It's official. Yay!
QuoteA sequel to the 2003 cult-hit, with a large devout following around the world. Victoria 2 is a grand strategy game played during the colonial era of the 19th century, where the player takes control over a country, guiding it through industrialisation, political reforms, military conquest and colonisation. Guide the USA to its Manifest Destiny, Make United Kingdom into a world-spanning empire, and make Germany the dominating nation in Europe.
Features
• Deep engrossing political simulation, with dozens of different types of governments.
• Detailed economy with over fifty different type of goods and factories.
• Historical game-play on a large map covering the entire world.
• Over 200 different countries can be played, from 1835 to the start of world war 2.
• Advanced Technological system with thousands of inventions to be discovered.
• Possibility to export a save game at the end of the game into HoI3.
• A streamlined interface, which makes the game easily accessible.
• Automation of various tasks, including trade and population promotion.
• Advanced spheres of influences system, where the great powers battle over the control of the world.
• New types of pops, including bureaucrats and artisans.
• Cottage production simulating pre-industrial economies.
• Gunboat Diplomacy, no need for negotiate as a fleet outside a port may be a more persuasive argument.
• Overhaul of education, where clergy educates people of the same religion, and each pops have their own literacy levels.
• More reform categories with more options to select from in each.
• New election system with coalition governments and an upper house/senate.
• Historical and Dynamic missions guiding your country through the history.
• Thousands of historical events and decisions.
Sort of wished for CK2, but hey, this at least is more interesting than HoI3. Also expansions for EU3 and EU2 (user made).
I've hope for this one. :)
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2009, 02:09:38 AM
I've hope for this one. :)
Definitely. I also have hope for the EU3 expansion:
QuoteRequested by the fans, Heir to the Throne is the third expansion to the
preeminent historical strategy game Europa Universalis III. The expansion takes the hugely successful game beyond complete, with improvements across the board:
Features
• Intriguing Casus Belli system, where wars have specific goals from start to finish.
• Monarchs now belong to dynasties, with far reaching effects on the diplomatic model.
• More involving and powerful Holy Roman Empire and Papacy options.
• Special diplomatic options for Republics.
• Set your National Focus in a province to enhance growth and strengthen your hold in the region.
• Permanent Terra Incognita removed and replaced with impassable regions.
• Cultural Tradition allows better advisors in the same way that Military Tradition allows better generals and admirals.
• Spheres of Influence simulate the Great Game of the major powers.
• More dynamic pirates. Issue letters of marque to plague the sea zones of rival nations.
• Monarchs need to uphold their legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects
• Many other additions and improvements.
Quote from: Liep on August 19, 2009, 02:04:54 AM
It's official. Yay!
QuoteA sequel to the 2003 cult-hit, with a large devout following around the world. Victoria 2 is a grand strategy game played during the colonial era of the 19th century, where the player takes control over a country, guiding it through industrialisation, political reforms, military conquest and colonisation. Guide the USA to its Manifest Destiny, Make United Kingdom into a world-spanning empire, and make Germany the dominating nation in Europe.
Features
• Deep engrossing political simulation, with dozens of different types of governments.
• Detailed economy with over fifty different type of goods and factories.
• Historical game-play on a large map covering the entire world.
• Over 200 different countries can be played, from 1835 to the start of world war 2.
• Advanced Technological system with thousands of inventions to be discovered.
• Possibility to export a save game at the end of the game into HoI3.
• A streamlined interface, which makes the game easily accessible.
• Automation of various tasks, including trade and population promotion.
• Advanced spheres of influences system, where the great powers battle over the control of the world.
• New types of pops, including bureaucrats and artisans.
• Cottage production simulating pre-industrial economies.
• Gunboat Diplomacy, no need for negotiate as a fleet outside a port may be a more persuasive argument.
• Overhaul of education, where clergy educates people of the same religion, and each pops have their own literacy levels.
• More reform categories with more options to select from in each.
• New election system with coalition governments and an upper house/senate.
• Historical and Dynamic missions guiding your country through the history.
• Thousands of historical events and decisions.
Good news!
Victoria 2? Very nice.
NOOOOO!!!!!!!! WHERE IS MY CK2?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111oneoneone :cry:
Besides, frankly, without seeing neither, I have more confidence in AGEOD's cover of the period. Especially because they want Vicky2 to go until WW2.
The EU3 expansion do sounds good however, can't wait for that.
Features
• Intriguing Casus Belli system, where wars have specific goals from start to finish.
This I believe will be hard to implement or stupid. "Switzerland's war aim is the conquest of the colony in Havana!." They just need a port first. Expect that war to last forever.
• Monarchs now belong to dynasties, with far reaching effects on the diplomatic model.
This might be fun. This might cause the human player to actually allow an A.I. power to continue to exist rather than raping them at the first opportunity since this might mean that the king in your neighboring country with the same dynasty will cooperate with you and keep good relations. This will also allow for house rules that limit the human player more.
• More involving and powerful Holy Roman Empire and Papacy options.
I usually just ignore the those two. Maybe not anymore?
• Special diplomatic options for Republics.
OK, lets see.
• Set your National Focus in a province to enhance growth and strengthen your hold in the region.
I'm confused, what is this?
• Permanent Terra Incognita removed and replaced with impassable regions.
YEAH!!! at long last the great innovation from ETW has migrated to another game! (sort of)
• Cultural Tradition allows better advisors in the same way that Military Tradition allows better generals and admirals.
This is a good good idea. Previously the pure randomness meant that mere number of provinces (and possibly population) were the only factors.
• Spheres of Influence simulate the Great Game of the major powers.
Facinating? How will this work?
• More dynamic pirates. Issue letters of marque to plague the sea zones of rival nations.
Again, a part of the game I just ignore. The BB is just too great a penalty for the minor irritant of som pirates that will probably end up in my waters anyway.
• Monarchs need to uphold their legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects
Limit on players YEAH!
• Many other additions and improvements.
The HRE stuff and the spheres of influence are hopefully ripoffs of the SRI mod's HRE and Great Power systems because they work quite well.
Wow. I didn't think this would ever come. I mean, Vicky wasn't exactly a commercial success. Or even a technical one. The game really didn't work that well even with the expansion. Hopefully this will be better!
I guess I'll have to rev up EU3 again as well.
Excellent news on both counts :cool:
I might even buy them on release.
:w00t:
My being down-beat these past few days has just been resolved.
QuoteThousands of historical events and decisions.
Of which only dozens involve countries not named Sweden.
Did they ever make that Rome game any good? I never showed any interest in it but maybe I ought to give it a spin.
Quote from: Viking on August 19, 2009, 03:04:28 AM
• More dynamic pirates. Issue letters of marque to plague the sea zones of rival nations.
Hopefully this will be a change to the pirates that pop up randomnly , not only the ones that get created by the spy option.
The multitude of Pirates did make having a large navy important for any power with aspirations of colonies. Even non-colonial powers need some navy to keep the pirates away.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 06:31:31 AM
Did they ever make that Rome game any good? I never showed any interest in it but maybe I ought to give it a spin.
No. Even if you're very forgiving to its faults due to really loving this time period it still fails. I hope they make Rome 2.
Will Vicky 2 still have a Stalinist economic model?
Quote from: Liep on August 19, 2009, 02:12:35 AM
Definitely. I also have hope for the EU3 expansion:
EU3 expansion? This will be a free download for everyone who bought EU3 Complete Edition, right?
Nice, one of my favorite games, as are nation builder type games. I like the economic and politics of Vicky Revolutions, though the politics have always been difficult to master.
Looks like some interesting and innovative new concepts in Vicky 2. It'll be interesting to see those are explained/implemented as development goes on. I'll be looking forward to this one! :)
Extra diplomatic options for republics sounds very WTF.
And why extend the period to WW2? Wouldn't back to the Napoleonics be better?
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 19, 2009, 06:52:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 06:31:31 AM
Did they ever make that Rome game any good? I never showed any interest in it but maybe I ought to give it a spin.
No. Even if you're very forgiving to its faults due to really loving this time period it still fails. I hope they make Rome 2.
Ack no.
Rome...just doesn't work as a paradox game.
Nations in the modern sense just didn't really exist back then, its the cities that were important. There are only 3 or 4 examples of actual empires in the entire game which makes it all very....ugh.
A good Roman era game would need a drastically different focus to the whole 'paint teh map red!!11' of typical strategy games. More focused on internal politics and the like.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 19, 2009, 08:01:32 AM
EU3 expansion? This will be a free download for everyone who bought EU3 Complete Edition, right?
Think of it as an encore, the show is over, but you still expect a few extra songs. That was IN, now this is more like beer afterwards in the pub.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 19, 2009, 04:10:32 AM
Wow. I didn't think this would ever come. I mean, Vicky wasn't exactly a commercial success. Or even a technical one. The game really didn't work that well even with the expansion. Hopefully this will be better!
I guess I'll have to rev up EU3 again as well.
"the team will work on a sequel to the
immensly popular grand strategy game set in the colonial era of the 19th century."
Also, EU3 expansion should be out before christmas. :O
Never got into Vicks. But I may buy this anyway.
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
Extra diplomatic options for republics sounds very WTF.
And why extend the period to WW2? Wouldn't back to the Napoleonics be better?
Yeah, I think I'd like to see the game years start earlier, colonization started earlier. As for extending to WW2, it likely goes to 1936 like Vicky does, so it can be ported into HOI.
Going to1936 seems fine for the game's scope anyway.
Crazy, I thought they would have done CK2 before this. Happy with the choice though, Victoria: Revolutions was a lot of fun to play.
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
There are only 3 or 4 examples of actual empires in the entire game which makes it all very....ugh.
.
similarly, there's maybe a dozen countries (out of 200) in Vikkie that make for a good game. IMO, it only really shone when you played a major Imperialist power (China the one exception). even middling powers (Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, Argentina) had their issues.
Of course this means playing the CSA was a joke for the average player.
As risk of channelling Neil (who really needs no augmentation) - a big issue is going to be the naval implementation, which was pretty hopelessly botched in Vicky 1. It was kind of depressing to build huge piles of mostly useless DNs just to add prestige points.
That said, this is probably the one P-dox offering that I would buy on release at this point, just to encourage the effort if nothing else. I am particularly pleased to see they had the balls to stick with the pop system.
Would we still be able to create 6 tons of steel from 2 tons of iron and 2 tons of coal?
the AI was pretty dumb. when the Russian Navy can defeat the British, because the Brit navy sails out of port on predictable pathways at low morale immediatly on full mobilization, it's a real issue.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 19, 2009, 08:01:32 AM
EU3 expansion? This will be a free download for everyone who bought EU3 Complete Edition, right?
I think some of the copy says "taking you beyond complete..."
Quote from: Liep on August 19, 2009, 08:29:54 AM
Think of it as an encore, the show is over, but you still expect a few extra songs. That was IN, now this is more like beer afterwards in the pub.
Too much cock gobbling at that pub I'm afraid. I'm done with Paradox if they're releasing more EU3 expansions after the "Complete Edition"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
I am particularly pleased to see they had the balls to stick with the pop system.
I like the pop system, but I dislike the pop promotion. Just paying a few thousand quid to get 100,000 clerks out of a farmer pop didn't work well.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 19, 2009, 11:06:22 AM
the AI was pretty dumb. when the Russian Navy can defeat the British, because the Brit navy sails out of port on predictable pathways at low morale immediatly on full mobilization, it's a real issue.
Yeah, that hurt. The naval side needs work. Navies are pretty important in Vicky. In order to protect colonies or fight colonial wars effectively you need to be able to transport troops, get through enemy naval forces, and try to deny your opponent from doing the same. So I want the naval aspect to get some good change/improvement.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 19, 2009, 11:01:32 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2009, 08:19:50 AM
There are only 3 or 4 examples of actual empires in the entire game which makes it all very....ugh.
.
similarly, there's maybe a dozen countries (out of 200) in Vikkie that make for a good game. IMO, it only really shone when you played a major Imperialist power (China the one exception). even middling powers (Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, Argentina) had their issues.
Of course this means playing the CSA was a joke for the average player.
I suppose. It seemed so much bigger though.
With Rome I guess you just end up doing the same whoever you play is. Victoria though gave you very different experiences between Britain, the US, Prussia and Russia.
This was a game I did not think I'd ever see.
Never did pick up Vicky I though (despite being a beta-tester at one point). Maybe I should do it at this point?
It also gives me great hope for CK2. :w00t:
Quote from: Zanza on August 19, 2009, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
I am particularly pleased to see they had the balls to stick with the pop system.
I like the pop system, but I dislike the pop promotion. Just paying a few thousand quid to get 100,000 clerks out of a farmer pop didn't work well.
I hated the pop system because of all the non-linearity that it introduced. That gave incentives to all sorts of tedious pop size micro-management.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2009, 11:46:14 AM
I hated the pop system because of all the non-linearity that it introduced. That gave incentives to all sorts of tedious pop size micro-management.
That too. But I can live with non-linearity better than with the promotion system. Of course, having just 3 (or 4?) steps is not much when you have up to 100,000 people in a pop.
As much fun as I had playing Vicky and its expansion, and as much work I invested in it as a beta tester (Victoria was the first Paradox game I was chosen to beta. Oh the joy when I learned I was selected), this sequel is a bad idea.
They need to fundamentally brake the original design and move it toward EU3ism to make it worthwile, but considering all the stuff (much-much less randomness is permitted here than in EU3), it has to be a masterpiece, or it will fail.
And the 1936 thing - it is horrible. The entire reason WW1 was fought the way it was due to the fact that while the ruling class continued to play its post-napoleonic power plays, massive changes occured "under the hood". This is a bad idea.
Plus, the new reforms and stuff: again, Paradox' biggest shortcoming is being Swedish: they ignore naval matters, and they think the entire political development thing is as easy as "go reformist and democratic asap -> profit" It did not work that way, just look at two major players of the era, Austria and Russia, for whom selection was between (limited or total) authocracy or doom, due to the etnhic and economical setup of their countries.
They may address this in Vicky 2, but they failed to mention it among the features.
The p-dox comments suggest that pop promotion will be automated or at least automatable.
IIRC nonlinearity was a function of engine limitations and the need to meet relatively low system requirements as of the date of release. I would expect (hope?) that it would not be retained in the sequel.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
The p-dox comments suggest that pop promotion will be automated or at least automatable.
Thank fuck. With that, vicky 2 might be worth playing.
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2009, 12:12:07 PM
Plus, the new reforms and stuff: again, Paradox' biggest shortcoming is being Swedish: they ignore naval matters, and they think the entire political development thing is as easy as "go reformist and democratic asap -> profit" It did not work that way, just look at two major players of the era, Austria and Russia, for whom selection was between (limited or total) authocracy or doom, due to the etnhic and economical setup of their countries.
They may address this in Vicky 2, but they failed to mention it among the features.
I don't get your point here - both these things were issues with Victoria 1, so why is this an argument *against* a sequel? Ricky went a significant way towards addressing your second issue - making a more mod-friendly sequel of the game is surely a good thing.
I can only guess that his comment stems from the notion that Vicky 2 won't really fix most of the key issues from the Vicky 1. Like the naval aspect from HOI1-HOI3.
That said, I don't think that one needs to completely reinvent the wheel to fix outstanding issues.
Map sucks
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2009, 12:40:55 PM
I can only guess that his comment stems from the notion that Vicky 2 won't really fix most of the key issues from the Vicky 1.
Revolutions did improve a lot of the shortcomings of the original release, so it's not unreasonable to think that things could be improved. Even something as simple as adding a blockade capability (which EU3 has) would be a huge improvement to naval. The reference to gunboat diplomacy makes it sound as though there will be some benefit from maintaining fleet bases across the world. I can always hope that some meaningful functionality is added to coaling stations.
Tamas is also an AGEOD fanboi although it is hard to see how one could ever become such...
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
The p-dox comments suggest that pop promotion will be automated or at least automatable.
IIRC nonlinearity was a function of engine limitations and the need to meet relatively low system requirements as of the date of release. I would expect (hope?) that it would not be retained in the sequel.
I'm not sure that was the case. I think the non-linearity was there to give low-population European countries a boost over high population uncivilized ones.
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2009, 12:12:07 PM
Plus, the new reforms and stuff: again, Paradox' biggest shortcoming is being Swedish: they ignore naval matters, and they think the entire political development thing is as easy as "go reformist and democratic asap -> profit" It did not work that way, just look at two major players of the era, Austria and Russia, for whom selection was between (limited or total) authocracy or doom, due to the etnhic and economical setup of their countries.
They may address this in Vicky 2, but they failed to mention it among the features.
Hungary still hasn't made that leap
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2009, 01:00:09 PM
Tamas is also an AGEOD fanboi although it is hard to see how one could ever become such...
Oh please :rolleyes: Like I did not defend EU3 against the storm of nostalgic elderly people here. If I have any subjective opposition against Vicky2, it is the fact that it is not CK2, the current #1 on my dream list.
And my point was sort of that adding new reforms, if not coupled with a big overhaul of the whole system is just a waste of energy because there was no lack of reforms in Vicky1, there was the opposite: too much and too early effect of them.
Didn't you have some complaint about two companies working on the same time period (like two WWI's or something like that)? Am I making this up? :Embarrass:
yes, I did say that AGEOD and Pdox should not be competing for the same time period at the same time. The genre is badly supplied even without the only two publisher making the same kind of game.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2009, 01:08:46 PM
I'm not sure that was the case. I think the non-linearity was there to give low-population European countries a boost over high population uncivilized ones.
I know that is why some fans favor it, but I don't recall the designers ever using that rationale.
If so, it is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea as the ahistorical attemtps to create Great Powers from pygmies is hardly something that should be encouraged by the game structure if avoidable.
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2009, 01:44:02 PM
yes, I did say that AGEOD and Pdox should not be competing for the same time period at the same time.
But the AGEOD product seems to very different in everything other than time period and the fact that it is a strategy game.
AGEOD? :unsure:
Quote from: Tamas on August 19, 2009, 12:12:07 PM
As much fun as I had playing Vicky and its expansion, and as much work I invested in it as a beta tester (Victoria was the first Paradox game I was chosen to beta. Oh the joy when I learned I was selected), this sequel is a bad idea.
They need to fundamentally brake the original design and move it toward EU3ism to make it worthwile, but considering all the stuff (much-much less randomness is permitted here than in EU3), it has to be a masterpiece, or it will fail.
And the 1936 thing - it is horrible. The entire reason WW1 was fought the way it was due to the fact that while the ruling class continued to play its post-napoleonic power plays, massive changes occured "under the hood". This is a bad idea.
Yeah, rather than moving the ending back they should have moved the beginning up to 1795.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 19, 2009, 12:55:34 PM
Map sucks
They're apparently using HoI3 map as a base :bleeding:
Great news! I loved the Victoria era but I was a little frustrated with the game. I hope it is better this time around.
Hm, I remember doing a lot of work for the Victoria beta (with Hortlund as my immediate supervisor :D). I'll certainly apply for the beta this time round, I'm sitting on top of a treasure trove of Victorian historical material. :w00t:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 03:41:38 PM
Yeah, rather than moving the ending back they should have moved the beginning up to 1795.
Problem is that then a game about the era of industrialization runs for about 50 years before there is much in the way of significant industralization in most places.
IMO it makes more sense to sweep in 1921-1935 than the whole French revolutionary/Napoleonic epoch.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 01:49:13 PM
I know that is why some fans favor it, but I don't recall the designers ever using that rationale.
If so, it is a terrible, TERRIBLE idea as the ahistorical attemtps to create Great Powers from pygmies is hardly something that should be encouraged by the game structure if avoidable.
Perhaps the major failing of Paradox in all the games I've played since EU1 is that they try to make minor countries playable to a point they can become great powers. The original concept of EU1 was that you could only play great powers, and even at the outset with EU2 the concept was that you can play the minors, but there were no assurances about gameplay. Now it seems a world conquer needs to be possible with every playable country.
At least with EU the timescale is such as to give a surface plausibility to the notion that e.g. a little duchy of Brandenburg could evenutally work itself up to be a major player.
But Victoria covers a much shorter period, and one where the bigger powers tended to augment their advantages over the smaller ones rather than the other way around. The Dutch were still big players in the 18th century but simply couldn't keep up in the 19th because of lack of scale.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 06:16:50 PM
At least with EU the timescale is such as to give a surface plausibility to the notion that e.g. a little duchy of Brandenburg could evenutally work itself up to be a major player.
But Victoria covers a much shorter period, and one where the bigger powers tended to augment their advantages over the smaller ones rather than the other way around. The Dutch were still big players in the 18th century but simply couldn't keep up in the 19th because of lack of scale.
Even in the Victoria timeframe some degree of consolidation was possible. Savoy went on to unify Italy and gain a few minor colonies, for the biggest example I can think of. Tiny Belgium managed to gain some significant colonies for another.
It should be possible for a small country to gain in power and influence. But yes, world conquest as a concept should be right out.
In all fairness, in EU2 and EU3, most WC with minor countries is done by very experienced players doing some very gamey, explotative things.
Can't comment on the situation in Vicky, 'cause I never got into it enough to bother with reading AARs.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.victoriareview.com%2Fimages%2Fvic2_interface_mockup.jpg&hash=327aa4a8326f615ee5c8d582294c6a8724a54672)
Quote from: PRC on August 19, 2009, 10:57:45 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.paradoxplaza.com%2Fforum%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D17445%26amp%3Bd%3D1250670805&hash=fded1f8f3c2105df7e03c70df33df1ca28f71fac)
Very insightful post.
What is that?
An artist's rendition of Victoria 2 after 10 patch iterations.
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2009, 04:22:37 PM
I'll certainly apply for the beta this time round, I'm sitting on top of a treasure trove of Victorian historical material. :w00t:
What use would that be for a Clausewitz engine Paradox game?
I was ecstatic when Vic1 was announced; unfortunately the design was in parts, uhm, flawed (black hole world market, useless excess of trade goods, pop micro madness, etc.). Vic:R adressed some of those, but after seeing the EU3 initial release, the Rome initial release and now the HoI3 release with a joke of a map and some IMO questionable design decisions I'll be verz, verz weary about getting this; in fact I have more faith in AGEOD's turn based offering for the era.
I was beta for Vic (you can thank me for the idea of flavor events :blush: ), and a mod for half a year, but I was always very lukewarm to the finished product. And I'm also not sure if the team will enjoy working on this one or rather just churn it out to appease the masses (and take their cash, which is a legitimate interest).
I guess if we wanted a truly stellar game from Paradox with all their heartblood in it it would have to be something about the 17th century, i.e. Sweden's most glorious days. Unfortunately I don't trust them to whip up a system that could even remotely recreate the diplomatic intricacies, policies, treacheries (a lot of them character based) etc. of the Thirty Years War, the English or French revolutions or the Holy Roman Empire and periphery (Transylvania, Hungary, Ottomans, Spain, Italy) of the period.
I look forward to the new EU3 expansion, though.
QuoteWhat use would that be for a Clausewitz engine Paradox game?
:huh: Scenario starting data- OOBs, techs, POPs, etc etc
:w00t: Vicky 2 :wub:
The other thing looks good. Hopefully they move onto CK2 next :mmm:
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2009, 04:22:37 PM
Hm, I remember doing a lot of work for the Victoria beta (with Hortlund as my immediate supervisor :D). I'll certainly apply for the beta this time round, I'm sitting on top of a treasure trove of Victorian historical material. :w00t:
I was in the Vicky beta. Did very little and tried to resign because I felt it would be better if they got someone who was actually useful :sadblush:
Quote from: Jaron on August 19, 2009, 11:05:27 PM
Very insightful post.
In an odd way. The year is 1836 and we have Italy, Germany, and Turkey on the map. Those could be regions rather than countries, but then we also have Sweden on the map. :huh:
What's the name of the upcoming AGEOD game?
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
Even in the Victoria timeframe some degree of consolidation was possible. Savoy went on to unify Italy and gain a few minor colonies, for the biggest example I can think of.
Piedmont went from being a minor regional power to a being either a strong regional power or a very weak great power. That's a pretty exceptional case dependent on exceptional circumstances.
QuoteTiny Belgium managed to gain some significant colonies for another.
They got the Congo mainly because France and Britain really didn't want the other to get it and Belgium was a good compromise since they were totally innocuous and had good relations with both competing powers.
I don't see a problem with a game design that allows small powers to get a few colonies through determined effort and diplomacy. But if Belgium is generating more economic production than France, it is a problem.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 19, 2009, 03:41:38 PM
Yeah, rather than moving the ending back they should have moved the beginning up to 1795.
I think any Victoria game needs to start right after Greek and South American Independence. Starting with the Spanish and Ottoman Empires intact is as silly as starting EU with the Byzantine Empire still in existance...oh wait.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2009, 07:43:01 AM
In an odd way. The year is 1836 and we have Italy, Germany, and Turkey on the map. Those could be regions rather than countries, but then we also have Sweden on the map. :huh:
It is obviously the regions of the map and not countries.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 09:40:59 AM
start right after Greek Independence.
I WILL RESTORE THE EMPIRE!
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 09:40:59 AM
start right after Greek Independence.
I WILL RESTORE THE EMPIRE!
The Pelopennesian League is mobilizing!
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 09:43:58 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2009, 07:43:01 AM
In an odd way. The year is 1836 and we have Italy, Germany, and Turkey on the map. Those could be regions rather than countries, but then we also have Sweden on the map. :huh:
It is obviously the regions of the map and not countries.
Wierd regions then. Beta comment #1: rename sweden scandanavia.
Yeah, if those are region names, then they're not very well chosen. Hungary should be Balkans, Poland should be Estern Europe, Turkey should be Asia Minor, etc.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 10:46:26 AM
Yeah, if those are region names, then they're not very well chosen. Hungary should be Balkans, Poland should be Estern Europe, Turkey should be Asia Minor, etc.
Those are not geographical regions either. Those are regions where people of that particular nationality live.
I especially like tweaking and working with the economy system in Vicky:Revs. I hope the economic aspect is made even more engrossing, more added to it, though I don't have any good ideas. After all, economy is what drives what you can do elsewhere in the game.
Quote from: Lucidor on August 20, 2009, 08:21:15 AM
What's the name of the upcoming AGEOD game?
Vainglory of Nations
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 20, 2009, 09:38:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
Even in the Victoria timeframe some degree of consolidation was possible. Savoy went on to unify Italy and gain a few minor colonies, for the biggest example I can think of.
Piedmont went from being a minor regional power to a being either a strong regional power or a very weak great power. That's a pretty exceptional case dependent on exceptional circumstances.
QuoteTiny Belgium managed to gain some significant colonies for another.
They got the Congo mainly because France and Britain really didn't want the other to get it and Belgium was a good compromise since they were totally innocuous and had good relations with both competing powers.
I don't see a problem with a game design that allows small powers to get a few colonies through determined effort and diplomacy. But if Belgium is generating more economic production than France, it is a problem.
Well then I'm not sure we're disagreeing. We agree a tiny country shouldn't be able to best a major power over the short period of the game, but that things shouldn't be static either.
Will there be any swastikas?
Hitler must be very pleased!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3UcdONzp1k
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 03:39:28 PM
Hitler must be very pleased!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3UcdONzp1k
Wow they have Hitler videos about everything now don't they?
God, let that joke drop. It was funny the first few times. The comedy was never really in the text..it was in watching Hitler explode in rage over silly things like his Xbox being cancelled. :P
This one didn't even coerce a smile from me.
The part were everybody who found learning to play victoria too hard had to leave the room made me smile.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 03:39:28 PM
Hitler must be very pleased!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3UcdONzp1k
That is actually quite funny :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 03:39:28 PM
Hitler must be very pleased!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3UcdONzp1k
Ah,don't mess with the classics.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2009, 07:47:42 AM
Will Vicky 2 still have a Stalinist economic model?
:lol:
You mean like the one Vicky 1 had?
QuoteIn other news the capitalists have completed their fifth glass factory in the state of Brandenburg
:lol:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675 (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675)
Seems like the paradox ceo doesn't believe this game will make a profit.
Quote from: barkdreg on August 22, 2009, 01:28:46 PM
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675 (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675)
Seems like the paradox ceo doesn't believe this game will make a profit.
Kind of good publicity stunt, especially since either the game will suck as a deep 19th century simulation, or masses won't buy it.
Quote from: barkdreg on August 22, 2009, 01:28:46 PM
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675 (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675)
Seems like the paradox ceo doesn't believe this game will make a profit.
I know that Johan posted a year or so ago that Vicy had the lowest sales of any Paradox game.
He says its no secret, first I've heard of it, what'd he vote for instead?
Seems like 'Plz don't pirate, help your hero Johan!' stuff.
Quote from: Tyr on August 22, 2009, 01:43:35 PM
He says its no secret, first I've heard of it, what'd he vote for instead?
Seems like 'Plz don't pirate, help your hero Johan!' stuff.
Quote from: KingFredrik Universalis - be the CEO of a small Swedish computer games company and chart its progress to world domination.
This game will sink or swim based on its treatment of dreadnoughts.
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2009, 01:40:53 PM
Quote from: barkdreg on August 22, 2009, 01:28:46 PM
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675 (http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?p=10032675#post10032675)
Seems like the paradox ceo doesn't believe this game will make a profit.
I know that Johan posted a year or so ago that Vicy had the lowest sales of any Paradox game.
I'm not suprised--the time period isn't especially appealing for the EU engine. Plus the game design was overambitious with the pops and economic model. With any paradox release I want to wait until multiple patches and possible expansion packs have been released, but I'm tempted to say it is wise to wait for at least the second game in the series as well.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2009, 04:26:55 PM
I'm not suprised--the time period isn't especially appealing for the EU engine. Plus the game design was overambitious with the pops and economic model. With any paradox release I want to wait until multiple patches and possible expansion packs have been released, but I'm tempted to say it is wise to wait for at least the second game in the series as well.
I played the shit out of EU1.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2009, 04:35:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2009, 04:26:55 PM
I'm not suprised--the time period isn't especially appealing for the EU engine. Plus the game design was overambitious with the pops and economic model. With any paradox release I want to wait until multiple patches and possible expansion packs have been released, but I'm tempted to say it is wise to wait for at least the second game in the series as well.
I played the shit out of EU1.
EU is the gold standard for Paradox--I'll give you EU1. CK and Victoria left a lot more to be desired. Never played HOI.
HOI2 was okay when released. Hoi1 was not.
It's been so long, I'll admit that I don't remember what EU1 was like on first release. Actually, I don't think that I was even aware of its existance until it had been out a while, so I don't think I experienced it in its primordial state. :D But EU2 definately had a lot of problems, not just with things not working as intended, but with crash bugs and problems with saves being corrupted, too--though not as bad as CK.
Quote from: dps on August 22, 2009, 09:53:56 PM
It's been so long, I'll admit that I don't remember what EU1 was like on first release. Actually, I don't think that I was even aware of its existance until it had been out a while, so I don't think I experienced it in its primordial state. :D But EU2 definately had a lot of problems, not just with things not working as intended, but with crash bugs and problems with saves being corrupted, too--though not as bad as CK.
EU1 had a great deal of problems as well. I remember an exploit where you could start an assualt then stop it over and over and it quickly make any fortress. Also you could annex any country that wasn't a great power. The ottoman empire could become really big really fast!
I remember in EU1 1.0, you can be losing a war and still make peace for +250 ducats.
Aaah, EU 1, those were the days.
Quote from: Josephus on August 22, 2009, 10:33:12 PM
I remember in EU1 1.0, you can be losing a war and still make peace for +250 ducats.
Aaah, EU 1, those were the days.
:yes: I played it in
german because that release was like months before the english one, then Paradox offered an exchange for people who bought the german game. I don't remember if I had to send them my german copy or just the box... As a matter of fact, where is my EU1 box?!! :o
I wish they or someone else could make something as revolutionary to the genre again. In some ways Vicky1 was like that, at least tried because no one before it tried to simulate so much.
I have been thinking recently that going for character-driven mechanisms is probably the next evolutionary step for historical games. I know EU Rome is a failure but if you ignore the parts where they fell short you'll see that they took characters almost as detailed as in CK, and put them in an interaction model which is (with the expansion) way more detailed and involved than in CK, and attached it to most of the other features, and it works. In fact if some modder would turn Rome's world map into like map of ancient Greece so it looks less stupid, that game could shine.
So you see, the driving force behind history is men and their ambitions. Not only a driving force, but the source of most of the great stories in it, but apart from some Paradox games it has been ignored. Vicky1 tried to simulate that on the "plebs" level and with severe shortcomings, but did achieve some of it. CK made a half-assed attempt on the ruler class, Rome expanded on that very much, too bad it is the only aspect of the game which is not a step back from EU-engine depth (also the system for the barbarians is also neat).
In other words: give me my CK2 goddamit! :mad:
the next revolution to be made in the genre is the game that manages to span several eras and simulate the great changes during them. Basically a joining of CK, EU, Vicky and Hoi.
Given the massiveness of that I don't see it happen.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 23, 2009, 04:29:18 AM
the next revolution to be made in the genre is the game that manages to span several eras and simulate the great changes during them. Basically a joining of CK, EU, Vicky and Hoi.
Given the massiveness of that I don't see it happen.
Yeah, one day it will hopefully happen but what I would like to see is proper detail and attention given to a single period first.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 23, 2009, 04:29:18 AM
the next revolution to be made in the genre is the game that manages to span several eras and simulate the great changes during them. Basically a joining of CK, EU, Vicky and Hoi.
Given the massiveness of that I don't see it happen.
I'm not so sure how that could work in a fun way even if they do perfectly model all the eras.
Players will just create their super empire before they get past the first few centuries and then it'll be too easy. The only way to fix this is through crappy ai cheats.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2009, 04:38:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 22, 2009, 04:35:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 22, 2009, 04:26:55 PM
I'm not suprised--the time period isn't especially appealing for the EU engine. Plus the game design was overambitious with the pops and economic model. With any paradox release I want to wait until multiple patches and possible expansion packs have been released, but I'm tempted to say it is wise to wait for at least the second game in the series as well.
I played the shit out of EU1.
EU is the gold standard for Paradox--I'll give you EU1. CK and Victoria left a lot more to be desired. Never played HOI.
