• 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.

Which expansion would you like next?

  • EU3 - (Rotw focus)

    Votes: 1.262 46,2%
  • Rome -(Alexander era, revised map)

    Votes: 685 25,1%
  • HoI3 - (Expanded timelines, battlescenarios)

    Votes: 288 10,5%
  • Victoria 2 - (US Civil War)

    Votes: 499 18,3%

  • Total voters
    2.734
Status
Not open for further replies.
We could of done a Napoleon Total War but did not.

Just that Paradox is thinking about such a distateful thing makes me shudder.
Hopefully it will never happen.

And in "octagon" style:
What people don't realise IS that say, say a game comes at you with steamworks. It's putting itself at an immediate disadvantage.
 
So then, if there is to be a Victoria ACW expansion, and should there be bugs to be fixed in Victoria 2 - you are saying that come the release date of the expansion, any further bugs that may exist and persist in Victoria 2, will only be fixed through patches to the expansion?

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Once an expansion comes out you've got two different products. It's pretty unreasonable to expect them to create dual patches just without some sort of price increases and/or worse.

If/when a Vicky 2 expansion comes out I'm sure Paradox will have released a fair few patches for the base game already and anything that may have been left out or not noticed in time would be likely to get patched up along with any new patches the expansion might need.

Seriously if you're complaining about this practice to Paradox I'd recommend seeing how other companies do things and you'll be glad for what you're getting here.
 
I'd like to see Rome fleshed out a bit. Add the ability to play as a dynasty like CK rather then a whole nation and add dynasty shields (or standards or whatever) so they're easier to track. Plus the ability to play as a horde or mobile army ala Alexander would be fun.
 
I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. Once an expansion comes out you've got two different products. It's pretty unreasonable to expect them to create dual patches just without some sort of price increases and/or worse.

If/when a Vicky 2 expansion comes out I'm sure Paradox will have released a fair few patches for the base game already and anything that may have been left out or not noticed in time would be likely to get patched up along with any new patches the expansion might need.

Seriously if you're complaining about this practice to Paradox I'd recommend seeing how other companies do things and you'll be glad for what you're getting here.

You seem to mis-understand or perhaps don't understand that there was a time when Paradox would patch a game without having to release an expansion, and all bugs would be fixed.

Now, without there being an official policy, it would seem that Paradox are happy to release an expansion so as to vindicate their own work that they feel should be financed when fixing bugs.
 
Hmm, it is a really difficult choice.

Rome needs work the most. I feel it lacks that certain something to make it as involving and engaging as the other games. It is enjoyable, it just lacks something. Immersion perhaps? I don't think and expanded timeline is what is needed, I'd be more inclined to think the problem currently is the intensity of the existing timeline. Europe seems comparatively empty, compared to the buzz of activity and conflict it could be. I don't exactly know what I want in regards to it, so it is tempting to just abandon that idea and put my vote towards something else.

EU3 is a safe bet, and RotW content could give more flavour to it. It would be nice to have more reason to play non-western countries.

I would really like to see an HoI3 expansion that frees it a bit more from the faction triangle. That triangle seems too rigid, and it feels like the diplomacy/politics side of the game becomes stale as soon as you join a faction. But perhaps such changes would distract attention away from the strategic warfare that is the central focus of the game.
 
What would an ACW expansion add for Victoria 2 exactly?

Presumably you can't centre an entire expansion (unless I am mistaken, and you intend to work on a smaller 'booster' pack) around a single war, no matter how well-known it is?

I remember seeing ACW screenshots in a development diary, so I am slightly amiss as to what they were supposed to represent, knowing now that it will be put in an expansion. Would there be any way to represent the (or should I say, a...) ACW in the vanilla product?

I have limited experience of Paradox games, but regarding the comment on Napoleon: Total War, I truly hope things get an awful lot better vis-à-vis Hearts of Iron III because I certainly know which is the better product at present. Having said that, CA really should concede defeat and make some sort of open apology for the state of its predecessor.

I digress, however - I think Paradox should work alongside the community developers on an expansion for Arsenal of Democracy!

Austen.
 
So then, if there is to be a Victoria ACW expansion, and should there be bugs to be fixed in Victoria 2 - you are saying that come the release date of the expansion, any further bugs that may exist and persist in Victoria 2, will only be fixed through patches to the expansion?

Yes that is entirely correct.
 
I'd rather have Crusader Kings 2 over all the proposed extensions... :eek:o


But given i mainly play EU3, i'll choose that one... although, after voting, i'm realizing what it'll imply for MEIOU .... got to be crazy :wacko: :D
 
A real toughie. I'd really love to see more attention to the rest of the world in EU3, but on the other hand it's such a complete game by HTTT that maybe other games would need some more love. I don't think you should start on an expansion for Vicky2 or HoI3 since the first one hasn't even come out yet, and the second one has an expansion that hasn't come out. I suggest that you do what you do best, release them and then listen to what the fans would like in an expansion after having played the game.

