Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

What would you like to see in Victoria III?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
I know what I don't want to see in vic3 traditions/ideas and mana.
 
Woifee said:
I would also like to send troops,maybe even ally with rebels.
Click to expand...
It would be great if you could atleast create a NAP with certain rebels when invading, like Italy creating a NAP with Croatian nationalists when invading Austria-Hungary.
 
Drogan said:
Better army and military system similar to hoi4
Click to expand...

Victoria was a bit before the concept of "Front Lines," It was still you having armies that would preform specific tasks/operations till they encountered an opposing force, with fortresses being used to prevent the enemy from just marching through to your capital. There should though be a mechanic revolving around having many armies you give commands to, rather then stacks of units like in EU4 or HoI4
 
A different combat system. I'm no fan of the simple 1 army vs 1 army fights.
I'm willing to learn all the complexicity of managing your stuff if the fighting system is interesting, what me turned me off from VIC2 and other games was that.
 
A release date.
 
I have another DLC idea, this time related to factories. Factories are a fun part of the game concept, and in a DLC we could get more depth on factories. One aspect of that depth would be creating factories that form industries that challenge and/or displace the industries of other nations. I'm seeing three mechanics the DLC could introduce to the factory system that would feed into the base game supply/demand/economic system (see my previous thoughts on trade and stock exchanges):
  1. Types of input. Raw materials are one type of input, and a modifier based on differences in raw materials could be used. The quality of wood is not equal (think white oak versus live oak in ship building, or mahogany versus pine in furniture). Thus, the better quality the input, the better the factory performs on the market. The strategic balance being, of course, that getting good inputs is a hard thing to do and requires savvy diplomacy, trading, colonization, or possibly conquest.
  2. Worker & Management quality. Technology plays a leading role here when we think of innovations in product design, thus a modifier based on technology is important. But, other levers should be available too for improved player influence: worker training/education as a social investment provides a long term boost, but at a high cost. Finally, there could be national/cultural bonuses or maluses, or if that seems problematic, then a form of political influence that players could use as a lever to improve factories. I could see some scenarios form around an interplay of the player using government to support management or workers for different long term effects.
  3. Supply chain. First, something like the HoI4 system, this notion of joining factory bonuses, that some industries naturally compliment other industries, such that the game would map out a few vertical industrial chains, and players could choose distinct strategies of which industrial chain to pursue (and AI could vary their selection game to game). Second, this would underpin the importance of diplomacy, because supply chains would dramatically improve when fed by friendly nations that are close in distance, thus making for a decisive European advantage in industrialization, and playing against countries like Russia that are so far removed from supply chains.
The feel of the DLC would be the notion that the player can be like a Rockefeller and create monopolies and whole industries for their nation while competing with other countries. A gameplay example would be say you want to dominate the furniture market. You start an industry vertical that includes factories that produce lumber and paper. At this stage, input may not be as important, but worker and management quality is your differentiator, and your supply chain is local thus mercantilism is feasible. When those factories are on their feet, you build up your furniture factories and decide to acquire better inputs, thus entering the market of what the old game called luxury furniture. Did you get into the market too early, before world demand picked up? Thus, did all your investment whittle away? Did a competitor make it to the market first? Would regular furniture had been a better choice because your quality inputs are too scarce to keep up with limited demand? As a player of a decent sized country, you could afford to be taking 2 or 3 of these types of industry decisions at a time, so if you fail once or twice, all is not lost and the thrill of getting it right could be a heck of a lot of fun. Early capitalism was a tough gig, but the rewards were huge for those who got it right.
 
  • The railroading in Vic2 just in general has to be lowered.
  • Immigration makes no sense, if you're a great power with every class of your country getting their luxury needs filled it still doesn't matter. Basically immigration is just a yes/no check if you're the USA.
  • Although being a bigger political and industrial sim, you really can't do anything politically. No nation really has any personality other than the preset allies they start of with and if they have cores in other countries territories.
  • Expanding on the political part. Maybe under some sort of turmoil (losing a war or mass rebellions) it can be more possible for you to put in Communists or Fascists, and then actually have your pops be fine with the regime if they're doing well.
  • The election events are annoying and need to be reworked or removed.
  • Different traits for heads of states would be great. Maybe being able to elect some different people that are alt-history. Like what if Teddy Roosevelt got elected again.
  • In vanilla they all do they same basic things (good ol' railroading) unless there's an event or if someone dissolves an alliance randomly. The only way conflicts can be suddenly spurred is by crises. I think the AI going after decisions more or a national focus-esc thing should be added to create more depth and replay value.
  • The economy(mostly trading) system has to be more clear. A lot of things could be clarified and it would make the game better. Not dumbed down. Having £33 million in my treasury but not understanding what exactly to do with my RGO and what factories to get next seems weird.
  • A new combat system would probably fit the time period better. Something like the HOI4 system just because it uses frontage which makes sense for modernized(logistics) and WW1 combat. Not only that I find it way less tedious.
  • Multiple research slots.
  • The Colonizing should probably be less black and white.
  • Having hoards of Anarcho-Liberals spawn is dumb. Not to mention when I've already passed every reform possible. It just is tedious dealing with them every year.
  • Peace deals being better.
 
I’m not happy how multicultural empires handle administraion efficiency. Austrias problem with all the cultures didn’t result in bad administration efficacy. Austria was very good at that. A leading country in population cencus and land registration. But it was divided politically. Plenty of parties of the same ideology not working together because they represented a different nationality. The struggle for languages paralysed the parliament.

So I suggest that countries get different parties for pops culture in the empire. So Austria, Germamy and Russia might get the the same polish social democrats therefor Austria has about 6+ social democratic parties in their parliament. Each one with a nationalistic character and depending on the leader of the party and consciousness of this nation defending more and more it’s nations interest and blocking the political system.

Also parties should have leaders and members with personalities. If a party is the ruling one the leader and the members become secretaries. But I’m sure there are plenty suggestions for that already ;)

Also ideologic rebels might form their own states as well. If communist rebels in Bohemia succeed they form their one social paradise ;) and leave the monarchy Austria.

Also in colonies. Its not logical having commies rebel in africa where they have no chamce to get to the capital and take it. If they took all if somalia they might decide to go independent as peopels republic of Somalia or something like that.

Also you should be able too support paries in other countries with money. So they might take over and have a good relationship to you who paid them.
 
I think rebels should be less op and you know, not having a million comunist rebels on your capital alone when youre a dictatorial USA in 1870 ? And perhaps bwing a wealthy germany in 1900 with good reforms shouldnt get 2 million jacobins?
 
Do you think the game will be anounced in october at the PDXCON2019 in Berlin?
The way they made fun of it at the last PDXCON... I wonder if they did it because they knew that VIC III would be the their next thing.
Well let's see what happens.. but I really hope it will be anounced soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back