Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Is there anyone who still doesn't realize that victoria3 has failed?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 3 11343 Bug Reports 6939 User Mods 518 Multiplayer 61 Suggestions 3041 Tech Support 853 After Action Reports (AARs)
Looking at what's in store for next patch, then I'm not even a bit worried about Vic 3's future. It really looks like the team cares a great deal about this game and are capable of doing great things.

It's a bit off that the game is in a state it is in, but I can see a great future ahead of it.
That is if they don't repeat "Biogenesis incident" :v

I don't think Vic 3 can afford that.
 
  • 12
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Arthasus said:
Looking at what's in store for next patch, then I'm not even a bit worried about Vic 3's future. It really looks like the team cares a great deal about this game and are capable of doing great things.

It's a bit off that the game is in a state it is in, but I can see a great future ahead of it.
That is if they don't repeat "Biogenesis incident" :v

I don't think Vic 3 can afford that.
Click to expand...
Well, they're not trying to rush the patch's release to match the anniversary date and end up with a broken and unfinished mess that they'll apologize for but then make the exact same mistake the very next year, so I think we're good.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
47pik said:
It’s pretty obvious why they’ve been chosen. The countries are chosen because they pair well with mechanical overhauls in the accompanying free patch. French flavor content paired well with Agitator mechanics. Great Game flavor content paired well with hegemony mechanics. India flavor content paired well with political movement mechanics. What’s to be confused by?

Vic 3, more than any other PDX title I’ve played is using DLC as a Trojan horse for pushing out mechanical revisions they want to make for free. The devs are clearly coming up with free features they want to give everyone, and then figuring out how to sell something to keep the bosses happy.

It’s a shockingly proconsumer move and half this forum just cries about their favorite European country not getting content NOW.
Click to expand...
Agitator: French yes, a shame it was so shallow in the end

Sphere of Influence: the partition of/scamble for China and collapse of the Qing Dinasty

Political flavor: spring of the nation DLC/1848 revolutions

Commerce DLC: the British Empire

(hopefully) future War DLC: USA/Confederate

There should be some major content around the unification of Italy/Germany.

I don't like the choice of target region for many PDX DLCs. Major players in the period get barebone mechanics that get a DLC early on and never get revisited. However, you have various custom mechanisms for minor nations that are of no historical importance. If they had a custodian team and kept major nations interesting as they added mechanics, this would be a different story.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Don_Quigleone said:
In fact, I think Victoria 3 has generally been a success. I can provide a simple point of evidence of that: Project Caesar (AKA the "unnannounced not EU5 but definitely going to be EU5).

If you read the dev diaries for Project Caesar, you can quite clearly see the influence of Victoria 3 on it's mechanics and design methodology. It's not the same as Victoria 3, but it shows a clear direction of travel for PDX titles.

Likewise, Stellaris's upcoming new version also seems to have more Victoria 3 influence in it's design.

If Victoria 3 was a failure, the rest of PDX would be running in the opposite direction. That's clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
It is Vic and Vic 2 influence (also already present in IR), you know the game Johan actually designed.

EDIT: sorry did not realize how old that thread was.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I bet politics re-work will be the pair up with USA flavored DLC. German unification will be Army somewhat- it kind of fits well with a blood and iron theme. Uk obviously to rule the waves for Navy add.

@47pik very much agree V3 has been very pro consumer, the only anti consumer piece was the release version.

@Lys91 agitators have been expanded upon where they make sense for things like movements. I hope they’ll become a bigger part of things in the future
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
lo24681 said:
I am betting that the war rework will come with a WW1 expansion personally.
Click to expand...
Oh, that would also be nice. Though some work on the USA would be welcome.

Prob32 said:
I bet politics re-work will be the pair up with USA flavored DLC. German unification will be Army somewhat- it kind of fits well with a blood and iron theme. Uk obviously to rule the waves for Navy add.

@47pik very much agree V3 has been very pro consumer, the only anti consumer piece was the release version.

@Lys91 agitators have been expanded upon where they make sense for things like movements. I hope they’ll become a bigger part of things in the future
Click to expand...

This is true. To be fair they are also expanding/improving companies this time around based on the feedback they got.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
lo24681 said:
I am betting that the war rework will come with a WW1 expansion personally.
Click to expand...
I really do hope they add world war mechanics. It feels so weird that by the 1900s you can have massive wars between great powers that span across continents, but you can only gain or lose very little from them.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Gundabadguy said:
I really do hope they add world war mechanics. It feels so weird that by the 1900s you can have massive wars between great powers that span across continents, but you can only gain or lose very little from them.
Click to expand...
The elephant in the room here is that most playthroughs stop around 1900 because of performance, which is actually an improvement from launch where it was 1870.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Prob32 said:
The elephant in the room here is that most playthroughs stop around 1900 because of performance, which is actually an improvement from launch where it was 1870.
Click to expand...
Which, to be fair, was also where my Vic2 runs tended to run out of steam, though for other reasons.

Doing world wars as a country who actually mattered in the era just meant too many stacks to manage at a time and I'd end up with armies all over recovering from routs or sieging random colonies because my focus was on the several dozen in Europe.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Dewit said:
who exactly got a lot from the first world war in your opinion?
Click to expand...
IMG_7149.jpeg

IMG_7148.jpeg

Wars should be catastrophic to your nation’s stability and pop’s confidence in the idea of your country.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Dewit said:
who exactly got a lot from the first world war in your opinion?
Click to expand...
The British and the French certainly did and the rest of the Entente to a lesser extent
 
Prob32 said:
The elephant in the room here is that most playthroughs stop around 1900 because of performance, which is actually an improvement from launch where it was 1870.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is a problem that will need fixing before they add late game content but assuming they do, then world wars is an obvious contender for dlc
 
Dewit said:
who exactly got a lot from the first world war in your opinion?
Click to expand...
The countries that gained their independence, like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia etc. Don't know about other countries, but in Poland 11th of November is celebrated as national holiday, commemorating regaining independence after 123 years of non-existence.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Cagliostro said:
Don't get me wrong; I'm not criticizing people who enjoy playing majors. I just don't myself. If you asked me if I'd rather have a DLC focused on really any of the top ten or twelve nations, or on a region like Africa, Indonesia, or Latin America, I'd pick the RotW hands down. So it's always surprising to me to find out how much of the player base plays, like, Prussia dozens of times.

I mean, I do tend to snowball even as a minor when i play well, and i don't *stop* playing a country if it becomes powerful that way. But it's usually not fun for me to play a starting major, and like most people i tend to assume other people's interests aren't so different from my own. But I've learned that that isn't the case.
Click to expand...
Think of it this way: everybody has their own pet small challenging nation they like to play as. For some (like me) it’s New Grenada. For others it’s Dai Nam, and for many more it’s Sokoto. But all of those players no matter who their particularly favorite is, are at some point going to try one of the historical big players: Prussia, Japan, USA ect.

So which is the smarter strategy? Make content for one niche area that greatly satisfies the small portion of fans with a particular love for that section of local history, or make content for a major area that mildly satisfies most fans with a general interest for the historical era depicted?

If I’m a guy who’s only really interested in 19th century Southeast Asian history, and Paradox makes a Latin American dlc, it literally does nothing for me. It’s like they didn’t release any content for me at all. But if they release a dlc fleshing out the concert of Europe, that still doesn’t cover my particular niche, but it does make a more accurate depiction of 19th century European geopolitics that will have major consequences for my playthroughs’s as I resist European colonialism. Dido for the guy interested in Latin American history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back