Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[Preben]

Bureaucracy and Authority sound like mana. They claim they're not mana, but they were disputing the EUIV "mana" label for a long time, so those could end up being mana too. I hope they won't be.

It could be softcap such as administrative efficiency in Stellaris.

 

[what am i doing]

Todd is that you? This doesn't mean anything till we see it. The pops might be overly simplified and abstracted.

Guaranteed they are simplified at least somewhat. "Over a billion people are modeled individually" is pure horseshit unless they're absurdly simple and/or processing is spread out over many ticks. At the very least, they have pops with a quantity, which is fair enough, Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

This is probably the most controversial change they made tbh. So its going to be one culture per province like all their other titles?. Not a fan of this change it seems like a simplification.

I think what they mean here is that they're not, say, having a bunch of French cultures and grouping them into French culture group, the way EU4 does it. Instead my impression is that cultures will have a few member variables like spoken language and some membership of different culture "characteristics" (which, under the hood, may well just be culture groups, but perhaps a few different ones that can overlap, like Bretons belonging to a French group but also to a Celtic group and also to a Western European group, Arpitans belonging to a French group but also a Southern European group and maybe also an Alpine group) so that how "accepted" a culture is in a given country can have more granularity than just "yes or no", and you can represent the way that, for example, Occitans would probably be able to get along well enough in Italy, while Danes would not get along all that well, and Manchus not at all. It might not work that way, but that's my impression and hope.

Bureaucracy and Authority sound like mana. They claim they're not mana, but they were disputing the EUIV "mana" label for a long time, so those could end up being mana too. I hope they won't be.

It could be softcap such as administrative efficiency in Stellaris.

Hard or soft cap isn't really my concern, it's whether they're mana or not. To illustrate what I mean by mana, in EU4, bird mana is used for kulturkampf and also for researching new kinds of ship. It doesn't directly represent something. It's mana. If Bureaucracy is only used for buffing up your institutions, then it's not mana and I have no problem with it. If it's used for buffing up your institutions and the cost also varies based on the size of your country, I can also accept that. Small state is easier to administer, it's still representing your government bureaucracy's effectiveness. If Bureaucracy is used for buffing up your institutions and also to, say, integrate provinces into cores? Then it's getting into book mana territory.

 

[Raghar]

1000, 000, 000. Simulated population would require nearly 1 GB when the simulation would require ONE byte to store variable. I was able to do 100 000 to 10 000 fluidly, depends on complexity of simulation. But, I'm one of best in the field.

But, if sum of all groups * population in a group is 1E9, then it means when one group has 50 000 - 250 000 population, they are simulating 20 000 - 4 000 groups. Which is far easier, and in case of lack of simulation, aka the standard Paradox programming, they might even do it in a scripting language. (But considering what they did with HoI4, and Stellaris, it's likely they would have problems to get decent speed even when they would program it directly in C++.)

 

[Axioms]

Todd is that you? This doesn't mean anything till we see it. The pops might be overly simplified and abstracted.

Guaranteed they are simplified at least somewhat. "Over a billion people are modeled individually" is pure horseshit unless they're absurdly simple and/or processing is spread out over many ticks. At the very least, they have pops with a quantity, which is fair enough, Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

This is probably the most controversial change they made tbh. So its going to be one culture per province like all their other titles?. Not a fan of this change it seems like a simplification.

I think what they mean here is that they're not, say, having a bunch of French cultures and grouping them into French culture group, the way EU4 does it. Instead my impression is that cultures will have a few member variables like spoken language and some membership of different culture "characteristics" (which, under the hood, may well just be culture groups, but perhaps a few different ones that can overlap, like Bretons belonging to a French group but also to a Celtic group and also to a Western European group, Arpitans belonging to a French group but also a Southern European group and maybe also an Alpine group) so that how "accepted" a culture is in a given country can have more granularity than just "yes or no", and you can represent the way that, for example, Occitans would probably be able to get along well enough in Italy, while Danes would not get along all that well, and Manchus not at all. It might not work that way, but that's my impression and hope.

Bureaucracy and Authority sound like mana. They claim they're not mana, but they were disputing the EUIV "mana" label for a long time, so those could end up being mana too. I hope they won't be.

It could be softcap such as administrative efficiency in Stellaris.

Hard or soft cap isn't really my concern, it's whether they're mana or not. To illustrate what I mean by mana, in EU4, bird mana is used for kulturkampf and also for researching new kinds of ship. It doesn't directly represent something. It's mana. If Bureaucracy is only used for buffing up your institutions, then it's not mana and I have no problem with it. If it's used for buffing up your institutions and the cost also varies based on the size of your country, I can also accept that. Small state is easier to administer, it's still representing your government bureaucracy's effectiveness. If Bureaucracy is used for buffing up your institutions and also to, say, integrate provinces into cores? Then it's getting into book mana territory.

