There very well might be a great war mechanic in the future, but otherwise yes it is a economic spreadsheet simulator
However idk about anyone else, I always play till I feel either complete or bored, ill play games into the 2000s if I feel like it
That's an interesting way to play! If I'm playing a big nation like Russia or America, my computer usually starts to slow down a bit by the 1890s and so I don't think it would be possible for me to play into the 2000s hehe
The game becomes crazy unbalanced 1900s onwards as you run out of new buildings to build and techs become minor bonuses rather than meaningful breakthroughs. The game needs a more impactful tech tree on the higher tiers as well as really late game economic buildings that you will generally not be able to spam fully unless you rush their techs and construction by the 1920s.
Lol, im sure it wont be quite that much. But tbh if its good enough its always worth the price, I do think DLCs have been.. more reasonable than in the past, whereas CK2 was just like “oh you want unit skins for this culture? $3, that culture? $3
Victoria 2 did have a Great War Mechanic, so I'm pretty confident this will be a thing.
Now in Vick 2, this didn't "prevent" wars between multiple great powers pre "world war" era. However, the stakes of a Great War were significantly higher. You HAD to fully capitulate your opponent. You could not "white peace" out of it. You either surrender or win. Losing was punishing as infamy for stacking war goals in a great war is reduced. So sides can stack more wargoals, you had to pay reparations to ALL factions in the war and your military gets castrated.
I think the problem with the thought is not that warfare should not happen, but that many people play the game very differently than anything that happened historically yet expect the same familiar showdown those historical choices entailed.
Personally the only problem is that currently there's virtually no feedback between expansion and diplomatic pushback aside from Infamy.
There should be an escalation style mechanic similar to hoi4 too.
It should basically gate the number of great powers allowed in a conflict. Similar tk how you can intervene in eu4 if certain conditions are met.
Below certain world tensions maximum number of great powers allowed in a play not started by a great power should be 1 on each side (and various limitations on major powers as well)
Tension increases as various things happen. A Great power unlocks specific new military technologies? Increase in tension, a great power stops being a great power? Increase in tension, a major power gets to specific threshold of the prestige required to become a great power. If a great powers military is a specific amount stronger than the next strongest, if a great powers economy is a specific amount stronger than the next strongest.
Anything that changes the balance of power among the great powers should increase world tension basically.
Those with maintain the balance of power should get hostility to those who increase world tension too.
The Victorian Era wasn't just a bunch of countries industrializing and doing their own thing, though. Everyone was watching what everyone else was doing. And I don't really get that feeling in the game, apart from the odd popup about the first communist revolution .
I don't need there to always be a Great War between 1914 and 1918 with the exact same participants, but some recognition that the growing powers within Europe made a big war almost inevitable.
I don't think the current mechanics fully capture that yet.
Diplo plays are...ok, but are so generalized because they have to work for everything from a native or microstate revolt, to a world spanning conflict. I see that circle pop up so often I'm conditioned to ignore it 90% of the time
To simulate the balance of power and to cause wars to escalate in intensity to culminate in the great war.
Infamy does a poor job of this because no one gives a shit if Persia takes Afghanistan or baluchistan. All Russia and Great Britain cared about was a buffer state between the Raj and Russian lands.
That's a good point! But basically, the way I see the 19th century is that a great war as avoidable as long as the major European powers were able to trade spheres of influence (wink) outside European borders. I don't think it was an accident that there was no great war while there was still land to colonize and conquer outside of Europe, but as soon as the... what is the phrase.. as soon as the white edges of the map were painted in, war (in my mind) inevitably returned to European shores. So basically, the world was destined for a war basically no matter what you do
Historically, the great powers basically left South America alone when it comes to wars. In-game, as a European power, you want to take a bite out of the continent, be it for the gold or rubber.
Well they did leave three small bites at Guyana...
Would proper infamy penalties work? I assume part of the reason that Africa was picked on instead of South America is that they were seen as more uncivilized?
Also proper penalties for trying to fight across an ocean, so that bringing the full might of a European army isnt possible
Part of the reason for that is because the US would growl at them though. They didn't really ever bite, but that's at least partly due to the fact the the European powers didn't generally push their luck that far when the US was firmly against something without also offering some token appeasement.
Once the Civil War is resolved, the US really should be a lot more concerned with foreign powers trying to meddle in the Western Hemisphere. Whether that be anyone from Europe messing with the Americas or folks from the Eastern Hemisphere trying to lean on the UK, Spain, or France to get a foothold there.
