-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No.
Both have many similarities (pops, trade, politics) but in different ages. They do not need to kill one to have the other.
Only if limited in resources as they say, they may have decided to concentrate in very different products:
Vic3:
Hoiiv: wargame
Ck3: roleplay game
Stellaris: sci-fi
Newgame: fantasy
Last edited:
- 6
They talked about needing manpower somewhere else, I can see moving people who know what they are doing to a much more important project (in the company's eyes) like Victoria 3.
If all goes well after Vic3's launch we might really see a new development phase for imperator
- 5
- 1
Don't think there is a connection. Beside what @Lord Lambert said about the timeline, you clearly see that the IR staff has moved to CK3/HoI4/EU4 - here I spotted @Jamor yesterday over in the Hoi4 section (it's interesting though that some of the movers need to be reminded by the IR community to change their profile title
)
So at best it would be a very indirect rotation, if you claim that this move frees now old people in CK3/HoI4/EU4/... to work on Vic3 - what would be questionable IMO because every shift of a developer to a new game brings transformation losses like having to work into a new thing.
- 7
- 2
Vicky 3 is billed as a "society builder" which I think is very different from an "empire builder" (which is the phrase used for IR).
The key difference being that expansion is much more central to IR than to Vicky 3.
Essentially, IR involves shaping a new country out of nothing, while Vicky 3 will involve guiding an existing country through one of the most transformative periods of history, not necessarily changing it's borders all that much but completely rewriting the lives of the people within.
- 10
- 1
If we are allowed to alt history we could try what the British Empire did in that century:
Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians,[97][98] around 10 million sq mi (26 million km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire.[99] Victory over Napoleon left Britain without any serious international rival, other than Russia in Central Asia.[100] Unchallenged at sea, Britain adopted the role of global policeman, a state of affairs later known as the Pax Britannica,[101][102][103] and a foreign policy of "splendid isolation".[104] Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many countries, such as China, Argentina and Siam, which has been described by some historians as an "Informal Empire".[6][7]
Empire building and society transformation. This is not the topic of the thread, but I would like to see both in Vic 3.
Society transformation is akin what we do with cultural assimilation and promotion of POPs in I:R. Why do we do it? To increase our Empire. The drive is very important. What will be the drive in Vic3 if it is a society builder? Idk. I think It is very interesting period of history and one that I will love to play with all the different society challenges and schools of thoughts. But the main drive should be Empire building.
- 3
- 2
Just look at the steam page of PDXCON, not mention of Imperator existence, a deliberate cover up. Not even a discount for the last DLCs to try reviving the game.
- 6
- 1
The DLC bundle include Heirs of Alexander and is only $3 more expensive than Heirs itself.
- 8
- 1
- 1
You'll still get a 31% discount on Heirs of Alexander if you buy the bundle.
- 1
People pressing the funny red X button are just coping in the wrong direction. I am disapointed with Paradox and will not buy any future DLC and games without a heavy discount and a near perfect steam review score. The sad truth is that Imperator died for many reasons including this one.
I will just give my personal short list of general reasons why:
1. Not enough players to generate hype so you would have to put in more work into the game than just releasing a buggy DLC driving people away from the game even more(like with EU4 Leviathan)
2. Paradox manegement focusing heavily on short term profit from selling DLC for older games like HoI4, EU4, Stellaris.
3. Developing Victoria 3 would require people who actually know what they are doing so who better to use than Imperator devs that revived a dying game in a matter of a couple patches.(that's right, Imperator was pretty much used as a training dummy by management)
4. Paradox didn't expect Imperator to sell as much as it did and they actually felt like squeezing the most ammount possible before dropping the game so they would get a better return on investment. That is why 2.0 was even a thing IMO. They would have pulled the plug sooner if they didn't see the profit in doing another DLC and patch, but now since they have a new product comming out with Victoria and CK3 still stagnating with close to 0 new content they can safely abandon Imperator.
Will they ever return to Imperator? Maybe, maybe not. I'm just highlighting why they did what they did.
I will just give my personal short list of general reasons why:
1. Not enough players to generate hype so you would have to put in more work into the game than just releasing a buggy DLC driving people away from the game even more(like with EU4 Leviathan)
2. Paradox manegement focusing heavily on short term profit from selling DLC for older games like HoI4, EU4, Stellaris.
3. Developing Victoria 3 would require people who actually know what they are doing so who better to use than Imperator devs that revived a dying game in a matter of a couple patches.(that's right, Imperator was pretty much used as a training dummy by management)
4. Paradox didn't expect Imperator to sell as much as it did and they actually felt like squeezing the most ammount possible before dropping the game so they would get a better return on investment. That is why 2.0 was even a thing IMO. They would have pulled the plug sooner if they didn't see the profit in doing another DLC and patch, but now since they have a new product comming out with Victoria and CK3 still stagnating with close to 0 new content they can safely abandon Imperator.
Will they ever return to Imperator? Maybe, maybe not. I'm just highlighting why they did what they did.
- 13
- 6
- 3
No, they are disagreeing with an objectively inaccurate statement.
I would take your word for it but you have proven yourself to be a bit happy with your conspiracy theories and frequently have absolutely nothing to back up your ridiculous statements.
- 12
- 1
"conspiracy theories"
"ridiculous statements"
They sent people to work on STELLARIS instead of Imperator
STELLARIS
I have more than a resonable ammount of hours in stellaris but do I want more DLC for stellaris or Imperator to be a great game? The answer is obvious to me.
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 2
I too prefer IR over Stellaris (duh, this is the IR forum), but you may have to get used to the thought that PDS doesn’t make business decisions based on the personal taste of Godd_Howard. Or Torugu for that matter.
- 5
- 2
- 1
So what? That won't stop me from complaining every chance I get.
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 1
Complaints and disagreements are not bad, on the contrary, they are very helpful (1) if they are done in good manners.
There is no progress with a group of courtiers.
(1) even if they are not right, or completly outlandish. They can be addressed and help dismiss doubts and misconceptions. Going unanswered is worst IMHO. I have learned a lot by being wrong.
There is no progress with a group of courtiers.
(1) even if they are not right, or completly outlandish. They can be addressed and help dismiss doubts and misconceptions. Going unanswered is worst IMHO. I have learned a lot by being wrong.
- 6