.png){kind=avatar}
Special E3 Announcement - just for you! A House Divided
- Thread starter Kallocain
- Start date
-
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.
This sounds good but I would like to see more work done on diplomacy. V1 had a great diplomacy system, i hope on V2 you can at least get the AI to honor alliances and work reasonably with nations they have high relations with. On this game relations seem to mean nothing to the AI.
I don't care for any other of the features, I just want to know if the AI is improved, IE adding wargoals that make no sense, declaring wars for no reason (Spanish Hedjaz anyone), sending 500K men against 100K in a mountain region meaning certain doom and if not any of that, at least AI modding capabilities so we can implent it. If there's none of that, then yeah, Paradox can take it's expansion elsewhere
And let me guess, I bet the expansion has half of the bugs fixed in it, so yet again we have to pay to have a broken game fixed like every single other time. Why should I praise Paradox when they don't praise their fanbase?
And let me guess, I bet the expansion has half of the bugs fixed in it, so yet again we have to pay to have a broken game fixed like every single other time. Why should I praise Paradox when they don't praise their fanbase?
Sweet! 
The features sound interesting. I just hope the "interface & gameplay improvements" include spheres of influence. As it is, it's a real drag to use.
The features sound interesting. I just hope the "interface & gameplay improvements" include spheres of influence. As it is, it's a real drag to use.
Great news. I'll pick it up as soon as it becomes available on Mac. V2 is my favorite strategy game, bar none, and the listed features are exciting; but the waiting... the waiting....
What do you expect me to act like? I'm surprised nobody else is angry over this, because Paradox has done this time and time and time again. They release a buggy game, then a few months to a year later release an expansion pack that fixes everything for another 20 dollars. If the expansion pack isn't an expansion pack and is essentially a patch we have to pay for, yes, I'm going to angry, and I'm tired of being shafted by Paradox who think they can just milk us and that we don't care at all if they release bug filled messes. Just watch, it'll happen with CK2 as well. All I want is a AI that doesn't conquer everything, and acts realistically. Yes, it's a sandbox game, but it's a historical sandbox game too. Spanish Hedjaz, for example, should not happen 5 years after the game start. If it was in the age of colonialism at the late 1800s/early 1900s, sure, I'd buy that, but it's not. The early white peacing in wars, the random declarations of wars for no reason, the AI fetishism over areas such as Spanish Morocco in 1840, the demanding of provinces entirely for the sake of conquest with no real claim or basis as to why they want them, it completely ruins the immersion and the game. If I have to load up as the AI to white peace in order to stop Ottoman Bretagne, related to the latter problem, then something has failed.
If Paradox fix the AI and make it a lot better and far more realistic, then I'll take everything I've said back. But so far, I've heard nothing
Last edited:
Hurrrah!!!
Dear Kallocain,
Whether we can expect the military aliances the having goals?
Dear Kallocain,
Whether we can expect the military aliances the having goals?
ah what bug are we needing to buy this to fix?
why not take spanish morocco? they are weak, spain has a border
i probably should mention this
questions, questions, questions...
1- will opposing rebels fight each other if they have enough organization and numbers?
2- any improvement to colonisation model?
3- multicore support in mind? what is the goal of performance improvement?
4- mind to reduce the huge money supply that makes money not an issue?
5- will internal migration be reduced?
6- ability to form more solid alliances will be implemented?
that's all for now
We can't answer that many questions yet, as the design is not set, besides the points from the OP. Answers will come though, don't worry!
With the more detailed options to revolutions/reform movements and more/improved reforms, I am wondering some things.
1. Will MIL and CON reductions from granting reforms now ONLY affect rebels that care about the specific reform? Yes, I know that the global reduction to CON and MIL does not stop unhappy POPs from getting the MIL up again and rising in revolt right now. But what I am wondering is whether the game will make it more difficult to grant random reform X that nobody wants, which I am able to grant because MIL is high and the UH has a certain composition, in order to get benefit Y and to appease POPs for a year or two. (The infamous "Well, just give them more healthcare, press rights be damned! We need more proles anyway" sinister plan.)
2. Will the UH be more responsive to specific reforms rather than broad spectra of reforms. Right now, liberals in the UH will indiscriminately support political reforms, and socialists/communists will indiscriminately social programs. (Come to think of it, half the liberals in the UH will indiscriminately support social programs, and half the socialists will indiscriminately support political reforms, too.) Will the UH now be able to "think" in terms of "Well, the Senate will pass universal male suffrage, but there is no way in Hell we will switch to proportional representation in the Senate. Screw all that." Yes, I know Doomdark has already alluded to granting specific reforms, I'm just wondering if this is more of a UH mechanic or something else entirely. I would really love a pickier UH in its willingness and unwillingness to grant reforms. I suspect I am not the only one, either.
3. Can we get woman's suffrage as a specific reform rather than a decision. Pretty please? It seems so weird that you have to fire a decision to grant that specific thing. Make it a pain in the, ahem, to get the UH to support it, but please make it a real reform. Especially so that reactionaries can revoke it when the counter-revolution comes. (Note: The counter-revolution will not be televised, as the talkies have not been invented yet in your backwater country.)
