Victoria 3 Has a Problem with History

[@The9thPersonman]

Me and my friends have said that prices for transportation and electricity should be region based, although infra should still be province based. It'd make more sense with the modifiers for electricity for sure

[@tomrichards9895]

I just came to the comments to suggest the exact same thing - glad that others are thinking about this too!

[@empereurloutre]

It's a compromise I could get behind, full local good is not very fun.

[@midnatts-kornajoel2224]

Perhaps with a -10% market access price

[@anotherfreeroller]

I was thinking of an adjacency mechanic - a power plant in one state could provide for all neighboring tiles, potentially with MAPI mod. I think I like you guys's idea better, though!

[@FairyRat]

That would also potentially allow for importing and exporting electricity which makes sense IRL too (maybe even railways? Like connecting 2 countries so that both can benefit). I like your idea of region-based accessibility.

[@pelayla]

bluds the devious yapper

[@Trokovski]

6 yes

[@oxjmanxo]

Wrong answer sorry go uninstall Victoria 3

[@Trokovski]

@@oxjmanxo we shall not capitulate!

[@edis0088]

Same here

[@l.s.9095]

7 and yes

[@vasukushalnagar4087]

yes

[@blorger]

yes

[@jakalordarkblood4331]

Yes.

[@Alabamanhistorian]

Yes

[@Monexus109]

I think Victoria has still a long way to go, with many mechanics being unpolished or nonexisting. I just hope that they will try to build up on historical events more, in some form.

[@aksmex2576]

You go to the restaurant to buy cooked food.

[@Monexus109]

@@aksmex2576 It annoys me as well, but thats just the way most Grand Strategy Games do it.

[@thegamer-jz5du]

Like most have said, I really don't like how they put mechanics that were in previous titles behind paywalls. It's ridiculous. We could have had a finished base game with dlc that would have added more unique mechanics that weren't in previous titles or possible at that time. But instead, we have to wait for them to re-add features and hope they don't abandon the game after that.

[@Bleilock1]

They will abandon it like imperator rome when eut5 comes out So dont hold your breath for too long

[@oc8636]

Me when I am in 2024 and the majority of people agree with buying unfinished products for tenfold of its prices from 10 years ago:

[@logoncal3001]

6 I have a small academic knowledge on history tho i dont feel desperate to see my pdx games overwhelmed with total historical plausibility or accuracy, because such thing would be so complex and extensive it would be enormous and worst of all, taxing and laggy. Case in point, games like HOI4 and EU4 are fine on their historicity. Want to go further? Mods like... Dare i say, BLACKICE and Atlas Novum exists for you to witness what true historical plausibility and accuracy is. In the end tho, i love a occasional "Why the hell is China naval invading mexico" moments. It makes pdx games memorable

[@judas1100]

8

[@guahlg2834]

I would honestly not disapprove of an one hour long video about this subject.

[@yarknergin4424]

Yes! There's a contingency of the audience that can listen to you yap about these things for hours. @Tarkusarkusar

[@artem_yo312]

Local electricity and transportation prevent a problem when a single country in a market dominates elec/transport production of the whole market. Which does not make sense if it is not adjacent to other countries in the market. But instead of that, brings a problem with tediousness. Imo best solution would be "continental prices" or which would be even more fun for an economic simulator, custom electric networks and transportation lines. Imagine cutting a bad vassal away from the power XD

[@Tarkusarkusar]

This definitely speaks to the heart of the issue. realism/historicity-wise, electricity as a market good across the world is too unreasonable to be allowed, and yet making it a total local good is just way too much tedium. Continental access sounds like a nice middle ground.

[@axiomsofdominion]

@@Tarkusarkusar I think a key driving force of the tedium vs history issue is that Victoria 3, and virtually every strategy game ever made including CK3, are infinitely ahistorical. While I disagree with Rosencreutz in some cases as far as his player autocracy video, the general idea is good. If the player wasn't roleplaying the infamous Morning Light Mountain then we could have localized economics without being buried in a pile of drudgery. You'd also solve dozens(millions?) of other complaints involving both historicity and tedium. Of course then you have to address the computer control issues that plague many strategy games. Sad times.

[@marcbecker1431]

Perhaps something where electricity generation is initially local and additional techs expand it to neighboring states and then up to 2 states away, representing developing grid technologies.

[@EkrothEkronicus]

I just know for a fact, that this video is going to be epic

[@hahahahahah7257]

Hë had a vision

[@justinchase6666]

So yes or no, did you stop beating your wife?

[@benoe9100]

Not having military access is so frustrating. In my first Prussia game I declared war on Denmark with quite literally no navy bc of course Prussia would just walk to schleswig. But no ended up having a super long war bc I needed to build a navy to beat fucking Denmark which is like 10% of my army size while Schleswig is right there connected to Germany and all my sphere of influence....

[@urknall2010]

In my games, no matter what I do France always joins on Denmarks side.

[@ThunderNorse]

What I hate with eu4 is that by the 1600s most of the world has the same tech.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I really couldn't agree more, i actively don't play past researching electricity because managing it all just sucks. I personally think that historically accuracy should never impead on player enjoyment.

