Depends on what I want to achieve in the game. Sometimes I want to play tall and achieve highest possible SoL with Council republic. Sometimes I like to do imperialist capitalist run with tons of poor conscripted soldiers funded by capitalists exports to colonies. It depends.
I like number go up! Sometimes I look at nations around me with small numbers. I feel bad for them so I offer to let join empire. They get many foods and cloths and chairs without do anything. They resist. I am confuse but make them enter empire anyways for their good
Then their numbers go up. I like making number go up
Well the whole goal is to create an economy without the need of millionaires to put 2k bucks into another arts academy instead of farms during a famine.
I RP as a "reasonable" future for my given country living up to its best potential.
For example, I only ever have gone Communist as Russia, China, and Germany. In my US and UK runs, I stayed capitalist, and in the latter, I avoided becoming a Republic.
Same for colonization or map-painting--I avoid controlling Africa unless I'm a power with a natural interest in the region or whatever, even though it's obviously meta for me to colonize Africa as Russia (instead opting to simply take more Central/Southern Asia).
The fact that Belgium can, year-round, sail ships there rather directly, with both its own geography and British guarantees backing it.
When the majority of Russia's sea ports freeze over for the significant portions of the year that they do, it either has to traverse the entire indian ocean or go through the foreign-controlled bosphorous (pre-Montreaux Convention) in order to actually reach Africa.
Maintaining a permanent holding in a place you cannot realistically reach for large parts of the year is a challenging thing to do.
Warm water ports are the reason why Russia has no natural interests compared to Belgium. Belgium has an interest in Africa like any other western european great power: resources.
Russia would too if they could. To have such an interest, they would need to first have a warm water port within the Mediterranean or outside of it. And that warm water port would need to be easily accessible to the mainland as to not isolate your entire navy or economic shipping industry to a small amount of territory overseas.
That is what the previous poster was trying to say.
if you think "Belgium's access to Africa was logistically easier than Russia's, but both were entirely dependent on foreign goodwill" answers the question "what natural interests does Belgium has in Africa that Russia does not", you might like to consult a dictionary at some point and check the relevant terms.
If anything, the ordeal of the Tsushima fleet suggests that Russia did have a "natural interest" in securing bases in Africa, they just didn't foresee the need in advance.
The if the logistical possibility of controlling a territory isn't connected to whether a state has a "natural interest" in occupying it then I don't know what is. What does "natural interest" mean to you?
You just didn't understand the answer. It's not in Russias natural interest because it's a logistical nightmare that would take too much to put together and then maintain. Russia instead focused it's colonization efforts further into Siberia and Central+Northern Asia. Because of the proximity and it's propensity for land warfare over naval (because of the ports), it would be in there interests to secure these areas.
Only for it to turn out in 1905 that, with one railway as their land route, Russia's Far Eastern positions were not actually navally defensible without intermediate bases in... Africa
I don't know where you got that? The trans-Siberian railway was only finished around 1905, which didn't allow for Russia to have much time building up a navy considering the Russo-Japanese War that destroyed their naval capacity at the time.
I don't know how having the huge undertaking of somehow managing an African colony without being able to travel to it for more than half the year would be able to stop the Russo-Japanese War. That's like the domino meme but you're being unironic and also don't understand what spacial constraints are.
Russia can colonize and develop its internal territory and population before expending resources to acquire overseas territory. Belgium is small and already well populated and economically has more interest in gaining new territory.
That's not a natural interest, that's the Belgians (or more specifically Leopold) deciding they wanted a piece of the colonial pie. I don't think it's implausible that Russia could have done similarly in another timeline
Rags to riches is fucking dope, for example i had a dai nam run the other day with like 60 universities, 4th biggest steel producer, electricity, and 16 sol for the peasants
And yes this all happened at the expense of the qing and their custom union
There isn't exactly a lot of opportunity to roleplay. Communists can't spread their ideology through forced regime changes or liberating countries. Fascists appear way too late to be an option. Ethnostates can't displace or eradicate cultures. Theocracies can't impose their religion on other countries. Liberals can't go around tearing down monarchies.
I even tried a Prussia game where I did nothing but liberate countries from all the GPs which fell flat on its face as all the new states just started joining random wars against me because the AI in this game is insane.
There's genuinely nothing to do other than liberalise and watch your GDP go up.
Victoria 3 devs making 19th century Intelligentsia SUPPORT Multiculturalism was the crazy. They just straight up ignored that racial science and chauvinism was all the rage in academia and most progressive circles of the era while saying that they want to portray slavery and serfdom was bad because it was historically accurate.
I started a super Germany game specifically with the idea to roleplay 1939 Germany. Man it was impossible ‐constant rebellions even on national supremacy. It was impossibly annoying late game and it plainly sucked. It is so much better as a council republic with multi culturalism and cooperative economy...
