|
I don't know, maybe? But IGs themselves can be suppressed so it's a lot of kinds of disenfranchisement. And it's harder to pull off with other types or potential regional IGs. Even in countries that are not USA you can probably define some special types of land owners, like colonial land owners. Anyway it's all cheap divination. I don't think we can comprehend how those systems interact even after watching a couple streams. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Oct 14, 2022 |
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Did the North even have a strong class of big landowners? That IG most directly represents European aristocrats. Southern planters are close enough to fit but I thought the north had a much higher proportion of small farmers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Yeah, it says a lot about our society that people thought this was too ahistorical, but there aren't many posts about Russia annexing parts of Japan or whatever happened to China. there was in fact a large number of posts about Russia annexing parts of Japan or whatever happened to China
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:08
|
|
|
I am sorry for misunderstanding language and assuming that a statement starting with "it says a lot about society that" cannot be taken seriously.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:12
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Did the North even have a strong class of big landowners? That IG most directly represents European aristocrats. Southern planters are close enough to fit but I thought the north had a much higher proportion of small farmers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:15
|
|
|
Plan R posted:The Republic of Guinea declared war on Austria-Hungary and then signed a white peace four hours later. The mouse that roared
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 08:18
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:What I'm saying we have a completely different USA in a completely different world with the Civil War happening in completely different circumstances. Devs insist on using the real world terminology there to put it all in a certain perspective. But I do see your point. As long as devs don't call it "An American Civil War That is Very Different from the Historical One" they should make sure an outcome like this should be made near impossible. yes, i agree that your perception of the USA in 1836 is from a completely different world, i am glad you agree
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Did the North even have a strong class of big landowners? That IG most directly represents European aristocrats. Southern planters are close enough to fit but I thought the north had a much higher proportion of small farmers. A Buttery Pastry posted:The average farm in the South was more than twice as large as the average farm in the North. After the Civil War, that number converged on an average just slightly higher than in the pre-war North, which seems indicative of big landowners being a much much larger group in the South before the war. It definitely seems that, even if the entire IG was pissed off and willing to join the CSA, it should be too weak in the North to be able to affect the allegiance of those states. Wouldn't smallholders like that be represented in-game by subsistence farmers, rather than player-built farming buildings that represent more organized large-scale farming?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 10:23
|
|
|
The whole point of the sandbox is that the player is able to influence the socio-demographic makeup of his country/the world to create alternate history scenarios. It would be rather strange, if the game is railroaded to the historic outcomes under the pretext of realism. As for mechanics, to me the unification play mechanic is much more jarring, given that the two big historic unifications in the 19th century (Italy, Germany) were not fought primarily as internal wars but against outside players - France and Austria respectively. I don't think the unifications would have been succesful if, as the games portrays it, the biggest sub-country militarily annexes the next biggest country. It was the shared experience of a victory over an outside actor (France/Austria) that allowed to new nation states to succeed.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 11:37
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:As for mechanics, to me the unification play mechanic is much more jarring, given that the two big historic unifications in the 19th century (Italy, Germany) were not fought primarily as internal wars but against outside players - France and Austria respectively. I don't think the unifications would have been succesful if, as the games portrays it, the biggest sub-country militarily annexes the next biggest country. It was the shared experience of a victory over an outside actor (France/Austria) that allowed to new nation states to succeed. It’s a fair point but I hope that this can be represented in game mechanics as France/Austria having a declared interest in the region and intervening in the diplomatic play against German/Italian unifiers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 12:30
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:It’s a fair point but I hope that this can be represented in game mechanics as France/Austria having a declared interest in the region and intervening in the diplomatic play against German/Italian unifiers. As far as I understand it they can intervene in the play, but that doesn't solve the core issue of unification being grounded in what is basically a civil war instead of using an external threat to unify the population.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
I think there was also a dev post that in that game Lincoln went unexpectedly hard in passing a bunch of other social reforms which pushed a couple other interest groups into the arms of the slave aristocrats
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The whole point of the sandbox is that the player is able to influence the socio-demographic makeup of his country/the world to create alternate history scenarios. It would be rather strange, if the game is railroaded to the historic outcomes under the pretext of realism. Aside from that, I would add that at some level of power, the CSA does not make sense as a concept. The CSA is what happens when the divisions of American society result in a split where one side can't prevent reform through institutional means, but believes it can (and should) do it through force of arms. The CSA of that screenshot has no reason to rebel, because it is firmly in control of the US. "King Lincoln" attempting to push through social reforms that piss everyone off should just result in him getting deposed - and probably set the abolitionist cause back a decade or more as everyone is forced to distance themselves from reforms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
After reading this thread for a while and watching the dev streams I have caved in and bought this stupid, dumb game. Given that I have not played any Victoria game before (but have played Stellaris) what should I look out for to make my first few playthrough not a total disaster?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
StarBegotten posted:After reading this thread for a while and watching the dev streams I have caved in and bought this stupid, dumb game. we don't really know because it's not out yet 
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
