Victoria 3: A Lesson in Historiography

Подписаться 58 тыс.

Просмотров 54 тыс.

50% 1

Victoria 3, a recent release by Paradox Interactive, is one of many games in their catalogue seeking to simulate a period of history, but where does the framework of that simulation come from? What understand of history is Victoria built on? What does it impart? And most importantly, how might we dissect it further?
____________________
My further links:
Twitter (If this still matters, lol):
/ krosencreutz
Patreon:
/ rosencreutz
Other Victoria Video:
• Victoria 3 and the "Re...
AAR:
forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...
BASEBALL:
steamcommunity.com/sharedfile...
_______________________
Links to sources:
Opium wars guy:
ces.fas.harvard.edu/uploads/f...
Slavonic, Keep
www.jstor.org/stable/4212032
Slavic review, Wildman
www.jstor.org/stable/2497861
Dev diary #33
forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...
Devs on superconfed:
/ is5txg9
___________________
Intro 00:00
Historiography 05:23
Tutorial skip 09:14
Victoria and its lens 18:07
Lens through Mechanics 25:26
A Question of Intent 30:43
Conclusion 33:09
______________________
there is a secret hidden in this video c:

Игры

Опубликовано:

11 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 234

@longnoseboi Год назад

The timestamp given at 7:07 is incorrect. Says skip to 19:24; the real end is at 9:14

@LDProductionsClass Год назад

I saw that and was like "oh wow, most of this video is a tutorial on historiography? Alright, I'm here for it"

@Andrewism Год назад

Having played in the West Indies, Haiti, Ethiopia, Zulu, Oyo, Sweden, and Brazil so far, the map goes in some interesting directions, some better than others. One of the things I believe they really need to fix--because I've witnessed it more than once--is that for some reason a New African uprising, upon winning their independence, seems to keep the Dixies in power and retain legacy slavery. As a general rule, I think specific releasable nations should begin with particular preconditions. Furthermore, the lack of coordination between internal politics and diplomacy is really strange. As you said, there really should be IG group pressure to ally or rival other nations and pursue particular war goals. Diplomacy as a whole could use some more flavour. Subjects should be able to ally against their suzerain for example. Otherwise, I've been enjoying experimenting in different corners of the world and pursuing different goals. Keep up the great work with these videos!

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Yeah, paradox games generally don't really interplay well with the contrasts of ideology and State-- and while we like to meme about Muslim Byzantium or whatever, it's only funny as a passing rarity. I think you're quite right that some states should be defined by their historical path when released more than who released them. I also feel like religion should be something that can change in a government if they have a revolution-- especially when looking at the Indian Territory which tends to collect animist pops and stay 90% animist but has a protestant government. If they're independent for whatever reason, surely it would benefit them to drop the US mandated Christianity, no? PS I like your work.

@josejaimes-ramos1546 Год назад

Like your work on "It could happen here".

@LexyLexer Год назад

Fucking love your work my solarpunk mate

@hedgehog3180 Год назад

In EU4 subjects can request support for independence from other powers but I think the weakness of that system is that it's so out in the open. It's really odd how a subject can more or less openly declare it's intention to rebel to everyone and the overlord can't do anything about it. If it comes to Vicky3 I'd definitely like to see it as part of an espionage system where subjects can make alliances like that but they have to be kept a secret and the overlord can try to use espionage to prevent alliances like this from forming. Of course that might include trying to prevent the sentiment from forming in the first place, especially since to some overlords such a sentiment would look a lot worse and be harder to crush than elsewhere. More autocratic overlords wouldn't really need any excuse to suppress an independence movement but the more liberal ones would have a lot more trouble justifying it to their population since some parts of it might support the movement or at least sympathize with it. I guess this could also introduce the possibility of radicals in the imperial core cooperating with independence movements in the colonies, like how in the Russian Empire communists sometimes had an easier time organizing out in the fringes or in Finland where there were greater rights. But something like that might be way too complicated to simulate.

@BlueGamingRage Год назад

"a New African uprising, upon winning their independence, seems to keep the Dixies in power and retain legacy slavery" Sounds like Haiti to me

@coltodude5778 Год назад

I enjoy your point on the disconnect between domestic and foreign politics in the game. Interest groups dont play a role in who your allies and enemies are, and its an in game system where the player is largely uncontested by the values of their own nation. Id like to see an update that changes that, though with how abstract the interest groups can be at times its hard to say how that would be implemented

@s7robin105 Год назад

It was sorta like that in 2 but it could become rather unfun to play if say a very capitalist party takes over. You’d be stuck doing nothing productive until the next election. I would like to see a little less control but not at the level it used to be in 2

@Dr-Jesus Год назад

100%. It's especially baffling to see right-wing monarchies going along or even being allied to communist countries, with no problems whatsoever.

@miracletortoise6224 Год назад

@@Dr-Jesus Similarity of government *is* already a factor in diplomacy, it could just be a lot more important and factor in more components.

@coltodude5778 Год назад

@@miracletortoise6224 something id like to see is interest groups having influence in diplomatic plays. Like say the armed forces becoming dissatisfied if you dont support your ally in a play

@ilo3456 Год назад

Actually it kinda does to a small degree, a country is less likely to ally you if you are too different from them in what your government is like, I remember because as Japan the US would refuse to ally me because our governments being different gave the AI a negative to acceptance.

@GoosieGoos Год назад

"you might have some recalibrating to do from Internet Discourse Mode" I'm super happy you added that entire extra bit. It's such an easy mindset to fall on, especially if you grew up in the internet era. Super great video though, don't think I've quite seen a video essay covering this subject and you did so in a very interesting and digestible way.

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Yeah, I kinda caught myself going into dunk mode too often with like reading things by various historians and it didn't feel like good faith critique, and like I could tell it was twitter brain poison seeping backwards into the real world way I was engaging with ideas, and uhh. I figured everyone could do with a reminder c:

@bulletflight Месяц назад

@@RosencreutzzzWhen Conquest and Getty start talking about Irving and Great Man Theory, it's probably not a good faith argument between them.

@s7robin105 Год назад

My Mexican campaign as an alternative history was pretty interesting. With Mexico becoming a successful player in global trade and an alliance with the British, it maintained its holdings of the west coast and Texas. By the 1910s the United States split into multiple states of African revolts and far right splits. Meanwhile Mexico is one of the 3 great super powers and a market across the Americas.

