A small note from a guy who didn't vote for this project

[Easy Max]

Interesting post. What makes you say that?

Why would sixteen years make much of a difference budget-wise?

Victoria became queen in 1837 by the way, so I guess 1836 sort of makes sense in that respect.

1820 - 1936 would be a logical time frame, but I guess you'd need a more advanced setup (technology and suchlike) later on.

1820 - 1912 or something sounds about right, TBH. I really think Paradox should make a separate, dedicated WW1 game. Having a world war at the arse end of a larger, more generic game doesn't really make sense IMO.

I'd almost certainly buy a Paradox WW1 game, even if I would never, ever be satisfied with it.

I think either King or Johan covered this in another thread. The current logic behind keeping the 1836 to 19-- time-frame centers about the fact that paradox (and actually, the modders too) have done an *exhaustive* amount of research on the events/technology/socio-political-cultural boundaries in 1836. Since they've already got this massed wealth of researched information, they can make the game faster -- costing less in development, and so on.


Edit: I'm guessing the amount of time that it would take to research everything if the start date was in 1820/21 is approximately the same as redoing the OOB's for every country in Hoi 3 at a 1932 start date, even though they've already got the 1936 information from when they made HoI1/2

 

[unmerged(56465)]

1820 - 1912 or something sounds about right, TBH. I really think Paradox should make a separate, dedicated WW1 game. Having a world war at the arse end of a larger, more generic game doesn't really make sense IMO.

I find it a climactic culmination of all the happenings throughout the game personally. Or I would, if it were actually modeled.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I find it a climactic culmination of all the happenings throughout the game personally. Or I would, if it were actually modeled.

Well that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?

Have a properly-modelled WWI in some detail (ala HoI2) or don't have one at all.

Having a hypothetical large-scale war and a single 'This is the Great War, everyone is going to die' event is at best shabby.

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Well that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?

Have a properly-modelled WWI in some detail (ala HoI2) or don't have one at all.

Having a hypothetical large-scale war and a single 'This is the Great War, everyone is going to die' event is at best shabby.

It'd be nice to have a bunch of events and whatnot for it yeah, but I'm just saying the idea of it being done in Victoria rather than in its own game is fine with me. I would feel like I have more of an investment in the situation having played for 78 years previously, if that makes sense. Certainly no Paradox game has modeled the consequences of demographic devastation like Victoria has.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

It'd be nice to have a bunch of events and whatnot for it yeah, but I'm just saying the idea of it being done in Victoria rather than in its own game is fine with me. I would feel like I have more of an investment in the situation having played for 78 years previously, if that makes sense. Certainly no Paradox game has modeled the consequences of demographic devastation like Victoria has.

Oh, I agree entirely.

I am not at all against the idea, so long as it is properly implemented and not just a late-game throwaway, which it was/is in Vicky 1.

I'm pretty sure some sort of WW1-based game is inevitable, though. It's such an obvious area for Paradox to cover.

 

[JWSIII]

I'd pay and a random comment

well, I plan on buying Victoria 2, I liked victoria one but found myself gravitating right back to EU3 (especially magna mundi) after a week or two as I felt it lacked the depth and replayability to a certain degree... but so many cool concepts just a tiny bit off makes me dream of a version that gets that extra 5% or so right and becomes perfect.


Especially immigration... so very close to cool, but after california turns into 40% of your entire countries population for the third time you begin to wonder :rofl:
I'd practically buy a game that got the benefits of large populations and immigration both right no matter what else it did

 

[Mammut]

Well Im going to buy Vicky 2 that for sure and I think Fredrik II have completely underestimated the fanaticism and zeal of Vicky fans. Prepare to join the one true faith Fredrik II!!!

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Well Im going to buy Vicky 2 that for sure and I think Fredrik II have completely underestimated the fanaticism and zeal of Vicky fans. Prepare to join the one true faith Fredrik II!!!

No one doubts our zeal, only our numbers.

 

[unmerged(96639)]

I'm pretty sure some sort of WW1-based game is inevitable, though. It's such an obvious area for Paradox to cover.

The thing is, WW1 is far less popular and far more dull, from a strategic point of view, than WW2. There's a reason there's hundreds of games set in WW2 and a mere handful set in WW1 - the war is simply less interesting. As part of a complex social/political/economic game like Victoria, it's less so, especially given the fact it's a culmination of years of imperialism, nationalism and entangling alliances. Standalone, done in the style of HoI, it would probably sell worse than Diplomacy.

 

[Sarayakat]

Do it right and I'll buy it twice! And then CK2.

