Maybe, but failing to capture all the interesting things that made Victoria what it is -- or "was," depending on your point of view -- would alienate the very audience that wants so much to see a new version. And if you look at their current line-up of games, the level of simulation and complexity is pretty variable. HOI is pretty complex, whereas EU is little more than a dressed-up game of world conquest. The other games fall in between those extremes. And yes, there are plenty of "player experience" elements in HOI -- many of them not very well done, like US politics and alt history -- but the core game is a simulation.Vicky 2 is a hella complicated game but I doubt Vicky 3 will be. They pretty much said it themselves in the "High Council of Grand Strategy" they design games based around systems players will have fun interacting with and not as simulations. At that time they commented on how Vicky 2 is very much a simulation and how that caused complaints from the players in terms of how the AI acted.
I doubt they would reverse their development trend to make something like Victoria 2 again. Especially since they claim people wouldn't like it.
It sees to me that the people who most want to see Vicky rebooted want more than anything to replay the social, economic, and political developments of the 19th century. To provide a game that stinted on any of those features would leave their audience very, very disappointed. At least, so it seems to me. It would be sort of like when Sid Meier got it into his head to release Railroads, after people had gotten used to playing far more sophisticated railroad sims ever since the original Railroad Tycoon. He failed to pay attention to that.
That's hard to compare, wouldn't you say? Both were clearly considerable in number.That amount that was disappointed by CK3 instead of V3 is a lot less than the I:R disappointment, I think.