I played the shit out of CK. It's an awesome game.
I wonder if they will handle the war better this time around? even VIP, it was alot of silliness.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 23, 2009, 04:29:18 AM
the next revolution to be made in the genre is the game that manages to span several eras and simulate the great changes during them. Basically a joining of CK, EU, Vicky and Hoi.
Given the massiveness of that I don't see it happen.
I don't want to see that happen, because I'm positive it couldn't work.
Heck, the HoI series doesn't even do a good job simulating the length and breadth of World War II, it's own narrow focus.
As much fun as a game like that would be to play, if done perfectly, the odds are it would end up a big pile of steaming crap halfway through the first era.
Yeah, I don't see multi-era games working well. For one thing, no game of that type has done anything to prevent constant blobbification, which makes it impossible to keep the game challenging for long. How do you periodically shrink the human player empires without making the player feel like he just wasted his time?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2009, 12:46:10 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on August 23, 2009, 04:29:18 AM
the next revolution to be made in the genre is the game that manages to span several eras and simulate the great changes during them. Basically a joining of CK, EU, Vicky and Hoi.
Given the massiveness of that I don't see it happen.
I don't want to see that happen, because I'm positive it couldn't work.
Heck, the HoI series doesn't even do a good job simulating the length and breadth of World War II, it's own narrow focus.
I'm with you on that--I wish they wouldn't keep expanding the scope of the games they have. EU3 is a bit silly imo when you have european powers converting the religion of provinces at the end of the game and protestants having a cb on catholics (and vice versa, dependent on an idea).
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 01:13:12 PM
Yeah, I don't see multi-era games working well. For one thing, no game of that type has done anything to prevent constant blobbification, which makes it impossible to keep the game challenging for long. How do you periodically shrink the human player empires without making the player feel like he just wasted his time?
All that springs to mind for me is increasing the focus periodically.
i.e. starts with a small region, war between cities and all that then it expands out to a bigger area then a bigger area...
The player technically loses nothing but as he becomes the big fish in his small pond he then graduates to being just another nation in another area (albeit still based on his earlier work)
Like Spore but not shit.
Anyway, I agree it wouldn't work.
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 01:13:12 PM
Yeah, I don't see multi-era games working well. For one thing, no game of that type has done anything to prevent constant blobbification, which makes it impossible to keep the game challenging for long. How do you periodically shrink the human player empires without making the player feel like he just wasted his time?
All that springs to mind for me is increasing the focus periodically.
i.e. starts with a small region, war between cities and all that then it expands out to a bigger area then a bigger area...
The player technically loses nothing but as he becomes the big fish in his small pond he then graduates to being just another nation in another area (albeit still based on his earlier work)
That actually sounds like a reasonable approach.
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 02:27:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 01:13:12 PM
Yeah, I don't see multi-era games working well. For one thing, no game of that type has done anything to prevent constant blobbification, which makes it impossible to keep the game challenging for long. How do you periodically shrink the human player empires without making the player feel like he just wasted his time?
All that springs to mind for me is increasing the focus periodically.
i.e. starts with a small region, war between cities and all that then it expands out to a bigger area then a bigger area...
The player technically loses nothing but as he becomes the big fish in his small pond he then graduates to being just another nation in another area (albeit still based on his earlier work)
Like Spore but not shit.
Anyway, I agree it wouldn't work.
I've said it before, but I think it is a flaw that you can create stable and long term mega empires.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 01:13:12 PM
Yeah, I don't see multi-era games working well. For one thing, no game of that type has done anything to prevent constant blobbification, which makes it impossible to keep the game challenging for long. How do you periodically shrink the human player empires without making the player feel like he just wasted his time?
The Paradox answer to that would be Rebels. Rebels and More Freaking Rebels.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 02:48:08 PM
I've said it before, but I think it is a flaw that you can create stable and long term mega empires.
Agreed. The challenge is, how do you make them crumble in a gameplay-friendly fashion?
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 02:27:37 PMAll that springs to mind for me is increasing the focus periodically.
i.e. starts with a small region, war between cities and all that then it expands out to a bigger area then a bigger area...
The player technically loses nothing but as he becomes the big fish in his small pond he then graduates to being just another nation in another area (albeit still based on his earlier work)
Like Spore but not shit.
Anyway, I agree it wouldn't work.
That would work well for a 4X game. You can just find a wormwhole or some revolutionary hyperdrive and all of a sudden your playing field is much bigger. But it does not really work for games based on Earth. That's why so many players attempt world conquests with totally improbable minors.
Now, I can't really imagine a gameplay-friendly way to simulate large empires crumbling. After all, most of them crumbled because the imperialists were tired of whacking rebels and noticed that there were dimishing returns on their empires. Now, creating frustration like that will annoy most players. ;)
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 02:48:08 PM
I've said it before, but I think it is a flaw that you can create stable and long term mega empires.
Agreed. The challenge is, how do you make them crumble in a gameplay-friendly fashion?
Permanent lowering of stability with noncore provinces, loss of cores in provinces of a different culture (loss would be through events and revolts), perhaps an expansion of the administrative tension concept from CK.
If you make it so France + a large part of the HRE can field an army that is smaller than France alone plus has less money, you could be well on your way.
The right answer to this should be to stop blobbification in the first place. Badboy is a concept for that, but it fails. In reality, when a single power tried to become hegemonial, there were coalitions against them. That would require a smart AI though, which is a bit unrealistic. ;)
Another nice thing would be better internal power struggles - not just rebels, but rather whole factions breaking away from your realm at once in civil wars. That should happen a lot if you start to amass too much land. You should have the choice to pick a side so you can fight your own realm for a challenge.
Not really gamey, but real life: have a series of bad rulers, I mean bad. Civil wars, long term climate changes...somethings that actually has happened. Hell, the rebels cause people to scream, but really having a mongol-like group sweep the map then ebb back does wonders to reset the game...
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 02:48:08 PM
I've said it before, but I think it is a flaw that you can create stable and long term mega empires.
Agreed. The challenge is, how do you make them crumble in a gameplay-friendly fashion?
Permanent lowering of stability with noncore provinces, loss of cores in provinces of a different culture (loss would be through events and revolts), perhaps an expansion of the administrative tension concept from CK.
If you make it so France + a large part of the HRE can field an army that is smaller than France alone plus has less money, you could be well on your way.
Then you have a problem of having a goal in the game. What would be the player's goal when playing France, to spend game centuries creating a country that is really good at providing social services to its population?
Quote from: PDH on August 23, 2009, 03:37:03 PM
Not really gamey, but real life: have a series of bad rulers, I mean bad. Civil wars, long term climate changes...somethings that actually has happened. Hell, the rebels cause people to scream, but really having a mongol-like group sweep the map then ebb back does wonders to reset the game...
Sound like Crusader Kings.
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 03:55:41 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 03:09:57 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 23, 2009, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 02:48:08 PM
I've said it before, but I think it is a flaw that you can create stable and long term mega empires.
Agreed. The challenge is, how do you make them crumble in a gameplay-friendly fashion?
Permanent lowering of stability with noncore provinces, loss of cores in provinces of a different culture (loss would be through events and revolts), perhaps an expansion of the administrative tension concept from CK.
If you make it so France + a large part of the HRE can field an army that is smaller than France alone plus has less money, you could be well on your way.
Then you have a problem of having a goal in the game. What would be the player's goal when playing France, to spend game centuries creating a country that is really good at providing social services to its population?
There are still goals to achieve. You can try to create an empire within Europe (which can still be done, just with a lot of difficulty), you can have religous goals, or you can focus on colonies. Depending on what country you are, diplomacy may be necessary to survive (if you are the Netherlands, France always has a hammer over your head).
If the only goal now is to conquer territory to create a European empire based in Paris that lasts for centuries, that doesn't seem realistic.
Quote from: sbr on August 23, 2009, 03:59:30 PM
Sound like Crusader Kings.
Well, what CK could have been...
Quote from: Zanza on August 23, 2009, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 02:27:37 PMAll that springs to mind for me is increasing the focus periodically.
i.e. starts with a small region, war between cities and all that then it expands out to a bigger area then a bigger area...
The player technically loses nothing but as he becomes the big fish in his small pond he then graduates to being just another nation in another area (albeit still based on his earlier work)
Like Spore but not shit.
Anyway, I agree it wouldn't work.
That would work well for a 4X game. You can just find a wormwhole or some revolutionary hyperdrive and all of a sudden your playing field is much bigger. But it does not really work for games based on Earth. That's why so many players attempt world conquests with totally improbable minors.
Now, I can't really imagine a gameplay-friendly way to simulate large empires crumbling. After all, most of them crumbled because the imperialists were tired of whacking rebels and noticed that there were dimishing returns on their empires. Now, creating frustration like that will annoy most players. ;)
Well, you could go with the approach used in the old AH game History of the World, where the player takes over a new nation in each era of history, but keeps the VPs he earned in the previous eras. Of course, that works best in a competitive situation, when you're playing against other human players and the point is to win the game, not make a particular country dominant. It doesn't work so well for SP.
Switching nations though...just feels wrong to me.
I don't give a crap about VPs but still, every time I start playing EU or something with the intention of switching nation after a century I come over all "Noooo I cant let my poor baby Brandenburg that I've nurtured so well fall into the hands of the ai!"
All that springs to mind for having dynastys crumble to me is CKesque having bad leaders then the player somehow switches into controlling the rebels seeking to restore the order.. Kind of like Zanza's second idea. But again this is a hugely flawed idea and would piss players off massivly. All their work is still being done away with.
The only way I could really see rise and fall of empires being done right is in a completely different kind of game- more a God game than a nation controlling game.
You don't just control England, you control the world and have to guide various nations to do as you will. Sort of The Sims but for nations....
Now that's quite a awesome idea for a game I think though its totally different to what we were on about.
God doesn't play dice.
Quote from: Tyr on August 24, 2009, 07:19:37 AM
Switching nations though...just feels wrong to me.
If you knew it was coming you be alright with it. It would be a factor in your strategy.
Quote from: Zanza on August 23, 2009, 03:08:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on August 23, 2009, 02:27:37 PMAll that springs to mind for me is increasing the focus periodically.
i.e. starts with a small region, war between cities and all that then it expands out to a bigger area then a bigger area...
The player technically loses nothing but as he becomes the big fish in his small pond he then graduates to being just another nation in another area (albeit still based on his earlier work)
Like Spore but not shit.
Anyway, I agree it wouldn't work.
That would work well for a 4X game. You can just find a wormwhole or some revolutionary hyperdrive and all of a sudden your playing field is much bigger. But it does not really work for games based on Earth. That's why so many players attempt world conquests with totally improbable minors.
Now, I can't really imagine a gameplay-friendly way to simulate large empires crumbling. After all, most of them crumbled because the imperialists were tired of whacking rebels and noticed that there were dimishing returns on their empires. Now, creating frustration like that will annoy most players. ;)
one of the ways would be to find a gameplay technique that has, after a certain point, increasing ROIs for divesting your empire in favour of a "small" core-area (basically what happened in reality) with indirect rule/influence for former colonial areas.
games like HOTW and Brittania had you switch powers more or less every epoch. it's fun, but its a matter of different expectations.
Quote from: Barrister on August 19, 2009, 06:29:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 19, 2009, 06:16:50 PM
At least with EU the timescale is such as to give a surface plausibility to the notion that e.g. a little duchy of Brandenburg could evenutally work itself up to be a major player.
But Victoria covers a much shorter period, and one where the bigger powers tended to augment their advantages over the smaller ones rather than the other way around. The Dutch were still big players in the 18th century but simply couldn't keep up in the 19th because of lack of scale.
Even in the Victoria timeframe some degree of consolidation was possible. Savoy went on to unify Italy and gain a few minor colonies, for the biggest example I can think of. Tiny Belgium managed to gain some significant colonies for another.
It should be possible for a small country to gain in power and influence. But yes, world conquest as a concept should be right out.
Neither Italy nor Belgium would have existed if some great powers (mostly France, in both cases) hadn't wanted them to. It was an era where the great powers basically dictate what happens in the world.
And yes, they should have pushed the start date to 1815, right after Congress of Vienna, as that's when modern politics really started.
The planned cover is out.
It shows a small but determined band of Redcoats preparing to charge quickstep on Robert E. Lee, who is sheathed in a protective glow of flaming aurora borealis. Unfortunately for Lee, his giant horse is about to trample his rather poorly placed artillery.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2009, 01:36:29 PM
The planned cover is out.
It shows a small but determined band of Redcoats preparing to charge quickstep on Robert E. Lee, who is sheathed in a protective glow of flaming aurora borealis. Unfortunately for Lee, his giant horse is about to trample his rather poorly placed artillery.
I was going to say it's weird that people in that thread are worried that buyers might think it's an ACW game..until I came across the post with the dude who actually does think that cover implies the game is about the Civil War. A battle between the British and Confederates.
Is it just me or does the map look like a nice 2D thing?
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Is it just me or does the map look like a nice 2D thing?
They're still in alpha. I'm sure they'll ruin it before release.
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Is it just me or does the map look like a nice 2D thing?
I think it is just a mockup for demonstrative purposes. Not even an alpha shot.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2009, 05:46:53 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Is it just me or does the map look like a nice 2D thing?
I think it is just a mockup for demonstrative purposes. Not even an alpha shot.
Yeah, it's going to use the EU3 engine so we can look forward to an ugly map. The EU3 map didn't bother me to much. The HOI3 map does though. Mostly because places aren't where they are suppose to be. I can sorta understand getting a place like Jefferson City wrong... But New York?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 08, 2009, 01:48:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2009, 01:36:29 PM
The planned cover is out.
It shows a small but determined band of Redcoats preparing to charge quickstep on Robert E. Lee, who is sheathed in a protective glow of flaming aurora borealis. Unfortunately for Lee, his giant horse is about to trample his rather poorly placed artillery.
I was going to say it's weird that people in that thread are worried that buyers might think it's an ACW game..until I came across the post with the dude who actually does think that cover implies the game is about the Civil War. A battle between the British and Confederates.
It's kinda funny, since everyone will bitch about the cover no matter what they pick.
And all the Euros want the Franco-Prussian war, because anything Amerikkka won't sell in Europe. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 03:09:57 PM
Permanent lowering of stability with noncore provinces, loss of cores in provinces of a different culture (loss would be through events and revolts), perhaps an expansion of the administrative tension concept from CK.
If you make it so France + a large part of the HRE can field an army that is smaller than France alone plus has less money, you could be well on your way.
This seems somewhat ahistorical and unnecessarily limiting. The Empire of Augustus and the Good Emperors were very stable places, so was the Ottoman Empire under Mehmet II and Suleyman I, and certain periods of the various Chinese Empires.
I'd really prefer something like EU: Rome but streamlined. Pretenders, various governors who want to be more than that, religious-social revolutions should all be important. To be totally honest, I'd love to see this merged somehow with a social component; so if the Equites/Knights/Dehqans/Beys/Kshatriya start getting uppity you'd see major problems in long-term stability, especially in non-core provinces, although they'd be better off militarily.
Quote from: Neil on October 08, 2009, 05:24:02 PM
Quote from: Tyr on October 08, 2009, 03:18:59 PM
Is it just me or does the map look like a nice 2D thing?
They're still in alpha. I'm sure they'll ruin it before release.
No kidding. If you zoom in, it'll have Paris in Normandy, London in Ireland and Rome in the Peleponnes. Then King will tell you that the map is fine and that it reflects conscious design decisions.
I bet they forget that ironclads shouldn't be able to sink dreadnoughts, too.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2009, 01:28:46 AM
I bet they forget that ironclads shouldn't be able to sink dreadnoughts, too.
That's a minor error though, seeing as how pretty much anything can sink a dreadnought, from vintage biplanes to a couple Italian dudes in shorts.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 17, 2009, 06:58:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2009, 01:28:46 AM
I bet they forget that ironclads shouldn't be able to sink dreadnoughts, too.
That's a minor error though, seeing as how pretty much anything can sink a dreadnought, from vintage biplanes to a couple Italian dudes in shorts.
You don't have to sink them; if you wait long enough, they will blow themselves up in port.
WAD
Quote from: grumbler on October 17, 2009, 11:17:41 AM
Quote from: Iormlund on October 17, 2009, 06:58:03 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 17, 2009, 01:28:46 AM
I bet they forget that ironclads shouldn't be able to sink dreadnoughts, too.
That's a minor error though, seeing as how pretty much anything can sink a dreadnought, from vintage biplanes to a couple Italian dudes in shorts.
You don't have to sink them; if you wait long enough, they will blow themselves up in port.
At least they tend not to sink each other via accidental ramming, as certain previous generations of capital ships did. :)
I also seriously doubt that the map will be the "most accurate Paradox has made" given the appearance of the HOI3 map.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on October 08, 2009, 07:10:55 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 08, 2009, 01:48:39 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 08, 2009, 01:36:29 PM
The planned cover is out.
It shows a small but determined band of Redcoats preparing to charge quickstep on Robert E. Lee, who is sheathed in a protective glow of flaming aurora borealis. Unfortunately for Lee, his giant horse is about to trample his rather poorly placed artillery.
I was going to say it's weird that people in that thread are worried that buyers might think it's an ACW game..until I came across the post with the dude who actually does think that cover implies the game is about the Civil War. A battle between the British and Confederates.
You'd think that they'd go with different covers for different markets.
It's kinda funny, since everyone will bitch about the cover no matter what they pick.
And all the Euros want the Franco-Prussian war, because anything Amerikkka won't sell in Europe. :lol:
Quote from: Queequeg on October 08, 2009, 07:41:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 23, 2009, 03:09:57 PM
Permanent lowering of stability with noncore provinces, loss of cores in provinces of a different culture (loss would be through events and revolts), perhaps an expansion of the administrative tension concept from CK.
If you make it so France + a large part of the HRE can field an army that is smaller than France alone plus has less money, you could be well on your way.
This seems somewhat ahistorical and unnecessarily limiting. The Empire of Augustus and the Good Emperors were very stable places, so was the Ottoman Empire under Mehmet II and Suleyman I, and certain periods of the various Chinese Empires.
Your examples suck. The period of roman history you refer to was more than 1000 years before the start date of the game, and China and the Ottomans would be stable because of the culture aspect. I've frequently seen China or the Manchu expand to the Caspian and into India--the status quo is ridiculous.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:18:39 PM
At least they tend not to sink each other via accidental ramming, as certain previous generations of capital ships did. :)
To be fair, those admirals didn't have a fair chance to get the whole port and starboard thing down pat. I remember being occasionally confused as an ensign myself.
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 10:09:51 PM
To be fair, those admirals didn't have a fair chance to get the whole port and starboard thing down pat. I remember being occasionally confused as an ensign myself.
:rolleyes: Port is wine, which comes from Portugal, as one returns to England, that country is on the right, which makes the officers turn that direction and cast longing gazes toward the country. When ordered back to their posts, the have to GO LEFT to find their duty stations - thus the origin of Port = Left.
Simple, when you understand the history.
Quote from: PDH on October 19, 2009, 07:52:32 AM
:rolleyes: Port is wine, which comes from Portugal, as one returns to England, that country is on the right, which makes the officers turn that direction and cast longing gazes toward the country. When ordered back to their posts, the have to GO LEFT to find their duty stations - thus the origin of Port = Left.
Simple, when you understand the history.
:rolleyes: The collisions were in the Med, where port is on the starboard side (and the steering board on the ports side).
I thought the Steering Board only met ever two years...
Quote from: grumbler on October 18, 2009, 10:09:51 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on October 17, 2009, 06:18:39 PM
At least they tend not to sink each other via accidental ramming, as certain previous generations of capital ships did. :)
To be fair, those admirals didn't have a fair chance to get the whole port and starboard thing down pat. I remember being occasionally confused as an ensign myself.
Not that you have to go into this if you don't want to, but I thought you were enlisted, not an officer (and thus never an ensign)?
Or do I misunderstand US Navy ranks?
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:33:05 PM
Not that you have to go into this if you don't want to, but I thought you were enlisted, not an officer (and thus never an ensign)?
Or do I misunderstand US Navy ranks?
Chiefs, who are enlisted, wear khaki "officer" uniforms (the rank insignia is different of course), so people sometimes might make a mistake with them, especially inside and from a distance.
There are also Warrant Officers, who have a single bar as insignia. IIRC though, and I didn't run into these guys very much at all and it's been a while, their bars are silver or gold with some blue squares on them, instead of just gold like the bar an ensign wears. It's a dude wearing an officers uniform with a single shiny bar on his collar though, and he is most certainly
not an ensign.
Edit: For comparision:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.decatur.navy.mil%2FSite%2520Images%2FCPO%2520Khaki%2520Ret.jpg&hash=d10b9bf6bc165e0c6a9bec9c723ef32037ae3e54)
The reason I said "inside" is because when they're outside, they're wearing their covers. Officers have that big chunk of gold on there in addition to the band and scrambled eggs, etc. The Chiefs have the smaller anchor and no other gold stuff. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:33:05 PM
Not that you have to go into this if you don't want to, but I thought you were enlisted, not an officer (and thus never an ensign)?
Or do I misunderstand US Navy ranks?
I was enlisted before I was commissioned. BTW, Ensign is the worst rank to be in the whole navy, but Lieutenant(jg) the best.
Quote from: grumbler on October 19, 2009, 01:13:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 12:33:05 PM
Not that you have to go into this if you don't want to, but I thought you were enlisted, not an officer (and thus never an ensign)?
Or do I misunderstand US Navy ranks?
I was enlisted before I was commissioned. BTW, Ensign is the worst rank to be in the whole navy, but Lieutenant(jg) the best.
Ah, cool.
You can't leave a statement hanging out there like that. Why is Ensign the worst, but Lieutenant the best?
Quote from: Barrister on October 19, 2009, 01:20:59 PM
Ah, cool.
You can't leave a statement hanging out there like that. Why is Ensign the worst, but Lieutenant the best?
No one allows you to do anything as an ensign. As a JG you get to do stuff but expectations are low enough that you can have fun, and no one trusts you to do the really boring stuff like administration.
cover is awful.
it really should be Zulus with maxim guns versus Prussian Zoauves.
Does the map sucks?
like, the cover is the new map.
Quote from: saskganesh on October 19, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
like, the cover is the new map.
You mean when the Confederates invade India?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paradoxplaza.com%2F%2Fimages%2FVictoria2%2Fvictoria2_packshot_2d_esrb_pending_cdrom_lores.jpg&hash=0f90faaa522790b3a35295fb2535e04fd7cbb2fe)
Clearly aiming for the lettow/Turtledove crowd.
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on October 19, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
like, the cover is the new map.
You mean when the Confederates invade India?
It will never happen in a Paradox game. The Confederates invading India requires the ability for the AI to launch a naval invasion, unless they cross from the Bering Straits, which isn't an impossibility for P'dox. But my point is anything requiring a naval invasion won't happen.
For what it is worth, the lettow crowd is merrily appeased.
Quote from: Syt on October 19, 2009, 02:42:20 PM
Clearly aiming for the lettow/Turtledove crowd.
Why would the Confederates be fighting the British? They'd much more likely be on the same side.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 09:15:39 PM
Quote from: Syt on October 19, 2009, 02:42:20 PM
Clearly aiming for the lettow/Turtledove crowd.
Why would the Confederates be fighting the British? They'd much more likely be on the same side.
The British would simply add the Confederacy to their global anti-slavery interdiction operations. You stupid, stupid fuck.
That cover has to be a joke. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on October 19, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
like, the cover is the new map.
You mean when the Confederates invade India?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paradoxplaza.com%2F%2Fimages%2FVictoria2%2Fvictoria2_packshot_2d_esrb_pending_cdrom_lores.jpg&hash=0f90faaa522790b3a35295fb2535e04fd7cbb2fe)
That's a Photoshop joke thing right? It's like a Paradox demotivator with the funny saying cut off?
Quote from: FunkMonk on October 19, 2009, 10:07:33 PM
That cover has to be a joke. :lol:
That's obviously Colonel Wolseley's troops coming down from Canada which, incidentally, would've moved faster than McClellan.
^:D I liked that.
It's just not a proper ACWjack without McClellan-bashing.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 19, 2009, 10:08:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on October 19, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
like, the cover is the new map.
You mean when the Confederates invade India?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paradoxplaza.com%2F%2Fimages%2FVictoria2%2Fvictoria2_packshot_2d_esrb_pending_cdrom_lores.jpg&hash=0f90faaa522790b3a35295fb2535e04fd7cbb2fe)
That's a Photoshop joke thing right? It's like a Paradox demotivator with the funny saying cut off?
If it's a joke, it's an official Paradox joke. That's the cover they've shown over at the Paradox forums.
Johan's comment:
QuoteWe wanted to make a cover that shows something cool, and also show something that is both historical and showing what Paradox is all about, ie, changing history.
I think they should draw inspiration from period sources. Presented for your consideration:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.colonialmentality.netfirms.com%2Fpicture6.GIF&hash=10e0ad51c31522927ac2cfdd0c80ed4fb01e35a8) (http://www.colonialmentality.netfirms.com/picture6.GIF)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstephen.macek.faculty.noctrl.edu%2Fimages%2FUncleImperialist.jpg&hash=6e19c9b3290002595041321be3d8195986c3c333) (http://stephen.macek.faculty.noctrl.edu/images/UncleImperialist.jpg)
For Grallon:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photoblog.com%2Fphotos5%2F46209-1201412871-1-l.jpg&hash=f022e6dff0375ff8744a85c61a4f18fbad9c2b35) (http://i2.photoblog.com/photos5/46209-1201412871-1-l.jpg)
To be honest, Paradox seem less than enthusiastic about this game. I predict this will be a greater turd than HoI3 on release, and will receive less post release support.
Yeah Syt...I was thinking the same thing. One of their bigshots even said right off the bat, that he didn't think Vickie Two was such a good idea.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 19, 2009, 07:26:07 PM
For what it is worth, the lettow crowd is merrily appeased.
I suspect you'll be dissapointed.
I played the CSA a couple times in Vikkie and on the reload I grinded out a horrible victory. to win, I pretty much had to nerf my economy for 20 years.
anyhow, I got some territory and assured my independence. the problem was that as soon as my economy recovered --10 years later -- the Union Dowed me again. I did not have the stamina for a repeat.
OTOH, playing the Union was fairly enjoyable. Over multiple games, the CSA always lost to my superior manpower and economy. the only power that I really feared was the UK ... with their endless Indian Army hordes, who would land just about anywhere, depending on what the RN wanted to do. (France tried to emulate UK once by invading me solo ... I contained their army in New England then built transports and launched a counter invasion, landing in Brittany. Once Paris was taken -- this was 1880ish -- it was over.)
so unless they change some of the game's fundamentals, there will be a lot of upset confederate fanbois.
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2009, 01:03:57 AM
To be honest, Paradox seem less than enthusiastic about this game. I predict this will be a greater turd than HoI3 on release, and will receive less post release support.
possibly on release. but IMO Vikkie fans are the hardest of the hardcore among Pdox gamers, and they will quickly mod it into something reasonable.
just your time-tested Pdox development model at work.
I hope Paradox does a good job on this game. Vicky is one of my favorites, probably due to the economic aspects. I'm happy with Vicky:Revs, but I'd want to play this one too.
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2009, 12:45:36 AM
Johan's comment:
QuoteWe wanted to make a cover that shows something cool, and also show something that is both historical and showing what Paradox is all about, ie, changing history.
Well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess.
Saskganesh, i've played Victoria alot. I know how the South goes.
Actually, that part isnt what bothers me. immigrants flock to new orleans and suchlike, and convert to yankee rather than dixie, so by 1920 african american and dixie are both largely assimilated and the USA is yankee from sea to shining sea. Even by 1860, there are majority yankee populations in Louisiana, Texas and the like. Just a tragedy.
Granted, the Confederacy was not much fun to play in victoria. Agriculture was given a short shrift.
Quote from: saskganesh on October 20, 2009, 07:18:21 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 19, 2009, 07:26:07 PM
For what it is worth, the lettow crowd is merrily appeased.
I suspect you'll be dissapointed.
I played the CSA a couple times in Vikkie and on the reload I grinded out a horrible victory. to win, I pretty much had to nerf my economy for 20 years.
Which is better then they did historically when they nerfed their economy for about 70 years.
Quote from: Josephus on October 19, 2009, 05:02:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 19, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on October 19, 2009, 02:27:02 PM
like, the cover is the new map.
You mean when the Confederates invade India?
It will never happen in a Paradox game. The Confederates invading India requires the ability for the AI to launch a naval invasion, unless they cross from the Bering Straits, which isn't an impossibility for P'dox. But my point is anything requiring a naval invasion won't happen.
The British always seemed to always be launching naval invasion in Vicky. The WWI scenario would normally end with the Millions of British soldiers overrunning North Germany while Germany can't get through Belgium and East Prussia is completely overrun.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 19, 2009, 09:15:39 PM
Why would the Confederates be fighting the British? They'd much more likely be on the same side.
Um...because they invaded India? Pay attention please Tim.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 20, 2009, 09:57:58 PM
Granted, the Confederacy was not much fun to play in victoria. Agriculture was given a short shrift.
Which is understandable, given how weak agricultural economies were next to industrial economies.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 10:11:30 AM
The British always seemed to always be launching naval invasion in Vicky. The WWI scenario would normally end with the Millions of British soldiers overrunning North Germany while Germany can't get through Belgium and East Prussia is completely overrun.
This is true. As the USA I never invade Canada for that reason.
Quote from: Syt on October 20, 2009, 01:03:57 AM
To be honest, Paradox seem less than enthusiastic about this game. I predict this will be a greater turd than HoI3 on release, and will receive less post release support.
I got that impression as well so far.
No comments yet about the small screenshot of the new map?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=444604 (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=444604)
A p'dox map that doesn't completely suck? :yeahright:
I like how they've already got Swedish troops occupying Norway.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2009, 06:15:47 PM
I like how they've already got Swedish troops occupying Norway.
That's to get Johan motivated to finish the game.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 05:56:16 PM
A p'dox map that doesn't completely suck? :yeahright:
And all it took was taking the map from someone else.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2009, 06:15:47 PM
I like how they've already got Swedish troops occupying Norway.
Considering that Sweden owned Norway in the Vicky period... :P
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 05:56:16 PM
A p'dox map that doesn't completely suck? :yeahright:
They have time to fix it.
Pretty, but HOI3 has really disappointed me. I held out longer then most on this board. But HOI3. Ugh.
Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2009, 05:56:16 PM
A p'dox map that doesn't completely suck? :yeahright:
Well, for all we know, that part of Scandinavia that that map is supposed to represent is the northern coastline from Narvik over to Petsamo. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on November 23, 2009, 08:12:28 AM
Pretty, but HOI3 has really disappointed me. I held out longer then most on this board. But HOI3. Ugh.
Yeah HOI3 surely can't get your hopes up for this one. Then again there is EU3 with expansions, which is great (and looks to be even greater with the latest expansion).
But of course, there is also Vainglory of Nations coming.
I could never get into HOI games, for whatever reason.
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2009, 03:00:25 PM
I could never get into HOI games, for whatever reason.
I think the reason might be that they are not very good.
I wish they'd try something new instead of rehashing the same 4 titles.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 24, 2009, 12:54:19 PM
I wish they'd try something new instead of rehashing the same 4 titles.
G.
Why? When they did and made Rome it sucked.
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2009, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: Grallon on November 24, 2009, 12:54:19 PM
I wish they'd try something new instead of rehashing the same 4 titles.
G.
Why? When they did and made Rome it sucked.
Yeah, but their remakes are also sucking.
Quote from: Josephus on November 24, 2009, 01:28:01 PM
Yeah, but their remakes are also sucking.
But that is only when they remake games that were not any good to begin with. If it was just a matter of the remakes sucking then I could agree. But making original games that suck is hardly an improvement over making remakes that suck. At least with the remakes I know they suck...with original games you are not quite sure.
EU and its sequels have been good. HoI and its sequels have not.
At this point I think Paradox is too chickenshit to try anything too revolutionary new. It's still the same old province based strategy game wiht different flavor in different eras, and with increasing complexity (not necessarily depth) and the occasional change in engine. The fundamentals remain the same and it's getting tiresome.
They're on the fast track to becoming the EA Sports of grand strategy games.
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2009, 01:35:49 PM
EU and its sequels have been good. HoI and its sequels have not.
Of course EU wasn't original to them, in the strictest sense.
Quote from: Syt on November 24, 2009, 01:53:23 PM
At this point I think Paradox is too chickenshit to try anything too revolutionary new. It's still the same old province based strategy game wiht different flavor in different eras, and with increasing complexity (not necessarily depth) and the occasional change in engine. The fundamentals remain the same and it's getting tiresome.
They're on the fast track to becoming the EA Sports of grand strategy games.
What do you think a revolutionary strategy game would look like?
I'm imagining it would cover the period from 1750-1850, allowing the player to foster or suppress rebellion in Europe and the Americas.
Quote from: garbon on November 24, 2009, 05:28:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on November 24, 2009, 01:53:23 PM
At this point I think Paradox is too chickenshit to try anything too revolutionary new. It's still the same old province based strategy game wiht different flavor in different eras, and with increasing complexity (not necessarily depth) and the occasional change in engine. The fundamentals remain the same and it's getting tiresome.
They're on the fast track to becoming the EA Sports of grand strategy games.
What do you think a revolutionary strategy game would look like?
Hard to say. If it's truly revolutionary, you don't see it coming.
The only thing that can save Paradox now is ditching this ugly map engine they created and creating CK2.
Also @Johan+his legion of fanbois: I hate to say it but I told you so. I warned you years ago.
The sad reality is that Paradox games have been substandard over the past few years, but other than the Civ franchise, I can't think of a single engaging, nation-building, grand strategy game to come out over the same time period. Paradox is essentially the only game in town.
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2009, 12:45:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2009, 03:00:25 PM
I could never get into HOI games, for whatever reason.
I think the reason might be that they are not very good.
HOI2 DD was awesome, one of my favorite games of all times.
That map screen shot actually looks great!
Quote from: Neil on November 24, 2009, 08:13:18 PM
Hard to say. If it's truly revolutionary, you don't see it coming.
It just seems a little off to bash on province based gameplay. One might as well rail against hexes.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 24, 2009, 09:46:56 PM
The sad reality is that Paradox games have been substandard over the past few years, but other than the Civ franchise, I can't think of a single engaging, nation-building, grand strategy game to come out over the same time period. Paradox is essentially the only game in town.
Tamas tries his hardest to plug for AGEOD but it falls on deaf and prejudiced ears. AGEOD should try out finishing an alpha before release.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 24, 2009, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2009, 12:45:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 23, 2009, 03:00:25 PM
I could never get into HOI games, for whatever reason.
I think the reason might be that they are not very good.
HOI2 DD was awesome, one of my favorite games of all times.
That map screen shot actually looks great!
I also like the HOI DD and ARMAGEDDON games a lot. Great games.
Quote from: KRonn on November 25, 2009, 10:24:56 AM
I also like the HOI DD and ARMAGEDDON games a lot. Great games.
I'm sorry. :console:
HOI DD, Arm, are pretty good games. As long as you only play as Russia or Germany. Because, for a number of reasons, all the other countries are no fun.
And playing on the eastern front is only fun until one or the other surrenders, cause after that it gets really silly.
Oh, and as long as you don't build nukes. Or use navies. Or airpower.
Other than that, it's quite enjoyable.
Oh, and as long as you don't actually play the DD or Arm scenarios, cause those are a mess.
Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2009, 03:52:24 PM
HOI DD, Arm, are pretty good games. As long as you only play as Russia or Germany. Because, for a number of reasons, all the other countries are no fun.
Hey, France would be fun if the British AI ever, umm, helped.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 25, 2009, 04:00:43 PM
Hey, France would be fun if the British AI ever, umm, helped.
WAD
This thread inspired me to download Vicky from my gamersgate account, and I just realized that I bought the expansion pack at some point in time. However I don't think I ever played it, my goldfish like attention span must have gotten distracted by something and
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2009, 03:10:45 AM
This thread inspired me to download Vicky from my gamersgate account, and I just realized that I bought the expansion pack at some point in time. However I don't think I ever played it, my goldfish like attention span must have gotten distracted by something and
:lol:
Quote from: Josephus on November 25, 2009, 03:52:24 PM
HOI DD, Arm, are pretty good games. As long as you only play as Russia or Germany. Because, for a number of reasons, all the other countries are no fun.
And playing on the eastern front is only fun until one or the other surrenders, cause after that it gets really silly.
Oh, and as long as you don't build nukes. Or use navies. Or airpower.
Other than that, it's quite enjoyable.
Oh, and as long as you don't actually play the DD or Arm scenarios, cause those are a mess.
I usually play as Germany, sometimes Russia or Italy. Naval warfare is a bit broken, subs seem wrong; I hate seeing my subs fighting a carrier fleet. Just doesn't make much sense.
Air power is fun, a favorite part of the game. But I wish that the AI air had range restrictions, and was better at withdrawing its damaged units. The air war can be a sub game of its own with some fixing, but I put a good emphasis on the air war when I play.
I never use nukes, and I'm glad the AI doesn't build them either.
Some games as Germany, probably in DD, I've been able to strangle the UK with sub power. Seems a lot more difficult to do in ARMA, which is probably as it should be.
From the latest developer diary thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=448577
Quote from: KingOnto the Clergy! Now it is obvious to many here that there weren't many Clergy paid for by the government in the Victoria 2 era. This is one of those little problems where historical reality meets game design reality. First off, we read the forum and knew that Clergy were voted one of the most useless POP types in Victoria. Now this is bad, they should be useful, so we felt we would have to change their role a little. Secondly, they now needed to earn money somehow so we would have to come up with something. So first off was the evolution of the Clergy into educators. Now this does fit the era; a lot of education was done by the Church. It also helps game balance a lot; it was very easy to have 100% literacy in Victoria by maximising your education slider (it was one of those very easy choices, never good in a strategy game). Now the rate at which people gain literacy depends on the amount of clergy in the state, with POPs having their own literacy level, instead of a country wide one, you can have your core Population highly educated (and thus productive) while your Colonial Population is lagging behind a bit and still using more primitive production techniques. Now, in Victoria Clergy had this role of reducing CON, by keeping the superstitious masses backward by peddling yet more superstition. We have decided to keep that but the Clergy's role evolves a bit according to your government religious policy. If you are an atheist state, essentially the Clergy fulfil the role of the modern schoolteacher. We put in this necessary abstraction because we did not want to clutter up the interface with too many POP types.
Quote from: RandomPosterSo, the USSR or any other atheist country will be paying clergy to teach rather then convert them to labourers??? Jesus Christ
If you found clergy useless - just scrap the POP type and introduce something else intstead rather then try to use them in game, doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.
Changing name to 'scholars' wold make much more sense. Or simply indroducing POP which will represent scholars, doctors, solicitors, clergy, etc - etc - the middle class professions. Sticking with the name 'clergy' just becouse you like the name is counterintuitive and simply misleading.
Quote from: KingBecause we like the name.
[...]
I mean if something is fixed it is fixed. I am not going to sit and pretend that something will change when it won't.
[...]
And the icon as well, comeone people if we use the Victoria name we can simply import the icon and save development time for new features. Thus I think if you thought about it a bit more, or were just simply willing to trust that because I get paid to design games I might know what I was doing, then perhaps my choice was one of the better option.
OHgamer to the rescue:
Quote from: OHgamerIt's not so much the function of the POP in question that is the issue, it is the decorative label used to communicate what they are to the player.
And communicative labels, as anyone who has played Paradox games before, can easily be redecorate to suit individual tastes.
There will most likely be a file for localisation that provides the onscreen names for all the various elements of the game.
Find the file that contains the names of the various POP type, change the name of clergy to something else that best fits with ones ideological feng shui, save and carry on.
And finally Johan:
Quote from: JohanIt will be called clergy cause that is the design I wanted. That should be enough.
However, it is also the basis for our pop-file setup. Another poptype to research and adapt the pops for one scenario is not just feasible, now matter how "easy" some random person think it is.
There is a reason that King and OHGamer's opinions matters on pop setup issues, as they are the guys that actually KNOW what pops do, and the impact of design for them regarding the amount of work. If the guys that made the research for Victoria1 and the VIP mod think a poptype is best suited then it is.
It's the same old "you don't like what we do, mod it yourself" as with HoI3.
Funnily, Stardock is going a very different route with Elemental. They've brought in user feedback very early, encouraging and demanding feedback that they then work into the game design.
Aye, and stardock's approach seems to me to be the one that'll lead to the best results.
It's still possible of course but I don't think Elemental will be the turd Hoi3 was at release.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
From the latest developer diary thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=448577
It's the same old "you don't like what we do, mod it yourself" as with HoI3.
Funnily, Stardock is going a very different route with Elemental. They've brought in user feedback very early, encouraging and demanding feedback that they then work into the game design.
Yeah, it's one thing to make lots of stuff modable so that after a game is released, players can change things to suit their taste. It's quite another thing to ignore feedback from potential customers during the development process. Of course, it's not possible to incorporate everything that everybody wants, but there are things in EUIII that many actual paying customers have complained about since EUII that simply haven't been addressed.
Quote from: JohanIt will be called clergy cause that is the design I wanted. That should be enough.
It's enough if you just want to design a game for your own amusement. If you want people to buy it, no, that's not enough.
Paradox used to have more apparant respect for their customers than just about any company I could name. Now the attitude seems to be, "Fuck you, we'll design the game WE want, and you'll buy it and like it--well, actually, you might not like it, but as long as you buy it, we don't give a shit. So STFU."
And, judging by HOI 3's price-drops, they don't even buy it...
Oh noes, it's called clergy! :huh:
I think there's actually something to the clergy vs educators thing though. I love a series of stories I read once. It was set in, I think, a 19th century Italian town. There was a priest who was doing his best to do pastoral duties and constantly trying to thwart the Communist school teacher.
So I like to think Paradox are tapping into that :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2009, 09:03:22 PM
I think there's actually something to the clergy vs educators thing though. I love a series of stories I read once. It was set in, I think, a 19th century Italian town. There was a priest who was doing his best to do pastoral duties and constantly trying to thwart the Communist school teacher.
So I like to think Paradox are tapping into that :)
Clergy should probably increase education in some government/social types, and decrease it in others. That would be great dynamic, and you could balance it with some kind of agitator/humanist pop (scientist?) that does the opposite. Meantime, clergy could always reduce consciousness and the agitator/humanist type increase it.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
It's the same old "you don't like what we do, mod it yourself" as with HoI3.
Or rather, "If you don't like it then don't buy it, as most of you did with HOI3".
all though to be fair, I'm with Johan on this issue.
RiP Paradox.
If Johan wants to put the good days of Paradox behind him and continue to produce crap that tries to be part of the modern market but fails, yet also fails to address customer concerns then they've lost their niche.
Is it a big deal what they call their POPs? Not really, but Paradox games have always been targetted towards a market that has considerable interest in the fine details like that. Province names, leader names, terrains, etc..
Their attitude over the whole thing just sucks. Its very insulting towards their customers.
Quote from: Jaron on December 12, 2009, 11:42:55 PM
RiP Paradox.
If Johan wants to put the good days of Paradox behind him and continue to produce crap that tries to be part of the modern market but fails, yet also fails to address customer concerns then they've lost their niche.
Is it a big deal what they call their POPs? Not really, but Paradox games have always been targetted towards a market that has considerable interest in the fine details like that. Province names, leader names, terrains, etc..
Their attitude over the whole thing just sucks. Its very insulting towards their customers.
QFT
Quote from: Jaron on December 12, 2009, 11:42:55 PM
RiP Paradox.
If Johan wants to put the good days of Paradox behind him and continue to produce crap that tries to be part of the modern market but fails, yet also fails to address customer concerns then they've lost their niche.
Is it a big deal what they call their POPs? Not really, but Paradox games have always been targetted towards a market that has considerable interest in the fine details like that. Province names, leader names, terrains, etc..
Their attitude over the whole thing just sucks. Its very insulting towards their customers.
I am of two minds; I agree with what you are saying and I wouldn't be surprised at all to see V2 flop. I posted this elsewhere:
QuoteThe HOI3 disaster is going to keep many casual non-Paradox fans away, at least at first. It will probably keep many hard-core Paradox fans away, at least at first. There is no way in hell I would buy V2 until a month after release, at the earliest.
The open-ended sandbox format with a few decisions instead of 100's of historical events that railroad your game will drive away some of the die-hard Vicky fans, at least until a realism mod is made.
Where do they pick up enough sales to mitigate those loses for a game that sold poorly originally?
On the other hand they are in a no win situation with the Dev Diaries that this sprung from; their fan base is micro-managing, detail oriented historical geeks. There is no way they can make everyone happy in a historical based game with such detail; whether it is someone who lives in that province and thinks it should have a different name, or a person who thinks the Capitalist POP is too large in that province, or Balkan Nationalism, people are going to be pissed about something that they do in the game.
That said the "It's my game and I will make it my way" stance of Johan won't help any.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 12, 2009, 09:01:22 PM
Oh noes, it's called clergy! :huh:
That's not the point. The point is the way Paradox treats their audience these days. Personally, I think it went seriously downhill when Patric left - he was a lot more relaxed and friendly than Johan on his best of days and managed the forums in a more positive way. Johan's rockstar allures become rather annoying. "You don't like my design? Screw you!"
Which is a valid position for a developer, I guess, but not one that endears the general public.
Juding by a thread in the HoI3 forum a number of customers (i.e. preorders) are a bit disappointed that the game is now sold for 12 EUR (or 25, if you want all sprite and music packs), less than half a year after release.
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2009, 12:10:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2009, 03:10:45 AM
This thread inspired me to download Vicky from my gamersgate account, and I just realized that I bought the expansion pack at some point in time. However I don't think I ever played it, my goldfish like attention span must have gotten distracted by something and
:lol:
Started up a game as Japan 1881. Conquered Korea by 1890 and took the Philippines from Spain in '96. They also gave me Cuba, Puerto Rico and their North African enclave in the peace deal. :huh: I sold the former to the US and gave the North African enclave to France in a peace deal (Spanish allies).
The economy is easier, but the politics are much harder. I've got rebels everywhere. I thought Japan was much more stable at this point.
Seriously. How hard would it be to program the game so that clerics would be called educators in an atheist-styled government?
Quote from: Josephus on December 13, 2009, 08:03:12 AM
Seriously. How hard would it be to program the game so that clerics would be called educators in an atheist-styled government?
JOHAN NOT WANT THAT
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2009, 03:48:20 PM
It's the same old "you don't like what we do, mod it yourself" as with HoI3.
Ouch, that goes totally counter to the most simple of design principles.
Sure, with vendor software you can't get exact user feedback on everything but you should at least listen to some.
I like the entire of a middle class pop covering clergy, scholars and the like.
Perhaps, to add a brain storm of my own, transformable into a seperate clergy (big militancy/consciousness improvments for the superstitious masses), scholars (research boost), teachers (education boost), factory managers (production boost), etc.... So the middle cvlass pop is a base thing like the working class base labourer/farmer pop.
Someone suggested to call the clergy pop "intelligentia" or so. I think that would be fitting and would make the difference between secular and religious states superfluous.
Really strange how Paradox reacts to these kind of threads. Either they should just completely ignore them or they should be a bit more responsive to their customers.
So it was a thread started by a member huh?
Was he banned?
So, any tips on how to manage my Pops militancy for Ricky?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 09:29:53 AM
So, any tips on how to manage my Pops militancy for Ricky?
If you have a protectionist party in power, cut your taxes to zero (or as low as possible) and finance your state with 100% tariffs.
Use the free political reforms like free press, free parties, free assembly and free unions. Go for landed voting rights as that will give you a conservative party in power (which is usually protectionist - see above). That will change your state into a constitutional monarchy which negates the militancy modifier from plurality.
Station military units in the most troublesome provinces, gives you an immediate -0.25 on militancy.
If you can afford it, you can also use some social reforms. Healthcare is best as it gives you the great population growth bonus.
Max out crime fighting as that reduces revolt risk at a rather low cost.
Go for the cultural inventions that lower revolt risk.
Whenever an election question pops up, take the option that will lower militancy the most. If none is available take the option of the party that is in power as alignment between issues and ruling party also lowers militancy.
If you do all that, you can e.g. go through the Liberal Revolution as Prussia without a single revolt (except those triggered by event) and with barely any emigration and still have a conservative party in power for the whole time.
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
So it was a thread started by a member huh?
Was he banned?
It was a comment in the latest Dev Diary thread.
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
So it was a thread started by a member huh?
Was he banned?
No he wasn't banned. They made discussion of that clergy POP issue a bannable offense however:
Quote from: OHGamerFolks, Johan has made his position clear, and that is the end of the discussion. As he requested, the discussion should focus on the actual working of the gameplay features as described in the Development Diary. To continue to discuss the issue of the name in spite of his clearly stated request that everyone drop the issue is to ignore the administrator. The issue, for the rest of this Dev Diary, is CLOSED. Any further discussion of the question will make the posts liable for potential moderator and/or administrator review in regards breach of forum rules.
this thread will reopen in a few minutes, once everyone has had a chance to read this warning.
:lol:
Eh. I am sure, given the sucecess of HOI3, they know better than some grognards on the internet.
OHGamer :bleeding:
I am surprised that OHGamer hasn't merged every single post in the Vic2 forum into one of his beloved megathreads.
*Megathreads* :x
I wish we could get OHgamer over here for just 10 minutes. OH, the fun we could have!
maybe they could ban discussion of the game, just to be sure.
I for one won't be buying anytime soon
I'll agree that "because I said so" is poor public relations, as is banning discussion of a game mechanic.
That being said I could care less what one particular POP is called. In particular if the concern is that it might seem out of place in an ahistorical 19th century communist state I couldn't give one wet fart.
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Them ignoring it would have been much better than the show they gave...
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2009, 04:20:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Them ignoring it would have been much better than the show they gave...
I thought that's what I said. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
I'll agree that "because I said so" is poor public relations, as is banning discussion of a game mechanic.
That being said I could care less what one particular POP is called. In particular if the concern is that it might seem out of place in an ahistorical 19th century communist state I couldn't give one wet fart.
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Agreed in principle. That said, we're talking about one line of programming code to make the game a bit more realistic. The whinger is right. If Nation=Secular than Clerics=Scholars.
So simple even an arts major can do :-)
I think Johan has been spoiled by the cult of worshippers he has that infest the Paradox forum since we left. Back then he knew if he pulled anything sneaky he'd get shit for it and rightfully so.
Now he posts "I think I might make a game about empire building smurfs."
"CAN I PRE ORDER?"
The quality is slipping.
And while some may not care, enough do care about these little details that if Johan and co. want to target that audience they need to cater to that or face low sales. If people wanted to play fantasy simulations they'll go load up Civ 4 or a total war game. If they want realistic, they go to Paradox. That has always been their angle. They tried to break from it like a teenie bopper tries to leap from their teen cult status to adult audiences and they have failed miserably. They lost the attention of their core audience without gaining any foothold in mainstream markets.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:22:43 PMI thought that's what I said. :huh:
Yes, I merely supported your comment.
Quote from: syk on December 13, 2009, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 13, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
So it was a thread started by a member huh?
Was he banned?
No he wasn't banned. They made discussion of that clergy POP issue a bannable offense however:
Quote from: OHGamerFolks, Johan has made his position clear, and that is the end of the discussion. As he requested, the discussion should focus on the actual working of the gameplay features as described in the Development Diary. To continue to discuss the issue of the name in spite of his clearly stated request that everyone drop the issue is to ignore the administrator. The issue, for the rest of this Dev Diary, is CLOSED. Any further discussion of the question will make the posts liable for potential moderator and/or administrator review in regards breach of forum rules.
this thread will reopen in a few minutes, once everyone has had a chance to read this warning.
:lol:
With the exception of the AAR-subforum moderators, I would shoot every other individual on that board that took their "moderator" or "administrator" title to this unprecedented level. And Syt is right, after Patric left, Johan's "kiss my ass" demeanor somehow trickled down to his minions.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2009, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 13, 2009, 09:29:53 AM
So, any tips on how to manage my Pops militancy for Ricky?
If you have a protectionist party in power, cut your taxes to zero (or as low as possible) and finance your state with 100% tariffs.
Use the free political reforms like free press, free parties, free assembly and free unions. Go for landed voting rights as that will give you a conservative party in power (which is usually protectionist - see above). That will change your state into a constitutional monarchy which negates the militancy modifier from plurality.
Station military units in the most troublesome provinces, gives you an immediate -0.25 on militancy.
If you can afford it, you can also use some social reforms. Healthcare is best as it gives you the great population growth bonus.
Max out crime fighting as that reduces revolt risk at a rather low cost.
Go for the cultural inventions that lower revolt risk.
Whenever an election question pops up, take the option that will lower militancy the most. If none is available take the option of the party that is in power as alignment between issues and ruling party also lowers militancy.
If you do all that, you can e.g. go through the Liberal Revolution as Prussia without a single revolt (except those triggered by event) and with barely any emigration and still have a conservative party in power for the whole time.
Thanks.
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2009, 04:20:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Them ignoring it would have been much better than the show they gave...
Yeah, but it has to be rather frustrating to post a Dev Diary about new features, and all the talk is only about the naming of a POP in some fantasy communist-atheist state.
It's like that thread about allowing democratic communist countries.
Quote from: Josephus on December 13, 2009, 08:03:12 AM
Seriously. How hard would it be to program the game so that clerics would be called educators in an atheist-styled government?
Since the game will probably suck ass I think what the clergy pops are called is a matter of complete indifference.
If the game is good enough to actually care about this then it is easily moddable.
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
I'll agree that "because I said so" is poor public relations, as is banning discussion of a game mechanic.
I wonder if the reason they refuse to do anything more with CK is just because people keep asking them to and it pisses them off.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 13, 2009, 08:43:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 13, 2009, 04:20:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Them ignoring it would have been much better than the show they gave...
Yeah, but it has to be rather frustrating to post a Dev Diary about new features, and all the talk is only about the naming of a POP in some fantasy communist-atheist state.
It's like that thread about allowing democratic communist countries.
There is that of course. I remember I started to grow tired of that shit after I spent the effort of not only correcting the Hungarian province names during the Victoria beta, but also I had to argue with some German smartass beta who debated my choices for Transylvania. So he convinced me and the devs to germanify/romanify a couple of provinces, but the Vicky map of Hungary is still the best around from a Hungarian POV. Yet what were the first reaction from these sore losers who jerk off on game maps? Complaining about those couple of provinces which did not make the "let's have its Hungarian name there" cut. :rolleyes:
By the time the HOI2 beta came around I just could not care less and on purpose I made sure to not complain for entire Transylvania having Romanian province names.
CAL'S TWO CENTS
1. If Johan is going to make posts like that one, someone needs to kindly ask him from refraining from posting at all, aside from announcing new patches.
2. Nice to see OHGamer is still a pile of dog shit. :)
It is rather astonishing how thoroughly Paradox has managed to squander the enormous good will they had accumulated with their early releases. Up through HoI2, I pretty much bought everything they made, knowing that (1) they would fix any problems, and (2) that their design philosophy was enough like my playing philosophy that even a somewhat broken game would still be fun.
Nowadays, I view them with considerable suspicion, both o the grounds that I don't know if they will fix broken games, and I don't know if the design will be fun even if they do. I got EU3 complete on sale, and that's been it.
That's quite a change.
Remember when languish had a rule about not slagging off paradox forum folk? :D
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2009, 08:09:40 AM
Remember when languish had a rule about not slagging off paradox forum folk? :D
:huh:
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2009, 08:09:40 AM
Remember when languish had a rule about not slagging off paradox forum folk? :D
That's a bit like the church making a rule to not slag homos. :lmfao: :lmfao:
I recall we had a rule about not criticizing paradox mods or their decisions a long time ago. I think the reasoning was we didnt want this to become the forum people ran to and complain when they got banned. Whoever was admin at the time wanted good relations with Paradox and didnt want this place to become another tomatocow or something.
Quote from: Tyr on December 14, 2009, 08:09:40 AM
Remember when languish had a rule about not slagging off paradox forum folk? :D
It made sense at the time. Now only a minority of the people here still care about Paradox or their games if they ever did.
Oh wait, yes that does sound familiar. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2009, 08:57:31 AM
Oh wait, yes that does sound familiar. :blush:
Banned.
Quote from: Josephus on December 13, 2009, 04:23:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
I'll agree that "because I said so" is poor public relations, as is banning discussion of a game mechanic.
That being said I could care less what one particular POP is called. In particular if the concern is that it might seem out of place in an ahistorical 19th century communist state I couldn't give one wet fart.
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Agreed in principle. That said, we're talking about one line of programming code to make the game a bit more realistic. The whinger is right. If Nation=Secular than Clerics=Scholars.
So simple even an arts major can do :-)
I don't care what they call it. In old Victoria the base ideology of your clergy pops was socialist in nations with equity as national value. No one seemed to mind then and I don't think any mod ever "fixed" it. The whole issue is obviously blown out of proportion. But then again, it wouldn't be the paradox forum if it wasn't.
The map is still ugly though. :)
Quote from: Jaron on December 14, 2009, 08:48:50 AM
I recall we had a rule about not criticizing paradox mods or their decisions a long time ago. I think the reasoning was we didnt want this to become the forum people ran to and complain when they got banned. Whoever was admin at the time wanted good relations with Paradox and didnt want this place to become another tomatocow or something.
Thank God for that.
I've stuck with Paradox longer then most. I actually enjoy EUIII, but I honestly can't see anything good coming from a remake of a game that didn't work right after another game that doesn't work.
Quote from: Vricklund on December 14, 2009, 09:03:10 AM
Quote from: Josephus on December 13, 2009, 04:23:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 13, 2009, 04:13:22 PM
I'll agree that "because I said so" is poor public relations, as is banning discussion of a game mechanic.
That being said I could care less what one particular POP is called. In particular if the concern is that it might seem out of place in an ahistorical 19th century communist state I couldn't give one wet fart.
Sometimes the proper response from a game company *is* to simple ignore what a few hardcore fans demand.
Agreed in principle. That said, we're talking about one line of programming code to make the game a bit more realistic. The whinger is right. If Nation=Secular than Clerics=Scholars.
So simple even an arts major can do :-)
I don't care what they call it. In old Victoria the base ideology of your clergy pops was socialist in nations with equity as national value. No one seemed to mind then and I don't think any mod ever "fixed" it. The whole issue is obviously blown out of proportion. But then again, it wouldn't be the paradox forum if it wasn't.
The map is still ugly though. :)
There were Christian Socialists that were quite far to the left economically, it's not implausible that their thinking could have gained a bigger following. Atheist Marxist clergy is something else though.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 14, 2009, 09:05:00 AM
Quote from: Jaron on December 14, 2009, 08:48:50 AM
I recall we had a rule about not criticizing paradox mods or their decisions a long time ago. I think the reasoning was we didnt want this to become the forum people ran to and complain when they got banned. Whoever was admin at the time wanted good relations with Paradox and didnt want this place to become another tomatocow or something.
Thank God for that.
I've stuck with Paradox longer then most. I actually enjoy EUIII, but I honestly can't see anything good coming from a remake of a game that didn't work right after another game that doesn't work.
I really like Victoria, I guess I'm in the minority.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2009, 10:20:05 AM
I really like Victoria, I guess I'm in the minority.
You are a dirty 'Rican
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2009, 08:06:55 AM
It is rather astonishing how thoroughly Paradox has managed to squander the enormous good will they had accumulated with their early releases. Up through HoI2, I pretty much bought everything they made, knowing that (1) they would fix any problems, and (2) that their design philosophy was enough like my playing philosophy that even a somewhat broken game would still be fun.
Nowadays, I view them with considerable suspicion, both o the grounds that I don't know if they will fix broken games, and I don't know if the design will be fun even if they do. I got EU3 complete on sale, and that's been it.
That's quite a change.
I have to agree, though it took me longer to come around (EU:Rome). While it used to be a given that P'dox games were dodgy at release but would be fixed quickly, it's now a given to wait for an expansion or two and their patches. The attitude displayed by the devs doesn't help much, either.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2009, 10:20:05 AM
I really like Victoria, I guess I'm in the minority.
I liked it too, actually. Especially with the Revs expansion pack. It didn't have the longevity for me, though, that the EU series had. I got bored with it fairly quickly.
I got tired of manually reinforcing divisions. Raping France and Russia as Prussia? Awesome.
I loved Vicky, the only trouble with it was the troubles of the era- only half a dozen or so nations to play and have big fun from. I demand a paradox game map editor!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 14, 2009, 10:20:05 AM
I really like Victoria, I guess I'm in the minority.
It's alright but it was far too much energy to ever just fire up a game on a lark. It didn't start slow and suck you in like CK or EU do which are far superior games IMO.
Quote from: Valmy on December 14, 2009, 11:06:59 AM
It's alright but it was far too much energy to ever just fire up a game on a lark. It didn't start slow and suck you in like CK or EU do which are far superior games IMO.
I totally liked the idea of it. I just couldn't really ever get myself into it as it seemed to require so much thought/energy.
Quote from: Caliga on December 14, 2009, 08:00:16 AM
2. Nice to see OHGamer is still a pile of dog shit. :)
I'd like to throw my hat in the ring as best gay P'dox mod. :goodboy:
Quote from: grumbler on December 14, 2009, 08:06:55 AM
It is rather astonishing how thoroughly Paradox has managed to squander the enormous good will they had accumulated with their early releases. Up through HoI2, I pretty much bought everything they made, knowing that (1) they would fix any problems, and (2) that their design philosophy was enough like my playing philosophy that even a somewhat broken game would still be fun.
Nowadays, I view them with considerable suspicion, both o the grounds that I don't know if they will fix broken games, and I don't know if the design will be fun even if they do. I got EU3 complete on sale, and that's been it.
That's quite a change.
Agreed. I am not sure where they went wrong but somewhere along the line I went from automatically buying all Paradox products to waiting to see if the the games were good and then not buying at all.
QuoteCAL'S TWO CENTS
1. If Johan is going to make posts like that one, someone needs to kindly ask him from refraining from posting at all, aside from announcing new patches.
Agreed. What a silly thing for Johan to say. In the early days he benefited greatly from the feedback he got from the community. Now he thinks that his small group can do better. It seems that recent results should convince him that he should pay more attention to what people might want in the game.
The thing is, you can't please everyone, and not all suggestions are created equal, but there's no reason to just slag someone off like that. Just be polite and non-committal ("Thanks for your suggestion. We'll certainly take it into consideration") or just don't reply at all.
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
just don't reply at all.
P'dox fans get awfully whiny if you do that to them.
Quote from: garbon on December 14, 2009, 11:22:09 PM
Quote from: dps on December 14, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
just don't reply at all.
P'dox fans get awfully whiny if you do that to them.
Yeah, so every once in a while, you reply to the whining: "Sorry I didn't respond specifically to your suggestion. We're real busy working on the game, so I don't have time to reply to each and every post offering advice. Be assured, though, that we do read them all, and give them every consideration."
God I hope I never have to say that. I might vomit.
Yeah, especially when what you really want to say is, "Your idea is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my life."
A person can't be expected to respond to a thousand suggestions half of them coming from Eastern Europeans who will pirate the game anyway. Or Finns.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 15, 2009, 02:10:03 AM
A person can't be expected to respond to a thousand suggestions half of them coming from Eastern Europeans who will pirate the game anyway. Or Finns.
Especially when most of those suggestions relate to their own retardo countries, and how they should conquer all the other retardo countries.
Quote from: garbon on December 15, 2009, 12:10:26 AM
God I hope I never have to say that. I might vomit.
It's really not that hard. Type it out once, and then do a cut and paste job. That's what I do at work every time some moron in the field makes yet another ridiculous report modification request. :)
It's completely fine and acceptable (and necessary) for Johan to cut of discussion and say he's going with clergy.
The weird part is OHGamer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 02:08:48 PM
It's completely fine and acceptable (and necessary) for Johan to cut of discussion and say he's going with clergy.
The weird part is OHGamer.
Sure. But you would expect a better reason than 'Because I say so' even if its just a lie for PR purposes.
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2009, 05:21:53 PM
Sure. But you would expect a better reason than 'Because I say so' even if its just a lie for PR purposes.
If that's all he ever said it's pretty abrupt. But based on my previous experience with Pdox forum I'm guessing Johan first explained the reasoning behind the decision, then there were 40 pages of ZOMG EAST PRUSSIA ZOMG ARTILLERY ATTRITION. At some point you just gotta say basta.
Nah...that was the first and last thing Johan said on the subject. FWIW, King was the one first having a go saying stuff like:
QuoteWe like the name, so we just kept the same. They still do thier clergy stuff.
and
QuoteI mean if something is fixed it is fixed. I am not going to sit and pretend that something will change when it won't.
and then something about how he's a professional designer and knows better than anyone else:
QuoteAnd the icon as well, comeone people if we use the Victoria name we can simply import the icon and save development time for new features. Thus I think if you thought about it a bit more, or were just simply willing to trust that because I get paid to design games I might know what I was doing, then perhaps my choice was one of the better option.
Then Johan came on defending King, which to be fair, is the right thing for Johan to do. In fact, Johan's one line is taken out of a whole paragraph in which he said:
QuoteIt will be called clergy cause that is the design I wanted. That should be enough.
However, it is also the basis for our pop-file setup. Another poptype to research and adapt the pops for one scenario is not just feasible, now matter how "easy" some random person think it is.
There is a reason that King and OHGamer's opinions matters on pop setup issues, as they are the guys that actually KNOW what pops do, and the impact of design for them regarding the amount of work. If the guys that made the research for Victoria1 and the VIP mod think a poptype is best suited then it is.
I'm basically disregarding any comments from anyone on whatever pops should be and what types should be, unless they have done a proper research and setup of all pops for let say Sokoto, Bastar and Ionian Islands.
Have fun, and lets focus on the details of the dev diary instead of an irrelevant detail.
I stopped reading after that, cause OHG came on throwing about his Mod powers.
QuoteAnd the icon as well, comeone people if we use the Victoria name we can simply import the icon and save development time for new features. Thus I think if you thought about it a bit more, or were just simply willing to trust that because I get paid to design games I might know what I was doing, then perhaps my choice was one of the better option.
:blink:
err....what?
I'd have thought they would be using all shiny and new icons this time around anyway but they're just recycling the old ones?
Besides, I could knock up a little pixel drawing of a man like the Victoria icons in a matter of a hour or two. And I'm not a professional artist (or even a particularly good one)
QuoteI'm basically disregarding any comments from anyone on whatever pops should be and what types should be, unless they have done a proper research and setup of all pops for let say Sokoto, Bastar and Ionian Islands.
Have fun, and lets focus on the details of the dev diary instead of an irrelevant detail.
So...input bad unless you do some really really hard research that we can't manage ourselves (despite it being our job) for us?
feedback involves give and take.
in this case, the fans give and pdox takes. or not. or something.
anyhow, seems like a siege mentality at work. I agree this is bad PR.
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2009, 07:21:06 PM
So...input bad unless you do some really really hard research that we can't manage ourselves (despite it being our job) for us?
Well you get a bunch of people making suggestions for things that would add quite a bit of complexity or additional research, then saying "I've never programmed before, but I'm sure it's something Paradox can add easily!", disregarding the fact that all the time it takes to research, code, integrate with existing features and debug takes time away from other, more important things.
Plus, most suggestions are just dumb.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 15, 2009, 11:48:41 PM
Well you get a bunch of people making suggestions for things that would add quite a bit of complexity or additional research, then saying "I've never programmed before, but I'm sure it's something Paradox can add easily!", disregarding the fact that all the time it takes to research, code, integrate with existing features and debug takes time away from other, more important things.
Plus, most suggestions are just dumb.
Generally bad PR to tell customers that they have dumb ideas. Bad enough when you tell that to betas. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2009, 07:21:06 PM
So...input bad unless you do some really really hard research that we can't manage ourselves (despite it being our job) for us?
In the past, at least up till EU3 that was the main job of the betas. Play testing always seemed to come second behind that.
QuoteI'm basically disregarding any comments from anyone on whatever pops should be and what types should be, unless they have done a proper research and setup of all pops for let say Sokoto, Bastar and Ionian Islands.
I take it he is ignoring the comments of OHGamer and King, then, because we know fucking well that they did not (nor
could anyone) do "a proper research and setup of all pops for Sokoto, Bastar or the Ionian Islands!" :lmfao:
Nothing funnier than the old "ignore the man behind the curtain" defense.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 15, 2009, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2009, 07:21:06 PM
So...input bad unless you do some really really hard research that we can't manage ourselves (despite it being our job) for us?
Well you get a bunch of people making suggestions for things that would add quite a bit of complexity or additional research, then saying "I've never programmed before, but I'm sure it's something Paradox can add easily!", disregarding the fact that all the time it takes to research, code, integrate with existing features and debug takes time away from other, more important things.
Plus, most suggestions are just dumb.
Eh. But we were told shortly thereafter that it
is easy to fix.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 16, 2009, 07:27:37 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 15, 2009, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2009, 07:21:06 PM
So...input bad unless you do some really really hard research that we can't manage ourselves (despite it being our job) for us?
Well you get a bunch of people making suggestions for things that would add quite a bit of complexity or additional research, then saying "I've never programmed before, but I'm sure it's something Paradox can add easily!", disregarding the fact that all the time it takes to research, code, integrate with existing features and debug takes time away from other, more important things.
Plus, most suggestions are just dumb.
Eh. But we were told shortly thereafter that it is easy to fix.
The names of clergy or making new POPs/changing the POP setup?
Anyway, the new Dev Diary has pretty good stuff. Factories now act more like real, privately-owned factories rather than state-owned factories.
[quote author=HisMajestyBOB link=topic=1964.msg161474#msg161474
Anyway, the new Dev Diary has pretty good stuff. Factories now act more like real, privately-owned factories rather than state-owned factories.
[/quote]
There goes its appeal for me... :lol:
Hm. The latest DD has pushed me out of the "Won't-Buy" camp and into the "Wait-For-Reviews-And-Maybe-A-Demo" camp.
Paradox didn't use to treat their community like shit, but now they do. I can't help but to think, however, that it is related to their community becoming shittier. It used to be a small homogenous group of people all sharing an interest in the history of the world between ca. 1500-1800, generally quite well-read and erudite people, at least considerably moreso than the average, which created a certain atmosphere of kinship and alikeness in type of person even if not in opinion. Then they released HoI and attracted a very different demographic. It's like sitting down in the pub with your mates arguing a shared interest in a relaxed setting, only to find you can't hear what you're saying to each other because some people without any manners just arrived screaming the stupidest things to each other on the top of their lungs. And the patron is no longer smiling, he's angry and rude to people.
Would be interesting to see where the shift happened.
Someone mentioned it happened when Patric left, which could very well be.
You, Pat, talk about when HOI came, which could also very well be.
I've always noticed two events:
1. The week before Vickie came out, officially, Johan went nuts when he found out people were pirating the game. It seemed like every newbie onboard was suddenly banned and called a pirate.
2. A year or so after EU2 had been patched about 9 or 10 times, mostly a labour of love, word started to get out that Paradox games required numerous patches to be fixed. This sort of became a bit of a bad PR thing, and Johan started to A) Limit the number of patches and B) Limit access to bug forums and the like to "registered" buyers.
All of these are minor events, but all four of them put together, and I think we're on to when Paradox started to change, for the worse. To those I'd also add, Johan surrounding himself with YesMen.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 15, 2009, 02:08:48 PM
It's completely fine and acceptable (and necessary) for Johan to cut of discussion and say he's going with clergy.
Disagree. Why is the game developer moderating?
Quote from: Pat on December 16, 2009, 10:11:54 PM
Paradox didn't use to treat their community like shit, but now they do. I can't help but to think, however, that it is related to their community becoming shittier. It used to be a small homogenous group of people all sharing an interest in the history of the world between ca. 1500-1800, generally quite well-read and erudite people, at least considerably moreso than the average, which created a certain atmosphere of kinship and alikeness in type of person even if not in opinion. Then they released HoI and attracted a very different demographic. It's like sitting down in the pub with your mates arguing a shared interest in a relaxed setting, only to find you can't hear what you're saying to each other because some people without any manners just arrived screaming the stupidest things to each other on the top of their lungs. And the patron is no longer smiling, he's angry and rude to people.
I blame the Balkantards (that includes you, Tamas)
Quote from: Fireblade on December 17, 2009, 12:00:53 AM
Quote from: Pat on December 16, 2009, 10:11:54 PM
Paradox didn't use to treat their community like shit, but now they do. I can't help but to think, however, that it is related to their community becoming shittier. It used to be a small homogenous group of people all sharing an interest in the history of the world between ca. 1500-1800, generally quite well-read and erudite people, at least considerably moreso than the average, which created a certain atmosphere of kinship and alikeness in type of person even if not in opinion. Then they released HoI and attracted a very different demographic. It's like sitting down in the pub with your mates arguing a shared interest in a relaxed setting, only to find you can't hear what you're saying to each other because some people without any manners just arrived screaming the stupidest things to each other on the top of their lungs. And the patron is no longer smiling, he's angry and rude to people.
I blame the Balkantards (that includes you, Tamas)
:rolleyes: First, it's not only Balkantards, western HoI fans are also horrible, and secondly, I was there before EU1 got released. So STFU. I do agree with Pat though.
Something else that's different now--and I'm not sure if it's a symptom of what we're talking about or not--but there's no stickied thread of known bugs in the EUIII Bug Report sub-Forum. I posted asking AndrewT for such a thread, and he replied that he had wanted to create one, but Johan had said no. He didn't know why Johan didn't want one, which kind of makes me think that either he had asked and Johan had given him a "because I said so" type answer, or that he had been afraid to ask why.
Oh, and I dunno if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I uncovered something which could be in Victoria when I was looking for thesis projects on some Swedish site- it looks like paradox want an achievements system ala xbox 360 implemented into their future games.
I hate that system of course but it would be interesting to see what they count as achievements; starting the game and world conquest with a one province minor being two extreme givens
Quote from: Tyr on December 20, 2009, 07:33:47 AM
Oh, and I dunno if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I uncovered something which could be in Victoria when I was looking for thesis projects on some Swedish site- it looks like paradox want an achievements system ala xbox 360 implemented into their future games.
I hate that system of course but it would be interesting to see what they count as achievements; starting the game and world conquest with a one province minor being two extreme givens
please no :bleeding:
Is Johan out of control? The things I hear from the Inner Station gives me the creeps.
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2009, 08:00:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 20, 2009, 07:33:47 AM
Oh, and I dunno if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I uncovered something which could be in Victoria when I was looking for thesis projects on some Swedish site- it looks like paradox want an achievements system ala xbox 360 implemented into their future games.
I hate that system of course but it would be interesting to see what they count as achievements; starting the game and world conquest with a one province minor being two extreme givens
please no :bleeding:
Why not? They work. Between achievements and piracy, the consoles have pushed the PC to the point where it's an afterthought.
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Is Johan out of control? The things I hear from the Inner Station gives me the creeps.
Inner station?
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2009, 08:00:56 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 20, 2009, 07:33:47 AM
Oh, and I dunno if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I uncovered something which could be in Victoria when I was looking for thesis projects on some Swedish site- it looks like paradox want an achievements system ala xbox 360 implemented into their future games.
I hate that system of course but it would be interesting to see what they count as achievements; starting the game and world conquest with a one province minor being two extreme givens
please no :bleeding:
Why not? They work. Between achievements and piracy, the consoles have pushed the PC to the point where it's an afterthought.
Achievments are pathetic. "you managed to start the game! ACHIEVEMENT!" "you pushed a button on the controller! ACHIEVMENT!"
Quote from: Faeelin on December 20, 2009, 04:34:46 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 20, 2009, 08:59:23 AM
Is Johan out of control? The things I hear from the Inner Station gives me the creeps.
Inner station?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness
Quote from: Tamas on December 20, 2009, 04:39:30 PM
Achievments are pathetic. "you managed to start the game! ACHIEVEMENT!" "you pushed a button on the controller! ACHIEVMENT!"
Well, that's what everybody likes.
Quote from: Neil on December 20, 2009, 04:33:02 PM
Why not? They work. Between achievements and piracy, the consoles have pushed the PC to the point where it's an afterthought.
Eh I like being able to download games. Computers are so cheap now and consoles so overpriced you do not even save any money and you can use your computer for lots of other things. Oh and finally consoles break easily.
Consoles = fail.
From the Vicky2 forum:
QuoteEvent on set date - a petition.
I am well aware of the direction that EU3 has, that HoI3 has, and that Victoria 2 is going to have. I clearly understand that from PI's perspective, they've found a model that works, as in they get more costumers, the costumers are more content, and the games are overall better.
And I agree. Going back to the deterministic games would ruin the experience for most, and would probably be a bad business decision for PI.
But out there, there's still those who long for a deterministic game. A history book, so to speak. And in order to commode those needs, PI need to add a single trigger to the Clausewitz engine: The ability to force an event on a specific date.
This would be a gift to modders who want to make their game deterministic, and thus it would make the last group of costumers content with the game.
Thread is closed by King:
QuoteWe have higher priorities that tyring to cater for a tiny protion of our market.
That says it all really. :(
Why is costumers such a common mistake foreigners tend to make with English? Its just....silly.
So you can't do events n certain dates with the new games eh? Can you still do date ranges? Pretty easy to just do between 3rd of June and the 3rd of June then
In this case, they are right. Fuck determinism. I understand its less of an issue than with EU2/3 but still.
And VGN has my vote anyways, assuming Paradox will let it be released at all.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2009, 11:32:21 AM
So you can't do events n certain dates with the new games eh? Can you still do date ranges? Pretty easy to just do between 3rd of June and the 3rd of June then
No. There's always a chance it won't fire at all.
This is better :lmfao:
From Paradox Interactive Facebook page
QuoteThis is getting ridiculous! Third winner who has declined a trip to Stockholm! it's like we have leprosy or something! The search continues over the holidays!
Quote from: Maladict on December 21, 2009, 11:19:51 AM
From the Vicky2 forum:
QuoteEvent on set date - a petition.
I am well aware of the direction that EU3 has, that HoI3 has, and that Victoria 2 is going to have. I clearly understand that from PI's perspective, they've found a model that works, as in they get more costumers, the costumers are more content, and the games are overall better.
And I agree. Going back to the deterministic games would ruin the experience for most, and would probably be a bad business decision for PI.
But out there, there's still those who long for a deterministic game. A history book, so to speak. And in order to commode those needs, PI need to add a single trigger to the Clausewitz engine: The ability to force an event on a specific date.
This would be a gift to modders who want to make their game deterministic, and thus it would make the last group of costumers content with the game.
Thread is closed by King:
QuoteWe have higher priorities that tyring to cater for a tiny protion of our market.
That says it all really. :(
I had no idea the player who didn't want Abraham Lincoln elected in 1859 were a tiny portion of their market.
It is a tiny portion of the market they WANT to have. Unfortunately for them, the changes they are making won't bring enough new customers to make up for the loyal fan-base they told to go fuck themselves.
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2009, 02:48:56 PM
It is a tiny portion of the market they WANT to have. Unfortunately for them, the changes they are making won't bring enough new customers to make up for the loyal fan-base they told to go fuck themselves.
One should think they would have learned from the original "nothing is predetermined to make for GREAT multiplayer" EU3 approach.
Multiplayer FTL.
I hate the OTT priority given to that by so many companies these days at the expense of single player fun.
Quote from: Syt on December 21, 2009, 02:51:02 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2009, 02:48:56 PM
It is a tiny portion of the market they WANT to have. Unfortunately for them, the changes they are making won't bring enough new customers to make up for the loyal fan-base they told to go fuck themselves.
One should think they would have learned from the original "nothing is predetermined to make for GREAT multiplayer" EU3 approach.
I have no problem with them deciding to go with the sandbox style game approach, it is their company. The institutional arrogance that seems to have developed there though is amazing. To shit on the small but loyal group of fans--who would previously buy any game they made, whether they would play it or not--by not even acknowledge the idea of a trigger for a specific day is ridiculous.
Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2009, 03:15:21 PM
Multiplayer FTL.
I hate the OTT priority given to that by so many companies these days at the expense of single player fun.
I guess that was just an honest miscalculation by Paradox: one of the reasons for EU2's longevity and long run of post release patches was a hardcore group of MPers (of which Johan was a part) which may have led them to believe that those are their new target audience for EU3.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on December 21, 2009, 02:10:32 PM
This is better :lmfao:
From Paradox Interactive Facebook page
QuoteThis is getting ridiculous! Third winner who has declined a trip to Stockholm! it's like we have leprosy or something! The search continues over the holidays!
If I win I'd take them up on the trip to Stockholm. But...do I have to like, hang out with them, or can I do my own thing?
Quote from: Josephus on December 21, 2009, 03:43:06 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on December 21, 2009, 02:10:32 PM
This is better :lmfao:
From Paradox Interactive Facebook page
QuoteThis is getting ridiculous! Third winner who has declined a trip to Stockholm! it's like we have leprosy or something! The search continues over the holidays!
If I win I'd take them up on the trip to Stockholm. But...do I have to like, hang out with them, or can I do my own thing?
I think they will be hosting/helping to organize a convention, and the winner would be like presented there / asked to participate as "voice of the gamer" or somesuch. Still I dont see why people would decline this. :huh: The first expected his child to be born around the travelling time, no info was given for the other two Razgorovies.
Quote from: Tamas on December 21, 2009, 11:33:43 AM
In this case, they are right. Fuck determinism. I understand its less of an issue than with EU2/3 but still.
And VGN has my vote anyways, assuming Paradox will let it be released at all.
I think Johan resists determinism as an excuse for stupid things that happen in his games.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2009, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Maladict on December 21, 2009, 11:19:51 AM
From the Vicky2 forum:
QuoteEvent on set date - a petition.
I am well aware of the direction that EU3 has, that HoI3 has, and that Victoria 2 is going to have. I clearly understand that from PI's perspective, they've found a model that works, as in they get more costumers, the costumers are more content, and the games are overall better.
And I agree. Going back to the deterministic games would ruin the experience for most, and would probably be a bad business decision for PI.
But out there, there's still those who long for a deterministic game. A history book, so to speak. And in order to commode those needs, PI need to add a single trigger to the Clausewitz engine: The ability to force an event on a specific date.
This would be a gift to modders who want to make their game deterministic, and thus it would make the last group of costumers content with the game.
Thread is closed by King:
QuoteWe have higher priorities that tyring to cater for a tiny protion of our market.
That says it all really. :(
I had no idea the player who didn't want Abraham Lincoln elected in 1859 were a tiny portion of their market.
Those are also the same players who apparently want the Crimean War and Franco-Prussian wars to happen on the exact same day, every game, even if Russia has been reduced to 5 provinces and Prussia has just finished a long and exhausting war with Austria.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 21, 2009, 06:39:27 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 21, 2009, 02:33:01 PM
Quote from: Maladict on December 21, 2009, 11:19:51 AM
From the Vicky2 forum:
QuoteEvent on set date - a petition.
I am well aware of the direction that EU3 has, that HoI3 has, and that Victoria 2 is going to have. I clearly understand that from PI's perspective, they've found a model that works, as in they get more costumers, the costumers are more content, and the games are overall better.
And I agree. Going back to the deterministic games would ruin the experience for most, and would probably be a bad business decision for PI.
But out there, there's still those who long for a deterministic game. A history book, so to speak. And in order to commode those needs, PI need to add a single trigger to the Clausewitz engine: The ability to force an event on a specific date.
This would be a gift to modders who want to make their game deterministic, and thus it would make the last group of costumers content with the game.
Thread is closed by King:
QuoteWe have higher priorities that tyring to cater for a tiny protion of our market.
That says it all really. :(
I had no idea the player who didn't want Abraham Lincoln elected in 1859 were a tiny portion of their market.
Those are also the same players who apparently want the Crimean War and Franco-Prussian wars to happen on the exact same day, every game, even if Russia has been reduced to 5 provinces and Prussia has just finished a long and exhausting war with Austria.
That seems silly to me too; but there is a substantial number of loyal fans who want that; Paradox, through King, just told that group of people to go fuck off, regardless of how many of their games they had bought previously. I have no idea about programming of a game but would it really be that hard to add a trigger to allow events to fire on a certain day?
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2009, 06:59:39 PM
That seems silly to me too; but there is a substantial number of loyal fans who want that; Paradox, through King, just told that group of people to go fuck off, regardless of how many of their games they had bought previously. I have no idea about programming of a game but would it really be that hard to add a trigger to allow events to fire on a certain day?
I'm no programmer, but I imagine it's harder than you or I would think. First any time you go mucking around with code you run the risk of adding new bugs or errors. Second they're in the midst of a time crunch trying to get the damn game finished. Features are more likely cut during this phrase, not added. They're trying to get the basic game functional, not addoddball features that a small minority of customers would even know existed.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
Quote from: sbr on December 21, 2009, 06:59:39 PM
That seems silly to me too; but there is a substantial number of loyal fans who want that; Paradox, through King, just told that group of people to go fuck off, regardless of how many of their games they had bought previously. I have no idea about programming of a game but would it really be that hard to add a trigger to allow events to fire on a certain day?
I'm no programmer, but I imagine it's harder than you or I would think. First any time you go mucking around with code you run the risk of adding new bugs or errors. Second they're in the midst of a time crunch trying to get the damn game finished. Features are more likely cut during this phrase, not added. They're trying to get the basic game functional, not addoddball features that a small minority of customers would even know existed.
True it should not be something they work on for Victoria 2 at this point, but they should have already done it. It would be a change in the Clauswitz game engine itself and should have been part of one of the 4 EU2 expansions, or the 13 EU3 patches, or HOI3 or it's 3 patches. Once it is done for one game, I would assume it would port over to all of the others.
EU3 has the day trigger, but it has been broken from the start.
Quote from: Maladict on December 22, 2009, 02:56:45 AM
EU3 has the day trigger, but it has been broken from the start.
Yes, but is that related to the trigger?
Dunno, I don't play EU3 anymore. It's not a bad game at all, but for some reason I never got into it.
HoI3 was worse, I stopped playing the demo after about 10 minutes. Couldn't even tell if the game was any good, it just didn't do anything for me. It was boring. And ugly.
I'm afraid V2 will turn out the same, a good game (eventually) that will be thoroughly uninspiring.
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
Second they're in the midst of a time crunch trying to get the damn game finished. Features are more likely cut during this phrase, not added. They're trying to get the basic game functional, not addoddball features that a small minority of customers would even know existed.
True. Any delays would force them to deviate from the expansion release schedule.
Quote from: garbon on December 22, 2009, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 21, 2009, 07:05:21 PM
Second they're in the midst of a time crunch trying to get the damn game finished. Features are more likely cut during this phrase, not added. They're trying to get the basic game functional, not addoddball features that a small minority of customers would even know existed.
True. Any delays would force them to deviate from the expansion release schedule.
In which, after saying they never will, they add historical events.
Quote from: Maladict on December 22, 2009, 11:56:20 AM
Dunno, I don't play EU3 anymore. It's not a bad game at all, but for some reason I never got into it.
HoI3 was worse, I stopped playing the demo after about 10 minutes. Couldn't even tell if the game was any good, it just didn't do anything for me. It was boring. And ugly.
I'm afraid V2 will turn out the same, a good game (eventually) that will be thoroughly uninspiring.
Rome was the same way. It was probably the most stable, bug-free thing Paradox has even released, but it was completely boring.
You know, thinking about it, I'm not even sure that I want them to make a CK2. Crusader Kings was stuffed full of neat ideas that weren't really implemented, had tons of bugs, and crashed all the time--but if you can get past that, it can be a lot of fun. If they ever do CK2, it'll prbably be stable but bland as hell. Plus, the map will suck big time.
I don't quite know what you're talking about, because EU3 at least is fantastic.
Quote from: Barrister on December 23, 2009, 02:25:51 AM
I don't quite know what you're talking about, because EU3 at least is fantastic.
I agree. Admittedly two expansions after it was first released. But it's wonderful fun.
Quote from: Barrister on December 23, 2009, 02:25:51 AM
I don't quite know what you're talking about, because EU3 at least is fantastic.
I know, it's really annoying to me. I can see that it's a really good game and in many ways a superior successor, I just can't enjoy it like EU2 (and now FtG).
QuoteWell after last weeks rather short effort let's go for something with a little meat in it. The Victoria economic system was very good at simulating large-scale capitalism but there was no small scale manufacturing or pre industrial economies. Our solution is the Artisan.
The Artisan POP acts a bit like a factory; it buys goods of the market and makes things to sell. However, unlike a factory the Artisan is not tied into making a single good, instead every month it will pick a good to make, if last month's good made money it will be more likely to make the same good again. The Artisan can always make a small number of goods but after that it is limited by your technology, so if you don't have the radio, the Artisan won't make one. However Artisans do not gain efficiency via technology, so on a long enough time line factories will always be more competitive and if supply rises fast enough they will force Artisans out of that niche. As a final point Artisans who do very well will consider becoming capitalists, while Artisans who lose lots of money start becoming labourers and craftsmen.
Sounds all rather simple, however here are some neat consequences; firstly we can give any country a manufacturing capacity without giving them factories. If we take a country like China, in 1830 it had something like 30% of the global manufacturing capacity, but it was very inefficient and what should happen is factories in more advanced part of the world should gradually force these guys out of business. Thus we can simulate the de-industrialisation of Asia during the period.
The second thing Artisans supply is bridging in the world market, if there are not enough factories producing an item to meet demand the Artisans can step in to top up production making sure that there is enough of a good available for people to buy. This allows the market to function more effectively and efficiently and also make it much more responsive to POP's demands.
However my favourite effect that Artisans have is when a new invention appears. Back in Victoria Revolutions you then had to sit around for years for a Capitalist to get round to building a new factory. Well no longer, now the Artisans can step up to the breach straight away. Producing small numbers until the Capitalists get round to starting mass production. This for me adds two cool effects; obviously we have the Artisan bridging effect, which I mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, the best effect for me is that it adds more realism to the economic system. With the invention of the Motor Car, Henry Ford didn't suddenly hit on the idea of let's build a huge factory in Detroit. Cars were first produced in small workshops, a market was created and then the factories started to appear.
Politically Artisans have a certain attraction to fascism. In our vision of the game they are the classic losers in the game of Capitalism. The Capitalists are steadily putting them out of business and the benefits like minimum wages that the lower classes win do not apply to them as they are working for themselves. The Ideology of fascism with its simple answers will appeal to them more strongly. Countries than manage to keep a strong artisan class will therefore be more susceptible to fascism.
So there we have the Artisan class. It improves the world market functionality and adds something to the politics, while adding greater realism in economic development. No developer dairy next week as we have a press event on, so keep an eye on the game sites for news about Victoria 2.
That sounds like a good addition to Victoria's economic system.
Quote from: Zanza on January 13, 2010, 12:16:14 PM
Quote
That sounds like a good addition to Victoria's economic system.
Agreed. :)
I had no idea that Italy and Germany were full of Artisans. :unsure:
Does efficiency still work something like 1 coal + 1 iron = 2 steel * efficiency? It created a whole set of idiocies in the original Vicky.
One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?
Artisan sounds good.
It could make playing minors and non-civilized nations interesting.
Sounds a bit odd and unhistorical though to have the monthly changes like that.
Quote from: Zanza on January 13, 2010, 03:47:36 PM
One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?
One issue with that is compounding. If you double the efficiency, you double the quantity of timber produced. That leads to quadrupling the quantity of lumber produced. Which leads to 8x the quantity of furniture produced. Which leads to 16x the quantity of luxury furniture produced. Good luck maintaining the balance with that highly exponential dynamic.
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2010, 05:19:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 13, 2010, 03:47:36 PM
One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?
One issue with that is compounding. If you double the efficiency, you double the quantity of timber produced. That leads to quadrupling the quantity of lumber produced. Which leads to 8x the quantity of furniture produced. Which leads to 16x the quantity of luxury furniture produced. Good luck maintaining the balance with that highly exponential dynamic.
So you think the answer to the question Zanza asks, " shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results," is to point out that, if it
isn't balanced, it leads to wacky results?
In your example, double the timber production won't lead to quadrupling lumber production unless you also double lumber factory workforce size (otherwise, you are just producing surplus timber). I don't see why doubling factory size and doubling factory efficiency should not lead to quadrupling output, but then I am an arithmetic guy, not a math guy.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2010, 07:47:37 AM
So you think the answer to the question Zanza asks, " shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results," is to point out that, if it isn't balanced, it leads to wacky results?
No? My answer is that this kind of dynamic inherently cannot be balanced, and thus will at best be about right for a small range of situations.
QuoteIn your example, double the timber production won't lead to quadrupling lumber production unless you also double lumber factory workforce size (otherwise, you are just producing surplus timber). I don't see why doubling factory size and doubling factory efficiency should not lead to quadrupling output, but then I am an arithmetic guy, not a math guy.
I don't see why it shoulnd't either, as long as you properly define the efficiency. The problem is that the first Vicky was very generous with efficiency improvements. Building a better railroad doesn't make you more efficient at converting lumber to furniture. Huge across the board improvements in efficiency lead to drastic change in relative quantities between raw materials and finished goods.
What Vicky often treated as efficiency improvement should instead have been treated as a capacity improvement. Railroads may allow the factory to turn more lumber into more furniture, but I don't see why it should allow you to turn the same amount of lumber into more furniture.
If you do want to simulate an improved efficiency, a much more balanced mechanic would've been improvements in labor efficiency rather than conversion efficiency. Instead of adjusting how many chairs you can make from a lump of lumber, they should've adjusted how many lumps of lumber one worker can turn into chairs. That also avoids situations where eventually efficiency gets to be so good as you can turn a ton of lumber into two tons of chairs.
I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic. The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic. The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.
I've been reading those dev diaries too. So far I'm liking the what I see for the most part, as the economy is the most interesting aspect of the "V" games to me.
Quote from: grumbler on January 14, 2010, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2010, 05:19:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 13, 2010, 03:47:36 PM
One unit of coal does not have to correspond in any way to one unit of steel. So why shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results?
One issue with that is compounding. If you double the efficiency, you double the quantity of timber produced. That leads to quadrupling the quantity of lumber produced. Which leads to 8x the quantity of furniture produced. Which leads to 16x the quantity of luxury furniture produced. Good luck maintaining the balance with that highly exponential dynamic.
So you think the answer to the question Zanza asks, " shouldn't the formula work like that as long as it is balanced for reasonable results," is to point out that, if it isn't balanced, it leads to wacky results?
In your example, double the timber production won't lead to quadrupling lumber production unless you also double lumber factory workforce size (otherwise, you are just producing surplus timber). I don't see why doubling factory size and doubling factory efficiency should not lead to quadrupling output, but then I am an arithmetic guy, not a math guy.
You swore to only say "maths"!
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic. The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.
I was cautiously optimistic about HOI3. Fool me six or seven times shame you! Fool eight or more times shame on me!
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2010, 02:24:03 PM
I just read the developer diaries for Vicky 2, and they left me cautiously optimistic. The developers seem to have the right approach to making the economy work well.
I've unfortunately had the same reaction, which leads me towards thinking of purchasing the stupid thing. I suspect I will best that notion in my head and wait six months for patches, though.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2010, 10:49:19 AM
I don't see why it shoulnd't either, as long as you properly define the efficiency. The problem is that the first Vicky was very generous with efficiency improvements. Building a better railroad doesn't make you more efficient at converting lumber to furniture. Huge across the board improvements in efficiency lead to drastic change in relative quantities between raw materials and finished goods.
What Vicky often treated as efficiency improvement should instead have been treated as a capacity improvement. Railroads may allow the factory to turn more lumber into more furniture, but I don't see why it should allow you to turn the same amount of lumber into more furniture.
I must misremember the factory formula, then, because I thought a 40% efficient furniture factory turned .4 lumber into .4 furniture.
QuoteIf you do want to simulate an improved efficiency, a much more balanced mechanic would've been improvements in labor efficiency rather than conversion efficiency. Instead of adjusting how many chairs you can make from a lump of lumber, they should've adjusted how many lumps of lumber one worker can turn into chairs. That also avoids situations where eventually efficiency gets to be so good as you can turn a ton of lumber into two tons of chairs.
I never ran into the situation you describe, where I was producing more of a finished good than I was consuming of the raw material (assuming that 1 unit of lumber is comparable to 1 unit of furniture in weight or cube or something). Maybe I didn't play enough endgame stuff.
But you are correct that, if a furniture factory that has two tons of lumber available to it is, indeed, twice as efficient as a factory with one ton of lumber available to it, that was broken.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2010, 03:46:39 PM
You swore to only say "maths"!
No, I only said (no swear words) I would use the term. I didn't say I would use it
exclusively.
The type of person irritated to see me use it are doubly irritated when I use it inconsistently. :cool:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.paradoxplaza.com%2Fforum%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D21358%26amp%3Bd%3D1263915392&hash=0ed62682681e6df771958267c79da45e744d4a7c)
This map does not suck!
Those Italians will have to pry Milan out of Radetsky's cold dead hands!
I was just going to post that. It looks good.
Map looks great. Wonder if you'll need a NASA computer to run the game.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2010, 02:27:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2010, 03:46:39 PM
You swore to only say "maths"!
No, I only said (no swear words) I would use the term. I didn't say I would use it exclusively.
The type of person irritated to see me use it are doubly irritated when I use it inconsistently. :cool:
Face it, you just forgot.
Looks good.
I wish they'd start in 1815.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 20, 2010, 12:17:03 PM
I wish they'd start in 1815.
If it is at least somewhat successful, they will make an expansion. As they usually lengthen the time period in their expansions, I guess there is a good chance to see 1815 (or at least 1820) in an expansion.
When is it due out again?
I hope not till June....
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2010, 04:39:55 AM
Face it, you just forgot.
Okay. I guess, like in most things, you have here a belief that you know what I know better than I know it.
It harms me not at all to humor this delusion, so, sure, whatever you say.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2010, 03:56:27 PM
Those Italians will have to pry Milan out of Radetsky's cold dead hands!
He's only delaying the inevitable! :menace:
Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2010, 04:34:33 PM
When is it due out again?
I hope not till June....
It is now the third quarter of this year.
Quote from: KingWe have decided to extend the development time a little to allow more time for testing and balancing of the game prior to release. So it will be Q3.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...5#post10598485
Roughly the same time as VGN? Great :bleeding:
I am still not convinced that Paradox will not fuck up the release/distribution of VGN, which for me personally appear to be a superior product simulation-wise.
Bunch more pics
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/027/027960/imgs_1.html
Most appear to be loading screens, but there are some screenies.
They changed the box cover art.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paradoxplaza.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fgames-packshot-small%2Fvictoria2_packshot_2D_esrbtmp_pccdrom_hires.jpg&hash=cc780ae521a8356d990a103326f744a410c3421a)
http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/victoria-2
Graphic sucks.
:ph34r:
Did Bismarck ever personally lead a battle? From the front?
The provinces for Pula and Rijeka get Italian names, but Zadar and Split get Croatian ones (rather than Zara and Spalato). Somewhat inconsistent.
But the map looks really good. :licklips:
Quote from: Warspite on January 30, 2010, 12:27:38 PM
The provinces for Pula and Rijeka get Italian names, but Zadar and Split get Croatian ones (rather than Zara and Spalato). Somewhat inconsistent.
You whacky balkans people. :P
They really should just call everything English/Swedish/whatever the local version may be to stop that sillyness.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on January 19, 2010, 03:50:41 PM
This map does not suck!
Then colour me amazed, as the more I look at the Hearts of Iron III map when considering the mods I am working on (half-heartedly) the more pissed off I get. You'd think they could at least patch away Lake Volta (which didn't exist until the 1960s.)
The map for Vicky 2 actually does look quite good, I agree.
Screenshots of the political and terrain map modes in India
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21732&d=1265799752
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=21733&d=1265799761
Poor Bavaria. Only 4 soldiers and a cannon to defend them. Also a significant number of them have Lima beans for brains apparently.
Hope springs eternal--that shot of the political stuff looks really nice, as does the overall interface.
I am tempted...
I'm going to get it of course. Even though it is bound to be unsatisfactory in one way or another.......it is a very ambitious project.
The military reserve system appears to have been scrapped, with the replacement TBD. This is concerning assuming the game is intended to reach into the WW1 era.
I agree that the interface looks nice though.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 13, 2010, 05:30:15 AM
I'm going to get it of course. Even though it is bound to be unsatisfactory in one way or another.......it is a very ambitious project.
That's how the terrorists win. :(
When the Languish game forms, I'm taking Italy
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2010, 05:20:11 PM
The military reserve system appears to have been scrapped, with the replacement TBD. This is concerning assuming the game is intended to reach into the WW1 era.
I agree that the interface looks nice though.
Wouldn't the best way be to have a military reserve be a researchable technology?
I've already told HVC i will beat him senseless if he doesn't get it.
You should beat him anyway. :homestar:
When is this released?
Q3 2010
Quote from: Jaron on February 18, 2010, 12:53:25 AM
You should beat him anyway. :homestar:
Threating me with violence is not the best way to intice me into buying a game :P
that being said i'll probably get it. i really like Vicky 1, and the MP (while very buggy) was fun.
Now that units are tied to the soldier POPs, doesn't it make genocide easier to engineer? Recruit units from the minority POPs, send them to patrol Sahara, and watch the undesirables melt away.
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2010, 07:25:24 PM
Now that units are tied to the soldier POPs, doesn't it make genocide easier to engineer? Recruit units from the minority POPs, send them to patrol Sahara, and watch the undesirables melt away.
Planning your gulags already? Once a russian, always a russian :P
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2010, 07:25:24 PM
Now that units are tied to the soldier POPs, doesn't it make genocide easier to engineer? Recruit units from the minority POPs, send them to patrol Sahara, and watch the undesirables melt away.
Since you can no longer manually change pop jobs, it could be that minority pops are less likely to join the military.
Quote from: Syt on January 30, 2010, 12:24:36 PM
Did Bismarck ever personally lead a battle? From the front?
Did Robert E. Lee ever lead a Confederate invasion of India to capture more niggers for the cotton fields?