StarBegotten posted:After reading this thread for a while and watching the dev streams I have caved in and bought this stupid, dumb game. fuf posted:we don't really know because it's not out yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 14:55
|
|
|
Your first few playthroughs will be disastrous no matter what you do, but that's fine, you just quit and restart and don't do the disastrous thing again
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Every society should have a lot of inertia behind it though, meaning you shouldn't expect major socio-economic divergences of the kind that would support the expansion of the CSA up into New England. On top of that, anyone likely to be in a position to make a state break for either side would already be a grown adult at the start of the game, reducing the chance of them having internalized different ideals when the war is about to kick off. All societies have a bunch of inertia at the start of the game is the antithesis of Victoria 3 being a game thought. A game requires that a players choices and actions matter, that they can dramatically change things through their play. That is the fantasy that historical games live off - being able to do X thing that may or may not have historically happen. Path dependence is the virtue of a simulation, not a game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
StarBegotten posted:After reading this thread for a while and watching the dev streams I have caved in and bought this stupid, dumb game. In Victoria 2 and also judging by the stream too - Prussia seems to have an easy road to greatness without the troubles of micromanaging colonies like other European countries. Maybe also Italian countries. Brazil is another often recommended country cause it's a relatively advanced regional power and you probably don't have to fear other great powers coming to you for a while. But with Prussia you have the most obvious path to domination, other countries might get stuck as regional powers I imagine. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 15:06
|
|
|
StarBegotten posted:After reading this thread for a while and watching the dev streams I have caved in and bought this stupid, dumb game. Pick a large European power to start with, probably, preferably one with a decent degree of cultural unity (so not Austria). However disastrously you play it's very unlikely that you'll ever be eliminated as a nation so the worst you'll suffer is losing the odd slice of territory here and there and maybe going through various kinds of revolts and civil wars, and it's still possible to bounce back from that and make a narrative out of it. Like, if you play France and lose the Franco-Prussian War even harder than Napoleon actually did and actually end up with the Paris Commune taking over the country, well, you may have just suffered a devastating and humiliating war but hey, you can now potentially create one of the earliest communist nations in Europe! And if you avoid things getting quite as bad as that, you're still a major European power during the age of maximum European imperialism so you don't have to worry about losing per se, just about not being the Biggest Top Dog Ever, which shouldn't really be a priority for your first game anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
Japan might be a good one also. You're fairly isolated and pretty much self-sufficient, so you can easily learn about how the economic system works in a vacuum and how certain buildings, production methods etc. impact your own market that's almost unrelated to the global one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Japan might be a good one also. You're fairly isolated and pretty much self-sufficient, so you can easily learn about how the economic system works in a vacuum and how certain buildings, production methods etc. impact your own market that's almost unrelated to the global one. I am not sure given the stream --- they have some very limiting laws that may be too constricting....
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
A while back somebody posted a good video by a youtuber who played a lot of it at PDXCON, who had this advice for starting out in the game. 1. Absolutely turn on the tutorial, no matter how confident you feel going in. 2. Take time to look over your starting state and really think about what kind of country you're about to play. Go over the situation of your pop distribution, political power centers, economic opportunities and problems, and diplomatic surroundings. Think about the possible directions you might go in from your starting position. 3. Set a goal, plan how to reach it, and proactively pursue it. Don't do what he saw a lot of players do, which is to stare at the market window the whole time and just build factories for whatever happens to be expensive at the moment. He said those players would always later express confusion and disconnection with the game because they spent the whole time reacting to the immediate moment to moment, and they never engaged on a higher level. Know what you want to do and why, so you don't fall into the trap of purely reactive play. OddObserver posted:I am not sure given the stream --- they have some very limiting laws that may be too constricting.... That's exactly the idea. You start with a very small range of possibilities that you spend your initial time learning, and over the course of the game you gradually widen that window with more things you can do and learn about. Fray fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Oct 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
I'm probably going to play my first game as Krakow so I can get used to all the poo poo that's going on while I can really see the direct impact that each building makes to the economy, if I get randomly annexed then so be it
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:All societies have a bunch of inertia at the start of the game is the antithesis of Victoria 3 being a game thought. A game requires that a players choices and actions matter, that they can dramatically change things through their play. That is the fantasy that historical games live off - being able to do X thing that may or may not have historically happen. Path dependence is the virtue of a simulation, not a game. If there isn't any challenge in changing history, you might as well just go paint up some maps and write an alternate history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Thanks for all the tips and advice so far folks! Hopefully it will make my first few sessions with the game a bit more enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
