u/eSkelegt

I'm not sure if sharing game ideas here is allowed, but I'm going to share my game idea anyway.

There is a game called Victoria 3. It is a grand strategy game set between 1836 and 1936. It is mainly an economic simulator, meaning that the player controls a country and its economy. There is also a political system, but honestly, I think it is pretty bad.

So, I have some ideas for improving the game. These improvements probably won't be added because Victoria 3 already consumes a lot of CPU, and the systems I want to add would require even more CPU power. Also, I don't work at Paradox, so they probably wouldn't implement them anyway.

- Polandball graphics:

With Polandball style graphics, the game could potentially consume less CPU and might appeal to some people. Creating portraits and all the artwork that Victoria 3 currently has would take a huge amount of time, but one, two, or maybe three Polandball artists could make the whole process much easier, right?

As I said, the Polandball aesthetic is already well known among grand strategy gamers, so I think most of them would be perfectly fine with the visuals.

- Ownership:

In Victoria 3, Manor Houses, Financial Districts, Companies, the local workforce, and the State can own buildings. I would completely change how this works.

Manor Houses and Financial Districts would only be able to own buildings in the state where they are located. For example, a Financial District in New York wouldn't be able to own buildings in California or anywhere else. The same would apply to Manor Houses.

I would also add ownership by the Petite Bourgeoisie and rural farmers. These groups could own certain types of buildings in the county where they live. In other words, a farmer in Dallas could own a building in Dallas, but couldnt own anywhere else in Texas. The same would apply to a bourgeoisie in Sacramento.

Companies, however, would be able to own buildings anywhere in the country. I'll explain more about them in the next section.

- Companies:

Victoria 3 only allows you to create around 5 or 6 companies per country. I would change that to hundreds.

For example, if I could, I would create a steel company for the USA. If that company became too powerful, or if a political party supported it, the USA could potentially split that company into three separate companies.

Basically, I want to have three formable companies for every country and every product. You could have three different iron companies and three different logging companies competing for the same resources.

You could either allow one company to monopolize a resource, or deliberately divide the market between two or three competing companies.

- IG slots:

Victoria 3 has Interest Groups. It's an okay system, but I don't think it represents politics very well.

Instead of having one person represent an entire Interest Group, I would add individual IG slots for different political figures.

For example, you could have both Martin Van Buren and Daniel Webster representing the Petite Bourgeoisie. However, instead of every member of the IG supporting the same party, individual people within that IG could support different parties.

These IG slots could be unlocked through technology and laws. For example, Serfdom could create three additional Landowner political figures, while Romanticism could add another one.

The early game could therefore be dominated by Landowner politicians, while the late game could see Industrialists and Petite Bourgeoisie politicians becoming much more important.

Company owners could also support different political parties depending on their personal politics.

I would also give the player the option to have minority religious groups represented among the clergy. For example, the USA could have both Catholic and Protestant clergy IG slots, or potentially remove both if the country becomes strongly atheistic.

- Upper/Lower houses and local elections:

Victoria 3 only has one type of election, and I think that's a major limitation.

If I were designing the system, I would make it a true "sandbox politics" system.

For example, Russia could have no elections at all for either the upper or lower house of parliament, while for some reason still having universal suffrage in local elections.

The player should be able to create unusual political systems like this without the game constantly telling them that their government structure is historically impossible.

Basically, I want the player to be able to choose their form of government with as few hard limitations as possible.

- Cabinet system:

Victoria 3 doesn't really have a cabinet system, and I think it desperately needs one.

Imagine having a Landowner as your Minister of Economics. They might push you toward building more farms instead of factories.

I know this would take some player agency away, but I think it could be worth it.

Alternatively, ignoring your Economic Minister could create political problems, potentially causing your government to lose legitimacy or even become dysfunctional.

A Petite Bourgeoisie Foreign Minister might look favorably upon the emergence of nation-states, while a Landowner Foreign Minister might strongly oppose it.

Different ministers should therefore have their own political interests and agendas.

- Ideologies:

Victoria 3 has ideologies, but I think they could be much more interesting.

Instead of giving every Interest Group the same generic "Traditionalist" or "Reformer" type of ideology, I would divide these ideologies into different factions within the IGs themselves.

For example, Bourgeois corporatism and Clerical corporatism wouldn't necessarily be the same thing.

An Armed Forces reformer could also have very different goals from a Landowner reformer.

They could agree on many issues, but still have important differences and nuances.

With this we could show why the entire petite bourgeoisie doesnt support the same party. Van Buren vas a democrat and Webster was a whig. Despite Vic 3 making Henry Clay into an intelligentsia I would put him as a landowner in USA.

These are all my ideas for now.

Please steal my idea and make a game so good that you destroy Paradox Interactive.

Bu nesil içinde artık çok geç. Türkiye'de özellikle 2019da z kuşağının çok önemli olduğundan, Türkiye'yi daha demokratik bir ülke yapıcaklarından bahsediyordu herkes. 2019 kayıbından sonra z kuşağı ve onlara yön veren abileri ablalarıda bütün inancını kaybetti ve siyasi olarak çeşitli ideolojik fikirlere savruldular. Bu savrulmanın sonucu insanlar objektif gerçekliği belli bir lensten okuyor yada direkt o gerçekliği reddediyor.

