4/11/2023 0 Comments Victoria iii stellaris![]() ![]() Similarly, Victoria also models constraints (i.e. In Stellaris as it exists now, you can already see the problems that arise from the removal of micromanagement: edicts that increase governing ethics attraction have the same effect on your capital (where all pops already follow your ideology) as they do on the recently conquered core worlds of an empire with fundamentally opposing ethics. Ultimately, I think space-based games (such as Stellaris) actually shouldn't model economic change so closely as Victoria does, because creating a vast interstellar empire creates difficulties that cannot be solved using the same approaches used by a city or nation-state spanning less than a twentieth of a continent. Overall, I think the Victoria 3 mechanics would translate very well to a space setting.Ĭlick to expand.I think one of the main problems with this idea is that Stellaris has a fundamentally different focus to Victoria: the ideals of exploration confronting the consequences of interstellar rule are very different to the focus of the ideals of progress confronting the consequences of socio-economic change. Actual ground-armies I would abstract as manned fortifications and sieges by hyper-lane fleets, some with specialised assault equipment. With the concept of warp movement, the star map doesn't need to be fully-connected by hyper lanes, so you can have "continents" and "islands" of various size, down to even some single-system islands. You can't conquer a system with a warp fleet, but they would rule the long range trade. In contrast, the "naval" fleets would use warp drives that are highly-inefficient "sitting ducks" near a gravity well or hyper-lane, but fast and highly maneuverable in deep space. Hyper-lane fleets could enter deep space away from the links and gravity wells but only slowly and without the capability to maneuver and fight effectively. So the current hyper-lane fleets would be the "land" armies that move along the fixed adjacent links between systems. I think another important feature to copy would be the idea of oceans and long-range, low-cost trade potential. ![]() Habitable planets would be special as a relatively cheap location to build housing for large numbers of people, but the central starbase of a system (or the mining buildings themselves) could also house small populations to exploit resources in systems without habitable planets. The "provinces" within the state would be the planets, star and asteroids within the state, each potentially containing a variety of deposits that can exploited. If I were designing a "Stellaris themed" total conversion mod of Victoria 3, I would adopt a model where Vic3 states represented star systems. Stellaris has many of the same concepts (factions, ideology, jobs, consumption) but the systems were developed in a more piecemeal way - it evolved to be more like a Victoria game, but wasn't designed like that from the start. In general, the systems in Vic3 seem more tightly integrated, as everything revolves around the pops. Better trade model and movement of goods (no global goods pools).Better model of resource and special resource deposits.Better consumption model where pops automatically desire more as they become more wealthy.More fine-grained pops that scale with population instead of being fixed size.More interesting and consequential factions that are tied more tightly into the pops and available laws.In particular, what would Stellaris look like if it used the Victoria 3 codebase? Despite how little we know so far about Victoria 3, I think Stellaris could gain a lot: The Victoria 3 mechanics are designed to fit the 19th-century setting, but I think they could be usefully applied in a variety of settings. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |