Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mkok]

I'd much prefer a multi-core  rewrite of Pride of Nations.    In fact i'd much prefer Pride of Nations.

Yeah, making games is as much about game design as about technical design. Paradox knows how to cut corners to deliver games that are playable at the cost of some game design which is ussually so well hidden it takes a while to notice it, Slitherine in my experience makes great game design, but the technical part is terrible. Even the idea of turn based grand-strategy needs few more year for computers to get fast enough to handle them unfortunately. I cant wait for 10-20 years for computers to get fast enough for a grand-strategy that is both playable as well as has great design without cutting corners. I am hoping for something like Imperator, CK, EU, HOI, Victoria all combined, plus extra...

Vic 2 for example has huge market simplifications, but that is simply because any more complex market calculations would have most probably made the game unplayable at the time, Vic3 can afford more complexity cause computers got better over the 10 years, but they still have to be careful about the requirements. I wonder when they will release Vic3, as I probably wont be able to run it on my current PC 

[ndkid]

I'd much prefer a multi-core  rewrite of Pride of Nations.    In fact i'd much prefer Pride of Nations.

Yeah, making games is as much about game design as about technical design. Paradox knows how to cut corners to deliver games that are playable at the cost of some game design which is ussually so well hidden it takes a while to notice it, Slitherine in my experience makes great game design, but the technical part is terrible. Even the idea of turn based grand-strategy needs few more year for computers to get fast enough to handle them unfortunately. I cant wait for 10-20 years for computers to get fast enough for a grand-strategy that is both playable as well as has great design without cutting corners. I am hoping for something like Imperator, CK, EU, HOI, Victoria all combined, plus extra...

Vic 2 for example has huge market simplifications, but that is simply because any more complex market calculations would have most probably made the game unplayable at the time, Vic3 can afford more complexity cause computers got better over the 10 years, but they still have to be careful about the requirements. I wonder when they will release Vic3, as I probably wont be able to run it on my current PC 

I think we've already been there for a bit now, it's just not where big dev teams are spending their budget. I would far prefer tuning the old engine Vic2 used than all the time and resources Paradox has  sunk into a new, "prettier" engine since then.

[Culise]

I'm sceptical of it being as good as Vicky 2 at release, but give it a year or two and a few DLC and it should get there.

Considering that Vic2 had a short development cycle and only 2 dlcs, unless they screw this up we might not have to wait for dlcs.

Expansion packs.  Vic2 predated and was something of an early experiment in the present Paradox model of modular DLCs, and if you mention there only being two of them, you're thinking of the expansion packs rather than the DLC.  The DLCs were something like under a dozen sprite and music packs of no particular note or mention.  The chief difference is that in the old model, the expansion packs were bigger, but you needed to buy them to keep up with ongoing development.  Two is a pretty average figure for that period: HOI2 had two, HOI3 had three, CK1 (the adopted stepchild taken over at the 11th hour after the wreck with Snowball) had one, and EU3 was the stand-out at four.  In terms of years, it also wasn't too bad for the period.  DLCs are the current development model, and for better or worse, I'd fully expect Victoria 3 to follow in the tracks of every Paradox-developed game from CK2 on.  Though, I do miss the old expansion-pack model at times.  They tended to be bigger and a bit more integrated both with each other and with the core system due to that underlying model.  DLC features have a tendency to end up orphaned because they can't assume you're running with the DLC needed.  Sometimes this gets fixed (EU4's estates, Stellaris' megastructures), and sometimes not so much. 

A Paradox-developed sequel to Pride of Nations is probably right-out.  That was an AGEod-developed game, and in spite of the acquisition and brief fling between the two development studios, the two did ultimately go their separate ways eight years ago.  They both remain under the general Paradox publishing umbrella, but we'd be more likely to see a Pride of Nations 2 from Paradox France (the current iteration of AGEod) than Paradox Development Studios. 

I remain cautiously interested, but I've been falling out of love with Paradox (PDS or publishing) for much of the last decade.  I don't have much confidence in their ability to really pull this off, especially given the issues they had with the market complexity they had even in Vicky 2.  I might end up buying it anyways because there isn't much competition in the era and gameplay style, but I may end up waiting for a sale instead of springing for release.  Thankfully, early and frequent sales are something else we can rely on Paradox for.
^{Heavens know I still put more time than I probably should into Stellaris, EU3, and CK2, warts and all.}

[Stench Guzman]

I don't have much confidence in their ability to really pull this off, especially given the issues they had with the market complexity they had even in Vicky 2.