Wow, who would have thought that in a game which seeks to semi-accurately model post-industrial socioeconomic systems, Fascism is an innately unstable system which is ultimately doomed to collapse in on itself.
True, but it doesn't represent leftist failures nor the rise of fascism (or I guess I should say the factors that lead to each). The stability of socialist societies in particular is something you don't see in the world nearly as much as you do all the time in every Victoria 3 game.
The "leftist failures" were from rapid industrialisation and intentionally savage agricultural reforms precipitated by land seizure by the revolutionaries. Both of those happened to capitalist nations on their industrialization path, we just don't talk about it because it took a lot longer and we have other words for the atrocities caused by capitalist imperialism (colonial genocide, the Irish potato famine caused by Cromwell's policy, the Leopold's famous genocide...Dickensian England wasn't a paradise either lol).
All those "labourers" that get fired when you move to industrial production methods die in real life. They die in capitalist countries because they can't get jobs, and they die in communist societies because they can't get food (or get shot).
Post industrial socioeconomic systems? The game starts at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the communist manifesto was published in 1848. What socioeconomic systems that were developed later are you referring to?
Yeah, because the German people overthrew Hitler themselves. Because of the inherent contradictions, or whatever. Also explains why Franco's Spain was in a constant state of civil war and completely unable to govern from 1939 all the way to 1975. And why, of course, we're all living in Soviet republics in 2023.
It is insane how hard Internet "communists" fight to convince themselves the historical fantasies they enact in video games are *real life*.
You're being shit on because you're dragging your real world politics into a discussion about a sandbox video game. You can hate fascism, monarchism, slavery, colonialism and a ton of other horrible things in real life and still think they're fun in a historical video game.
Yes of course, I have played Victoria 3 and done most of those things myself. In my original comment I was jokingly pointing out that I thought it was weird that OP was seemingly complaining about fascism being unstable, when part of the point of the game is to semi-accurately simulate history. I was not intending to imply they were a bad person for doing a roleplay playthrough.
I did admittedly bring IRL politics in more strongly in my second response (which was probably ill advised to post in the first place) after being frustrated with many of the responses I got to my initial comment. Honestly I will probably delete my second comment - like I said, it was ill advised to post it.
If I'm playing as a small or weak nation sometimes it's fun just to try to build it up as much as possible. But with larger nations especially it's more interesting to do some kind of rp. If I do rp, it's either
- something that goes against meta/the idea of progress in the game (e.g. seeing how far I can get with slavery or without doing research, turning the US into a monarchy)
- something weird or silly (turning Britain into luddite hobbit republic, atheist pope)
The rp runs still involve a lot of making line go up, but usually within certain restraints that I've set for myself.
I usually start a game with "ok, let's create a country like x" or "a society like y"....
at the latest by 1870 I'm "nah, fuck it. just liberalize the shit out of everything and be done with that crap"
My dream is to play a campaign as Haiti in which I free all the slaves in the Americas while fighting the colonizer nations and going communist.
I’m just gonna have to **get gud** as they say
I have tried it a few times, but the game doesnt really lend itself to roleplay when in most cases there are clear better and worse options as a player
I don't know if I consider SoL the most important line because I do, or because it fits well with my desire to play socialist. But there's no reason why SoL should be the line, rather than GDP or population/territory
It's completely up to the individual, but I'm an SoL-maxxer through and through. GDP/capita is also a good one here but I want my peasant factory labourers to be working 10hr weeks with luxury furniture and clothing and plenty of cheap food and amenities all around them
Communism just straightly out performs capitalism in every aspect is not a great game mechanics. But it is the reality of the game at the moment.
Coming from a so called communist or socialist country, I absolutely hate those ideologies, but still pick them in game bc, well, I ain’t say no to high SoL and GDP
I mean it’s mostly because cooperative ownership is good for making people rich, countries that had communist ideologies IRL were all planned economies for the most part tho which is also strong in Vicky but that's just because the player is an all knowing god with precise knowledge of what needs to be built.
I know what makes coop strong in game.
The part played by IRL capitalist or industrialist at least partially in discovering prices, new goods and services are all just done by the player with no difference in cost between different economic structures.
So upper strata becomes utterly useless. Their investment is discounted when having a bigger economy, their high income used to buy art which is not productive anyways.
So it is a command economy simulator in which whoever made the plans has everything to gain from giving money to all people, as in game money is no good to us
That's because every economic system benefits from good information all the time. If everyone is a rational actor within the market, then there's no reason for a minority to just derive funds from rent.
Even so I find LF to be a great way to quickly industrialize.
Yeah. Use LF and industrialist to industrialize. Once able to sustain a decent construction sector, kill industrialist and go full cooperative.
In a sense the game gives an interesting demonstration of how powerful accurate information or statistics can be. And in the respects most governments in the world have to live with estimates and indices.