@ilo3456 Год назад

I myself, had a lot of fun playing as Japan to learn how to play the game better, I had fun becoming number 3 great power, and resources like Rubber led me to conquests in South East Asia, having access to silk in the Japanese Homeland really makes industry quite easy because you can manufacture all the stuff your pops need, but it was fun to actually make my own weapons, furniture, clothes, to make groceries a cheaply available item within my market, this industrialisation was mainly fuelled by gold fields and gold mines, in both Hokkaido and the South Island in New Zealand, in my game I colonized all of the Polynesian islands, the Southern Island of New Zealand, and part of South West Australia, those helped me make massive amounts of money which let me constantly do contruction, and the due to the high population of Japan, taxation made up a large percentage of my income, numbering in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. I was proud of how Japan ended up in 1936, it was knocked down to #5 Great power because the Prussians were unifying and it caused their economy and stuff to grow, but my GDP at the of the game was 200 million pounds, we were the only country in the world with a Sky Scrapper, we built the Panama Canal, we had a great Standard of Living, fighting the Shogunate IG for control was most of the early game experience, but once we managed to wrestle power from them it was much easier to modernize, we modernized the army, got rid of Samurai, electrified the country massively, I even made San Fracisco into a Treaty Port and it became an Urban Utopia, with great standards of Living and a great Academic and Cultural scene, with Arts insitutes and Universities by the dozen, with great Rail Infrastructure, electrical power, Electric Street Lights, Public Transport, Amazing Shopping centers, the best city in the world capable of importing foods from the Japanese Mainland where food was plentiful and Cheap in great part due to industrial advancements, we grew enough grain, butchered plenty of meat and fish, sugar was cheap and fruit was plentiful, luxuries plenty for the booming middle class of workers who could go from working in their fields to working in the cities, while attending public education and enjoying public healthcare which decreased mortality rates massively, with a dedicated police force capable of keeping the streets safe, a multicultural government accepting of all the disparate people's of its empire, the ability to believe whatever you wished, mandatory education of children, women's suffrage. Being a recognized power was difficult and came from a fight with the Spanish and the Russians which we won, we invaded St. Petersburg twice in my game, the Japanese didn't just beat the Russian Navy in the Baltic but then we landed the Japanese Army straight on the Tzar's doorstep and took the city. Easy to say once you get into the rhythm of things it becomes an amazing experience of forging history from the mechanics of the game driven by the material necessities of your people and nation.

@fuckyoutube9305 Год назад

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 definitely could of happened, not saying it was very likely, but possible. You should broaden your understanding of history and nations, USA didnt have plot armor.

@cseijifja Год назад

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 lmao , why not? Imagine the british actually commited and took half northern us in 1814( new england already wanted to secede). Mexico had every hope needed to be. A nacent power , same as plenty american states, it could have happened anywhere.

@s7robin105 Год назад

@@Etaoinshrdlu69A game doesn’t need to be 100% accurate to real life. It’s just fun to explore a “what if” scenario and see what comes out of such events in the game In hearts of iron you could win as Germany in WW2 but by nearly all means it was impossible for such a situation to happen due to their resource limitations and the Soviet Union.

@ilo3456 Год назад

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 But they did defeat the Americans, also the US unlike the British relief heavily on conscription and militia levies to fight wars, which is why it wasn't until after the civil war that the American army became a more standing force. The US had a lot of population but the British could mobilise their colonies for manpower to create more formations of troops, they also had a navy many times larger than the US navy.

@williamddkk Год назад

I feel like that meme of the guy coming Home from a Long day of forklifting so he Can play forklift simulator. Just came Home from a lecture in historiography so i Can Watch a video essay on historiography.

@TheSpecialJ11 Год назад

I was joking to my friend that Victoria 3 is a based historical materialist vanguard party enthusiast based on the gameplay mechanics. I'm glad someone sees the same flaws as me.

@CarlLevitt Год назад

This was a very good introduction to historiography. For another look at some common pitfalls of a common historical narrative I recommend "The Whig Interpretation of history". While Whig history hasn't been relevant academicly in a very long time, it is still fairly powerful in the public imagination of history. Some of your criticisms of the mechanics are in fact already in the game but are not presented strongly enough to leave an impact on the player. In particular, because IGs are made up of pops it is possible and even likely that a some fraction of the aristocracy pops in fact are backing the e.g. liberal intelligentsia. It is never enough to bubble up to the player though. Similarly, having a different government or different laws *will* impact diplomacy. That impact is felt as a modifier on how likely the AI is to accept certain types deals. But, the non military/ diplomatic play side of the diplomacy feels the most like number chasing. I agree that pops /domestic policy should feedback into foreign policy and visa versa. Once again thank you for the interesting video.

@Phrozenflame500 Год назад

Looking forward to an extended discussion of the Victoria 2's capitalist behaviour! IMO the issue is less whether or not capitalist's behave in a 'smart' way for whatever that means moreso that (from my admittedly limited technical understanding of the system) the simplistic model of capital allocation makes it difficult to draw a cogent critique of capitalism from it beyond merely capitalists not being omnipotent profit maximizers. It would be fun if Paradox ever gets around to adding some sort of capitalist automation to Vic 3 to more explicitly model common systemic criticisms like, e.g. underinvestment in response to political change ('capital strikes') or dependence on more volatile supply chains, etc.

@jacobwiens659 Год назад

Well, both the Industrialist and Landowner IGs increase “investment pool contribution” at high levels of approval already, so there’s some element of that there.

@efulmer8675 Год назад

@@jacobwiens659 Yes, but thats not really the heart of the critique. Both from a gameplay perspective and a lens perspective, the player controlling all construction in their country leads to them being able to build very efficiently, or at least build more in general, than the AI will ever manage to do. A player can take France to 1 billion GDP in 29 years (if not less but thats a number I've seen). Ive had games where AI France never even reaches that number. The point of Capitalist pops in Vicky 2 was to differentiate the gameplay of being Laissez-Faire compared to Command Economy as well as better model what actually goes on at the time and now. There's hardly a difference in Vicky 3 between those two extremes.

@hedgehog3180 Год назад

I do think that the capitalists in Vic2 are more of a mistake than intended design since up until this video I actually thought that their investment patterns were totally random and based on nothing given how utterly terrible they were at doing anything productive other than building railways. Like they were so stupid as to be irrelevant but like that seems to be a general issue with AI automation in games, like in every strategy game where you can leave something up to an AI I've never encountered an example where that was actually optimal or even decent play. It was always, even for very low skilled players, preferable to micromanage everything yourself, to the degree that in Stellaris it was literally an incentive at one point to be able to control more planets directly. I'm not sure if this is really a solvable issue in the near future since like the way that AI opponents in games become challenging right now is not by being smart it's by cheating, even the most advanced AIs in games like those seen in the Total War franchise still has to cheat a lot in order to be challenging. So of course the AIs that are underneath the player will be shit since they obviously can't cheat. Until AI technology gets a lot better and actually possible to run on consumer hardware this is essentially an unsolvable issue and it's made worse by the fact that the games that demand the best AI, strategy games, tend to also be played on much less powerful hardware since generally this has been a genre that could run on any hardware.

@tbotalpha8133 10 месяцев назад

@@efulmer8675 If it were up to me I would reify a country's administration, as an economic process in itself. You put in human labour, tools and resources, and get back "Admin" - some kind of resource or capacity, that represents your government's ability to actually administrate the territory which it supposedly controls. If you want a broader territory, it will cost you more Admin. If you want more accurate information about your country's people and economic activity, it will cost you more Admin. If you want more granular control over your people's activities, it will cost you more Admin. And every cost would increase exponentially, as your government had to process more and more information, and keep more and more offices informed about what's going on. On the other hand, players could decide to keep their country small, limiting their Admin needs. Or players could accept not having perfect information about what's happening in their country. Or players could accept not having total control over their country. All of which would allow them to lower the amount of resources they're funnelling into Admin. With the obvious downside that their country will be small, and their government will be weak and poorly-informed. Or, the player could politically entangle their country with others, and work towards forming a large decentralized state, where the constituent parts all hold significant individual power, and getting anything done involves bargaining for support with the other powers. And that would be where the real difference between free markets and planned economies would arise. The latter would require exponentially more Admin to maintain, while the former would be much, much cheaper. At the cost of severely restricting the player's control over economic development, and forcing them to try and shape the economy indirectly through policies like taxation, subsidies and state projects. The player would have to bargain with their capitalists to get anything done. This would reduce the player's ability to micro their way to victory, by demanding the player adopt an Admin-heavy "build" to do so, with all the inherent disadvantages that would bring with it.

