'm all for splitting out more regions as less autonomous subjects, but even the most independent state was far less autonomous than something like Congress Poland or Hungary under the dual monarchy.

 

[lukesilveira]

I hope you are right but I'm not optmistic

 

[Science-Recon]

No, my assumption is we're adding a whole lot of nothing that wouldn't actually improve the game. I now have 2 different people telling me 2 different versions, that of course the substates in the US wouldn't have free construction/that of course they would have construction, for example. It's creating pointless complexity because people have a wildly ahistorical idea of how autonomous US states actually were relative to the actual subject nations that such a system would work for. Hungary should be a separete entity akin to a PU+, but an American state was no more autonomous than a British county.

I'm all for splitting out more regions as less autonomous subjects, but even the most independent state was far less autonomous than something like Congress Poland or Hungary under the dual monarchy.

Well yes, this is speculation on an as-yet-unnanounced mechanic, so of course different people have different views on what/how it should be implemented. But my point still stands: you say that it couldn't be possible because they would get free construction, I say well they could just not get that free construction. The whole point is that they're a different entity to a normal independent/subject tag and thus you can't assume that they would necessarily have the same base mechanics/stats/whatever as current tags.

As for the rest of your statement, I have no idea where you've gotten that from but it's wildly untrue. English (and later British) counties have, for the vast majority of history, been purely administrative divisions; it wasn't until the Local Government Act 1888 that county councils were established but even today they don't have any legislative power. County councils mostly just administer government services within the county such as education, social services, roads &c. To say that this is comparable to a the autonomy of a modern American state would be ridiculous. To say that they are more autonomous than a 19th Century American state is beyond ridicule.
As previously mentioned, US states fielded their own militias. They also have governments that have the power to enact civil and criminal laws, they have their own legal systems; they are far, far closer to independent countries than they are to an English county and that's today. Back in 1836 the US was far more decentralised and the states had far more power. Not only that but state identity was a much larger factor to people (no instant communications and people generally didn't travel as much). Hence the US Civil War was precipitated by the secession of states and those state governments essentially continued as they had before (whilst creating a new federal superstructure), whilst the British Civil Wars did not at all correlate to county lines and counties were completely irrelevant to it.

As for Congress Poland, it's autonomy was largely a legal fiction, and following the uprisings in the 1830s, completely non-existant. The Tsar ruled it dictatorially from the 1830s onward. This is why the devs made Poland directly controlled territory of Russia rather than a personal union like the Grand Duchy of Finland. Whilst it was de jure a personal union much as the Grand Duchy was, in practise it was just an administrative division of Russia.

Representing pre-1867 Hungary as a personal union would also be bad. It was at that point a Crownland which was much more integrated. Post-1867, though I'd agree and it'd also be good gameplay-wise to make the formation of Austria-Hungary a faliure state for Austria, as it was historically, rather than desirable for the player. This would then be reversible by federalising the whole Empire in something like the United States of Greater Austria, with Hungary then becoming some federal constituent country.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

England (in)famously relied on common law which varied place to place and was often subject to the whims of the local lords or dated back to royal charters giving this town or that one this right or that one. The local english governments also fielded local militias, rather fmaously an issue during the English Civil War. They did not have a single unified body of law, there wasn't a universal justice, there *was* (though not in England or France) widespread internal customs dues in many European states of the era, because they had not yet become the unified states we know, they were still a patchwork of titles and rights inherited from a millenia of feudal custom. The US was more formalized because it was largely created without all the baggage of 1000 years of historical tradition, but states weren't running their own wars/doing their own diplomacy, they set their own laws in the same way any other political sub-entity would set their own laws, and engaged in economic policy that essentially favored the local bigwigs, just as any other political entity.

Did the US states have more autonomy in general? Sure. Did they have autonomy in any way that matters in the game? Not really. Some institutions, maybe, but not in the power structure laws, maybe in tax policy for economic laws, but the Federal government still operated a national tax system and local taxes varied in other countrys. The only real exception is Human Rights, but even then many of these were handled on the national level with various levels of enforcement. What would we actually gain from creating X many sub-tags as actual gameplay that feeds into the gameplay loop that Vic3 actually has?

