Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[thesecret1]

Anyway, it's a Paradox game, so this is just the beta version release. 500 more addons to come.

Or it'll go the CK3 way and still have fucking nothing years after release

 

[what am i doing]

If Paradox took such approach in their game philosophy, only 10-15 countries would've been playable. You want heavy railroading, go to Victoria 1. Vic3 is built with diferent philosophy - implementation is not perfect (again, I agree that consequence-free multiculturalism-fueled immigration bonanza is stupid ATM) - but I find it hard to criticize them for shifting more to systems-based gameplay.

I'm surprised they took this route after the complaints EU3 engendered. They spent the the next few years trying to railroad it more into historical sense for each expansion pack they brought out afterwards.

Anyway, it's a Paradox game, so this is just the beta version release. 500 more addons to come.

The whole idea of systems-based gameplay is cool and all but if your system is shit and generates very ahistorical outcomes constantly then maybe you shouldn't have systems-based gameplay and instead stick to events and decisions.

 

[Reina]

The whole idea of systems-based gameplay is cool and all but if your system is shit and generates very ahistorical outcomes constantly then maybe you shouldn't have systems-based gameplay and instead stick to events and decisions.

It's basically impossible to create systems-based gameplay that would end up generating 'historical outcomes'. You change one thing, and the entire domino falls. If Austria is stronger than IRL, then no Prussian Germany would form in 1870s, meaning no WWI. If Spain shakes off Carlist problems and becomes first-rate power, it compeltely changes balance of power in Europe, meaning... etc, etc. Older Paradox titles bypass this by shoehorning historical solutions through various forced events, but that's only a half-measure.

F.e. Why should Germany form if I play strong France/reborn Poland and am determined to prevent it, by force if necessary? It can happen in Vic1/2, and it's gut-wrenching when it does.

If one plays Paradox games to reenact history over and over again, this is certainly a bad thing. But if fun alt-history scenarios are a goal, then this shift is desirable. And as much I am a sucker for historical realism, it's impossible to not agree that ultimately, the latter makes for a better (and certainly more replayable) video game.

 

[what am i doing]

The whole idea of systems-based gameplay is cool and all but if your system is shit and generates very ahistorical outcomes constantly then maybe you shouldn't have systems-based gameplay and instead stick to events and decisions.

It's basically impossible to create systems-based gameplay that would end up generating 'historical outcomes'. You change one thing, and the entire domino falls. If Austria is stronger than IRL, then no Prussian Germany would form in 1870s, meaning no WWI. If Spain shakes off Carlist problems and becomes first-rate power, it compeltely changes balance of power in Europe, meaning... etc, etc. Older Paradox titles bypass this by shoehorning historical solutions through various forced events, but that's only a half-measure.

F.e. Why should Germany form if I play strong France/reborn Poland and am determined to prevent it, by force if necessary? It can happen in Vic1/2, and it's gut-wrenching when it does.

If one plays Paradox games to reenact history over and over again, this is certainly a bad thing. But if fun alt-history scenarios are a goal, then this shift is desirable. And as much I am a sucker for historical realism, it's impossible to not agree that ultimately, the latter makes for a better (and certainly more replayable) video game.

France and Russia happily assisting the Austrian Empire in annexing the entirety of the German lands and forming a 70-million-man empire isn't "fun alt-history", it's implausible retardation.

 

[Reina]

France and Russia happily assisting the Austrian Empire in annexing the entirety of the German lands and forming a 70-million-man empire isn't "fun alt-history", it's implausible retardation.

Then I don't think Paradox strategies are for you, since way worse occurances are a commonplace even in very railroaded games like EU2. The moment developer gives player agency, such events are inevitable - the point of the game is to make history go different way after all, and Swedes simply cannot predict every method or exploit players use to achieve their goals.

 

[Mortmal]

Again, the technologies in game do not cover "invention", but "adaptation". Hey, Ottoman Turkey/Russia/China didn't make any breakthrough inventions in early XXth century, by that logic they should be banned from researching technologies in the game too, right? Right?

Besides, the fun of the game is to create ahistorical scenarios, including one where the African nation actually successfully industrializes. To have it hardblocked because 'niggers can't invent stuff, hyhy' would be detrimental to a gameplay and game's systems.

They couldn't even keep and maintain what euros build them after they became independent and you want them to reverse engineer a steam engine in 19th centuary lmao

Spoiler

It had much to do with it, including underlying philosophy (basically, 'progress' as a key value). It just had to tackle different issues.

Classical liberalism - free market, laissez-faire, limited government intervention, freedom of speech.
Modern liberalism/leftism - fuckload of regulations, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, government intervention everywhere, and no freedom of speech because it's offensive.
And importing savages to settle in your country was not even an issue in 19th century, because back then people were still sane and noone would even think that it might be a great idea.

Reina ignores the big difference between niggers and the Japanese: niggers are stupid.

Remember before their industrialization japanese people were seen as some lazy and indolent people living on islands, indigens no better than africans . Some african countries could eventually westernize , but very unplausible cause of the climate, poor management,above all corruption , the heavy weight of religion, everyone in europe doing their best for it not happening still today , really unlikely to see anything happening. It's not completely impossible just have a look to the most modern african countries of today ,vicky 3 could give a little hope to egypt , sokoto, ethiopia morroco and algeria. European countries becoming more powerful cause of no prussian wars and WW1 or South america industriliazing like mad and becoming the superpower is of course much more plausible.

 

[Tyrr]

France and Russia happily assisting the Austrian Empire in annexing the entirety of the German lands and forming a 70-million-man empire isn't "fun alt-history", it's implausible retardation.

Then I don't think Paradox strategies are for you, since way worse occurances are a commonplace even in very railroaded games like EU2. The moment developer gives player agency, such events are inevitable - the point of the game is to make history go different way after all, and Swedes simply cannot predict every method or exploit players use to achieve their goals.

The EU games spawn over 400 years. Of course it's way more sandbox than shorter titles like Victoria or HoI.
At least in the shorter games it should be possible to follow the history, if the player chooses to do so. You can't follow history if the AI just does random stuff. You say it yourself:

to make history go different way

Alternative history should be player-driven. Otherwise you could just play a Civ game.

 

[what am i doing]

The moment developer gives player agency, such events are inevitable

That's very wrong. See: basically every major Victoria 2 mod.

 

[thesecret1]

Alternative history should be player-driven. Otherwise you could just play a Civ game.

Exactly. The player should be what drives the alt-history to happen. If everything is retarded even without any player intervention, then the system is shit

 

[thesheeep]

Alternative history should be player-driven. Otherwise you could just play a Civ game.

Exactly. The player should be what drives the alt-history to happen. If everything is retarded even without any player intervention, then the system is shit

That's what HoI4 has the historical nations for, making countries extremely likely (or even force? Not sure...) to follow their historical path.
Which you can enable or disable depending on what you want.

I'm honestly surprised Vicky 3 doesn't have that.

But I guess "I'm honestly surprised Vicky 3 doesn't have that" holds true for a whole bunch of things.

 

[Hace El Oso]

That's what HoI4 has the historical nations for, making countries extremely likely (or even force? Not sure...) to follow their historical path.
Which you can enable or disable depending on what you want.

I'm honestly surprised Vicky 3 doesn't have that.

But I guess "I'm honestly surprised Vicky 3 doesn't have that" holds true for a whole bunch of things.

The HOI IV ‘decision trees’ are the worst EPCOT ride animatronic game design I’ve ever encountered. It always reminded me of this:



Systems and specific AI profiles for at least all major powers are the real solution.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

That's what HoI4 has the historical nations for, making countries extremely likely (or even force? Not sure...) to follow their historical path.

That's a horrible system since the various historical decisions that the focuses represent weren't taken in a vacuum. And it's especially jarring if you play as a major country since it renders the geopolitical behavior of states schizophrenic if you diverge from history with your own selection of focuses. Not to mention that even if the road to WW2 plays the same way as in real history, the war simulation of HoI IV doesn't necessarily lead to the same military outcomes on various fronts (partly due to dumb AI making weird military choices, partly due to battle RNG) hence some of the later focuses are likewise rendered nonsensical when picked by the AI despite the military reasonings that led to those decisions in real life no longer being there.