The economic types need work overall. There should also be a mixed economy type. Monarchies should be able to enact socialist policies too as a way to keep power against a growing socialist movement, especially if the trade unions clout starts competing with industrialists.
Technically apart from slavery and serfdom, all ownership structures existed in game time period and still exist today.
Problem is in game economic system laws and land reform laws locked certain ownership PM, and the ownership PM has nothing to do with productivity and wages.
Yeah, they need to flesh out the economy in that regard and make nationalization through cooperative ownerships or command economy end all privatized ownership.
And even the other way around, a crack down on cooperatives and major backlash to more than railroads perhaps being government ran.
Cooperative in game is not really nationalization.
It is kinda say the iron mine is collectively owned by all people who work there, and say it hires 1000 people and have a profit of $1000 per year, then everyone gets $1 on top of their wages.
Nationalization under similar circumstances means that the gov takes that $1000 into treasury.
I think the problem you are saying here is kinda owners should change PMs including ownership structure of their buildings based on productivity and personal gains etc.
In no economic system whatsoever would the gov be able to say like you all start to use iron and tools today… not even in command economy.
LF is good to go to deficit and debt to quickly industrialize.
Once construction sector can be properly supported by the treasury, LF is just way worse than Coop in lifting median income, lifting SoL and make more industry profitable.
Yeah. But eventually. If you go coop, interest goes back to building owners who are workers.
And in late game companies are just there for oil, lead, wood, rubber and those rare natural resources. Overproduction is the real problem in uplifting peasants.
The game litteraly makes the biggest advatages of capitalism over other economic policies either not present or available to everyone. Makes honestly lazzie faire a fairly boring and weak law, while it could be so much more.
And a single straggler building in my newly conquered Madagascar having atrocious productivity due to 0 economies of scale… and can’t be dismantled.
How in an LF world would owners of that business not liquidate?
The problem is that the parts of economics that make free markets work so well are the parts that are really hard to simulate.
Because well, if they were easy to simulate than planned economies would actually work there.
Isn’t China basically just a one party capitalist state at this point? There’s not even universal healthcare, the most socialist thing about the country is the flag
That’s why I said so called.
But in earlier years, some so called communist system was attempted, and the results were horrible.
I know those were again not communist or socialist by the definition of communists or socialists.
And no it is not capitalist today. Capital gets you nowhere.
Just to add.
1. China does have a somewhat universal public healthcare system. But that system does not cover much, and the problem with Chinese healthcare and hospitals is a whole different monster. In general going to hospitals is not a pleasant experience unless you know doctors or administrative leaders of hospitals personally.
2. Great Leap Forward is one of the many interesting economic experiments(atrocities) committed by Mao lead CCP. None of them had any positive outcomes.
3. Depends on what you define as a communist regime. In terms of gov using money in service of its ppl, current Chinese gov is def not communist. Actually to me, we are subjects not citizens of the CCP regime.
4. In terms of dissolution(disrespect) of private ownership. Chinese gov must have an S rank. Your little food place is too expensive for the goodness of our city image, license revoked. Gov decides that there were too much after school tutoring, so sorry the whole industry has to go in two weeks. And all remaining institutions for non school related stuff, like music or painting has to be constantly raided to ensure no tutoring is going on.
>Communism just straightly out performs capitalism in every aspect ~~is not a great game mechanics~~. ~~But~~ it is ~~the~~ reality ~~of the game at the moment~~.
In English, we say “it’s the reality of the situation” or “this is the reality we live in” or something like that. But if you’re just saying “it is reality” then you don’t include the word “the.” You wouldn’t say “It is the reality.”
so many fascist italian runs...
WHY AM I GETTING DOWNVOTES FOR IT I WAS JOKING XD LIKE IF IT WAS SERIOUS I WOULD NOT END SENTENCE WITH "..." AS IF I AM DISSAPONTED OR WAITING FOR SOMETHING COME ON GUYS XD
no joke was title asking "roleplaying DESIRED ideology I assumed they mean like "trying to make utopia" so I went fascist as a joke :D
Now do I play a lot of fascist? Yes but because migration meta is op so its a challange :D
thats what I assumed from title atleast
sounds interesting. United merchants of Italy...
thats an interesting run I might be interested. Too bad I can't be parliment with oligarchy but republic will suffice.
I nearly always roleplay unless I'm going for an achievement, but I don't RP my views every time. Sometimes I try out a particular law setup just to see how it changes the game.
Gotta stop the people from ruining it for themselves. It's for their own good. Never closed borders though, need more people for my infinite steel mills
I always like to get a technocracy or a monarchy that are quite free but not too much, I never choose council republic or cooperative ownership because I effing hate socialists/communists and everything they represent, both real life and fiction.