[@christianthompson7915]

i usually play past the invention of electricity but never turn on any electric requiring PMs

[@vampireknight5821]

I do want to point out that HOI4 is alot less historically accurate (just look at China) although there are entire MODS which fix that

[@connorgaming2313]

I'd say hoi4 is more historically accurate but only because that game is shorter

[@pedronabais1456]

​@@connorgaming2313i mean it just matters at the starting map after that hoi4 will always be more realistic bc it's rail roaded

[@Cigmacica]

​@@pedronabais1456it even is all that railroaded, the amounts of times i’ve seen germany stomp the urss even in historical is astonishing

[@pedronabais1456]

@@Cigmacica i mean the ussr would have a really really hard time without the aid and then d-day and sending supplies and naval invasions are two of the things the ai really struggles with

[@thegamer-jz5du]

​@pedronabais1456 That's the main problem with most recent strategy games: they never try to make their AI competent most of the time, only making uo for it by giving it cheats. I could understand if working on good AI players would take a long time and stuff.

[@kauz33]

Honestly? i think individual characters not being the focus makes sense in a game that tries to characterizes social currents more, otto von bismarck was a great stateman, but his ideology was conservatism in the purest political sense, concede what you can"t win, and assimilate what you can, foreing policy wise, he didn't create Realpoliticks, he just was the best representation of it because of how masterful (or not, depending on the historian) he handle foreing entanglements. What the game does do poorly in a semi-cinical way is portraying foreing policy as ONLY realpolitiks, even though that wasn't and still isn't like that at all

[@Tarkusarkusar]

I think you're right that the game doesn't have to center around individuals, but I think that what historical individuals represent should be focused on more. If Bismarck represents staunch conservatism, then his appearance in the country should be associated with a rise in that conservatism. Instead he just is a royalist.

[@kauz33]

@@Tarkusarkusar i think the game currently has too much of a simplified law system to portray that, example. Health systems, public ones, are they pension based like the bismark one? do they allow private healthcare to exist in some way? are foreingners eligible? public school system. do they still allow private school system to exist? can religious schools still operate ? what kind of curriculum is it? does it discriminate, assimilate or is a more pluralistc one? are woman allowed to it or they must go to separate schools? there is definetly a room for am admendment system to be implemented in the barebones law system that could make certain characters more unique and representative to what they actually defendend

[@electricangel4488]

​@@kauz33you could just have guys like bismark, lincoln, brown, marx, etc. Be GREAT man in history that roll around and you need too deal with. Men in line with you be assets and Men in opposition cause problems and need too be dealth with like marx.

[@hirocheeto7795]

@@electricangel4488 Then we fall into the issue in pretending that the Great Man theory actually has any weight. Sure, they're influential, but they shouldn't be forces in and of themselves. They should add pressure (in an abstract sense) towards certain social/political directions, and that pressure can either ebb or mount with other pressures depending on the environment of the country. But happening to have Marx show up in your country shouldn't then lead to a battle with a growing Communist movement.

[@electricangel4488]

@@hirocheeto7795 durring that time there where just men that inovated and changed the world. There a thing too manage and cultivate or manage and reduce. The tsar had a man like that Sergei Witte who build thr trans siberia litterally building russia. But later he was sacked because he dint fit thr government. And russia went down hill. I do believe greatmen history id true. But history is far more filled with side chakters anf background then main chrakters. Irronically hamilton is 1 of those sillent forces so are modt of the english civilwar besides cromwell.

[@512TheWolf512]

it's crazy how many problems are caused by the crazy stupid idea of frontlines with no individual units on the map. and paradox were told this all the time since day one.

[@WTF2BlueTiger]

I really despise journal entries, theyre unclear, random, never shows what rewards you get just says you get a random event you have no idea what it does unless you played it before or looked it up before, most of them are not worth it, and some have entirely unexplained goals like unifiying italy (one of the ways) by just waiting until states feel like saying yes, it doesnt tell you how you can speed up the process except by supporting radicals which also isnt entirely explained as to how it really helps you besides adding more randomness to the mix Still like victoria 3 but it feels more like the failed mission system of imperator rome, which was by no means a bad game, but the mission system was so weak and boring, and mostly pointless except a few buttons

[@GladkiyElisey]

IMO, Victoria is generally drawn with very broad strokes. You always either can or cannot/have to make very inconvenient things to do as you want, there are no other way and no indirect influence (asides from IG's influence). It's always the maximum or nothing. If you change a head of an IG, the previous one dies. If you need to change IG's ideology, you have to physically remove people. If you abdicated 5 years ago, you need to wait for eternity until the next abdication. If you need a military access, you have to declare a war. If troops are located in Bali, they will protect whole Indonesia. If something happened with frontline, your troops go directly to your capital. It starts to look a bit grotesque, when you think about it.

[@immotion665]

I honestly have so much respect for these game devs. Even though things aren't perfect, but the fact that these devs have been able to create even a half decent abstraction while being a relatively small team with only a couple years is still incredibly commendable.

[@fenixman2]

'only a couple years' you mean only a couple decades?

[@Hello-oe7wg]

Bruh small team? Short development? Are you high?

[@immotion665]

@@Hello-oe7wg obviously it's not some indie studio, but compared to AAA teams, yes, small team. Hell, the team is smaller than most of the other paradox teams iirc.