EU IV did it much better with its mission trees since it incentivized the AI to go on historically plausible routes of expansion when the geopolitics of the diverging world state permitted it (although the various bonuses that some of these missions unlocked when completed, particularly some of the permanent ones, detract from the simulation as well). That being said, ultimately both of these systems of railroading represent bandaid solutions for poor AI that can't produce a believable simulation of an alternative historical scenario.

 

[Sinilevä]

If Paradox took such approach in their game philosophy, only 10-15 countries would've been playable. You want heavy railroading, go to Victoria 1. Vic3 is built with diferent philosophy - implementation is not perfect (again, I agree that consequence-free multiculturalism-fueled immigration bonanza is stupid ATM) - but I find it hard to criticize them for shifting more to systems-based gameplay.

I like alternate history scenarios. CSA winning the Civil War or Russia not selling Alaska is plausible, but Mumbo-Jumbo tribe conquering the entire world is not alternate history, it's retardation.

You're looking at the leaves, instead of the trunk of the issue. Political ideologies are not defined by the policies (means), but by their goals.

Political stances change and evolve; just as liberalism isn't what it was in XIXth century, so isn't conservativism. Hell, even in XIXth century we had so many 'conservativisms' to choose from: who was 'true' conservative, de Maistre (royalism! ultramontianism!)? de Maeztu (kings are weak, [military] dictatorship is better!)? Bismarck (Nation above policies!)? Leo XIII (Working man's rights are conservativism too!)? Luddites/Agrarians?

Changing the meaning of something to a completely opposite thing is not an evolution.

 

[Tigranes]

ITT world-class historians teach us their logical and consistent principles for which historical alternative outcomes are plausible and which are completely fucking impossible lololtrollol, very cool, very Reason

The actual problem is that, OK, there are valid arguments to ditch hard-coded major Historical Events, but then it's even more important to tune the starting gameworld & mechanics to reflect where the world was and what was lilkely to happen before the simulation starts. And you have to, practically speaking, acknowledge that we're always going to consider actual historical outcomes "likely" even if they weren't necessarily.

Take Meiji Industrialisation - you cannot necessarily say it had a "high probability" of happening if you simulated 1869-1914 several times over, so it's obviously fine if the game often features a half-modernised Japan or a completely left behind Japan, but you want your gameplay mechanics to allow AI to achieve it some of the time. And new Paradox titles broadly speaking have often struggled with this, which is why we sometimes look back to, say, AGCEEP [sic].

 

[Tigranes]

If Paradox took such approach in their game philosophy, only 10-15 countries would've been playable. You want heavy railroading, go to Victoria 1. Vic3 is built with diferent philosophy - implementation is not perfect (again, I agree that consequence-free multiculturalism-fueled immigration bonanza is stupid ATM) - but I find it hard to criticize them for shifting more to systems-based gameplay.

I like alternate history scenarios. CSA winning the Civil War or Russia not selling Alaska is plausible, but Mumbo-Jumbo tribe conquering the entire world is not alternate history, it's retardation.

You're looking at the leaves, instead of the trunk of the issue. Political ideologies are not defined by the policies (means), but by their goals.

Political stances change and evolve; just as liberalism isn't what it was in XIXth century, so isn't conservativism. Hell, even in XIXth century we had so many 'conservativisms' to choose from: who was 'true' conservative, de Maistre (royalism! ultramontianism!)? de Maeztu (kings are weak, [military] dictatorship is better!)? Bismarck (Nation above policies!)? Leo XIII (Working man's rights are conservativism too!)? Luddites/Agrarians?

Changing the meaning of something to a completely opposite thing is not an evolution.

Important concepts changed to basically opposites all the time in history. Like "objectivity".

