-
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.
Personally, I hope they either totally re-vamp Vicky, or replace it with a new concept. I'm totally up for a game of 19th-20th century war-making, industrialising, and empire-building, but Vicky just has never properly delivered on that. Why?
1) The game-period begins and ends at dates that are not defined by something meaningful in-game, but merely the end-point of EU and the start-point of HOI. Either 1798 (to include the Napoleonic wars) or 1861 (to centre the game more around the rise of nationalism) would make more sense - there just isn't anything special about 1836.
2) The late game period has always felt particularly neglected - as a fan of WW1 history this has always been a big disappointment. Vicky 2 was particularly bad for this since WW1-style conflict essentially cannot happen in-game.
3) Deciding not to implement move=attack in Vicky 2 was simply a mistake given that the era of long-line, maneuvering-corps style combat began in the 1870's (by the Russo-Turkish war of 1878 you already had armies holding defensive lines dozens of miles long in battles lasting many days). Move=attack simply makes for more enjoyable, realistic combat.
Agreed, and this is why a re-factoring of the time period might make sense.
I'd probably go a step further and have some kind of tech 'shift' to move=attack, unless the game starts in the 1870s. It does make it tricky, given the significant differences in the type of warfare in something like the Crimean war and earlier, compared with WW1. Totally behind the hope that Vicky 3 does a better job of the late game, but I wouldn't want it to lose the early game. Maybe have it start in 1816 (just after the Napoleonic Wars) as a base game, with the potential for including the French and American Revolutions and Napoleonic Wars as DLC?
These problems come due to the games timeframe itself. The game starts at early industrialization, and ends when the world was not far from becoming post industrial. Two very different worlds to get them in the same game. The only way to solve the problems you pointed without having to make two different systems for a lot of features would be making the games timeframe shorter, imo.
I agree. Perhaps you could even phase it in over time. I.e. early game battles work like in V2; then at a certain tech level, you get a move=attack phase of X days (i.e. the battle begins, X days before the army arrives in the province), after which the army arrives in the province and battle proceeds as before. Further levels of tech extend the length of this move=attack phase, until it becomes infite (i.e. combat is entirely move=attack).
This could even be used to help represent overwhelming tech advantages. I.e. if you have reached the tech to get a move=attack phase and your opponent hasn't, you get to attack for X days without the other side being able to fight back. If you have a longer move=attack phase than you opponent (say, X vs. Y), then you get to attack without the other side being able to fight back for the difference (X-Y).
Maybe a Hybrid of this for all the game? When you move you actually move your troops until the border of the province and then you start fighting and if you lose you go back but with a little of organizations(more than now), just because the provinces in Victoria 2 are a lot big for istant Move=Attack.
Victoria actually includes many historical eras. Late (but the most important ) Colonisation (most of the immigration happened in these years ). French Rev. Ideas, ww1, etc.
The thing is simply one game cannot handle them perfectly at the same time. What I propose is a start with old-school Vicky and then all those time frames get more specific with DLC, like a better colonisation and immigration DLC for the early game, better ideas such as nationalism DLC, late game WW1 DLC, more like HOI, with more advanced tech trees, army system.
The thing is simply one game cannot handle them perfectly at the same time. What I propose is a start with old-school Vicky and then all those time frames get more specific with DLC, like a better colonisation and immigration DLC for the early game, better ideas such as nationalism DLC, late game WW1 DLC, more like HOI, with more advanced tech trees, army system.
I find it incredible to see how willing people are to support DLC. I see it all over the forums here, and I find it completely mindboggling.
Anyway, I feel the 1836 starting date is a fairly good one. You get to start with these essentially backward states and guide them through one of the most turbelent periods in history. The social, economic and political change of the 19th century is incredible. Starting the game in 1870 misses out on all this and will turn the game basically into a game about imperialism. What makes Victoria Victoria are the POPs, and starting the game in 1870 would loose most of it. It would basically become a game of map painting, that is, EU4. Whereas starting the game in 1789 means the Napoleonic Wars get to derail everything which happened in the 19th century. For any 19th century game to make sense, you kind of need the Napoleonic Wars to go the way they went.
So yes, the 1836 starting the date is acceptable. Mostly because it allows for the inclusion of 1848 while still giving the player some time to prepare. Though personally I like the 1821 starting date of Concert of Europe, which would allow for the inclusion of the 1830 revolutions, as well as include more of the early industrialisation.
