StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Alright, so after CKII and EUIV it seems only natural to go towards the next game, Victoria II. As a game with the Roman Empire repeatedly fails to convert to it (or crashes when loading it into Vicky II) I'll continue with a new nation. Now, being a fan of moustachioed walruses there is only one true option here.

So this is regarding general playstyle.


The options:

As historic as possible
Try to form Germany, but don't go after the Austrian territories and become passive after 70s, trying to be a peacemaker through Bismarckian diplomacy.


All Germans shall be united under one banner
Trying to fulfill the promises of the 1848 revolution, becoming a liberal leader of nations while trying to form a nation that has all Germans under its banner.

Crush Austria and go Putin
From the early start, Prussia will rediscover the ruthless expansionism of Frederick the Great. It will weaken Austria while being friends with Britain. At the same time, it will ruthlessly expand into nations that have German minorities.

Grab all you can
Ethnicitiy? Who cares. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD.

Your choice?


EDIT:

All Germans shall be united under one banner won.

I vote blood for the blood god. One world government really is the only way to go.

There is no way to achive one world government in Victoria II.

One and two sound the most palatable of the options you gave. Voted accordingly.

Unrestrained conquest just seems pointless and lacking subtlety.

I say Grab all you can, blood for the blood god. I'd love to see how you would choose to act with a Republic of Texas playthrough, as that would certainly test your skills and put you up against quite an early challenge.

As historic as possible sort of defeats the point of the game, and grab all you can is pointless if there's no way to achieve a single world government in Vic2. If you can't unite the whole world under one banner, you can at least unite all Germans under one banner, preferably by trying to live up to the ideals of the 1848 revolution. Emulating Putin in the 19th century may have disastrous results depending on who you run afoul of.

I say start by trying to conquer all of Germany and all territories that have anyone German speaking in them. Once that is done try and recreate the EU through alliance, vassal states and conquest and what ever else the game lets you use. May Bismarck upstage merkel on this one!

Why stop there? With Rome we had LIMITLESS AMBITION, and that led to one heck of a good time, so why not see just how much we can take over? I mean that should be nice and challenging for Thanas too, which as we know leads to much more fun.

OmegaChief wrote:Why stop there? With Rome we had LIMITLESS AMBITION, and that led to one heck of a good time, so why not see just how much we can take over? I mean that should be nice and challenging for Thanas too, which as we know leads to much more fun.

We are talking about queen merkel of the EU here. The last Eurovision contest had Australia in it. That's the first step toward making them use the Euro.

I voted for 3 and 4. Destroy all you can, but be nice to Britain, because at this point we're bigger than you. And I can't help but think that if we'd signed that Anglo-German Alliance in 1895 or so a lot of bloodshed would have been avoided.

Voted 2, although I'd prefer to see it the other way round - you playing the Austrians and unifying Germany under the Habsburg banner, rebuilding the Holy Roman Empire from Northern Germany to Italy, from Burgundy to the Eastern Marches.

CONQUER. EVERYTHING.

I chose option 2 as I think it is interesting for me.

Purple wrote:I say start by trying to conquer all of Germany and all territories that have anyone German speaking in them. Once that is done try and recreate the EU through alliance, vassal states and conquest and what ever else the game lets you use. May Bismarck upstage merkel on this one!

You know, building a 19th. century EU, if possible, doesn't sound half bad.

I like it too - especially since I haven't played any Victoria II and I'd learn more by watching it played more or less as intended. Selfish, I know, but honest.

Esquire wrote:I like it too - especially since I haven't played any Victoria II and I'd learn more by watching it played more or less as intended. Selfish, I know, but honest.

You're not alone. Watching Thanas play EU4 was the best tutorial I could have received before I stepped into the game myself.

