Source
r/paradoxplazaβ€’
Hroppa

Victoria 3 should be Revolutions: The Game

Vic2

Victoria 2 is already a game about the industrial revolution. Victoria 3 should have an equal focus on political revolutions.

The start date should be moved back to 1775, and start with the US revolutionary war. Shortly afterwards in virtually every game there would be the French Revolution. (Preventing the French Revolution should be an EU4 Byzantium-style challenge for experienced players.) This naturally lets the game include all of the famous historical figures of this period: US founding fathers, Napoleon, etc. This is a much more accessible player fantasy than the start of the Victorian era. (Robert Peel and Andrew Jackson are memorable, sure, but not in the same hall of fame as their earlier equivalents.)

Yes, EU4 technically covers this period. But as with all Paradox games, most players rarely see the end of the period, and the mechanics become less appropriate as the game moves further from its core time focus. The US and French revolutions are eye-catching enough historical events to merit a core game.

Moving through the 19th century, the struggle between revolutionaries and conservatives should be (along side questions of industrialisation and colonisation) a core pillar of the game.

Optional more radical move: Players could play as political parties, rather than nations. This would allow you to start as potential revolutionaries, or as a conservative party fighting a rearguard action. It would be a fun alternative lense, if being out of power was made interesting enough - and most countries wouldn't be true democracies, in any case.

Recommended listening: Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk

Posted Oct 19, 2019, 4:27 PM UTC

8221
Vortexzienβ€’

I don't know about the 1775 start date tbh. Maybe the Napoleonic wars, but otherwise I'm fine with an 1821/1836 start date

43
[deleted]β€’

[deleted]

1
Mackntishβ€’

I'm going to have to say no. I feel like this would be a major shift away from industrialization, which is what V2 was about. It would be very difficult to make a dynamic, fun, and replayable revolutions system. And IMO, it's not worth sacrificing that much industrialization to do.

32
HroppaOPβ€’

In a spirit of good-natured disagreement:

Revolution and industrialisation aren't distinct forces. From a revolutionary perspect, obviously the whole basis of traditional Marxism was that the proletarian revolution comes after capitalist industrialisation. From a conservative perspective, debates around whether to industrialise were often framed explicitly in terms of "do we need to do these reforms to prevent revolution".

15
BREsubstanceVITYβ€’

No one is going to argue about whether it is a logical start point. It is. The argument is over whether or not it makes for a fun game. Suppose you prevent the French Revolution? The entire European landscape is completely changed. In order to stay close enough to historical events while also providing a fun, consistent gameplay would be impossible. There would be too many variables to control for.

2
HroppaOPβ€’

I suppose the question is whether the game should be more like Hoi4 (based around a specific set of historical events, with some fun alternative paths you can take) or EU4 & CK2 (sandbox of history, can change almost everything).

3
OPVictoryβ€’

I would rather see a pushed back start date as dlc and have the game start after the Congress of Vienna.

16
roundedDownβ€’

Paradox could really benefit from a political party-based game rather than just a state based game when focusing on the nineteenth century onwards. Having it all state-based makes you really lose connection with the actual goals of your game. And it would be nice to have some non territorial focuses like building political support etc

10
TheLackOfANameβ€’

So you're saying it should be.... Victoria: Revolutions?

6
eorldA King of Europaβ€’

I just hope the political mechanics are better, fucking anarcho-liberals....

5
Smartcom5Map Staring Expertβ€’

   𝔒𝔲𝔯 π”–π”’π” π”―π”’π”±π”žπ”―π”Ά 𝔬𝔣 π”–π”±π”žπ”±π”’ 𝔯𝔒𝔭𝔬𝔯𝔱𝔰
         —
𝒲ℯ π“ƒβ„΄π“Œ 𝒽𝒢𝓋ℯ »ℒ𝒾𝒷ℯ𝓇𝒢𝓁 π’Άβ„Šπ’Ύπ“‰π’Άπ“‰π’Ύβ„΄π“ƒΒ«

Yeah, kthx. I hate it!

4
MagmaniacMap Staring Expertβ€’

I agree for the most part but actually I think it would better even to move the start date back to 1750. This means the seven years war (the real precursor that lead to the American revolution) would happen early and then the fallout and rebellions would come after that.

