• 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.
Based on the actual language used in the announcement rather than simple comparison I don't think we should be so certain. Wiz talked like it was a long way off compared to other releases.
Not really. Paradox never announce release dates when announcing new games. They did the same with CKIII.

Paradox has had a policy of only announcing games when they're fairly late in development in order to minimize risk of delays ever since the debacle of HoI4 (which had multiple delays).

Plus, Victoria 3 has been in development under Wiz since 2018 and likely was under Chris King since 2016 so the game has likely been in development for 3-5 years at this point.

Besides, Terrain Graphics is likely one of the easiest parts of developing Victoria 3.
 
According to the IGN article they've said they hope to improve it. For my part it definitely is a change of standards based on the maps of Imperator/CK3

Though I will say they actually let us have a REAL political map this time and not a hybrid like they force as to have in CK3.

Yeah, at first glance, map graphics seem to look better in I:R. I hope they can in fact improve it a little before launch, but that's really no big deal in the end. Otherwise, the UI looks fantastic, and all the informations displayed point toward exactly the game I've always wanted Vic3 to be. Love it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Can you please not assume I'm a tiny baby who hasn't been following this thread for months?

I am saying: If you actually hear what Wiz says in the announcement, he implies Victoria 3 is significantly far off. Whether that's more or less than Imperator or CK3 were? I don't know. I don't care. I just don't like you talking to me like I'm an idiot who hasn't been paying attention just as long as you have.

You are reading WAY too much into my post mate.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You are reading WAY too much into my post mate.
I just don't like being told things I already know when the person telling me should definitely know I already know. Everyone knows the HoI4 debacle.

Both Imperator and CK3 took about 11 months from announcement to release.

I'm also well aware that Caligula has been being worked on for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Pretty surface level really. I just don't like being told things I already know when the person telling me should definitely know I already know.

Methinks you need some chill, bro. Not everyone's out to demean and insult you. Besides this is a happy day! We finally got Victoria 3!

Besides, they're already doing weekly dev diaries for Victoria 3 starting with this one and one next week about the Pop System. They wouldn't do that if the game was more than a year out. I mean, there's only so much info you can give on a game in the form of dev diaries.

Also, for CKIII there were 42 dev diaries (including the two "zero" dev diaries. There might be a bit more than that for Victoria 3, but not much more.

With dev diaries at a weekly pace with some breaks in between for holidays (there's the multi-week holiday coming up for Summer in Sweden) I'd expect a Late Spring Early Summer release in 2022.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you sure about that? ;)

Personally, I am very surprised it wasn't, as the revolutionary era fits Victorian age miles better than EU & the latter years of Victoria are also out of place. There is no point discussing this now as Paradox have fixed the timeline for the game, & people need to get around it, Personally, I am very impressed wth what I have seen so far.

Now if only Paradoz could make a revolutionary game covering most of the 18th century to 1836 that would satisfy many people.
 
Personally, I am very surprised it wasn't, as the revolutionary era fits Victorian age miles better than EU & the latter years of Victoria are also out of place. There is no point discussing this now as Paradox have fixed the timeline for the game, & people need to get around it, Personally, I am very impressed wth what I have seen so far.

Now if only Paradoz could make a revolutionary game covering most of the 18th century to 1836 that would satisfy many people.

It actually doesn't fit the Victorian Era at all. Seriously. Like at all. The only thing that connects the the Revolutionary period with the Victorian period is that superficially, there were revolutions that took place later in the period. That's really it.

In 1789 the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy, so realistically you wouldn't be able to do much there, which is most of Victoria right there out the window. The Revolutionary/Napoleonic Era was all about the dismantling of the Old Order and the attempted institution of a New Revolutionary/Napoleonic Order that ultimately failed. That's the story of 1789-1815. It fits much more, narratively wise, with EUIV (or as a separate game).

Victoria on the other hand is all about the aftermath of that period, with the victorious powers having attempted to reinstitute the Old Order and we're playing in the period where it all gradually falls apart.
 