4. If we are investing in factories and infrastructure in our SOI, can we share, in some way, our tech with them? For example, if Tibet is in my SOI, can I build nice Steel Railroads across the mountains, even if Tibet is currently sitting at lousy first level railroads? And can I arm members of my SOI in some way?
5. I know you said you could not talk about the economy, but I am going to ask this question anyway. Capitalists: Will they be able to raise capital from the bank? You know we would love this feature, and I know you guys tried to put it in the first time around. Are you going to give it another go?
1. Will MIL and CON reductions from granting reforms now ONLY affect rebels that care about the specific reform? Yes, I know that the global reduction to CON and MIL does not stop unhappy POPs from getting the MIL up again and rising in revolt right now. But what I am wondering is whether the game will make it more difficult to grant random reform X that nobody wants, which I am able to grant because MIL is high and the UH has a certain composition, in order to get benefit Y and to appease POPs for a year or two. (The infamous "Well, just give them more healthcare, press rights be damned! We need more proles anyway" sinister plan.)
2. Will the UH be more responsive to specific reforms rather than broad spectra of reforms. Right now, liberals in the UH will indiscriminately support political reforms, and socialists/communists will indiscriminately social programs. (Come to think of it, half the liberals in the UH will indiscriminately support social programs, and half the socialists will indiscriminately support political reforms, too.) Will the UH now be able to "think" in terms of "Well, the Senate will pass universal male suffrage, but there is no way in Hell we will switch to proportional representation in the Senate. Screw all that." Yes, I know Doomdark has already alluded to granting specific reforms, I'm just wondering if this is more of a UH mechanic or something else entirely. I would really love a pickier UH in its willingness and unwillingness to grant reforms. I suspect I am not the only one, either.
3. Can we get woman's suffrage as a specific reform rather than a decision. Pretty please? It seems so weird that you have to fire a decision to grant that specific thing. Make it a pain in the, ahem, to get the UH to support it, but please make it a real reform. Especially so that reactionaries can revoke it when the counter-revolution comes. (Note: The counter-revolution will not be televised, as the talkies have not been invented yet in your backwater country.)
4. If we are investing in factories and infrastructure in our SOI, can we share, in some way, our tech with them? For example, if Tibet is in my SOI, can I build nice Steel Railroads across the mountains, even if Tibet is currently sitting at lousy first level railroads? And can I arm members of my SOI in some way?
5. I know you said you could not talk about the economy, but I am going to ask this question anyway. Capitalists: Will they be able to raise capital from the bank? You know we would love this feature, and I know you guys tried to put it in the first time around. Are you going to give it another go?
I do hear this quite often, that we should patch instead of releasing expansions. I'd just like to point out that a company can not exist without income, and the reason for the expansions we usually release, is that we love the games as well. We want to improve them and make them as good as they can be, but we could not do this years after a game is released if that meant no income. The game has been patched up to be playable as well as enjoyable for most, and that is when we start making expansions. Also expansions are usually packed with features, but of course we are going to fix known bugs in them too. Anything else would be quite strange.
That being said, I do appreciate that you have solid examples of what it is you don't like. That makes it so much easier to look into the issues that other posts I've seen that just states "the AI is stupid" with no explanation.
Oh gosh, For the Motherland and a Victoria II expansion? Totally unfair! My wallet was not ready! :rofl:
Great news! I thought you said long ago that you would never make new scenarios as that would take a lot of time. Glad you changed your mind. CSA is one of the most beloved countries out there and this ACW start will help us Dixie-lovers.
I'm sorry for getting a bit worked up over it, I'm just glad you respond and don't leave a "Thank you for your concern, we are busy and cannot reply" like other companies. It's not so much expansions, I love expansions, it's simply because of the long hiatus in patches Victoria 2 recieved and some of the larger problems still remaining like the afformentioned AI that make it seem so much like it's an attempt to take more money then an attempt to improve the game. Considering the same sort of thing has happened with other games such as Hearts of Iron, it seems a bit like things aren't improved on purpose, even though I know it's not. While I probably will end up purchasing the expansion, and I know you guys don't have millions, I just thought I'd bring up the concern and my motive.
I would like to remind you that there is a public 1.4 beta thread where you can discuss the bugs in the the vanilla version...
These problems have been evident through Victoria 2 since 1.0, though, and that's if Paradox consider it a bug or not. Besides, this is the the thread for the expansion so it's a suggestion to Paradox and with my hope the issue will be looked at
On that note however, I would like to suggest perhaps some sort of modding tool or script file for the AI, so we can simply change it to our liking. That way everyone will be happy.
First of all, great news!
If that would be elaborated on to the point of events that gradually depict the road to possible wars.... i.e border clashes, issuing of ultimatums it would certainly improve the currently rather dull spontaneous declarations of war we have now.
If that would be elaborated on to the point of events that gradually depict the road to possible wars.... i.e border clashes, issuing of ultimatums it would certainly improve the currently rather dull spontaneous declarations of war we have now.
Great news.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but please implement an alliance bloc / WW1 mechanic. I'm not asking for scripted WW1 to happen every game, just that alliance blocs which can differ each game form and then start a sort of WW1. It would really liven up end-game.
I don't know if it's been mentioned, but please implement an alliance bloc / WW1 mechanic. I'm not asking for scripted WW1 to happen every game, just that alliance blocs which can differ each game form and then start a sort of WW1. It would really liven up end-game.