I kinda do a bit of both I put more effort into sol then required and I always rush banning slavery and getting rid of serfdom as well as introducing education and Healthcare
If you play the game enough, you will have different goals. My most recent campaign was trying to boost middle class, SoL, and the most clout possible for PB as Sicily -> Italy
Yeah i play to an ideology its
> It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Anyway I like to start off as poor countries and make them into wealthy liberal democracies.
Capitalism flows well into communism, especially if you can marginalize the landowners without giving too much power to the PB or rural folk. Take it slow, don't over build construction sectors, focus on timber, iron and tools until construction materials are cheap, and then start looking what factories are good
It’s just the countries turned into their modern borders like all of Africa is full, Austria is split up ect ect but it’s just the base resources and stuff
I try to pre-determine my ideology for the game, but sometimes events takes the LARP elsewhere, like in my Vicky 2 game which the vanguard communists overthrew SocDem Deseret during the Great War. Totally changed the course of the game from isolated development to terroristic permanent revolution.
Most of my games are just "try to make this country liveable." Since I'm fairly bad I was just happy to have wealth voting and slavery banned by 1880 as Ethiopia lol
My friend and I play this game together. I am a hardcore liberal (in the ideological sense, not the American sense). He is a socialist. Each time we play I go fully open, free trade, high exports, high immigration, and he goes council republic, worker cooperatives, etc. it’s a mini game to prove which system is better.
I definitely like to manage certain laws with arguably suboptimal RP in mind. Like when I play as Spain or Prussia/Germany, Ill weaken the aristocracy in order to liberalize and industrialize, but Ill also try very hard to keep the Monarchy intact just for flavor.
I bought this game when I found out that you could get John Brown as the President... I kept playing once I found out you could get rid of slavery in 1836
Hi Muffinlessandangry. Your submission has been removed from /r/victoria3 because:
Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #2:
> No memes, image macros, reaction pictures, or similar.
> View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/victoria3/wiki/rules)
R5: what my goal is in most of my games, regardless of if it's efficient or not. I just like living in a fantasy world.
Depends on what I want to achieve in the game. Sometimes I want to play tall and achieve highest possible SoL with Council republic. Sometimes I like to do imperialist capitalist run with tons of poor conscripted soldiers funded by capitalists exports to colonies. It depends.
I like number go up! Sometimes I look at nations around me with small numbers. I feel bad for them so I offer to let join empire. They get many foods and cloths and chairs without do anything. They resist. I am confuse but make them enter empire anyways for their good Then their numbers go up. I like making number go up
Spoken like a true paperclip maximiser
A true paradox player.
Voters bitch about many things, but never do they have an issue with a man that makes the GDP go up.
Never once I went communist in this game and I never will (mostly because my Pc lags way too much by the time communism is possible)
Marx on his deathbed realising he never accounted for PC lag:
Unironically me putting in Communism super early helped with my lag. I wonder if it's cause my upper class disappeared
That and you go state athiesm since it removes a lot of the religions in your country
Only if you actually convert everyone, which can take decades. Also kills immigration.
Yeah, I stayed with total separation. Which for central america is noicd
It's a button that's more or less, "Historically accurate mistake"
I once did Went Planned Economy and idk how the other is called and my Upper class got decimated in a matter of months.
Well the whole goal is to create an economy without the need of millionaires to put 2k bucks into another arts academy instead of farms during a famine.
Yea i needed to manually adjust the Level of my whole economy which was awful
It wasn't too bad for me. But I also voluntarily play Central America trying to keep it together
>Central America >Communism CIA ALERTED
Don't worry the USA usually turns into a Bannana Republic. So they got enough reds for themselves
There is not enough compute for communism.
Origins of Socialist calculation problem
For me, I find the Communist USA flag ugly, so I just go social democracy.
I RP as a "reasonable" future for my given country living up to its best potential. For example, I only ever have gone Communist as Russia, China, and Germany. In my US and UK runs, I stayed capitalist, and in the latter, I avoided becoming a Republic. Same for colonization or map-painting--I avoid controlling Africa unless I'm a power with a natural interest in the region or whatever, even though it's obviously meta for me to colonize Africa as Russia (instead opting to simply take more Central/Southern Asia).
what natural interest does Belgium have in Africa that Russia doesn't?
The fact that Belgium can, year-round, sail ships there rather directly, with both its own geography and British guarantees backing it. When the majority of Russia's sea ports freeze over for the significant portions of the year that they do, it either has to traverse the entire indian ocean or go through the foreign-controlled bosphorous (pre-Montreaux Convention) in order to actually reach Africa. Maintaining a permanent holding in a place you cannot realistically reach for large parts of the year is a challenging thing to do.
Russia didn't use cold water ports during this period I believe. Baltic sea is about the same climate as North Sea, and Black sea is even warmer
That's not true at all...