[@immotion665]

@@fenixman2 yeah it's taken a while, no doubt because the team ran into countless problems in development due to how complicated the systems are. All I'm saying is it's easy for us to criticise, but it's commendable that they've simply come short of their vision, as opposed to crashing and burning entirely, game Dev is complicated.

[@Hello-oe7wg]

@@immotion665 I thought selling a game unfinished and running away from development is a suing material... I can't believe that some people geniunely applaud vic 3 team for not abandoning vic 3 when it is a bare minimum that they stick with it after charging 60 dollars for unfinished game.

[@Chummbo]

Hands down this is the best Victoria 3 video ever. All this time, I've been frustrated with the game for so long without knowing exactly why, but watching this video, you basically laid all my thoughts out on paper. I'm someone who tends to view broader history in the light of being "the story of humankind." At heart, I'm drawn to stories, and I truly believe everyone else is as well. Yet, Victoria 3 seems to lack that "soul" (for lack of eloquency unlike you, my good sir) that truly allows players to experience a unique story of their own. I won't reiterate what you said or go crazy here, haha, but you've really opened up an important discussion that I believe the Victoria 3 community really needs to have. What a Gigachad

[@socialroman]

Especially your last point is completely valid for me. Last week I did a France into Roman Empire run and as I was finished and clicked the button there was nothing. In the game of course nothing, I didn't expected anything to say the least (I don´t even know if you can form the empire in vanilla), but I "feeled" nothing. It was just one giant empire which changed its colour and name. This lacking emersion really hurts if you are playing minor nations. I don´t have any interest in playing some German minor, even if it´s my "home country". And local electricity sucks so much that I often finish my runs if I hit a point where I would need it to process. As it stands, I don´t expect any perfect historical game, but more flavour etc.

[@LemonCake101]

Victoria was never installed. Also your never getting a comment out of me!

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Damn, I was really hoping for a comment one day. Now I'm sad

[@Chewie260]

Personally my biggest issue is the lack of international markets. Its what makes playing every nation honestly feel micro intensive as hell or same. Every nation basically goes through the exact same industrialization process because of that. Spam iron and wood, then move into steel spam, then into ... etc etc. Its the exact same progression system because of the locked markets. You could buy stuff on the market, but that involves micro-ing a bunch of 5 resource routs.

[@jakman2179]

I think the problem with how war is done is that it's flat and armies are not real. They don't take up space. An army can't defend a state from anything but a naval invasion, while an army that gets flanked from a second front may as well not exist. If the armies were "physically" there on the map like other entries, it would solve the problem, but with how small the sections of the map are it's impractical. They would either need to reduce that down, or create a functional management AI to control armies on those small scales in such a big world, neither of which seem likely. Simplest answer on that end though, allow garrisoned armies to defend on all fronts in that state/region. It would help out a lot. With diplomatic plays, the problem is that it defaults to "Or war", there's no way to make a goal clear to the AI and pursue it in a (mostly) peaceful way. Instead, it would be better for diplomatic plays to be replaced with a similar idea like a Diplomatic Goal. You state publicly what you want to the world, it could be benign or offensive, but in general it doesn't lead to anything. Instead, it has a "Tension" meter, where the more aggressively you pursue it, and the more pushback you get the more likely it leads to war, with of course the obvious possibility that you want to go to war and so you escalate. This could easily be integrated with the current Foreign Lobby mechanic. Such plays could also be used for making colonial claims, and the like, with maybe a critical mass of colonial claims causing a big conference of colonial powers (Scramble for Africa). Diplomatic plays should feel like a mix of a bargaining system and a card game. Bargains for what you're offering in return, and card game for what you're threatening. The last thing I'd like to see is a more concrete connection of economic power to political power and influence abroad, something like what bureaucracy currently is, but expanded to both authority and influence.

[@manana1444]

I don't mind historical implausible events happening from time to time, however the more implausible the event the rare the chances should be. [7]

[@tuesdaynightvibin5200]

Nice argument. Unfortunately for you, minor spelling mistake (Channel name is made up and therefore doesn't have proper spelling)

[@Tarkusarkusar]

It's so joever

[@lullebulle7644]

electricity and transportation should be regular market goods, but with something like a -40% MAPI to encourage local but not require it

[@TheRyuSword]

Local goods are bad, a regions mechanic for goods would have been better. Higher MAPI inside their home region, base game’s current system in neighboring regions, and then lower MAPI in other regions. This system also replacing Local Goods means those goods are less horrible to work with and make more sense.

[@jacrispymcrib9992]

I've been playing a mod for Vic 2 called the Grand Combination, and it's basically on the other end of what you talk about with history. Countries like the UK have probably 500 decisions, intended to railroad the AI into acting historically, or reasonably if something happens (like the Confederate winning the Civil war). This is cool, and it's cool to play countries that normally don't have many decisions which now have several, but it also makes countries like UK, France, Prussia totally unplayable (at least to me) because there are so many decisions

[@Haalaine]

For the initial question, historical accuracy is a high 7 for me, perhaps just actually an 8. And yes, immersion does matter to me a lot. I'll admit I'm definitely a biased consumer of Paradox games, being a historian by trade, and especially of Victoria with my focus being on 19th century geo-economics. But as nonetheless a consumer, I personally love local goods like electricity and transportation for the mini-game it creates (at least in theory) of developing your urban centers and either consolidating wealth and development there or creating the circumstances where it can be expanded outwards to bring in more people, money, and resources. If anything, I'd like to see more of the economy be localized, with a more elaborate transport access and local price simulation requiring more care into the development of a multitude of centers and the connections between them. I recognize that's something that most other players don't want or feel would make things too micro, but I'm of the opinion that having that localized economy would allow for better development of national and international market systems and, at least for me, would absolutely increase my enjoyment of the game.

