Vicky2 mod download

And for students who are using EU4 as a background, my advice would be to interrogate more deeply some of the processes that are being simulated here.

These processes — the steady increase of state power and capacity and the emergence of national imagined identities — were very real historical processes that really did happen and really do shape our modern world in profound ways.

I applaud the folks at Paradox for making such an effort to try to model those processes, even if in some cases they fall short. But I would suggest for the student looking into this to ask some hard questions about the costs and tradeoffs of those processes. The modern world is, I think, mostly a good thing, but it came with some catastrophic birthing pains.

Scott, Seeing Like a State and B. Anderson, Imagined Communities Next week, we take a turn and look at war, diplomacy, war, politics and war. View all posts by Bret Devereaux. I find it interesting that two Paradox titles deal with issues of cost of state centralization and power better are Crusader Kings because of their inherently personal focus and Stellaris — a science fiction game.

I think it is a conscious decision on Paradox part — they avoid depicting grand scale atrocities in their historical titles creating a very sanitizing view of history. If you let players do a thing, some players will do that thing very happily and with an intent to express abuse. Historical strategy games tend to attract a disproportionate number of people from non-mainstream political ideologies, especially if they get to play as those ideologies.

The crusades in Crusader Kings seem like a pretty bad example here. One of the options for said event is to murder all of them because even noncombatant unbelievers deserve death. Indeed, Crusader Kings typically take a very cynical view of religion. Many of the events come off as mocking anyone who takes religion seriously and assumes any character who is religious is a thuggish brute.

Killing people for Odin makes you a cool badass. This has been discussed quite a bit in the Hearts of Iron community. Paradox has consciously decided not to represent the atrocities of the fascist regimes, but has made reference to some of the Allied atrocities in particular the Great Purge and the Bengal Famine , which promotes a sort of false moral equivalence between the two sides and inadvertently promotes myths like the Clean Wehrmacht myth. The reasoning right or wrong Behind some of this is western allied attrocities are often historically minimized or erased, while axis attrocities are well discussed and taught.

This is quite uncomfortable. Well, the result is a game that implies a very lopsided perspective on the atrocities of the era.

There is a mod for hoi4, called new world order. While it is alternate history, it is so well fleshed out it plays better than the original games in many ways. And the economy in Stellaris is as centralized and micromanaged as can be — you have complete control over what buildings get built and what jobs your people work. While your empire is vaguely implied to have some sort of internal private economy, every resource that matters to you as a player is only generated at your command.

Your empire is basically a giant production line for alloys and tech, with things like consumer goods and amenities only mattering to the extent that you need some of that to support the pops working in the alloy foundries. Heck, until 3. There was a certain amount of violence done to my wrist in managing my least favorite mechanic of resettling pops from all my over crowded habitats. I never contextualized it as forced resettlement more than paradox simply failing in their simulation to properly simulate migration mechanics.

True, post Yes, I would completely agree with this assessment. A big part of the problem is that mechanics like Happiness and Factions are entirely toothless. There should also be a lot more significance to pops of contrasting Ethics coexisting on the same planet or Xenophobe pops existing on planets with other species, like violent unrest, but maybe not until the late-game performance issues related to pop calculations are brought fully under control.

Judging by the response to the 3. I always felt a bit of ambiguity about who exactly are we role-playing in EU4, precisely because of the reasons described in this post. Who exactly is it that is choosing national ideas? In some cases it seems that we are the ruling class, but in other cases we manage them from outside — e.

In the end, I concluded that we are not deciding what is happening, we are actually historians describing what has already happened. We we not choosing idea groups, we are describing that these ideas came to prominence in these years.

We are not choosing to change culture, we are describing a culture shift that has historically happened. I think the most right thing in the approach in this article is the lack of demands to change the game.

Trade flows towards Europe. Institutions spawn in Europe. Renaissance and Printing Press are designed to spawn only there, while Colonialism and Global Trade are biased to spawn in there. This gives other continents a huge tech penalty. But printing resulting in a popular press did occur in Europe. Possibly due to the difference in writing systems? Colonialism on the other hand was definitely not limited to Europe, though they carried it farther afield than anybody else.

But they never made the step to moveable print? Or did they? In Europe the printing press led to pamphlets, news sheets and other popular media. And even then not just the invention of said, but the widespread adoption of the technology. Could they have developed somewhere else? Not among the Apaches, obviously, but in China, India, or the Mideast?