And no, nowhere have I said it wouldn't be possible, I've said it's a bad idea that wouldn't really change anything except make it more complex and fiddily in a way that I don't think would be fun. I'm not playing Vic3 to feel like I'm running a CK3 empire, I'm playing Vic3 to lead my nation into the future as a military/economic hegemon or beacon of liberty or whatever.

 

[NATOaster]

What's wrong with having 50 states/territories as the US?

The AI is too bad at the game for this to be remotely feasible, especially when playing as a smaller nation. The prospect of the 50 AI USA sounds less like a federal government and more like me fighting the Texan proletarian revolt, the Nebraskan royalist revolt, the Massachusetts reactionary revolt, and the North Carolina slaver revolt, all the while 30 of my states have bankrupted.

 

[yurcick]

The AI is too bad at the game for this to be remotely feasible, especially when playing as a smaller nation. The prospect of the 50 AI USA sounds less like a federal government and more like me fighting the Texan proletarian revolt, the Nebraskan royalist revolt, the Massachusetts reactionary revolt, and the North Carolina slaver revolt, all the while 30 of my states have bankrupted.

Current constant insolvency of smaller subject stems from poor balance decisions: they pay for their own administration and army in full, and in addition, pay substantial taxes to the overlord.

If that’s fixed, they will become much more stable.

I’m still not convinced that individual states should have enough things to them to be meaningfully playable though. And if they aren’t, they could as well be technically unplayable, see CK baronies.

For example, I’m 100 sure that they don’t need internal revolts anyway.

 

[Citizen Caen]

I’m sorry I don’t wish to be mean but you people are delusional if you think there is going to be 50 playable sub states in the US. Just think for a second about what that gameplay would be like-
I load into the state of Connecticut. I’ve got a hundred thousand workforce and no resources other than fish. I have almost no money because I have to share with the feds. I build a couple buildings- my entire workforce is now employed. There is nothing left for me to do for the remainder of the 19th century. I don’t have an army so I can’t conquer. (how would barracks between feds and states work by the way?) I can’t conduct diplomacy. I can’t change any of my laws (no king of Connecticut) what am I supposed to be able to do as a sub state? Why would it even be desirable as a playthrough?

 

[TitaniumMan91]

I’m sorry I don’t wish to be mean but you people are delusional if you think there is going to be 50 playable sub states in the US. Just think for a second about what that gameplay would be like-
I load into the state of Connecticut. I’ve got a hundred thousand workforce and no resources other than fish. I have almost no money because I have to share with the feds. I build a couple buildings- my entire workforce is now employed. There is nothing left for me to do for the remainder of the 19th century. I don’t have an army so I can’t conquer. (how would barracks between feds and states work by the way?) I can’t conduct diplomacy. I can’t change any of my laws (no king of Connecticut) what am I supposed to be able to do as a sub state? Why would it even be desirable as a playthrough?

At most I could see it being interesting to split the US into North/South so you pick a side in the civil war at game start and the first 10-30 years are you trying to be ahead so the Civil War isn't pre-determined by the player making their states good while neglecting the others, but that very much is not trying to simulate Federalism.

 

[yurcick]

I’m sorry I don’t wish to be mean but you people are delusional if you think there is going to be 50 playable sub states in the US. Just think for a second about what that gameplay would be like-
I load into the state of Connecticut. I’ve got a hundred thousand workforce and no resources other than fish. I have almost no money because I have to share with the feds. I build a couple buildings- my entire workforce is now employed. There is nothing left for me to do for the remainder of the 19th century. I don’t have an army so I can’t conquer. (how would barracks between feds and states work by the way?) I can’t conduct diplomacy. I can’t change any of my laws (no king of Connecticut) what am I supposed to be able to do as a sub state? Why would it even be desirable as a playthrough?

While again, I’m not a proponent of playable states, still I don’t see meaningful difference between playing Connecticut and playing a minor count in Anatolia under the governor of an imperial province (which as a system works fine).
You find this start boring? Don’t play it, nobody forces you to.