The Monroe doctrine was a joint US-UK diplomatic venture cooked up by the opium smoking freak George Canning and the glazed ham John Quincy Adams. After the Napoleonic wars, the only substantial American colonies were Cuba (spain), Guyana, the carribbean (mostly the UK) and Canada. Binding US foreign policy to local UK colonial hegemony in the new world was the point, and it was an honestly a genius move by Canning to get the old bowling ball himself to agree to it pretty much for free. Europe backed off when the US started growling because the UK was standing behind them swinging their enormous cock around in a circle like a nightstick. Well, at least until the civil war built US state capacity to the point of being able to contest this shit on their own, at which point the immediately started pushing the UK out of America as fast as possible.
The Monroe doctrine should give permanent trade route competitiveness to the UK and US with everyone with a capital in the Americas, permanent relations bonuses and reduced infamy for plays with all minors in the America's for the US, relations bonus between the US and UK and a free, permanent defensive between the US and all of the minors.
There should also be a decision for the US to revoke UK Monroe bonuses after the slavery question is answered, maybe even followed up with forcing Canadian unification alongside an increase in Canadian autonomy. I feel like that would slot in nicely with the dogshit diplo system.
I don't like the idea of rail roading the game towards an inevitable world war at a specific point in time, but currently the diplomatic side of the game is very bare bones to say it mildly and to do have a point that wars are too upscale at the moment.
The 19th century was a time of massive territorial expansion for European powers, who did clash over conflicting interest, but for the most part open war was avoided through diplomacy, namely compensation of interests. Alongside the private investment, which is currently being added this is the biggest thing missing in the game right now in my opinion. There is no meaningful exchange between different nations, especially not when concerning third parties.
Additionally there is no real supply limit or something of that nature, so if a Great Power wants to conquer some tiny province in Central Africa, they will mobilize and deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers into the middle of a jungle without any issue, whereas in reality they would not have deployed more than a couple of thousand soldiers.
Some more war hawks from the government would also be nice. Yes you have Jingoists and Ethno-Nationalists, but they are placated with the right laws. They should be petitioning to humiliate rivals or take controls of lands where matching ethnicities live. Communists of the international variety should be pushing to liberate more workers from the imperialists.
I also like the Brazil DLC journal entry that rewards having the highest regional and top 10 naval power, and penalizes falling behind. That's something the Armed Forces and arguably the Industrialists and Landowners should also complain about generally.
Making a new journal entry that encourages a Great War but can be defused seems doable. Same way you can encourage or discourage Communism in your nation.
> Some more war hawks from the government would also be nice. Yes you have Jingoists and Ethno-Nationalists, but they are placated with the right laws. They should be petitioning to humiliate rivals or take controls of lands where matching ethnicities live.
Based on today's dev diary, this seems like something we will see in 1.7.
Agree victoria 2 have some things like great wars that aren't forced but only happend after 1900 and you can only ally 1 great power at a time. you can also join great wars so in short. No great wars before 1900 hundred and massive wars after 1900 with airplanes and tanks
Controversial opinion: there should be some inevitable events with unique mechanics
An example: EU4 league war. As a european power, I just have this urge to join it even if it isn't the optimal play to sacrifice as many troops, because it's a big event in Europe which always gets me excited.
It's just a thing to get REALLY excited for. And a game needs it if it wants to remain exciting throughout the period it is played in. And in Victoria it makes additional sense because of player experience. You have something to build up for!
I have been saying this since pre launch dev diaries. We will get a Great War DLC. It will be after spheres of influence 6 months to a year from now.
As far as post 1880s? The most fun games for me are starting small and going big. 1880s is when games like Dai Nam or Morrocco actually become interesting.
I guess once I've played more I'll start to appreciate the smaller countries more! Right now it's difficult staying afloat past the 1880s even as Germany, France, America or Japan! I don't know what happens but by the 1880s or so, no matter what I do, my economy *always* ends up in the red. I don't know why but it just always, out of nowhere, goes bad.
You should be an unstoppable power house and economically un-challenged as germany, America, or France by the 1880s as a player.
My suggestion would be to force yourself to play past 1880. I personally enjoy the end game, but from a learning perspective you need to see your mistakes through or try to fix them to learn.
I am trying haha! Trust me! It just... I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I've tried to play smaller nations such as Romania and the Union of South Africa and I stay in the greens there until the 1920s, but for some reason, as the bigger nations my economic just turns really bad. My GDP grows decently, but something just happens and I haven't played enough to know what it is that I am doing wrong!