It actually doesn't fit the Victorian Era at all. Seriously. Like at all. The only thing that connects the the Revolutionary period with the Victorian period is that superficially, there were revolutions that took place later in the period. That's really it.
The relationship between the French Revolution and other European revolutions are more than superficial. It's kind of definitive of everything that came after.

Though I will agree, that's not really the only thing Victoria is mainly about at it's core. Politics and revolution are still very important to Victoria, but 1789 would be kind of dumb when most major powers won't even be using the game's main mechanics (economics and industrialization) for several decades.
 
Last edited:
The relationship between the French Revolution and other European revolutions are more than superficial. It's kind of definitive of everything that came after.

Though I will agree, that's not really the only thing Victoria is mainly about at it's core. Politics and revolution are still very important to Victoria, but 1789 would be kind of dumb when most major powers won't even be using the game's main mechanics (economics and industrialization) for several decades.

Also, consider that including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars would be giving Victoria 3 a Double Climax (though I'm sure there are some people who would be into that ;)), which, from a thematic perspective is kind of weird. The beginning/middle of Victoria (roughly 1836-1890) is all about the gradual build up and prepping of your country for the final release that is the World War(s) (roughly 1890-1936).

The Revolutionary Period (roughly 1750-1821-ish) does belong in Europa Universalis because it's quite literally the climax of the game. It's where you test your empire's mettle against the other players in a thematic sense. Just because Paradox hasn't quite gotten it to work quite right doesn't mean it doesn't belong, it means Paradox should put more effort into making it work (for the sequel, EUIV is effectively dead to me at this point).

Taking the 1750-1821-ish period out of Europa Universalis and into Victoria would be like putting the 1890-1936 period into HoI because WORLD WAR IS WORLD WAR SO IT BELONGS IN GAME ABOUT A WORLD WAR (and yes, I have heard people argue this before). From a certain point of view it might make sense, but what you're effectively arguing for is the removal of the closest thing a Paradox GSG has to a "final boss" from one game and putting it into another.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The Revolutionary Period (roughly 1750-1821-ish)
It never really stopped, it keept chugging through the entire century more or less with loud outburts in the 1840s and 1860s-70s before quieting down a bit toward the last few decades. Just from 1821 to 1836, you get Greece, Belgium, and all of the Latin American wars of independence. Though I get what you mean with the specific emphasis on the French Revolution.

I would hate for Victoria to end in the Belle Epoch. That would just be a total anti-climax. The World Wars are my favorite point in the game really. I'm really interested in seeing how they handle it.
 
It never really stopped, it keept chugging through the entire century more or less with loud outburts in the 1840s and 1860s-70s before quieting down a bit toward the last few decades. Just from 1821 to 1836, you get Greece, Belgium, and all of the Latin American wars of independence. Though I get what you mean with the specific emphasis on the French Revolution.

I would hate for Victoria to end in the Belle Epoch. That would just be a total anti-climax. The World Wars are my favorite point in the game really. I'm really interested in seeing how they handle it.

However, there is a clear era break in and around the Congress of Vienna, where you have the emergence of a new balance of power in Europe that will remain more or less unbroken, despite German and Italian unification, all the way until 1914. In between 1815 and 1914 there is a distinct lack of a truly monumental pan-European war that changed things in the same way that the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars changed Europe. And no, the Franco-Prussian War doesn't count. While it's an obvious prelude to the Great War, with the formation of Germany, and a few cracks began to form under the surface, the Post-Vienna balance of power kept on going until 1914 (though it obviously could've ended sooner than 1914, I'm just using historical dates as a benchmark of sorts).

The 1815-1914 period, from a European perspective at least, represents its own distinct era quite clearly and considering that the era represents the solidification of European Global Dominance (and the seeds of its eventual destruction) I think it's the European perspective that we should focus on for deciding things like what time periods should be included.