 

[Citizen Caen]

While again, I’m not a proponent of playable states, still I don’t see meaningful difference between playing Connecticut and playing a minor count in Anatolia under the governor of an imperial province (which as a system works fine).
You find this start boring? Don’t play it, nobody forces you to.

It is different. One has actual gameplay (as limited as it is) the other has nothing. An Anatolian count can marry, scheme, participate in appointment elections, host activities, go on pilgrimages, participate in wars ect. The Anatolian count has ways for him to expand, to become more than an Anatolian count.

Meanwhile the state of Connecticut has nothing, it can only ever be the state of Connecticut. It can’t invade Rhode Island. It can’t marry into the Vermont Governorship. It can’t really rebel, it can’t conduct diplomacy. So what is this point?
And before you say it, no OPM’s in Victoria 3 are also not like being a sub-state. OPMs can get allies and expand, OPMs can conduct diplomacy, OPM’s can reform their laws. An OPM like the Zulu, as difficult as it is can become more than a OPM.

If we are to entertain this idea of 50 states I want you guys to list how you think the following would work:

1. How would research from universities work? Does it all go to the nation so that states don’t research? does it go to the states, so that the feds have no say in tech? Or is it weirdly shared so neither gets the full benefit?

2. Investment pool: who gets the pool? Are we splitting the American pool by 50 states? Really I’m sure that won’t cause any issues. Even if the Feds gets a share of each states pool that is still a massive nerf to the US, which is just silly.

3. Who controls government buildings? If I build a construction sector in New York, who owns it? Does the feds or does that the state of New York? Who gets to use it for their construction queue. Same goes for admin buildings, and barracks?

As far as I can see Victoria 3 is just not set up for this sub-state play that you guys are suggesting. At best I can see Hungary being a special form of subject, but that’s it. IMO

 

[yurcick]

It is different. One has actual gameplay (as limited as it is) the other has nothing. An Anatolian count can marry, scheme, participate in appointment elections, host activities, go on pilgrimages, participate in wars ect. The Anatolian count has ways for him to expand, to become more than an Anatolian count.

Meanwhile the state of Connecticut has nothing, it can only ever be the state of Connecticut. It can’t invade Rhode Island. It can’t marry into the Vermont Governorship. It can’t really rebel, it can’t conduct diplomacy. So what is this point?
And before you say it, no OPM’s in Victoria 3 are also not like being a sub-state. OPMs can get allies and expand, OPMs can conduct diplomacy, OPM’s can reform their laws. An OPM like the Zulu, as difficult as it is can become more than a OPM.

If we are to entertain this idea of 50 states I want you guys to list how you think the following would work:

1. How would research from universities work? Does it all go to the nation so that states don’t research? does it go to the states, so that the feds have no say in tech? Or is it weirdly shared so neither gets the full benefit?

2. Investment pool: who gets the pool? Are we splitting the American pool by 50 states? Really I’m sure that won’t cause any issues. Even if the Feds gets a share of each states pool that is still a massive nerf to the US, which is just silly.

3. Who controls government buildings? If I build a construction sector in New York, who owns it? Does the feds or does that the state of New York? Who gets to use it for their construction queue. Same goes for admin buildings, and barracks?

As far as I can see Victoria 3 is just not set up for this sub-state play that you guys are suggesting. At best I can see Hungary being a special form of subject, but that’s it. IMO

I can definitely share my opinion on how these could work. I'm fairly sure that whatever the scope of 1.10, playable states are about as far from it as playable generals.
However, it's not a crime to think aloud.