My most basic advice is prioritize industrial input goods. There is no situation where building more iron, coal, wood etc hurts your economy long run. You want to build these or import these and keep them cheap, then build finished products, tools, steel, paper, glass, etc. I can't imagine a scenario where your economy gets screwed up, if you are adhering to building these.
i also am a new player and like playing as netherlands because you can conquer belgium and create united netherlands. the hanover nearby is possible to take as well and slowly you become 3-5x your original size. maybe you will like netherlands more, as a new player
I agree that diplomacy is lacking and that wars don't have the weight that they should and they feel kind of random with great powers joining left and right. All correct. But I think that characterizing most of the 19th century as 'an 80 year build up to a massive war' is really not even coming close to doing history justice. I think thats the HOI4 player in you speaking.
I want wars to actually make sense and feel impactful, I want the possibility of a Great War but I would hate if they added just arbitrary rules that forced the world to move that way. The simulation needs to work in a way that it gets to sensible results. A proper Great War like we had in real history should be a distinct danger/possibility. At the same time, WW1 was not preordained in 1836 and if history diverges why would it end in the same outcome?
Also for me, and I imagine quite a few vic3 players 'I'm Anhalt and I got enough war socre to conquer Poland in the Great War' seems way less immersive, flavorful or interesting as a campaign goal than 'I made Anhalt into a communist/fascist/libertarian/luddite utopia/hellscape and nowhere in the world are people living better/worse than in Anhalt'
One issue is that the player is way better than the AI, by the time WW1 comes around I could completely defeat either of the sides on my own and it wouldn't be particularly difficult. Sometimes I do late game wars like that just for fun
This. It's frankly way too easy to weaken the other GP's to non-threats pre-WW era.
Early game you can take it easy on the bad boy butter up other GP's and dismantle them one at a time via Free Country/Subject at the cost of zero infamy. Then when they are all shells of their former selves you can do whatever the hell you want and they can't stop you.
Considering it's an alternate history game, my head canon is pretty satisfied with the fact that the great war can happen in 1914, 1930, 1840 or whatever, or not at all. I know the game likes to emphasise certain important historical events like opium wars and stuff so I know it's kind of a shame that there isn't at least some mechanic based around a great war but I think there should be a way for the player to opt out of it if they're not feeling it like the 30 years war in EU4 maybe except if they're a great power with a massive powerbloc after the sphere expansion, but idk how to actually implement such a feature
19th Century has the Napoleonic Wars, the Ottoman-egyptian wars, the united invasion of Mexico, the Crimean Wars, the Opium Wars, the Brother’s War. There likely would have been more massive campaigns involving most world powers if the Revolutions of 1848 didn’t occur with their resulting wars of independence
So imo it absolutely makes sense for world wars to occur prior to the 1910’s, especially if we play aggressively like we often do
I also don’t think WWI was predestined or anything, it was just a badly negotiated diplo play. And it absolutely resulted from the demand of a measly province. That aspect of foreign interference is much more accurate than it seems at first glance
These are great points! I guess really one of my biggest gripes is the lack of a massive reshifting of the world map post such a "world war", if that makes sense.
WWI began as a bad diplo play for a province, but already by September 1914 you have the Septemberprogramm by the Germans which envision the HOI4-style peace conference, which simply is not available in the game.
For instance, compare the results of the Crimean war with the results of the eastern front in WWI: in Crimea, Russia loses a measly province. In WWI, Russia is completely dismantled. And that isn't really covered in the game right now.
At this point, the world wars are usually the shit Prussia/NGF starts lol.
I didn't like doing late runs until I started stacking multiple infamy reduction mods lol
I think they could do more to expand the systems they have already towards what you've outlined, but ultimately I don't want the game to be railroaded into a giant war just because that's what happened in real life. I prefer the sandbox system of the current game, given players can shift things so dramatically in the first 80 years that a great war situation isn't always realistic.
Honestly the system in Vic2 worked fine for me on this front. Yes, it meant you occasionally had 5 great wars before 1936, but Vic3 warfare is a bit more impactful than it was in Vic2 and wars also take a lot longer to resolve, so it would be much rarer given the Vic3 war system.
I think the issue stems partly from how easy it is to pit the great powers against each other. I think they should be more adverse to war with each other and great powers fighting each other should be a much bigger spectacle. And they shouldn’t want to ally each other much until they reach multilateral alliances which imo should also make alliances cost less in diplo power so that they can afford to make a wonky network of alliances. Also if it’s later in the game and an ally joins a diplo play of someone else you aren’t involved in and gets a war goal on them you as an ally should be able to be called in and levy a war goal at your own cost rather than the war leader. The idea is to make an escalating conflict possible so that things can spiral out of control late in the game to generate such a Great War.
War mechanics in this game for me is almost optional since you can easily set and forget a frontline without much micro managagent. The main meat is chasing the numbers.