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2010, 07:25:24 PM
Now that units are tied to the soldier POPs, doesn't it make genocide easier to engineer? Recruit units from the minority POPs, send them to patrol Sahara, and watch the undesirables melt away.
To be fair, that's almost exactly what the Turks did, just replace "Sahara" with "Syria".
http://www.gamereactor.eu/grtv/?id=6855&l=Preview&sid=93da1d2857409ef9eb659d0048e3495f
Goddammit. I'm going to have to buy this now.
Quote from: Habbaku on February 24, 2010, 05:27:45 PM
http://www.gamereactor.eu/grtv/?id=6855&l=Preview&sid=93da1d2857409ef9eb659d0048e3495f
Goddammit. I'm going to have to buy this now.
"What we're very proud of... the map looks kinda nice" :D
Quote from: Habbaku on February 24, 2010, 05:27:45 PM
http://www.gamereactor.eu/grtv/?id=6855&l=Preview&sid=93da1d2857409ef9eb659d0048e3495f
Goddammit. I'm going to have to buy this now.
Well, the screenies in the last dev diary regarding reforms do look promising, however, on that very topic, was one of my biggest caveats with Vicky1: namely that it was made by Swedes living in blissful scandweenian socialism. Besides monetary concerns there were no other negative aspects for reforming fully ASAP, and that was not the way it was.
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2010, 02:18:53 AM
Besides monetary concerns there were no other negative aspects for reforming fully ASAP, and that was not the way it was.
Putting aside "monetary concerns" what exactly are the other negative aspects to the free press, safety regulations, the 12 hour workday etc.?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 25, 2010, 09:50:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 25, 2010, 02:18:53 AM
Besides monetary concerns there were no other negative aspects for reforming fully ASAP, and that was not the way it was.
Putting aside "monetary concerns" what exactly are the other negative aspects to the free press, safety regulations, the 12 hour workday etc.?
The free press, through constant criticism and monitoring of the government as mudrackers, should cause higher militancy and consciousness for masses. Aristocrats, Capitalists, and Conservatives/Reactionaries would not be amused, and it would increase the chances of extreme ideologies taking hold among the population.
In theory, any work safety regulations should translate into a higher cost for building factories and producing goods, and thus lower profits from Capitalists. The problem, however, is that it didn't. The costs were merely fronted by the government as a money sink.
In Vicky1 I see no reason NOT to promulgate reforms, when in real life these reforms would have driven the Conservatives and Capitalists-lead parties completely nuts and up in arms to have these repealed off ASAP.
First of all, reforms do in fact piss off conservative pops: political reforms give higher militancy to aristocrats, officers and clergymen (and capitalist for the trade union reforms); social reforms give higher militancy to most of the above three plus the capitalists.
Second historically I think there is little evidence to demonstrate that regimes that pursued aggressive censorship proved more stable and less prone to riots than regimes that allowed free press. A free press can be a useful safety valve, and historically, the 19th century free press was just as likely to give rise to jingoistic yellow journalism or gossipy sensationalism then to hardhitting investigative muckracking.
Third, some of the social reforms do impact factory efficiency. Work hours definitely do, and I think safety may as well. The other reforms don't have any obvious connection to lower production efficiency.
Nationally diverse empires did not engage in reforms because they feared unstability and rightly so. Russia and A-H for example was indeed better off with less reforms. Not the populace, but Teh Empire itself. Of course it did not work by the end of the period but reforms did not work either. Like, sure, in the 1910s, A-H had a lot of problem with Serbs living in southern Hungary, and kept cracking down on them, which just sort of made matters worse. But, at the same time, Romanian activists in Transylvania had a more or less free hand at propaganda because A-H wanted to score good points with its supposed ally Romania, but that only sped up te independence movement there. Its a matter of fact that the crackdown on the Serbs was more effective from the empire's point of view than the liberal policy with the Romanians.
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 02:45:10 AM
Its a matter of fact that the crackdown on the Serbs was more effective from the empire's point of view than the liberal policy with the Romanians.
I presume that the Serbs learned their lesson and didn't trouble anyone anymore?
Quote from: DGuller on February 26, 2010, 02:54:21 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 02:45:10 AM
Its a matter of fact that the crackdown on the Serbs was more effective from the empire's point of view than the liberal policy with the Romanians.
I presume that the Serbs learned their lesson and didn't trouble anyone anymore?
Very funny, but of course what I mean is that anti-reform policies allowed the government to have more direct control over the inevitable.
In Vicky 1, you get the feeling that non-reforming countries do this just because they like to be evöl.
But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.
Well, to be fair, ideology seems now to be quite divorced from issues in Vic2.
From what I read Conservatives are people basically satisfied with the statu quo and thus cannot enable nor disable reforms, while Liberals are the ones pushing for political reforms, while Socialists push for social reforms. In both cases, when satiated they become Conservatives, while the "real conservatives" might switch to become Reactionaries as they become pissed.
I just hope that in Vic2 enabling Reforms will lead to as much political complication than benefits, so that it stops being a no-brainer to place Liberals ASAP to enable all the Reforms before 1850. But with the new system, I can see countries becoming actually plagued with Reactionary elites, with ensuing hilarious political events, if Reforms are pushed too fast.
And remember, in Vicky2 the Upper House is not really a Upper House, but rather a tool to represent the agendas of the power brokers and leading elites around your rule. To quote King:
QuoteNo, the upper house doesn't always represent an upper house as such. Imperial Russia has an appointed upper house even though one did not exist. This represents the series of power brokers and elites that the government simply cannot afford to ignore.
QuoteWhat we have done is split granting reform and day to day government into two. So the lower house is essentially the old Victoria Revolutions Political system. This puts breaks on your sliders, determines if you can build factories or not and things like this. The Upper house represents your current ruling system's support for political and social reform. In part it is there to put breaks on the reform process and secondly to avoid the old Victoria problem where you liberals were angry because the Laissez Faire government they elect refuses to give them pensions. Now they will elect a liberal government in the lower house because they like Laissez Faire but will seek to get socialists into the upper house so they can get the pensions they always wanted.
We'll see if it works in practice, but on the paper I like the concept. It is a welcome change from Victoria.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.paradoxplaza.com%2Fforum%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D23226%26amp%3Bd%3D1270637395&hash=0122dc47184ac4ee3ee47bddfd2f871752655376)
:fap:
I always found Japan a hell of a lot of fun to play in Victoria 1.
I didn't. I could never handle being a minor and playing by the same rules as the big boys but crippled.
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 03:10:48 AM
But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inevitably dubious when I hear autocrats discuss how they're refraining from giving people rights because it's in their best interest.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 08, 2010, 09:55:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 03:10:48 AM
But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inevitably dubious when I hear autocrats discuss how they're refraining from giving people rights because it's in their best interest.
Uhm, what exactly are you talking about? I was saying that the ruling class of A-H, in the early 1900s saw that given the current complex ethnic and political problems rampan under the hood in the Monarchy, going more liberal would destroy the entity known as Austria-Hungary. And they were perfectly right, as history shown.
And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever). I am saying that it was pretty bad to portray liberal reforms as net positive for a COUNTRY. Because they were not, because in that timeframe they were countries which had no future in modern times, and not standing up against the tide meant they sure destruction.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 08, 2010, 09:55:32 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 26, 2010, 03:10:48 AM
But thats bullocks, I have read a lot about the end struggle of A-H and the leaders, both Austrian and Hungarian were surprisingly aware of the state of the empire. But, beside personal political concerns, most of them (especially Hungarians) thought that giving way to minorities would only make the desingetration faster. And they were more or less right by that time, as by early 1900s there was not much to be done which would not eventually result in the defacto partition of Hungary. Which of course would have made just about every single magyar citizen absolutely furious, so apart from radical Austrians no-one saw it as a net positive for the empire.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I am inevitably dubious when I hear autocrats discuss how they're refraining from giving people rights because it's in their best interest.
Huh? Who argued that point? Austrians and Hungarians wanted to hang onto their joint Empire, hence no rights for Slovaks, Romanians, Czechs and so forth. Nothing about this being in the best interest of the minorities.
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2010, 10:07:23 AM
And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever).
And the :Joos
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2010, 10:07:23 AM
And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)
Oh yes it was. The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out. The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.
Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2010, 10:20:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2010, 10:07:23 AM
And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)
Oh yes it was. The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out. The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.
Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.
I most certainly agree, however I dont think there was any reasonable way out of the nationalistic deadlock EXCEPT for a German victory in WW1 which would had given Austria the support it needed to force (literally) through a reform of making the Monarchy a multi-ethnic affair. That would had led to something akin to 1848 (from Hungary), you know.
That's why I believe the Entente's victory was a net negative.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2010, 10:20:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2010, 10:07:23 AM
And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)
Oh yes it was. The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out. The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.
Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.
Totally agree, in all deference to Putin it was the collapse of A-H that was the 20th century's greatest geopolitical disaster not the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2010, 10:50:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2010, 10:20:50 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2010, 10:07:23 AM
And I am not saying it was in the people's interest to see A-H live on. (well it was for Hungarians but whatever)
Oh yes it was. The Empire was the best way to secure the economic prosperity of Eastern Europe and keep the Russians and Germans out. The Monarchy fell and the place has been an economic basketcase and playground for Russians and Germans ever since.
Breaking up A-H was an idea based on ethnic hatred and nationalistic head-up-assism and a great historical example about how if you do not hang together you will most assuredly hang separately.
Totally agree, in all deference to Putin it was the collapse of A-H that was the 20th century's greatest geopolitical disaster not the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Why would you defer to Putin?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2010, 10:50:06 AM
Totally agree, in all deference to Putin it was the collapse of A-H that was the 20th century's greatest geopolitical disaster not the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I think I would more generally say it was the Treaty of Versailles (which is of course related to the collapse of Austria-Hungary).
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
I think I would more generally say it was the Treaty of Versailles (which is of course related to the collapse of Austria-Hungary).
I would more generally say it was the 14 points of Wilson.
The Treaty had to do with Germany. Separate treaties were made with the other Central Powers.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2010, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
I think I would more generally say it was the Treaty of Versailles (which is of course related to the collapse of Austria-Hungary).
I would more generally say it was the 14 points of Wilson.
The Treaty had to do with Germany. Separate treaties were made with the other Central Powers.
I would say that it was the failure of Britain and France to stay with the Fourteen Points once they had achieved their purpose. Had the post war peace treaties been based on the Fourteen points, as the British and French promised they would be, a lot of the postwar problems might have been averted.
The breakup of the AH Empire was a disaster for Hungary, but could not have been averted. There is no polishing a turd.
And who cares if there is a disaster for Hungary? It's like a Chinese mine disaster.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 12:57:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2010, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
I think I would more generally say it was the Treaty of Versailles (which is of course related to the collapse of Austria-Hungary).
I would more generally say it was the 14 points of Wilson.
The Treaty had to do with Germany. Separate treaties were made with the other Central Powers.
I would say that it was the failure of Britain and France to stay with the Fourteen Points once they had achieved their purpose. Had the post war peace treaties been based on the Fourteen points, as the British and French promised they would be, a lot of the postwar problems might have been averted.
The breakup of the AH Empire was a disaster for Hungary, but could not have been averted. There is no polishing a turd.
True, but if it had happened in some other manner than as a result of having been on the losing side of a World War, the territiorial settlements might not have been as bad for Hungary as the historical result.
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 12:57:23 PM
I would say that it was the failure of Britain and France to stay with the Fourteen Points once they had achieved their purpose. Had the post war peace treaties been based on the Fourteen points, as the British and French promised they would be, a lot of the postwar problems might have been averted.
Not really. The Fourteen points were disastrous.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 12:57:23 PM
I would say that it was the failure of Britain and France to stay with the Fourteen Points once they had achieved their purpose. Had the post war peace treaties been based on the Fourteen points, as the British and French promised they would be, a lot of the postwar problems might have been averted.
Not really. The Fourteen points were disastrous.
How would you know, your people were barely even represented in the war back then, what with something like 7 million people or so. :D
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 09, 2010, 07:43:14 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2010, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 09, 2010, 12:57:23 PM
I would say that it was the failure of Britain and France to stay with the Fourteen Points once they had achieved their purpose. Had the post war peace treaties been based on the Fourteen points, as the British and French promised they would be, a lot of the postwar problems might have been averted.
Not really. The Fourteen points were disastrous.
How would you know, your people were barely even represented in the war back then, what with something like 7 million people or so. :D
Canadians won the war for the Allies.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 09, 2010, 07:43:14 PM
How would you know, your people were barely even represented in the war back then, what with something like 7 million people or so. :D
No he is right. I mean the British and the French made plenty of idiotic mistakes but Wilson effectively fucked everything up. How dare he stand up and declare openly specific promises to redraw the map of Europe without consulting his allies along with ridiculous vague notions of international free trade and slashed military budgets as war aims.
Yep.
Altough I think I must give some credit to the Americans. I read the reports of the US officer in the allied council overseeing Hungary during Budapest's Romanian occupation, and he certainly saw the rampant nation-wide pillaging the barbarian ROMAnians performed on an industrial level. He was actually quite strongly outlying his disgust and distrust of the Romanian officers. And I have doubts that France had any grand plans except for beefing up their pet Romania as much as possible.
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2010, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2010, 10:50:06 AM
Totally agree, in all deference to Putin it was the collapse of A-H that was the 20th century's greatest geopolitical disaster not the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I think I would more generally say it was the Treaty of Versailles (which is of course related to the collapse of Austria-Hungary).
Paris 1919 is a great book describing in great detail how the British and French really screwed things up. The American points could have worked if:
a) As, Grumbler pointed out they actually stuck to the game plan; and
b) If they had stuck to it, they had some idea going into the talks what they were doing, rather then being influenced by whatever delegations were able to make it to Paris from the areas where new borders and nations were being created.
If, with hindsight, we could go back and redo one historical event this would have to rank near the top of the list.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2010, 11:17:50 PM
Paris 1919 is a great book describing in great detail how the British and French really screwed things up. The American points could have worked if:
a) As, Grumbler pointed out they actually stuck to the game plan; and
b) If they had stuck to it, they had some idea going into the talks what they were doing, rather then being influenced by whatever delegations were able to make it to Paris from the areas where new borders and nations were being created.
If, with hindsight, we could go back and redo one historical event this would have to rank near the top of the list.
As an aside... I was impressed when I read in Paris 1919 that Ho Chi Minh was working as a dishwasher in Paris at the time of the Treaty conference and he submitted a petition to the great powers involved for the recognition of an independent Vietnam.
Quote from: PRC on April 11, 2010, 12:36:52 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2010, 11:17:50 PM
Paris 1919 is a great book describing in great detail how the British and French really screwed things up. The American points could have worked if:
a) As, Grumbler pointed out they actually stuck to the game plan; and
b) If they had stuck to it, they had some idea going into the talks what they were doing, rather then being influenced by whatever delegations were able to make it to Paris from the areas where new borders and nations were being created.
If, with hindsight, we could go back and redo one historical event this would have to rank near the top of the list.
As an aside... I was impressed when I read in Paris 1919 that Ho Chi Minh was working as a dishwasher in Paris at the time of the Treaty conference and he submitted a petition to the great powers involved for the recognition of an independent Vietnam.
I'm not sure about the "working as a dishwasher" part, but he was in Paris, and tried to get Vietnam (and other colonial areas) some representation/consideration at the peace talks. Wilson would have none of it--he was all for self-determination, but only for white people.
More like he could not anger his french allies more than he already was.
Quote from: Lettow77 on April 11, 2010, 11:31:20 PM
More like he could not anger his french allies more than he already was.
Yeah right. Wilson had nothing but contempt for non-whites. France could have fought for the Central Powers, kicked his dog and slept with his wife, and he'd still be against an independent Vietnam.
Skimmed the forum a bit more deeply and came up with this little gem :
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10407419&postcount=96
QuoteFor Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.
#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.
My optimism is starting to get the better of me.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 13, 2010, 12:14:15 AM
Skimmed the forum a bit more deeply and came up with this little gem :
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10407419&postcount=96
QuoteFor Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.
#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.
My optimism is starting to get the better of me.
Indeed. Rein it in moonbeam.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471299
QuoteThe last thing that National focus is used for is colonisation. You can set a national focus marker in an uncolonised state and start to claim it. The control amount slowly ticks up by a random amount, so just because you are first in a state doesn't mean that someone else might get lucky and beat you. If you want to increase your chances of claiming a state you can send in troops, the presence of troops in a state will increase the amount your claim ticks up by. This might just give you the edge to beat some who already has a placed a claim in front of you. What happens if they too send troops? In this situation countries who are both claiming a colony can fight each other inside the state. This allows Fashoda style skirmishes without needing the whole messy colonial war mechanic. Now you can skirmish with allies and friends for colonies without having to burn all your bridges and go fight a war.
:)
Settle down Habs. Version 1.0 will be crap and you know it.
Of course it will. But 1.1 or 1.2 might prove fun.
If not, I'll just go back to EU 3 and stay away from Paradox releases until each game has ~2 expansions out. It's not like I buy many PC games these days, anyway.
I will wait for you to give us a full report.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 14, 2010, 05:38:22 PM
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471299
QuoteThe last thing that National focus is used for is colonisation. You can set a national focus marker in an uncolonised state and start to claim it. The control amount slowly ticks up by a random amount, so just because you are first in a state doesn't mean that someone else might get lucky and beat you. If you want to increase your chances of claiming a state you can send in troops, the presence of troops in a state will increase the amount your claim ticks up by. This might just give you the edge to beat some who already has a placed a claim in front of you. What happens if they too send troops? In this situation countries who are both claiming a colony can fight each other inside the state. This allows Fashoda style skirmishes without needing the whole messy colonial war mechanic. Now you can skirmish with allies and friends for colonies without having to burn all your bridges and go fight a war.
:)
That does sound cool. :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 14, 2010, 05:39:27 PM
Settle down Habs. Version 1.0 will be crap and you know it.
There seems to be a change of focus from King for Vic2. For example, they'll stop relying on
uselessly unproductive slave workers who just want to have the game free voluntary beta-testers to rely on internal QA teams instead.
We'll see how good it goes.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2010, 10:28:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 14, 2010, 05:39:27 PM
Settle down Habs. Version 1.0 will be crap and you know it.
There seems to be a change of focus from King for Vic2. For example, they'll stop relying on uselessly unproductive slave workers who just want to have the game free voluntary beta-testers to rely on internal QA teams instead.
We'll see how good it goes.
Yeah, I wonder who will do all the POPs research, or if they'll just re-use the data the betas collected/coded in mindnumbing monotony for Vic1.
Quote from: Syt on April 15, 2010, 10:30:22 AM
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2010, 10:28:33 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 14, 2010, 05:39:27 PM
Settle down Habs. Version 1.0 will be crap and you know it.
There seems to be a change of focus from King for Vic2. For example, they'll stop relying on uselessly unproductive slave workers who just want to have the game free voluntary beta-testers to rely on internal QA teams instead.
We'll see how good it goes.
Yeah, I wonder who will do all the POPs research, or if they'll just re-use the data the betas collected/coded in mindnumbing monotony for Vic1.
It seems to be a combination of reusing what they have and borrowing stuff from the VIP mod. They are also using the old POP graphics to save some time/money.
More small minorities would be nice.
As long as of course we don't treat '100 Armenian farmers' exactly the same as '40000 Italian farmers'.
And if they even think of splitting British pops up as some mods did.....
Quote from: Tyr on April 15, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
More small minorities would be nice.
As long as of course we don't treat '100 Armenian farmers' exactly the same as '40000 Italian farmers'.
Though, incidentally, the combined total nose length of the different groups is about equal.
This is looking really good, though I do hope there is some model of colonization. I WANT TO RUSSIFY BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SAMARKHAND, DAMN IT!
Just finished reading all the Dev Journals. Dairy factoring the the fuck out right now. :)
lol can i be; tsarist virgin lands?
I knew Overreactus would be with me. :)
If we get a Languish game going, I'm taking Italy.
Hey Jaron, when are you going to write your review for Victoria 2?
Just before it comes out.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 15, 2010, 07:13:59 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 15, 2010, 11:49:51 AM
More small minorities would be nice.
As long as of course we don't treat '100 Armenian farmers' exactly the same as '40000 Italian farmers'.
Though, incidentally, the combined total nose length of the different groups is about equal.
This is looking really good, though I do hope there is some model of colonization. I WANT TO RUSSIFY BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SAMARKHAND, DAMN IT!
I just used those two for examples.
It always sucked how a small group of 100 fit the same slot as a huge group. And if they were a minority they would just stay there without vanishing.
And that would be nice. You should be able to fund big advertising campaigns in the home country to encourage emigration to certain colonies. And of course arrange (via spending money) for the deportation of criminals to certain colonies. Or if you're teh ev0l outright deportation of folks (costly of course). And that sort of thing.
There should be more cool little things you can do at home rather than just factories, railways and a few political and social reforms.
Quote from: Drakken on April 15, 2010, 10:28:33 AM
they'll stop relying on uselessly unproductive slave workers who just want to have the game free voluntary beta-testers to rely on internal QA teams instead.
They should be utilizing both, actually.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 15, 2010, 08:57:53 PM
Just finished reading all the Dev Journals. Dairy factoring the the fuck out right now. :)
lol can i be; tsarist virgin lands?
Tainted.
What did I ever do to deserve tainting things? Besides my esoteric interests I thought it was generally established that I had good taste in music, TV, novels and movies.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 16, 2010, 03:27:29 PM
What did I ever do to deserve tainting things? Besides my esoteric interests I thought it was generally established that I had good taste in music, TV, novels and movies.
Don't you go crazy over anything by a Russian?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 16, 2010, 03:27:29 PM
What did I ever do to deserve tainting things? Besides my esoteric interests I thought it was generally established that I had good taste in music, TV, novels and movies.
I generally don't believe in, or make reference to, "tainting", so I have nothing to say on that front.
But no, you're widely accepted to have bizarre taste. Not good.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 16, 2010, 03:27:29 PM
What did I ever do to deserve tainting things? Besides my esoteric interests I thought it was generally established that I had good taste in music, TV, novels and movies.
Dude, relax, it's a natural forum reaction to anyone who goes apeshit over something a la Tim. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 16, 2010, 05:44:39 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 16, 2010, 03:27:29 PM
What did I ever do to deserve tainting things? Besides my esoteric interests I thought it was generally established that I had good taste in music, TV, novels and movies.
Dude, relax, it's a natural forum reaction to anyone who goes apeshit over something a la Tim. :)
Fair enough.
Quote
But no, you're widely accepted to have bizarre taste. Not good.
:rolleyes:
I'm just passionate about some esoteric things. My taste in movies isn't that different from Sheilbh's, and my taste in music is fairly standard for a hipster-leaning student of my age.
Is this the only game paradox is working on? The last games in their series are HOI3, EU3, Victoria 2 (in progress) and CK1? And those are all their series?
Their forum is cluttered with a bunch of games other people are developing, making it hard to figure this out.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 02:30:29 PM
Is this the only game paradox is working on? The last games in their series are HOI3, EU3, Victoria 2 (in progress) and CK1? And those are all their series?
Their forum is cluttered with a bunch of games other people are developing, making it hard to figure this out.
Vic II and the latest HOI3 expansion.
That they've announced at least.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 02:30:29 PM
The last games in their series are HOI3, EU3, Victoria 2 (in progress) and CK1? And those are all their series?
Also EU:Rome.
...and, from the dead pile, Diplomacy and Svea Rike (Crown of the North, Two Thrones).
Quote from: ulmont on April 19, 2010, 02:34:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 02:30:29 PM
The last games in their series are HOI3, EU3, Victoria 2 (in progress) and CK1? And those are all their series?
Also EU:Rome.
...and, from the dead pile, Diplomacy and Svea Rike (Crown of the North, Two Thrones).
Is EU:Rome a new game, or just a mod from EU?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 02:47:39 PM
Is EU:Rome a new game, or just a mod from EU?
It's a new game, based on the EU3 engine. It isn't all that great, even with its one expansion.
It's not reasonable to expect a Paradox game to be good after only one expansion, though.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2010, 03:25:03 PM
It's not reasonable to expect a Paradox game to be good after only one expansion, though.
CK is. :ph34r:
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
Blame the Russians.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
EU:Rome actually has some of the ideas a new CK would need - traits, loyalty, etc.
Quote from: ulmont on April 19, 2010, 03:48:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
EU:Rome actually has some of the ideas a new CK would need - traits, loyalty, etc.
The worst part about CK was that it became a breeding program.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
The worst part about CK was that it became a breeding program.
That disappeared with the expansion.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2010, 04:01:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
The worst part about CK was that it became a breeding program.
That disappeared with the expansion.
That's good to hear--how did they accomplish that?
Children stats develop over time and are not linked to parental stats.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2010, 04:18:08 PM
Children stats develop over time and are not linked to parental stats.
So you frequently end up with really crappy rulers?
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: ulmont on April 19, 2010, 03:48:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
EU:Rome actually has some of the ideas a new CK would need - traits, loyalty, etc.
The worst part about CK was that it became a breeding program.
That was one of the more entertaining aspects of the game. I became much more interested in breeding a super-heir than I was about trying to arrange advantageous matches in terms of inheritance...
Not sure if a CK2 would ever see the light of day. Apparently CK did not sell well. On the other hand though, it's not as if Vicky sold well either...
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 04:27:31 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: ulmont on April 19, 2010, 03:48:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
EU:Rome actually has some of the ideas a new CK would need - traits, loyalty, etc.
The worst part about CK was that it became a breeding program.
That was one of the more entertaining aspects of the game. I became much more interested in breeding a super-heir than I was about trying to arrange advantageous matches in terms of inheritance...
Not sure if a CK2 would ever see the light of day. Apparently CK did not sell well. On the other hand though, it's not as if Vicky sold well either...
Johan posted once that Vicky sold worse than CK.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 04:20:01 PM
So you frequently end up with really crappy rulers?
You can if you don't meddle (assassinations, changing succession laws...).
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: ulmont on April 19, 2010, 03:48:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Are they ever going to make a new CK? That was a great game idea, not so well executed.
EU:Rome actually has some of the ideas a new CK would need - traits, loyalty, etc.
The worst part about CK was that it became a breeding program.
Which is why I only played early versions of the game while listening to the soundtrack to David Lynch's dune. Still don't know what the Armenian for Kwisatz Haderach is, though.
The breeding in CK was dumb, it should have been far more about politics than just stats. Nurture over nature FTW.
What little I played of Rome I never bothered with the people management aspect too much that I can remember other than throwing in the governers and generals with the hightest stats. And hoping more of them would appear.
QuoteThe last thing that National focus is used for is colonisation. You can set a national focus marker in an uncolonised state and start to claim it. The control amount slowly ticks up by a random amount, so just because you are first in a state doesn't mean that someone else might get lucky and beat you. If you want to increase your chances of claiming a state you can send in troops, the presence of troops in a state will increase the amount your claim ticks up by. This might just give you the edge to beat some who already has a placed a claim in front of you. What happens if they too send troops? In this situation countries who are both claiming a colony can fight each other inside the state. This allows Fashoda style skirmishes without needing the whole messy colonial war mechanic. Now you can skirmish with allies and friends for colonies without having to burn all your bridges and go fight a war.
Sounds interesting but I'm not too sure about the random ticking...
So Belgium could roll a bunch of 6s whilst Britain keeps getting 1s and end up taking over the one non-British state in India?
Something I'd like to see implimented is better recording of where stuff on the world market comes from.
If you're America and you go to war with Britain its dumb that you can still buy all the goods that Britain sells.
Who you trade with should also contribute to making better relations- or at the least less likelyhood of mucking up relations.
QuoteConservative: I am happy with the Status Quo
Reactionary: This government has failed to defend the Status Quo
Liberal: I want political reform
Anarcho-Liberal: This government will not give us political reform
Socialist: I want social reform
Communist: This government will not give us social reform
Fascist: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.
LOL, their ideologies are fun.
Quote from: garbon on April 20, 2010, 01:01:00 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 04:20:01 PM
So you frequently end up with really crappy rulers?
You can if you don't meddle (assassinations, changing succession laws...).
Yeah, but the stats of the parents and the advisors in the court do impact how the childrens' stats improve through education, so normally, you'll get decent rulers.
Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 08:40:28 AM
The breeding in CK was dumb, it should have been far more about politics than just stats. Nurture over nature FTW.
What little I played of Rome I never bothered with the people management aspect too much that I can remember other than throwing in the governers and generals with the hightest stats. And hoping more of them would appear.
QuoteThe last thing that National focus is used for is colonisation. You can set a national focus marker in an uncolonised state and start to claim it. The control amount slowly ticks up by a random amount, so just because you are first in a state doesn't mean that someone else might get lucky and beat you. If you want to increase your chances of claiming a state you can send in troops, the presence of troops in a state will increase the amount your claim ticks up by. This might just give you the edge to beat some who already has a placed a claim in front of you. What happens if they too send troops? In this situation countries who are both claiming a colony can fight each other inside the state. This allows Fashoda style skirmishes without needing the whole messy colonial war mechanic. Now you can skirmish with allies and friends for colonies without having to burn all your bridges and go fight a war.
Sounds interesting but I'm not too sure about the random ticking...
So Belgium could roll a bunch of 6s whilst Britain keeps getting 1s and end up taking over the one non-British state in India?
Something I'd like to see implimented is better recording of where stuff on the world market comes from.
If you're America and you go to war with Britain its dumb that you can still buy all the goods that Britain sells.
Who you trade with should also contribute to making better relations- or at the least less likelyhood of mucking up relations.
QuoteConservative: I am happy with the Status Quo
Reactionary: This government has failed to defend the Status Quo
Liberal: I want political reform
Anarcho-Liberal: This government will not give us political reform
Socialist: I want social reform
Communist: This government will not give us social reform
Fascist: I am angry about something but find it difficult to articulate exactly what it is.
LOL, their ideologies are fun.
Given the social/political reform paradigm they're working under, I think they're pretty spot on with the exception of Fascism. Fascism doesn't really fit in their social/political reform paradigm, but they still could have labeled it correctly.
Facism : a political doctrine whereby the prettiest rule supreme.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 21, 2010, 11:44:37 PM
Facism : a political doctrine whereby the prettiest rule supreme.
Fixed :blush:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 11:18:01 PM
Given the social/political reform paradigm they're working under, I think they're pretty spot on with the exception of Fascism. Fascism doesn't really fit in their social/political reform paradigm, but they still could have labeled it correctly.
They're OK for a simplfied game yeah, fascism makes me giggle though.
But from what they write further on this apparently liberals oppose social reform and only want political whilst socialists are said to be the opposite of liberals and want social reform but not political.
Sounds...dodgy to me. Liberals were huge on social reform too.
And socialists too were huge on voting rights- what with having their voters turn out being the factor in whether they won or not.
Quote from: Tyr on April 23, 2010, 05:23:34 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 11:18:01 PM
Given the social/political reform paradigm they're working under, I think they're pretty spot on with the exception of Fascism. Fascism doesn't really fit in their social/political reform paradigm, but they still could have labeled it correctly.
They're OK for a simplfied game yeah, fascism makes me giggle though.
But from what they write further on this apparently liberals oppose social reform and only want political whilst socialists are said to be the opposite of liberals and want social reform but not political.
Sounds...dodgy to me. Liberals were huge on social reform too.
And socialists too were huge on voting rights- what with having their voters turn out being the factor in whether they won or not.
Liberals won't oppose social reform, they just don't seek to expand it. Not unless there is a high militancy and they fear a revolution. Same thing with the Socialists, only reversed.
Anarcho-liberals and Communists on the other hand will try to roll back social and political rights. Might not make perfect sense but I think it's a pretty nifty piece of gameplay mechanic.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 14, 2010, 05:38:22 PM
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471299
QuoteThe last thing that National focus is used for is colonisation. You can set a national focus marker in an uncolonised state and start to claim it. The control amount slowly ticks up by a random amount, so just because you are first in a state doesn't mean that someone else might get lucky and beat you. If you want to increase your chances of claiming a state you can send in troops, the presence of troops in a state will increase the amount your claim ticks up by. This might just give you the edge to beat some who already has a placed a claim in front of you. What happens if they too send troops? In this situation countries who are both claiming a colony can fight each other inside the state. This allows Fashoda style skirmishes without needing the whole messy colonial war mechanic. Now you can skirmish with allies and friends for colonies without having to burn all your bridges and go fight a war.
:)
Now, if they can just have a mechanic for splitting colonies up or combining them, the system will be almost identical to that used in
Thunder at Twilight. :cool:
[NEW POST]
The big modders are claiming the latest beta patch release fixed up the basic pricing issues that had plagued prior releases. There are still other outstanding issues and problems but I am inclined to give the game another run if I can find the time to squeeze it in.
I'm not touching it until this fixes the hyperindustrialization of English-speaking India.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 23, 2011, 04:46:22 PM
[NEW POST]
The big modders are claiming the latest beta patch release fixed up the basic pricing issues that had plagued prior releases. There are still other outstanding issues and problems but I am inclined to give the game another run if I can find the time to squeeze it in.
Sweet
I gave the game another shot for a short while. Some things definitely improved; you don't seem to get those massive Anarcho-Liberal rebellions anymore, or at least not up until 1905 which is when I stopped. However, other things are still a game-breaking mess.
Britain is still an unrealistic military beast. Just like in prior games, you can beat it in Canada for some time, but after a certain point, its military machine hits the NOS button, and suddenly they're fielding more units than everyone else in the world combined.
I also discovered another amusing bug: as Brazil, I loaded up to the max on my stockpile on every single good, or at least on as much as was available. Then I checked the box that allowed factories and POPs to buy those goods. I did it out of boredom, since I know that checking that box exposes you to all sorts of weird things. The weird thing that actually happened was my treasury going from having 100K in the bank to having 485M in the bank in a matter of years, and my citizens had more needs satisfied as well. I may have stumbled upon some really productive economic theory.
Too bad it's still so messed up. I like the Vicky games, the economic parts especially.
So there's no longer the insane amount of rebel whacking?
What is the latest patch anyway? Might have to have another go, been fancying a bit of strategy gaming and there's nought new in the world.