Starting even earlier than you started to ask questions:
> It can’t invade Rhode Island
Like, "expand by conquering RI"? While being Connecticut, it sure can't, 100% true.
> It can’t marry into the Vermont Governorship.
It can't.
> It can’t really rebel
Idk. Why not? I think that it shouldn't have internal rebellions, that's true, and should just flip if the rebels are strong enough. But it definitely can rebel against the federation if circumstances allow.
> it can’t conduct diplomacy
While I don't think it should be able to really have proper diplomacy in its initial status, I think it could form or join an insurrectionary faction (in CK3 terms), if its public supports this.
> OPM’s can reform their laws
Some limited lawmaking must be differentiated between states, playable or not.
> How would research from universities work?
Completely different. If you say that "unchanged tech system wouldn't work combined with a substate system", then it's true, but that's an argument against current tech, not for current autonomy levels.
> Investment pool: who gets the pool?
Depends on how far you're willing to go. My dream system is where IP is just a metric, alike to debt limit, a sum of actual values of subentities (so, "federal IP" is a number that's equal to sum of all FD/MH cash reserves dedicated for investment; "state IP" for a single state is a number that's equal to sum of local MH and local FD cash reserves). But it can work either way, even with a joint federal IP with weighs of "where to invest" proportional to states' recent reinvestments.
> Who controls government buildings?
Mostly the federation does. Or something is devolved, something else isn't, decided by top-level country's laws.

tl;dr
Basically, you're putting effort into a rhetorical argument along the lines of "how can this substate idea work if everything else stays the same?"
Well, it can't, but this isn't really an argument, as everything else doesn't have to stay the same.

 

[Citizen Caen]

tl;dr
Basically, you're putting effort into a rhetorical argument along the lines of "how can this substate idea work if everything else stays the same?"
Well, it can't, but this isn't really an argument, as everything else doesn't have to stay the same.

My argument is specifically addressing those people in this thread who seem to think playable states are coming this year because of some promo text about content for Bulgaria and Hungary. It is not addressing some hypothetical future game redesign . That’s why I called them delusional, because it would require a massive rework of the base systems.

Yes I agree if they completely redesigned the game so that sub-states could work, the sub-states could work

 

[Science-Recon]

I load into the state of Connecticut. I’ve got a hundred thousand workforce and no resources other than fish. I have almost no money because I have to share with the feds. I build a couple buildings- my entire workforce is now employed. There is nothing left for me to do for the remainder of the 19th century. I don’t have an army so I can’t conquer. (how would barracks between feds and states work by the way?) I can’t conduct diplomacy. I can’t change any of my laws (no king of Connecticut) what am I supposed to be able to do as a sub state? Why would it even be desirable as a playthrough?

I could say the same of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach or most of the other German statelets. Just because they're playable doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a super interesting and engaging campaign. If US states were playable, the main attraction would probably be the bigger ones like NY, Texas, Florida and California. But on the flip side it's not just from them; it deepens the political simulation playing as the federal government to have those federal divisions represented, especially wrt the US Civil War and the slavery debate.

Meanwhile the state of Connecticut has nothing, it can only ever be the state of Connecticut. It can’t invade Rhode Island. It can’t marry into the Vermont Governorship. It can’t really rebel, it can’t conduct diplomacy. So what is this point?
And before you say it, no OPM’s in Victoria 3 are also not like being a sub-state. OPMs can get allies and expand, OPMs can conduct diplomacy, OPM’s can reform their laws. An OPM like the Zulu, as difficult as it is can become more than a OPM.

There's more to Victoria than conquest? I'd even say that's one of the weaker parts of the game at the moment. I had a pretty fun game as Switzerland without going to war once. The game is meant to be a 'society and economics simulator', which whilst somewhat bare at the moment is going to get better and better as time goes on. As a US state you could still steer your politics to be more progressive/regressive than the rest of the Union, build up your economy, engage with federal politics and, potentially, forge an alliance with other states to secede from the Union (or do it yourself if you're strong enough).

My argument is specifically addressing those people in this thread who seem to think playable states are coming this year because of some promo text about content for Bulgaria and Hungary. It is not addressing some hypothetical future game redesign . That’s why I called them delusional, because it would require a massive rework of the base systems.