 

[Fedora Master]

The actual problem is that

PDX are shit devs and Vic3 is a shit game.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

ITT world-class historians teach us their logical and consistent principles for which historical alternative outcomes are plausible and which are completely fucking impossible lololtrollol, very cool, very Reason

You jest, but we don't actually disagree as far as the rest of your post is concerned. Railroading is just a cheap copout for bad design. And nobody is against some historical events being modeled, either as purely a matter of extra flavor or in order to account for a particular historical development that cannot be simulated properly with the level of abstraction present within the game (i.e. no point in making the simulation needlessly complex for such meager gains when those gains can be achieved through unique events at the cost of fewer resources and less development time going towards that). It's only bad when devs end up relying on such railroading mechanics as a crutch to the detriment of the other systems which are supposed to form the core of the simulation.

 

[Reina]

I like alternate history scenarios. CSA winning the Civil War or Russia not selling Alaska is plausible, but Mumbo-Jumbo tribe conquering the entire world is not alternate history, it's retardation.

Okay, but I'm not arguing for Sokoto world conquest (which is basically impossible anyway), but Sokoto becoming great power a'la modern world Japan. Did trbal antion conquer world in any of your games? Post screens, I'd gladly get a tip or two for my Sokoto game (struggling to get recognized as of 1900s, whereas as Persia I was already on par with Europeans by that point)

That's very wrong. See: basically every major Victoria 2 mod.

I only played (long enough) with Divergences of Darkness and PDM, and neither improves "historicity" that much. And if we're talking about HPM/derivatives, they just choose to introudce more event-based railroading - which is antithesis of Vic3's philosophy and should be used as a counterpount.

Take Meiji Industrialisation - you cannot necessarily say it had a "high probability" of happening if you simulated 1869-1914 several times over, so it's obviously fine if the game often features a half-modernised Japan or a completely left behind Japan, but you want your gameplay mechanics to allow AI to achieve it some of the time.

That assumes that player wants to see the same (historical) processes in every game. But what if he doesn't? I see historical purists have a majority in this thread, but maybe Paradox realized that people enjoy more diverse alt-history outcomes.

History likes butterfly effect. In your eyes, something like Japan staying not westernized might be an aberration. But player decisions and other factors might completely change the environment and make scenarios that seem stupid from OUR timeline's perspective (like Russia+France helping Austria untie Germany) plausible. Our history is full of 'implausible' outcomes and scenarios too. Miracle of House Brandenburg? Please, Russian tsar would never help their enemy, that's so bullshit! Ethiopia beating Italy at Adwa? Haha, backwards African nation wouldn't humiliate EUROPEAN GREAT POWER, would it?

I, for one, welcome this new approach. Why? Because if I want more 'historical' game... I just open up EU2 with AGCEEP mod. Or Victoria 1 with VIP. Those are still great games, and they scratch the itch. But building systems-based game is more ambitious and I can't help but cheer them in that endeavor, even if they stumble from time to time.

Changing the meaning of something to a completely opposite thing is not an evolution.

It can be. Just as various currents of conservative thoughts orbited around one idea (preserve the order!), so do various forms of liberalism (humanity must progress towards more freedom!). Depending on circumstances, environment and definitions, those idas can be achievable by different means. If your country is a post-colonial American state that never had a king, you probably won't be ultramontane royalist 'conservative'. If you percieve that your country has a free speech and capitalist system, being 'classical liberal' kinda doesn't advance the cause. As I said, it's all about the goal, not means.

 

[Hace El Oso]

That assumes that player wants to see the same (historical) processes in every game. But what if he doesn't?

This...

...I'm not arguing for Sokoto world conquest (which is basically impossible anyway), but Sokoto becoming great power a'la modern world Japan.

...Is not alt-history, it is fantasy. No african tribes, kingdoms of the time or now had even a fraction of the potential of the Japanese and nothing could change that. You want fantastical possibilities, fine, but call it that.

 

[Reina]

...Is not alt-history, it is fantasy. No african tribes, kingdoms of the time or now had even a fraction of the potential of the Japanese and nothing could change that. You want fantastical possibilities, fine, but call it that.

