Any news about vic3?

[ZuperHyperZam]

Hi!
I really like vic2 tho for me personally I feel like some things could be better like a better ui or better support for mp. Nevertheless I wonder if there are any news about a vic3 or any hints that they are making it? If you have a link to a developer or a video please link it.
Sorry if I have missed any big news it was quite a while i was in this forum
Thanks (hoping for a vic3)
/Sam

 

[Ilmen]

I hope Paradox will not make Vic3 but instead release DLC for Vic2 which will include some market tweaks and dynamic political parties.

 

[Savolainen5]

No, there's been none.

 

[Rebel1776]

Considering what Stellaris did to Pops, I think I'd rather not see anything unless I get some guarantees.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Considering what Stellaris did to Pops, I think I'd rather not see anything unless I get some guarantees.

Stellaris didn't do anything to pops, yes it had a different pops system but it never had any obligation to port over Victoria's pop system.

I hope Paradox will not make Vic3 but instead release DLC for Vic2 which will include some market tweaks and dynamic political parties.

That sounds incredibly strange, making DLC for a game released in 2010 instead of making an actual sequel?

 

[DesNibelungen]

I will pay all the money for a Vic 3.

 

[TK-XD-M8]

Alas, no such news has ever surfaced. Hopefully vic3 doesn't become Paradox's HL3.

 

[Dreadlord]

Nothing I afraid, but except Victoria & EU Rome all other major Paradox games has its newest iteration. I won't be happy if they skip Vic III and go strait to EU V or CK III (We all know Rome II won't be coming)

 

[Rebel1776]

Stellaris didn't do anything to pops, yes it had a different pops system but it never had any obligation to port over Victoria's pop system.

Don't be naive, why even call them that then?

They had a working system with Victoria, and could have better refined the system and was put on a galaxy-wide scale. RGO's, specialized industrial planets, planets reserved for specifically mining materials, ect. They had a gold mine, but instead went with a VERY generic and overly simplified system.

I don't make my assumptions lightly. I read into what the company as a whole is going towards as far as game design goes. We even had the luxury of two titles spread a month apart, so we REALLY got a good look at what they're doing. I gave up on the Stellaris dev team, I'm done with their garbage.(it's much more than the design around pops, I'm not that shallow)

HoI4 is sending very scary policy with how they divide the "free" and "paid" parts of dlc and patches.

Example: Expansion on types of garrisoning(that there really wasn't much discussion over) is Free.

Then the Blitz Mechanic that alleviates a lot of complaints about the tedious micro of the battle plan system gets stuck behind the pay wall. It's backwards thinking, and frankly I'm losing faith in this dev team as well.

So you're right, they weren't obligated, but frankly it should have been expected that they would have combined elements from all of their titles, and not put in a shallow simplified system, but still give it THE SAME NAME, as a significantly deeper one.

 

[joe9594]

Paradox wants games covering different levels of complexity. Personally I would love Victoria in space but it was decided that Stellaris would be a more introductory title which sit at the lower end of the complexity scale (relative to paradox). Victoria is their most complicated game and that is great but not everything needs to or should be like that.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Don't be naive, why even call them that then?

Because they represented units of population, pop was a perfectly rational name to use.

ey had a working system with Victoria, and could have better refined the system and was put on a galaxy-wide scale. RGO's, specialized industrial planets, planets reserved for specifically mining materials, ect. They had a gold mine, but instead went with a VERY generic and overly simplified system.

They could've but they chose not to, I don't know the logic they went with so I can't judge it. Regardless I personally view the pop system as acceptable.

I don't make my assumptions lightly. I read into what the company as a whole is going towards as far as game design goes. We even had the luxury of two titles spread a month apart, so we REALLY got a good look at what they're doing. I gave up on the Stellaris dev team, I'm done with their garbage.(it's much more than the design around pops, I'm not that shallow)

That's your prerogative.

HoI4 is sending very scary policy with how they divide the "free" and "paid" parts of dlc and patches.

How so?

Example: Expansion on types of garrisoning(that there really wasn't much discussion over) is Free.

Why is that bad?