Quote from: Tyr on April 04, 2011, 11:37:17 AM
So there's no longer the insane amount of rebel whacking?
What is the latest patch anyway? Might have to have another go, been fancying a bit of strategy gaming and there's nought new in the world.
No, not in my experience. Of course, if you ever run afoul of Great Britain after about 1890, you'll be pining for those Anarcho-Liberal rebels.
So I tried the beta patch....
major bug introduced: The world is now flat.
You can't send a ship over the pacific, has to go around the world to get from australia to canada, it just gets stuck if you try and step it there bit by bit.
Woops.
Quote from: Tyr on April 04, 2011, 12:52:08 PM
So I tried the beta patch....
major bug introduced: The world is now flat.
You can't send a ship over the pacific, has to go around the world to get from australia to canada, it just gets stuck if you try and step it there bit by bit.
Woops.
Could be a map cache problem. Try deleting it and start again.
What do I delete? Everything in the map/cache folder?
Quote from: Tyr on April 04, 2011, 01:33:10 PM
What do I delete? Everything in the map/cache folder?
That's how it worked in EU3. Give it a try, and we'll find out if that's how it works in Vicky 2.
Aha.
Tried that and started a new game and still the world stops in the mid pacific.
Bizzare.
I think I had the same problem in EU3 and got it to work by first moving the fleet next to the divide line, then clicking on an adjacent sea zone across it, and then moving the rest of the way. I.e. the fleet only crosses the line when it's immediately next to it.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 04, 2011, 03:48:31 PM
I think I had the same problem in EU3 and got it to work by first moving the fleet next to the divide line, then clicking on an adjacent sea zone across it, and then moving the rest of the way. I.e. the fleet only crosses the line when it's immediately next to it.
Yeah, am kind of getting it to work like that, trouble is the fleet took so long to cross the border it ended up sinking. The route to cross the divide isn't straight, it sort of loops back on itself then goes over. Really weird, never seen it before.
Got it working, downloaded another version of the beta patch. Seems there are like 5 or 6 of them.
March 29th is currently the newest beta patch.
I always wondered if one day they will make a Paradox game on a Globe rather then a contorted cylinder.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
I always wondered if one day they will make a Paradox game on a Globe rather then a contorted cylinder.
I certainly hope not. It is a dreadful idea.
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 06:20:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
I always wondered if one day they will make a Paradox game on a Globe rather then a contorted cylinder.
I certainly hope not. It is a dreadful idea.
Why's that in your view?
I can see ways it could be done well...but also ways it could be done badly.
And now it seems to crash everytime the nationalism and imperialism event pops up :frusty:
And its lost all my saved games from today. Just wtf. :ultra:
I think I'm going to drop this one again...
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 06:20:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
I always wondered if one day they will make a Paradox game on a Globe rather then a contorted cylinder.
I certainly hope not. It is a dreadful idea.
I don't know about dreadful - as someone with a particular interest in the north I have certainly noticed how badly distorted northern areas are in Paradox games.
That being said putting the game on a proper globe seems like it would add needless complexity to the code with only marginal gameplay benefits.
It would make ICBMs in HOI more realistic.
Quote from: Tyr on April 06, 2011, 07:29:54 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 06:20:08 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
I always wondered if one day they will make a Paradox game on a Globe rather then a contorted cylinder.
I certainly hope not. It is a dreadful idea.
Why's that in your view?
I can see ways it could be done well...but also ways it could be done badly.
It's Paradox. Which is more likely--done well or done badly? I think that we all know the answer to that one.
Any decent mods for this?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 08, 2011, 07:26:50 AM
Any decent mods for this?
No.
As I have told repeatedly here, all major mods have been trying to introduce more complexity in the name of "realism", utterly failing to realize that the whole problem with the game is that it has crumbled under its own complexity.
Quote from: dps on April 07, 2011, 10:05:40 PM
It's Paradox. Which is more likely--done well or done badly? I think that we all know the answer to that one.
I dunno, they mess up a lot of things but they usually seem to do pretty OK with usability.
Has anyone tried the new patch? How is it?
Quote from: Threviel on April 15, 2011, 08:06:03 AM
Has anyone tried the new patch? How is it?
I heard a rumor Soldier Pops were still borked. I have no idea what was wrong with them before.
The problem is when the colonies become saturated with pops, and all the RGO slots are filled. Since you can't build factories, all the surplus population goes to the nearest recruitment center. GB and France get an insane military score from that by the time 1900 or so rolls around.
Also, they could use more dreadnoughts.
I feel clever for not buying this game.
I really want to play this game, but in its current state I'd just end up disappointed. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2011, 08:17:34 PM
I feel clever for not buying this game.
I wish I was clever. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2011, 08:17:34 PM
I feel clever for not buying this game.
I would have felt clever if I had quit buying games from Paradox before Rome came out.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 16, 2011, 06:43:24 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 15, 2011, 08:17:34 PM
I feel clever for not buying this game.
I wish I was clever. :(
Didn't say I was clever, just felt that way. :P
Quote from: Tyr on April 06, 2011, 08:52:25 AM
And now it seems to crash everytime the nationalism and imperialism event pops up :frusty:
And its lost all my saved games from today. Just wtf. :ultra:
I think I'm going to drop this one again...
I had the same problem but I got past it... eventually. Maybe it depends on who gets it first?
I think the best thing about this patch so far is that soldier pops deplete sufficiently. So, when an army is wiped out, it doesn't come back. Despite the UK having 600 brigades in the 1870's, they don't manage to land all of them in north america.
When my regiments go red and they don't have much experience I just disband them.
I'd say the latest beta patch makes the game infinitely more playable than it was out of the box. I still think that there are many issues that need to be fixed or touched up, but it's a good start.
Woohoo! I get to wait until 1.4.
Quote from: DGuller on April 17, 2011, 12:25:08 PM
I'd say the latest beta patch makes the game infinitely more playable than it was out of the box. I still think that there are many issues that need to be fixed or touched up, but it's a good start.
It's probably not ideal to finally get to "good start" nearly a year after the actual release of the game, and maybe two or three since design actually began on it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 17, 2011, 12:25:08 PM
I'd say the latest beta patch makes the game infinitely more playable than it was out of the box. I still think that there are many issues that need to be fixed or touched up, but it's a good start.
so the beta starts now, got it :)
Yeah, sort of. The unfortunate reality is that Vicky 2 is far too complex for Paradox to get right, they simply don't have the talent pool necessary to properly code a game with a design like that. I don't think they'll ever manage to polish that turd sufficiently.
Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2011, 04:05:05 PM
Yeah, sort of. The unfortunate reality is that Vicky 2 is far too complex for Paradox to get right, they simply don't have the talent pool necessary to properly code a game with a design like that. I don't think they'll ever manage to polish that turd sufficiently.
I believe that was the problem with the first one.
Sad :( It's such a great concept, too. If only a real company would make it.
Ultimately, even with the best programmers, I'm afraid the concept of Victoria is not very workable. The reason is that economy is the engine of Vicky, and you can't really simulate world economy anywhere near properly without transportation costs.
I think we're at least a decade away before we have processing power to even attempt to do that. Without transportation costs, and everything else done very well, you would have an utterly ridiculous level of specialization that just isn't feasible even today.
Yeah, creating an essentially modern economy simulator is not exactly easy.
Quote from: DGuller on April 22, 2011, 08:28:29 PM
Ultimately, even with the best programmers, I'm afraid the concept of Victoria is not very workable. The reason is that economy is the engine of Vicky, and you can't really simulate world economy anywhere near properly without transportation costs.
I think we're at least a decade away before we have processing power to even attempt to do that. Without transportation costs, and everything else done very well, you would have an utterly ridiculous level of specialization that just isn't feasible even today.
Von Thünen would like to molest you.
I'm trying to think of a more productive activity for a land based european power than taking out the dutch with a "place in the sun" for the colonial province of java, but I can't think of any.
I remember reading an article a few months ago about some folks at a university somewhere actually setting out to make a 'everything simulator' which would try and model the world, its economy and all sorts of other things.
___
It annoys me that small provinces count just as much as big ones for badboy.
Portugal kept going to war with me as UK (well...Morocco. My Morocco) and I took most of their empire...except Goa and Macau. As little one province things it wasn't worthwhile.
Quote from: Tyr on April 25, 2011, 06:35:25 PM
I remember reading an article a few months ago about some folks at a university somewhere actually setting out to make a 'everything simulator' which would try and model the world, its economy and all sorts of other things.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2223
Hey, 1.3 is out....hmm....might give Russia a spin.
So how is the game now?
And how are the mods? Particularly the ones that just add to/fix the GC.
I reinstalled Victoria: Revolutions with VIP, and I'm remembering why I stopped playing. :(
I need my 19th century fix.
It's playable, sort of. Still plenty of stuff that needs to be unfucked, though.
I never tried the mods that try to fix Vicky 2. Are there any good ones, or do they focus on making sure that all 74 Balkan ethnicities are represented?
They started out as the former, but since the economy is hard mostly seem to have become the latter.
I recommend my own mod :D
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Blut_und_Eisen/index.php?showtopic=385
Quote from: Gaius Marius on May 19, 2011, 11:11:51 PM
I recommend my own mod :D
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Blut_und_Eisen/index.php?showtopic=385
Any special features?
Quote from: Viking on May 20, 2011, 04:42:27 AM
Quote from: Gaius Marius on May 19, 2011, 11:11:51 PM
I recommend my own mod :D
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Blut_und_Eisen/index.php?showtopic=385
Any special features?
Hmm, special features eh. Well, there probably isn't much i've done that isn't done in some fashion in some other mods.
- I have some MP-oriented wargoals that no other mod or patch has (including one to simulate land transfers)
- I also have a literacy goal for China to achieve to civilize which I believe is unique amongst mods
I'm sort of a half-way point between PDM which totally rewrites the game and puts the economy/events system into overdrive, and vanilla which is largely balanced for SP and still needs some love. Mine is more or less MP-oriented, which means higher costs, a bit less gap between the Great and Minor nations, a tech tree that spreads out the rewards, Ironclads that can actually function as PDNs in terms of power when the invention comes about, a nerfing of those soldier bloats and early population explosions, and an end to those situations where you wait years to build up any clergy. We have situations in vanilla where you had to lose your bureaucrats to get your clergy, or clerks to get your craftsmen up. I ended some of the illogical patterns. Russian and Austrian industrial score booms less early because promo and demo at lower literacy got nerfed, and with 1.4b changing the calculations, hopefully French and Turkish industrial score will boom less from those spammed luxury factories.
Any attempt at identifying bottlenecks in industrial production (lumber, regular cloths etc.) and any attempt to stop LF from de-industrializing countries?
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2011, 08:26:04 AM
Any attempt at identifying bottlenecks in industrial production (lumber, regular cloths etc.) and any attempt to stop LF from de-industrializing countries?
When I parceled out good production increases to more than just the power and production techs, I have to tried to correct any major issues encountered with demand (except for arms, those simply take time to self-correct on the market i'm afraid until Paradox does further optimizing for artisan and capi production choices. I also correct anytime 'lockup' appears for a good (where supply supposedly meets demand, yet all but the top 2 prestige powers can't get it). I can always use more testers to report more of these issues and when in the game they occur.
I have a visceral hate for the LF capitalists that insist on shutting down all my steamer factories when I have 200 ships queued up because they lack machine parts, also, they shut down my machine parts factories because they lack steel, also, they shut down my steel factories because I can't buy iron on the world market, nor steel nor steamers.... meh...
I'll try your mod, does it work with 1.4?
obviously a MP mod, SP wise I just have eternal wars. To force anything short of minor concession you need to destroy the other country's economy.
It might be useful for MP, useless for SP.
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 09:33:04 AM
I have a visceral hate for the LF capitalists that insist on shutting down all my steamer factories when I have 200 ships queued up because they lack machine parts, also, they shut down my machine parts factories because they lack steel, also, they shut down my steel factories because I can't buy iron on the world market, nor steel nor steamers.... meh...
I'll try your mod, does it work with 1.4?
It should operate just as well or better overtop of 1.4b as it does over 1.3. I know what you mean about the frustrating nature of L-F; though the worse part is when you've built up a multilevel factory with interventionism or state capitalism, and the effect of closing is to return it to level 1.
Sadly, there isn't much that can be done for the AI. It should make tech choices more in line with whats good in the mod, but otherwise its still stupid as shit with budgetting, wars, and diplomacy. Function of AI scripting being largely hardcoded.
Is this worth reinstalling yet?
For all its flaws, it does seem to have an addictive quality to it. Try it out and see for yourself.
Try the PoN demo instead. I want to get a PBEM going soon after release.
Actually, I just tried 1.4 with the Pop demand mod, and it's... playable. It's fun, too; I was able to unite much of India as the Punjab, and I played until I got sikh of it.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 07, 2011, 08:02:12 AM
Actually, I just tried 1.4 with the Pop demand mod, and it's... playable. It's fun, too; I was able to unite much of India as the Punjab, and I played until I got sikh of it.
Did it send a shiva down your spine?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2011, 09:55:46 AM
Did it send a shiva down your spine?
Pff. My one criticism is that none of the mods stop players from falling further and further behind in tech if they're a backwards nation. Russia wasn't using 1870s weaponry in 1914, which leads to absurd results, if Nehru what I mean.
I guess you really put the pun in Punjab.
Just stop it.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 07, 2011, 01:25:42 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2011, 09:55:46 AM
Did it send a shiva down your spine?
Pff. My one criticism is that none of the mods stop players from falling further and further behind in tech if they're a backwards nation. Russia wasn't using 1870s weaponry in 1914, which leads to absurd results, if Nehru what I mean.
Well, hopefully either Paradox or the modders will eventually get it Raj.
No. Just no.
Oh jeez.
Quote
I'll list a few of the features here:
New starting point in 1861, allowing players to experience the US Civil War from the start.
Manufacture reasons to go to war with other countries, all in the name of the great game of power.
Civilize your country with various new reform paths to ultimately become equal to the western nations.
Invest in building infrastructure and factories in other countries to strengthen their ties to you.
Deeper political system with new national focus options and new types of reforms.
A new system of popular movements that can be appeased or suppressed, but if ignored, will become the revolutionaries of tomorrow.
Improved interface, with more information easily available and improving gameplay.
Let the praise/critique begin!
My response:
QuoteWill this also take about a year to balance? This all sounds fun, but you're adding more complex to a game that's taken dedicated modders to make playable...
Questioning Paradox is trolling, you know.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2011, 10:22:56 AM
Oh jeez.
Quote
I'll list a few of the features here:
New starting point in 1861, allowing players to experience the US Civil War from the start.
Manufacture reasons to go to war with other countries, all in the name of the great game of power.
Civilize your country with various new reform paths to ultimately become equal to the western nations.
Invest in building infrastructure and factories in other countries to strengthen their ties to you.
Deeper political system with new national focus options and new types of reforms.
A new system of popular movements that can be appeased or suppressed, but if ignored, will become the revolutionaries of tomorrow.
Improved interface, with more information easily available and improving gameplay.
Let the praise/critique begin!
My response:
QuoteWill this also take about a year to balance? This all sounds fun, but you're adding more complex to a game that's taken dedicated modders to make playable...
QuoteLess trolling, please. I'm sure mods make things more balanced or more interesting for you, but the game is quite playable without them.
:P lol
:lmfao: Paradox really needs more liberals in the development team to pass some free speech reforms.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 11:27:05 AM
:lmfao: Paradox really needs more liberals in the development team to pass some free speech reforms.
Faeelin is now friendly towards you. Though we're both gonna get banned.
Wow, that was quick. My post has already been deleted. They sure are fast with some things at Paradox, even if making a playable game isn't one of them.
Jaron and FB got nothing on you guys.
And I got an infraction on top of that. I knew the douche was a moderator, but since he didn't use the obnoxious font while saying obnoxious things, I thought he was voicing his opinion as a true believer rather than as a mod. Oh, well, running afoul of that thought police is a badge of honor.
lolz
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 11:53:03 AM
And I got an infraction on top of that. I knew the douche was a moderator, but since he didn't use the obnoxious font while saying obnoxious things, I thought he was voicing his opinion as a true believer rather than as a mod. Oh, well, running afoul of that thought police is a badge of honor.
Oddly, I didn't. :nelson:
It sure makes me nostalgic about the dark times at Paradox that gave rise to Languish. I think my first ban from Paradox was also for comments made in the Vicky forums, although given that BiB was the one trying to explain the reason, I was never quite sure about it.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2011, 12:02:15 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 11:53:03 AM
And I got an infraction on top of that. I knew the douche was a moderator, but since he didn't use the obnoxious font while saying obnoxious things, I thought he was voicing his opinion as a true believer rather than as a mod. Oh, well, running afoul of that thought police is a badge of honor.
Oddly, I didn't. :nelson:
I'm working on a second one. I pointed out privately to Dark whatever that he didn't use the mod font, so I'm sure that the next couple of infraction points are already in the works. Rebel whacking is how they deal with dissent over there.
OHGamer is gonna rape you.
At least he'll have the courtesy of doing that with a special font.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 11:46:34 AM
Wow, that was quick. My post has already been deleted. They sure are fast with some things at Paradox, even if making a playable game isn't one of them.
What was your post?
Quote from: Habbaku on June 08, 2011, 01:10:07 PM
What was your post?
QuoteAlthough perhaps not quite the direction I would have gone in, I'm very excited to see what Paradox has in store for Victoria! Nice work, guys!
QuoteWarning: insufficiently adulatory.
Ah, the Stalinization path.
QuoteReally, that's trolling? Did reactionaries just take control of the mod team and scale back free speech reforms? I think it's very well-known fact that Vicky 2 already has a design far ahead of the Paradox's ability to balance it, and make it work properly over the game's entire time span. I think it's a very valid concern that even more complicated design can make the situation worse. Sorry if critical comments dampen the enthusiasm that this thread is designed to drum up, but censoring the valid concerns is hardly going to help the game.
Apparently that was considered to be "arguing moderator decision".
Too bad this is still so messed up. Vicky was one of my favorite nation/economy building games.
That'll show ya.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 11:53:03 AM
And I got an infraction on top of that. I knew the douche was a moderator, but since he didn't use the obnoxious font while saying obnoxious things, I thought he was voicing his opinion as a true believer rather than as a mod. Oh, well, running afoul of that thought police is a badge of honor.
Watch out or that mod will make you Gandhi.
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 01:23:21 PM
QuoteReally, that's trolling? Did reactionaries just take control of the mod team and scale back free speech reforms? I think it's very well-known fact that Vicky 2 already has a design far ahead of the Paradox's ability to balance it, and make it work properly over the game's entire time span. I think it's a very valid concern that even more complicated design can make the situation worse. Sorry if critical comments dampen the enthusiasm that this thread is designed to drum up, but censoring the valid concerns is hardly going to help the game.
Apparently that was considered to be "arguing moderator decision".
To be fair any mention of "free speech" when discussing moderation on an internet forum should be grounds for a temp ban in any event.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 01:23:21 PM
QuoteReally, that's trolling? Did reactionaries just take control of the mod team and scale back free speech reforms? I think it's very well-known fact that Vicky 2 already has a design far ahead of the Paradox's ability to balance it, and make it work properly over the game's entire time span. I think it's a very valid concern that even more complicated design can make the situation worse. Sorry if critical comments dampen the enthusiasm that this thread is designed to drum up, but censoring the valid concerns is hardly going to help the game.
Apparently that was considered to be "arguing moderator decision".
To be fair any mention of "free speech" when discussing moderation on an internet forum should be grounds for a temp ban in any event.
He's quite clearly using Victoria terminology to make a crack there, not actually talking about "free speech."
Quote from: Habbaku on June 08, 2011, 04:08:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2011, 03:56:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2011, 01:23:21 PM
QuoteReally, that's trolling? Did reactionaries just take control of the mod team and scale back free speech reforms? I think it's very well-known fact that Vicky 2 already has a design far ahead of the Paradox's ability to balance it, and make it work properly over the game's entire time span. I think it's a very valid concern that even more complicated design can make the situation worse. Sorry if critical comments dampen the enthusiasm that this thread is designed to drum up, but censoring the valid concerns is hardly going to help the game.
Apparently that was considered to be "arguing moderator decision".
To be fair any mention of "free speech" when discussing moderation on an internet forum should be grounds for a temp ban in any event.
He's quite clearly using Victoria terminology to make a crack there, not actually talking about "free speech."
I stand by my point.
So apparently Paradox announced an expansion, focusing on the ACW. Do we celebrate or do we still not give a shit about Vicky2?
Not give a shit.
Does the game even work yet?
Sort of, nothing a few decades of debugging and balancing wouldn't fix.
Victoria 2 always "worked", it was just not balanced in the late game upon release. The latest patches have largely resolved this, but I think a problem with general balance is that there doesn't seem to be country-specific AI behaviour; there is seemingly a one-size-fits-all AI which doesn't always behave as you would hope for the period.
I think the problems are a lot more substantial than that. Goods supply and demand is still not balanced, except by chance. Naval warfare is downright broken. Population still explodes in South American democracies. Peace costs are still ridiculous in the end game. I could go on and on, but the game is not worth my time to do so.
Quote from: DGuller on August 12, 2011, 08:04:06 PM
I think the problems are a lot more substantial than that. Goods supply and demand is still not balanced, except by chance. Naval warfare is downright broken. Population still explodes in South American democracies. Peace costs are still ridiculous in the end game. I could go on and on, but the game is not worth my time to do so.
THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH THIS GAME. VALID CRITICISM OF MY SHITTY DESIGN DECISIONS IS AGAINST PARADOX RULES AND WILL BE HARSHLY PUNISHED. BANNED.
When nationalism is such a burden on the system that they zerg-assimilate it out of the game in about 5 years (WAD), it remains totally fucked up as a simulation o the era.
Ok, for $7 I bought the game anyway. What do I need to know (other than past experience with Victoria and the Revolutions expansion) to not completely fuck the game up?
Quote from: ulmont on January 25, 2012, 11:26:26 PM
Ok, for $7 I bought the game anyway. What do I need to know (other than past experience with Victoria and the Revolutions expansion) to not completely fuck the game up?
Nothing, it's fucked up. :P
Back in the day, I made a mini-mod to stop the Indians from wearing hoodies by 1840, and 100% Austrian Austria by 1850, plus I made nationalist rebels actually able to appear every once in a while.
But, next Tuesday an expansion comes out. They promise a lot of things, and I am actually getting convinced that they'll deliver (yeah right) :Embarrass:
But of course they promised a working game with 1.00 as well.
The Austrian thing is a real nuisance to me. One of my favoured games is to play AH and try and keep it going as a living fossil (I wear imaginary Franz-Josef muttonchop whiskers while doing this), this is ruined by the assimilation rate.
Having said that, I got my money's worth simply by looking at and thinking about the game mechanics. Paradox aims high and then misses :lol: , but at least they are targetting the sort of games that I would like to play.
Quote from: ulmont on January 25, 2012, 11:26:26 PM
Ok, for $7 I bought the game anyway. What do I need to know (other than past experience with Victoria and the Revolutions expansion) to not completely fuck the game up?
I would wait for AHD to come out in a week's time. I hope I'm not violating my beta NDA by saying that it's a vast improvement over the original.
Look at the first page of this Q&A session thread:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?580577-A-House-Divided-Q-amp-A-session
Some promising stuff, podcat claims they got rid of the blitz-assimilation, I hope they did indeed. Their chief reason for it in vanilla was performance (ridicoulous: you make a feature, then eliminate it after a few gameplay years because the engine can't handle it), but they are moving to multi-thread support with the expansion.
Again, they are promising gameplay they promised for vanilla as well, but what can I say - there are too few of these types of games to not be a sucker and hope. :blush:
I'll be getting it :D
Even though there will be new problems.
My reasoning is that it costs no more than an indifferent meal out, so even if it still has problems (which it will), I'm likely to get several evenings entertainment out of it, so still good value.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 26, 2012, 03:28:15 AM
I'll be getting it :D
Even though there will be new problems.
My reasoning is that it costs no more than an indifferent meal out, so even if it still has problems (which it will), I'm likely to get several evenings entertainment out of it, so still good value.
On the other hand you could also feed ourself. :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 26, 2012, 03:28:15 AM
I'll be getting it :D
Even though there will be new problems.
My reasoning is that it costs no more than an indifferent meal out, so even if it still has problems (which it will), I'm likely to get several evenings entertainment out of it, so still good value.
yeah, thats a good way of thinking about it. A few beers and you've spent the 20 quid the game would cost so...whatever.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 26, 2012, 03:28:15 AM
I'll be getting it :D
Even though there will be new problems.
My reasoning is that it costs no more than an indifferent meal out, so even if it still has problems (which it will), I'm likely to get several evenings entertainment out of it, so still good value.
On the other hand you could also feed ourself. :hmm:
I am so fabulously wealthy that I can afford to do both. I must belong to the 1% :w00t:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 27, 2012, 03:57:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 26, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 26, 2012, 03:28:15 AM
I'll be getting it :D
Even though there will be new problems.
My reasoning is that it costs no more than an indifferent meal out, so even if it still has problems (which it will), I'm likely to get several evenings entertainment out of it, so still good value.
On the other hand you could also feed ourself. :hmm:
I am so fabulously wealthy that I can afford to do both. I must belong to the 1% :w00t:
Which one of you have the bigger castle? You or Sheilbh?
It must be Sheilbh, his family came over with the Conquest and one of his ancestors features as one of the bad guys in Ivanhoe.
However, I am rich enough to be known as "The Lancashire Martinus" round these parts :P
I bought it for $6.78. After a couple hours of play, I can say it actually is more fun than I expected, but perhaps that's just because I don't know enough yet to run into any major frustrations. I'm tempted to get the expansion later this week.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 30, 2012, 09:23:39 AM
I bought it for $6.78. After a couple hours of play, I can say it actually is more fun than I expected, but perhaps that's just because I don't know enough yet to run into any major frustrations. I'm tempted to get the expansion later this week.
If I could find it that cheap I'd be tempted. As it is, the three things that stick out in my mind about the first Victoria are: being unable to avoid a costly war as the US in the Oregon dispute, having an awful lot of Turkish muslims immigrate to the US, and being unable to win the Austro-Prussian War as Prussia :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2012, 03:32:48 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 30, 2012, 09:23:39 AM
I bought it for $6.78. After a couple hours of play, I can say it actually is more fun than I expected, but perhaps that's just because I don't know enough yet to run into any major frustrations. I'm tempted to get the expansion later this week.
If I could find it that cheap I'd be tempted. As it is, the three things that stick out in my mind about the first Victoria are: being unable to avoid a costly war as the US in the Oregon dispute, having an awful lot of Turkish muslims immigrate to the US, and being unable to win the Austro-Prussian War as Prussia :mellow:
It is $6.78 on GamersGate now.
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2012, 03:32:48 PM
If I could find it that cheap I'd be tempted.
You should read the PSA discount thread. And check gamersgate.
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2012, 03:32:48 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 30, 2012, 09:23:39 AM
I bought it for $6.78. After a couple hours of play, I can say it actually is more fun than I expected, but perhaps that's just because I don't know enough yet to run into any major frustrations. I'm tempted to get the expansion later this week.
If I could find it that cheap I'd be tempted. As it is, the three things that stick out in my mind about the first Victoria are: being unable to avoid a costly war as the US in the Oregon dispute, having an awful lot of Turkish muslims immigrate to the US, and being unable to win the Austro-Prussian War as Prussia :mellow:
I think the Oregon issue depends on the option you take. I'm usually able to resolve it peacefully with the UK. I find the wars with Mexico a challenge, because the US army isn't usually built up that well early on when the US fights Mexico.
I find the Austro-Prussian war to be tricky, but not so much if I make a decent priority to build up the German army, including reserves. And sometimes I can gain an alliance with Russia, gifting them often to make it possible. That would make the Austrian war a lot easier.
Honestly, the game's failure to really model American industrialization and development always ruined Victoria 2 for me. I get it, Paradox doesn't get America and thinks it's of minor import compared to the Schleswig-Holstein crisis, but it's never bothered to model it properly in any game it's made. Whether its the failure to invade overseas in HOI, ahistorical colonization in EU, or invincible Mexico in Victoria.
Quote from: sbr on January 30, 2012, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 30, 2012, 03:32:48 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on January 30, 2012, 09:23:39 AM
I bought it for $6.78. After a couple hours of play, I can say it actually is more fun than I expected, but perhaps that's just because I don't know enough yet to run into any major frustrations. I'm tempted to get the expansion later this week.
If I could find it that cheap I'd be tempted. As it is, the three things that stick out in my mind about the first Victoria are: being unable to avoid a costly war as the US in the Oregon dispute, having an awful lot of Turkish muslims immigrate to the US, and being unable to win the Austro-Prussian War as Prussia :mellow:
It is $6.78 on GamersGate now.
Bought it yesterday-- thanks :)
Quote from: KRonn on January 31, 2012, 08:10:51 AM
I think the Oregon issue depends on the option you take. I'm usually able to resolve it peacefully with the UK.
I think I always tried to take the historical option, but for whatever reason I still got bullied incessantly by the Brits.
QuoteI find the wars with Mexico a challenge, because the US army isn't usually built up that well early on when the US fights Mexico.
To me it takes way more time & skill than it really should have. I can usually win vs. Mexico, but at the cost of a lengthy war.
QuoteI find the Austro-Prussian war to be tricky, but not so much if I make a decent priority to build up the German army, including reserves. And sometimes I can gain an alliance with Russia, gifting them often to make it possible. That would make the Austrian war a lot easier.
I'll keep that in mind-- thanks. I think I usually tend to go too much 'by the book' and expect the game to go accordingly.
Quote from: Faeelin on January 31, 2012, 09:23:07 AM
Honestly, the game's failure to really model American industrialization and development always ruined Victoria 2 for me. I get it, Paradox doesn't get America and thinks it's of minor import compared to the Schleswig-Holstein crisis, but it's never bothered to model it properly in any game it's made. Whether its the failure to invade overseas in HOI, ahistorical colonization in EU, or invincible Mexico in Victoria.
I always love in the late game when I see the U.S. form and it's, like, Connecticut and South Carolina with a big Euro rainbow between them.
My big problem I remember with the game was by 1880/90 (can't recall) you always had constant massed leftist rebel uprisings, no matter your reforms, it was an unhistoric PITA.
Anyway. Vicky 2 add on- normally I'd be quite excited. Intrigued certainly. With CK2 on the horizon...it can wait.
Quote from: Tyr on February 01, 2012, 08:57:57 PM
My big problem I remember with the game was by 1880/90 (can't recall) you always had constant massed leftist rebel uprisings, no matter your reforms, it was an unhistoric PITA.
Anyway. Vicky 2 add on- normally I'd be quite excited. Intrigued certainly. With CK2 on the horizon...it can wait.
The Paradox engine isn't that great at modeling the anarchist uprisings of the period. It's like trying to model 9/11, which was shocking, but insignificant in terms of territory and military strength.
Quote from: Nikolai;13368105First impression: Upon launch, the game crashes.
Quote from: the_hdk;13368193Played until 1861 with Two Sicilies
Few comments:
- I like the justification of War things. makes it a bit random (infamy)
- I conquered Tunis asap. And Tunisia was 55% South Italian by 1845. Within 6 years! lolz. The immigration is broken. or just not working properly. I understand if there ware 60% S. Italians by 1890. but within 6 years more than a million Italians got there.
It could be also that assimilation is broken. either of the 2.
- I was a GP within a few years. (before 50s) yet its impossible to form Italy. You can't get the other states out of Austria's or France's sphere without a war. Only managed it with Lucca.
I build all their railroads and a few factories, but nope :(
- I like a few minor additions. But to say it was worth the €20, no not really. If the game was €40. This expansion shouldn't be worth more than €10. It doesn't add that much.
Woo?
Steam dropped the ball today. I dont think 1.69 euro was the intended list price. :lol:
Quote- I was a GP within a few years. (before 50s) yet its impossible to form Italy. You can't get the other states out of Austria's or France's sphere without a war.
Hmm . . . don't think it should be possible to form Italy without a war with Austria/
Some nice features with the expansion, most notably the world economy showed no signs of imminent final collapse in the 1890s, as it used to. Also the rebel factions taking their sweet time, spreading peacefully before appearing as military units is nice, and make it feel more real. And the hunt rebel button for stacks is oh so great.
An other funny thing is that the Casus Belli system isn't really stopping the AI from some serious regular wars despite potentially fatal alliance combos. I guess they wanted an unpredictable game.
But otherwise, it feels the same game in the not so great ways. I already did my vanilla mini-modding of drastically reducing assimilation, boosting nationalist rebels (altoug both were somewhat better in AHD than vanilla), and now trying to make the springtime of nations actually trigger in Europe.
QuoteSerbia, my homeland seems a lot weaker in this expansion. Why, Johan also is there a new feature that allows me to enslave a population, say if i go to war with the albanians for example.
:XD: What would Vicky forums be without Balkantards?
The guy has a point, though. Why shouldn't we be allowed to correct one of the greatest wrongs in history by enslaving Serbia?
So there's a bit of a debate over on the paradox forums about whether it's a big deal that the game misses the Taiping Rebellion entirely; it starts in 1862, when the rebellion was pretty clearly going to lose but on its way out.
Paradox argues that it wasn't important in global history, and so isn't worth including; this seems wrong to me on several levels (It and the Nien rebellion led to the decentralization that made reform so difficult for the Qing, among other problems); but I'm curious what others thing.
Also, there are no events for the CSA upon achieving independence.
*sigh*
So spotting the same retard assimilation rate (the coder of the expansion, podcat, specifically said how this is much better now), I tried to mod it seriously down like I did with vanilla. I sure hope I failed by giving a bad value or forgetting something, because by the 1890s about 60% of Austria is German, and the Balkans is about 70% full of Turks. Not sure if the Nationality mapmode was in vanilla, but it sure as hell makes the game look bad after 60 years :P
Really too bad because:
-the game is supposed to have multicore support so there should be no need to worry about number of pops (podcat said that much)
-with the expanded rebellion model, there would be a system to model the nationalist movements, but there is simply no pool for them after a little while
Also, in vanilla, lowering the requirement to 17% literacy made it easy to have the liberal revolution event chain start in europe, in fact it fired a bit too soon. Now it is not enough for some reason. It just wouldn't happen, period. Gotta' check what's wrong.