Late game war is indeed poorly represented in V2. To represent the changes in how wars were fought over the course of the century the game would really need to move from the V2/EU4 system to an move=attack system. There are various ways to go about that have been proposed. The way I imagine it is a simply modifier to the time to engage. The game starts out with engagements only occuring when two armies are in the same province, but as tech changes, the time to engage would simply decrease until it becomes move=attack.
Anyway, I feel the 1836 starting date is a fairly good one. You get to start with these essentially backward states and guide them through one of the most turbelent periods in history. The social, economic and political change of the 19th century is incredible. Starting the game in 1870 misses out on all this and will turn the game basically into a game about imperialism. What makes Victoria Victoria are the POPs, and starting the game in 1870 would loose most of it. It would basically become a game of map painting, that is, EU4. Whereas starting the game in 1789 means the Napoleonic Wars get to derail everything which happened in the 19th century. For any 19th century game to make sense, you kind of need the Napoleonic Wars to go the way they went.
So yes, the 1836 starting the date is acceptable. Mostly because it allows for the inclusion of 1848 while still giving the player some time to prepare. Though personally I like the 1821 starting date of Concert of Europe, which would allow for the inclusion of the 1830 revolutions, as well as include more of the early industrialisation.
Late game war is indeed poorly represented in V2. To represent the changes in how wars were fought over the course of the century the game would really need to move from the V2/EU4 system to an move=attack system. There are various ways to go about that have been proposed. The way I imagine it is a simply modifier to the time to engage. The game starts out with engagements only occuring when two armies are in the same province, but as tech changes, the time to engage would simply decrease until it becomes move=attack.
It should depend on the size of the provinces, so even with late game tech war in Russia should be mobile but in the small French and Belgian province the war is trench warfare.
A 1815 Start date? I don´t really know what happened during this year so maybe it is the worst starting date that we can have.
Well there is not much difference between 1815 and 1821 in Europe so if you set the game after the Hundred Days then you enter the Order of Vienna and it can be played like the CoE mod but with 6 more years
- 1
lets not. we already have a game that goes to 1821, we dont need more overlaps
What's wrong with overlaps? Does EUIV really cover the Napoleonic wars (or their immediate aftermath)? Was March of the Eagles that good a game?
agreed, I always felt that victoria modeled the era of the Napoleonic war much better then the eu series.
- 1
No wait, to have a proper game that model Victorian Century we can´t have Napoleonic War too, the Napoleonic war must go the same way or we would change the history completely and game will not be able to represent it.
Last edited:
- 1
1820-1890 mightbe a good timeframe, imo. That or completely revamp several of the game systems. Especially the military one.
- 1
Exactly this.
I would not mind overlaps as such, but to include the Napoleonic era invites a whole host of issues that to me seem insurmountable. How, I pray, would such a game model the Congress of Vienna?
That is, of course, if the Congress even takes place at all. One might easily find oneself in an alternative 19th century where Napoleonic France triumphed and the whole of Europe is littered with French allies and puppet states. Good for an alternative history mod, sure. Less so for a game supposed to be set in the Victorian era (in such a game Victoria herself may never even sit on a throne).
In addition there are problems related to the Belgian Revolution (1830-1831) and the Latin American wars of independence (until early 1820's). I think it detracts a lot from the game by leaving it open as a possibility that the Spanish and Portoguese Latin American empires may survive.
Some even argue that the game should start in 1750 (giving way to much credit to the early industrial revolution, which really has nothing to do with the industry mechanics seen in prior Victoria games). This will result in even more outrageous outcomes, leaving important conflicts, such as the Seven Year's War and the American Revolution, as vague promises in the wind (unless they are hard-coded, which is somewhere I do not want to go).
What about all the countless things that could change with EU or CK? In CK2 you could not have the normans ever come to conquere england. Eu4 France could never have the revolutions and crazier things could exist in europe.
so vicky3 should have ww1 having the same exact players?nothing should be able to change really from history?
2 isn't exactly a reason to drop vicky in the entirety, its why it needs a revamp, not a redo entirely
1 though... first off, Eu ends in 1821, a full 15 years -before- vicky 2 (and iirc, vicky 1) start. second, having it end when HOI starts is good for mega campaigns, even if it always cuts off the game at the climax of something big if you dont powergame
also, Victoria became queen a year after 1836, so whatever the hell you're talking about.