|
I picked Ottomans because they're a great vertical slice of the game. You have a major power (don't know if they're a great power at start like in Vicky 2 or just a regional power) that's crumbling and in need of political and economic reform. It has core territory and vassal states vs colonies (depending on how Egypt is represented). It has a role to play in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and potentially India. It has a variety of cultures and religions to deal with. It has an army that it will likely need to use. The only features it probably doesn't cover are the naval game, China, and immigration.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
ottomans also have a strait, and potentially a canal
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Yeah, the Ottomans were my pick there too, they should show off a lot of mechanics well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 05:48
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:The only features it probably doesn't cover are the naval game, China, and immigration. The Ottomans traditionally had a strong navy which declined as their Empire declined - in an alt-history where this decline does not happen, their Navy could play a major role, especially given their central location between Europe and Asia.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The Ottomans traditionally had a strong navy which declined as their Empire declined - in an alt-history where this decline does not happen, their Navy could play a major role, especially given their central location between Europe and Asia. Especially if the Suez Canal is part of the game!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 07:53
|
|
|
Speaking of the Ottomans, https://twitter.com/PDXVictoria/status/1511705293339701255
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
all these mexico haters are noted
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 15:36
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:Speaking of the Ottomans, i know they just booted up a test build for a screenshot but i like the idea that something happened in the past month that changed a perfectly placid nation into having 7% of the country agitating for its overthrow in under 30 days
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
Maybe someone invented telephones and now the whole country can't live without them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Ugh, I really hope that Radicals means something more meaningful than in Vic2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
Just means they invented skateboards 160 years early
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 20:46
|
|
|
idhrendur posted:Ugh, I really hope that Radicals means something more meaningful than in Vic2. I think there was a dev diary that talked about it. Iirc it basically means people willing to use violence for polical goals. The more you have the closer you are to entering the cool zone
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I think there was a dev diary that talked about it. Iirc it basically means people willing to use violence for polical goals. The more you have the closer you are to entering the cool zone But different kinds of radicals shouldn't work together, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
Party In My Diapee posted:But different kinds of radicals shouldn't work together, right? Different kinds of radicals should work together, right up until they have a shot at taking power for themselves. Then the daggers come out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Party In My Diapee posted:But different kinds of radicals shouldn't work together, right? Depends? The Mexican Revolution had all sorts of rebel groups with different goals, but the sum of their efforts was broadly anti-government, as it would be perceived by a Victoria 3 player who was playing Mexico during that time period. In the sense of absolute% of "radicals" increasing instability/bad "events" (literally, in the case of the game), they probably should be considered as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Gort posted:Different kinds of radicals should work together, right up until they have a shot at taking power for themselves. Then the daggers come out. It's this. Xref waves at all revolutions in the past 250 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
If this game can accurately model the way the Mexican Revolution played out as a series of civil wars linked by revolt, assassination, insane foreign meddling etc.. well, that’s a dream game. Of course, the same sort of system would be needed for 1848 and 1871 situations. I hope it’s robust
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Party In My Diapee posted:But different kinds of radicals shouldn't work together, right? Free radicals aren't dangerous because they work well together, but because they can influence those around them and cause a kind of chain reaction of radicalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 03:19
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I think there was a dev diary that talked about it. Iirc it basically means people willing to use violence for polical goals. The more you have the closer you are to entering the cool zone That's right, I completely forgot. Too busy having flashbacks to trying to make Vic2 radicals convert to HoI4, then having to support my bad choices forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Gort posted:Different kinds of radicals should work together, right up until they have a shot at taking power for themselves. Then the daggers come out.  !" from the perspective of the people in charge.eXXon posted:Free radicals aren't dangerous because they work well together, but because they can influence those around them and cause a kind of chain reaction of radicalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PDXVictoria/status/1512098121953648641
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
I love the way they've distinguished between populist uprisings (driven by the mass radicalism of pops) and power plays by the elite (driven by discontent among high-clout interest groups). That's a really elegant design.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Not sure how I feel about a revolution always having to end with one country getting annexed. Sure, don't make an option right away, but if you end up in a stalemate for years then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to have a country split up. At the very least enable it in cases where there has ended up being a clear cultural/religious divide between the loyalist and revolutionary forces, which both internally and externally causes people to consider the two as separate countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
The best real world example of that is South and North Korea and on paper they've been at war this whole time. ——— I love the aside about the government potentially hitting a brick wall in the event of the revolutionaries controlling the paper mills. Good luck running those Loyalist forces with a bureaucracy running on nothing but bits of drywall and the backs of old receipts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