That is a very vexed question in history, so there is no obvious right way to handle it in a computer simulation game. I do note that while Global trade specificalfly spawns in Europe, the way it spreads means that it will get to the ROTW very quickly.

Is definitely a problem, though one that was created to solve another problem. Because the value of money in trade in EU4 increases as it travels over distance, if trade was allowed to flow dynamically you could make trade move in circles in order to crate infinite money.

Not really. Indeed, one of the great complaints right now among EU4 players is how homogenized technology becomes by the end of the game. In almost every game, everyone is about on the same level technologically by the end of the game due to how fast institutions spread. When institutions were first introduced, people were hoping it would still result in tech disparity like the previous system but be more dynamic, so you might have games where East Asia or North Africa pulled ahead late game instead of Europe.

The whole reason for the Age of Exploration was to get access to cool things which the rest of Eurasia could already get cheaper. Not quite — India was the source of the textiles that paid for the slaves that made the sugar that flowed to Europe.

China exported luxuries silk. In-game, increased manpower of France is a tradition, and levee en masse is an idea in the quantity idea group, the revolutionary government forms also give manpower. So I think the increased manpower is meant to represent something else, something historical in how the French were about to recruit more men.

Maybe the fact that they could recover from some costly losses in the hundred years war? There are a few mechanics about culture that are not mentioned but I think are interesting. Once you reach empire rank which requires you to either form a historic empire like Russia or Ethiopia, or requires you to hit a certain amount of development you get cultural unity. Which means you automatically accept all cultures in your culture group. To me that seems to imply that at that point a state wants to project themselves as a great power that sees himself as protector of a people.

Like the Tsar being the ruler of all Slavs. This gives republics less of a penalty for holding unaccepted culture provinces. So the game does reward the concept of representation making people feel heard. The game also has forced deportations although they changed it. You can deport an unaccepted culture of religious province to the new world.

This will reduce the development of the province you deported them from and changes the culture of the target province in the new world and used to change the culture and religion to your state culture and religion.

That does seem a bit of a theme in the game. There is bravado in the messages which you can interpret as being satirical. It definitely does that, but I think part of it is just that the game has no real ability to evaluate what is actually a reasonable peace offer. A dominant culture in a locale but which is a minority across the entire state generally does better in a republic… assuming that dominant culture is dominant enough within the franchise to deliver representation.

Quebec and Scotland come to mind as places that have stubbornly hang on to their minority culture and have had some success at integrating into a parliamentary structure. On the other hand, while Quebec is not a modern phenomenon, as they got cultural exemptions for both language and religion as soon as the British conquered New France, Scotland has rebelled more times than I know, including in , the last year of the time frame for Europa Universalis.

Scotland has rebelled more times than I know, including in , the last year of the time frame for Europa Universalis. I gather that modern historians of the Holy Roman Empire find the idea that the Holy Roman Empire was a failed attempt to be the German state unhelpful.

The HRE mechanism is basically a whole game within the game. There are 70 playable states in Central Europe, many of them having just one province, that start out as HRE members. Also, there ARE personal unions too, Bret somewhat downplayed the role of what dinasty your monarch belongs to. The game actually has personal unions, with one state being the major partner, and the other as a junior vassal, i.

The Empire has a whole host of special rules governing Imperial Elections. States can be members of the HRE gaining certain bonuses and restrictions. There are the historical electors who choose the next Emperor who must be a monarch of a state. Personal Unions do happen by a variety of means. Except in special cases, after 50 years, the junior partner may be integrated into the senior partner using diplomatic power or randomly inherited upon the death of a ruler.

In the hands of a capable line of emperors, it can be progressively strengthened and unified into a single state, but that is too challenging for the AI and only happens with a player running the empire. Played capably, you can expect to pick up personal unions in the or so years before the endgame which is a completely ahistorical thing; you never have to go endgame, but if you get good enough then about you become powerful enough to defeat every other state in the world simultaneously, and you then are limited in expansion only by the accumulation of enough admin points to absorb all the territory you conquer.