@deotemp886 Год назад

I am really curious what you would think of something like the Hearts of Iron mod The New Order: Last Days of Europe as similar to Victoria 3, it very consciously moves away from map painting and towards internal politics and economics but does so through a completely opposite strategy. Railroading the game so much it becomes more like a choose your own adventure book than a grand strategy game.

@hedgehog3180 Год назад

I mean at that point it is basically what you said, it has nothing to do with history anymore and is almost more of a roleplaying game. The video on Stellaris explores this somewhat but like I think there's not a ton to say about these kinds of mods that couldn't be figured out through a basic literary analysis. When the game becomes this railroaded you can essentially stop treating it as a game and instead just start treating it as a bunch of separate stories and analyze them as such.

@parkerprice6787 Год назад

I hope that IGs get restructured in an early DLC. Specifically, I can think of two relatively simple mechanics that would improve them immensely. 1) Splinter Groups: I think interest groups should be able to splinter under certain conditions (having a majority of power, having a wide disparity in radicalization between constituent pops, etc). This would probably be labeled as Left/Right, Moderate/Radical, Religious/Secular, etc. 2) Dynamic Ideologies: Over the course of gameplay, through events, market forces, legislation, decrees, technology, migration, etc, the ideologies that describe a given Interest Group should be able to change

@lazykatie42069 6 дней назад

there actually already are ways IG ideologies can change, for instance corporatist replaces pious for the devout after you've researched corporatism, or if your armed forces become the red army via having a communist/vanguardist leader while you have council republic enacted, they'll gain the proletarian ideology I would love to see them introduce more ways for them to change though, like personally I would have the petite bourgeoisie be more liberal (in the time period's sense of the term) in the earlygame and become more hitlerite towards the lategame, to model how they were often a major part of the liberal revolutions of the first half of the 19th century but would later go on to becomes some of the biggest proponents of fascism

@sebastianhalmagean7037 Год назад

Another classic from Rosencreutz! Great video and keep up the good work, Cheers!

@Nitesurgeon Год назад

Appreciate these kinds of tutorial videos for those of us less versed in this field of academia. 👍

@uncleSmeller 5 месяцев назад

I've been binging your videos ever since I stumbled upon the Paradox, Strategy, and Player Autocracy one, really love your stuff! Its really interesting how you tie in history and theory with these games that model it. Keep it up!

@Pine_of_England Год назад

Love the hacker gag. Made me actually go back and watch the full thing on historiography, well earned.

@vividwight Год назад

Really great video. Been loving your content as I've found it hard to find a youtuber able to give a semi-academic but... accessible look at history/history-related media (your non-history content has been stellar too though). All else has been pop-history (mostly military) which isn't too great. I really liked the guide around historiography and an actual history book (remember doing things like that at Uni) and how it relates to a piece of media like Vicky 3, as it made the relationship easy to see. Great work!

@Pompeius_Strabo Год назад

Honestly, I’m really glad you’ve been coming up and getting more popular on here. I enjoy the eclectic nature of your work and I’m glad you’re finding your niche on the site. Keep on grinding it out, hopefully Victoria 3’s release gives you a boost!

@balkloth Год назад

Great video, although I think you undercount how complex and well set up Vic 2 was. Like consciousness - aristocrats (or any pop, save for possibly slaves) aren’t a single voting bloc, but have ideological tendencies. Specifically aristocrats are slightly (1.1) more likely to be reactionary OR liberal. Increased consciousness makes them more likely to support their ideological preference, which is held by pops, not the group as a whole. Less consciousness means more support for the ruling party regardless of ideology. I have serious doubts that IGs in Vic 3 have improved that system (well at least with HPM)

@ndb6ndk99 Год назад

Interesting and well written! I hope to see more like this 😊

@goksir5845 Год назад

Loved the video! Had to go back and watch the preceding one too. I remember reading some 46-part twitter thread about EU4's approach to history and I found it endlessly fascinating, so this video really scratched that same itch. Subscribed, hope you make more of this kind of content in the future.

@MisterFoxton Год назад

I enjoyed that! The preamble on historiography and Fitzpatrick's ideas could have been shorter but it did mesh well with your conclusions. Consider me subscribed and now watching a Fable 3 video.

@dubiusindex8216 Год назад

I really enjoyed watching your video. Got it recommended by RU-vid. Your voice is very calming.

@ericew576 Год назад

I love your videos! They’re so informative!

@Cheesenommer Год назад

This was very thought provoking. Thank you for sharing it with us.

@mafiacat88 Год назад

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; these are super fun videos, and I hope they're fun to make, because I'd love to keep watching them.

@SeralandicArmy Год назад

Promises to link Japanese Baseball mod, doesn’t link it. Just like Victoria 3…so many false promises. Nah in all seriousness I appreciate this video deeply. I’ve long debated and criticized EU4 for its depictions of, well everything, and I strongly suspect EU5 will build off of Victoria 3s market mechanic. It’s always been a little weird that the premise of EU4’s start - European’s being pushed to find a new spice trading route by the rise of the Ottomans - is instead presented as Europeans actively seeking a new world. It’s definitely very important to consider the narratives told by any framings of history, and many Victoria 3 haters seem to discount the idea of history in favor of literal tellings. At the same time, I think your points on the inflexibility of interest groups and their views being determined by a single person really demonstrate the need in game to better model disagreements, variance in thought. It’s immensely strange - and generally unfun - to establish a Vanguardist Communist country then get a bad roll on your interest group leader and suddenly have an Anarchist Trade Union IG that suddenly hates everything about the country. It makes you wonder if perhaps the Party System should be extended into the interest groups themselves, and that each group should be composed of various schools of thought. That way you could model both the Open-minded liberals and the deeply racist liberals as one collective interest group with various voices vying to be the loudest. Certainly Trade Unions shouldn’t be either all Vanguardist or all Anarchist, the same way Landowners shouldn’t all be opposed to certain progresses. But of course all this means more things happening and more people on the plate to balance. But at the same time Germany needs to have both a Protestant and a Catholic voice, alongside religious diversity in the Ottoman Empire needing political representation beyond just discrimination. Really interest groups should be moldable and influenceable beyond just the leader changes and some specific events and decisions and laws (although it’s weird that Landowners often lose the Slavery Trait when you ban it and so instantly forget why they were so mad.) Perhaps something seeking to accommodate ideological differences and shifts in long-term futures would lead into Interest Groups helping direct foreign policy. If Traits were dynamic and you could foster new beliefs among your interest groups somehow, perhaps we could see stuff like convincing the Trade Unionists to support global revolution and war against Capitalists, while also having the option to convince your people that Socialism in One Country is the better plan. Dynamism, diversity, and devolution…hopefully all these things will help guide the continued development of the game. I only hope Paradox listens to voices like you and can remain steadfast against the metaphorical Landowners in the Victoria community. Their design philosophy today seems to have immense potential.