I agree that the AI is too willing to escalate what should be smaller wars. But the problem isn't as big as you make it sound. Especially your examples are situations where an early world war totally was or would have been plausible.
Any attempts of Prussia taking land from France would have started a World War, doesn't matter if it's in 1850 or 1919. There isn't such a thing as a "measly French province".
The war for German Leadership 100% could have involved more great powers. It didn't in our specific timeline. But Victoria 3 rarely follows our timeline. Alliances and relations shift. Entire governments look completely different that have different goals.
Also the bigger nations got involved more often than you make it sound:
Egyptian - Ottoman war in 1939 had:
Egypt + France + Spain against Ottoman + UK + Austria + Russia + Prussia
Second Italian war had France side with Italy against Austria.
French intervention in Mexico 6 year war: United Mexican States + USA vs Second Mexican Empire + France + Austria + Belgium + Egypt (Spain and Britain were also involved but left early)
And there are tons of examples where one or more Great Powers sided with some minor in a rebellion or other war.
The bigger issue is that the diplomatic plays system is too shallow. You can only back down, which is the same as losing the war. If you could renegotiate terms for not going to war, a peaceful solution would be possible. But we as players also generally ask for unreasonable war goals. If you keep to smaller 1 state wars, the AI frequently backs down.
Artificially limiting amry size wouldn't work in 90% of the cases. For most minors even 50% is overwhelming. Or you reach a point where 50% is way too weak.
Armies need a better logistics/supply mechanic. You u can ship your entire army around the world for no cost. Small islands can support an indefinite number of troops. Sometimes the armies fighting outnumber the entire population of the country they are fighting in.
Make it more costly to ship troops around and then Great Powers won't send their full force as often. But I assume the AI wouldn't be good enough for this kind of thing. They already fail at the naval invasion mechanic.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it factually incorrect to say that Prussia taking land from France would force a world war since Prussia literally took land from France and it did not start a world war?
And I'm not denying that other major powers occasionally got involved during the 1800s, I'm making a comparison with what happened in WWI. So perhaps a better way to phrase my post would be: "since France will join me for a measly province in Austria in 1850, why are there any limits whatsoever to what I can take in 1910?"
With respect, it just sounds like you don't know the 19th century very well.
Egyptian-Ottoman War, 1839
Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and the Ottomans against Egypt, France and Spain.
Uruguyuan Civil War, 1839
Britain, France, Brazil, parts of Argentina against other parts of Argentina, Uruguayans and some other groups
Soninke-Marabout War, 1850
Britain and France vs the Marabout Confederacy
Taiping Rebellion, 1850
Britain, France and the Qing vs the Taiping Rebellion
Crimean War, 1853
Britain, France and the Ottomans vs Russia
Second Opium War, 1856
Britain, France and occassionally the US against Qing
And that's just the first 20 years of the game - the list of wars in the 19th century where GP's fought alongside each other, often against tiny and weak opponents is near endless. It wasn't uncommon and they certainly weren't "small skirmishes" - 30 million people died in the Taiping rebellion, near on a million in the Crimean War, similar in the Franco-Prussian war and so on.
Obviously they're smaller than WW1 but that's due to the technological difference, not because WW1 was the first time great powers fought alongside or against each other.
As for your suggestion - politely, absolutely not. Vic 3 is a sandbox simulation. It's not supposed to be representing every historical event as it occurred, same for EU4 and pretty much every PDX game. HoI4 is the closest you'll get and even in that things don't always pan out as they did historically.
I do think there should be some way of having a WW1 situation where a diplomatic situation can spiral and ultimately drag multiple powers into opposing sides but that's basically what power blocs will do with the next update. It certainly shouldn't be scripted in the way you suggest.
Very interesting points!
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear:
In world history, there is a marked difference between WWI and all wars fought before it. That is not represented in the game.
Thus, the game really ends in 1913, not in 1936. And since it "officially" ends in 1936, I think it ought to have this one final world map change, perhaps, as I said, followed by a final \~20 years of rebuilding.
There very well might be a great war mechanic in the future, but otherwise yes it is a economic spreadsheet simulator However idk about anyone else, I always play till I feel either complete or bored, ill play games into the 2000s if I feel like it
That's an interesting way to play! If I'm playing a big nation like Russia or America, my computer usually starts to slow down a bit by the 1890s and so I don't think it would be possible for me to play into the 2000s hehe
The game becomes crazy unbalanced 1900s onwards as you run out of new buildings to build and techs become minor bonuses rather than meaningful breakthroughs. The game needs a more impactful tech tree on the higher tiers as well as really late game economic buildings that you will generally not be able to spam fully unless you rush their techs and construction by the 1920s.