I am cautiously optimistic about the culture stuff. It looks quite similar to the way I did it:
https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Integration

That page talks more about integrating territory than culture per say but it does deal with acceptance/integration within that context.

I actually realized the wiki doesn't have a page specifically about "culture". Also realized "Knowledge" wasn't included on the main page.

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Knowledge

That page needs a big update but it has the key stuff. Languages actually function exactly like Vicky3 appears to. Culture and History are quite different I think. Culture is a slightly different mechanic in Axioms than in Paradox games.

I would like to see something from Vicky3 related to Administration integration in Axioms. There are a few more integration/acceptance mechanics not detailed on the wiki page that would be fun to see as well.

 

[Axioms]

1000, 000, 000. Simulated population would require nearly 1 GB when the simulation would require ONE byte to store variable. I was able to do 100 000 to 10 000 fluidly, depends on complexity of simulation. But, I'm one of best in the field.

But, if sum of all groups * population in a group is 1E9, then it means when one group has 50 000 - 250 000 population, they are simulating 20 000 - 4 000 groups. Which is far easier, and in case of lack of simulation, aka the standard Paradox programming, they might even do it in a scripting language.

One of the limits I ran into in making my own game was ram storage limits. Characters and populations are both numbered in the 10s of thousands theoretically. Of course you could play a smaller map if it was a huge issue. You have severe limits on what details you can represent in regards to both character/population details and the interactions between characters and populations like Opinion.

 

[what am i doing]

Todd is that you? This doesn't mean anything till we see it. The pops might be overly simplified and abstracted.

Guaranteed they are simplified at least somewhat. "Over a billion people are modeled individually" is pure horseshit unless they're absurdly simple and/or processing is spread out over many ticks. At the very least, they have pops with a quantity, which is fair enough, Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

This is probably the most controversial change they made tbh. So its going to be one culture per province like all their other titles?. Not a fan of this change it seems like a simplification.

I think what they mean here is that they're not, say, having a bunch of French cultures and grouping them into French culture group, the way EU4 does it. Instead my impression is that cultures will have a few member variables like spoken language and some membership of different culture "characteristics" (which, under the hood, may well just be culture groups, but perhaps a few different ones that can overlap, like Bretons belonging to a French group but also to a Celtic group and also to a Western European group, Arpitans belonging to a French group but also a Southern European group and maybe also an Alpine group) so that how "accepted" a culture is in a given country can have more granularity than just "yes or no", and you can represent the way that, for example, Occitans would probably be able to get along well enough in Italy, while Danes would not get along all that well, and Manchus not at all. It might not work that way, but that's my impression and hope.

Bureaucracy and Authority sound like mana. They claim they're not mana, but they were disputing the EUIV "mana" label for a long time, so those could end up being mana too. I hope they won't be.

It could be softcap such as administrative efficiency in Stellaris.

Hard or soft cap isn't really my concern, it's whether they're mana or not. To illustrate what I mean by mana, in EU4, bird mana is used for kulturkampf and also for researching new kinds of ship. It doesn't directly represent something. It's mana. If Bureaucracy is only used for buffing up your institutions, then it's not mana and I have no problem with it. If it's used for buffing up your institutions and the cost also varies based on the size of your country, I can also accept that. Small state is easier to administer, it's still representing your government bureaucracy's effectiveness. If Bureaucracy is used for buffing up your institutions and also to, say, integrate provinces into cores? Then it's getting into book mana territory.

I am cautiously optimistic about the culture stuff. It looks quite similar to the way I did it:
https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Integration

That page talks more about integrating territory than culture per say but it does deal with acceptance/integration within that context.

I actually realized the wiki doesn't have a page specifically about "culture". Also realized "Knowledge" wasn't included on the main page.

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Knowledge

That page needs a big update but it has the key stuff. Languages actually function exactly like Vicky3 appears to. Culture and History are quite different I think. Culture is a slightly different mechanic in Axioms than in Paradox games.

I would like to see something from Vicky3 related to Administration integration in Axioms. There are a few more integration/acceptance mechanics not detailed on the wiki page that would be fun to see as well.

I'm not clicking those links to that shitty fandom site for some shitty game you're shilling.

 

[Axioms]

Todd is that you? This doesn't mean anything till we see it. The pops might be overly simplified and abstracted.