[@msadventurecomedy]

Local rail is okay, local electricity is a huge headache. Maybe that's due to the stage of the game in which these appear. I have far fewer industries, less construction, and fewer states when it's time to build rail. If I want to switch a production method to electricity, now there's a huge web of micromanagement. I could see myself enjoying a national system for both rail and electricity, where building a rail or electricity "HQ" in a state gives a mix of local state good and national good. If I build a bunch of rail HQ in a nice flat state, other flat states could benefit (maybe based on distance from HQ?), but a mountain state might still require more direct investment for verisimilitude. A different idea (or perhaps just the above reworked to fit more easily into the existing Vic 3 systems), transportation and electricity work like construction output. Your population and industry levels determine your needs, but rail and power in any state contribute to the national pool, which can serve demand in any/every state. Maybe you can get local transportation/electricity efficiency bonuses in states with actual rail or power buildings.

[@Salsome]

I feel like the only time really when i felt immersed and fully lost myself in victoria 3 is when i had the “Morgenröte - Dawn of Flavor” mod, even some more simpler mods have made me fall in love with the game again, or even a mod as simple as adding time-appropriate music to the game changed a lot for me, most of the time when i play vicki 3 i feel like i just wanna pull my hair out.

[@karstenkunneman5219]

One of my biggest issues with victoria 3 is how advanced Africa and southeast Asia will get without any European intervention. I'm sorry, but if you left alone the Zulus, even to this very day, I doubt they would have built railroads.

[@Bleilock1]

I wouldnt call colonization intervention

[@karstenkunneman5219]

@@Bleilock1 regardless, my point still stands

[@tankinamall8760]

Electricity should allow transmission to other states however will only do so when the infra level is high enough. For instance if two bordering state has 10 infra level then they will be able to share electricity. Higher infra means higher mapi and some electric companies will give mapi boost.

[@carltonleboss]

Very nice video, Tarkus. Can't wait for more CK3 videos when Roads to Power comes out.

[@sibbuiland9859]

5 and yes

[@jakengegen8699]

6 yes (at least that my was my immediate answer when i watched it yesterday) I do like local prices but I think infrastructure buildings could be automated. I was thinking of a template system for each state (like division templates in HoI4) where when you research electricity then you add power plants in the templates you want instead of in every the state. Then those power plants would be added to the construction queue automatically along with future adjustments on the template or when changing a state's template. You could even add construction in the template, since it doesn't make sense 20 construction building in Europe making a port to a port-less province you took from China without a problem. But I totally understand why no one would want to manage construction building in each province individually if something like that was asked with the current system for roads and electricity. I made these thoughts while taking a shower and no one told me I'm wrong there, therefore I'm right.

[@WaterZer0]

They released the game in alpha, and we're still not in beta. It's shameful, and the dev team has blamed players for problems the team created.

[@wotanvonedelsburg1610]

Even johan abondend the early project of this game.

[@sirjmo]

about a 6 or 7 and yes it has to be at least on the side of plausible but shouldn't get in the way of fun. As for local vs global, it just has to be justified for what it represents. I'd like to think of electricity as a connected landborder good and transportation/infrastructure as the local quality of it. The military access thing is what broke me in stellaris, where I couldn't get to a awakened empire because of closed borders, meanwhile they could come to me I was by far the most powerful empire in the galaxy, who would say no to me strolling my battlefleet through their territory? apparently everyone who still had a truce timer with me, which also didn't make sense as a I was either a devouring swarm or driven exterminator, can't remember which but I shouldn't care about truces. The main issue with PDX nowadays is that diplomacy feels too much like you're just checking boxes till you match a score instead of how a real person would broker a deal/mediate, creating a rivalry/partnership instead of a one time check if you pass the score or not.

[@chronnyc]

8, yes

[@guahlg2834]

YES! Finally another Tarkus video!

[@lightmarkal273]

I have to finish the video still but you HAVE to do one about that Pope -> Italy run you're doing in the background. Shooting up at third GP after unification as Italy is crazy

[@thoronirgros188]

IMO any mechanic in the game that breaks immersion so bad it breaks the feeling of history is a negative. The meta shouldn't be about growing your population with mass immigration and constant wars. It's like they mixed the US and Russian model and applied it to the whole world. It feels terrible when playing countries that didn't function like this at all.

[@axiomsofdominion]

Basically no Paradox games are capable of differentiating different polities. Because the represent basically none of the things that made polities different. Look at Imperator. I love it but playing Rome doesn't really feel Roman. It doesn't represent anything meaningfully that made Rome unique.

[@thoronirgros188]

@@axiomsofdominion They definitely can they just decided to make a sandbox with almost no restrictions. Just look at the focus trees and national spirits in HOI4. They can give countries a lot of flavor with just a couple modifiers.