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

fixed the link! Yeah I think IGs need a touch more granularity or like a loyalty/ideological consistency thing. they've *kinda* modelled that by certain events that retool certain group core beliefs, like having a republic for long enough changes the landowners from monarchist to elitist, but it's a bit insufficient as of now, or lacking a wider range of options.

@ilo3456 Год назад

@@Rosencreutzzz It definitely needs work to be more interesting, but as Japan it was really funny trying to wrestle control from the Shogunate IG over a period of decades, because them being such an entrenched power group, taking them out of power, was a grueling process which mirrored the historical fall of relevance of both the Shogunate and the Samurai, due to the increasing economic power of other groups within society, as I industrialized it led to the Industrialists and Intelligentsia taking over, it was in large part fueled by my constant construction of new buildings non-stop, I would be building something new all the time for decades, and eventually when I didn't have anything I wanted to build, the political power of those IGs dropped massively because their revenues from government puchases of construction goods suddenly ended it caused such an economic issue that I had to immediately start building again once I noticed the Shogunate and Monks growing in power. It was an interesting historical even within the game born out of how the IGs generate their political power in more authoritarian power structures, before I moved to a more democratic system, the economic crash for those pops belonging to those IGs led them to loose massive amounts of political sway, which then caused a crash in the market due to the price of the goods tied to construction crashed into being basically worth nothing, this was also when I was an a closed off country meaning I couldn't really export those goods to other countries who would buy them, I was in a bit of a pickle due to me being quite a bit in debt at the time, I managed to survive by changing my tax laws to get more revenue without increasing my tax level, it succeeded but had it taken too long it could have destroyed the country, I chose to piss of whomever I had to piss off to pass that law, but I managed to pass it getting now on the green while building. It was a really interesting experience of having to push the socio-economic conditions to a place where an outcome I desired was more likely, it was a slow wrestling of power from a dominant group to an emerging one over a period of decades, I managed to peacefully wrestle that power from the Shogunate but I could have in theory also taken a more aggressive approach of fomenting extremists who would oppose the Shogunate until they rose up in revolt, but felt that would go against my idea of how things should be.

@profusemoose1488 Год назад

This is a fantastic video, and this is a way that I choose to delve into in my head with many if not most games I play now. Looking at the lenses, history, and philosophical frames and arguments being made both directly by the narratives and indirectly by mechanics.

@sirtiner37 Год назад

Thank you so much for covering these topics and doing it in the way you did. This video got me to really think about the lenses, bias and intention of the producers of the games I have poured thousands of hours into. Thank you for showing these games as a real piece of media that portrays history and not just removing their intentions of its portrayal due to mechanic restrictions.

@electroflame6188 Год назад

I'd forgotten that this was about Vic3 until 17:38. Well done!

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

My one true goal accomplished.

@tiagghho Год назад

You are one of the best channels in youtube, congrats

@Cybersyn Год назад

I've been hesitant abt buying the game so thanks for these vicarious Vic vids

@owlmerangwastaken Год назад

Did not expect to see my old friend JSTOR when I clicked on this video. Fantastic stuff, really enjoyed the video.

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Part of me was afraid jstor would scare away the map nerds and that my explanation would be insufficient for the history nerds and it would be a loss on all sides but people seem to like it, and that's pretty cool. Dear Paradox pls recognize me for making a video about one of your games that literally includes a web archive tutorial, I'm basically discount Bret Deveraux at this stage.

@PvtSchlock 5 месяцев назад

8:07 publicly funded universities place information behind pay walls. Maxwell did a banger job in creating the journal system.

@Luisp1992 Год назад

This guy just exaplined why I like Vicky3 and have been hooked on it since launch in a video.

@czechmeoutbabe1997 Год назад

Genuinely phenomenal videos, I look forward to playing Vicky 3 myself when it looks better

@johnhamann5861 Год назад

I've enjoyed the videos you've made on Victoria 3 intersecting with historicity so much so that I'm actually going to write about Victoria 3's representation of history for my research paper in my keystone course for my history major! Did you draw from any other academic sources or articles (like M.R. Trouillot's silencing the past) for any of these videos?

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Sadly, I don't have concrete sources to point to in a pedagogical sense for how one teaches history, so much as I applied my experience in classes dealing with historiography (and a mild fascination with when it all spills out into the world as with the Historikerstreit). Works common to the debate of historical lenses, particularly within the question of applying social history lenses, or in the Historikerstreit itself, as embodied by the Ordinary Men debate were where I got a sense for how historiography functions and the way debates around frameworks form. In turn, I know I lean a bit hard on the use of Social History framings when I can, and am a bit...antagonistic to things like Great Man theory which were the default of things like my high school education. I read Thomas Carlyle to get an understanding of GMT and it's not very enlightening past the base premise, which is default enough today that I'm sure most people just innately understand history as the actions of a few individuals directing the world where to go. Of course, individually, different videos have sources for claims made within, and another upcoming one about "Sovietologists" will be making liberal use of Jstor and some use of the books by said sovietologists, but I don't have a concrete direction to point anyone for writings on the practice of historiography itself. @BretDevereaux on twitter (and in his blog on "acoup dot blog") takes time away from discussing military history to explore paradox games and their historicity and frameworks, and that could be a great starting point that has a measure of academic footing.

@samuelfaure4332 Год назад

That's a pretty interesting video! Following :)

@jakecrev5729 Год назад

hell yeah I've been waiting for this vid

@herbertnorman617 Год назад

What a great and also enjoyable video. You managed to put into words some of the issues I have with how things are modelled at the moment. When talking to a friend the other day I was trying to somehow describe the disparate thoughts in my brain over our playthroughs and ended up saying that Vic3 tended to be "almost too naively marxist" to some degree (note that that is a position we both tend to fall into ourselves quite often, so it wasn't an attempt at being ideologically dismissive of the game), but my brain wasn't able to properly put into words all the details I actually meant. I think this video was great at opening up that knot I had in my brain. It's stuff like the inflexible IGs but also things like: Laws are magically and perfectly enacted. There might be a movement to roll them back, but in principle, as soon as that popup informs you, it is now not just law on paper but absolute. From one day to the other, discriminated ethnicities won't be discriminated against. It is one of the many parts of the game as is, where I would love to see players having to struggle more with their pops. At the moment, the model kind of implies that lynchings in the reconstruction era US would have been completely avoided if only there had been a top-down law change ending discrimination. (In a similar way, but that would lead too far off course right now, I think the model has some flaws if it results in being part of a large customs union as a small nation basically being a no-brainer good decision to take. As Zulu becoming a subject to the UK should not make it just super easy to become the industrial powerhouse of the world - I miss things that should happen, like UK meddling in my politics, UK capital building plantations on my soil where the profits go into their and not my people's pockets, stuff like that.) Ideally, gameplay-wise, I'd love for the player to feel like a gardener or rancher with their society, always having to worry about their pops not quite doing what they are "supposed to". With interests of groups ultimately stemming from their material conditions, yes, but also with more social inertia. I think some very limited amout of ck3-like politics inside of IGs would be great, too. Different factions with slightly different interests vying for power withing an IG and a way for the player to then understand how and why their representant of the peasants is now a vanguardist, when right now it mostly feels (and perhaps even is) random. Also the way you point out how irrational interests were central for the Great War is really important to point out I think. Right now, war is meaningless to my pops, or rather, it is only meaningful in the way it influences their SoL. Even just expanding the current political movement system to have avenues for my pops to demand to start, join or abanond Diplomatic plays would do a lot I think. At the moment, playing as the Ottomans has a little bit of that flavour when it comes to feeling your people can be at each others' throats, with some pre-scripted events of sunni-orthodox violence until you manage to pass essential reforms. Unfortunately, that is not simulated but completely scripted. If Paradox manages to add flavourful things like those events that organically arise from the simulation/sandbox, I think the game would take another step towards being a genuine masterpiece.

