Victoria 3

[jimmy olsen]

Upon further reflection, I would change the timeline of the games even more if I were in charge

Europa Universalis 5: 1399-1763
Victoria 3: 1764-1901 (Fully cover the industrial revolution and liberal revolutions)
Hearts of Iron 5: 1902-1962 (Obviously twelve to fifteen start dates will be required)

[Tamas]

Upon further reflection, I would change the timeline of the games even more if I were in charge

Europa Universalis 5: 1399-1763
Victoria 3: 1764-1901 (Fully cover the industrial revolution and liberal revolutions)
Hearts of Iron 5: 1902-1962 (Obviously twelve to fifteen start dates will be required)

That's terrible

EU5: 1492 to 1820
Victoria 3: 1820 to 1920 (should be 1836 but realistically they'd want continuity)
HOI5: just never make it

[Sheilbh]

Interesting

I'd go 1492 - 1789 and 1789 - 1914.

HOI - I'd keep starting at 1936 or maybe 1933 because I think it's different.

[Tamas]

Interesting

I'd go 1492 - 1789 and 1789 - 1914.

HOI - I'd keep starting at 1936 or maybe 1933 because I think it's different.

The problem with the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars and WW1 is they -in my mind- were violent switches of eras. Building a simulation that covers both one of those eras and the change into a new one gets needlessly complicated or entirely incorrect as a simulation. Might as well just skip the problematic few years.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah.

I agree those are pivots - but I think there's more difference between ancien regime and Napoleonic era than there are between Napoleonic and the sort of long Edwardian summer. Similarly with the 1900s v post-WW1 world. So my approach would basically be early modern building up to revolution and then the second game up to WW1.

I am not a game developer. But I think the approach I'd take is basically that you build in a series of events for the most powerful country from about 1700 on that more or less inevitably leads to revolution at the end of the game. Similarly with the build up to 1914 for a number of the most powerful countries (excluding the Americas) so you have events that strongly incentivise moving towards the formation of alliance blocs and escalating colonial/peripheral flashpoints. But that's when both games ends (but no doubt Paradox would like to make them able to transfer from one to the other).

Edit: And that's why I'm less sure on HOI and think the approach they took makes sense. It starts at a point when basically the world was on the track for war. I think it'd be tough for a game to cover Ruritanian 1910s (just reading the Sleepwalkers on this) and WW1 and the aftermath. Similarly I don't really think it'd be easy to cover inter-war, WW2 and the early Cold War - far less all of them. I think you need to basically be able to put certain pieces in place before launching.

[Josquius]

I think its a given that WW1 in Victoria didn't really work. Its too much of a different time period.

Nonetheless from a pure gameplay perspective it does make sense to have this "Now lets fuck over the world" ending to the game.
This was one of the things that really annoyed me about Imperator: it just ends randomly on a date that in history meant something but in the game probably doesn't.

Definitely going way uncommercial and esoteric here but I'd be tempted to have this end game as a point where all the pre-established game mechanics just collapse and whole new ones suddenly emerge leaving you technically still in control but quite clueless at just what is going on.

Of course in my alternate-paradoxverse the true timelines of games are 1066-1648 (1660 for wiggle room),  1648- 1820 or there abouts, and 1820-1920.
Modelling one by one the end of distinct eras with apocalyptic events.,

[The Minsky Moment]

If WW1 were accurately represented in game, it wouldn't happen.  Any rational human player or any decent AI would peace out rather than fight to utter ruin - or, more likely, not start the fighting in the first place.

Vic 2 had problems with WW1 for similar reasons it had trouble with the ACW - the system really isn't designed to simulate mass mobilization total wars.  If it did a better job modeling those kinds of conflicts, you'd risk having more of them and that total war tail would anachronistically wag the Victoria dog.

I've always felt that outbreak of a true Great War should just end the game, "Balance of Powers" style.

The pop-politics model can be stretched to cover the interwar period but it becomes increasingly creaky to do so.  There is a fundamentally different economic-financial framework in play and a different kind of mass politics in the age of radio and true mass media.  The Interwar period would be better served by a separate stand-alone game - which would be a great game for Pdox to make even though there is no chance of it happening.

By the same token it would be an awful idea to put the time period back into the Nappy era.

[FunkMonk]

I feel like the most important part of this new game will be having like five dozens of different variations of each national flag, dependent on the type of government in power.

Good memories from Vicky 2

[Zanza]

If WW1 were accurately represented in game, it wouldn't happen.  Any rational human player or any decent AI would peace out rather than fight to utter ruin - or, more likely, not start the fighting in the first place.

Reading game forums suggests that there are lots of players out there as or more stupid then Wilhelm II, so WW1would still be a distinct possibility with a human player at the helm. 

[Syt]

If WW1 were accurately represented in game, it wouldn't happen.  Any rational human player or any decent AI would peace out rather than fight to utter ruin - or, more likely, not start the fighting in the first place.

Reading game forums suggests that there are lots of players out there as or more stupid then Wilhelm II, so WW1would still be a distinct possibility with a human player at the helm. 

I think Besuchov said on stream that he once declared war over a failed loan just because he felt particularly petty, and that it spiraled into an all out conflict between the Great Powers, so ... yeah.

[Valmy]

Having the game start in 1836 neatly sidesteps the chaos of the second wave of revolutions in the 1820s and 1830s. I am not sure why they do that since that kind of thing is very on-brand for what you are usually dealing with in Victoria. Why not start it in 1821 and get revolting Greeks and Poles and French? That is what we all signed up for.

But, you know, the game is called "Victoria" and not "George IV" but still...

[Tamas]

For me MPing EU games was most interesting to experience to some degree the thinking and worries which might have gone into foreign policy decisions.

In particular I remember an EU3 game where I was: Ottoman Empire. I don't remember who was Russia, but basically neither of us wanted to fight in the Caucasus where our borders met (or anywhere else), but couldn't trust the other and leave it defenseless, so we gradually built forts and stationed larger and larger armies, worried that the other might get involved in some other conflict of ours. IIRC, inevitably, the war happened precisely because one of us (can't recall who) wanted to use the chance to strike at the right moment and secure the border for the future.

[The Minsky Moment]

By 1836 you have incipient industries in Western Europe and the USA and the beginnings of RR construction.

[Zanza]

If this iteration is successful, they may consider a DLC to extend the timeline...

[Habbaku]

If this iteration is successful, they may consider a DLC to extend the timeline...

They've almost certainly already considered it. I don't think Paradox goes into any game design these days without a long-term DLC gameplan.