[@andrewfowens]

Truly terrible realization that I might have more than 8500 of map staring under my belt

[@user-xq3vt3co7r]

In Rule the Waves 3, player takes role of something like a naval minister (Head of the Admiralty, etc.). There is no way to directly control roughly simulated diplomacy, and no way to directly control where or which forces enter a naval battle. Former makes sense, naval minister has only so much control over foreign policy, and there is a way to nudge it through your reactions to random events. Latter makes zero sense and results in combination of accidental comedy and infuriating stupidity, where game tries to place German battlecruiser force into Bay of Biscay during German war with both France and GB. However, both mechanics are equally maddening. I think, and this is a very safe opinion, that main purpose of a game - any game - is fun and fantasy associated with play. In case of RtW3, this fantasy is taking lead of a nation's fleet on a global scale. Another mechanic in this game is ship designer, where it allows you to customise every aspect of a new ship class. Does it make sense that a man with a high ministerial position to micromanage ship design process? Not nesessarily, but it is fun, and it is fun to watch and steer this ship during next big naval battle. There is always a tough balancing act between simulation (which can be fun), accuracy (including of historical kind, and which can also be satisfying), game restrictions (which separate it from pure fantasy or roleplay), fantasy of a game, and physical reality (in this case, coding and hardware).

[@draganescuconstantin2380]

Very well said. I only played a little Vic3 but to me the game felt empty and unrewarding. Like I'll either thrive by abusing broken game mechanics and bullying AI nations, or I will be the one getting bullied by AI great powers for no reason and screwed over by broken mechanics. In comparison, CK3 (which is as deep as a children's pool when it comes to complexity) gives you a lot more space to play whatever role you want in the world. You're expressing yourself through the game, which Vic3 doesn't really accomplish.

[@janipiot]

A way to balance local goods/prices would be to only consider goods that exist in one or 2 states over. So a powerplant in NY could power PA and Maryland, and imported silk would only reach 1 province inland from a port (+2 if a railway connection exists and another +2 if there are automobiles). It doesn't make sense to have textile mills in Nebraska weave silken gown for the cowboy aristocracy. Or to make it more dynamic, make MAPI multiply the further away you get from a port or the source of a good, so if you're 3 provinces away and have 0.85 MAPI, the price of silk would be modified by 0.85^3, making it so that it's not worth to make luxury clothes in Nebraska. Or central russia for that matter.

[@hoctongac8994]

The soundtracks of Endless Legend are so good even after all these years

[@ryankasch5561]

As someone who still hasn't bought vic3 because it seemed like it wouldnt fix some of the historicity problems of vic2, I often watch videos like this, think of getting the game, and then again see completely ahistoric mass migration and lose all interest. Ah yes, the era of nationalism has levels of unrestricted immigration not seen until the 21st century. For other pdx games I initially thought my score might be low, but then I remembered my issue with CK3 culture hybridization and conversion and got annoyed. States should be much more static culturally than they are, its so annoying that Castille just accepts an Andalusian and byzantium allows an emperor to be bulgar for generations rather than being assimilated into the nobility/populaces culture. That and getting annoyed by geographically bonkers expansions that happen a lot in the 867 start.

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Man, this guy’s videos slap even when he’s not playing! 😆

[@jetex1911]

I always thought they were alt-history games.

[@AlexWajoe]

I believe the diplomatic play feature is by far the worst thing they have added, it is so excruciatingly limiting and outright annoying at times that I just refuse to use it unless I have to. not being able to call allies in during the war is also kind of an L on historicality. Also building ownership and companies is kind of a mid feature, the company takes it's profit from all buildings in the nation while I believe they should make it so companies act similar to financial districts and expand on their own and only own their buildins (Could make it so the player can use money and buildings that are nationalised to start off a company and depending on how large this company grows they may give bigger bonuses) idk this is just a thought but companies now are straight lame. As for military access i think they could have fixed this by giving everyone in the market military access for one another or well now the power block and schleswig holstein war could just add a pro-prussian uprising in there that the prussians could move units into so they dont have to do naval invasions for some reason or make power block leaders be capable of forcing a lesser member to join a war on their side because as of now german unification just sucks. Another thing I dislike is how Italy or sardinia-piedmont gives shitton of industry away for a singular obligation which the french dont even follow half the time. I believe they should add a system similar to ck3 where there are weak obligations and strong ones just unlike in ck3 strong obligations are one time use too. As for international trade, it sucks too it is barely useful overall. Electricity I think they could just add a building like a substation in one of the last techs which allows the construction of these to make local electricity needs be replaced with the "grids" electricity needs idk if this would be historically accurate tho, this also brings in automation especially about production methods because as it is now going in that menu and doing that stuff yourself is kinda time intensive i think adding a button for the buildings to automatically use the newest or best available production method is better. The goods distribution should be changed so that goods that go through 8 states gotta pay the transportation cost for those eight states and not only the one they come from.

[@eleanorgreywolfe5142]

A source of frustration for me, especially when playing Japan, is literally no GP demands i open my markets, which the US historically did, which was a point that led to the restoration but i have played Japan multiple and it never happens which makes it difficult to kick the Shogunate out unless i just resort to gamey measures and delete armies so i can civil war against them easier. It's just a very unsatisfying feeling when the AI seems incapable of even the basic historical things.

