Changes that NEED to be made to Victoria 3

Whilst I've been enjoying Victoria 3, it';s safe to say that there are a few issues. Victoria 3 warfare leaves frontlines splintering, there's a lack of depth and flavour, gameplay mechanics are the same from one nation to the next and the victoria 3 end game is rather dull. Enjoy my ramblings in a kind of video essay format of what I (and you) think should be in future Victoria 3 update s.

Changes that NEED to be made to Victoria 3

Shoutout to our Patreon Supporters!

Emperor:
Holy Emperor Dar
JoshuaS
Lewis Wright
Tyler McGlynn
Hunter Grabski

King:
Blenderman
Crilly
Flyerton99
Ghostwolf567
JdoW52
Sjalmi
Matvei Novikov
Orginal
Redguard76
ShadowSinger

Duke:
Arthur Pendragon
Benjy442
ColeZawesome
Cutaline
HoratioNullbuilt
Ken Jones
Of The Dragon
Stuart Watson
Thomas Carmichael

Count:
AssBreath
Bobby Bottle Service
Brandon Smith-Darby
danjamrod
Marius
Red Star
Søren Ryge
ThatOneGuy
Urstromquelle

Baron:
choppyrice
Hachi
Hunkulous
Jason Boomgarden
Joey Arnold
Morgan Jones
Tobias Lauge Borgstrøm
Trevor

0:00 Intro
1:25 Flavor
6:31 Warfare
13:29 UI
16:20 Markets
22:13 Diplomacy
29:20 Governments
34:07 Industry

#victoria3 #vic3 #vicky3

[idome]

In my opinion one of the worst things is the current system for armies "to go back into your country" if their frontline is either gone (for example you pushed into one corner of a country) or shift. If then there is no adjacent frontline to move to they just go back into your country. This might not be an issue when you fight a nation bordering you but when you just waited many days for a naval invasion and then poof your armies are magically back home it is unplayable.

[Kasaaz]

On Flavor: We don't think about them much, but there are a ton of things that are potential triggers for events in EU, things that add them to the pool of random events. Like how Idea Groups add different events. It feels like for the most part, all nations just have all the same random events regardless in Vicky 3.

[Ma._.B-wc]

A "bribe" mechanic would be really interesting.
Bribe interest group leader:they create a movement to push a country towards a law;
Bribe officials: the country starts to try to pass a law you choose
Bribe/fund radicalised groups: starts a revolution meter that the country has to stop by pleasing the interest group.
To balance them they should cost a lot and maybe lead to events that can give casus bellis against you or give you infamy or relation decreases or something else.

[Ehhhhhmm]

4:45 That was something i really liked in Imperator Rome, sure the families weren't hugely impactful in regards to gameplay but they offered a bit of flavour in balancing their respective power / influence. When i first saw the portraits in Vic 3 i was excited but they are just bland collection of traits with a hyper detailed portrait for some reason.

[SoleoG]

@24:40 I think that the problem of not being able to impact other nations economically is amplified by the fact that the AI is so bad at managing their eco that you can't hurt them more than they are hurting themselves. I play in a server with 20-40 player games weekly and there are a lot more levers to pull when it comes to other players. Most recently I was Denmark and the NGF player was fighting the german unification war. Well we had been at odds diplomatically and I noticed he was importing a significant amount of ammunition from me, so I embargoed him and it cost him a ton of money/manpower. The AI would just be fighting with a supply shortage anyway or not upgrading their troops.

[Aoderic]

About information, one thing I really miss, is a summary after a war: how many died, how much did it cost etc.
Also if a nation gives in to your diplomatic play, there's no pop-up, you just notice something change, and have to reason they must have given in.

[alanzilou]

3:37 This happened to me in a recent game where the csa rose up in the US (took the entire north east and no actual Confederate land but that's unrelated)


And despite taking the entire US industrial heart lands like 5 years later the US and CSA were the best of buddies like full on cooperative

[quinnhutson]

On great powers, I want the wars to be more of an event. One of the main features of great powers is that they would negotiate the peace after a war, even if they were only tangentially involved. When you think of diplomacy in this time you think "The Treaty of (blank)." I'd ultimately like my games to have their own historical treaties, things that persist as flavor. They could also generate persistent effects over time, which would be a good way to build aggressive expansion.

On that note, a war between great powers could be treated differently than a war between a great and minor power. The power imbalance could impose different conditions on the war goals and the war resolution, and on who can join. If in the end game two great powers declare war on each other then you could essentially force nations to pick a side or pay a cost to stay neutral, recreating a world war. I'm sure that's tough to balance but it would be a lot more flavorful.

[Kasaaz]

24:15 - In regards to backing down, etc. It would be useful to change the results of backing down based on the difference between Power status, Great Power vs Minor Power, etc. In that the lesser powers end up having to give up more to the greater powers when they back down. More demands or something. Some way to make the power status matter more and to avoid the frustration of constant backing down of a much weaker power.

