Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Victoria 3 - is it really a necessity? And if yes, why?

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.
loup99

loup99

Godogost of Armorica
84 Badges
Jan 22, 2013
16.618
7.316
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Pride of Nations
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • Rome Gold
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Cities: Skylines
Well I wanted to make this thread in order to create a bit of a debate, is Victoria 3 really necesary? What features would you require it to have that the previous did not have if it is? Because, I'm not sure on that making new games is always a necessity, especially when the old one is as throughoutly developed as Victoria 3. If graphics is the only reason, then I don't think it is a good way of making a sequel. Constanly rebranding and repackaging is not always necessary, even in our commercial society. Personally, I'm not against Victoria 3, but I would like to know why some of you think it is a "must-make" for PDS.
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Because there is always stuff they can add, take out, change etc. It's likely that most, if not all, of the team who worked on Vicky 2, aren't 100% happy with the game, or 100% convinced it is the best it can ever be.
 
Most definitely yes. The Economy, by itself the very point of the game, absolutely needs an overhaul. For instance you can not expand the time frame by more than 50% before the world economy starts getting wonky.

Then there's the military aspect and the trade aspect. There's so much that could be done with a Vicky 3.
 
It's necessary because I can't enjoy playing it natively on Linux :cool:

On another note, aforementioned posts about the economy and general outdatedness applies. I can only dream but I'd love regional markets as well as more in-depth colonization and late game.
 
I am highly worried about Victoria 3. I feel it will be be streamlined by removing or simplifying important features. I feel like the main reasons I don't look forward to it is because of my personal preferences. I am a fan of Victoria 2's map, and I would definitely say it is the best in any paradox game. I feel like a 3D map (which would be inevitable for a Vic3) would take away from the feel of the game. I do agree that things like Crises and the AI need to be fixed, but maybe that would be possible in an expansion for Victoria 2 rather than a a sequel, which is what I would rather Paradox make.
 
  • 10
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I have never seen a game in all my years playing computer games that couldn't be improved on, & although Victoria 2 is an excellent game there are areas that need a overhaul whilst other features could be added.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, i think the rebel system desperatly needs an overhaul. Also i´d love some late game content (better fleshed out Great Wars, kind of a League of Nations system). Everything else is just an "would be nice, doesn´t have to be". And, yeah, it was already suggested but, just read the Propsals for Victoria 3 thread in the Vicky2 forum. There are enough ideas for way more than one game in it.
 
Because I want to do a Crusader Kings II -> Europa Universalis IV -> Victoria III -> Hearts of Iron IV Megacampaign. I think that's a good enough reason.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Ok, so it seems like bad optimisation, engine, AI, lategame and bugs are the biggest issues according to you. While playing the game I only encountered two of those- the AI that was not too godd at warfare (pre-Wiz AI?) and the lategame being not the best. But I think that only the engine problem is the one that would require a new game, if you ignore the fact that they won't continue developing Victoria 2.
EU3NOOB said:
Most definitely yes. The Economy, by itself the very point of the game, absolutely needs an overhaul. For instance you can not expand the time frame by more than 50% before the world economy starts getting wonky.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think that game development should be made with game timeline-extension possible or-not in mind. If it is possible, it a plus. If not, a bit sad. The pother concerns seem good though.

Barkingdragon13 said:
People will buy it, so it will necessarily be made.
Click to expand...
That is one way of seeing it. :p
 
crownsteler said:
Aside from Victoria 2 having an outdated engine, a number of bugs, poor optimalisation, a horrible AI and more? Just read the Proposal(s) for Victoria 3 thread to see the number of features which really should have been there, but aren't.
Click to expand...

/thread

Just kidding. The war AI really is awful tho, and the game lacks some of the pretty essential engine features of EUIV, particularly seasonal graphics and supply limits.
 
- The interface is overloaded with shiny graphs and piecharts that sometimes have 0 impact on the game.
- Tooltips arent explained.
- It has some absolutly unbalanced concepts: faster research tech, +3 attack tech, research via conquest to name a few.
- The economy is way too easy and looks way too complex for it. Eg. No benefit to microing the economy at all, given that at a certain time you just rake in cash anyways.
- Some QOL stuff: selecting all cav in a stack the same as you do in EUIV, leader sorting after actual stats and many more.

Dont get me wrong Vicky is the game.
I feel absolutly indifferent about a sequel to EU4, CKII and the "soon" to be released HoI4. It has the highest potential out of all their four main franchises. It offers blobbing for the people who desire and it offers a goal for the other group. Heck it could even be a proper WiSim since the current market is lacking one aswell.

Vicky II is - from the perspective of someone who really started Pdox games with EU4 - outdated, thus bad and could be so much more. If they do it right I see it easily eclipsing EU4.

So yes, Victoria III is absolutly necessary.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Vicky 2 is awesome, and one of my favourite PDS games to date, but as everyone else has posted, there's soooooo much that could be improved. Just the idea that anyone (even PDS, bless their GSG souls) could get that time period 'right' in the second crack, AI aside, is expecting a bit much. Key things that could be improved substantially are:

- Diplomacy. It's pretty solid, but there have been big steps forward in EU4 that Vicky 3 could benefit from (and build on).
- The Economy. Vicky 2's attempt was great, and by the Heart of Darkness was starting to come together, but there's a heap of potential to polish and improve this, both in terms of its functioning and interface (which was a bit step up from Vicky 1, but it's a very tricky thing to get right).
- Starting dates. It's surprising there's no September 1914 start date (or even a 1912 start date), and it wouldn't be bad to have one prior in 1870 (Franco-Prussian war) and 1904 (Japanese-Russian war) as well. Best possible would be an EU/CK post-1066 style 'start whichever day you like' approach, but that may be too much work to be practical.
- Warfare. It's solid, but for a game that covers WW1, could be done better. That, and the naval DD for HoI4 has some great ideas that could work well in a new Vicky.
- AI - the most important thing in _any_ GSG where you don't have humans playing every country (which in a Vicky game would be a lot of humans in the game!) Vicky 2's AI was a good deal better than Vicky 1's, but improved processing power and better AI algorithms will always be good - we're a long way off the "AI improvement curve" having a shallow gradient.

And that's off the top of my head ;). To be honest, the PDS game that feels 'most' complete would be CK2, so if there was any game for which a sequel could be questioned, that'd be the one (and I'm not suggesting it isn't necessary, just that it's 'less' necessary than Vicky 3 - I will buy and play CK3 :))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back