The economy still appears to be much better, altough I assume it must be quite hard with small nations, after everything is much more expensive.
An other plus thing is that with a slight addition to their likelihood, I saw some acceptable Redshirt rebellions in Italy. As Austria, I had to bring in my main army to defeat the largest, about 45k rebs marching on Rome. I was the one to defeat a couple of other attempts in other states as well.
Also when Two Sicilies became a GP for a while it had a very good push to SoI the Italian minors. With the 3-hurraed Germany pushing for my peeps Saxony and S. German Federation at the north, I had to retreat influence-wise from all Italian states but Tuscany to maintain my important presences.
So all in all some interesting and promising things together with some totally un-understandably stupid design decisions.
There is no doubt I will drop this game like it never existed once I get my hands on CK2, but in the meantime I will try to fix this assimilation nonsense. It might be that the fuckin' pops assimilate when they upgrade to an other type?
You Balkan people really need to think about something other than population makeup in the Balkan provinces. :rolleyes:
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2012, 07:15:14 PM
You Balkan people really need to think about something other than population makeup in the Balkan provinces. :rolleyes:
Please.
What I am thinking about, is the age of nationalism getting some, you know, nationalism. The way things stands now, the only impact nationalism has, is that every once in a while, in some very odd cases, one of them easy to defeat rebel stacks will be some kind of nationalistic pricks. And that's next to impossible unless you beef their chance of appearing up in the config files,
And even then, they are like a passing fashion as the Balkans become Turkish, the Serbs in Hungary Austrian, and India goes more English than fish and chips.
As hard it is for Paradox to understand, the key driving force behind the fuckups of this period was nationalism, not Swedish angst over lack of proper welfare.
Quote from: Tamas on February 04, 2012, 07:25:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 04, 2012, 07:15:14 PM
You Balkan people really need to think about something other than population makeup in the Balkan provinces. :rolleyes:
As hard it is for Paradox to understand, the key driving force behind the fuckups of this period was nationalism, not Swedish angst over lack of proper welfare.
Lesz meg....
V2 is so formulaic. Unless you're trying to roleplay by emulating the GOP, your first order of business in any game is figuring out how to piss off your people enough to create a 21st century Swedish welfare state so you get full population growth. Then you wait for all your RGOs to fill up so you can at least watch your industry score soar while you wait for a CB manufacturing event or for your badboy score to drop low enough to go to war without England getting pissed off because you stole too much land. :rolleyes:
I was just talking to a friend who did get the expansion. Turns out it is: broken.
Limited colonial wars inevitably spill out into WW1.
Which....I guess is kind of fitting of the time but...when even despite all that you're still restricted to taking a province at a time lest you manufacture multiple CBs...sounds kinda bad.
Overall he made me glad CK2 is occupying my excitement.
Too bad. There's a mod that adds a great war casus belli, which lets you annihilate certain empires if you win. A shame it's not in this.
Thinking of giving this a spin (I have a mild 19th century boner atm). Got the expansion, any mods that I absolutely need to get?
Possible Vicky 2 expansion coming: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?660800-Secret-Document-Clue-one.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 25, 2013, 07:43:26 AM
Thinking of giving this a spin (I have a mild 19th century boner atm). Got the expansion, any mods that I absolutely need to get?
PDM would be one to look at; I haven't tried yet though.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 25, 2013, 07:51:36 AM
Possible Vicky 2 expansion coming: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?660800-Secret-Document-Clue-one.
Nice. I'm looking forward to playing it 2 or 3 years from now...
I bet it's going to suck. It won't be polishing a turd, it'll be slapping a whole new layer of shit from that cold, gelatinous pile of shit.
Paradox stop working on games nobody gives a fuck about anymore and make a Catholicism xpack for CK2 plz
I am very tempted to play victoria 2 again even despite all that was bad about it. Were there ever any decent mods?
For the record I like Victoria 2 with AHD. I hardly play any computer games these days but when I do Vic2 is one of them.
I'm just saying, I ain't buying it for full price, there's bound to be a 75% sale on gamersgate sooner or later.
QuoteMain features:
- Experience a brand new colonization system: Use your navy to expand your empire, compete against other colonial powers and struggle to maintain your overseas control. Colonial conflicts can spiral out of control and become international crises where they will have to be decided by diplomatic negotiations or risk costly wars.
- Battle your enemies in the new naval combat system: Together with the new colonization system, your navies are more important than ever. We have revamped the entire naval combat system and made it much more detailed and exciting with a new system of gun ranges and maneuvering into positions for battles. New powerful battleships join the other classes of ships to bridge the gap to Dreadnoughts.
-Prepare for International Crises: Around the world international crises continually call on the Great Powers to mediate and compromise, with war always being the last resort. As one of the lesser powers, use your influence to stir up the local flash points so you can use fleet footed diplomacy to get the Great Powers to right the wrongs that have been committed against your nation!
- Follow the global events with the new newspaper system: You will receive reports on local and global events as well as the world's changing situation to keep up to date and get a greater sense of immersion. Over 60 newspapers, both historic and otherwise, periodically present you with the latest news reports of war, major events, royal gossip and other matters of interest.
ok if they try to fix the economy with this, I am actually mildly excited.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.paradoxplaza.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fvictoria2_heart_of_darkness_alpha_screens_1.png&hash=b3cb34ed872a9ab77e3dd586140e6a2eca69a11c)
Man, those gentleman cows were fierce back in the day.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2013, 09:21:49 AM
Man, those gentleman cows were fierce back in the day.
I'd be more wary of the chimneysweep...
Man, I keep discovering new interface options every time I play this game. Made it to 1888 before realizing how to actually increase influence in a country...
I've been playing a fun game in the pop divided mod as the Ottomans. My entire goal has been the liberation of the turkic peoples and setting to right the wrongs of sino-slavic imperialism.
Getting there!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-2.steampowered.com%2Fugc%2F1117161933029242122%2FE5390373E1D8A5B6991C63468AC12E41E93FF54C%2F&hash=582cfbcde52b6d363f06647c581f9b5014950f6f)
http://www.destructoid.com/getting-the-lowdown-on-victoria-ii-heart-of-darkness-250883.phtml
QuoteNext to Hearts of Iron, the Victoria series is the Paradox Interactive grand strategy title I have the least experience with. There are a couple of things that have contributed to this, but the most influential one is my declining interest in historical periods as they get closer to the 20th century.
I've been seeking new challenges recently, though, and after Paradox announced a new expansion to Victoria II, Heart of Darkness, I decided to spend more time with the complex political and economic simulator. I'm glad that I did, because it's really got its hooks in me now.
With the Heart of Darkness' release drawing ever closer, I had a chat with designer David Ballantyne to get the skinny on the latest expansion.
Heart of Darkness will add a slew of new features to Victoria II, and some pretty significant changes. "The major changes in the expansion Heart of Darkness include the Crisis system, all new naval combat, a new Colonial system, and the Newspaper system," explained David. "We've also revised land combat somewhat, and tweaked and polished various aspects of the game that we felt could use it to improve the gameplay."
Newspapers are a curious new feature, providing easier-to-digest information, along with national opinion. There are over 60 newspapers in the game, many of them historical, and they sometimes reflect the ideologies of the nations they are published in.
I asked David what practical applications the publications have. "Past newspapers are saved, so they give you an easy way to review past events in your game. The Newspaper system in Heart of Darkness keep track of all the events happening in the game and will periodically publish a one-page newspaper article that you can read by clicking the Newspaper button. It lists things like wars, peace treaties, battles your nation has fought in, large price change in the World Market, game events, news about Crises, etc.
"The articles about who AI nations are seeking to befriend or who they are afraid of give you some insight into the AI nation's thinking in your games too. So you might read about how one of your neighbours is afraid of your large army, or that France is getting friendly with Spain."
Changes in ideologies are reflected somewhat in certain national newspapers, David reveals. "Many of the larger nations have multiple newspapers to cover different ruling party ideologies, and some article types also have changing tone." This is particular to certain nations, however, and most will not. "An example of one that does is a Communist nation's paper will publish a favourable story when Communist rebels take over another nation and install a Communist government."
Colonization has always been an important aspect of the Victoria series, but Heart of Darkness puts even more emphasis on it, fleshing it out as colonial powers compete for control over Africa. The new system makes it less likely for a power to gain a colonial monopoly, though I wondered if that would make building an overseas empire less challenging.
"Not really. While you'll get a basic amount of Colonial Points from naval technologies, you really need a decently-sized navy and naval bases," David clarified. "Without that you may be able to grab an uncontested area, but any actual naval power is going to be able to out-spend you in a bidding war for the colony."
The bidding system also preserves the sense of conflict and competition. "If another nation is trying to colonize the same area as you it becomes a matter of having to decide how many points you are willing to our in to out-bid them in the colonial race.
You get them back if you win, lose, or withdraw, but in the meantime your other rivals may be snapping up prime locations uncontested. Added to that, being in colonial contention makes it easier for nations to fabricate war justifications on each other, and a long enough bidding war may result in a Crisis, so you need to decide which areas are worth fighting over -- both in colonial points and with actual troops."
The modern view of the rampant colonialism of the 19th and early 20th centuries is an extremely negative one, with Western nations being seen as exploitative villains. Paradox is avoiding such anachronistic judgements in Heart of Darkness, however. "t's too modern a viewpoint. In-game, the race for colonies is seen in an entirely positive light. With the colonization system, we have decided to take the angle of the European powers sitting in drawing rooms in Europe drawing arbitrary lines on the maps."
Without a strong navy, colonial hopes will be dashed against the rocks. With that in mind, and after requests from the playerbase, Paradox has significantly overhauled the naval system. Naval bases have been limited, so dreadnoughts can no longer be spammed, and they will have a significant impact on colony points, which David talked me through.
"Naval supply is a value based on the number and size of naval bases you have, and it affects how large a navy you can maintain without penalty. Colonial points are generated both by your naval bases and your active ships, so a higher level of naval supply allows more ships which equals more colonial points."
Naval combat has also seen some, hopefully, welcome changes. "The main change with the new combat system is small ships become a lot more important once torpedoes are invented, both to torpedo your rival's ships and to prevent the same being done to yours. It also makes certain technologies more interesting, as they can make your ships faster or fire from longer range which has a direct effect on combat now."
Out of all the new features, it is the Crisis system that intrigues me the most, as it encourages the sort of global thinking that was just starting to take root during this period. "The Crisis system adds a new source of conflict to the game. You could have things fairly under control and just be cruising along, when suddenly a flashpoint turns into a crisis and you need to deal with it. It also adds a new way to expand as a minor nation. Someone else owns your core provinces? Make friends with a great power, drum up some tensions, and hopefully get you land back in the resulting crisis." It's great to see minor nations being given more options, as they often end up becoming a bit boring due to the limits of their military and naval power.
One does not have to participate in a crisis event, though certain factors may mean that sitting on the fence will have a negative impact on your nation. "It depends if it's local to you or not. Great powers are expected to get involved in any crisis on their capital's continent, if they don't they take a hit to their prestige. If a crisis happens overseas they can ignore it with no penalty, or get involved if they want."
David pointed out that the Flashpoints -- areas where one nation holds a core province of another nation -- will be dynamic, but they will also be based on historical scenarios. He gave an example of the Ottoman Empire's control over the Balkans. "[T]ake the Ottoman empire, they historically start off owning a lot of the Balkans, which contains several flashpoints, but if you manage to keep all your Balkan subjects either pleased with your rule or totally suppressed these flashpoints never amount to anything. Or you could take your Ottoman Empire and make it so powerful that none of the other nations want to support any of your rebellious subjects."
On top of the major new additions, Paradox has tweaked the AI in Heart of Darkness in the hope of providing players with a more challenging experience. "It's now a lot better about launching overseas invasions, picking who to attack and what war goals to add, how it manages its economy, and who it adds to its sphere of influence." I am, quite frankly, still pretty awful at playing Victoria II, so no doubt the AI will give me a proper run for my money in Heart of Darkness.
The new naval elements reminded me a bit of Hearts of Iron III, so I asked David if there were any other Paradox titles that inspired parts of Heart of Darkness other than the World War II simulator. It turns out that Crusader Kings II had an impact.
"Crusader Kings II has a great system of ticking warscore. Victoria II: Heart of Darkness takes this idea and adapts it to Victoria II's multiple wargoal system, so you can have multiple goals in a given war and gain ticking warscore from those you have fulfilled." It seems like most of Paradox's grand strategy titles are taking at least some cues from CKII, which is a good move, seeing as it's been their best-received title.
Victoria II: Heart of Darkness will be launching on PC soon, so keep an eye out for it.
Is religion not a factor in Vic2?
Quote from: Syt on April 06, 2013, 01:04:55 AM
http://www.destructoid.com/getting-the-lowdown-on-victoria-ii-heart-of-darkness-250883.phtml
Quote
The new naval elements reminded me a bit of Hearts of Iron III, so I asked David if there were any other Paradox titles that inspired parts of Heart of Darkness other than the World War II simulator. It turns out that Crusader Kings II had an impact.
"Crusader Kings II has a great system of ticking warscore. Victoria II: Heart of Darkness takes this idea and adapts it to Victoria II's multiple wargoal system, so you can have multiple goals in a given war and gain ticking warscore from those you have fulfilled." It seems like most of Paradox's grand strategy titles are taking at least some cues from CKII, which is a good move, seeing as it's been their best-received title.
Victoria II: Heart of Darkness will be launching on PC soon, so keep an eye out for it.
About frickin' time I say.
I'm rather curious about the new colonial system, myself.
QuoteThe first change is that the two techs that used to allow Colonisation, Nationalism & Imperialism and Machine Guns, now no longer directly do so. Instead, the Minimum Life Rating effect which allows you to colonise has been moved to Inventions tied to previous level techs, but with triggers that require someone has researched Nationalism & Imperialism/Machine Guns. The effect of this is that anyone reasonably up to date in techs will receive the Inventions around the same time, preventing one nation from having a monopoly on Colonisation.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FM2A6qQB.png&hash=3ffe63b0fe0cb1fa09f33967a6c94873e025aed5)
The next change is that Colonisation no longer uses National Focuses, instead we have Colonial Points. These points are generated by a combination of your Naval Bases and your Navy, plus you get a base level from an early Naval technology. This means that you need a good level of Naval infrastructure to support a large Colonial Empire, and you can cripple a rival by destroying their fleets and bases. You spend Colonial Points to claim and maintain Colonies.
We also now have two levels of Colony. The first is known as a Protectorate, the second is a full-fledged Colony. Colonies almost always start out as Protectorates and you must pay more Colonial Points to upgrade them to full Colonies. The difference is that Colonies cost more in Points upkeep, but they provide you with more Tax, and you can raise troops there with few people in Soldier Pops. You also need Colonies if you hope to upgrade to full States later.
But how does this all work? Well I'm glad you asked, here's what happens:
Once you have the right Inventions and have the Naval Range to reach an empty State you spend some Colonial points to send an Expedition. This takes some time and a reasonably large Points investment, but if no one else sends an Expedition you'll end up with a Protectorate with no further investment and your CPs will return to your pool (Minus upkeep costs). However, if someone else does get involved in your State you enter a Colonial Influence Race:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpeiMlYJ.jpg&hash=e1e0734d426366002ebb881b03056a67bef898ed)
In a Colonial Influence Race up to four Nations compete to invest CPs in building Colonial Influence, represented by a series of building levels. You start with an Expedition, then you send Colonists, then build an Outpost, a Settlement, and finally a Guard Post (If the Race is still inconclusive at this point you can reinforce your Guard Post as often as needed). If you decide the State isn't worth the hassle you can Withdraw from the race and regain your CPs to use elsewhere, but of course you lose out on this State. The Colonial Influence Race continues until one Nation is ahead by three levels, at which point the leading two powers move onto the second stage of the Race and any trailing Nations are kicked out.
The second state of the Race is between only two Nations. It is much like the former stage, with one crucial difference: The State becomes a Flashpoint, and the longer the Race continues the more Tensions in the State rise. Either side may still Withdraw, or can win the State by getting two levels ahead of their rival, but if it continues long enough without a result it will become a Crisis over the Colony and may result in war.
Once you have gained some Colonies there's a few things you can do with them. As I mentioned, you can upgrade your Protectorates to Colonies to get more out of them. But this all costs Colonial Points, Points which you still need to compete for the increasingly limited unclaimed States. So what can you do? Well one option is to upgrade Colonies to States if you get some Accepted Culture Bureaucrats there, but there's a twist: Upgrading Colonies to States also costs Colonial Points, although there is no upkeep cost afterwards, and the cost increases drastically with distance from your Home Area (that is, the area connected by land to your Capital), so while Russia may make Siberia into States, and France may do the same with Algeria, it isn't very practical for the UK to do the same in Canada or India.
The answer for Nations with far-flung colonial empires is Dominions. You can spin off your Colonies into self-governing puppets. The downside, of course, is that you no longer harvest their resources or gather taxes directly, but as long as they remain in your SoI you still have good access to what they produce (And Dominions have a Influence modifier making keeping them somewhat easier), you no longer need to pay CPs for their State's upkeep, and you get to control their Armies when you go to war together. In areas with cores already present, like Canada for example, you can release these as your Dominions, while for areas without them we have added 50 dynamic countries which will take their name from one of the States that make up their area. Here, for example, I have created The Confederation of West Morocco:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNR5TNMn.png&hash=cf6406173667065aac56e85d12f20611a748183a)
In general you'll want to first grab what colonies you can without competition from other Powers, if possible, before sinking too many of your Colonial Points into fights with other nations. When your CPs grow scarce you will need to decide whether to be satisfied with what you have or if you want to start converting Colonies into States or Dominions to free up points for further expansion. Is it worth fighting for a key State to keep your pretty borders, or will you just grab whatever Colonies you can? Then again, perhaps a war can sort things out once all the Colonies are taken? We hope you'll find these choices interesting!
Also, I like the industrial changes, where factories get a bonus if they're in the state their raw materials/other goods come from, encouraging industrial clusters.
yeah that economic stuff sound good, if the AI is aware of it.
I am wondering if these changes make this a wrothile consideration for Sunday Languish MP :unsure:
Quote from: Tamas on April 07, 2013, 01:09:55 PM
I am wondering if these changes make this a wrothile consideration for Sunday Languish MP :unsure:
:bowler:
Might be something to do while waiting for EU4. :P
two things:
1) I have dibs on Austria
2) we start in 1861
Why 1861?
And my dibs is Russia of course.
Quote from: Solmyr on April 08, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
Why 1861?
And my dibs is Russia of course.
I cannot stomach the total lack of Spring of Nations
Plus, lets face it: there will be a lot of downtimes as we can't max-speed
Quote from: Tamas on April 08, 2013, 08:59:57 AM
two things:
1) I have dibs on Austria
2) we start in 1861
Automatic franco-austrian anti-prussian alliance?
This all sounds rather like "UK was underpowered. They need to be GOD"
Though maybe they will fix the UK a bit in it and stop them filling Helgoland with factories and landing massive doom stacks on the continent.
Well, the colonial changes seem to make it harder to turn India into a soldier cloning facility.
I am hopeful for this expansion. Two concerns:
-will the AI be able to cope with the changes?
-in both of the two beta AARS they published, France, at least for a while, had New York :huh:
I was actually looking forward to play the expansion today, but now reading that the AI is totally boinkers in releasing dominions (it frees up colonial points to invest elsewhere). Like, one-province ex-Portugese India in 1836 (Goa). Canada being 3 separate dominions. Australia being the coast, mid section colonized by UK, etc.
AAR writers mentioned dominion-release barely ever happening, so hopefully this is an easy fix, but still. Damn. :D
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
I am hopeful for this expansion. Two concerns:
-will the AI be able to cope with the changes?
Of course not.
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
-in both of the two beta AARS they published, France, at least for a while, had New York :huh:
That doesn't seem to gel with the apparent new war aims system, so this worries me as well.
ok so my initial impression is that while people are 100% right that the dominion-forming looks incredibly stupid, I think its gameplay effect is minimal (you decrease your income in exchange of getting back some CPs), so it is merely the matter of the political map becoming FUGLY. If Dominions were the color of their master, nobody would hardly notice.
They each get a total unique colour?
The sensible thing would seem to be a slightly varied shade of the homeland.
But yeah, dominions sound dumb
Playing (very passively) as Austria, it is cool to see how the traditional nationalistic hotspots (Balkans, most notably Ottoman-held Serb and Greek territories, Poland, Hungarians, Italians in Austria) are crisis-prone in the new system, if they have nationalistic rebel movements.
You actually start caring about those movements when you are afraid of having multiple GPs drawn in against you.
I am not yet sure how much logic is there when the AI decides who to support during crises, but there are patterns (like GP Scandinavia always being first on the wagon to screw Russia over, and Prussia always faithfully supports the territorial integrity of its ally the Ottomans).
But it is still cool and it makes the game much more like a period feel, altough I could see problems in the early game. eg. lets say the Springtime of Nations event chain is not totall worthless, and actually makes Austrian nationalities uppity in the 1840s. Then I could see a crisis trigger for North Italy or Hungary, and then you would end up with GPs actively supporting national independence, a bit too early.
What I really don't like though, is that nearin 1900s, the too-fucking-much-dominions issue stops being cosmetic. When they have a revolution, they become independent, and civilized. So you end up with civilized african medium-sized states full of black tribesmen.
for example, I found myself thinking "I see tension is building up in ottoman-held southern serbia. should I support them if it comes to a crisis? Ottos could use some losses of territory and prestige. But I also have Serbian cores, if the rest of the serbs were unified, Serbia would surely put national focus on stearing up shit with me"
as I said there are plenty to tweak with the system but stuff like the above is much more late 19th century Austria than anything else the game has been able to provide
So, is this game worth 6 bucks or am I better off buying a 6-pack?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 06, 2013, 02:00:59 PM
So, is this game worth 6 bucks or am I better off buying a 6-pack?
Where is it on sale for 6 bucks?
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2013, 02:11:50 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 06, 2013, 02:00:59 PM
So, is this game worth 6 bucks or am I better off buying a 6-pack?
Where is it on sale for 6 bucks?
Half-Price Books.
it would worth it, sure, but you need both expansions for it to really work.
Is the second expansion playable now?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 07, 2013, 05:24:46 AM
Is the second expansion playable now?
they much-much improved the silly dominion-release thing, and that was the only obvious ugliness for me. It's still Vicky2, so I find myself playing CK2 instead, but it is a much improved Vicky 2.
So....this game any good? Scale of 1-10 where 1=HOI3 and 10=EU3 complete
Quote from: Josephus on August 03, 2013, 12:30:14 PM
So....this game any good? Scale of 1-10 where 1=HOI3 and 10=EU3 complete
7. I'm having a lot of fun playing a few games as China and Japan, and am about to go back and try Prussia.
Quick question, Victoria II is on -75% at Steam, so is the vanilla on it's own worth playing or do I need all of the expansion too ?
As per the default policy when buying Paradox games : Buy with all expansions.
Quote from: Drakken on October 04, 2013, 03:48:30 PM
As per the default policy when buying Paradox games : Buy with all expansions.
Thanks for that, but I didn't wait too long and purchased the vanilla, I'll have a play now and if I'm touched by it, I'll buy the rest at the weekend. :)
I bought Vanilla a couple months ago....been a bit underwhelmed by it. Whole lot of staring at the screen unable to do very much waiting for something to happen. Does it get better with XPs?
Quote from: mongers on October 04, 2013, 03:57:02 PM
Quote from: Drakken on October 04, 2013, 03:48:30 PM
As per the default policy when buying Paradox games : Buy with all expansions.
Thanks for that, but I didn't wait too long and purchased the vanilla, I'll have a play now and if I'm touched by it, I'll buy the rest at the weekend. :)
Westernization is a lot better with Heart of Darkness. China writeup here:
http://lpix.org/sslptest/index.php?id=15067
This has probably been commented on before, but first time i've seen it since i've been playing Victoria II again and came across this in one of the newspaper articles:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvictoriareview.com%2Fyardies.jpg&hash=b01f23bb94a1a728484e599f6d5ddf1801a645e8)
:D
It should be knives!
:lol:
Nice one :cool:
:lol:
I've finally gotten around to actually giving this a go and I've been having a blast as Japan turned GP. Still getting my bearings on factory placement and trade - so for now, leaving it mostly up to my bumbling capitalists. :blush:
On second playthrough now since PDM went final. Some of the tooltips are missing info but otherwise has been rock stable and the economy seems to function OK.
So is it worth getting? Is that Old World assimilation bullshit over?
Quote from: Queequeg on March 24, 2014, 05:06:19 PM
Is that Old World assimilation bullshit over?
From what I've read (and my limited experience) that doesn't happen anymore. Instead assimilation is nearly negligible in Old World.
I've been playing an Austria game on-and-off for the last couple of weeks. It's kind of challenging, and I've noticed a few odd happenings, but it's been rather fun. That said, Austria is super-hard. You pretty much have to duck all the other Great Powers at all times, and that can make the Crisis system a bit challenging.
I found it awfully satisfying to strangle the nascent Chinese Empire as Japan. Less so was when a Great War erupted over Polish designs for independence and the USA invaded Hokkaido. :blush:
How many DLC/expansions do you have garbon? I bought the game at release but haven't done much more than the tutorial and stare at the screen for a few minutes before turning it off and uninstalling. I occasionally want to try it, but I can just never be arsed to actually try.
I don't have any DLC, anyone think it is worth trying in that condition?
Quote from: sbr on March 25, 2014, 07:26:17 PM
How many DLC/expansions do you have garbon? I bought the game at release but haven't done much more than the tutorial and stare at the screen for a few minutes before turning it off and uninstalling. I occasionally want to try it, but I can just never be arsed to actually try.
I don't have any DLC, anyone think it is worth trying in that condition?
So that bit in bold was me. I got the base game for cheap in one of those packs on sale. Every time I opened it, I would get intimidated, suddenly not feel like playing in that period and then exit out.
I broke down recently and bought the all expansion/dlc offer on steam (currently 25 bucks). Gamble of course given my track record with the game. -_-
Been worth it. :)
That said, I think of all the p'dox games I've played - Victoria has the steepest learning curve. I'm still learning as I got by looking at various forum posts and wikis. I think it suffers from not having a consistent game design (but rather cobbled together over the years) so many times you're left wondering what the various cbs you justify will really do...what the difference is between puppets, satellites and dominions...as well as trying to figure out what is best to research when. And then of course as I mentioned earlier - figuring out industrialization and trade. :wacko:
Nice, Ill have to grab them next time they are all on sale and give it a shot.
I will blame you if I am: disappointed.
Quote from: sbr on March 25, 2014, 07:37:26 PM
Nice, Ill have to grab them next time they are all on sale and give it a shot.
I will blame you if I am: disappointed.
Read my add-on statement. :D
That said, if you get them all on sale - I'd better not get lip over a wasted 10 bucks. :P
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 25, 2014, 07:37:26 PM
Nice, Ill have to grab them next time they are all on sale and give it a shot.
I will blame you if I am: disappointed.
That said, if you get them all on sale - I'd better not get lip over a wasted 10 bucks. :P
I make no promises.
I don't sweat the industrialization and trade stuff too much. If you build up your physical (RRs) and human infrastructure (literacy/crats/capis/clerks) and keep your population going, your industry will mostly take care of itself. NFs seem to work pretty well to push the AI to build the "right" things on the occasion when you really need it. And on any policy except laissez faire you can choose which factories to expand. On trade I just leave it alone; if there is some key shortage, either find where that commodity is produced and sphere the owner (or be sphered by the right GP), or colonize it. The PDM mod seems to do a pretty decent job of dealing with the more severe shortages that used to crop up in vanilla.
The diplo system can be quite intricate and tricky but that is where the fun is supposed to be.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2014, 07:36:16 PM
what the difference is between puppets, satellites
They are the same.
Okay yeah, I seem to have been getting by on ignore trade and only playing a role in industry via state capitalism or interventionism.
Biggest hurdle for me on diplomacy system was the separation of relations systems and opinion system. Weird to have a country have a friendly opinion of you while relations are at -90. Took me a bit to figure out how you gain diplomatic influence as GP. :blush:
Would be nice to see in a Vic 3, some of the benefits of their new game engine/EU4, like leaving a diplomat to increase relations rather than remembering each month to open up diplo window to increase relations by 15.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 26, 2014, 10:54:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2014, 07:36:16 PM
what the difference is between puppets, satellites
They are the same.
Yeah, I eventually came to that conclusion. Of course, the addition of substates as China only feature also had muddle waters for me. I'll admit I was very shocked when either my war (or the concurrent Chinese rebels) caused the Chinese Empire to lose all puppets and substates.
Actually another example of something odd is the political reform to allow public meetings. Allowing it says it "increases political awareness by 25%". What I found online suggests it might have something to do with consciousness?
lol can i be; armenian empire
I guess so but given that it feels a bit gamey to just release a country and play as it, you are more likely to go the Greece turned to Byzantine Empire route.
My military score always seems way below the other great powers. Anyone know what actually determines military score? I'd thought it was only size of army / navy but generals and admirals seem to have the greatest impact on it and I can't tell if tech level makes a difference at all?
In the early years the number of generals and admirals plays a disproportionate role. So the key factor is the number of officer POPs. As you get into later years and army and navy size growns, it becomes less of a factor. I believe the other components are capital ships and number of soldier POPs/regiments.
I really should be playing this, JR makes a convincing advocate for the game ie un-Tamas like.
Some people are rude.
I do think CK2 is the superior game, but the time period covered is interesting and I find it plays a bit differently from some of the other sister games - there tends to be a lower return to outright territorial conquest and a higher return to other means of influence.
With the marked improvements that we've seen CK => CK2 and EU3 => EU4, I really hope that we'll see Vic3 after HoI4.
I'd much rather see a Classical Greece game.
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2014, 11:37:59 AM
With the marked improvements that we've seen CK => CK2 and EU3 => EU4, I really hope that we'll see Vic3 after HoI4.
A Vicky 3 would be great to harness capabilities of their current engine.
So bought Vicky 2 in that $5 bundle.
I get totally lost though, even after going through the tutorials.
Someone hold my hand. I start a new game as some peaceful minor - what three or five steps should I do right off the bat? I get concerned because I can't seem to even just run a budget surplus right off the bat.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2014, 12:01:34 AM
So bought Vicky 2 in that $5 bundle.
I get totally lost though, even after going through the tutorials.
Someone hold my hand. I start a new game as some peaceful minor - what three or five steps should I do right off the bat? I get concerned because I can't seem to even just run a budget surplus right off the bat.
Start with a major power to learn the ropes, forget minors. The major advantage of being a Great Power is that you can play the Crisis and Influence game, while as a minor you will caught between Powers wanting to make you part of their own Sphere of Influence. Which country have you chosen to start? I'd recommend Russia to start off, which is highly forgiving due to its sheer size and manpower.
It's perfectly normal to run in the red for the first few days as the economy sets off. Tax your Poor as much as you can to maximize income, then Middle POPs to adjust. Refrain from taxing your Rich POPs, if possible. Don't worry, your starting techs ensure the tax efficiency remains low even if you tax them at 100%, so they'll still have some money. Always keep in mind, your POPs need money to buy stuff, so the money you run in surplus should be use to decrease the tax burden on your POPs.
Put your land and sea units maintenance at 50% (not below, otherwise they'll decay) to save money, unless you are at war or your need to quell revolts. Adjust tariffs as you see fit, and within weeks you should be running a profit.
If your party in power hinders your from building factories, from time to time check what Projects your Capitalists have in mind; invest in those factories which make economic sense.
Your should be starting with two National Focuses. Start with bringing your Clergymen to 2-4% in your two most populous regions to increase Research Points. Invest in Research that are directly beneficial to your current goals.
I picked it up on the Bundle as well. I went through some of the Tutorials but got bored and just went in as Belgium. It is a lot of fun. Belgium can't do much, and I was learned the limits to colonization and the like, but I eventually achieved Great Power. I like the Crisis system. Reminds me of Balance of Power.
The USA is the best starting nation IMO.
Until Britain gets pissed off at you. Then you have to learn how to use cheats.
My first attempt was with Brazil but that didn't really go well. On my 2nd try through, I went with Japan. It was fun taking an uncivilized nation into GP status while simultaneously smothering China in its crib. :) :blush:
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2014, 01:36:50 PM
My first attempt was with Brazil but that didn't really go well. On my 2nd try through, I went with Japan. It was fun taking an uncivilized nation into GP status while simultaneously smothering China in its crib. :) :blush:
I love Westernizing China; you're practically #1 at that point.
I had this when it first came out. It was nice, not great. What have the two expansions added?
I'm sure you can look that up if not elsewhere online, in this very thread.
:)
Sorry, Tim, but its just like you aren't asking something that hasn't already been asked and answered. Information is out there, dude, and it isn't hard to find.
Such is not the way of the Tim.
Ironic, really, considering how much time he must spend on finding all those news stories.
Ok, compatibility question. I got Vicky 2 on gamersgate back in the day when it was first released. If I buy the expansions on Steam are they going to work together?
You might be able to register them with steam, I don't know. I had switch Crusader kings to steam, you'd probably do better to check Pdox forums.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2014, 06:09:37 AM
Ok, compatibility question. I got Vicky 2 on gamersgate back in the day when it was first released. If I buy the expansions on Steam are they going to work together?
No
Playing around with mods. The POPdemand stuff seems to add quite a bit.
I bought it for steam and the base game and house divided worked, however it seems I bought the wrong version for heart of darkness. Emailed Amazon to see if I can exchange, but I may have to just eat that $19.99 and buy the right one. <_<
I can't buy from Steam directly because they'll object because I'm in Korea and the Credit Card is billed in the US.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2014, 02:11:34 AM
I bought it for steam and the base game and house divided worked, however it seems I bought the wrong version for heart of darkness. Emailed Amazon to see if I can exchange, but I may have to just eat that $19.99 and buy the right one. <_<
I can't buy from Steam directly because they'll object because I'm in Korea and the Credit Card is billed in the US.
What about having it gifted? Or has Steam closed that avenue too?