Meanwhile, you would be resolving doctrinal disputes, dealing with heretics and unbelievers, or maybe occasionally embracing a new prophet or movement…. Which is a damn shame, because it sounds like it could be a neat idea, albeit one that would almost certainly offend too many people to ever be commercially viable. Those ideas fit well into the traditions of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason at the time. People often think that the forest they see in contemporary Germany are similar to the ones in the past, but that is not true at all.

Over time, many forests in the past became severely degraded — as so well shown on this blog, e. The above mentioned standardisation and scientification of forest practices must be seen in this context. Strong focus was placed on yield and ease of management — therefore, comparatively fast growing spruce was planted instead of bech or oak, even on not very well suited sites.

With climate change, these plantations suffer greatly and in the last decades, a lot of effort was taken to change them towards more suitable mixed-deciduous forest types.

Also, replanting deforested or severely degraded places with young seedlings will almost automatically lead to forest patches with similar aged trees. While quite a number of the larger tracts, both publicly and privately owned, have been transformed with the use of site-appropriate species, smaller holdings, often on former marginal agricultural sites, are still heavily dominated by spruce forests.

Often, you see a central area of state-owned mixed beech forest in lighter green in the middle of a forest tract and on the outskirts, small-scaled privately owned, unsustainable dense spruce plantations in darker green.

Since the game is set in an era where the historical outcome was the greatest degree of European colonial dominance ever , that focus on producing historical outcomes produces that historical outcome. I will be fascinated to see how Victoria III , built I assume with a Gen3 sensibility, provides options for ahistorical outcomes which are less Europe-dominated. Judging from the trend towards a more meaningfully global historical perspective we discussed in EU4 and also quite visible in Crusader Kings ; just contrast the on-release map of CK2 and CK3 , my suspicion is that Victoria III will tend to push harder against a deterministic viewpoint.

That said, Victoria II has several sets of systemic interactions which I think work extremely well. While I am sure you are all chomping at the bit to hear about war, peace and diplomacy, I think we actually need to start with a system that is even more fundamental to Victoria II : industrialization. One thing I want to be clear about from the beginning with Victoria II : this is a game about pops. This is a necessary mechanical fudge. More to the point, it offers more detail than almost any other game at this scale out there ; wildly more just look at that screen!

In most games — take the Total War series, Civilization or indeed, EU4 — a city or a province might collectively have a religion, a culture and a population figure. In VickyII , that same province or city is broken down; its pops have many different cultures, several different religions.

They have different literacy rates, political beliefs, occupations, militancy levels, degrees of political awareness and so on. Individuals can transition between pops too, as they change job, or culture, or religion, causing one pop to get bigger and the other to get smaller.

They can also just leave , moving to another province or another state! This is actually an enormous mechanical change from EU4. In EU4 the main resource was land ; all of the value was in the provinces.

They work the jobs, produce the resources, pay the taxes. Crucially armies are recruited from pops; each regiment in your army is directly tied back to the pop that supports and reinforces it. If the pop is radicalized, so is the unit. If the pop is depleted by losses or job changes, emigration, etc. But overall I want to stress here how this changes the game: the most important, most valuable resource in VickyII is your population itself.

A province with no pops in it is basically worthless. A low value province different provinces produce different raw resources and some are much less valuable than others with a huge population of high literacy pops, on the other hand, is tremendously valuable because those pops will produce soldiers, technology, taxes and more pops ; once you have factories, such a province can also be an economic mega-center.

The reason here is that, with the exception of some edge-case strategies which I suspect were truly unintended the player is almost always incentivized to try to be a benevolent shepherd to their pops.

Literate pops are more productive. And of course pops that are cared for multiply and since pops are the most important resource, encouraging population growth is one of the most important things you can do. I really hope that the mechanics of Victoria III continue this trend from the developer diaries so far, it sounds like they will.

The industrial revolution, more than any other set of mechanics including war, colonialism, etc. Of these, 19 of these goods are raw resources. The amount produced is dependent on production technology and the number of pops employed with the latter being the most influential. The RGO goods are all fairly basic things: coal, iron, cotton, grain, wool, timber, etc. Processed goods are produced in two ways. The old fashioned way, which makes up the vast majority of production at game start, is production by artisans.

Artisan pops will — without any player input or control — pick a finished good to produce, buy an amount of raw materials for it, process them into that finished good and then sell that good.