The AI can't handle the economy in Stellaris.  Not too confident about how Vic3 will turn out.

[Exerosp]

*prepares thyself for victoria 3 release to be hated*
*will enjoy victoria 3 regardless like did with CK3/Imperator/HoI4/Stellaris*

Half joke aside. Hope its good and not leviathan broken levels.

Seeing how this team has been on Vic3 from the start, and weren't an entirely and seemingly completely new to EU4 team like in Leviathan, I think the promise is much better. I think the game will be even better than CK3 on release.

I love the map so far, since one of the worst things besides lack of mechanics in Vic2 was the bland map, felt like I was playing aurora4x at times. The map is better, but it's still sort of bald(idk, maybe lacking textures?) which I hope they'll tune up. But don't forget to temper any expectations and don't fall for hype.

[nautilu]

I've been arguing with the fanboys on the Vic3 forums all day. It's amazing how many are not Vic2 fans at all. I think Leviathon broke them and they are trying to turn this into EU5. They'll probably get their wish. I have no confidence in modern Pdox. How is it their fans forget their failures so quickly.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

@Exerosp, I am a little worried, as I always am, about new and "better" graphics. The Vic2 graphics were fine, good for what they were even, and like pretty much every series I feel like as the graphics have gotten better the content has gotten worse--speaking about Paradox games generally that is. Also, it's a little harsh to say it's like playing Aurora 4X lol

Anyways, yea... I want to be optimistic, because I love Vic2 and would definitely like a refined version of that, but uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I started on CK2/EU3/Vic2/HOI3 and I've found Imperator/CK3/HOI4/Stellaris to all be some form of terrible--and that's with WANTING very desperately to like them. The only game I think is an improvement over it's predecessors is EU4. So yea, I'll be pleasantly surprised if this is good, but I'm starting to write new Paradox titles off the hype-list.

[Exerosp]

@Urist McScoopbeard we can just agree to disagree. There are some dated mechanics that were just plain broken in Vic2, like your allies declaring war on your vassals through events or spherelings with no regard as to you being the spherer. Hopefully things like that will be fixed this time around, though. I much prefer Vic3's graphics over Vic2's though, but for it's time it was great. CK3 was a pretty enjoyable game though, except for being arcadey. I didn't like the direction Eu4 went after Eu3 either, but again we'll see if it'll be a good enough game. Hopefully.

And if we don't care about improving dated graphics, my take was that we could just remove them and go in the direction of Aurora4x, it's an extreme example though, my bad

Victoria 3: Everything we know so far, this reddit thread might be nice to follow too. There's some interesting stuff in here.

[forsaken1111]

posting to follow because vicky3

[IronyOwl]

I don't have much confidence in their ability to really pull this off, especially given the issues they had with the market complexity they had even in Vicky 2.

The AI can't handle the economy in Stellaris.  Not too confident about how Vic3 will turn out.

You know, I somehow forgot about this. Hopefully Vic3's economy won't be completely rewritten every six months, which should help, but still.

The phrase "not a map painter" has really stuck with me for similar reasons. It'd be awesome if they could do such a thing, but they never really have, which makes me wonder.

[Tawa]

I'm with Digital Hellhound, going by the reddit post feature leak it looks extremely good, IMO--the diplomacy system being a direct iteration on the Crisis system, numerous things specifically being outlined because they're reworks of grievances with the original (like anarchism being libertarianism in 2,) and other things like that give me a certain degree of confidence. It's their Half-Life 3, so to speak, & I feel like using CK3 as a point of comparison, there's enough of a precedent for what a Victoria game is 'supposed to be about' that they're not going to have to dedicate a weird, clunky, years-long fixing-the-game-from-scratch project like they had to with Imperator and Stellaris. (& since the original Victoria 2 is pretty barebones by modern Paradox standards, I feel like it'll suffer less from the "new Civ game syndrome" CK3 has issues with.)

Paradox games do always come with caveats--I'm sure a year after release, they'll patch a slowdown bug that makes every country in the world check to see which ethnic groups they can commit genocide towards every month for the whole game, or something like that--but I think after the mana debacle came to a head surrounding Imperator, they've to some degree or another learned their lesson about making all the games just be about Number Go Up and Conquer Foreign Country.