[@comrad_dytar8633]

One of my biggest gripe with the game as of today is the war. Yes the warfare sucks but it's not just that, I think it works okay on small scales but the thing is that there's never small scale war. AI GPs love to intervene in every god damned regional conflict accross the globe and send tens of thousands to the meat grinder for the smallest grain of sand, it's ridiculous. This harms both gameplay (makes you focus on warfare, the least interesting part of the game) and historicity/immersion : the game feels less much less believable when WW1, a global meat grinder that shattered the world politicaly, diplomaticaly and ideologically, happens every wednesday

[@R3L4X97]

0:52 way ahead of you. I haven't even bought the game nor do I intend to

[@Tarkusarkusar]

GIGACHAD

[@TheDolphinTuna]

Electricity and railroads should be province based, and should also be restricted based on terrain like in Vicky 2. I liked my rail network weaving around the mountains as it develops.

[@Makofueled]

Endless legend music over a nice talk. Yummy.

[@CSDragon]

I don't really have an issue with local power generation, it still takes the exact same number of power plants to electrify your country. If a state is so poor that it can't support 1 full power plant, just don't electrify that state

[@llamaboioflusatia]

I play Stellaris primarily, so imma go with 1

[@elimgarak8785]

I read over a few comments, though I can have fun playing Vicky 3, I’ve never had any nailbiters like I did in Vic 2, for example, the Civil War in Vic 2 needed several things, and the CSA got some good commanders that could make it last a few years. I still hate the war mechanic, and I loved the transition from the EU style death stack of 1 million men to the HoI style front lines

[@HeroNotFound05]

The game originally was a lot closer to real history on release in some ways, but they have taken liberties and augmented small things like the connection in Prussia for the sake of making the game fun to play, and I’m alright with making small sacrifices like that for the sake of fun and playability

[@pyroparagon8945]

8. It should be generally plausible, minus 2 for a bit of unpredictability and "rule of cool" adding flavor. Is it really plausible for ww2 Italy to restore the Roman Empire with trajan borders? Not really, but it is pretty cool and players like it, plus it makes for a nice challenge.

[@pyroparagon8945]

Yes, immersion is the basis of grand strategy games. This is why Crusader Kings is indisputably the best paradox property, it's easier to be immersed as the leader (the man) as he goes about his daily life rather than being some kind of ambiguous, esoteric "state" like you are in eu4. As a king in ck3, you play as a king. A man who declares wars and manages counties, sure, but also a man who loves his children, who celebrates his birthdays and prays for a better future. Or doesn't pray, if he's cynical. As eu4, you may be a king but the name rarely matters and the face isn't even shown, you're not really them.

[@M30W3R]

Most "history based" games today incur in what I like to call "The Numbers Game" (or Numberwang for those who know). When I look at a HoI4 unit my first interest is how much soft attack it does and what modifier it gets to movement. When I look at a Total War unit moving on the field I just think it's my little men building a better Medieval France. There is an immense drive in modern games to make everything as cut and dry as possible, meaning that you need to access all the data to make the most informed decisions immediately, and it's done sacrificing a lot of the UI, the settings and ultimately the experience. Look at any of Paradox games, especially the later ones, and the screens are absolutely chock full of information. HoI3, for all its flaws, looks like an actual war game, as in the historical definition of one rather than the videogame one. Vicky 2 and HoI4 don't look like worlds with living, breathing people so much as playable blobs of color.

[@robertagren9360]

Each region is a country. And that is an issue when countries are one nation. You never get to break down the barriers. Or create them.

[@turmuthoer]

The lack of historical immersion is the primary reason why I just can't get into CK3 like I can CK2.

[@friarnausk5586]

I’d give my historical plausibility a 6. There were a lot of break points in history where some people got insanely lucky or unlucky that could have gone any number of ways like the Conquistadors that I’m ok with seeing not happen, but there’s a lot that I kind of just throw my hands up and go “ok I guess” that pdx really seems to like to do with its “alt history mission tree content” for eu4 and hoi4 in particular. I like to see the modeling for *why* things happen as they did, and in some cases struggle upstream to change that. But that modeling should probably have a certain way things go.

[@SDM-Zone]

I'd say a 6. I'd personally prefer a modelled electric grid with like its own minigame functionality. I really liked the feeling of franticly industrializing as a desperate Alexi Gastev Soviet Union, managing building dams and doing all these focuses to fix all their problems in a short amount of time feels good when the threat of war and annihilation hangs over you. It would be nice if something like that was modelled in more detail at a higher level so we could hand wave a lot of backend logistics. Because I value things that are theoretically plausible then being expanded and developed. For me the best feelings are when I develop a good character when playing these games. I love eu4 mods like Lost Odyssey and Post Finem because they really develop a nations character well. Like I like when nations have transformations or different outcomes and develop into something different. I don't think a bigger Morroco would stay Morroco once they conquered Spain and all of Arabia for example. Hoi4 mods does this well with vibes with the focuses changing everything about your country and making you feel like you are setting the ground work for a new nation. This can also be clearly insane btw. We don't necessarily know how these alt histories would work, but some really wacky stuff happened in our world, I'd say if its slightly more implausible than the weirdest historical instance in the real world, its fine. What does that leave? Well a single nobody could unite multiple hordes until they are the strongest logistical and military nation on the planet. A cabal of evil assholes can plan to change the world around their perceived racial interests. A guy can randomly think he is Jesus' brother and start a war that leads to above 40 million dead. Changing cultures to create a fake unified culture that didn't exist 10 years ago and having people not 30 years later proudly identifying themselves with some nonsense the leader cooked up with some population charts. Now is this historically plausible? Well they more or less happened. I don't know how you'd model these things in game. But its fun to think about.