Then the Blitz Mechanic that alleviates a lot of complaints about the tedious micro of the battle plan system gets stuck behind the pay wall. It's backwards thinking, and frankly I'm losing faith in this dev team as well.

I agree that featured probably should've been part of a free patch but I haven't been keeping close eye on the HOI IV development so I can't offer much of an opinion on that.

So you're right, they weren't obligated, but frankly it should have been expected that they would have combined elements from all of their titles, and not put in a shallow simplified system, but still give it THE SAME NAME, as a significantly deeper one.

Frankly my issue with that idea is that performance wise Stellaris has enough problems late lag that I can't help but wonder whether or not a Victoria style pop system would make it even worse.

 

[lukesilveira]

HoI4 is sending very scary policy with how they divide the "free" and "paid" parts of dlc and patches.

Example: Expansion on types of garrisoning(that there really wasn't much discussion over) is Free.

Then the Blitz Mechanic that alleviates a lot of complaints about the tedious micro of the battle plan system gets stuck behind the pay wall. It's backwards thinking, and frankly I'm losing faith in this dev team as well.

To be honest, they do that since CK2. Retinues being a DLC only (the one about Rome, 2014) really changes the game and the existence of a personal army is much more powerful than the blitz move imho.

But I agree. It is time to accept that Paradox new DLC policy is really really bad (for us consumers).

 

[DesNibelungen]

I'll never understand the argument that a company continuing to support and develop its games via paid DLC (which is the only way such a thing is feasible) is a bad thing. I am happy to pay Paradox to continue to build out games like CK2. They can make it all paid as far as I'm concerned, with no free updates whatsoever.

 

[RELee]

While I do understand your sentiment, I don't think receiving free patches and hotfixes is asking too much.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

The problem is that Paradox folks often put very important mechanics into DLC, making the base game lackluster(EU4 anyone?). It is not a problem if you are rich, but if you don't have 100$ to spare on a game, you are either stuck with a relatively lackluster experience or piracy. It is one thing to have unit packs or music packs as DLC, but important mechanics? Look at Vicky 2 and its 2 expansions. Compare them

 

[DesNibelungen]

It is one thing to have unit packs or music packs as DLC, but important mechanics? Look at Vicky 2 and its 2 expansions. Compare them

2 expansions which only exist because PDS was able to support their development by charging for them.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

2 expansions which only exist because PDS was able to support their development by charging for them.

They could have easily added some important mechanics(crisis and westernization) into the base game as a patch. 1861 start-date from AHD is fine as a DLC. The games worked out relatively well. It doesn't feel as bad now as you can easily acquire the entire game via Steam sale. I got both Vickies for 10$ 2 weeks ago

 

[DesNibelungen]

They could have easily added some important mechanics(crisis and westernization) into the base game as a patch.

That would do nothing but harm sales. I think I've played the 1861 start date once, just to play the CSA. The fact that there were only 2 expansions probably indicates that they weren't that profitable to begin with. I'll never understand this argument. If you like something, pay to support it. If you don't, the thing you like will go away. What else can be said? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

That would do nothing but harm sales. I think I've played the 1861 start date once, just to play the CSA. The fact that there were only 2 expansions probably indicates that they weren't that profitable to begin with. I'll never understand this argument. If you like something, pay to support it. If you don't, the thing you like will go away. What else can be said? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Again, easy to say when the game is affordable(Vicky 2). Sadly, when you look at EU4's mountain of DLC, some often being important for gameplay, someone who is not wealthy and can only spare little money will feel saddened and often forced to fork over precious cash to buy it or to settle with a subpar experience in comparison. I am all for supporting companies and paying money for luxury extras(unit and music packs), but I should never be forced to pay extra for a complete experience gameplay-wise if I have low money to begin with.

 

[DesNibelungen]

I guess PDS should operate as a charity, working for free and then going out of business....to ensure that no one has a "subpar experience in comparison" and "feels saddened"........that seems to be the popular opinion around here! Not to mention the continual complaints of being "forced" (I imagine PDS thugs showing up at your place in the middle of the night to threaten you if you don't buy the DLC). I would like to see you run a business where you and your employees produce free content indefinitely....let us know how that goes!