I'd like to hear what you guys think. I really enjoy both games, so this is not a thread about favoritism; but both games belong to the same genre, (almost the same theme), but their mechanical differences are numerous, so I would like to hear your opinions about which is more replayable. If this is an inappropriate board to post this in, (because it contains a comparison to EU3), I apologize.
Obviously, in EU3, some sort of territorial acquisition is where your success is measured for the most part. Getting the map a painted a certain way is typically the goal. Acquiring that land is tough, usually, and where a good deal of the fun is. The checks and balances of EU3, such as alliances, guarantees, and several other things, as well as the actual means by which land is acquired, makes the game fun and challenging, (for most players, I would assume), almost every time. Yet, once you actually control that land, and have it well secured, there's little else that you can do with it, even if it does provide you with manpower and money. It's almost like a trophy, in that it is a piece of your success.
In Victoria II, the depth goes a little deeper but not wider, if that makes any sense. Within each province, there is a very well modeled population, and intricate economic statistics. Once you have a certain amount of land, you can still do more than just sit there and wait to acquire more. You can pay attention to each province, and how its population is fluctuating, (and the statistics of the existing population). In reaction to the changes you have observed, you can build factories, or set a National Focus on an area that needs attention. I'm not saying that this will always captivate you, but you can industrialize, and do stuff besides questing for more land. In the same way that the results of of how the territory is divided among nations in EU3 is interesting, the results of the world economy, and industrial growth are interesting in Victoria II. The main problem here, is that because the game has a much shorter time-span, and the world starts with several very powerful nations, the territorial differences from game to game, (with exclusion to the player's own nation), will be minimal. The United States will usually form its historical borders, Prussia will form Germany, Africa will be divided in a similar manner, (once again, excluding the player). The map of the world in 1936 is usually similar to its historical counterpart, and doesn't have that same interesting flare the EU's does at game's end.
In addition to which game is more replayable, I'd like to ask why.
As a sub-question, I've heard that the original Victoria was extremely immersive and replayable - that people would master the game and still keep coming back, but I don't hear these sorts of things for Victoria II. Why is this? Is it due to the largely automated World Market? I caught on to Paradox too late to have have heard much about the original game, even though I did some lurking on its sub-forum.
Thank you!
Obviously, in EU3, some sort of territorial acquisition is where your success is measured for the most part. Getting the map a painted a certain way is typically the goal. Acquiring that land is tough, usually, and where a good deal of the fun is. The checks and balances of EU3, such as alliances, guarantees, and several other things, as well as the actual means by which land is acquired, makes the game fun and challenging, (for most players, I would assume), almost every time. Yet, once you actually control that land, and have it well secured, there's little else that you can do with it, even if it does provide you with manpower and money. It's almost like a trophy, in that it is a piece of your success.
In Victoria II, the depth goes a little deeper but not wider, if that makes any sense. Within each province, there is a very well modeled population, and intricate economic statistics. Once you have a certain amount of land, you can still do more than just sit there and wait to acquire more. You can pay attention to each province, and how its population is fluctuating, (and the statistics of the existing population). In reaction to the changes you have observed, you can build factories, or set a National Focus on an area that needs attention. I'm not saying that this will always captivate you, but you can industrialize, and do stuff besides questing for more land. In the same way that the results of of how the territory is divided among nations in EU3 is interesting, the results of the world economy, and industrial growth are interesting in Victoria II. The main problem here, is that because the game has a much shorter time-span, and the world starts with several very powerful nations, the territorial differences from game to game, (with exclusion to the player's own nation), will be minimal. The United States will usually form its historical borders, Prussia will form Germany, Africa will be divided in a similar manner, (once again, excluding the player). The map of the world in 1936 is usually similar to its historical counterpart, and doesn't have that same interesting flare the EU's does at game's end.
In addition to which game is more replayable, I'd like to ask why.
As a sub-question, I've heard that the original Victoria was extremely immersive and replayable - that people would master the game and still keep coming back, but I don't hear these sorts of things for Victoria II. Why is this? Is it due to the largely automated World Market? I caught on to Paradox too late to have have heard much about the original game, even though I did some lurking on its sub-forum.
Thank you!