@brandonzzz9924 5 месяцев назад

One of the really cool things about the V3 devs is that they actively research and engage with players who are researching hyperspecific points in history to better the game. Deep diving to the level that some of us do is entirely unfeasible across the scope of the game (as in reading through dozens of US census reports to ascertain a single data point to back up an argument about the economic drivers of the US civil war and how that should be represented in IG participation and Reconstruciton), and the data is not easy to come by for many areas of the game. The US and Great Britain are the only countries with reliable, continuous data for the 19th century on nearly every aspect of the country, whereas some countries have gaps in hard data and some have no firsthand accounts for many points that are enumerated in other countries. Overall, you won't get many more games that have as much historicity as V3, but it is important to remember that this is still a game. Academics spend their entire lives to develop books that are arguably equitable in historical accuracy, so it is pretty impressive that we are getting thesis level history in addition to a great game for the price of being able to read a thesis. It may not be the most analytical, but this game has thousands of city and character names, very accurate maps, hundreds of historic events, and manages to tie all this information into a game that is (mostly) fun to play. Other games like Civ or the historic Total Wars have a ton of really cool historical content, but they are in moreso addition to the gameplay, not the gameplay itself. So through the historiographic lens of "this is a video game that costs less than a college textbook", this game is mind bogglingly detailed and historical.

@dearcrowns Год назад

Just discovered your channel and really enjoyed this video, I'm checking out the earlier videos in the series now. Out of curiosity have you ever checked out the strategy games by Koei (Nobunaga's Ambition, Rot3K)?

@LostFutures1 Год назад

Its here! So hyped!

@michaelstewart8361 Год назад

Actually really interested in that disempowerment video

@chellybub Год назад

Came for the video, stayed for the mod. Todd Bonzales is a great man. P.S. I'd love to hear what you think about Krupp from Alfred to Alfried. I found "The Arms of Krupp" fascinating.

@halloweentimemachine Год назад

The algorithm throwing your last two videos in my feed is the only good thing RU-vid has done in my recent memory

@dmman33 Год назад

Another amazing video! What would a game that took a non-materialist lens on history look like? How would you model it? Would it be more narrative…and maybe in the process more “great man?” It is individuals who write books, after all. Unless I’m missing something important?

@efulmer8675 Год назад

From another comment I can surmise that Rosencreutz might consider Hearts of Iron to be on that end of Non-social-history lens as the player is generally playing as the 'government' and in particular, the actual leader of the country (becoming "Great Man Theory" in the process). This does immediately lead to some interesting contradictions that I'm not sure how to handle, such as Hitler choosing to Oppose Hitler, Stalin choosing to bring back the Russian Tsar (although that at least locks you out of some things so you're more in the shoes of someone lower down rather than Stalin himself) and some other focus tree decisions at that point. Vicky 3 would implement the Oppose Hitler 'focus' as one of the IGs becoming pissed off enough to implement the coup themselves, and you can immediately see the very different design philosophies and even the kind of mechanics each of the games has. Hearts of Iron simply doesnt care that your War Economy is probably making your people tire of war and indeed wear out in general. War Economy Will Remain Until War Effort Improves. The path of history is generally limited to a few specific roads that slowly fade away as time goes on over the immediate "Road Ends 0 feet" sign that beginning a new Vicky 3 game is. This is not to say that Hearts of Iron in general has bad gameplay, but that it went for a specific approach that suits it better given the short length of its assumed game time (1936-1945(?)) rather than the much longer game time of Vicky 3 where whole and multiple demographic shifts can occur.

@jameslockhart4507 Год назад

I kinda zoned out near the end of the historiography so when you did that bit i was just like "wuh....what??"

@AlexFors99 Год назад

Have you ever thought of making some smaller videos of maybe book recommendations or reviews? I really enjoy your stuff and think some smaller scale projects between these thicc big videos could be great to quench my thirst!

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

I've considered doing some short things, but YT shorts are kind of a pain for a few reasons. If I did book reviews I'm afraid nothing would inhibit me from making them far too long, but recommendation might be a different story. Right now my book shelf is a bit bare because of a move, but all the books I have with me are ones I'd absolutely talk about for too long if given prompting. So, I can't give a definite answer, but I've thought about it, rejected the idea, and opened back up to it like six times by now. We'll see.

@moonshinei Год назад

Rosencreutz try not to post absolute bangers challenge (impossible)

@connork5333 Год назад

mr.rosencreutz I love you thank you for this content

@bogda1917 Год назад

This kind of serious social science critique is something I have always found missing in the community. I praise you a lot for that. I genuinely believe this can lead to substantial improvements and innovation in strategy games. Btw, I understand where you are coming from when you say that Victoria is materialistic, but I don't agree with you fully because there are so many opportunities for good materialistic simulation that developers did not pursue (maybe not yet...). In fact, there are still many idealistic mechanics with disproportionate material influence, such as law changes, mana points, very poor geography and logistics simulation, etc. Also, I would add that Victoria and other strategy games not only exhibit historiographic perspectives, but also sociological, anthropological and economic theories. As a citizen of the global South, I see sooo much Northern-centric simplified social science in this whole genre of gaming... I would love for critical and Southern developers to occupy this space, but well.... Material conditions are tough.

@fredrikstein2377 Год назад

what is the background music that starts playing at 13:30? sounds familiar.

@profeseurchemical 5 месяцев назад

if there was a claim lines mechanic, that would fix the issue with the canada/usa border, while still allowing moreacurate modeling of greatplanes territories. "we havent gotten round to stealing this bit yet, but this is our exclusive zone to meddle in" and then rival colonisers can agree to respect those claims or not depending on relations and where thier own pops went to go steal. modeling territorial disputes tho is not something im going to expect from victoria, it is something id like from this type of game

@yurigagarin9765 Год назад

The base design of the game has a lot of potential and some flaws that will also limit it, but it's going to take us a few years of continued development and modding to really see how far it can really go.

@XsimD Год назад

It crashes my computer too much to be a mobile game

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

I haven't had too many crashes since launch. Before it (review era) I had a few. Given the game's later era instability issues, I think having an SSD is the main thing saving me from a lot more crashes.

@callumoakes3926 5 месяцев назад

Just found your vid and love the way you point out Vic 3 is under a materialist historiography. it is also interesting that Vic 3 is in a way teleological with how the designers have made IGs, that the historiography of Vic 3 could easily be argued to be either Whig or Marxist in nature.

@dandankovsky7968 Год назад

Is the secret of the video Age of Mythology music slowed down?