As for the Greek, Belgian, and Latin American Revolutions? Well the former two represent more of a settling effect of the new balance of power rather than a radical change. And the Latin American Revolutions? Well, Latin America, sorry to say to our Latin American forum members, doesn't really factor into European matters all that much, a bit perhaps, but the revolutions certainly didn't radically affect the European balance of power.

The revolutions of 1848? It was a bit of a dud for the most part to be honest and I've already mentioned the German and Italian unifications, which is what I assume you meant by revolutions in the 1860s-70s period?
 
And no, the Franco-Prussian War doesn't count.
Why would I have said a relatively quick war between 2 major powers and the lesser German states was a major continent-wide war?

I mention the Latin American revolutions because they're entirely in the context of Spain's position during the revolutionary period.

The revolutions of 1848? It was a bit of a dud for the most part to be honest and I've already mentioned the German and Italian unifications, which is what I assume you meant by revolutions in the 1860s-70s period?
Whether or not they succeeded at their stated goals is kind of irrelevant to whether they were important or impactful, and I feel you're implying them not succeeding somehow makes them unimportant by dismissing them as "duds". It's still a major moment and those potential "turning points" that could have gone differently are a pretty big sell imo. In any case, German and Italian unification are not the totality of what I was referring to. The Paris commune that did have a possible window of success lives in that time period, the Austrian Constitution was created, and a big one for WW1: The Great Eastern Crisis.
 
Why would I have said a relatively quick war between 2 major powers and the lesser German states was a major continent-wide war?

Just covering all my bases. You'd be surprised what some people will say to win an argument and I don't know you from some people.

I mention the Latin American revolutions because they're entirely in the context of Spain's position during the revolutionary period.

By 1815 Spain had been slipping into irrelevancy for about a century at that point. Spain by this point had been overshadowed by Britain and France, Latin American Empire intact or not. The loss of most of their American colonies was just icing on the cake at that point.

Whether or not they succeeded at their stated goals is kind of irrelevant to whether they were important or impactful, and I feel you're implying them not succeeding somehow makes them unimportant by dismissing them as "duds". It's still a major moment and those potential "turning points" that could have gone differently are a pretty big sell imo. In any case, German and Italian unification are not the totality of what I was referring to. The Paris commune that did have a possible window of success lives in that time period, the Austrian Constitution was created, and a big one for WW1: The Great Eastern Crisis.

I'm not talking about the importance of the Revolutions of 1848 from the perspective of politics in individual countries, I'm talking about the geopolitical impact it had on the European Balance of Power which, in the short run, was minimal. 1848 did not end the Post-Vienna Balance of Power.

And, as much as I love Alternate History, it has its place and its place isn't here. When trying to define the time frame of historical eras one can not rely on what might have happened, only what actually happened because people can and do argue about "might have beens" until the heat death of the universe.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
By 1815 Spain had been slipping into irrelevancy for about a century at that point. Spain by this point had been overshadowed by Britain and France, Latin American Empire intact or not. The loss of most of their American colonies was just icing on the cake at that point.
Still directly related to the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars though, as Spain saw wild back-and-forth political upheaval due to its involvement on both sides and the aftermath. To be clear I wasn't really following your "shifts in the balance of power in Europe" line of thought with that one so the fact Spain would basically be an irrelevant backwater regardless wasn't really in my mind. Was just trying to "um akshully revolutions kept going after Napoleon died" your "Age of Revolutions" thing. I don't disagree with the date chosen at all. I'm just kind of like that.


And, as much as I love Alternate History, it has its place and its place isn't here. When trying to define the time frame of historical eras one can not rely on what might have happened, only what actually happened because people can and do argue about "might have beens" until the heat death of the universe.
As I say, I'm not really trying to argue for different dates. I think they're fine. I was just trying to "um akshully" you. Though I do honestly think having a lot of "turning points" in the game is appealing. I know people don't like railroading, but I'd at least like some major events that were totally skipped in Victoria 2 have spicy alternate outcomes.