1.04: We waited how long for THIS!?

[Kriegsspieler]

Yeah, yeah, we've all got Colonisation around somewhere . The point of my post was just to point out that Victoria isn't quite as innovative as some people think (although melting EU2 and Colonisation into one game is already quite creative in itself).

Quarto -- you're kidding, right? What of substance did Colonisation contribute to Victoria? For that matter, I don't see all that much resemblance between EUII and Victoria, either.
Resemblance is clearly in the eye of the beholder!

 

[unmerged(13520)]

He's probably talking about the POPs and factories I'd guess, though their Colonization equivalents didn't have anything resembling needs or conscience/militancy, as far as I can remember...

 

[Quarto]

Quarto -- you're kidding, right? What of substance did Colonisation contribute to Victoria? For that matter, I don't see all that much resemblance between EUII and Victoria, either.
Resemblance is clearly in the eye of the beholder!

Hmm... well, let's see...
The concept of POPs. The resource management system based on a multitude of different resources. A multitude of different factory buildings where you empoyed POPs to convert resources into more advanced resources (eg., iron and tools into guns, etc). The need to convert POPs into soldiers in order to have military units. Etc, etc - in short, the whole POP concept, and the economic system in general in Victoria, is a revamped and (somewhat) improved version of the system used in Colonisation.

...And what of substance did EU2 contribute to Victoria? Well, for starters, the game engine . I have trouble believing that somebody could seriously not see the resemblence between EU2 and Vic.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Nah. The proper comparison is with Imperialism.

 

[unmerged(23437)]

Except that both Imperialism and Colonization were actually a lot simpler than Vic, of course.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Yeah, I don't think it will be matched at least until we travel back in time to 1992 and play Colonisation, the game that inspired most of Victoria's most innovative features .

By innovative features, you surely mean POPs that actually affect your gameplay, such as in Victoria where POP consciousness/militancy and reaction to your reforms may force you to certain types of gameplay, to please your POPs, such as are seen in Victoria, rather than the people of Colonisation, who had an education - and that was that. Hire a lumberjack from England at fixed price, lobotomize him, appoint him elder statesman, and set him to produce liberty bells.

After all, you cannot mean the Colonization import/export system, nor its combat or diplomacy system. There is no doubt that the designers have been inspired by Colonization (which again carried a lot over from Civilization ) and Imperialism, but I dare say Victoria is a more interesting game than Colonization. It is also a magnitude of order more complex than Colonization, and never had a chance in hell of matching its success. Of course, if Colonization with updated SFX and GFX was released today, it would be unlikely to match its original success, as it would be too simple compared to the mainstream competition.

[And, of course, one does not need to stop at Colonization. How about the earlier still "Gold of the Americas" ]

EDIT: None of this detracts from the fact that I found Colonization a very good game when it was published. A lot of features put nearly seamlessly together and with a very hands-on appeal. Its main problem was that if you did not lose in the first few rounds (pissing off local Indians), you were guaranteed to win as there was no appreciable AI opposition. Did anybody ever lose the game to the other colonising powers? Did anybody ever fail to win the independence war?

 

[Quarto]

I dare say Victoria is a more interesting game than Colonization. It is also a magnitude of order more complex than Colonization, and never had a chance in hell of matching its success.

I daresay I agree... like I said, although Victoria's POP system first appeared in Colonization, it was significantly improved in Vic .

(one minor correction, though - sadly, the original Colonization was not a big success, and the only reason it sold even relatively well was because it was released to coincide with the 500th anniversary hype)

[And, of course, one does not need to stop at Colonization. How about the earlier still "Gold of the Americas" ]

Hehe, good call . Although there, the system was so simple that it practically cannot be compared with Victoria.

 

[Grosshaus]

EDIT: None of this detracts from the fact that I found Colonization a very good game when it was published. A lot of features put nearly seamlessly together and with a very hands-on appeal. Its main problem was that if you did not lose in the first few rounds (pissing off local Indians), you were guaranteed to win as there was no appreciable AI opposition. Did anybody ever lose the game to the other colonising powers? Did anybody ever fail to win the independence war?

I've lost to the AI, both by them conquering me and them becoming independent earlier than me. I've also lost the independence war lots of times. Perhaps it's because I hardly understood English at the time or was overall bit young for it, perhaps I'm used to bit more RPG style of play, perhaps I focused too much on economy leaving my defences to little focus. Or, most likely, I just sucked.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I've lost to the AI, both by them conquering me and them becoming independent earlier than me. I've also lost the independence war lots of times. Perhaps it's because I hardly understood English at the time or was overall bit young for it, perhaps I'm used to bit more RPG style of play, perhaps I focused too much on economy leaving my defences to little focus. Or, most likely, I just sucked.

I'll vote for the last option. (Sorry, Grosshaus, couldn't resist it )

 

[unmerged(30793)]

Well, after having tried the latest 1.04a all i can say is that its good that there are other paradox games to play while CK gets finished

 

[Rankorian]

Well, I am sorry about my previous comment about initial Vic playability, especially in a forum which has people who have worked their heart out on it. And if, for example, a national government had tried to make/purchase a simulator of the Vic historical period, they probably would have had to spend at least tens of millions of dollars, have it take years, and end up with worse result.

I was influenced, sadly, by the reviews. And, playability is much different issue than stability.

Still, I would love a basic/intermediate/advanced mode to these games/simulations. Enough eye-candy and simplicity to attract my 16 year old daughter for an evening [ok, my 14 year old son is really a more possible audience], in addition to the modes which could be used to teach PhD level history. I was introduced to Balkan geography playing Diplomacy as a board game--now new gamers are asked to master geography, and game information systems, which could baffle a fighter pilot.

On this issue, your forum audience, as excellent as they are, may not be indicative of the potential market. And, I suspect, this is not the type of issue which is queried with the Beta-testers?

 

[Damocles]

I heavily doubt a 16 year old girl will be attracted to any strategic simulation.

 

[unmerged(22135)]

And sadly also not to players of such games.

Yours,
OG

 

[Grosshaus]

I heavily doubt a 16 year old girl will be attracted to any strategic simulation.

I've heard tales of them playing Tropico, SimCity 2000 or Rollercoaster Tycoon. Not all that strategic you might say, I'd say rather say strategy made accessible.