[@thegoat184]

"The thrill of map staring" 😂😂😂

[@tylerhendrix14]

I honestly feel like they can make these games so much more accurate. I have zero expectations that a game is going to be 100 percent historically accurate regardless of the game.

[@ordinalchaos]

What is really needed next is an infrastructure/ logistics dlc, imagine powerlines and actual rail networks

[@TheNeXTGUI]

In victoria 2 prussia would start out with influence over the smaller german states and could easily get military access

[@GamingPenguin4545]

The game is better with localised power and rail. its another source of local jobs that rapidly grows as each province industrialises and causes a cost descision to be made when deciding on what you want to develop

[@bretthuff8971]

I don’t know how it would be coded, but it would be cool if trains/electricity could be shared among directly neighboring states.

[@captain-chair]

Perhaps regarding electricity, instead it could just be powerline construction which functions just like railways conceptually but just for power. What should produce electricity? A production type for city centres which scales with the size of the city, and with choices regarding how much surplus energy to create. Maybe you don't need national power, perhaps you need intranational grids, and that maybe there are poorer areas which are not profitable locations for power station but instead they get power from neighbouring states with powerlines. These powerlines sharing power with adjacent states. Me doing the thing... I mean I guess it's a good thing that with a game like this, that because of there being less abstraction than ever, we all are willing to get nerdy and passionate suggesting constructive feedback... And not so constructive feedback but thats not exactly the intention. Victoria 3 is dealing with a legacy, and our expectations are understanablely high. I hope Paradox continues to support this game because it truely is a diamond in the rough! C:

[@captain-chair]

Other thing I forgot to detail... States would only share *surplus* power with adjacent states. Additionally by that stage in the game there should be a way to cap the price of commodities and cut losses at your loss. This would make planned economies gameplay... More realistic, but also more chaotic. Because just because you cap prices, only means you are shifting around the costs, and it's your fledgeling socialist republic that must bear the cost of that. I wish there was more category management tools and presets you could make for production methods, or at least some button which changes production methods according to the availability of goods. I am thinking for like wartime production and stuff. I have already made many many infodumps about what I wish this fsme could do. It's genuinely enjoyable I find.

[@sulfie46]

Local electricity makes sense as a concept as the infrastructure to move it between states hasn't been invented/perfected, but It would make sense if it COULD be moved between states via an unlockable building or edict behind 'Power Infrastructure' tech or related, with larger MAPI penalties.

[@galdorofnihelm6798]

Personally when it comes to electricity, I feel there should be a separation between generators and infrastructure. It's not completely strange to think of power in new York powering California, thanks to Tesla we have ways to do that, and in fact it's ridiculous to build powerplants in every single state, as that never happened. And I fully agree that transportation is stupid, it's something that should be part of the economy, but it should not directly be tied to railways, again transportation providers and infrastructure should not be the same. Railway was often build to connect major industrial opportunities, which then later enabled passengers to use that infrastructure too, it's not until we got large population centers that passenger trains became the most common, it's fairly recent even.

[@AsadZubair-og3om]

One thing I want to see is more interaction in colonization, mainly Africa just lacks modifiers like the Congo in game is only good for hardwood and rubber but historically the Congo had lots of arable from the Congo river and was rich in minerals including gold. And the game doesn't depict indentured servitude or forced labor well, only serfs and slaves. Lastly the option to have Ur people of your primary culture inhabit a state and displace the local population like Zimbabwe was with white settlers and u have the option of either co-existence with the natives and share the state, forced removal for primary culture settlers or like hands off management and cooperation with the native and each of these would have their own benefits and faults and is similar to the occupation system in HOI4.

[@dimensionshulk9963]

Nice opinion One small issue I play HOI4,and am thus braindead.

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Missed opportunity for a "who asked" smh my shake my smh my head my head

[@Munchausenification]

i vote 3 on historical plausability

[@One_step_above_is_here]

checkmate fool I never had Vicy 3 to begin with

[@axiomsofdominion]

Hello fellow hero.

[@jilezka]

I love a youtube man yapping to me abt vicky 3 with endless legend ost playing in a background

[@RovingTroll]

I think local energy is good. But it should also be shared with neighboring states. Maybe give us smaller energy infrastructure to build up instead of never again having enough coal or oil or bodies to fuel your energy needs

[@sirnetflix7162]

I'm bothered that the Dominican Republic isn't ever represented. It gains independence literally a few years after 1836.

[@zantac180]

I’m about an 8, but it only applies to the start. I don’t care if the USSR decides to flip to democracy in 1945, but at the start date I want the game in a historical state. My biggest gripe with Victoria 3 is that West Virginia exists pre US Civil War.