Yes I agree if they completely redesigned the game so that sub-states could work, the sub-states could work

Ah, you've misconstrued me here (or the conversation has gone somewhat off-topic).
I do not believe that playable US states will be coming with National Awakening. I believe that a mechanic for substates will be added (which will be quite flexible and scriptable), however the only implementation of this upon release will be for Austrian crownlands (Bohemia, Hungary, Transylvania &c.) and Ottoman vilayets (Bulgaria, maybe Bosnia &c.).
Whilst this mechanic would later be a good basis for implementing individual US states, I believe that'll come in a later US rework/DLC rather than National Awakening. Much like how Pivot of Empire added the social hierarchy mechanic, which would be great for implementing Jim Crow, Apartheid, White Australia, the Japanese Caste System and much more, but is currently only used for the Hindu Caste System.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Yes I agree if they completely redesigned the game so that sub-states could work, the sub-states could work

It would also just be a very, very different game. If they went down that route, why would it be limited to the US? Mexico is also a Federal state, so was most of the New World. Hop over to the Old World and the initial version of the German Empire was so federated that there was still a King of Bavaria who had his own army.

That could all be a fun game, it just doens't seem remotely like the game they want Vic3 to be.

 

[yurcick]

why would it be limited to the US? M

Absolutely no reason. Why would anyone assume that?

 

[Citizen Caen]

There's more to Victoria than conquest? I'd even say that's one of the weaker parts of the game at the moment. I had a pretty fun game as Switzerland without going to war once. The game is meant to be a 'society and economics simulator', which whilst somewhat bare at the moment is going to get better and better as time goes on. As a US state you could still steer your politics to be more progressive/regressive than the rest of the Union, build up your economy, engage with federal politics and, potentially, forge an alliance with other states to secede from the Union (or do it yourself if you're strong enough).

What politics? How would that even work? Most of Victoria 3's laws in American terms would be constitutional laws. Free speech, trade, governing principle, church and state, and internal security are all explicitly granted to Federal Jurisdiction via the Constitution. Furthermore by 1836 Federal law had already established laws related to land reform, migration, and school systems. That leaves very few laws that you as a state might theoretically be able to change, most of which would be stripped from them and superseded by Federal Powers post-civl war (voting laws, labor laws, economic laws ect.) So what's the game here? I as the state of New York pass private health care, the feds pass Public health care, which supersedes? If its the feds, then whats the point of states passing laws, and if its the State, then you just made a really annoying system where Federal Republics can't effectively pass laws unlike other countries. (Which is not even historically accurate btw considering the era is defined by Federal power overtaking state power)

If you are just interested in more accurately modeling the state conflicts with slavery there are better ways to do this. Hell Victoria 2 had a better system with 2-senators per state in the upper house so that Ideologies fought for control state by state.

My honest opinion that the Current Victoria 3 politics is not detailed enough to make state level politics worth it. If political parties were MUCH more fleshed out with detailed agendas and campaigns. If there were governors, if the possible law combinations were numerous and detailed. If they differentiated between constitutions or basic laws, and If there was an elected congress that passed laws rather than % chance then I would agree that a game that modeled states would not only be doable but actually really cool (all of which is easier said than done). But if Victoria stays as the game it is now, then you introduce these states that can't do anything, I just don't see what the benefit would be.

 

[yurcick]

If political parties were MUCH more fleshed out with detailed agendas and campaigns. If there were governors, if the possible law combinations were numerous and detailed. If they differentiated between constitutions or basic laws, and If there was an elected congress that passed laws rather than % chance then I would agree that a game that modeled states would not only be doable but actually really cool (all of which is easier said than done). But if Victoria stays as the game it is now, then you introduce these states that can't do anything, I just don't see what the benefit would be.

All good goals on their own (except for, arguably, governors, I don’t think we need them without getting states). See you in 2030.

Btw, BPM has a lawmaking process that makes much more sense and still allows for enough player agency. If I were PDS, I’d just copy their approach. My point being that some of these things are not really that far-fetched.

 

[Alxe]

This kind of mechanic would also greatly benefit the other confederation-style tags, like the Argentine Confederation made up of different states.

 

[Alxe]

I was thinking that, depending on whether this gets implemented and how, it could also be used to model breakaway states like revolutions or, you know, Carlist Spain.

 

[Rudolf Nechvile II]

I was thinking that, depending on whether this gets implemented and how, it could also be used to model breakaway states like revolutions or, you know, Carlist Spain.

Perhaps it could be used to somehow solve the issue of your enemy breaking into a civil war, while you're at war with them, and completely blocking you.