 

[Raptor1]

The thing is, WW1 is far less popular and far more dull, from a strategic point of view, than WW2. There's a reason there's hundreds of games set in WW2 and a mere handful set in WW1 - the war is simply less interesting. As part of a complex social/political/economic game like Victoria, it's less so, especially given the fact it's a culmination of years of imperialism, nationalism and entangling alliances. Standalone, done in the style of HoI, it would probably sell worse than Diplomacy.

That's not true, WWI could make an excellent Grand Strategy game. The strategic deadlock only happened on the Western and Italian Fronts fully from 1915-1917, and even then the front moved during major offensives (Though not too much).

I really hate that notion that in WWI everyone sat in trenches for 4 years and then the Americans entered the war and the Allies won. There aren't many WWI games either because people keep thinking it's like that, or because WWII overshadows it too much.

I say Paradox makes a WWI game next!

 

[Zanza]

So the company's CEO thinks the product won't sell well and you still do it anyway? That's an interesting way to make corporate decisions.

 

[Beamed]

So the company's CEO thinks the product won't sell well and you still do it anyway? That's an interesting way to make corporate decisions.

It shows more consumer loyalty than other decisions.

 

[Zanza]

What good is consumer loyalty if you can't make a profit?

 

[unmerged(96639)]

That's not true, WWI could make an excellent Grand Strategy game. The strategic deadlock only happened on the Western and Italian Fronts fully from 1915-1917, and even then the front moved during major offensives (Though not too much).

I really hate that notion that in WWI everyone sat in trenches for 4 years and then the Americans entered the war and the Allies won. There aren't many WWI games either because people keep thinking it's like that, or because WWII overshadows it too much.

That may not have happened, but that's what people think happened. The general public tends to have a certain preconception of various historical periods, and expect some things to be there even if they're actually anachronisms - that's where all the dumb errors in Hollywood history movies come from. People expect certain things, and if you don't give them those things they won't enjoy the work. Overwhelmingly, if they have any idea of WW1, people imagine it as a Blackadder-Goes-Fourth style absurdity, with soldiers sitting in trenches for months, then "walking slowly towards the enemy" and getting moved down by machinegun fire.

There aren't many games about WWI because of that, and because WW2 completely overshadows it. WW2 was a war of ideas, a cosmic battle between democracy, fascism and communism. WW1 was a war of empires over balance of power - it has less symbolic punch.

That's not to say that Paradox couldn't make a wonderful and engrossing WW1 game. I just don't think they could afford another title with limited market potential - perhaps even more limited than that for Vicky - so soon.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

So the company's CEO thinks the product won't sell well and you still do it anyway? That's an interesting way to make corporate decisions.

Well, you don't know how the meeting went.

Imagine the situation: you are the CEO, sitting on your pile of gold, counting denarii, and your Executive Vice President Development comes to you and starts the discussion on the next game to develop with something like, "So, I've been thinking about becoming a trappist monk...."

What would YOU do? Yeah, developing Victoria 2 to focus his attention starts sounding really attractive at that point, doesn't it?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

My new favourite title. Although I'm not sure about the type of poster it will bring to the forums...

Whatever type of new poster "Victoria's Secret: An Encounter Under the Sun" would attract, it can't be worse than any of the three unruly HoI waves. Those have always reminded me of the tides of darkness from Warcraft 2.

 

[Alexandru H.]

Maybe it's a good thing the budget is tighter this time around. It might convince the developers to return to some of the roots. Victoria 1 could have been a great game without the tedious micromanagement: eliminate that, bring forth some new not-very-complicated mechanics and let the players do what they really want in such an universe: take a state and turn it into a civilized, rich nation.

 

[Raptor1]

Maybe it's a good thing the budget is tighter this time around. It might convince the developers to return to some of the roots. Victoria 1 could have been a great game without the tedious micromanagement: eliminate that, bring forth some new not-very-complicated mechanics and let the players do what they really want in such an universe: take a state and turn it into a civilized, rich nation.

Huh? The micromanagement is what made Victoria a great game...

On the other hand, optional AI (That works, not the Vicky 1 style automatic trader that kept losing me all my money) to manage the micromanagement for you could be just the solution.

 

[Garak]

Well I was never able to really enjoy the first Victoria, but I'm still plannign on buying this one. The 19th century is a favorite period of mine and I love most of the design concepts behind the original game. I just found the interface to bewildering to really adjust to. I'm quite confident that the sequel will be more accessable, though. So what I'm saying is, I think it might suprise you, lol.