Mesela hem kendi arkadaşlarım arasında hemde internet caimasında insanların ciddi ciddi. AKP'nin tavukculara atanan kayyumun sol/kamucu bir şey olduğunu sanması gibi. Ben bir çok insan trollüyor veya baitlemek için öyle diyorlar diyordum ama buna cidden inanan insanlar var.

Bugün Türkiye zengin bir ülke, galiba 16. Falanız. Ama sorun eşit dağıtımda. Biz alt tabaka, ayak takımı yada güvencesiz orta sınıflar hayatta kalabilmek için, daha doğrusu hayat standartlarımızın yükselmesi için hükümetlerin zenginlerden ve bizden alacağı vergiler ile yapılacak isdihtam ve yardımlar ile bunu sağlayabiliriz. Liberallerin idealinde olan kimseden vergi almazsak daha çok isdihtam olur veya 'pasta' daha büyür en küçük dilimi alan bile ben doydum der gibi bi şey gerçek değil. Peki ya Amerika? Demeyin. Türkiyede aynı politikaları uygulasak ülkenin o derece zengin olamayacağını sizde biliyorsunuz. Bugün Türkiye'de devlet işletmelere el koyuyor ve yerine yandaşlarını getiriyor, bugün Türkiye'de rekabet kurumu çalışmıyor ve tekelleşmeler gerçekleşiyor. Bu sorunlara liberalizm belki çare olabilir. Ama eşitlik sorunu, bir vatana aitlik hissini, gençlerin çok azında bulunan gayrimenkül sorununu ve isdihtamı ve insanların eğitimini ve iş yerlerindeki iş kazalarını çözemez.

Ben kamucu birisiyim aynı zamanda kolektivizmi/kabileciliği(artık ismi ne olursa olsun) bireycilikten üstün görüyorum. Türkiye'nin Güney Kore gibi "zengin" ama gavat bir ülke olmasını istemem. Amerika gibi "zengin" ama katı bireyci bir ülke olmasını istemem. Kanada, Hollanda vs de olmasını istemem. Toplumların toplum bilinci olmadan yok olacağına inanıyorum. r/egoizm den nefret ediyorum.

İlla gidin komünist sosyalist yada faşist vs vs olun demiyorum, ama liberal olmayın diyorum. Liberalizm insan ruhunu ve toplumları bozan bir kanser cidden.

Yesterday I was thinking how the life of prophet Joseph had 12th house themes. He had close hidden enemies (brothers). He was enslaved and later he rose to power because of his dream interpretations, he became the second in command of the pharaoh. To me his dream interpretations, his slavery era and him becoming a strong second in command shows 12th house themes. Can you think of any other historical/religious/mythical figures that has 12th house themes?

Hey everyone! I recently posted this on the Paradox Suggestions forum, but I wanted to bring the discussion over to Reddit to see what you guys think about the current state of politics in Victoria 3 and a potential mechanic overhaul. Right now, Victoria 3's political system feels overly monolithic because Interest Groups (IGs) act as uniform global entities. This leads to some really immersion breaking and historically inaccurate situations.

For example, look at the USA: the entire Landowner IG is represented by Southern Planters, meaning Northern aristocrats are forced to support slavery. Furthermore, Northern "Yeoman Farmers" end up backing pro slavery policies simply because they are pooled into the same global Rural Folk IG, just because the current leader of that global IG happens to be Andrew Jackson.

To fix this without abandoning the core Pop/IG mechanics, I propose a clear separation between Institutional IGs (the baseline pop alignment) and Political Sub-IGs (Party Factions).

​Instead of a single, country-wide "Industrialist" or "Landowner" IG running for elections, each political party should house its own custom sub-factions derived from those core IGs.

​The Democrats would have Southern Planters (Landowners) and Jacksonian Farmers (Rural Folk) to represent their Southern/Agrarian base.

The Whigs would have Northern Gentry (Landowners) and Yeoman Farmers (Rural Folk) to reflect their Northern, anti-slavery base.

This system would also model eras like the Gilded Age perfectly. During this time, both major US parties were dominated by big business, yet they represented different corporate interests. With this system, we could have both Republican Industrialists (supporting tariffs) and Democratic Industrialists (supporting free trade).

Obviously, not every party would contain every type of sub-faction. For example ​a Communist Party would strictly lock out any Industrialist or Landowner sub-factions.

Furthermore, these internal Sub-IGs would act as actual intra-party factions. Instead of the entire party agreeing on everything, a player would have to manage internal party stability. Passing a certain law might please your party's Industrialist wing but deeply anger its Rural wing, triggering a party split or a realignment election. This would prevent late game political stagnation and make managing politics much more dynamic.

If Paradox eventually adds houses of parliaments/congress and local elections to Victoria 3, the depth of this political system would easily make this game the best political simulator ever made. The possibilities for historical alt-history and emergent storytelling would be endless. ​What do you guys think? Would this solve the rigidness of the current party system, or would it be too micro-heavy? I would love to hear your feedback and suggestions!