Victoria 3

[garbon]

I want it to be good, but i have a dreadful feeling that I'll be sad.

+1

[Tamas]

If you were following dev letsplays and such you would know that there are going to be issues (I think AI is guaranteed to be wonky when it comes to diplomacy and peace deals) but the design seems very solid.

I am confident it won't be "sad". It may very well be a diamond in the rough requiring several patches to balance, but definitely not something like Imperator, needing a complete redesign.

[Valmy]

Nothing will make me sadder than their Napoleonic game.

[garbon]

If you were following dev letsplays and such you would know that there are going to be issues (I think AI is guaranteed to be wonky when it comes to diplomacy and peace deals) but the design seems very solid.

I am confident it won't be "sad". It may very well be a diamond in the rough requiring several patches to balance, but definitely not something like Imperator, needing a complete redesign.

Okay but what about ck3, 2 years on?

I want to be hopeful that p'dox will properly support its new games but still uncertain.

[HVC]

Nothing will make me sadder than their Napoleonic game.

I had been really looking forward to their Rome game.

[HVC]

If you were following dev letsplays and such you would know that there are going to be issues (I think AI is guaranteed to be wonky when it comes to diplomacy and peace deals) but the design seems very solid.

I am confident it won't be "sad". It may very well be a diamond in the rough requiring several patches to balance, but definitely not something like Imperator, needing a complete redesign.

Maybe I'm just getting older and grumpier but paradox's "eventually it might be good" gamble just doesn't do it for me anymore.

[Tamas]

If you were following dev letsplays and such you would know that there are going to be issues (I think AI is guaranteed to be wonky when it comes to diplomacy and peace deals) but the design seems very solid.

I am confident it won't be "sad". It may very well be a diamond in the rough requiring several patches to balance, but definitely not something like Imperator, needing a complete redesign.

Okay but what about ck3, 2 years on?

I want to be hopeful that p'dox will properly support its new games but still uncertain.

Well, actually. I think CK3 is a well produced game. It is just only half of the kind of game (historical grand strategy) that I would have preferred.

And coming from that angle of design goals, the two games couldn't be farther apart for me. I play CK3 despite its increasing desire to be an RPG. Victoria 3 seems to want to be exactly the kind of economic political and societal simulation that I want from a strategy game especially  19th century one.

And especially with the warfare model they show me they tried to innovate, and put coherent design over marketability. There will be no end of "omg war sucks where are my units" comments and Steam reviews. Nobody has played the game yet and there have been tons of such comments already.


Obviously I cannot be certain the game won't suck but I am almost certain it will the very least have enough to keep me entertained while seeing and learning the various interconnected systems in action.

Heck, come Spring I might be rotting away in some bombed-in shelter thanks to the nukes dropped on London. I am not gonna' be holding off waiting for the perfect 19th century grand strategy, I'll just play the best one available instead.

[Tamas]

If you were following dev letsplays and such you would know that there are going to be issues (I think AI is guaranteed to be wonky when it comes to diplomacy and peace deals) but the design seems very solid.

I am confident it won't be "sad". It may very well be a diamond in the rough requiring several patches to balance, but definitely not something like Imperator, needing a complete redesign.

Maybe I'm just getting older and grumpier but paradox's "eventually it might be good" gamble just doesn't do it for me anymore.

I think you are targeting the wrong game with that, but fair enough.

For sure, if after all I wrote above I AM proved wrong and the game IS a hopeless mess, I am done with Paradox.

[Sheilbh]

Nothing will make me sadder than their Napoleonic game.

They did a Napoleonic game?

[garbon]

If you were following dev letsplays and such you would know that there are going to be issues (I think AI is guaranteed to be wonky when it comes to diplomacy and peace deals) but the design seems very solid.

I am confident it won't be "sad". It may very well be a diamond in the rough requiring several patches to balance, but definitely not something like Imperator, needing a complete redesign.

Okay but what about ck3, 2 years on?

I want to be hopeful that p'dox will properly support its new games but still uncertain.

Well, actually. I think CK3 is a well produced game. It is just only half of the kind of game (historical grand strategy) that I would have preferred.

And coming from that angle of design goals, the two games couldn't be farther apart for me. I play CK3 despite its increasing desire to be an RPG. Victoria 3 seems to want to be exactly the kind of economic political and societal simulation that I want from a strategy game especially  19th century one.

And especially with the warfare model they show me they tried to innovate, and put coherent design over marketability. There will be no end of "omg war sucks where are my units" comments and Steam reviews. Nobody has played the game yet and there have been tons of such comments already.


Obviously I cannot be certain the game won't suck but I am almost certain it will the very least have enough to keep me entertained while seeing and learning the various interconnected systems in action.

Heck, come Spring I might be rotting away in some bombed-in shelter thanks to the nukes dropped on London. I am not gonna' be holding off waiting for the perfect 19th century grand strategy, I'll just play the best one available instead.

I didn't compare the two because I think they are the same game. I compared them because they both are made by a company that has always relied it eventually might be good/great.

I think while CK3 was indeed great fun at release, it still suffers from a lot of places where they've promised they would add polish (say not every start playing nearly identically) and they've only made minor advancements.

[garbon]

Nothing will make me sadder than their Napoleonic game.

They did a Napoleonic game?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/227760/March_of_the_Eagles/

[Tamas]

Fair enough.

One thing to mention on that particular thing though (and I know this is beside your point) is that moderate Paradox shrill One Proud Bavarian specifically highlighted his experience from playing it at the Paradox con that the way the game works, having different political and cultural setups actually mean different challenges and approaches, unlike CK3.

[Tamas]

Nothing will make me sadder than their Napoleonic game.

They did a Napoleonic game?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/227760/March_of_the_Eagles/

Don't quote me because I know some of the people involved in the story but I have never actually asked them, but I think March of the Eagles was meant to be an Ageod game when they were with Paradox but it didn't work out so Paradox decided to do one on their own quickly, or something.

Come to think of it, I think it's the only Paradox-developed game I have never played.

[Habbaku]

It's sad, because making a simulation that only covers the period from the Revolution to 1820 would seem to be a really intriguing project that would be attractive to the typical Paradox MP community.

[Valmy]

Nothing will make me sadder than their Napoleonic game.

They did a Napoleonic game?

Dude I wanted to love it so bad. The world desperately needs a computer Napoleonic grand strategy game.

But it sucked. It also started in 1805 which was a bummer. I mean WTH man? At least start in November 1799 if you are just going to do Napoleon.

Oh for a 1793-1815 Revolution and Napoleonic Wars game!