@rogofos 5 месяцев назад

31:48 aye we made it lads

@DmitryFrolov1 5 месяцев назад

It’s a shame that that mod for Empire: total war about the Victorian era was never completed. There is also a mod for HoI 4, it is not yet finished, but is already quite playable until 1885.

@WWFanatic0 5 месяцев назад

A slight critique around 30min in when talking about WWI. Dr. Michael Neiberg has written and talked about this a lot (WWI is his area of focus) but the idea that it was the generals pushing for war is wrong. We actually see the diplomats/state departments being more aggressive on the matter of war during the crisis. For example, the Hapsburgs saw a huge opportunity in that for the first time that anyone can remember they were the victims and they can use this to extract concessions (after all, the other monarchs probably would support punishing those who kill monarchs and their heirs). Sure people like von Hötzendorf were clamoring for war with Serbia, but this was something that often got an eyeroll from the court. He had demanded war on so many occasions, and threatened to resign so many times, that it was more like a child throwing a tantrum than actual influence. In the lead up to war, Tsar Nicholas ordered a demobilization but it was his foreign minister (with some encouragement from the French ambassador I believe) who encouraged him to rescind his order and allow mobilization to happen. We can see many more examples and I'd recommend his various lectures as it was a real eye opener. Now some of this may seem odd. The military leaders *didn't* want war? Well generals may often be portrayed as callous but they are aware of the bloody nature of war more than most. This was particularly true at the turn of the 20th century. Experiences like the Second Boer War and the Russo-Japanese war showed just how awful modern war could be. The latter in particular presented a terrifying prospect to generals of a potentially unwinnable war. It looked like defensive efforts were outstripping offensive means. If politicians and diplomats are aware of that, it should lead to more peace...but they often weren't. Worse is that you are often expected to attack in wars. If you know defenders have the advantage but any war means your government will expect you to launch attacks...that's an unenviable position and responsibility. I agree with the broader point for Vic3 that interest groups should pressure international affairs though. If anything this "military that is cautious about war" and "political elite desiring war" makes it even more compelling if difficult to model.

@xModerax Год назад

The literacy rates ingame are a result of a buggy distribution script. In the current system literacy isnt hardcoded per country but much rather set as a general law setting. This establishes a baseline and then calculates additional literacy based on the buildings and production methods used at the start as to enable a working start economy. There are also different weights for different classes etc. In a mod I made this can lead to African countries that have a baseline of 5% according the to literacy group preset but end up as 35% literacy simply because the lack of building makes the calculation super wonky. The whole thing is super frustrating for me as a modder.

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Yeah, I'd seen some offhand comments about it being that or tied to class deeply enough that having aristocrats at all like hard boosted the percent, which is what was giving the world a basically 20% baseline. I'm interested in seeing what they do about it, if they do anything at all, which I do hope they do, but it's not a dealbreaker for me, personally, given how literacy isn't the sole factor for tech anymore.

@BaronLarke Год назад

I think an increased depth to the interest group system might address most of the issues (at the moment), alongside some more autonomous behaviour. Essentially recognising that it isn't just a state but a living world. So this would be a system for cross-border movements that could happen on a state-by-state/along trade route level, which would allow political movements, alongside technology to be passively spreading that way, tying the technology spread system to that level. In addition if interest groups could have subfactions (as suggested by the various defection/disagreement events). They could be impacted by that cross-border movement phenomena, alongside researched social technologies. (i.e. you don't get feminist-supporting liberals until feminism is present and/or researched in your nation). That combined with maybe not having certain interest groups even existing at game start (like the trade unions, that feels odd at game start IMO, though I might have my history wrong and it's justified) could mean larger factions splintering, those splinters reforming with other similar groups into different blocs, in a way that would be similar to the idea we see with the party system atm. But I think that autonomy could also address other problems - like the construction gameplay loop. It's weird to have a construction industry that just turns off and on at the switch of a button, like it seems to ignore market forces - because nobody else can build. But if we allowed pops to build at game start (a bit like auto-expand does) then it could lead to an interesting system where the autonomous constructions are build orders too, or buy orders for the construction sector - leading to options on government-commanded vs market construction efforts, and changing how construction impacts budgets. We already know when we build the overall cost of a project, but we could instead be charged monthly for each project that is *in construction* by the construction industry, and potentially have to offer above the odds in a strong economy - which would be when the construction industry naturally expands. I think the state-controlled stuff has its place (certainly in this period) but the autonomous system underneath needs to be there. Especially as it would create natural ways for interest groups to develop too - the easiest one being the industrialists, getting larger over time as they exploit market demands autonomously rather than simply being the result of you building factory buildings. It also opens the space for bonkers laws (but probably something that would exist in game) that might ban industrialisation. So, uh, yeah - autonomic gameplay systems would be a really good shift (if possibly game-changing in every way) for both addressing and simulating economic changes, as well as social, political and philosophical ones, leaving the attempts of the state to assert it's control in the hands of the player.

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Oh for sure. I think targeting the IGs and Revolutions in specific with their content efforts would be the most sound way to get a lot of depth out of something that doesn't require designing whole systems. I also want to see war mutiny function mechanically since that's like half the reason revolutions happened or nearly happened. But that may be really hard to model. Like, 1918 Germany is my template for what the game should be able to organize in an ideal form, but idk how doable that is.

@Omnicide101 Год назад

RE: the split between the political and the diplomatic, that *may* have been a deliberate choice based in International Relations literature. The biggest paradigms in IR by far, realism and liberalism (at least since the shift towards neoliberalism in the latter case), pretty much contend that states act on the international stage as dictated by their driver of self-preservation of the state, irrespective of domestic political factors. How they do this and what the nuances of that self-preservation are can vary, but you really need to look at more modern literature (and that can be surprisingly hard since we've been pretty much stuck in the Cold War since we began) or more constructivist/critical paradigms to really see arguments that the domestic affects the diplomatic. (Don't get me wrong, I think the 'states are a black box'-argument is extremely silly, but it's still a popular one.) Do I think this is a deliberate reflection of structural realist/neoliberal IR paradigms on Paradox' behalf? Nah, more than likely they just didn't have the time or resources to flesh this out before release, but it's funny to see them accurately reflect a commonly-held theory of state behaviour in the game.

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

If I recall there's a particular undercurrent in the EU4 community that won't stop talking about IR Anarchy theory and how it is reflected in EU4, that there isn't room for hierarchies and ostensibly the game is a thunderdome of Nation survivalism. Bringing in an IR lens to these games is something I'm not personally equipped to be the strongest on, but it is something that interests me to an extent.

@jonathankraus6818 Год назад

those are bold words coming from Conquest

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

the whole spat is *very* funny if you're a complete nerd. I won't spoil it here.