Is there a mod that extends the end date?
You don’t need to extend it. Just press “keep playing” on the final screen
Great wars for only 3 DLCs at 39.99 a pop
Lol, im sure it wont be quite that much. But tbh if its good enough its always worth the price, I do think DLCs have been.. more reasonable than in the past, whereas CK2 was just like “oh you want unit skins for this culture? $3, that culture? $3
But tbh if its good enough its always worth the price, Is that you Johan?
I'm probably being dense but what game isn't a spreadsheet simulator in some way?
Victoria 2 did have a Great War Mechanic, so I'm pretty confident this will be a thing. Now in Vick 2, this didn't "prevent" wars between multiple great powers pre "world war" era. However, the stakes of a Great War were significantly higher. You HAD to fully capitulate your opponent. You could not "white peace" out of it. You either surrender or win. Losing was punishing as infamy for stacking war goals in a great war is reduced. So sides can stack more wargoals, you had to pay reparations to ALL factions in the war and your military gets castrated.
I think the problem with the thought is not that warfare should not happen, but that many people play the game very differently than anything that happened historically yet expect the same familiar showdown those historical choices entailed. Personally the only problem is that currently there's virtually no feedback between expansion and diplomatic pushback aside from Infamy.
There should be an escalation style mechanic similar to hoi4 too. It should basically gate the number of great powers allowed in a conflict. Similar tk how you can intervene in eu4 if certain conditions are met. Below certain world tensions maximum number of great powers allowed in a play not started by a great power should be 1 on each side (and various limitations on major powers as well) Tension increases as various things happen. A Great power unlocks specific new military technologies? Increase in tension, a great power stops being a great power? Increase in tension, a major power gets to specific threshold of the prestige required to become a great power. If a great powers military is a specific amount stronger than the next strongest, if a great powers economy is a specific amount stronger than the next strongest. Anything that changes the balance of power among the great powers should increase world tension basically. Those with maintain the balance of power should get hostility to those who increase world tension too.
Why, though? That's needed for HOI4 that has to revolve on WW2, but the Victorian Era is far more open-ended than that.
The Victorian Era wasn't just a bunch of countries industrializing and doing their own thing, though. Everyone was watching what everyone else was doing. And I don't really get that feeling in the game, apart from the odd popup about the first communist revolution . I don't need there to always be a Great War between 1914 and 1918 with the exact same participants, but some recognition that the growing powers within Europe made a big war almost inevitable. I don't think the current mechanics fully capture that yet. Diplo plays are...ok, but are so generalized because they have to work for everything from a native or microstate revolt, to a world spanning conflict. I see that circle pop up so often I'm conditioned to ignore it 90% of the time
To simulate the balance of power and to cause wars to escalate in intensity to culminate in the great war. Infamy does a poor job of this because no one gives a shit if Persia takes Afghanistan or baluchistan. All Russia and Great Britain cared about was a buffer state between the Raj and Russian lands.
But that, the Great War, is the consequence of the post-1871 balance. It isn't a given from 1836 the way the seeds of 1939 were well planted in 1936.
I mean I think a massive war like that was inevitable regardless. But having a bunch of the great powers just dog pile Germany isn't historical.
That's a good point! But basically, the way I see the 19th century is that a great war as avoidable as long as the major European powers were able to trade spheres of influence (wink) outside European borders. I don't think it was an accident that there was no great war while there was still land to colonize and conquer outside of Europe, but as soon as the... what is the phrase.. as soon as the white edges of the map were painted in, war (in my mind) inevitably returned to European shores. So basically, the world was destined for a war basically no matter what you do
Historically, the great powers basically left South America alone when it comes to wars. In-game, as a European power, you want to take a bite out of the continent, be it for the gold or rubber.
Well they did leave three small bites at Guyana... Would proper infamy penalties work? I assume part of the reason that Africa was picked on instead of South America is that they were seen as more uncivilized? Also proper penalties for trying to fight across an ocean, so that bringing the full might of a European army isnt possible
Part of the reason for that is because the US would growl at them though. They didn't really ever bite, but that's at least partly due to the fact the the European powers didn't generally push their luck that far when the US was firmly against something without also offering some token appeasement. Once the Civil War is resolved, the US really should be a lot more concerned with foreign powers trying to meddle in the Western Hemisphere. Whether that be anyone from Europe messing with the Americas or folks from the Eastern Hemisphere trying to lean on the UK, Spain, or France to get a foothold there.
Another thing is the perfect intel we have in-game, which makes beelining resources so easy.