I think starting as a small relatively advanced country like Sweden or Belgium is not a bad idea, especially if you want to see the direct effects of what you're building on your economy. You don't need to always be shooting for number one great power status. It should be satisfying to just aim for a certain internal political or economic goal. Like if you're trying to be the number one producer of a certain product and really specialize, you'll learn a lot about the trade system and what a difference certain buildings and production methods have on your interest groups and politics. Japan is also good because, as limiting as their laws are, total isolation and low levels of starting industrialization means you have to make your whole economy from the ground up. You'll know what every bit does, and why you need it, because you will have constructed it yourself addressing deficits as they crop up. And Japan is probably the only country rich enough on its own to actually do that. Honestly this game doesn't seem like it'll be hard, in that you'll get completely hosed over if you make some mistakes. You might gently caress your politics up such that you can never get the reforms you want without causing a revolution, or you can gently caress your economy up enough that you can't get a surplus big enough to build things anymore until you go in and fix things somehow, and you might gently caress diplomacy up enough that you might even lose a war and valuable territory, but none of those things are game over states (unless you lose a war as a really tiny country). All of them are potentially salvageable and no worse than the starting condition of some other countries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:All societies have a bunch of inertia at the start of the game is the antithesis of Victoria 3 being a game thought. A game requires that a players choices and actions matter, that they can dramatically change things through their play. That is the fantasy that historical games live off - being able to do X thing that may or may not have historically happen. Path dependence is the virtue of a simulation, not a game. I think y'all are talking past each other here. The issue is not whether you can effect a change in a country, but rather how much player effort and skill is needed to do so. It's about the degree of social resistance to player action, not a complete lack of player input. "Inertia" is a quite apt analogy here because it is literally the concept of a given amount of force being needed to shift the trajectory of something to a given degree. You want a balance where the player can have an impact, but not necessarily an immediate or easy one, so that success will be a satisfying achievement. And since this is a balance question, subjective preference comes into play. Actually, since Wiz has asked for ideas for difficulty settings, here's one: A "Stability" game setting which controls the propensity of your pops to turn radical and form movements to pursue their interests. That way you can turn it down for more of a frictionless sandbox experience, or crank it up if you want your societal engineering to be a challenge where revolution is a major threat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Turning the radicalism slider to max, putting the game on speed 5, and sitting back and waiting for the utopia to build itself edit: wait what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Fray posted:I think y'all are talking past each other here. The issue is not whether you can effect a change in a country, but rather how much player effort and skill is needed to do so. It's about the degree of social resistance to player action, not a complete lack of player input. "Inertia" is a quite apt analogy here because it is literally the concept of a given amount of force being needed to shift the trajectory of something to a given degree. Ironically enough a stability slider could cause inverse difficulty, like setting stability to high/easy could make it difficult to do a 'rile up the masses until they revolt -> tag switch to revolutionaries' style strategy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Fray posted:I think y'all are talking past each other here. The issue is not whether you can effect a change in a country, but rather how much player effort and skill is needed to do so. It's about the degree of social resistance to player action, not a complete lack of player input. "Inertia" is a quite apt analogy here because it is literally the concept of a given amount of force being needed to shift the trajectory of something to a given degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Ironically enough a stability slider could cause inverse difficulty, like setting stability to high/easy could make it difficult to do a 'rile up the masses until they revolt -> tag switch to revolutionaries' style strategy. I suppose so, though I have ample faith in the player ability to drive a country into the trashbin if they want to. After all, if all else fails the "tax grain" button is sitting there to nuke the poors' standard of living!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Ironically enough a stability slider could cause inverse difficulty, like setting stability to high/easy could make it difficult to do a 'rile up the masses until they revolt -> tag switch to revolutionaries' style strategy. sure, but have you seen the strength of those reactionaries in that beautiful utopia?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Jesus christ, only 10 more sleeps until V3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:No, and I doubt there ever will be. 'Historical AI' only works in HoI4 because of the focus system and that it takes place in a relatively short time period; without it, there's no real way to force the aI to perform in historically accurate ways. I was imagining an ability to randomize a nation’s three starting strategies, maybe government/ruler.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:All societies have a bunch of inertia at the start of the game is the antithesis of Victoria 3 being a game thought. A game requires that a players choices and actions matter, that they can dramatically change things through their play. That is the fantasy that historical games live off - being able to do X thing that may or may not have historically happen. Path dependence is the virtue of a simulation, not a game. this is a false dichotomy. You can have inertia and influence from that society while also being able to influence reverse and change things. stop posting nonsense ahhh!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:58
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:No it isn't. If you can turn society on a dime, then there basically isn't a game there, given that changing the society you rule is the point of the game. Inertia just means that a choice that matters might not obviously matter for a while, but at the end of a campaign it might have snowballed into major change. Fray posted:I think y'all are talking past each other here. The issue is not whether you can effect a change in a country, but rather how much player effort and skill is needed to do so. It's about the degree of social resistance to player action, not a complete lack of player input. "Inertia" is a quite apt analogy here because it is literally the concept of a given amount of force being needed to shift the trajectory of something to a given degree. dang these two did betterer posts so I’m gonna pretend my post was as well effort posted as theirs
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I think there was also a dev post that in that game Lincoln went unexpectedly hard in passing a bunch of other social reforms which pushed a couple other interest groups into the arms of the slave aristocrats abe's popularity plummeted after his connections to the unification church were revealed
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 22:50
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:All societies have a bunch of inertia at the start of the game is the antithesis of Victoria 3 being a game thought. Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. The historical inertia should exist as one of the obstacles you have to deal with I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 06:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. imo men have been bad at making “their own” history fwiw, ladies have done way better
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2022 09:01
|
|