They titled the next dev diary "civil wars: cultural secessions" so I think that'll cover more of the cultural divide kind of thing. The revolutions described in the dev diary seem entirely political minded, and stalemating there seems like it'd just result in the movement losing support and just dying out/being reabsorbed anyway. But if I had to guess I'd say the main reason is for gameplay concessions. For a lot of countries if you lose half/a significant portion of your country the game is basically over there. Neither country left would have enough power to do anything real and it just wouldn't be fun (for most people). Sure there's exceptions, but there might be some systems built in for that. Edit: I think also that it's because the second country wouldn't align to any existing ones, so you'd end up potentially with the map covered in a bunch of dynamic nations. Which are kind of eh. I imagine with cultural rebellions you can more easily do the stalemate stuff, because then if they become independent it just turns into the CSA or Occitania or whatever. But political revolutions don't necessary cover any specific map boundaries or cultural pops. Zeron fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Apr 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Yeah, it also makes sense to avoid the weird scenario where a revolutionary splinter nation breaks off, both sides white peace out, and then they end up best friends because oh they both share common primary cultures and have all these trade goods the other nation needs. I mean sure it's not entirely historically unprecedented, the UK gets along pretty well with the US after all, but it's probably something that would be pretty unrealistic within the relatively short time span of Vicky 3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Edit: I think also that it's because the second country wouldn't align to any existing ones, so you'd end up potentially with the map covered in a bunch of dynamic nations. Which are kind of eh. I imagine with cultural rebellions you can more easily do the stalemate stuff, because then if they become independent it just turns into the CSA or Occitania or whatever. But political revolutions don't necessary cover any specific map boundaries or cultural pops. The CSA revolted for exactly the political and material reasons the game models for revolutions. They weren't reclaiming the Dixie homeland, they just wanted to preserve their political institutions. They just knew that, as an interest group with only minority, regional power base, they couldn't realistically aim to overthrow the whole country. If you have a communist revolution in the US centered around an arbitrary industrialized region, with similar dynamics, why wouldn't they shoot for succession? Like, somehow you nationally expand slavery or something and concentrate on making agrarian/aristocratic interest groups influential, but you heavily industrialize an arbitrary region where people become wealthy and powerful in some ways but aren't represented by the national government, it would make sense to have a civil war with a succession goal for reasons mirroring the historical US Civil War. I'm not sure it would make a ton of sense outside of the US, but the US especially in this time period has only a little history and a lot of land, so it doesn't make sense to limit succession to certain culture groups (if that's indeed how they're going to do it). Eiba fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Apr 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Poll Tweet: https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1512114589621751811 https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1512115258407768064
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
Even in that case it still sounds like the best solution would be to add an FSA or something to represent that. But also realistically there was little chance that the US Civil War would end with 2 independent states. If the CSA had somehow won, the federal US government wouldn't exactly have lasted long in it's current state (tbf, the CSA either likely). But also the entire reason the CSA was a thing was that it's political goals were also tied to cultural differences. Lack of political representation for what V2 labeled Dixie culture etc.
Zeron fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Apr 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Disappointed it wasn't Mexico but OE should be good. I, like any correct thinking person, voted for the Modernizers. Country has gotta have more trains
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Takanago posted:Poll Tweet: Zeron posted:Even in that case it still sounds like the best solution would be to add an FSA or something to represent that. But also realistically there was little chance that the US Civil War would end with 2 independent states. If the CSA had somehow won, the federal US government wouldn't exactly have lasted long in it's current state. But also the entire reason the CSA was a thing was that it's political goals were also tied to cultural differences. Lack of political representation for what V2 labeled Dixie culture etc. Ending in a lot more than two states would also be cool and good, incidentally. My favorite game of Victoria 2 was one where the US utterly fell apart after losing the Civil War, leaving each state its own country for the most part. I played New England with my main rival being the CSA. Both of us were great powers competing to get all the other states in our spheres of influence. It was great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:The best real world example of that is South and North Korea and on paper they've been at war this whole time. Zeron posted:They titled the next dev diary "civil wars: cultural secessions" so I think that'll cover more of the cultural divide kind of thing. The revolutions described in the dev diary seem entirely political minded, and stalemating there seems like it'd just result in the movement losing support and just dying out/being reabsorbed anyway. Zeron posted:Edit: I think also that it's because the second country wouldn't align to any existing ones, so you'd end up potentially with the map covered in a bunch of dynamic nations. Which are kind of eh. I imagine with cultural rebellions you can more easily do the stalemate stuff, because then if they become independent it just turns into the CSA or Occitania or whatever. But political revolutions don't necessary cover any specific map boundaries or cultural pops. Zeron posted:Even in that case it still sounds like the best solution would be to add an FSA or something to represent that. But also realistically there was little chance that the US Civil War would end with 2 independent states. If the CSA had somehow won, the federal US government wouldn't exactly have lasted long in it's current state (tbf, the CSA either likely). But also the entire reason the CSA was a thing was that it's political goals were also tied to cultural differences. Lack of political representation for what V2 labeled Dixie culture etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I want to strategically vote for not restoring imperial glory. Going through an age of amazing changes and upheavals with the goal of not changing and just doing the old things harder is boring. Which of the other two are doing better? Modernizing is in the lead currently. Imperial glory is in 3rd place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
I think restoring imperial glory is the least interesting option considering how nothing war is in Vicky 3
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
That's exactly why I want him to war, I want to see how it actually works out in practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I think restoring imperial glory is the least interesting option considering how nothing war is in Vicky 3
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
I think the lesson of history (certainly during the time portrayed) is that modernizing/industrializing is how one achieves imperial glory in the first place. Fancy uniforms and winged hussars < feldgrau unifroms and maxim guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
From Lachek in the thread replies:quote:On the topic of the ACW and CSA, we consider this a special case that shares elements of both Revolution and Secession mechanics. We'll cover this more later on, but it has not been forgotten about or misrepresented within these Revolution mechanics. Unclear if that means there are some additional considerations in the mechanic, or if they just have specific content for the ACW. But he also says that barring special cases, a normal Revolution does end in one side or the other taking control of the county since that's the usual historical outcome which they aim to model. Ed: Also, multi-sided revolutions are not in right now, but maybe later. The problem is that Revolutions use the Diplomatic Plays system, and Diplo Plays fundamentally involve two sides. Fray fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
I voted for multiethnic republic. The New Colossus of Constantinople!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
I wonder if there'll be a mechanic for revolutionary waves too, or at least some content like journal entries for an 1848-style event Edit: it does seem like there are some factors that could cause a wave of revolutions even without a specific mechanic, like a continental economic crisis causing widespread radicalization Magissima fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Apr 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2022 20:58
|
|