So for instance, artisans might turn timber into lumber and then lumber into furniture , or dye and cotton into fabric and so on. Some goods have to go through multiple steps before hitting a finished good. Individual artisan pops are not very productive, but at game start there are a lot of them worldwide and so in the aggregate they produce most of the finished goods sloshing around the market in when the game starts.

The game then dynamically simulates prices: goods that are scarce have their prices increase while goods that are overproduced drop in prices. Artisans, in theory see below , shift in response to price signals, balancing the whole system. Pops that buy goods consume them and require more and so the system starts again. Which is exactly correct as a description of the problems of pre-industrial mobilization too ; the problem is that per capita productivity is low, leaving societies long on people even at relatively low populations but short on stuff.

Because that world of artisans and farmers is going to be up-ended by…. But first, we have to lay out the technology system. Pops have to be literate to be either, and both also produce literacy among other pops, so the key determinant is literacy. To get ahead technologically, you must educate your country and the player may choose to invest government funds in doing so.

The earliest technologies enable the construction of a new kind of production: factories. Factories turn raw materials into processed goods, just like artisans.

Initially the advantage in productivity for factories is very modest and unlike artisans, they require expensive things like machine parts to maintain, but early factories producing the most basic goods especially steel and concrete can be modestly profitable if they can find a large workforce.

Even the most basic factories employ ten thousand workers; each upgrade adds ten thousand more job slots. Where do you get these workers? The technology screen has the answer to this too: a number of technologies substantially increase per-worker RGO output. That said, the other big impact here is literacy: literate peasants and miners are more aware of changing economic winds and so shift jobs more readily. Over the course of the game, as the player moves down the technology tree, factory production receives more bonuses; artisans do not.

These bonuses improve not only throughput enabling a set number of craftsmen to process more raw materials into more final products but also input and output — efficiency bonuses which enable the factory to use fewer inputs to produce more outputs. Moreover, a factory can employ a second pop-type, clerks who require a robust education system to encourage who can further improve factory efficiency. As a teaching tool , the way technologies are structured in Victoria II has some real advantages over the way they function in EU4.

A number of the major innovations of the industrial revolution are represented in the main technology categories.

But perhaps the neatest mechanic are inventions , bonuses which have a weighted chance to trigger after a core technology is developed.

What makes these so interesting is that they are often weighted to multiple technologies, reflecting the ways that these different technologies and systems of social organization interact with each other.

And that makes sense! One of the major technological interactions of the early industrial revolution was that artillery-makers wanted precision-boring machines to make uniform diameter barrels that is, barrels of a consistent caliber. The thing is, a machine that can bore a precise artillery bore can also make very large, very precise cylinders for pistons.

This all happened in Britain a bit before the start-date for Victoria II , but it provides a great example of the interrelation of these technologies. Here, the immediate, direct impacts of the industrial revolution are clear. At the beginning of any game, the actions the player as a state can take are generally very limited due to lack of funds and resources.

State revenues generally start low, which makes ideal funding of administration, education and the military difficult or impossible to balance; even where funds exist, the goods may not and the early game is generally marked by a crunch in the availability of the basic goods used to fuel military activity particularly small arms, canned food and ammunition.

And raising taxes to pry those goods out of the world market can also backfire, since you are often competing with your own pops for those scarce goods ; taxing them more which reduces their money available to buy their own needs while driving up the price of staples can tip them into insufficiency and from there into either angry militancy or emigration, both of which are quite bad.

Early on, for instance, building programs are heavily limited not by available cash, but by just getting sufficient steel, coal and concrete to actually build anything since there is only so much. The industrial revolution radically alters these constraints.

States that succeed in pioneering the industrial revolution rapidly find that successful factories produce a lot of revenue which can be quite heavily taxed without triggering revolt or mass emigration, while at the same time the availability of goods both increases and the prices drop as production methods improve.

Things like nation-wide railroad networks, which would have seemed absurd in the first decade of the game, are quite affordable by midgame because of this. The player thus experiences industrialization, assuming it is done successfully see below as a transition from poverty to riches which radically increases their freedom of action.

Letting the player do more and see more things happening provides a fairly immediately satisfying feedback. That said…. All of this sounds great and it is but it comes with the relatively massive caveat which is that almost nothing in Victoria II quite works right.