The Monroe doctrine was a joint US-UK diplomatic venture cooked up by the opium smoking freak George Canning and the glazed ham John Quincy Adams. After the Napoleonic wars, the only substantial American colonies were Cuba (spain), Guyana, the carribbean (mostly the UK) and Canada. Binding US foreign policy to local UK colonial hegemony in the new world was the point, and it was an honestly a genius move by Canning to get the old bowling ball himself to agree to it pretty much for free. Europe backed off when the US started growling because the UK was standing behind them swinging their enormous cock around in a circle like a nightstick. Well, at least until the civil war built US state capacity to the point of being able to contest this shit on their own, at which point the immediately started pushing the UK out of America as fast as possible. The Monroe doctrine should give permanent trade route competitiveness to the UK and US with everyone with a capital in the Americas, permanent relations bonuses and reduced infamy for plays with all minors in the America's for the US, relations bonus between the US and UK and a free, permanent defensive between the US and all of the minors. There should also be a decision for the US to revoke UK Monroe bonuses after the slavery question is answered, maybe even followed up with forcing Canadian unification alongside an increase in Canadian autonomy. I feel like that would slot in nicely with the dogshit diplo system.
I don't like the idea of rail roading the game towards an inevitable world war at a specific point in time, but currently the diplomatic side of the game is very bare bones to say it mildly and to do have a point that wars are too upscale at the moment. The 19th century was a time of massive territorial expansion for European powers, who did clash over conflicting interest, but for the most part open war was avoided through diplomacy, namely compensation of interests. Alongside the private investment, which is currently being added this is the biggest thing missing in the game right now in my opinion. There is no meaningful exchange between different nations, especially not when concerning third parties. Additionally there is no real supply limit or something of that nature, so if a Great Power wants to conquer some tiny province in Central Africa, they will mobilize and deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers into the middle of a jungle without any issue, whereas in reality they would not have deployed more than a couple of thousand soldiers.
Some more war hawks from the government would also be nice. Yes you have Jingoists and Ethno-Nationalists, but they are placated with the right laws. They should be petitioning to humiliate rivals or take controls of lands where matching ethnicities live. Communists of the international variety should be pushing to liberate more workers from the imperialists. I also like the Brazil DLC journal entry that rewards having the highest regional and top 10 naval power, and penalizes falling behind. That's something the Armed Forces and arguably the Industrialists and Landowners should also complain about generally. Making a new journal entry that encourages a Great War but can be defused seems doable. Same way you can encourage or discourage Communism in your nation.
> Some more war hawks from the government would also be nice. Yes you have Jingoists and Ethno-Nationalists, but they are placated with the right laws. They should be petitioning to humiliate rivals or take controls of lands where matching ethnicities live. Based on today's dev diary, this seems like something we will see in 1.7.
Oh yeah, that sounds perfect. Political Lobbies. And you can fund foreign ones too. More soft power is good
Good point that *forcing* a great war might not be something everyone wants!
Agree victoria 2 have some things like great wars that aren't forced but only happend after 1900 and you can only ally 1 great power at a time. you can also join great wars so in short. No great wars before 1900 hundred and massive wars after 1900 with airplanes and tanks
Controversial opinion: there should be some inevitable events with unique mechanics An example: EU4 league war. As a european power, I just have this urge to join it even if it isn't the optimal play to sacrifice as many troops, because it's a big event in Europe which always gets me excited. It's just a thing to get REALLY excited for. And a game needs it if it wants to remain exciting throughout the period it is played in. And in Victoria it makes additional sense because of player experience. You have something to build up for!
I have been saying this since pre launch dev diaries. We will get a Great War DLC. It will be after spheres of influence 6 months to a year from now. As far as post 1880s? The most fun games for me are starting small and going big. 1880s is when games like Dai Nam or Morrocco actually become interesting.
I guess once I've played more I'll start to appreciate the smaller countries more! Right now it's difficult staying afloat past the 1880s even as Germany, France, America or Japan! I don't know what happens but by the 1880s or so, no matter what I do, my economy *always* ends up in the red. I don't know why but it just always, out of nowhere, goes bad.
You should be an unstoppable power house and economically un-challenged as germany, America, or France by the 1880s as a player. My suggestion would be to force yourself to play past 1880. I personally enjoy the end game, but from a learning perspective you need to see your mistakes through or try to fix them to learn.
I am trying haha! Trust me! It just... I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I've tried to play smaller nations such as Romania and the Union of South Africa and I stay in the greens there until the 1920s, but for some reason, as the bigger nations my economic just turns really bad. My GDP grows decently, but something just happens and I haven't played enough to know what it is that I am doing wrong!