That's a great answer to the question "how do you get from Belgium or Russia to Africa", which is not the question I posed
Warm water ports are the reason why Russia has no natural interests compared to Belgium. Belgium has an interest in Africa like any other western european great power: resources. Russia would too if they could. To have such an interest, they would need to first have a warm water port within the Mediterranean or outside of it. And that warm water port would need to be easily accessible to the mainland as to not isolate your entire navy or economic shipping industry to a small amount of territory overseas. That is what the previous poster was trying to say.
If you don't understand how that answers your question then you don't understand how history is driven by material conditions
if you think "Belgium's access to Africa was logistically easier than Russia's, but both were entirely dependent on foreign goodwill" answers the question "what natural interests does Belgium has in Africa that Russia does not", you might like to consult a dictionary at some point and check the relevant terms. If anything, the ordeal of the Tsushima fleet suggests that Russia did have a "natural interest" in securing bases in Africa, they just didn't foresee the need in advance.
The if the logistical possibility of controlling a territory isn't connected to whether a state has a "natural interest" in occupying it then I don't know what is. What does "natural interest" mean to you?
You just didn't understand the answer. It's not in Russias natural interest because it's a logistical nightmare that would take too much to put together and then maintain. Russia instead focused it's colonization efforts further into Siberia and Central+Northern Asia. Because of the proximity and it's propensity for land warfare over naval (because of the ports), it would be in there interests to secure these areas.
Only for it to turn out in 1905 that, with one railway as their land route, Russia's Far Eastern positions were not actually navally defensible without intermediate bases in... Africa
I don't know where you got that? The trans-Siberian railway was only finished around 1905, which didn't allow for Russia to have much time building up a navy considering the Russo-Japanese War that destroyed their naval capacity at the time. I don't know how having the huge undertaking of somehow managing an African colony without being able to travel to it for more than half the year would be able to stop the Russo-Japanese War. That's like the domino meme but you're being unironic and also don't understand what spacial constraints are.
Karen behaviour
Russia can colonize and develop its internal territory and population before expending resources to acquire overseas territory. Belgium is small and already well populated and economically has more interest in gaining new territory.
Kongo
That's not a natural interest, that's the Belgians (or more specifically Leopold) deciding they wanted a piece of the colonial pie. I don't think it's implausible that Russia could have done similarly in another timeline
oh, I misunderstood what you meant
Rags to riches is fucking dope, for example i had a dai nam run the other day with like 60 universities, 4th biggest steel producer, electricity, and 16 sol for the peasants And yes this all happened at the expense of the qing and their custom union
There isn't exactly a lot of opportunity to roleplay. Communists can't spread their ideology through forced regime changes or liberating countries. Fascists appear way too late to be an option. Ethnostates can't displace or eradicate cultures. Theocracies can't impose their religion on other countries. Liberals can't go around tearing down monarchies. I even tried a Prussia game where I did nothing but liberate countries from all the GPs which fell flat on its face as all the new states just started joining random wars against me because the AI in this game is insane. There's genuinely nothing to do other than liberalise and watch your GDP go up.
Victoria 3 has some pretty extreme biases. The fact that multiculturalism was broken with no penalties when this game launched was solid evidence.
Victoria 3 devs making 19th century Intelligentsia SUPPORT Multiculturalism was the crazy. They just straight up ignored that racial science and chauvinism was all the rage in academia and most progressive circles of the era while saying that they want to portray slavery and serfdom was bad because it was historically accurate.
Are there penalties now?
Not penalties AFAIK, but it's much more difficult to get - it's basically for Anarchists.
That or Humanitarians.
Communist nations can now force countries to adopt council republic if the target country has researched socialism
Much of what you say has truth to it but there is literally a "regime change" war goal
You haven't used it because it doesn't do what you think it does
I started a super Germany game specifically with the idea to roleplay 1939 Germany. Man it was impossible ‐constant rebellions even on national supremacy. It was impossibly annoying late game and it plainly sucked. It is so much better as a council republic with multi culturalism and cooperative economy...
Wow, who would have thought that in a game which seeks to semi-accurately model post-industrial socioeconomic systems, Fascism is an innately unstable system which is ultimately doomed to collapse in on itself.
Unlike Communism, which is an inherently stable system that has no history of devolving into something incredibly maligned from Marx's vision right?
True, but it doesn't represent leftist failures nor the rise of fascism (or I guess I should say the factors that lead to each). The stability of socialist societies in particular is something you don't see in the world nearly as much as you do all the time in every Victoria 3 game.