In this case, the most complex game systems regularly go a little wrong; since the economic model particularly the World Market is by far the most complex system, it goes wrong the most. This is most notable in the fit the market pitches when a new game is started or a saved game loaded. For large states with big budgets and revenues, these bumps are minor, but small states can swing wildly between economic bursts and crashes in just those few days as prices wildly recalibrate and as artisans wildly shift production in the background.

On the other end, State Capitalism, favored by reactionary and fascist parties allows the player to do everything interventionism does, plus building the factories themselves; capitalist pops can still build factories on this setting, but they are substantially more expensive.

The problem is that the combination of the janky world market prices and the often baffling failures of the capitalist AI in selecting what to produce where means that an actual player is wildly better at planning factories than capitalists under Laissez Faire.

This is, to put it bluntly, not what happened historically. What the game clearly seems to want is a system where planned economies make sense to jump-start early industrialization, but that successful states will gravitate to Laissez Faire, which ought to outperform the others in raw production once it gets rolling. Instead, skilled players will learn to manage sudden, intentionally triggered periodic shifts from liberal, laissez faire parties because the bonuses are still powerful to brief stints where reactionary or socialist parties are in power so that the player can clean up the incompetent mess of unprofitable factories the capitalists left and build a lot of very obvious factories like steel mills in regions that produce both coal and iron, etc.

That seems fairly clearly an unintended outcome. For one, when the game was actively being patched, repeated efforts were made to improve capitalist decision-making with only limited success. Perhaps the area where VickyII sets itself most apart is in its willingness to embed unforseen at least to the first time player consequences in all of these systems. So far, after all, I have been presenting industrialization in the game as a completely positive thing: more goods, more money, more population, more security, more everything.

And in a great many other games featuring building and industrialization that is precisely what you get.

There is no human cost because there are no humans. You just get more stuff. While industrialization as a whole is still presented positively a view with which I concur! I rather like modern industrial technology which makes things like mass-produced electronics possible the game wraps all of these systems in unintended consequences. But consequences in history are often unintended and VickyII in some ways relishes in this fact.

Let me get specific here and talk about what I mean, starting with the implications for industrialization on pops. This is a game about pops. As countries research new industrial technologies, as I mentioned, the productive capacity of the RGOs that each province has increases, without a matching demand for more workers. You, the industrialist, hope this will push those farmers into factories, but that only works if there are factories to go which can hire, especially because while the demand for, say, farmers is decreasing , the population is increasing.

Moreover, those shifts are disruptive; as price of basic products drops the income of farmers and laborers drops with it, which makes it harder for them to get their basic needs some of which are processed goods whose prices are not dropping at the same rate.

Moreover, their own basic needs increase with technology too — slower than production, but remember while their production is going up, their wages are going down or stagnant. Unlike in EU4 , where the player, implementing policies that were good for the state but bad for people often had little feedback on this harsh reality, in VickyII , militancy is the direct feedback.

High militancy, among other effects, pushes out-migration which, because that means losing pops and pops are the most important resource, is to be avoided at all costs. Consequently, the player is made very aware of the negative impacts industrialization is having on their people; those impacts have real consequences for the state.

Meanwhile, you are pushing education too, trying to get a large block of literate citizens, because literate citizens more readily switch jobs to being craftsmen or clerks, who you need for your factories and they also produce faster technological advancement. But pushing literacy unavoidably means raising consciousness.

And, to be fair, consciousness can be a good thing for you — if your pops want to implement the same reforms you do, consciousness helps you overcome the old aristocracy which is invariably reactionary and already very politically engaged. But the impact of consciousness is heavily dependent on what the pops in question want and how able you are to deliver it!

This can be very tricky if the view that those pops have is that they are a subject people in an empire who deserve to be free! Consequently, for large, multi-ethnic empires, high literacy can actually be dangerous.

On the flip side, consciousness among the new industrial classes — craftsmen, clerks, capitalists — will push them to demand liberal or socialist governments that accord with their views generally , which is fine if you want to go that way, but if you intended to maintain an old fashioned style of government or a more extreme one!

On the flip, flip side, remember that industrialization has produced a whole lot of angry farmers and laborers whose jobs have vanished, alongside a smaller number of upset aristocrats. These can easily build in militancy and coalesce into a reactionary movement if their consciousness is allowed to rise. Consequently, the game presents a situation where, at game-start, much of Europe and the world still has a fairly stable social system: high consciousness conservative aristocrats and low-consciousness conservative peasants.

