Victoria 3 - is it really a necessity? And if yes, why?

[Thure]

NNM/PDM has a event after you use the Restore Core CB, the event let you choice between provinces with cores or annex the entire region.

Which isn't really optimal... I don't understand why paradox didn't stay with the conquest of single provinces. Even without cores I just don't want to conquere a single state. It would maybe better gameplay wise... But if I want to play nearly historical... It's just annoying and leads to bad borders.

 

[frolix42]

Well I wanted to make this thread in order to create a bit of a debate, is Victoria 3 really necesary?

Victoria has a lot of potential that was not fully realized with Vic2. Its has cool mechanics with POPs, spheres and Great Wars. African colonization. Industrialization. etc.

What features would you require it to havbe that the previous did not have if it is?

It's Infamy system is obsolete and not rational in most instances. It needs a dynamic AE system like EU4. The Tech tree was not properly balanced. It's economic system, especially it's taxation, was ambitious but flawed. It's rebel system was irrational, nothing could stop people from revolting, World War 5 by 1930 is typical. Late game wars need reworking, for example there are literally no U-boats or submarines in the game.

Because, I'm not sure on that making new games is always a necessity, especially when the old one is as throughoutly developed as Victoria 3. If graphics is the only reason, then I don't think it is a good way of making a sequel. Constanly rebranding and repackaging is not always necessary, even in our commercial society. Personally, I'm not against Victoria 3, but I would like to know why some of you think it is a "must-make" for PDS.

It was not as thoroughly developed game as it could've been for the reasons stated above. Better graphics is only one thing, and not the most important thing, that would and should be improved by Vic3.

 

[leppuno]

NNM/PDM has a event after you use the Restore Core CB, the event let you choice between provinces with cores or annex the entire region.

I know that, but I think there's a way to mod a CB that can take single provinces. It will probably need to be tricked with event flags and possibly temporary core decisions but using the system PDM uses, it's technically a possibility.

 

[diegosimeone]

Hopefully we can annex single provinces or core provinces instead of only being able to annex a whole region. It'd be a nice feature if we could modify regions etc dynamically. So if you lose 1-2 provinces, the others may join another region if you have no desire or core provinces to attempt to unify that region under your flag.

 

[loup99]

Actually, Victoria needs EU diplomacy as well...

This specific post was posted in another thread, but it was discussed here too, so I will reply here.

I do not think that a Victoria 3 should have EU4 diplomacy. With that, we would loose the whole system with spheres of influence and puppets that Victoria 2 has, which would be bad. Adding vassals and royal marriages, while not crazy, would not be the most relevant to the timeframe. Guarantees or protectorates though, might be good for a Victoria 2 game, as well as a functionality which would permit the player to constantly keep improving relations with a country. Supporting rebels is another interesting feature that would have it's place in a Victoria sequel.

With this said, my personal opinion is not that a Victoria 3 diplomacy should be based upon the one in EU4, but that it rather should be strengthened by it while keeping the Victoria base (alliances, spheres of influence for GP, puppets, crisies), with some elements used, and others not.

 

[Thure]

This specific post was posted in another thread, but it was discussed here too, so I will reply here.

I do not think that a Victoria 3 should have EU4 diplomacy. With that, we would loose the whole system with spheres of influence and puppets that Victoria 2 has, which would be bad. Adding vassals and royal marriages, while not crazy, would not be the most relevant to the timeframe. Guarantees or protectorates though, might be good for a Victoria 2 game, as well as a functionality which would permit the player to constantly keep improving relations with a country. Supporting rebels is another interesting feature that would have it's place in a Victoria sequel.

With this said, my personal opinion is not that a Victoria 3 diplomacy should be based upon the one in EU4, but that it rather should be strengthened by it while keeping the Victoria base (alliances, spheres of influence for GP, puppets, crisies), with some elements used, and others not.

I also think non-Great Powers should have Spheres of Influences under certain circumstances. I mean... Korea was in the Sphere of Influence of China for a long time in this time period. Ingame the only way to reflect this would be to make Korea a puppet of CHina which isn't really the right way. SoIs would also be helpfulo to reflect the history of the Kingdom of Ryukyu better.

 

[loup99]

I also think non-Great Powers should have Spheres of Influences under certain circumstances. I mean... Korea was in the Sphere of Influence of China for a long time in this time period. Ingame the only way to reflect this would be to make Korea a puppet of CHina which isn't really the right way. SoIs would also be helpfulo to reflect the history of the Kingdom of Ryukyu better.