3
[deleted]β€’

But as with all Paradox games, most players rarely see the end of the period, and the mechanics become less appropriate as the game moves further from its core time focus.

That’s precisely why it this shouldn’t happen. A game that has to cover the 1775-1936 time period would be abstracted, simplified, and have a lack of detail. It wouldn’t even focus on the Victorian Period if the date was that early. I think there should be a β€œMarch of the Eagles 2” that starts in 1789 and ends in 1836, Victoria 3 should be 1836-1901, and Hearts of Iron 5 should get an early start date to cover WWI and the preceding conflicts.

2
SputnikSputnikowskyβ€’

The Polish Bolshevik War would be so swish.

2
CuddlyaxeEmperor of Ryukyuβ€’

I've always thought they should cover let's say 1775 to 1836 in a completely separate game from Vic II or EU4

2
orthoxeroxβ€’

Synchronized Walking of Large Birds of Prey?

3
Quatsumβ€’

From what I recall, the 1836 start date was specifically chosen because modelling the Napoleonic revolutions was a PITA and would pretty much always lead to a world massively different than ours, which makes it harder to write events and mechanics.

2
GeelongJrβ€’

Nah. 1775 is way too early and the Napoleon era environment is waaaaay too different to the 20s and 30s, both in terms of warfare and how things like Economics and political philosophies were developed. The difference between Vicky and other games (well except for HoI I suppose) is that the map stays fairly realistic and there isn't as much blobbing. There were significant changes that early on and France being OP would change the outcome of the game and make it less realistic. Plus you'd have to add in HRE mechanics and change a lot of the Germany game

1
VicenteMeloβ€’

Pretty much this. The "age of revolutions"-type period mentioned in the OP would elicit (and merit) mechanics that are way too specific for a game that would also need to accurately represent the one-hundred-year period that comes right after it.

However, if PDX were to make a game set roughly between 1770 (the years leading up to the Boston Tea Party) and 1825 (at which point all Latin American countries had declared independence and the wars fought for it had mostly been resolved + the year conventionally regarded as the end of the Holy Alliance back in Europe), now that's something else.

It could have PoPs and the player would just control a political party/faction, have a laser-tight focus and be convertible to what would then be Victoria 3. Yeah, it would step on EU4's (or 5?) toes a bit, and yeah, it's never gonna happen, but a man can dream, right?

3
MagmaniacMap Staring Expertβ€’

Revolutions didn't just end in 1825. 1848 was the springtime of nations, the biggest wave of revolutions in the history of Europe. The uprisings that caused Italian and German unification could also be viewed through the same lens. As could the revolution of the Confederacy to start the American Civil War (as they would have called it, the Second American Revolution.) The Taiping Revolution in China happened from 1850-1864. Various uprisings in the British Empire including the Indian Rebellion of 1857. I think that the whole period from the Seven Years War until WW1 could be viewed as being filled with colonialism and revolution, with the two often at odds, and I never felt that EU4 was an appropriate setting for those sorts of things to happen in the endgame, and that Victoria was far too narrow in scope.

2
VicenteMeloβ€’

Well, yes, there were other revolutions after 1825, but that's beside the point, which was that we need different games for different time periods, seeing as they require different mechanics. Even though there were many revolutions after 1825, the time period was already something rather distinct from the US-French Revolutions period we were talking about. If the only criteria you go by is "revolutions" (as opposed to historical processes translated into game mechanics), then I suppose you'd be able to make one game ranging from the 1640s up to... today? As you can see, that's not a very good argument.

2
Dabbie_Hoffmanβ€’

I don't know about what the best start date would be, but I think having a much more dynamic political system would be super fun, and would really dovetail into the economic aspect of Victoria 2. The socio-economic tensions unleashed by industrialization had massive political ramifications. Taxing your populace enough to blob should carry serious risks of backlash.

My dream game is probably something with the economic simulation of Victoria 2, with a slightly rolled back HOI4 system of combat where you have multiple units that require battle plans and strategy to win with. Even with just infantry + cavalry I think you could have pretty interesting strategic combat that's way more involved that what Victoria 2 has currently.

1