That leaves me with Rome. I actually enjoyed the original EU:Rome, and it got vastly improved with the expansion. Still, Rome is the Paradox franchise I've played the least, and there's still a lot more to do with the era. I'm not sure venturing into the Alexander timeframe is the best way to go, though I'd like to see more detail into the Greek city-states if so. There's still plenty of room to add more depth to the Roman era, and possibly extending the timeframe forwards, closer to the CK time frame, though I guess it wouldn't be possible to stretch it all the way there (hey, what would a game set in between Rome and CK be like? Maybe concentrated around the birth and expansion of Islam? Hmm...).

So, anyway, I cast my vote on Rome, but with the comment that you I'm not nessecarily sure that the Alexander timeframe is the most interesting thing to explore. Are the themes of these expansions set in stone?
 
No question, it has to be Rome that needs an expansion while VV may have added more it still needs an extra kick to bring it up to EU3:IN levels and there are also numerous ideas within the Rome forum that could be implemented to make this game truly fantastic.

EU3 in my eyes is finished, there is a chance to improve gameplay outside of Europe but I feel it should be after a Rome and Vicky 2 expansion.

HOI3 is about to have an expansion pack, time needs to be given to allow the player base to adopt it and wait to see what new ideas could be brought to the table.

Vicky 2 is yet to be released, again time needs to be given to let the player base expand and new ideas for the game to be thought.

In my eyes Rome is the only choice and most deserving of an overdue expansion.
 
I'd rather have Crusader Kings 2 over all the proposed extensions... :eek:o

AFAIK, Paradox has two different dev teams, one for developing new titles, and one for expansions. So whatever you vote here won't stand in the way of CK2 when they're finished with Vicky2.
 
I voted Rome.

I mean, I love EU3 as much as the next guy, but focusing on it nearly exclusively seems ridiculous. I think the best schedule for main PDX releases would be: SF>V2>Final Rome expansion>Victoria 2 expansion>Crusader Kings 2>Final HoI 3 expansion>CK2 expansion>Europa Universalis 4

EU 4, of course, would start the cycle anew and feature a new engine that would be used on the next wave of titles. Anyways, it looks like EU3 is going to win again, so I look forward to interesting American nations *crosses fingers*
 
I voted Rome.

I mean, I love EU3 as much as the next guy, but focusing on it nearly exclusively seems ridiculous. I think the best schedule for main PDX releases would be: SF>V2>Final Rome expansion>Victoria 2 expansion>Crusader Kings 2>Final HoI 3 expansion>CK2 expansion>Europa Universalis 4

while I basically agree with that schedule, it would be really cool to see PI do a completely new title.
 
What would an ACW expansion add for Victoria 2 exactly?

Presumably you can't centre an entire expansion (unless I am mistaken, and you intend to work on a smaller 'booster' pack) around a single war, no matter how well-known it is?

I remember seeing ACW screenshots in a development diary, so I am slightly amiss as to what they were supposed to represent, knowing now that it will be put in an expansion. Would there be any way to represent the (or should I say, a...) ACW in the vanilla product?


From what I've been able to comprehend from the questions I've asked so far, it would seem Paradox are looking towards an expansion as some sort of catalyst for them to continue patching Victoria 2, whilst adding game-enhancing features as well.

What annoys me is the fact that they seem to be dressing up the fact that it will be a patching expansion, with the idea that whatever else will come with the expansion will indeed by the crux of the expansion, even though Paradox have made all EU3-engined games extremely user-friendly for modding...

Again, it would seem Paradox are happy to release games, and then to change how the games play whenever they feel like an expansion is worthy, so that they can receive more revenue from us the customers, who are willing to pay so that they continue to support improving the game and fixing any bugs that exist.
 
From what I've been able to comprehend from the questions I've asked so far, it would seem Paradox are looking towards an expansion as some sort of catalyst for them to continue patching Victoria 2, whilst adding game-enhancing features as well.

What annoys me is the fact that they seem to be dressing up the fact that it will be a patching expansion, with the idea that whatever else will come with the expansion will indeed by the crux of the expansion, even though Paradox have made all EU3-engined games extremely user-friendly for modding...

Again, it would seem Paradox are happy to release games, and then to change how the games play whenever they feel like an expansion is worthy, so that they can receive more revenue from us the customers, who are willing to pay so that they continue to support improving the game and fixing any bugs that exist.

No, if we don't do an expansion for Victoria do not hold your breath on a patch 2 years down the line.
 
I voted for Rome. HOI3 wil get its expansion soon. EU3 had before. Vicky2 isn't released yet. So it's time for Rome to get a second expansion. It has a lot of unused potential and there are many people who want to keep this game alive with a new expansion.

The only possible choice: 100% for a Rome expansion!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.