[@phluphie]

Historical plausibly? 7 or 8 ish. And yes. Immersion matters.

[@marshall8782]

don't worry it's a paradox game, it'll be fleshed out in like 10 years, achieve legendary status and when vicky 4 comes out everyone will be flexing about the fact they didn't buy the new game but are still playing Vicky 3. Nah but srsly, i feel like Paradox is in an weird situation here, cause they already had a game that managed to achieve the balance of historical accuracy/gameplay IMO with Vicky 2, but somehow they fucked it up for vicky 3. it doesn't help that the gameplay hasn't been good either (not to say Vicky 2 is perfect, but at least its shortcomings are saved by the way it handles foreign affairs). it just doesn't make sense to me how they fucked up after they figured it out, like did the devs even take a look at what Vicky 2 did right?

[@dragonking4756]

Wait this writing is fire 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@ha2kon539]

Province power plant modifiers would be way to strong if electricity wasn't local. If electrisity becomes a global good then all the state modifiers should be removed. My prefered fix is that power and transportation is shared with provinces 1 or 2 tiles away, that way you can build in the province with enough population and other resources while still not being completly immersion breaking like global electricity.

[@iseeyou5061]

I couldn't say i quite get the point early on but the voice certainly soothing enough for me to sleep. :v

[@mrbones909]

If they can improve the capitalist AI and have them manage all the local goods that would be better. Historicity gets a high rating for me because I definitely want it to feel like a 19th century world. It doesn't need to be railroaded if the AI is competent and makes sensible decisions (which it won't) and it doesn't need to be extremely realistic. The realism of the systems need to be there only for the purpose of making ridiculousness rare and player driven. If something crazy is happening in a Victoria 3 game, it should be a reaction to the player's own insanity rather than the AI just deciding Spanish Siberia should be a thing.

[@cedid-iosman2925]

i think paradox shouldn't make their games on one specific machanic like hoi4 is warfare focused victoria 3 is economy focused eu4 is hegomony focused and ck3 is diplomatic focused this is causing every single game having it's own historical and repetitive problems like hoi4 just a fantasy game victoria 3 just a building game eu4 is just a war game ck3 is just a dynasty game. They claiming that dlc will fix the games but most of them causing bugs other historical inaccuracies. I'm suggesting that they should expand other mechnics like a economy in hoi4, better warfare in victoria 3, better law and technology system in eu4 and better government manegment in ck3.

[@derekskelton4187]

This videos is like 80% whining, but there should definitely be some changes made in this direction.

[@spaghettichin9418]

Instead of making local goods state specific, their needs to be a system that allows the game to change the market access per good which would then be able to be affected by the distance between the producer and consumer. Theoretically the US could spend billions upon billions building and maintaining power lines between New York and California but it would be so expensive and so inefficient that the price of that electricity in California would be enormous. Doing the same thing but from New York to New Jersey would make electricity prices still more expensive compared to the prices in New York but the impact would be dramatically lessened. A system like this would still incentivise building dedicated powerplants in states with large electricity consuming industry while also allowing the two Aristocrats in Nebraska to power their lightbulbs without building a whole powerplant in their garden.

[@galdorofnihelm6798]

I think for me historical plausibility is about 4-5/10, as I mostly care about having fun in something that feels historical, aka making an alt history, however I do not enjoy when I see things that doesn't make any sense.

[@TheGroo]

id say im a 5 for historical accuracy. I like to reimagine history but I also dont like to be pigeon holed.

[@neptun6761]

They should make prices more flexible

[@alextolon4482]

8, The player should control history and be better than the historical path but the AI should be historical, and no, because immersion will be broken anyway if a player uses some inevitable glitch or exploit.

[@QTeaFunny]

Local goods is definitely a good example of "more realistic, doesn't mean better", but rather than current or previous implementation - which is better, I think that we can just have something in the middle. Why is a local good something that applies only locally, and not, for example, something that applies 80% locally and 20% globally. That it would still feel like you gotta give it to everyone, but it nicely polishes the rough edges, and doesn't literally mean optimize every single state. It could just mean, that MAPI for local goods is much worse, than for all the others.

[@alexdamatta4930]

Have you uninstalled Victoria 3 from your computer?

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Nope lol (I like to give orders, not obey them *insert evil laughter here*)

[@axiomsofdominion]

@@Tarkusarkusar Tarkus in his dad era. "Do as I say, not as I do".

[@Koupip]

here is the true problem with history, history is atrocious, its badly written its scuffed it makes no sense and half of the decision that changed this world forever we can't even tell if they are real or not bc every writter was high on meth. the problem here isn't historical accuracy rather then how vibe based history tend to be, everyone has their own version of history and trying to see the real history of things is impossible bc its build upon trillions and trillions of human souls that we don't even nkow if they actually existed, was napoleon good at war ? or did he enherit THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN EUROPE and then instored public school which allowed him to have the SMARTEST PEOPLE IN FRANCE working for him rebuilding the country from the ground up and he was just an autistic dwarf who loved smelly woman ? i think historical stuff in paradox game should be relegated to random plans countries had for their future, like digging the suez or the great game, or america taking over all of mexico rather then be 100% accurate about borders or people in charge or anything of the likes because in all honesty these things were scuffed in the real world so who cares fr