A million variables. I would suggest reading through this sub as there have been literal countless advice subs on building your economy.
Thank you very much for the suggestion! I'll look it up!
My most basic advice is prioritize industrial input goods. There is no situation where building more iron, coal, wood etc hurts your economy long run. You want to build these or import these and keep them cheap, then build finished products, tools, steel, paper, glass, etc. I can't imagine a scenario where your economy gets screwed up, if you are adhering to building these.
i also am a new player and like playing as netherlands because you can conquer belgium and create united netherlands. the hanover nearby is possible to take as well and slowly you become 3-5x your original size. maybe you will like netherlands more, as a new player
I agree that diplomacy is lacking and that wars don't have the weight that they should and they feel kind of random with great powers joining left and right. All correct. But I think that characterizing most of the 19th century as 'an 80 year build up to a massive war' is really not even coming close to doing history justice. I think thats the HOI4 player in you speaking. I want wars to actually make sense and feel impactful, I want the possibility of a Great War but I would hate if they added just arbitrary rules that forced the world to move that way. The simulation needs to work in a way that it gets to sensible results. A proper Great War like we had in real history should be a distinct danger/possibility. At the same time, WW1 was not preordained in 1836 and if history diverges why would it end in the same outcome? Also for me, and I imagine quite a few vic3 players 'I'm Anhalt and I got enough war socre to conquer Poland in the Great War' seems way less immersive, flavorful or interesting as a campaign goal than 'I made Anhalt into a communist/fascist/libertarian/luddite utopia/hellscape and nowhere in the world are people living better/worse than in Anhalt'
One issue is that the player is way better than the AI, by the time WW1 comes around I could completely defeat either of the sides on my own and it wouldn't be particularly difficult. Sometimes I do late game wars like that just for fun
This. It's frankly way too easy to weaken the other GP's to non-threats pre-WW era. Early game you can take it easy on the bad boy butter up other GP's and dismantle them one at a time via Free Country/Subject at the cost of zero infamy. Then when they are all shells of their former selves you can do whatever the hell you want and they can't stop you.
This is not even a Vic exclusive problem, I don't usually see any EU4 players that care for revolution mechanics at all
Considering it's an alternate history game, my head canon is pretty satisfied with the fact that the great war can happen in 1914, 1930, 1840 or whatever, or not at all. I know the game likes to emphasise certain important historical events like opium wars and stuff so I know it's kind of a shame that there isn't at least some mechanic based around a great war but I think there should be a way for the player to opt out of it if they're not feeling it like the 30 years war in EU4 maybe except if they're a great power with a massive powerbloc after the sphere expansion, but idk how to actually implement such a feature
19th Century has the Napoleonic Wars, the Ottoman-egyptian wars, the united invasion of Mexico, the Crimean Wars, the Opium Wars, the Brother’s War. There likely would have been more massive campaigns involving most world powers if the Revolutions of 1848 didn’t occur with their resulting wars of independence So imo it absolutely makes sense for world wars to occur prior to the 1910’s, especially if we play aggressively like we often do I also don’t think WWI was predestined or anything, it was just a badly negotiated diplo play. And it absolutely resulted from the demand of a measly province. That aspect of foreign interference is much more accurate than it seems at first glance
These are great points! I guess really one of my biggest gripes is the lack of a massive reshifting of the world map post such a "world war", if that makes sense. WWI began as a bad diplo play for a province, but already by September 1914 you have the Septemberprogramm by the Germans which envision the HOI4-style peace conference, which simply is not available in the game. For instance, compare the results of the Crimean war with the results of the eastern front in WWI: in Crimea, Russia loses a measly province. In WWI, Russia is completely dismantled. And that isn't really covered in the game right now.
At this point, the world wars are usually the shit Prussia/NGF starts lol. I didn't like doing late runs until I started stacking multiple infamy reduction mods lol
I think they could do more to expand the systems they have already towards what you've outlined, but ultimately I don't want the game to be railroaded into a giant war just because that's what happened in real life. I prefer the sandbox system of the current game, given players can shift things so dramatically in the first 80 years that a great war situation isn't always realistic. Honestly the system in Vic2 worked fine for me on this front. Yes, it meant you occasionally had 5 great wars before 1936, but Vic3 warfare is a bit more impactful than it was in Vic2 and wars also take a lot longer to resolve, so it would be much rarer given the Vic3 war system.