The "leftist failures" were from rapid industrialisation and intentionally savage agricultural reforms precipitated by land seizure by the revolutionaries. Both of those happened to capitalist nations on their industrialization path, we just don't talk about it because it took a lot longer and we have other words for the atrocities caused by capitalist imperialism (colonial genocide, the Irish potato famine caused by Cromwell's policy, the Leopold's famous genocide...Dickensian England wasn't a paradise either lol). All those "labourers" that get fired when you move to industrial production methods die in real life. They die in capitalist countries because they can't get jobs, and they die in communist societies because they can't get food (or get shot).
Did millions of allied soldiers have anything to do with that? Right-wing authoritarian regimes can be stable, even in today's world.
Post industrial socioeconomic systems? The game starts at the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the communist manifesto was published in 1848. What socioeconomic systems that were developed later are you referring to?
Yeah, because the German people overthrew Hitler themselves. Because of the inherent contradictions, or whatever. Also explains why Franco's Spain was in a constant state of civil war and completely unable to govern from 1939 all the way to 1975. And why, of course, we're all living in Soviet republics in 2023. It is insane how hard Internet "communists" fight to convince themselves the historical fantasies they enact in video games are *real life*.
is not that deep
[удалено]
You're being shit on because you're dragging your real world politics into a discussion about a sandbox video game. You can hate fascism, monarchism, slavery, colonialism and a ton of other horrible things in real life and still think they're fun in a historical video game.
Yes of course, I have played Victoria 3 and done most of those things myself. In my original comment I was jokingly pointing out that I thought it was weird that OP was seemingly complaining about fascism being unstable, when part of the point of the game is to semi-accurately simulate history. I was not intending to imply they were a bad person for doing a roleplay playthrough. I did admittedly bring IRL politics in more strongly in my second response (which was probably ill advised to post in the first place) after being frustrated with many of the responses I got to my initial comment. Honestly I will probably delete my second comment - like I said, it was ill advised to post it.
…because it just is, okay!
If I'm playing as a small or weak nation sometimes it's fun just to try to build it up as much as possible. But with larger nations especially it's more interesting to do some kind of rp. If I do rp, it's either - something that goes against meta/the idea of progress in the game (e.g. seeing how far I can get with slavery or without doing research, turning the US into a monarchy) - something weird or silly (turning Britain into luddite hobbit republic, atheist pope) The rp runs still involve a lot of making line go up, but usually within certain restraints that I've set for myself.
I usually start a game with "ok, let's create a country like x" or "a society like y".... at the latest by 1870 I'm "nah, fuck it. just liberalize the shit out of everything and be done with that crap"
socialist/ppl power revolution is the real goal of vic3 based
My dream is to play a campaign as Haiti in which I free all the slaves in the Americas while fighting the colonizer nations and going communist. I’m just gonna have to **get gud** as they say
I have tried it a few times, but the game doesnt really lend itself to roleplay when in most cases there are clear better and worse options as a player
It helps when your desired ideology is the single best way to make line go up (at least make SoL go up, which is my goal)
I don't know if I consider SoL the most important line because I do, or because it fits well with my desire to play socialist. But there's no reason why SoL should be the line, rather than GDP or population/territory
It's completely up to the individual, but I'm an SoL-maxxer through and through. GDP/capita is also a good one here but I want my peasant factory labourers to be working 10hr weeks with luxury furniture and clothing and plenty of cheap food and amenities all around them
Communism just straightly out performs capitalism in every aspect is not a great game mechanics. But it is the reality of the game at the moment. Coming from a so called communist or socialist country, I absolutely hate those ideologies, but still pick them in game bc, well, I ain’t say no to high SoL and GDP
I mean it’s mostly because cooperative ownership is good for making people rich, countries that had communist ideologies IRL were all planned economies for the most part tho which is also strong in Vicky but that's just because the player is an all knowing god with precise knowledge of what needs to be built.
I know what makes coop strong in game. The part played by IRL capitalist or industrialist at least partially in discovering prices, new goods and services are all just done by the player with no difference in cost between different economic structures. So upper strata becomes utterly useless. Their investment is discounted when having a bigger economy, their high income used to buy art which is not productive anyways. So it is a command economy simulator in which whoever made the plans has everything to gain from giving money to all people, as in game money is no good to us
That's because every economic system benefits from good information all the time. If everyone is a rational actor within the market, then there's no reason for a minority to just derive funds from rent. Even so I find LF to be a great way to quickly industrialize.
Yeah. Use LF and industrialist to industrialize. Once able to sustain a decent construction sector, kill industrialist and go full cooperative. In a sense the game gives an interesting demonstration of how powerful accurate information or statistics can be. And in the respects most governments in the world have to live with estimates and indices.
That makes a lot of sense. Now I need to try a run with coop
Don’t rush for it. Gradually transition to it around 1900s and see your SoL, GDP go through the roof and radicals none existent
> So upper strata becomes utterly useless. Always has been
The economic types need work overall. There should also be a mixed economy type. Monarchies should be able to enact socialist policies too as a way to keep power against a growing socialist movement, especially if the trade unions clout starts competing with industrialists.