They said they'd refund my money if I bought the right version. :)
Playing as Austria. Fighting Prussia (and her German allies, the Turks and Sardinia. Not exactly easy.
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 30, 2014, 05:19:04 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 30, 2014, 02:11:34 AM
I bought it for steam and the base game and house divided worked, however it seems I bought the wrong version for heart of darkness. Emailed Amazon to see if I can exchange, but I may have to just eat that $19.99 and buy the right one. <_<
I can't buy from Steam directly because they'll object because I'm in Korea and the Credit Card is billed in the US.
What about having it gifted? Or has Steam closed that avenue too?
No that would work.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 02, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
Me too and it doesn't start on my computer. :(
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 02, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
I did the same. :blush:
Quote from: Zanza on October 03, 2014, 03:55:47 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 02, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
Me too and it doesn't start on my computer. :(
It may be the map cache bug? Does it crash on loading screen?
Yes, how do I fix it?
EDIT: That was it. Fix by deleting the map/cache/ folder in your Victoria II installation.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 02, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
:bleeding: Just paid $50 for that.
Playing as Prussia, doing pretty good, manage to sphere Saxony, Hanover, Holstein and Luxemburg and form the NFG by 1842. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKsgTSeH.jpg&hash=1bf50b7df6e2f6401352a0901ab3d37291b4423f) (http://imgur.com/KsgTSeH)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 04, 2014, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 02, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
:bleeding: Just paid $50 for that.
Steam sales can be brutal that way. :console:
Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2014, 06:57:51 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 04, 2014, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on October 02, 2014, 09:18:07 PM
Looks like I waited long enough to buy this. 85% on Steam. Just nabbed every expansion plus the main game for 5.99! :showoff:
:bleeding: Just paid $50 for that.
Steam sales can be brutal that way. :console:
I'm considering buying the complete Victoria I :needtightwadsmilie: *
*Or should I do this:
[fahdiz] [/fahdiz]
Actually, when I bought Victoria II, I got Victoria 1 steam codes as well. I already owned Victoria 1 so you can have them if you want them. Just PM me.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 04, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
Actually, when I bought Victoria II, I got Victoria 1 steam codes as well. I already owned Victoria 1 so you can have them if you want them. Just PM me.
Oh thanks for that Raz. :)
But I've already clicked on the checkout, cost me all of about $1.70 :blush:
United the NGF peacefully pretty early (including Lux). It's 1858 now and I have the number 1 military and 3rd rank industry, however France and Russia have been allied since the beginning of the game and so have Britain and Austria.
I've researched all the 1850s military techs, once I've maxed out on the brigade count will I be able to compete with Russia and France (3rd and 9th ranked militaries IIRC)? I'm allied with the Ottomans, Swedes, Danes, Bavarians and Netherlands. Not sure how likely they are to join me against such a strong coalition.
There haven't been any useful crises. The Panjab conquered Afghanistan, but when they try to rebel the British backs the Panjab and no one else is interested, not even the Russians.
The Russians and British have conquered Chinese coastal provinces, but so far no tension there.
Playing as France, I got betrayed by Austria and pinned between an alliance of Great Britain and the NGF in the Franco-Prussian War. Throw in Denmark and the German minors, and I didn't last too long. Bastards. All of the crisis that popped up were usually focused around Greece wanting territory. None of them ever came to war though.
Had four or five major wars in the 1865 to 1882 time span, mostly against Austria and sometimes Britain, or against France and Russia. I liberated Hungary and did the three hurrah's for Germany, forming Kliendeutchland. I eventually managed to get Austria in my sphere and after five years they petitioned for annexation in December '96.
Britain has been my ally for sometime and we've been using our clout to bully France and Russia around during crises. Hungary has just become a Great Power, passing the Two Sicilies, which is oddly more industrialized then Italy. :huh: Wish I could have spun off Lombardy and Venice as one nation, but with the Italy tag in use it wasn't possible.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7kgpfhK.jpg&hash=6a3ae4b9535615ce7472c46b02c63fb3f57f270e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqF5fTOH.jpg&hash=58e4a981f867e60cc4ed25cc75c8a39112b8c782)
I kind of wanted to get this. Is it worth it now?
I've had fun with it. I used the Popdemand mod and the Concert of Europe mod. Economies run better with that. I like that it's a game more about building then conquering. I take a great deal of pleasure in watching my country industrialize with people becoming literate and railroads sprawling across the map. I also like the challenge of turning Russia or the Ottoman empire into prosperous liberal democracies. I'd like to image a 1930's where Turk, Kurd, and Armenian work side by side at the mill and after work go the cinema to see the latest Egyptian thriller.
Still not as cool as my world-spanning Armenian Empire in Vicky 1.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 10, 2014, 01:19:54 PM
I kind of wanted to get this. Is it worth it now?
Yes. I bought it and the expansions last weekend for $6 and have 20 hours in it so far and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of how much time I'm going to sink into the game. :bowler:
I've been playing France with PDM and have noticed that after about 10 years, money ceases to be a problem. I have 8 million bucks which is good cause when at war you run almost always run a deficit. I still don't quite understand how politics works. I want my people to become liberal so I can become a Republic or at least abolish slavery, but they remain stupidly conservative or even reactionary. I figure if I tax the fuck out of them they'll become disgruntled and become more liberal. As France I've focused my attention on fighting the Germans. I've taken away most of Western provinces of Prussia and I'm now at war with Austria. Hopefully I'll be able break off Bohemia. That should deprive Austria of it's main coal and Iron production.
What I'd really like to create an ideological state and spread Revolution across Europe.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2014, 02:02:11 AM
I've been playing France with PDM and have noticed that after about 10 years, money ceases to be a problem. I have 8 million bucks which is good cause when at war you run almost always run a deficit. I still don't quite understand how politics works. I want my people to become liberal so I can become a Republic or at least abolish slavery, but they remain stupidly conservative or even reactionary. I figure if I tax the fuck out of them they'll become disgruntled and become more liberal. As France I've focused my attention on fighting the Germans. I've taken away most of Western provinces of Prussia and I'm now at war with Austria. Hopefully I'll be able break off Bohemia. That should deprive Austria of it's main coal and Iron production.
What I'd really like to create an ideological state and spread Revolution across Europe.
you need to fire up yuor voterbase: use your national focus to convince them to become liberal voters. iirc, that should work, though it does take time
I really didn't like the limitations placed on me with regards to how I could disposes myself of those Austrian territories, and frankly the map was ugly. Used the console commands to give Ruthenia to Moldavia, Croatia to Hungary, and Venetia to Lombardia. The later because Lombardia is simply a better name for a larger Italian state, and I can't give them both to Italy because it stubbornly won't ally with me due to me having some of their cores.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FttrTDHo.jpg&hash=18fb3db39fc9f3f6fc609d52184a52df8bf6d176)
going muh kaiser is plebian enough without not using the just and proper name for a La Serenissima with such modest holdings in the mainland.
You could always play the USA, enacting unwholesome pan-american fantasies while watching railroads build. u
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 13, 2014, 09:18:15 AM
going muh kaiser is plebian enough without not using the just and proper name for a La Serenissima with such modest holdings in the mainland.
Say what now? You talking about Venice?
Okay, so every time I try and play Vicky 2 I just get intimidated. And worried I'm playing the game "wrong". Because, once upon a time, I was a master of EU 1&2, and CK1, I feel frustrated when I can't immediately get into a more modern Paradox game (though I did have some fun with EU3).
But back to Vicky2 - I decided I should just start playing, not caring if I did something "wrong". Heck, I would embrace it - enjoy screwing up a country. So of course I picked the USA. :P
And it's working. Sure, Texas has been crushed by Mexico, but I'm getting into the game. I started expanding my influence into the western continent, my economy seems to be clicking along. Some railroads seem to be being built without me doing anything.
But question - I have all these closed factories. That doesn't sound like a good thing. What should I do about them?
It depends on how governing party's economic policy. For most policies you can reopen them (though it may not be worth doing so). A lot of policies allow your capitalists to build rail and factories with out your input. Essentially you can let the economy go on autopilot without much trouble.
http://victoria-ii.wikia.com/wiki/Economic_policy
This might help.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2014, 11:41:48 PM
It depends on how governing party's economic policy. For most policies you can reopen them (though it may not be worth doing so). A lot of policies allow your capitalists to build rail and factories with out your input. Essentially you can let the economy go on autopilot without much trouble.
http://victoria-ii.wikia.com/wiki/Economic_policy
This might help.
I understand it, but what I don't grasp is what should I be doing in game.
I'm the US, so I'm presumably laissez-faire or interventionist at most. So should I just not worry about these closed factories?
I wouldn't worry. If you have interventionist economy you may want to try to reopen them after you have some railroad in the state. You can also encourage people to become craftsmen in that area, I've noticed that a lot of factories go under because of lack of workers.
I would also consider the PoPdemand mod as it makes the economy work better.
Currently I'm frustrated as I want to enter a war on the side of Hungary against Austria but I can't.
Anyone ever play a game where GB winds up getting beat down? That might be a challenge. If my goal were, say, to bring Britain down far enough to be a secondary power. What would that take? Sacking London seventeen times as France maybe?
I just figured out how to influence countries! Shame it took me till 1850 to figure it out. <_< I had a decent liberal democracy going then *Boom!*, Napoleon the III. I have pretty much destroyed Austria though. Next I hope to take away Silesia from Prussia.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2014, 04:18:29 PM
I just figured out how to influence countries! Shame it took me till 1850 to figure it out. <_<
In my first 10-ish Victoria 2 games I made it to around 1850 before discovering some key concept (colonization, national influences, influencing other countries) that I had missed and restarting.
Quote from: ulmont on October 16, 2014, 07:08:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2014, 04:18:29 PM
I just figured out how to influence countries! Shame it took me till 1850 to figure it out. <_<
In my first 10-ish Victoria 2 games I made it to around 1850 before discovering some key concept (colonization, national influences, influencing other countries) that I had missed and restarting.
:D
Yeah they don't make it exactly easy to uncover the key concepts. In part, I blame that on (as is the case with most p'dox games) the tortured evolution of game concepts such that something that is important now was never fully documented.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 16, 2014, 02:26:19 PM
Anyone ever play a game where GB winds up getting beat down? That might be a challenge. If my goal were, say, to bring Britain down far enough to be a secondary power. What would that take? Sacking London seventeen times as France maybe?
That happens in my game all buy itself. Ireland rebelled and Jacobites took over Britain. I've beaten up on the big powers so much that Austria, the Ottoman empire, and Russia are no longer great powers but Sicily, Piedmont, Bavaria and Hanover are
Russia melted down in revolution so hard that Poland just steam rolled them with a little help from the Swedes. :lmfao:
It took twenty years, but Russia is a great power again, but the Poles are in my sphere and haven't dared move against them.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8QDymwS.jpg&hash=4556d37e5ef5e475f578712024540801930badcd)
Ran in to a strange bug. After defeating the North German Federation in war in which I got the war goal "dismantle empire", I lost lost the Rheinland state and the game made it a Puppet state under my control. That was one of my most industrialized areas. :(
But the Delphi Oracle said 'Win this war and a great empire will be destroyed' and I did and....oh shit.
Apparently it's an over site with the scripting. If Germany loses the war and owns this city a new nation is created and made a puppet of France. Unfortunately it doesn't check to see if all the provinces in the new nation are owned by Germany. Took me down from the world largest industrial power to the second largest, created a large enclave of french owned provinces in Germany and abandoned a large population of Ethnic Frenchmen in a German culture state.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2014, 10:16:18 AM
Russia melted down in revolution so hard that Poland just steam rolled them with a little help from the Swedes. :lmfao:
It took twenty years, but Russia is a great power again, but the Poles are in my sphere and haven't dared move against them.
[img width=1280 heig://i.imgur.com/8QDymwS.jpg[/img]
Wow, I've never seen Sweden get Finland back.
A independent Finland happens fairly often but not such a neat take back.
Quote from: Tyr on October 25, 2014, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 22, 2014, 10:16:18 AM
Russia melted down in revolution so hard that Poland just steam rolled them with a little help from the Swedes. :lmfao:
It took twenty years, but Russia is a great power again, but the Poles are in my sphere and haven't dared move against them.
[img width=1280 heig://i.imgur.com/8QDymwS.jpg[/img]
Wow, I've never seen Sweden get Finland back.
A independent Finland happens fairly often but not such a neat take back.
Sweden got it back in the 1840s IIRC. They won northern Finland by themselves IIRC, they may have allied with me for the southern half. I can't remember when our long standing alliance began.
Britain didn't bother the US at all in my German game, why are they attacking me? I have 200 relations with them and my infamy is down to zero. I just want to take the rest of my cores from Mexico. :mad:
August 1883
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAHXyaKI.png&hash=b296f5c91258dd2813907c62e05082ef49cfb23a)
How are navies handled in the latest Victoria 2? I read some stuff about navies being so huge and unrealistic or something.
I don't think they're that big. You're limited by the size and numbers of your ports.
I pretty much finished my game as France. I had two years, but I had stopped caring. France went Fascist :(
1902- Things are going better. Military #1, Prestige #2, Industry #4 (rising fast, I now have the most factories).
Let's see, Spain has conquered most of Egypt and Brazil continues to expand in the west instead of the more profitable Rio del Plata for some reason. They've also crisscrossed the Amazon with railroads instead of the coast. :wacko:
Russia and Italy won a great war against Britain and the Ottomans. They also absolutely crushed a Chinese attempt to conquer Xinjiang, the Chinese are a great power on the account of their military, but it's fraudalent. Their tech must be way out of date.
The Germans have annexed Baden and Bavaria and Austria is no longer a great power. You'd think the Germans would want to sphere them, but apparently not.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbhkIReL.png&hash=c37707d1f0ac80858f6a036acd500b979d809cf1)
Started with just 7.7% literacy, doing pretty well I think.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHwrhPNQ.jpg&hash=066b8d115567f45170064b84aff8a11fc5a192ca)
I played Brazil a couple times in Vic 1, it was a good challenge, fun playing it.
What should I do after finishing off Bolivia? Expand my west coast at Peru's expense or annex that Argentinian salient? I'm leaning toward the former.
I started an AAR. Unfortantly not much happened in the first 10 years.
It's 1906 and I've become a great power through the power of Jazz and Surrealism.
I've sphered Chile, Ecuador and Columbia, the last of which gave me the rights to build the Panama canal. I've also colonized Easter Island.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtjJhjfl.jpg&hash=2e54941d02f144d89dd36fb8fdc402dc4844f783)
This brings back memories of our Vicky MP where a coalition formed to crush your expansionist ways lol
Quote from: HVC on November 05, 2014, 09:36:30 AM
This brings back memories of our Vicky MP where a coalition formed to crush your expansionist ways lol
I haven't gone over the infamy limit once.
Germany is the menace of this game, they're constantly getting attacked and winning. They've annexed multiple French, Russian and Austrian states, along with a Dutch state, almost all in defensive war.
I've conquered Peru, finally gaining direct access to iron ore and precious metals.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzJlNa9U.jpg&hash=3ac5215e1614a44243381594115034e71edad39e)
So you took over all of Peru now, along with other lands in the west and south. How is your infamy? Still not very high?
Infamy is the little red flag in the Politics block. 19.13 is pretty high, but the limit is 25.
Final update. I nipped off the Argentine salient and ended the game in a solid 6th place, 4th in prestige, 9th in industry and 4th in military. As of 1936, my 46.4 million people have a literacy rate of 99% and have researched all technologies, although a handful of military inventions have yet to be discovered. Unfortunately the game ended in the middle of a Great War that would likely have seen the Ottomans eviscerated.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FYvaKOm4.jpg&hash=aa42ed286dc6122f1a8a16e4a9c8a353fb44777e)
What does Peru look like? Do people still assimilate in to accepted cultures, or do you have immigration to the place that has completely swamped the "native" Peruvian population?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 10, 2014, 12:44:42 AM
What does Peru look like? Do people still assimilate in to accepted cultures, or do you have immigration to the place that has completely swamped the "native" Peruvian population?
Some parts of Peru had a significant Brazilian minority, but nowhere there had a majority. Much of Paraguay and Bolivia were swamped though by immigrants.
In Europe population shifts are glacial in comparison.
I just got this game a few days ago. First game as Prussia and I had two Jacobin revolts by the early 1840s, second one was so huge that it defeated my military. Jacobins won giving them a number of political concessions like political parties and such. I can continue the game but my military is decimated now, and besides I didn't expect to play a long time as this was a learning game.
I think next game I should give some political concessions early on to try and avoid these massive rebellions, but since it was still very early in the game and the economy was still getting going, I figured it was too early. Plus for many of the political stuff the mouse over said there was very little desire for the changes. Anything better to do to try and prevent these revolts early on??
Fighting wars on the continent seems pretty flawed. It just winds up with armies spamming everywhere. The difficulty seems to lie mostly in the fact that you can't click as fast as the AI.
I'm playing one of my first games as Prussia, and trying to form the North German Federation. I need to have Saxony in my sphere of influence, and after a lot of hassle finally got the 100 influence needed, but I can't sphere them since Austria already has them in its SOI. How can I remove Austria's SOI so I can add that? Is a major war to bring down Austria's Great Power status the only way to do it? I guess I could also wait for the war for hegemony with Austria.
I think maybe the discredit option is for that situation.
There is a "remove from sphere" option.
I couldn't do most functions as the tool tip said it was because the nation was in Austria's SoI. I think discredit was one of them but I'll check it out again. I'll check the remove from sphere option, see if that allows me. I may have overlooked that thinking it was just for me to remove a nation from my sphere.
I think they have to have low enough relations with Austria first before you can remove from sphere. It might take a while.
I had this same problem because Holstein was part of Denmark and they were in England's sphere. They ended up breaking free due to a successful rebellion in Holstein that were German nationalists putting them in Prussia's sphere.
http://www.victoria2wiki.com/Diplomacy_strategy
QuoteIf another great power has sphered a nation you will need 100 points and friendly status to remove the nation from sphere. A great power status can vary from "hatred", "Opposed", "Neutral", "Cordial", "Friendly" and "Sphere Of Influence"
Thanks guys all for the info. I'm friendly with Saxony and have 100 influence so I guess I can remove Austria from sphere. I'll check that out when next in game later today. I'm very new with this game, just started playing last week, so still learning the basics. I thought I knew what was needed for getting a nation into my sphere having read up on it some, but missed something. Liking the game so far, as I really liked Vic 1.
Vicky 2 is also rather confusing as rules changed over the course of expansions. For the longest, I couldn't get my head around puppets/satellites/in-sphere and primitive/uncivilized.
Yeah, I'm still trying to get a beginner's handle on the whole thing about spheres, influence and all of that.
Yeah, I was able to remove Austria from their sphere when I hit 100 influence. I guess they must have been distracted and didn't bother to keep shutting me down by banning embassy, etc. Now to rebuild my influence to get Saxony sphered, and I'm noticing that can be tricky with any nation if any great powers also have an interest.
In my experience you don't want a straight fight with Austria over Saxony, it is better to distract them with simultaneous attempts on Bavaria, Wurttemburg and Baden........all the time remembering that your real target is Saxony.
It is also useful to invest in Saxony's railways and industries, will help get you more points.
Yes, at this early stage in the game my military is about equal to Austria and wars can be costly in terms of manpower and finances. So I've been avoiding going to war also, and playing the diplomatic/influence game similar to what you say. Interesting point about investing in Saxony - I hadn't thought of that or realized it.
Quote from: KRonn on November 18, 2014, 10:36:33 AM
Yes, at this early stage in the game my military is about equal to Austria and wars can be costly in terms of manpower and finances. So I've been avoiding going to war also, and playing the diplomatic/influence game similar to what you say. Interesting point about investing in Saxony - I hadn't thought of that or realized it.
The score might be the same, but I don't think it takes into account technology. Given the huge differences in literacy, you'll out gun them pretty soon.
There is nothing funner than swamping your enemies with waves of troops from occupied Korea and colonial blacks.
Eat that, you beaners. One America, ruled by the white man. With the blood of inferiors paving the way. HEIL LINCOLN.
Quote from: KRonn on November 18, 2014, 10:36:33 AM
Yes, at this early stage in the game my military is about equal to Austria and wars can be costly in terms of manpower and finances. So I've been avoiding going to war also, and playing the diplomatic/influence game similar to what you say. Interesting point about investing in Saxony - I hadn't thought of that or realized it.
To get dominance over Germany as either Prussia or Austria you really need a major ally. Russia works best, but France works well for Austria and Ottomans make a good ally for Prussia. Spain is surprisingly powerful. Start a war where you force the liberation of a country. Taking Silesia, Rheinland and Westfalen from Prussia can really hobble their growth. Austria needs Bohemia. I'd focus on the coal and iron producing areas.
In my first game and first as Germany, after some stumbling a bit, and I still have a lot to figure out, I got the three hurrahs and formed a united Germany. I had sphere of influence over all the German states except for Bavaria, and had been keeping up the SOI's (which can be a bit of a hassle). I think once I researched a certain tech of nationalism the unification kicked in. Then I was glad to see that infamy from that was only about ten, where I think in the first Victoria game infamy would be somewhere around twenty which made it pretty certain that you'd have war declared by a couple or more other nations.
I haven't had war declared on me but went on a building spree of military units since my available manpower and number of units is a lot larger now. Hoping to stay out of war and want to get better relations, especially with Russia and England. England because as I start to colonize I'll be in some competition with them so want to try and avoid that. Russia because I don't want to be at war with them if I wind up in war with Austria or France. I was allied with England earlier in the game. Austria just got an event that united it and Hungary.
Now to try my hand at colonization, as I just got the tech that will give me the life rating to colonize some areas. Also got the navy tech earlier to allow invention of ironclads and I'll want to build a stronger navy with iron ships to help defend colonies. If this game is similar to the first Vic game then I figure I'll be in colonial wars with France more than most other nations, if I keep good relations with England.
Almost finished my game as Russia. Israel formed... it is 1.8% Jewish. India is a superpower and Britain is Fascist. Russia dominates Eastern Europe ruling over all Slavs except for Yugoslavia and Bulgaria which are allies. Currently buidling a navy to destroy the British empire then the French one.
How do you deal with 1880s rebels?
Quote from: Queequeg on January 07, 2015, 05:53:20 PM
How do you deal with 1880s rebels?
1890's guns! I'm not having much problem with rebels. I get German revolters occasionally in the conquered West, but no big massive revolts. I have used order focus on the new territories. I avoided options that increase militancy such as "the Means of Production", and "Flaws of Democracy'. Orthodoxy and Autocracy are the rule in Raz's Russia. Currently I'm leading in Prestige, Military and Industry. After I got my literacy up to about 20-30% the game became a lot easier. Russians don't have any rights, I passed no reforms, and rescinded the right to hold meetings, but they seem happy enough. Or at least that's the Secret Police tell me. Next time I'll post a screen shot or two.
Are you doing Concert of Europe?
I feel like Gilbert and Sullivan is the only thing to listen to while playing Victoria 2.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVLuMuwh.jpg&hash=18e99622612944fc198cdd7822abde2f10a33d6c)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5KJAWhp.jpg&hash=f4d9452650534e4130011c0fcc5969c352eeafa4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F9fTVex1.jpg&hash=3faf567cace095932e99d13d19b63c18e3dc5dbc)
Behold the power of unshakable autocracy!
Do you have tips? Education and whatnot?
Drop out of school and spend the next ten years being a worthless layabout. As for the game I'm using POPdemand mod and the Concert of Europe Start. I started the game raising the number of clerics and bureaucrats (they both help literacy in POPDM), but only to a certain level. Like 2% for each (I don't recall the actual number). Note: For some reason I had a real hard time increasing clerics and bureaucrats in Moscow. Don't know why. After several years I just focused on the other states. I allied with Austria against the Turks to build up Greece (which I allied with) and more importantly against Prussia. I found stealing Prussia provinces resulted in me getting some good factories and increased literacy. After Prussia had been hobbled I turned on Austria. When I started the game I set my government to reactionary till I had over 20% literacy which is when I shifted to conservatives. I didn't bother trying to build factories before that. I never promoted liberalism or reform. My economy didn't get going until the 1850's or '60s and the most industrialized area is still Bohemia. I'd focus on culture techs to begin with and a few of the commerce ones that increase research. You'll probably want a few on military tech, but you'll still lag behind. Once you get to 20% literacy you can start with the industrial tech, Pops won't become factory workers unless they have at least 20% literacy rate. They won't become clerks unless you have 40%. You get decisions to change ideologies that give more prestige but increase consciousness and the later ones increase militancy. I didn't have a problem with consciousness ones, but I did not chose anything that increases militancy. In the early game your military will be very poor. You'll want at least a 1:2 ratio against the enemy 1:3 is even better. Later when my literacy went up I made my army the envy of the world. My make up of armies is five regulars, one engineer, two artillery one cuirassier and one one hussar for a total of ten brigades making 30k for each army. I built no navy, though I am now in the late game.
Early years were lean, I had to defund military maintenance and max taxes to keep from going into debt. I tried to keep up education and bureaucrats funding as high as could. Once industrialization kicks in the money problems go away.
A crown from the gutter can be a fine thing indeed!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2PRiZMJ.jpg&hash=b970530e88e590aa784ecc5665907cb48b0f52e5)
How'd you do that? 48?
:o What did you do to Finns?!?
After making a Austria a puppet I got the Crown from the gutter event. I had already taken Bohemia and Moravia along with Poland. My goal now is to go communist and then spread revolution across the world. I also tried a game as Turkey, and that is really tough.
Having fun with my first CoE game (really my first game with PDM). I like the various event chains/decisions that were created to flesh out important events - though really highlights a lot of weaknesses of vanilla Victoria 2 (and the inability to make these dynamic though crisis system tries).
Smacked Ottomans around during Greek Wars of Independence resulting in larger Greece and Wallachia + Moldavia falling under Russian influence.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441926040122%2F1055313F0D1D70A445849B5616D7CE1AB93ECA08%2F&hash=9ee0e3353253cc0d26a7c8317466eb22733a3ade)
Lucked out that only France supported Ottos during Crimean War which meant I was able to beat them again leading to a strong Romania in the Russian sphere.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441926040866%2FDD1BEB0A9E2CCDED2DF8629A6FDC62E4D4F45A72%2F&hash=cff8774c590f414b320b10cbbf5ef5bb0c737cb8)
Not pictured is how Greece pulled me into a war against the Ottos (shortly after) for their claims on Epirus. At the conclusion of that war, Ottoman regime had collapsed with a Turkish Liberal Democracy taking its place. Bulgaria was also made independent and added to Russian sphere. :cool:
You should seriously consider allying with France and taking big chunks out of Prussia.
France keeps hating on me with the various crises (for a long time I was spending energy trying to get them to like me). Prussia (now NGF) has been my ally from the start, though I wasn't a very good ally and it lost the Franco-Prussian war. -_-
Even as the NGF it's probably the most powerful country in the game. I'm currently playing as Turkey and trying to figure out a way to knock Germany out of first place. Unfortunately the Soviets triggered a world war by assassinating some member of the Ottoman royal family. So now pretty much every one is against Russia. Except for Hungary.
Jacobin rebels seem a little absurd. The glorious Russian Empire fell to those dirty liberals and within short order we were just as open minded as the British. While the next election did see a conservative party elected, it seems rather odd that no one is upset that we moved from absolute monarchy to universal voting rights. :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 07:19:00 PMSo now pretty much every one is against Russia. Except for Hungary.
Plus ca change.
I have revived the sick man of Europe!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4ZYDx13.jpg&hash=c44da170d76a9618e41d74133a23a7c44a9e6125)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPAABcdg.jpg&hash=e01054efa0009ff6f431c65da1703d72c99ab653)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F391NoG1.jpg&hash=3d1db661286e0f354fa8f4f99344304ba16a2df0)
Tough game, but ended with an Ottoman democratic constitutional monarchy that dominated the globe.
I see the Med has been renamed to "Screenshot Taken"...
I just had Finland become a great power. Err...
After weathering the storm of becoming a constitutional monarchy (had to fend off major Communist rebellion and much later a reactionary one), I've now expanded my influence through the Middle East and Africa. In the screenshot below - Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Persia, Palestine (revolted from Ottos quite a while back / oddly I have a decision to create Jewish Israel), Egypt, Hedjaz, Yemen, Nejd and Bahrain all in my sphere. Albania is bugged and in both the Italian and Russian spheres.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441930664586%2F0BD1745410E2704976153D0A3BF4AF5053B8108D%2F&hash=7a4d42860eceb7c7967b4f10d85c647d158a42ef)
Reconstituted Ottoman Empire just recently revolted free from being my puppet (they always want to return to absolute monarchy so dislike that I impose constitutional monarchy on them). I plan to take them back just as soon as I finish off the several opportunistic rebellions taking place across Russia.
Scramble for Africa is also underway and I've taken much of the east and working around Oyo/Nigeria area. As soon as I shake my rebellions, plan to move on Ethiopia (troops already in place in my African holdings).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441930663940%2FED84C7DAA1504E4B88EFE6B5F5347E22F3F52232%2F&hash=ae26c987adaba0b66c79fed1f9389debe3180000)
Oddities include NGF as major Communist state, thriving Empire of Mexico and the USA and CSA agreeing to go their separate ways (US has no cores on CSA lands).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441930663633%2FDDDB116FE3E3FFA0D890831DDD17BC0653EC0DAF%2F&hash=c215b536854472a4d419ddd727e1294d9ce44e73)
Overtook France and Germany in the final years of the 19th century - coinciding with the Socialist Revolutionaries forming a majority government via election. Thankfully our populace was already literate enough and our industry strong enough that we were able to fund all their socialist policies.
In short order the SRs were voted out in favor of the Mensheviks. Under their guidance, Russia was able to overtake the UK as the world's greatest power by the time the Great War broke out (over NGF's desire to reclaim territories lost during the two Franco-Prussian Wars).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441934250621%2F9A9205E5AAC123D789E5678A3D51303E2C2EBEFD%2F&hash=69deb74f1c3176439fb9c384fb256f80c606d2cc)
I caused a bit of havoc in Austria-Hungary by supporting right of Galcia-Lodomeria and Hungary to form independent states. I'm guessing it was some sort of PDM decision that then had Austria grant independence to Croatia.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloud-4.steamusercontent.com%2Fugc%2F46496441934249582%2F2FD18E3F88301A4A11711EE9E39AC312C5872444%2F&hash=eb94bbb8a2a774631261c6b00b05862324381450)
NGF stopped being Communist but CSA now carries the torch under the name "The People's Confederacy". :unsure:
Huey Long is smiling from above. :3
And apparently this happened but I was too busy traveling to notice - but now can catch up on while continuing to suffer from jet lag. -_-
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/victoria-2-3-04-beta-patch-merry-christmas.898844/
QuoteAs some of you might have noticed there have been rumors of a new patch for Victoria 2 (the best paradox game). This started during summer when I was bored and reading forums but I only managed to get a few things done before vacation was over, then recently Wiz and Groogy got super pumped about spending their Christmas vacation on fixing stuff in victoria and things started up again (we even guilt-tripped Sideburnout into make some event images). So Merry Christmas everyone!
Here is the complete patchlog:
- Right-clicking a country on the map when no units are selected now opens diplomacy with that country.
- AI Great Powers in Europe now care about crises on other continents.
- Fixed a bug where forming nations could completely mess up diplomatic relations and satellites.
- AI Great Powers in America now care about crises in the other American continent.
- Effects of Machine Tools, Tractors, Nitroglycerin, Distribution Channels & Electricity inventions are now country wide instead of being spread through province event spam.
- Election events are now country-wide, and occur less often (about twice per election).
- Added Borderless Windowed mode.
- Fixed map crash when you start Victoria 2 for the first time.
- Will now show proper unit information if you hover over the unit icon.
- Fixed units getting stuck if you embark them on ships.
- Increased the cooldown between crises to 5 years.
- AI no longer believes the Age of Sail ended in 1936.
- AI will no longer delete closed factories while at war.
- It is now possible for non-host players in multiplayer to see how the AI would respond to diplomatic offers.
- Call Ally will now get a clear yes/no answer from allies, instead of random chance.
- Right-clicking 'go to diplomacy' will no longer be interpeted by the game as a desperate desire to crash to desktop.
- No longer possible to load an infinite amount of troops onto a single ship if they happen to board at the same time.
- You now only get the bankruptcy notification/CB if the amount owed to you is a significant sum.
- Can now set decisions to be ignored, ignored decisions will not light up the 'decision can be taken' icon in main interface.
- 'Sign the Geneva Convention' decision now has larger benefits and slower badboy decay as a downside instead of reducing max military spending.
- 'National Banking Act' decision is now actually worth taking.
- has_national_minority and political_movement triggers now have the correct localisations.
- Added split in half (shortcut 's') in unit view. This will split the selected unit into two as balanced units as it can, then select only the more powerful of the two.
- Added World Wars, the next level after Great Wars. a GW can become a WW after mass politics (1905) is researched and the winning side gains 50% warscore. After this all wargoals have their cost cut to 30% allowing you to really dismantle stuff at the end of the game.
- Fascist Siam now called Thailand
- Removed factory output changes depending on difficulty level. Non standard difficulty levels should now be safe to play without risking economic issues.
- A lot less wickedness will now be stamped out in the USA (moral crusader event now fires on country level and not every week).
- Jacobins now make democracies of prussian constitutionalism.
- Airplane-only armies no longer completely murder the strongest offensive armies when attacked. Discipline (org dmg reduction) is reduced a lot making them better mixed where they can support from the back line as they wont be able to hold provinces well. Also reduced defense a bit.
- Crisis with attacker backer and no defender backer now resolves automatically in favor of attacker rather than fizzling.
- Lone defender backer now gets some prestige for being gutsy and stepping up even if no attackers.
- Added historical military leaders to many nations.
- The Polar Bear Purchase will now turn all pops in iceland, greenland & jan mayen into polar bears.
- Added some jaw-dropping polar bear artwork.
:unsure:
QuoteThe Polar Bear Purchase will now turn all pops in iceland, greenland & jan mayen into polar bears.
Added some jaw-dropping polar bear artwork.
Jan Mayen fuckery.