@Joostmhw Год назад

Almost 200 hours in and only great war I've seen was when I tried to puppet Tripolitania as France. Took me by surprise but was certainly lacking

@NineNoRouge Год назад

I love your videos, very interesting, I have been having fun trying to save the Qing andindustrialized, I have found that it is simple to avoid the European powers, but your own radicals are way more dangerous as even with 1 billion gdp your standard of loving barely moves

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

Would guaranteed liberties maybe help? I feel like the game was, for now and maybe forever, aggressively not balanced around China, which is...kinda fair, all things considered. Having mechanics suit 95% of centralized nations and china having a bit of a Hard Time™ is probably the better choice when contrasted with having China be more functional and obliterating the world economy every single game

@NineNoRouge Год назад

@@Rosencreutzzz I played until 1950 as china in Vic 3 and it still destroys the economy but the SOL barely moves

@NineNoRouge Год назад

@@Rosencreutzzz I continued my most recent game and I think I found the issue for me. (I am brand new to the Victoria series) I need to build more farms as those seem to be the best way of getting you SOL up as China. But they don't get you nearly as much income. I think I need to try again, 7 times is the charm :).

@NineNoRouge Год назад

@@Rosencreutzzz also the liberties law did help, as I conquered Indonesia for that oil and rubber for the late game.

@James-rm7sr Год назад

Based on the US purchasing the Louisiana Territory had us go to Washington at that point. So I don't think it is unreasonable at the start date that the US border should be mostly at the spot it is today minus a few areas. I do agree with the assessment that the game is actually very much a simulation, but does have elements like CK to help correct history if you decide to take the moment. If you are the US and go exploring the land which was done long before hand historically, but in game has you do it under Andrew Jackson and if you make the right choices then you get the borders as seen today. If a war with Mexico I noticed a few issues. The first you can actually attack first taking the territory we are supposed to and get it years earlier. Some people don't realize you can ask for 3 things from the start. If you are just starting the game that isn't all that hard. The issue I had was the confederacy ended up including 3 other states which I didn't take into account. So a far harder civil war, but the South didn't have Robert E Lee or its generals it should of had during the conflict. It still was hard given just had fought and beat Mexico. So the game does offer as stated ways around it. I just rather the line wasn't wrong from the start. I know the reason for it, but there would have been other ways around it.

@Algizia Год назад

While it is true that people of one certain class can betray their own class, however it isn't very common tough. I think Victoria 3 doesn't really have to simulate class betrayal on an interest group level. Take Friedrich Engels for example. He was a business owner and yet he would within Victoria 3 be a labour union leader instead of an industrialist leader.

@Sebastianbertolotto1880 5 месяцев назад

That gameplay in 19:24 broke my Argentine heart 💔, what is doing Russia in the Patagonia? And about the possibility of alternative history, there where plenty of moments in time wjere things could jave gone completely different... For example the Christian rebellion in China that was close to succeed, or wjat if USA didn't force Japan to open or more close to home like when Argentina defeated the Spanish in California and maintain the territory for a while,.. yes you read it right, Argentina, the southest part of the continent got to California before de USA... We later leave because of the logistics and that. So you jave infinity of examples of what if. Edit: Later on i saw with Chile and it didn't look nice 😭

@deanvandijk9670 Год назад

26:34 *shudders in Hungarian Revolution*

@Chironex_Fleckeri Год назад

We are gonna need 3-5 yrs for it to be on par with Hoi and Eu4

@m136dalie Год назад

I think the question of railroading is a very interesting one. On one hand, it's true that many important historical events might have not happened. On the other hand, some events are so crucial to the events of subsequent history that you can't exclude them. For example the revolutions of 1848 aren't railroaded into Victoria 3 (as far as I'm aware). In my opinion this is an example of events that NEED to happen in almost every single game by default due to their importance. Same things goes with the USA's westward expansion, the Meiji restoration in Japan and China's warlord era. It's true that there was no guarantee these events necessarily had to happen, but they did happen and they were so important for world history that they should happen in 90% of games at least. Otherwise most games will rarely resemble what actually happened in history, which is ideally what a game without player intervention should look like (in my opinion). It might contradict the model of history that Paradox is aiming for, but in my opinion some events absolutely need to be railroaded for the game to actually feel like a simulation of history.

@efulmer8675 Год назад

I disagree. Now, some things like US Manifest Destiny would probably happen a lot more often naturally if the IGs in government affected diplomacy more: say the Armed Forces are upset that youve been at peace and the Intelligentsia are upset that there are claims of yours that arent at least in your diplomatic purview (ally, dominion, puppet, or annexed) and the Industrialists desire the neighboring land for their own uses, and the Landowners desire the expansion of Slavery, so they form a political movement to Declare War on Mexico for Returning the Claims of Colorado, Texas, and Utah. And suddenly the US gets a decision to go with the flow ("REMEMBER THE ALAMO!") or ignore it (James Polk is not elected and now were in alt-history territory), but that impetus now also drives diplomacy in ways that the Journals can also effect themselves.

@Nota-Skaven Год назад

They can happen in the majority of games without being completely railroaded, Eu4 doesn't force protestantism to spread through Europe by railroading and making a bunch of countries protestant just so the league wars can happen, rather it makes it so without player intervention protestantism will spread, somewhere through Europe, but a competent player can change that history, (the spawn of protestantism isn't even technically guaranteed, a big enough multiplayer game could actually just keep going through the Age of Exploration iirc) that the big historical events should happen in 80-90% of games without player intervention I do agree with, the idea that it must be railroaded to achieve this I disagree with

@m136dalie Год назад

@@Nota-Skaven Protestantism is railroaded into EU4 though. Once you reach the age of reformation some provinces are going to be converted no matter what. The centers of reformation are how EU4 railroads the reformation since they always appear and always convert provinces. Haven't heard about the age of discovery never ending though (sounds like a bug).

@Nota-Skaven Год назад

@@m136dalie protestantism spawns when Reformation Desire reaches 90, if you can avoid that from happening by having players as the majority of the catholic nations you can just avoid hitting 90, while protestantism then spawns, it is not guaranteed to last by any stretch, once again the player can intervene and actually eliminate the Reformation, while its spawn is largely railroaded, it is done through AI weights not by just spawning the Reformation when X year hits, and it actually lasting and becoming a real force is entirely preventable, it is not railroaded into becoming a big force in Germany, it does every game without player intervention because of just that, there was no intervention to change the conditions of the Reformation, the player creating a strong religious state geared against fighting heresy in Germany that didn't exist normally means the Reformation is crushed instead of flourishing

@m136dalie Год назад

@@Nota-Skaven Well you agree that the Reformation is railroaded then. I never said that events have to occur the same way every single time with the same outcome (that would be terribly boring). I'm saying that certain events have to be railroaded so they make an appearance. In EU4 the reformation is set up such a way that without deliberate player intervention it will always appear. In Victoria 2 the revolutions of 1848 are set up so they always make an appearance too. In Victoria 3, they don't even make an appearance. It's all well and fine to say you don't want to railroad certain events, rather allow them occur organically within the simulation. However if they basically never happen because your simulation isn't up to scratch, well that needs to be fixed. Because having a game set in the 19th century but not even feature some of the most important revolutions of the period is very weak to be honest, especially when considering the prequel featured them.

@Herensica Год назад

Does anyone have a source on the map that appears at 0:23?

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

I got it from the Library of Congress. The title is "Colton's illustrated & embellished steel plate map of the world on Mercator's projection"

@Herensica Год назад

Thank you very much ^^

@89volvowithlazers День назад

I dont play games that exalt in enslavement or planet destruction. Which means no stellaris no vic 2 or 3. Hoi4 falls into a weird space avoiding atrocities so yeah I dont play that either. What i do find interesting are these video essays on historicity and 4x games. In the essays the discussions are fascinating

@MisterFusion113 Год назад

Name dropping a non-Eurocentric historical event while critiquing Vic3 is the new "you haven't even heard of the band on my t-shirt."