Ok, how about Reform policy:

1. Social liberal - in essence, being both in favor of reforms like universal healthcare and democracy
2. Anarcho-liberal - Democracy, but no leftie communist stuff like universal healthcare
3. Bismarckian - social reforms and government reforms only to a point, trying to prevent an uprising but only giving in when there are solid majorites for reform.
4. Reactionary - NO VOTE, NO EDUCATION AND NO HEALTHCARE FOR YOU.



And colonial policy:
1. Bismarckian - Germany does not need colonies nor wants them
2. Opportunistic - Take them if we can and it does not cost a lot.
3. British - "Do you have a flag?"


Please vote.

As far as Reform policy I say mix #1 and #3. In essence try to give as little as you can in terms of government reforms and only when you have to but go full socialism on health care and education. In essence try and set your self up as an enlightened despot whose people do not feel the need for democracy because they do not see the point of being free to get rid of a ruler whose rule already makes them happy.

As far as colonies are concerned go #3. Try and outbritish the british.

It is actually possible to do a WC, or it least it was, with careful husbandry of diplomatic points and a British/France start. It also breaks the game.

I vote for wide scale conquest, but only of states with German minorities or a higher nationwide literacy than your national average, we don't want to incorporate any deadwood into our glorious Reich, do we?

This should include Hawaii/Japan after devouring Southern Prussia I believe.

I vote for anarco-liberal reflorms/economic policy because it is arguably the worst industrial policy for an aggressive nation in-game.

Question - what are the in-game benefits of going full social liberal?

For reforms I'd vote for something similar to what Frederick III would have done had he lived longer, and as for colonial policy opportunistic would be best to minimize costs and maximizing benefits.

Social liberal reforms, with the end goal of FULLCOMMUNISM. British colonial policy, so we can spread FULLCOMMUNISM.

Borgholio wrote:Question - what are the in-game benefits of going full social liberal?

It depends, if he's playing with PDM, then education efficiency, higher factory maintenance, lower pop needs, lower militancy, and pop growth increases, the negative is mostly lower factory throughput.
The factory maintenance increases demand for otherwise poorly-used goods, while pop promotion (say line workers to clerks(white collar workers, essentially) to capitalists for example) is increased if their needs are fulfilled. I think the rest are self explanatory, but I can explain them if you wish.

Those are for social reforms.

Political reforms, like democracy and freedom of assembly, those the main positive is decreased militancy and increased plurality (faster research in exchange for higher conciousness(A measure of how politically aware people are, so vote rates, lobbying and formation of paramilitaries, militancy is a measure of actual rebellious tendencies, causes paramilitary growth to skyrocket and eventually insurrection)) the negative is clamor for social reforms and increased CON, as well as less overall control (you have to have elections, cannot change the party in power at a whim, etc.)

They also mean that you have to encourage first bothe liberals and socialists and later social-liberals, whose parties are often antiwar or less pro-war than their counterparts, making war more difficult to prosecute and large armies slightly more difficult to create. Liberals and socialists are almost always at odds with one another, the events which increase their support contradictory.

Ghetto Edit:
The political spectrum has three prongs, socialists like social reforms, liberals like political reforms, conservatives want reforms to stay where they are. The extreme versions are Communists, who hate political reforms, anarco-liberals who hate social reforms and Reactionaries who hate all reforms; hate meaning that they will support repeal. Fascists, typically the result of core territory being under foreign control, will repeal all reforms unless the nation is a fascist dictatorship, where they can go either way with social reforms.

Anarco-liberals, if given to much power will create a bourgeoisie dictatorship, which does not support any reforms. The same is true of all of the extreme parties, which is everyone who is not the three central parties, and social liberals, who support all reforms.

Also social reforms sometimes directly provide money to the people.

I voted for Bismarckian social policies and British colonial policies as it would make the game an interesting contrast with my pride of nations game where I have done similar things in a different game engine. Question for Vic 2 players is Africa explored? I ask because most of it is not in Pride of nations and is therefor greyed out completely on map until I play the explorers card province by province.