Guaranteed they are simplified at least somewhat. "Over a billion people are modeled individually" is pure horseshit unless they're absurdly simple and/or processing is spread out over many ticks. At the very least, they have pops with a quantity, which is fair enough, Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

This is probably the most controversial change they made tbh. So its going to be one culture per province like all their other titles?. Not a fan of this change it seems like a simplification.

I think what they mean here is that they're not, say, having a bunch of French cultures and grouping them into French culture group, the way EU4 does it. Instead my impression is that cultures will have a few member variables like spoken language and some membership of different culture "characteristics" (which, under the hood, may well just be culture groups, but perhaps a few different ones that can overlap, like Bretons belonging to a French group but also to a Celtic group and also to a Western European group, Arpitans belonging to a French group but also a Southern European group and maybe also an Alpine group) so that how "accepted" a culture is in a given country can have more granularity than just "yes or no", and you can represent the way that, for example, Occitans would probably be able to get along well enough in Italy, while Danes would not get along all that well, and Manchus not at all. It might not work that way, but that's my impression and hope.

Bureaucracy and Authority sound like mana. They claim they're not mana, but they were disputing the EUIV "mana" label for a long time, so those could end up being mana too. I hope they won't be.

It could be softcap such as administrative efficiency in Stellaris.

Hard or soft cap isn't really my concern, it's whether they're mana or not. To illustrate what I mean by mana, in EU4, bird mana is used for kulturkampf and also for researching new kinds of ship. It doesn't directly represent something. It's mana. If Bureaucracy is only used for buffing up your institutions, then it's not mana and I have no problem with it. If it's used for buffing up your institutions and the cost also varies based on the size of your country, I can also accept that. Small state is easier to administer, it's still representing your government bureaucracy's effectiveness. If Bureaucracy is used for buffing up your institutions and also to, say, integrate provinces into cores? Then it's getting into book mana territory.

I am cautiously optimistic about the culture stuff. It looks quite similar to the way I did it:
https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Integration

That page talks more about integrating territory than culture per say but it does deal with acceptance/integration within that context.

I actually realized the wiki doesn't have a page specifically about "culture". Also realized "Knowledge" wasn't included on the main page.

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Knowledge

That page needs a big update but it has the key stuff. Languages actually function exactly like Vicky3 appears to. Culture and History are quite different I think. Culture is a slightly different mechanic in Axioms than in Paradox games.

I would like to see something from Vicky3 related to Administration integration in Axioms. There are a few more integration/acceptance mechanics not detailed on the wiki page that would be fun to see as well.

I'm not clicking those links to that shitty fandom site for some shitty game you're shilling.

I mean the game isn't being shilled. I stopped working on it a few years ago. You can't buy it and I can't imagine a circumstance in which I would be able to finish it in the future. It is merely an existing record of the kinds of mechanics I want to see from an empire building simulator.

 

[Theodora]

Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

You’re missing that this is someone’s take on it from what they’ve seen and heard at PDXcon, not the equivalent of a dev diary.

Take it out with a grain of salt, it’s one person’s attempt at being purely descriptive, but it’s still only one person. No one is “lying”.

 

[Axioms]

Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

You’re missing that this is someone’s take on it from what they’ve seen and heard at PDXcon, not the equivalent of a dev diary.

Take it out with a grain of salt, it’s one person’s attempt at being purely descriptive, but it’s still only one person. No one is “lying”.

Plus there is a whole bunch of stuff related to translation. Maybe they aren't lying they just used individually wrong.

 

[Theodora]

Vicky 2 did it that way, but that means "over a billion people are modeled individually" is a lie or at least a misrepresentation / exaggeration, and suggests other things may not be as claimed too.

You’re missing that this is someone’s take on it from what they’ve seen and heard at PDXcon, not the equivalent of a dev diary.

Take it out with a grain of salt, it’s one person’s attempt at being purely descriptive, but it’s still only one person. No one is “lying”.

Plus there is a whole bunch of stuff related to translation. Maybe they aren't lying they just used individually wrong.

Wouldn’t be the first time gamers read far too much into a throwaway comment, or managed to hype something through an incidental instance of Chinese whispers.

 

[karoliner]

 

[Axioms]

If they actually do what the information indicates this may be the only Paradox game franchise that won't go down in flames.

 

[Theodora]

Poor quality images, but the paper map aesthetic isn't gone:

Spoiler

 

[Silva]

I hope this time they actually put iron in Brazil fucking Minas Gerais (General MINES) state so I don't depend on China to build a railroad.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Why is everything so huge?

That's what she said.

lol can't wait to see it on the switch

I actually hope they release it for Android. June's Journey and Treasure of Nadia are cool games, but one needs something more involved from time to time...

 

[Delterius]

Poor quality images, but the paper map aesthetic isn't gone:

Spoiler

*preorders again*

 

[Theodora]

re: 'will there be political parties?', seems we'll just have to wait for full clarification, but that that wait shouldn't be too long.

 

[Harthwain]

Poor quality images, but the paper map aesthetic isn't gone:

Spoiler

What's the rationale behind some provinces having their border colors more empty than others?

 

[Trithne]

Poor quality images, but the paper map aesthetic isn't gone:

Spoiler

What's the rationale behind some provinces having their border colors more empty than others?

Probably to indicate the difference between centralised nations, which are playable, and decentralised nations, which aren't, and are where you go to colonise.

Basically, instead of there just being "empty" land, it's got a country on it, but you can still try and build there, but this might piss off the country there.

 

[M. AQVILA]

Cartoony, like CKIII.

 

[Trithne]

Poor quality images, but the paper map aesthetic isn't gone:

Spoiler

What's the rationale behind some provinces having their border colors more empty than others?

Probably to indicate the difference between centralised nations, which are playable, and decentralised nations, which aren't, and are where you go to colonise.

Basically, instead of there just being "empty" land, it's got a country on it, but you can still try and build there, but this might piss off the country there.

More detailed version, thanks to some redditor who got to see it in action because they write funny patch notes:

• Well over 100 playable countries, but not all countries are playable. Most of Africa, parts of inner South America, and a few surviving native tribes in North America (including the Lakota, Dakota, and Cree) were not playable. These are "Decentralized Countries." Post-launch, they want to make them playable eventually. But they want to do them right because the gameplay experience should be significantly different. All the Decentralized Countries have names and governments. There are no "uncolonized" provinces, but you can colonize on top of a Decentralized Country without declaring war.

• Colonization works in two different ways: Colonization against Decentralized Countries can be done like in EU4, where you can theoretically do it without open conflict. You establish a Colonial Institution back home and employ POPs as Colonists who will slowly build up the colony in the target province. During this time, you will generate a Tension score with the Decentralized Country you are colonizing on top of, which can result in open warfare. The natives will annex your colony if they win.
  
  
• Machine Guns no longer magically make you able to colonize new areas like in Vicky 2. They just help against uprisings if you do have to fight. Medical advances like Malaria Medication will have a major impact on where you can colonize, though.
  
  
• Colonization against Unrecognized nations, it's more like declaring a regular war. You can make them your colonial subject, or you can demand a Treaty Port, which will create a new State under your control and give you access to their market.
  
  
• Outright annexing overseas territory by either method will create a Colonial State, which is not the same as an Unincorporated State. They are affected by colonial policies, have special migration rules, and distinct mechanics.
  

 

[AwesomeButton]

So "decentralized" is actually "uncivilized"?

 

[Nutria]

This all sounds like the typical Paradox formula of just making things more complex to try to trick people into thinking that it's fun or an accurate simulation. This may work if you're in Europe where they kind of know what they're talking about, but it totally breaks down as soon as you get far from Sweden.

My first real hammer blow to the head was in one of the HoI games when they divided Oregon state into two parts and the eastern one was called "Bures". I racked my brain for a long time trying to figure out what that meant and then eventually realized it was a typo for "Burns", an insignificant town of 3,000 people out in the desert. Someone in Sweden must have looked at a map and picked out some town at random and that made it into the game.

The second was when I played Vicky 2 and I saw the literacy rates in America. Somehow New England doesn't start out as the most literate population on Earth. It's like 60% or something and it's the same across all white populations in America. I don't know how much of this was laziness and how much was ideology. Or maybe they just had to cheat so that America doesn't inevitably end up as the world superpower in the end?

Whatever was going on, it really shows that the Paradox model of making everything more and more detailed without doing any research or thinking of the consequences is a terrible way to make a game. It's like Operational Art of War or those old tabletop wargames where you pushed 500 counters around hexes in Russia. In the end it's really just a bunch of abstract math problems that are totally disconnected from the history it's supposed to be tied to.

 

[Trithne]

So "decentralized" is actually "uncivilized"?

Uncivs are more like the new Unrecognised Nation: A functioning nation-state, but one that the great powers don't acknowledge as a potential equal. It's possible to become recognised by doing certain things, and example given was Japan beating Russia would promote them to a Recognised Nation.

Decentralised Nations are equivalent to the empty grey space on the V2 map.

 

[fantadomat]

making things more complex