• 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.
I'd like V3 to be more of an evolution of V2. V2 is such a brilliant game and V3 can be even better. Here is something I was thinking about recently:

It's quite annoying that when I subsidize a factory to keep it open in order to ensure that I have access to the good it creates, that any unsold goods just vanish. I'm paying to have them made, I want them to go into my stockpile if they are unsold. I'd also like a general option to buy any goods that are unsold, or unsold to the domestic market at a modest and small discount respectively. That could serve as another way to subsidize a factory. As it stands you can use the trade interface to buy up whatever your factories produce but it's very micro intensive and awkward.

I would also like an option to ban the sale of a particular good to the world market. Obviously if you did this without there being sufficient domestic demand or purchasing the good yourself this is going to severely piss off the makers of that good but could be worth it to deny key military or industrial goods to rivals. Doing this at all would of course only be possible under certain circumstances.

It could be a way to wage more economic war - if your economy is strong that you can afford to do that and your rival's economy is fragile enough to collapse because suddenly machine parts become scarce - that could lead to some very interesting economic gameplay. Similarly it might be worth it to deny oil to the world market if it gives you a major military advantage. Of course you're going to need to either buy it all yourself or convince your pops of the need to keep it in the country and that's either going to be very expensive economically and/or politically.

I don't know if this would be a great idea. With the way the economy works you could end up sending the world economy into a massive crash. Say Britain has a large portion of the worlds coal, then remove it from the market. Suddenly the entire world has just entered economic freefall because 30% of the worlds coal just got taken off the world market. Governments go bankrupt, can't subsidize factories, factories close, everyone becomes unemployed, no one can meet their needs, everyone rebels and the world falls into chaos just because Britain felt like waving their dick at Germany.

Imagine you're playing France, or even a lesser nation. Congrats really frustrating mechanic just bit you, it's not your fault, and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
I don't know if this would be a great idea. With the way the economy works you could end up sending the world economy into a massive crash. Say Britain has a large portion of the worlds coal, then remove it from the market. Suddenly the entire world has just entered economic freefall because 30% of the worlds coal just got taken off the world market. Governments go bankrupt, can't subsidize factories, factories close, everyone becomes unemployed, no one can meet their needs, everyone rebels and the world falls into chaos just because Britain felt like waving their dick at Germany.

Imagine you're playing France, or even a lesser nation. Congrats really frustrating mechanic just bit you, it's not your fault, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Embargos should only affect the country you are embargoing. So Germany would simply be restricted from buying British coal in that scenario which would have knock-on effects.
 
Fair enough. That gave me an inspiration though: simulate a black market by having the larger empires check goods bought vs admin efficiency. Those lost due to not having 100 % efficiency go back on the market, possibly at some kind of markup. As a corollary to this mechanic, make it much harder to maintain 100% admin efficiency the more populous you get.
 
Uh is there any historical basis for that.
 
Something I disliked about the law system in Victoria 2 was how it was the same progression for every country. A lot could be changed there, but the specific thing I was thinking of was to have some countries "semi-railroaded" if you will, based on their constitutions. So, with the USA you would keep 2 senators per state unless you had a super-majority of some sort to change it.

Also, a laffer curve for taxation would be a good idea so you can't just max out taxes on all classes and expect to earn loads of money.

Finally, a start date in 1815. I think that's a much more significant cut off point with the final defeat of Napoleon than the crowning of a largely ceremonial monarch.
 
How do you think, will they post "hints" like there were during Stellaris developement?
They'll just post something cryptic like "You won't be sticking pigs in this game, either".
 
Change Norway from being integrated to a puppet of Sweden. ;)

Or more generally, some more work on the setup, similar to the work done in the other games over the years. It would also be nice with a more in-depth handling of integrated subjects/puppets/colonies, with a tiered system similar to HoI4. It was an age where the map saw pretty large redraws due to political turmoil and wars, but a lot of this never happens in the game. The status of puppets/subjects/satellites is pretty static in V2. Crisis and rebels occasionally can cause integrated tags to break free, but this is generally pretty rare.

Going back to Norway as an example, historically Norway had some autonomy when the game starts and was on the road that would eventually lead to it becoming an independent nation peacefully. In-game, Norway's independence generally never happens unless Sweden is partitioned in a war. With HoI4 style mechanics, this could have been better simulated, with Norway perhaps having a National Spirit (or similar) or events which give annual autonomy growth.
 
They'll just post something cryptic like "You won't be sticking pigs in this game, either".

How does that hint at Victoria 3?

Everything hints at Victoria 3. It is simply a matter of having will to believe.

Someone asked @DDRJake about what would be in EU4 1.23, and Jake replied with a teaser image for us to ponder for a month


Does that cow not look familiar? I suspect a EU4 > Victoria 3 converter is in the works.

Also @minke19104 asked PDS very nicely to make Victoria 3 and @Mrop replied:

Well, since you are asking so nicely...

looks like conclusive evidence to me. I expect an announcement later this week, perhaps as early as the EU4 Dev diary tomorrow.
 
I'd like to see militancy and war exhaustion reworked. To show an example. I am playing Mexico and to beat the US i let them march into my desert, losing a lot of troops in the process. Given that it is a bunch of almost worthless desert clay, should I really accumulate so much war exhaustion and be guaranteed to reach max exhaustion?
 
Someone asked @DDRJake about what would be in EU4 1.23, and Jake replied with a teaser image for us to ponder for a month



Does that cow not look familiar? I suspect a EU4 > Victoria 3 converter is in the works.

Also @minke19104 asked PDS very nicely to make Victoria 3 and @Mrop replied:



looks like conclusive evidence to me. I expect an announcement later this week, perhaps as early as the EU4 Dev diary tomorrow.
Who is Mrop?
 
Uh is there any historical basis for that.

Corruption, war profiteering. Black markets, take your pick. If you want a historical example, there was a big political scandal in the 1920s where a highly ranked official was using his position to sell naval oil reserves, and pocketing the money.

Besides it's a good lever to give secondary powers the opportunity to rise, without having to hope that the people above them don't suck up all the resources.