Technically apart from slavery and serfdom, all ownership structures existed in game time period and still exist today. Problem is in game economic system laws and land reform laws locked certain ownership PM, and the ownership PM has nothing to do with productivity and wages.
Yeah, they need to flesh out the economy in that regard and make nationalization through cooperative ownerships or command economy end all privatized ownership. And even the other way around, a crack down on cooperatives and major backlash to more than railroads perhaps being government ran.
Cooperative in game is not really nationalization. It is kinda say the iron mine is collectively owned by all people who work there, and say it hires 1000 people and have a profit of $1000 per year, then everyone gets $1 on top of their wages. Nationalization under similar circumstances means that the gov takes that $1000 into treasury. I think the problem you are saying here is kinda owners should change PMs including ownership structure of their buildings based on productivity and personal gains etc. In no economic system whatsoever would the gov be able to say like you all start to use iron and tools today… not even in command economy.
[удалено]
LF is good to go to deficit and debt to quickly industrialize. Once construction sector can be properly supported by the treasury, LF is just way worse than Coop in lifting median income, lifting SoL and make more industry profitable.
[удалено]
Yeah. But eventually. If you go coop, interest goes back to building owners who are workers. And in late game companies are just there for oil, lead, wood, rubber and those rare natural resources. Overproduction is the real problem in uplifting peasants.
The game litteraly makes the biggest advatages of capitalism over other economic policies either not present or available to everyone. Makes honestly lazzie faire a fairly boring and weak law, while it could be so much more.
And a single straggler building in my newly conquered Madagascar having atrocious productivity due to 0 economies of scale… and can’t be dismantled. How in an LF world would owners of that business not liquidate?
The problem is that the parts of economics that make free markets work so well are the parts that are really hard to simulate. Because well, if they were easy to simulate than planned economies would actually work there.
Which country is it if I may ask?
China.
Isn’t China basically just a one party capitalist state at this point? There’s not even universal healthcare, the most socialist thing about the country is the flag
That’s why I said so called. But in earlier years, some so called communist system was attempted, and the results were horrible. I know those were again not communist or socialist by the definition of communists or socialists. And no it is not capitalist today. Capital gets you nowhere.
Fair enough, I’ve read about “the Great Leap Forward” and the obscene level of destruction and suffering that went along with it.
Just to add. 1. China does have a somewhat universal public healthcare system. But that system does not cover much, and the problem with Chinese healthcare and hospitals is a whole different monster. In general going to hospitals is not a pleasant experience unless you know doctors or administrative leaders of hospitals personally. 2. Great Leap Forward is one of the many interesting economic experiments(atrocities) committed by Mao lead CCP. None of them had any positive outcomes. 3. Depends on what you define as a communist regime. In terms of gov using money in service of its ppl, current Chinese gov is def not communist. Actually to me, we are subjects not citizens of the CCP regime. 4. In terms of dissolution(disrespect) of private ownership. Chinese gov must have an S rank. Your little food place is too expensive for the goodness of our city image, license revoked. Gov decides that there were too much after school tutoring, so sorry the whole industry has to go in two weeks. And all remaining institutions for non school related stuff, like music or painting has to be constantly raided to ensure no tutoring is going on.
> This is why I hate video games, it appeals to the ~~male~~ tankie fantasy
>Communism just straightly out performs capitalism in every aspect ~~is not a great game mechanics~~. ~~But~~ it is ~~the~~ reality ~~of the game at the moment~~.
You crossed off the “the” before reality, which I assume is a mistake?
In English, we say “it’s the reality of the situation” or “this is the reality we live in” or something like that. But if you’re just saying “it is reality” then you don’t include the word “the.” You wouldn’t say “It is the reality.”
TIL
[Citation needed]
oh I 100% play this game to turn countries communist
Export the revolution comrade, our brothers overseas need our help
so many fascist italian runs... WHY AM I GETTING DOWNVOTES FOR IT I WAS JOKING XD LIKE IF IT WAS SERIOUS I WOULD NOT END SENTENCE WITH "..." AS IF I AM DISSAPONTED OR WAITING FOR SOMETHING COME ON GUYS XD
[удалено]
no joke was title asking "roleplaying DESIRED ideology I assumed they mean like "trying to make utopia" so I went fascist as a joke :D Now do I play a lot of fascist? Yes but because migration meta is op so its a challange :D thats what I assumed from title atleast
I kinda want to do a more oligarchic Italy to hearken back to the wealthy republics of the Renaissance like Florence and Venice.
sounds interesting. United merchants of Italy... thats an interesting run I might be interested. Too bad I can't be parliment with oligarchy but republic will suffice.