@XxRedRocket15xX Год назад

The titular Victoria 2?!

@justinjeffries1554 Год назад

You can read JSTOR with just a Gmail account?!

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

I think this started as a pandemic thing and I can't tell if they're planning to get rid of it "when the pandemic ends" or not, but I suspect, in true historian fashion, they're waiting 35 years to affirmatively decide something ended 34 years ago.

@lukatomas9465 Год назад

@@Rosencreutzzz You could also before the pandemic, but you only had access to 5 articles per month compared to the current 100 per month.

@lazykatie42069 6 дней назад

luckily your critique on how interest groups don't have stances on countries is no longer true as of 1.7 with the introduction of the new political lobbies system

@nothinglikeasongbird Год назад

Incredible writing! It's fucking criminal that you're not more popular

@Turisteiro291 Год назад

Nice

@HierophanticRose Год назад

I always thought a game around economic upending and a new system forming should start a century earlier, with Wealth of Nations at least Also if anything Vic 3 made me realize what an existential crisis the ramp cycle of increasing wages due to increasing demand due to increased standard of living due to increased output due to increased wages is. It's enough to make you wanna plunder the rest of the world. But looking at history from one lens can be myopic too; like the claim that was popular a few years ago "the real reason of WW2 was economic" In that way I think games like Victoria can be a good way to test the historiographic lenses, to see the applicability of theories and narratives, where they succeed, where they fail

@miketacos9034 Год назад

Based SMT IV music

@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682 Год назад

Yes!!!

@ZahrDalsk 5 месяцев назад

"The Superconfederacy is based" - Rosencreutz, 20:30

@Crano_Brakebart Год назад

I didn't realize the Ontario hockey league had that much Influence on German foreign policy

@Rosencreutzzz Год назад

yeah, they're the faction pushing for World War 3 with a new reverse Zimmerman Telegram, over the Canadian Claim to Western New York. Niagara is their Elsass.

@petersmythe6462 5 месяцев назад

"sometimes they degenerate into weird name-calling spats that last half a decade." I'm glad that the world of academic publishing has the same standards of civility and decorum as the RU-vid comments section.

@watermilon7758 Год назад

great

@SoFarSoGoodSoWhat14 Год назад

Is that Shin Megami Tensei IV music I heard? Exemplary taste sir 🧐

@l.s.9095 Год назад

Great video, very well done and super interesting! Two things on which I want to comment: First, I think on big problem of the lense of this game, is that the player isn't really part of his nation and thus changes in material conditions don't effect him. The player is instead this omipresent spirit which guides nation to his own liking. He will aim for whatever goals he sets himself and not anything that comes from the historical situation his nation is in. This has some pretty servere consequences I think. For example the player will often go against the interests of his most powerfull and ruling IGs, which not only doesn't feel right, but also makes the choosen historical lense very irrelevant. I believe the game would work much better, if the player would play from the perspective of one particular IG. This also very much breaks the "simulation" aspect of the game as the player is mostly a irrational actor in the games world. From historical hindsight, game experience or just out spite he will do things in a way that makes little sense from the situation in which the nation currently is. The same is - to a lesser extend - true for all AI nations. Therefore I would conclude that the game historical lense is badly thought through. Secondly, I would like to quickly mentione that VIC 3 - and PDX games in general - PRODUCE history e. g. influence our understanding of it. By nature, PDX games go for a very gamified version of history, but still claim - as in this case - to be "simulations". (This claim is of cause complelty ridicilous for a multitude of reasons.) This leads to a wide range of possible critisims that could be made about VIC 3 and the other PDX games, but which are rarely made. Now I don't know, if only I see this problem or if I'm wrong here, but I would love to hear some thoughts about this (maybe even a video?).

@efulmer8675 Год назад

I disagree that PDX games being simulators is a ridiculous claim. Dynastic politics is opaque, stupid and weird. There is no reason to risk the kinds of defects and issues that come with consistent inbreeding of family. But if you are forced to play in the dynastic rules then suddenly those kinds of decisions become much, much less opaque and as such much easier to grapple with and discuss in any manner one chooses. Ive lost count of how many times I've seen comments like this about Crusader Kings. Colonialism also doesnt really make sense until you explore the economics and sentiments of the time. There is no reason to colonize Africa until your industry is suffering because the people of France cant actually consume anything more and/or you lack a good to make something your pops now need (rubber for cars, say) and your neighbor has slapped a 20% export tariff on it. You could suck it up and deal with it, but your pops could get significantly more wealthy themselves if they werent paying for that tariff. That means acquiring some rubber yourself, and bam, you've stolen the Dutch East Indies and colonized all of the Congo. Whoops. Didn't mean to partake in such horrible institutions and make myself a pariah.

@l.s.9095 Год назад

@@efulmer8675 I don't understand what your argument is. You argue for two things, with which I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I never even mentioned them, did I? In those two regards they may have gotten the "simulation" aspect right (more on that at the end of this post…I think they didn’t even get those things right…), but one right thing doesn't create a whole simulation, does it? Maybe I should have been a bit more specific, so let me rephrase it: I don't think that PDX games are GOOD (e. g. "realistic/ truthful/ historical") simulations, although they themselves claim to be. There are a lot of reasons and examples to support this criticism. Do you want me to go into those? One big thing is for example to availability of information about the world in general...this applies to all PDX games and it heavily damages the simulation aspect as it removes most uncertainty from almost all decisions. (Also - as far as I understand, the reason to do incest in CK is either to secure good "genetic" traits for your heirs or to secure an important alliance. But were this really the main reasons to do incest for medieval rulers? As far as I understand it had much more to do with the superstitious idea of "purity"...also didn't much of the heavy/ famous inbreeding only happen after the medieval era ended? But again, we have to ask ourselves, is this really why Colonialism happened? To make to lives of the citizens of a specific country better? To gain access to resources? In some cases this reasoning might have been used by people at the time, but was it really true? Wasn't imperial projection a more important reason? And the interests of a very small group of people? Also many colonies were never really all that profitable. Therefore these harsh work systems were enforced on the local people to somehow squeeze some profit out of it, this could then lead to rebellions and more costs. This aspect doesn't exists in VIC III, you almost always make a profit of your conquest and you have little reason to mistreat colonized people (besides roleplay there is really none), this certainly seems like a bad simulation of colonialism, right?)

@gabrielbybee9556 Год назад

Algorithm comment, also thanks for the new update!

@phis7230 5 месяцев назад

28:20 Aristocrats tend mor to be pro Landowners, but they also can have other political intrests. Like not every Worker is a trade-unionist.

@superninjaraidingman 5 месяцев назад

"C-E" 😂

@petersmythe6462 5 месяцев назад

Real life: governments need to carefully manage different interest groups, and powerful interest groups can do things like force the outcome of an election, overthrow a foreign government (or your own government) without permission, create false flags to force you into a war, create a massive public propaganda campaign against a regime they don't like or in favor of overlooking anything bad about ones they do, and generally don't just have an opinion on foreign policy but are often the motivating force behind foreign policy. Paradox games: player pretty much controls all foreign policy decisions.