[Linkberg]

Notifications should also be able to be adjusted like in EU4- i can forgive a lot as long as i can just change it for myself. Also double down on "show more things" because the game always loves to tell me how much % turmoil i have in a state in 2-3 different easy ways, but is very coy about telling my WHY there is turmoil, or some quick fixes- that requires a lot more digging

[quadcannon]

11:15 For the military to gain a bit more flavor, and if they're going to keep the barracks system tied to a region, then it'd be nice if there was a system for veterancy. A particular barracks has been mobilized and won a war, several times, meaning that it's troops and officers should have a lot of experience. You should be able to have institutionalized army experience that gives further buffs to offense or defense, etc. Similar, but not necessarily the same as, Army Tradition in EU4.

[AlexChec]

To your point about military doctrines at 11:00, one thing that annoys me is that wars don't generate passive tech progression, especially if you end up fighting a nation further along in the military tech tree. It shouldn't be a massive boost, but combat experience has historically had as much to do with developing tech as dedicated research. Feels like something as simple to implement as having a military academy as a university "production method" (which could then also create doctrines or more focused leadership traits).

[daco-qtvq]

14:42 Especially with how the admirals are placed, if you're in a large scale war between great powers, I will legitimately get 10 notifications about generals moving to new fronts which blocks those admirals and you can't do naval invasions until you right click them all! Pausing the game doesn't even stop the notifications! And also, interest groups deactivate and activate their modifiers so often. I will get 6 notifications saying Noble Privileges activated, deactivated, and it'll keep going for a few minutes. The notifications are so ridiculous

[antorseax]

26:24 To make dominions worth it, they could give more money or have subjects become uppity if they have fewer freedoms - you could have a CKIII feudal contract system for them.

[ryanlargent]

On Great Powers: I wish they had the Crisis system from Victoria 2

On Diplomacy with the Diplomatic Plays ending for just one goal: the Peace Deal screen should be active during the Diplomatic Play and you should be able to offer a deal preventing war based on the demands of both sides. So for example, the US getting X amount of territory in exchange for reparations, without having to fight a war to get to that point

[ajprop]

The first part of the diplomatic play should be a negotiation phase. Being able to exchange provinces, overlordship, etc for money, land, treaties, alliances, trade rights, etc is a feature that is so badly needed. Why should i go to war with a nation when they have a province i want and i have a province they want that i dont care about

[gregbuchold]

26:13 Tributary / Vassal are the unrecognized power versions of Dominion / Puppet; you pick the 'weaker' version if you just want money and resources but don't want their garbage troops slowing down your wars. They're comparable to Defensive Pact / Alliance in a sense

36:35 I largely agree, but there is a reason to build like this already - losing market access by infrastructure or blockade doesn't affect you as much, or at all, if you have resources flowing within the single state

[TheKlaun]

At this point, most nations were looking at a long history. They should get some sort of heritage traits like traditions in EU4. Also, I think they need to introduce unique laws to each nation. No idea how France, Prussia and Britain are organized the same way in the game.

However, my biggest beef with the game (apart from bugs and poor performance) is that it doesn't reflect well on the 19th century. There needs to be more dynamic in diplomatic plays. Revolutions also don't feel like revolutions at all. Some of the most important people in this period - you cannot reproduce what they did. You cannot have a Napoleon 3 take over your nation, Bismarck only exists as some sort of joke. You also do not have any relations between dynasties. People didn't like attacking their cousin or personal friends etc. There should be a diplo thing that considers the relation of your monarch to their's.

Also, introduce the grid. That was the age of Imperialism and Racism. I get why this isn't in the game as much, but man, it doesn't feel real but completely sterile at this point. EU4 has slave trade events as well and you can do horrors to the natives. Also remember what the English did to the Irish. No idea how that isn't in the game.

The research system is also completely broken and not how innovation happened. Perhaps gain points depending on what you're doing - if you're mining all day, get progress to mining stuff. If you don't have a food industry, perhaps you don't develop canneries.

I also think they should do a DLC on culture and society. This was the golden age of art and music, cuisine developed, new fads came and went, people cared about fashion. On the reverse, you had conservatives, you had religion. You also had invetors and great scientists, philosophers etc. Get them in the game, make them matter

One last thing: You need private businesses. It makes no sense that the state builds everything in this period. I get that this is the game, but they should fade it out a bit and introduce policies that favor or prevent people opening their own factories + the worker's struggles are essential to this period with many states being forced to pass a lot of laws and need to be felt in the game. If I build that factory all that happens is some numbers go up or down - where is the impact it will have on society to industrialize without social security? Where is the Manchester capitalism? You should introduce that dynamic to the game, radicals doesn't add anything but some boring, irrelevant modifiers.

[wa_custos]

15:58 They could have it being a single flag which expands and and grows as more land is occupied. And if there are let's say two isolated occupied regions, when they meet, the two flags combine to form one big flag megazoid.

[quadcannon]

4:50 I agree. I think it would be good if the characters as we know them could enact various efforts on your country's behalf. For example in Total War Rome 2 (I believe) you could have your characters try various things during turns such as gain a particular other characters loyalty, embezzle funds so you got more money (money laundering, ponzi schemes, in game perhaps?), or create marriage alliances. While European monarchies didn't operate the same way as their medieval counterparts, marriage was still a rather influential tool for relations between countries; not to mention offering a prince to be another nation's leader (looking at you Greece). I feel like there is a big opportunity to make the characters much more flavorful and impactful in the game.