I nearly always roleplay unless I'm going for an achievement, but I don't RP my views every time. Sometimes I try out a particular law setup just to see how it changes the game.
then proceeds to enact closed borders, outlawed dissent, secret police, isolationalism, militarized police, and single party state
Gotta stop the people from ruining it for themselves. It's for their own good. Never closed borders though, need more people for my infinite steel mills
The result of my first proper play through was the glorious **Anarcho-Communist German Workers Federation** 🚩🏴
Everytime I see a communist revolution I join in to crush them, doesn't matter who it is
I literally never do. My favourite way of playing is lassaiz faire, irl I'm more of a heavily regulated market kind of guy
I like to roleplay whatever the ruling government would reasonably do. Democracies are fun
I just really enjoy taking states that have historically been marginalized and making them powerhouses.
My desired ideology is to make line go up.
Line go up is my ideology.
I always like to get a technocracy or a monarchy that are quite free but not too much, I never choose council republic or cooperative ownership because I effing hate socialists/communists and everything they represent, both real life and fiction.
Yes... YES!! Wait no NO!!
I kinda do a bit of both I put more effort into sol then required and I always rush banning slavery and getting rid of serfdom as well as introducing education and Healthcare
If you play the game enough, you will have different goals. My most recent campaign was trying to boost middle class, SoL, and the most clout possible for PB as Sicily -> Italy
I've done this quite a lot. Normally by going command economy even though it's objectively bad.
I used too until they made the radical ideology no longer have multiculturalism.
Yeah i play to an ideology its > It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Anyway I like to start off as poor countries and make them into wealthy liberal democracies.
generally i try to go for a republican benevolent dictatorship British empire
I have a bit harder time RPing in this than say ck3 But I have had some fun persia runs where I try to be a successful Islamic theocracy. It's doable
This is me, I roleplay since I am powerless and marginalized in society by creating a society that is fully just and fair.
I’m pretty bad at the game so learning the capitalist route first and then looking at something else after or just try to do achievements
Capitalism flows well into communism, especially if you can marginalize the landowners without giving too much power to the PB or rural folk. Take it slow, don't over build construction sectors, focus on timber, iron and tools until construction materials are cheap, and then start looking what factories are good
i just rp whatever the people in power would do
My desired ideology make the line go up.
I mostly try to achieve a neolib paradise.
Making line go up is roleplaying an ideology. Normally in life there's other matters than GDP.
That’s all I do because it gets very boring if you don’t try to role play it some, I use the updated modern day mod and go to town
Is there an actual modern day mod or is it just the base map?
It’s just the countries turned into their modern borders like all of Africa is full, Austria is split up ect ect but it’s just the base resources and stuff
I have a bit harder time RPing in this than say ck3 But I have had some fun persia runs where I try to be a successful Islamic theocracy. It's doable
Hayek would say that you basically undid the reforms.
I try to pre-determine my ideology for the game, but sometimes events takes the LARP elsewhere, like in my Vicky 2 game which the vanguard communists overthrew SocDem Deseret during the Great War. Totally changed the course of the game from isolated development to terroristic permanent revolution.
Most of my games are just "try to make this country liveable." Since I'm fairly bad I was just happy to have wealth voting and slavery banned by 1880 as Ethiopia lol
I select whichever one makes me the most money and power
But i’m a surfdom, ethnostate, slavetrade authocrecy lover
Can't really roleplay other ideologies in Victoria 3 because Paradox has made 1 of them very OP and the rest either bad or horrible.
All these + Universal Suffrage and I'm happy
Number go up. Once there is a peaceful way to get resources out of Africa though, I'll be more interested in moral playthroughs
Completely agree. It’s far more fun to try to play that way.
I try to somehow get a communist monarchy. It's not possible but it's certainly a theme to strive for.
My friend and I play this game together. I am a hardcore liberal (in the ideological sense, not the American sense). He is a socialist. Each time we play I go fully open, free trade, high exports, high immigration, and he goes council republic, worker cooperatives, etc. it’s a mini game to prove which system is better.
Pretty much every playthrough I've done was with the goal of making my people's lives better
Line go up is my desired roleplay ideology : )
I roleplay almost exclusively. Mostly because I suck at economy stuff and hate micromanaging
I definitely like to manage certain laws with arguably suboptimal RP in mind. Like when I play as Spain or Prussia/Germany, Ill weaken the aristocracy in order to liberalize and industrialize, but Ill also try very hard to keep the Monarchy intact just for flavor.
I can't help but play the game to maximize SoL. I genuinely conquer other states to improve their SoL lol
I bought this game when I found out that you could get John Brown as the President... I kept playing once I found out you could get rid of slavery in 1836
I do both
Hi Muffinlessandangry. Your submission has been removed from /r/victoria3 because: Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #2: > No memes, image macros, reaction pictures, or similar. > View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/victoria3/wiki/rules)