Victoria 3

[crazy canuck]

If they can pull that off, I would be very happy.

[Valmy]

I kind of wish they did 1822 to 1935 just to make it continuous with the other games but hey just happy to see another entry in the series.

[The Minsky Moment]

I though Victoria 2 played quite well overall.  It was too easy to boost literacy in countries like Russia or the OE.  You could create an effective bureaucracy in a couple decades with some national focuses, throw some cash at education spending and watch it rise.  In reality those states struggled mightily to put together even a minimally functional bureaucracy, and there were many reasons why peasant education was not a priority.  Unfortunately this is an area where P-dox tends to give in to the fanbase demands for more player freedom of action, at the expense of realism.

[Valmy]

Martin says on the panel that the focus is on society management, and that their goal was that war shouldn't be the driving factor and not creating another map builder. That players should be able to play through 100 years without fighting a single war and still have a good time. Mikael says military will still be important, e.g. to help with diplomacy and a threat of war will be there, but anything you can get through war should be attainable through diplomacy.

Seems like a tall order considering the general Paradox fanbase, and I'm curious if they can pull it off.

Yeah the general unpleasantness of wars in Vicky I think was a turnoff to many in the general fanbase. Not only is it a drain on your economy and your POPs but it can create political uncertainty and instability, all things Vicky players hate.

[Josquius]

Wars as a bad thing was a pretty good and accurate part of the game.
Hopefully they'll make colonising Africa a loss making venture.

[Syt]

I hope they find a better way for influencing minors and adding them to your sphere of influence. The constant whack-a-mole against other nations was just tedious.

[Syt]

Wars as a bad thing was a pretty good and accurate part of the game.
Hopefully they'll make colonising Africa a loss making venture.

It should be a trade off between prestige and economic benefit.

[The Minsky Moment]

I thought Victoria 2 worked pretty well in that regard - it gave strong incentives to fight short, quick, and decisive wars.  It didn't handle the ACW particularly well but I'd prefer that outcome to focusing the game mechanics on the ACW.

[Valmy]

Hopefully they'll make colonising Africa a loss making venture.

Well it already kind of is in V2, but you do it for the prestige. That sweet sweet prestige.

[Syt]

I thought Victoria 2 worked pretty well in that regard - it gave strong incentives to fight short, quick, and decisive wars.  It didn't handle the ACW particularly well but I'd prefer that outcome to focusing the game mechanics on the ACW.

Most games don't handle the ACW well. Modeling the indecisiveness, incompetence, and learning process of fighting the war is difficult for players who have the benefit of hindsight.

[Valmy]

Interesting how they have the political parties being social groups.

[Syt]

The way I understood it, these are interest groups, with pop affiliation depending on pop type, literacy, laws, etc. I assume that instead of parties it's meant to represent which interest groups are represented in government. Removing parties feels like losing flavor, though.

[Tamas]

The way I understood it, these are interest groups, with pop affiliation depending on pop type, literacy, laws, etc. I assume that instead of parties it's meant to represent which interest groups are represented in government. Removing parties feels like losing flavor, though.

For sure but interest groups, as such, are more important. If only one of these can be had to keep the game playable, it should be interest groups.

e.g. You look at the House of Commons you learn exactly zero about the political issues driving British people.

[Syt]

Oh, I agree.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes, but..

the organization and structure of political parties within a political system matters.  And politics is more about identity into socio-economic categories - for example, section in America, or religion or regional identity in Germany.  The "intelligentsia" of 19th century France captures a fairly broad range of political views to take another example.  A political system that makes  farmers in Massachusetts in the same political "party" as farmers in Mississippi or Texas is going to have problems.