Why not? In early 19th century, likes of Ashanti Kingdom were not that much less developed than Japan - and in some areas (like military technology or metallurgy) were even more advanced.

In the end, it is all about who'd absorb more from Europeans, not 'invent' stuff by themselves. Is it that hard to imagine that Menelik II thrashes Italians even harder and uses his prestige to introduce more sweeping reforms in Ethopia, making it more respectable power? Is it that impossible for likes of Menelik to appear in other African states? And Ethiopia wasn't even the most developed African kingdom in the era.

 

[thesheeep]

That's a horrible system since the various historical decisions that the focuses represent weren't taken in a vacuum.

It may be horrible.
But it still works a whole lot better than what Vicky 3 does...

And if utilized well, it leads to more believable outcomes, such as in Kaiserreich where the AI takes into account a ton of things for their decision-making.
Of course, that does require some effort put in on part of the developers, so...

 

[Hace El Oso]

Why not?

Because almost two hundred years later it still hasn't happened, quite the reverse. And most Africans who immigrate to Europe and should be in a better position than anyone to absorb European capacities do no such thing.

I like Ethiopians and Kenyans, among others, but I am not going to pretend that they are Japanese or Koreans in disguise. You could make an argument that that's a compliment, but it doesn't lend itself to being a great power.

 

[Reina]

Because almost two hundred years later it still hasn't happened, quite the reverse. And most Africans who immigrate to Europe and should be in a better position than anyone to absorb European capacities do no such thing.

I like Ethiopians and Kenyans, among others, but I am not going to pretend that they are Japanese or Koreans in disguise. You could make an argument that that's a compliment, but it doesn't lend itself to being a great power.

That's an awful argument for a game that's about making what didn't happen happen.
It's been also 200 years and North Andean states failed to recreate Grand Colombia - in fact, the differences between former constituent states only deepened; thus it should also be impossible in game, I guess?

Yes, Ethiopians are not Japanese in disguise. And it's way, way harder (and dangerous) to modernize as Ethiopia/African state than as Japan in the game, so it's not like game doesn't distinguish between them. But to completely cut them off from that possiblity would be detrimental both to game's systems and to player's enjoyment. No one really wants to play game with predeterminted outcome.

 

[Hace El Oso]

That's an awful argument for a game that's about making what didn't happen happen.
It's been also 200 years and North Andean states failed to recreate Grand Colombia - in fact, the differences between former constituent states only deepened; thus it should also be impossible in game, I guess?

Yes, Ethiopians are not Japanese in disguise. And it's way, way harder (and dangerous) to modernize as Ethiopia/African state than as Japan in the game, so it's not like game doesn't distinguish between them. But to completely cut them off from that possiblity would be detrimental both to game's systems and to player's enjoyment. No one really wants to play game with predeterminted outcome.

There have to be limits. More areas should be decentralized nations, effectively ‘not making the cut’ and areas, specifically Africa, Asia and the Orient, should actually have realistic literacy rates, for example, rather than the BS in the game.

But I don’t disagree that Ethiopia, the best of non-Arab Africa, should be able to improvise, adapt and overcome to become a respectable regional power.

 

[Reina]

There have to be limits. More areas should be decentralized nations, effectively ‘not making the cut’ and areas, specifically Africa, Asia and the orient should actually have realistic literacy rates, for example, rather than the BS in the game.

But I don’t disagree that Ethiopia, the best of non-Arab Africa, should be able to improvise, adapt and overcome to become a respectable regional power.

If player was only an observer, then I'd agree. But as an active participant, I like to make implausible situations plausible, and take historical 'losers' way above their potential. That includes making likes of Sokoto great powers, or taking some backwater central African state to relevancy (the latter is actually way, way harder BTW. Those countries are the greatest challenge in the game, and not that much better than 'decentralized nations')

Now, if this was common occurence in every playthrough, or way too easy to achieve, then yes, I'd feel that game fucks with my sense of plausiblity too much. But if it takes (skilled) player's divine intervention (or a freak set of coincidences that happens once per 1000 games) to take Africans from the gutter and give them a chance to modernize, then I think it's fine.