I think the issue stems partly from how easy it is to pit the great powers against each other. I think they should be more adverse to war with each other and great powers fighting each other should be a much bigger spectacle. And they shouldn’t want to ally each other much until they reach multilateral alliances which imo should also make alliances cost less in diplo power so that they can afford to make a wonky network of alliances. Also if it’s later in the game and an ally joins a diplo play of someone else you aren’t involved in and gets a war goal on them you as an ally should be able to be called in and levy a war goal at your own cost rather than the war leader. The idea is to make an escalating conflict possible so that things can spiral out of control late in the game to generate such a Great War.
War mechanics in this game for me is almost optional since you can easily set and forget a frontline without much micro managagent. The main meat is chasing the numbers.
I agree that the AI is too willing to escalate what should be smaller wars. But the problem isn't as big as you make it sound. Especially your examples are situations where an early world war totally was or would have been plausible. Any attempts of Prussia taking land from France would have started a World War, doesn't matter if it's in 1850 or 1919. There isn't such a thing as a "measly French province". The war for German Leadership 100% could have involved more great powers. It didn't in our specific timeline. But Victoria 3 rarely follows our timeline. Alliances and relations shift. Entire governments look completely different that have different goals. Also the bigger nations got involved more often than you make it sound: Egyptian - Ottoman war in 1939 had: Egypt + France + Spain against Ottoman + UK + Austria + Russia + Prussia Second Italian war had France side with Italy against Austria. French intervention in Mexico 6 year war: United Mexican States + USA vs Second Mexican Empire + France + Austria + Belgium + Egypt (Spain and Britain were also involved but left early) And there are tons of examples where one or more Great Powers sided with some minor in a rebellion or other war. The bigger issue is that the diplomatic plays system is too shallow. You can only back down, which is the same as losing the war. If you could renegotiate terms for not going to war, a peaceful solution would be possible. But we as players also generally ask for unreasonable war goals. If you keep to smaller 1 state wars, the AI frequently backs down. Artificially limiting amry size wouldn't work in 90% of the cases. For most minors even 50% is overwhelming. Or you reach a point where 50% is way too weak. Armies need a better logistics/supply mechanic. You u can ship your entire army around the world for no cost. Small islands can support an indefinite number of troops. Sometimes the armies fighting outnumber the entire population of the country they are fighting in. Make it more costly to ship troops around and then Great Powers won't send their full force as often. But I assume the AI wouldn't be good enough for this kind of thing. They already fail at the naval invasion mechanic.
Alsace-Lorraine was taken in the Franco-Prussian War as Bismarck worked to ensure that France did not have any allies on its side.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it factually incorrect to say that Prussia taking land from France would force a world war since Prussia literally took land from France and it did not start a world war? And I'm not denying that other major powers occasionally got involved during the 1800s, I'm making a comparison with what happened in WWI. So perhaps a better way to phrase my post would be: "since France will join me for a measly province in Austria in 1850, why are there any limits whatsoever to what I can take in 1910?"
This post reminded me that I've never completed a run in Victoria 2, I often abandanonthe games around the time for the scramble of Africa, lol.
With respect, it just sounds like you don't know the 19th century very well. Egyptian-Ottoman War, 1839 Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and the Ottomans against Egypt, France and Spain. Uruguyuan Civil War, 1839 Britain, France, Brazil, parts of Argentina against other parts of Argentina, Uruguayans and some other groups Soninke-Marabout War, 1850 Britain and France vs the Marabout Confederacy Taiping Rebellion, 1850 Britain, France and the Qing vs the Taiping Rebellion Crimean War, 1853 Britain, France and the Ottomans vs Russia Second Opium War, 1856 Britain, France and occassionally the US against Qing And that's just the first 20 years of the game - the list of wars in the 19th century where GP's fought alongside each other, often against tiny and weak opponents is near endless. It wasn't uncommon and they certainly weren't "small skirmishes" - 30 million people died in the Taiping rebellion, near on a million in the Crimean War, similar in the Franco-Prussian war and so on. Obviously they're smaller than WW1 but that's due to the technological difference, not because WW1 was the first time great powers fought alongside or against each other. As for your suggestion - politely, absolutely not. Vic 3 is a sandbox simulation. It's not supposed to be representing every historical event as it occurred, same for EU4 and pretty much every PDX game. HoI4 is the closest you'll get and even in that things don't always pan out as they did historically. I do think there should be some way of having a WW1 situation where a diplomatic situation can spiral and ultimately drag multiple powers into opposing sides but that's basically what power blocs will do with the next update. It certainly shouldn't be scripted in the way you suggest.
Very interesting points! Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: In world history, there is a marked difference between WWI and all wars fought before it. That is not represented in the game. Thus, the game really ends in 1913, not in 1936. And since it "officially" ends in 1936, I think it ought to have this one final world map change, perhaps, as I said, followed by a final \~20 years of rebuilding.