The one feature I'm leery about is the provinces being HoI4 provinces. The last thing the AI needs is more complicated pathfinding decisions to make--I definitely think something based more directly off the Victoria 2 map would've been better, though the details remain to be seen (& admittedly I do like being able to split states--fixes the clunky decision workaround HPM had to make for treaty ports.)

I don't have much confidence in their ability to really pull this off, especially given the issues they had with the market complexity they had even in Vicky 2.

The AI can't handle the economy in Stellaris.  Not too confident about how Vic3 will turn out.

You know, I somehow forgot about this. Hopefully Vic3's economy won't be completely rewritten every six months, which should help, but still.

The phrase "not a map painter" has really stuck with me for similar reasons. It'd be awesome if they could do such a thing, but they never really have, which makes me wonder.

I'm very curious how much of the workings of the market will be actually visible to the player, since Victoria 2's market was very much an It Just Works™ kind of thing where if you peeked under the hood you found out that sphereing countries caused goods to duplicate and weird stuff like that. The economy being as good as they make it out to be is definitely gonna make or break this one on some level, I think.

That said, I feel like the markets system replacing the sphere system, and the destruction of the global market, might help alleviate some of the weirdness simply by reducing the number of players involved in any particular economy. Not 100% confident on that point, but from what we've seen of it, it certainly feels a lot more intuitive and easier to strategize around to me than the dark-magic trade-netherrealms Stellaris and Vicky 2 operate on.

[nautilu]

Normally you would give them the benefit of the doubt, but this is modern Pdox. Imperator had bad mechanics, and they didn't even work right. After 2 years, I heard its somewhat playable, but its a frankenstein monster that proves Pdox will use the easy fixes first. Mission trees, limited buildings, civ flavor... whatever they cant make work they remove.
EU4 Leviathon. Stellaris. HOI4. I haven't played CK3 but I heard its CK2 casual. I don't know how there are still fanboys. I remember when criticism and suggestions were being banned left and right on their forums. They were down to like 3 posts a day, instead of hundreds. And Pdox spends more on influencers than they do QA. Pre sale review bans are the sign of a shady company.

[chaoticag]

The reddit preview so far seemed to be pretty promising with it leaning more towards system driven gameplay with less events than Vicky 2s. Sounds like instead of just undergoing the Meiji restoration you can get into a fistfight with russia as japan to get recognized to sit at the big boy table. I do get there was all sorts of oddness with Paradox games modeling history but it's nice to think that you could potentially work your way up to things that were straight up just event driven or hardcoded in the original like the immigration pull that the US and Brazil had as well.

Meanwhile I have like, 35 hours on Victoria 2 it seems and I still can't tell you how the game is played or how the economy works. I guess I can to some extent but it felt like the information I needed was 5 clicks deep in a menu hidden in a corner somewhere, at least how I recall it. The first user experience for Vicky was pretty bad, and I don't have the time I used to have for learning games like Dwarf Fortress anymore.

Anyway, pretty cautiously optimistic here.

[Mkok]

Id say Vicky 2 is already mostly system driven, and the events play a minor role. But the UI is a terrible mess, and the numbers dont make much sense (I make twice as many cars as my country has use for, counting for most the world production, my factories are unable to sell all the cars as there is not enough demand worldwide, and I still import cars for some reason according to the imports tab ), and it is very old, so many QOI are either so hidden you dont notice it is there, or is straight up not there (how I wish I could sort factory view by percentage of jobs filled). There is also a lot of things missing, or that dont make much sense. Capitalists in communist country, infrastructure is a pain to build if you are planned economy, being filthy rich with no way to give the money to people without modding in higher pensions, and lots more. Id say Vic2 does not set the standard very high. As long as Vic3 works at least the same as Vic2, and I can give my filthy huge cash reserves to people in filthy huge salaries to stop them revolting I am happy.

[nautilu]

I was afraid of all the charts and graphs of Vic2 at first. I owned it for a year before actually trying it. I played 35 hours before I even touched the economy. That's the beauty of Vic 2 tho and why people are still playing it today. You never get the same game twice. Sometimes the world economy collapses and sometimes their is an overproduction of phones. Sometimes the communists take over and sometimes the fascists do. There are a lot of systems in Vic 2 that could be improved, but not removed. If Vic 3 has clear cut modular systems then every single playthrough will have the same strategies. Instead of the grainy nature of Vic 2 where you have to actually pay attention to things. Or don't. I won 1st place as the USA easily without understanding any of the systems.