I agree on this, but I think the more important issue in what you are mentioning is the definition of a great power and the mechanics for uncivilised countries. Because, by Asian Far-Eastern standards, China was a great-power, although it was not for Europeans. This is something who would need to be rethought.

 

[Thure]

I agree on this, but I think the more important issue in what you are mentioning is the definition of a great power and the mechanics for uncivilised countries. Because, by Asian Far-Eastern standards, China was a great-power, although it was not for Europeans. This is something who would need to be rethought.

Yes. Maybe something like 'Regional Great Powers'? So the four/fife/six/... most powerful states in Asia/Africa/(America?) are Great Powers too? Actually the Great Power system in Victoria II is one of the things I don't like that much...

 

[loup99]

Yes. Maybe something like 'Regional Great Powers'? So the four/fife/six/... most powerful states in Asia/Africa/(America?) are Great Powers too? Actually the Great Power system in Victoria II is one of the things I don't like that much...

That sounds like it would be feasible. Well, the thing is that it is great for seeing which nations that are powerful and the world, and a good way of looking at the concert of Europe after Vienna, and then in the world wars. But for non-europeans and uncivs, it makes things complicated. Part of the problem might be how the game handles all of those nations, in almost the same way, and few unique systems and mechanics. For that EU4 has with time become better and better, and I think a Victoria 3 could expand on the nations that are not a part of the "western" world a lot more.

 

[Thrake]

This specific post was posted in another thread, but it was discussed here too, so I will reply here.

I do not think that a Victoria 3 should have EU4 diplomacy. With that, we would loose the whole system with spheres of influence and puppets that Victoria 2 has, which would be bad. Adding vassals and royal marriages, while not crazy, would not be the most relevant to the timeframe. Guarantees or protectorates though, might be good for a Victoria 2 game, as well as a functionality which would permit the player to constantly keep improving relations with a country. Supporting rebels is another interesting feature that would have it's place in a Victoria sequel.

With this said, my personal opinion is not that a Victoria 3 diplomacy should be based upon the one in EU4, but that it rather should be strengthened by it while keeping the Victoria base (alliances, spheres of influence for GP, puppets, crisies), with some elements used, and others not.

How's that incompatible? There used to be, after all, sphere of influence in EUIII as well. What I would really love to see is the overall AI logic of EUIV; things like rivals and all the modifiers (wants your provinces,...) make the AI behave in a much better way than in vic2 where improving relations was the only thing required to keep any country in good terms (kinda like asking "be my friend" enough times to eventually be successful).

That being said, vic2 sphere is boring micro IMO; to maximize it, you must keep maxed relationships, which is another part of tedious micro, so a good sphere requires both dip points micro and influence points micro.

 

[loup99]

How's that incompatible? There used to be, after all, sphere of influence in EUIII as well. What I would really love to see is the overall AI logic of EUIV; things like rivals and all the modifiers (wants your provinces,...) make the AI behave in a much better way than in vic2 where improving relations was the only thing required to keep any country in good terms (kinda like asking "be my friend" enough times to eventually be successful).

It is not incompatible, but the thing is that I consider that the Victoria 2 base, who is superior to EU4 core mechanics-wise for this era should be kept. So EU4 elements should be added on to the Victoria base, not the contrary. Rivals are an interesting thought, but you need to remember that the GP's switched around alliances a lot. Having a demand for regions is something obvious that should be added.

That being said, vic2 sphere is boring micro IMO; to maximize it, you must keep maxed relationships, which is another part of tedious micro, so a good sphere requires both dip points micro and influence points micro.

Improving relations is better way and having more options to automate diplomacy was one of the things I agree on, and I mentioned that in the other post.

 

[dav77-b]

This topic is blasphemy.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

This specific post was posted in another thread, but it was discussed here too, so I will reply here.

I do not think that a Victoria 3 should have EU4 diplomacy. With that, we would loose the whole system with spheres of influence and puppets that Victoria 2 has, which would be bad. Adding vassals and royal marriages, while not crazy, would not be the most relevant to the timeframe. Guarantees or protectorates though, might be good for a Victoria 2 game, as well as a functionality which would permit the player to constantly keep improving relations with a country. Supporting rebels is another interesting feature that would have it's place in a Victoria sequel.