The good news is that productive, wealthy states can manage this transition, enacting reforms either political reforms to deliver actual freedom or a Bismarck-compromise of social programs without political reform to transition into efficient, industrial countries where the steady flow of goods and state benefits combined with fairly low taxation because factories throw off so much money keep everyone happy through the transition. For states that begin with lower literacy rates and less favorable economic situations, the way forward is a mine-field.

This server contains people who enjoy garrys mod, hoi4, and other games. Right click on the image and select "Save image as" and save the map to your designated folder. One of my clients recently asked me how often I use Cucumber or JBehave in my own projects.

Description Discussions Comments Change Notes. Make your own object insanity by snuggs1. Custom Scenarios is a feature formerly exclusive to Plague Inc: Evolved which allow players to create and publish their own scenarios via the Scenario Creator and then publish them on Steam Workshop.

Click on the picture of the map and you should see a pop up. Hoi4 custom map maker Hoi4 custom map maker The Battle for Wesnoth is an open source, turn-based strategy game with a high fantasy theme. General Information. These Templates are free to use in the free version of our Cloud Designer. View Template. Check here for details. Select the mods tab from the launcher. I plan on releasing at least one checkpoint scenario per vanilla map.

Used for security. You can select from greater list of national objectives and determine the economical and military development of your country before the war starts. Welcome to January 1st, HoI4 cheat codes. In , players of Plague Inc.

Coldwar is a simulation platform. Once the scenarios are announced here, the moderators will then update the relevant sticky threads. Add photos, organize items into groups. Custom Scenarios on vanilla maps. Make a map of the World, Europe or the United States in various chronologies. Two-sided PDF. Asia and Talk. The vast and insane world of Red Flood will allow Submods are downloadable content released separately from the Old World Blues mod. If you're clueless Scenario Generator has challenge randomizers for all your favourite games including Skyrim, Minecraft, and Pokemon.

So I would like to know if Paradox is working on something like that or if even a modder is making one. Rebel Inc. And as the title suggests, there could be decisions or "National Focus" as they are called in Hoi4. Hoi4 German Focus Tree Mod. Maptive transforms your data into a custom Google map in minutes. You must be respectful to other members here. Under Group or user names, tap or click your name to see the permissions that you have.

Even if there are no more expansions in store for the future, that doesn't mean there's nothing new to check out. With the help of a special map, 60 countries with 30 unique focus trees, racial technology trees and units, a huge variety of complex interweaving events, and more custom icons and portraits than the whole basic game, it shouldn't exist, but it somehow does.

A custom scenario my first ever piece of scripting. The mafia eliminates one town member per night, and act like innocent town members during the day. I would like to make my own scenario for Hearts of Iron,but i'm not very into that programming stuff.

For printing services, Printer Studio is always a good option. As I mentioned earlier, Victoria 2 tries to move the focus away from warfare and more towards economical advancements instead.

Similar to the War Analyzer, the Economy Analyzer displays crucial information like goods consumption, export and import charts, population details, and unemployment figures, all at a glance. It basically aims to improve user accessibility without affecting much in terms of default gameplay.

It makes a few UI changes, including better info screens that no longer obstruct map view. Plus terrain attributes can now be seen on province images, and a modified influence slider where unique colors make it easier to determine the amount. There are also a few sound enhancements included for revolts, construction, and research completion.

Going deeper into the world of Victoria 2 mods, there are actually a lot that make bigger changes in terms of gameplay. Some aim to give you completely new scenarios to play through, while others just aim to improve overall experience without altering too much of the base game. Some issues addressed include overpowered colonies, super-speed assimilation, and repetitive election events. Farming technology is now affected by a number of additional factors like literacy, consciousness, and militancy.

Another rebalance mod here, ZinnMod offers a different take on fixing game-breaking or ineffective mechanics. Some examples of changes include a lowered national focuses requirement, assimilation and religious conversion changes, and an expanded effect of crimes.

Before we get into the more serious overhaul mods for Victoria 2, I always like to throw something in just for fun. Apocalypse is an interesting scenario mod as it brings zombies to your Victoria 2 playthrough.