I hated how it was almost impossible to shift ideologies fom Absolute Monarchy. You could end with the same Absolute Monarchy you started with because it was impossible to push reforms. You - absolute monarch, could not enact any reforms
-
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.
What are you talking about?
Just pick the liberal party and your monarchy will automatically decay into a democrazy.
I think he meant that in case of an appointed upper house. You can only wait for your liberal influence to go up or your militancy so the conservatives would vote for reforms. You should be able to change laws on a wim like the way you can change the ruling party.
I would quite like a mission tree/ focous tree system in order to keep flavour and hostorical/non historical events bound around
Being able to play as not-independent states.
Hear me out. The period the game takes place in was the pinnacle of various freedom-seeking movements in Europe that wanted to gain independence from a foreign power. It would be interesting to be able to start the game as one of such movements, seek allies in another great power, influence the lands your movement seeks to liberate, and eventually form your own country.
Hear me out. The period the game takes place in was the pinnacle of various freedom-seeking movements in Europe that wanted to gain independence from a foreign power. It would be interesting to be able to start the game as one of such movements, seek allies in another great power, influence the lands your movement seeks to liberate, and eventually form your own country.
Lots and lots of provinces (Imperator style) and a very robust economic and diplomatic system.
And eventually, a Steampunk infinite timeline DLC.
And eventually, a Steampunk infinite timeline DLC.
There should be 4 types:
- Confederation of States
- Federation of States
- Regionalised State
- Unitary State
With more autonomy, separatist unrest is very low and admin&tax effiency are higher, but passing reforms and politics in general are more complex to manage. Also you can have regional goverments that can revolt against the central goverment (the player) and in Confederations they can gain independence by law and without war.
The less autonomy, separatist unrest is higher and admin&tax effiency are lower, but passing reforms and politics are easier to maange. The player has more control over the country but also has more work to do as everything is more centralized.
I think this would be a very fun mechanic. Remember there were civil wars in this period regarding this... American Civil War (Union vs Confederacy), Argentine Civil Wars (Federalistas vs Unitarios)...
I like this railway bonus for battles bringing troops into the fight quicker. Might even be used for reinforcements being boosted or a slight tiny org rate bump (makes more sense for org to be boosted having a high end railway there than none at all). (Think like battle of the Marne with taxis ferrying troops to the front which genuinely may have changed the outcome of the battle bringing thousands near or right up to the front).
Also ensuring that only the faction controlling the province or (allied/has access to the nation controlling it) gets said boost from railways, with a nerf if they are not the owner (implying the province's infrastructure took a hit when it was seized/the locals who would help operate it are not doing so).
Wouldn't make sense for the invading army to benefit from railways they don't control. A simple "if/then" check would be all would be needed in that event of the battle to see if they would. Would rebels imo should never benefit from the bonus (to simulate realistic scenarios) civil war factions obviously different situation. I really like this concept a lot.
There could also be a decision to cut railway lines if some important center has been taken by the enemies to deny him the faster movement
Or like a scorched earth option for armies like in EU3 to blow up the rail lines as you pull back.
The entire purpose of Sherman's March to the Sea was to sever Atlanta from the Confederacy. Atlanta was the railway hub of the Confederacy. When he burned it to the ground and tore up the railway hub there it destroyed the logistical heart of the Confederacy and made resupplying the Army of Northern Virginia close to impossible.
So basically, this decision/design is not only PERFECTLY historical but is kind of painfully obvious as missing.
Nah, Atlanta was already cut off from the Confederacy at that point as it had fallen to Sherman previously. The point of the march to the sea was primarily to re-position the army to better attack the remaining significant Confederate force (said Army of Northern Virginia) while also "bringing the war" to those who had not really experienced any of the horrors as Sherman believed the goal was (or at least should be) "not coax them, or even meet them half-way, but make them so sick of war that generations would pass away before they would again appeal to it."
If they wanted to make railways significant in war they should really make them very highly correlated to supply limit, as they really were. Even late into WW2, major offensives took place along railheads on the Eastern Front, and it was railways that really defined the axis of action of every single war in the period. Technically speaking it would be possible to supply large armies without rail connections, but moving them would be much harder, and really it would avoided in nearly all cases. So drastically reducing movement, or improving movement on raillines, and drastically upping supply limit would create a realistic and interesting mechanic
But this would only really be true if they did one other thing, and that would be to make railways not worth blanketing a country with. Only a few areas should have large rail lines, and most should have light rail, or none at all. This would only be possible if railways could only be profitable in more busy areas, or carried goods in other words. If they are just a one time cost, that gives a bonus to productivity like they are then there can never be realistic rails. If they keep costing money to upkeep and operated like factories, then putting rails everwhere would send unprofitable ones out of business. But this would also require goods to travel by transport because otherwise connecting markets would not be profitable, so historically sensible paths would never turn profits between uninhabited areas. Maybe it is a pipedream to hope Paradox would care enough to do this, but it really would be the biggest and best change Vicky 3 could have. Nothing defines the era like rails and railroad companies, so it would be well worth the effort to model them too.