With this said, my personal opinion is not that a Victoria 3 diplomacy should be based upon the one in EU4, but that it rather should be strengthened by it while keeping the Victoria base (alliances, spheres of influence for GP, puppets, crisies), with some elements used, and others not.

I'm not saying we need literal EU diplomacy, the Spheres of Influence are quite important and Royal Marriages aren't. What I mean is that, like with EU, we need far more diplomatic options as well as the ability to sort of outmaneuver our opponents with diplomacy.

Victoria's suite of options was okay for its time, but compared to EU, and considering that it was set in the heyday of diplomatic negotiation, it's quite lacking. You can't, for example, set an embargo.

 

[loup99]

I'm not saying we need literal EU diplomacy, the Spheres of Influence are quite important and Royal Marriages aren't. What I mean is that, like with EU, we need far more diplomatic options as well as the ability to sort of outmaneuver our opponents with diplomacy.

Victoria's suite of options was okay for its time, but compared to EU, and considering that it was set in the heyday of diplomatic negotiation, it's quite lacking. You can't, for example, set an embargo.

Oh, in that case I fully agree, while still thinking what I mentioned above.

 

[LordofWarN02]

Victoria 3 is very needed hopefully will revealed after HoI 4 released.

 

[aruon]

Victoria 3 is very needed hopefully will revealed after HoI 4 released.

i think about at least 90% of every PI forumite agrees with this

 

[jye42]

I would prefer to see a large expansion of EU4 to include the industrial era and remove all wasteland and end up at a 1900 AD end date. I would then also like to see HOI4 have a much longer time period and be a World War Era sandbox from 1901-1960~. I have nothing against Vicky and quite enjoy it as a franchise but I think I would prefer expanded experiences in existing games.

 

[Thrake]

I would prefer to see a large expansion of EU4 to include the industrial era and remove all wasteland and end up at a 1900 AD end date. I would then also like to see HOI4 have a much longer time period and be a World War Era sandbox from 1901-1960~. I have nothing against Vicky and quite enjoy it as a franchise but I think I would prefer expanded experiences in existing games.

That would make EU games way too long, and the whole system inadaptated. I guess Victoria could benefit from a bit longer timespan; then it could overlap a bit with EU in a world that is less dominated by England and with a bit more to colonize, and a bit more to try to hold on (colonnies). It would be a different enough feel than EU as the mechanics would be radically different. It would also give a chance to resist as much as possible decolonisation as Europeans, or actually try to break free and build your nation from there as a colonial country.

Vic 2 bookmark is a bit too deterministic in my view (GB-centric), and the time frame too small to allow for enough variety. I know this is how it was going at the time, but perhaps an earlier start date before the effective fall of some major Europeans could be fun; they might fall even harder or more softely (enough to be serious contenders) to make each game feel more unique rather than the game feeling as an UK's boot-licker simulator each time I'm playing a minor. I mean, it could be fun licking other boots at times.

 

[RELee]

I would prefer to see a large expansion of EU4 to include the industrial era and remove all wasteland and end up at a 1900 AD end date. I would then also like to see HOI4 have a much longer time period and be a World War Era sandbox from 1901-1960~. I have nothing against Vicky and quite enjoy it as a franchise but I think I would prefer expanded experiences in existing games.

Go 'way, ye traiter, ya!

 

[LordofWarN02]

That would make EU games way too long, and the whole system inadaptated. I guess Victoria could benefit from a bit longer timespan; then it could overlap a bit with EU in a world that is less dominated by England and with a bit more to colonize, and a bit more to try to hold on (colonnies). It would be a different enough feel than EU as the mechanics would be radically different. It would also give a chance to resist as much as possible decolonisation as Europeans, or actually try to break free and build your nation from there as a colonial country.

Vic 2 bookmark is a bit too deterministic in my view (GB-centric), and the time frame too small to allow for enough variety. I know this is how it was going at the time, but perhaps an earlier start date before the effective fall of some major Europeans could be fun; they might fall even harder or more softely (enough to be serious contenders) to make each game feel more unique rather than the game feeling as an UK's boot-licker simulator each time I'm playing a minor. I mean, it could be fun licking other boots at times.

Victoria 3 could have bookmark like 1821 for Greek Revolution, 1836 like Vic 2, 1848 for Liberal Revolution, 1861 for American Civil War like Vic 2 and 1880 for Scamble for Africa.

World War I bookmark is nearly end game as 1936 is end game.