But this would only really be true if they did one other thing, and that would be to make railways not worth blanketing a country with. Only a few areas should have large rail lines, and most should have light rail, or none at all. This would only be possible if railways could only be profitable in more busy areas, or carried goods in other words. If they are just a one time cost, that gives a bonus to productivity like they are then there can never be realistic rails. If they keep costing money to upkeep and operated like factories, then putting rails everwhere would send unprofitable ones out of business. But this would also require goods to travel by transport because otherwise connecting markets would not be profitable, so historically sensible paths would never turn profits between uninhabited areas. Maybe it is a pipedream to hope Paradox would care enough to do this, but it really would be the biggest and best change Vicky 3 could have. Nothing defines the era like rails and railroad companies, so it would be well worth the effort to model them too.
It would be neat to see dynamic corporations in vic3.
Each corporation would have a name and perhaps a generic logo. These companies would be able (under non-planned economy nations) to build factories and railroads and then be able to profit off of them. This profit would go into the company's money pool which they then could use to build/upgrade factories and railroads at home,invest in countries in the home country's sphere, invest in other companies (and get a return from the investment's revenue) or buy out other companies. If the company ever ran into debt it could borrow from the national bank or other companies. If failing that it could sell off its factories or be sold off entirely.
These companies could work with pop system through capitalist pops. Rather than in victoria 2's system where capitalists finance the railroads and factories, in this system the capitalists would instead finance the creation of companies and the companies themselves would then finance everything else.
The player could have interaction with these companies such as being to able to break them up if they got too influential or subsidize a specific company (in non LF economies). And for a govt with the state capitalism policy, the state would be able to nationalize it at its pleasure or allow it to exist. With planned economy, the state would nationalize the companies immediately. However if the govt policy switches away from planned economy/state capitalism to interventionism/LF any state owned factories would be privatized and thus the player must choose how many corporations would be created (and their names/logos) from the aforementioned factories. The player would also be able to tax the earnings from companies with a separate tax slider.
Having dynamic corporations would make more sense for Vic's timeline than dynamic characters since corporations had a leading role in the industrializing economies in the West and much of the politics of the time revolved around the breakup of monopolies.
Each corporation would have a name and perhaps a generic logo. These companies would be able (under non-planned economy nations) to build factories and railroads and then be able to profit off of them. This profit would go into the company's money pool which they then could use to build/upgrade factories and railroads at home,invest in countries in the home country's sphere, invest in other companies (and get a return from the investment's revenue) or buy out other companies. If the company ever ran into debt it could borrow from the national bank or other companies. If failing that it could sell off its factories or be sold off entirely.
These companies could work with pop system through capitalist pops. Rather than in victoria 2's system where capitalists finance the railroads and factories, in this system the capitalists would instead finance the creation of companies and the companies themselves would then finance everything else.
The player could have interaction with these companies such as being to able to break them up if they got too influential or subsidize a specific company (in non LF economies). And for a govt with the state capitalism policy, the state would be able to nationalize it at its pleasure or allow it to exist. With planned economy, the state would nationalize the companies immediately. However if the govt policy switches away from planned economy/state capitalism to interventionism/LF any state owned factories would be privatized and thus the player must choose how many corporations would be created (and their names/logos) from the aforementioned factories. The player would also be able to tax the earnings from companies with a separate tax slider.
Having dynamic corporations would make more sense for Vic's timeline than dynamic characters since corporations had a leading role in the industrializing economies in the West and much of the politics of the time revolved around the breakup of monopolies.
That is exactly my dream. Companies (or in the case of state-economy countries design bureaus) which have holdings and spring up naturally. To use the analogy of CK2, countries would still be countries, but companies would be characters with their own different interests and decisions to make, and their demesne would be factories, railroads, farmland (the main industry at the start) etc. Pops would remain the same, and buy or sell stock in companies as sort of the collective hive mind that they do, based purely off of supply and demand and the profitability on some sort of curve. There would be competition then that led to so many awesome situations that really fit the era, and the laws and things could have real functional effects instead of just being mana modifiers and other overly abstract vagueness.
The ideal Vicky 3 for me would have copy pasted HOIV handling of combat and production of military goods tacked onto an expanded Vicky 2 economics. The big changes would be adding regional markets and transportation costs for goods between them, and companies that make simple decisions and operate things with real costs and profits. Politics would only really need better foreign policy objectives for each party, and new laws that could interact with the now independently operating companies. That wouldn't be a huge overhaul in my opinion, and given the vastly different computing power available today vs when Vicky 2 came out, this slightly expanded layer should not be the hugely onerous task making Vicky 3 gets painted as all the time.