I haven't played since 1.02 and I'm not sure I want to go back. Are there any major problems (ie, constant shortages, giant armies, overpowered partisans, that you have to become a democracy)? Or have those gone away with the latest patches?
-
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.
That's all been taken care of, for the most part. At least it's gotten a lot better.
And for the love of Johan, if the last thing you played was 1.02, be certain you play 1.03b before passing judgement on this excellent game.
And for the love of Johan, if the last thing you played was 1.02, be certain you play 1.03b before passing judgement on this excellent game.
Thanks. 1.02 was a disaster. I'm used to Paradox patches, the bad and the good, but I've never been so turned off so quickly.
Less, but still too many partisans.
Easier to play as a non-democracy, but still democracy is the best choice by far.
The economy works fairly well.
Easier to play as a non-democracy, but still democracy is the best choice by far.
The economy works fairly well.
Much better, still not perfect, but VERY playable now. I think it has definitely ascended into being the best Paradox game...
I never played 1.02 (bought the original, player for a while, didn't touch again for a year) but partisans aren't really a problem, and armies are pretty much to scale with what you'd expect from a giver country. Well, partisans ARE a problem, but keeping a few 20k armies on police duty behind the lines is more than enough to take care of any that pop up.
Uhm, Lamprey, how can you possibly have left the game alone for a year, when it was released last November? Even if you dropped it upon release and picked it up yesterday, you would only have left it alone for just over half a year? 
Just wondering
Rafiki
Just wondering
Rafiki
>ascended into being the best Paradox game...
I wouldn't go that far. When and if Victoria can maintain as much interest as EUII has years after release, then maybe it can claim those bragging rights, but I doubt it will happen.
What you do have with Victoria right now is a game that plays significantly differently that the other Paradox titles. There is more micromanagement and more emphasis on very long term planning. That is appealing to some people and not to others. Spite, as far as your specific questions go, yes there are still some shortages. But IMO they are supposed to be there and have good game effects from being there. Partisans are overpowered but IMO this compensates for the game having countries overpowered with respect to their ability to maintain long distance overland supply lines. And no you don't have to be a democracy.
I wouldn't go that far. When and if Victoria can maintain as much interest as EUII has years after release, then maybe it can claim those bragging rights, but I doubt it will happen.
What you do have with Victoria right now is a game that plays significantly differently that the other Paradox titles. There is more micromanagement and more emphasis on very long term planning. That is appealing to some people and not to others. Spite, as far as your specific questions go, yes there are still some shortages. But IMO they are supposed to be there and have good game effects from being there. Partisans are overpowered but IMO this compensates for the game having countries overpowered with respect to their ability to maintain long distance overland supply lines. And no you don't have to be a democracy.
EU2 was a great game, yet simple. Which is why the masses enjoy it (and HOI).
However, (comma)
Victoria is even more enjoyable to us Grand Strategist types.
I can say that 1.03 + 1.03b have made it pretty solid overall, so if you do not have it or have it and are not playing it, perhaps now would be a good time to try it?
To each their own, so advice should be moderated by an individual's desires.
However, (comma)
Victoria is even more enjoyable to us Grand Strategist types.
I can say that 1.03 + 1.03b have made it pretty solid overall, so if you do not have it or have it and are not playing it, perhaps now would be a good time to try it?
To each their own, so advice should be moderated by an individual's desires.
I first played HOI, then (and still) vicky, and it wasnt until a few weeks ago that I played eu2. I find vicky much more engrossing (im a micromanagement nut.... except possibly for a civlised china). After playing hoi and vicky, i couldnt stand not being allowed to see units on the political map, I didn't like the combat system and I never really felt like the game was as "global" i guess you could say, as vicky. However, I do like diplo annex All of the same are really fun in their own way, but vicky is definately my favourite.
1.03b is a good is a patch, but with a little more polish, vicky has alot of potiential.... I guess its the same for all paradox games really
All of the same are really fun in their own way, but vicky is definately my favourite.1.03b is a good is a patch, but with a little more polish, vicky has alot of potiential.... I guess its the same for all paradox games really
There are major problems still.
1. The AI taxes its populations in an incompetent way, which in turn eliminates the political model by making all of the AI poor POP's into Socialists. This means that all of the non constitutional monarchies in the world will almost always be democracies by 1860 or so and that the only parties in power will be Socialists. This includes, ludicrously, the United States and Britain.
2. The army sizes are still way out of whack. Britain is the world's largest army. The key minors such as the Balkan states and Japan rarely develop even a dozen divisions, and the major powers tend to keep their entire army in the field all the time. The AI rarely builds reserve divisions and this creates the ridiculous situation of Russia, Austria, Germany, Britain, etc. keeping several million men in the field at all times. It also makes very easy for the player to be the most profitable nation in the world and having the world's best army (reserve divisions can essentially triple your army size in wars if you play correctly, meaning that you will almost always be able to easily take on the nations that don't use them).
3. Unless you mod Victoria slightly, you will find the economics still make the period 1836-1870 very boring and very impoverished. This is easily fixed, but annoying if you don't want to mess with the game.
4. The game is ahistorical and kind of boring. Who wants to see Russia owning all of Eurasia except India EVERY TIME. Who wants to see the US accepting peace with the CSA one province short of re-annexing them EVERY TIME. Who wants to see Super-Austria as the greatest of the continental powers. Who wants to see France crush Prussia every time. Etc. and etc. Victoria still has not altered the setups and the AI files of the powers to make the Victoria resemble Europe of the period except for a few seconds when you first start the game. Its hilarious to start an 1836 game and within a few months see Egypt become the dominant Muslim power because of a horrendously out of whack setup. Its all fixable to some exent, but the AI remains awful.
It can all be fixed. But I would say the obsession over HOI and Crusader Kings has left Victoria in a lurch. It remains in a half-completed state, only having taken steps since 1.00.
1. The AI taxes its populations in an incompetent way, which in turn eliminates the political model by making all of the AI poor POP's into Socialists. This means that all of the non constitutional monarchies in the world will almost always be democracies by 1860 or so and that the only parties in power will be Socialists. This includes, ludicrously, the United States and Britain.
2. The army sizes are still way out of whack. Britain is the world's largest army. The key minors such as the Balkan states and Japan rarely develop even a dozen divisions, and the major powers tend to keep their entire army in the field all the time. The AI rarely builds reserve divisions and this creates the ridiculous situation of Russia, Austria, Germany, Britain, etc. keeping several million men in the field at all times. It also makes very easy for the player to be the most profitable nation in the world and having the world's best army (reserve divisions can essentially triple your army size in wars if you play correctly, meaning that you will almost always be able to easily take on the nations that don't use them).
3. Unless you mod Victoria slightly, you will find the economics still make the period 1836-1870 very boring and very impoverished. This is easily fixed, but annoying if you don't want to mess with the game.
4. The game is ahistorical and kind of boring. Who wants to see Russia owning all of Eurasia except India EVERY TIME. Who wants to see the US accepting peace with the CSA one province short of re-annexing them EVERY TIME. Who wants to see Super-Austria as the greatest of the continental powers. Who wants to see France crush Prussia every time. Etc. and etc. Victoria still has not altered the setups and the AI files of the powers to make the Victoria resemble Europe of the period except for a few seconds when you first start the game. Its hilarious to start an 1836 game and within a few months see Egypt become the dominant Muslim power because of a horrendously out of whack setup. Its all fixable to some exent, but the AI remains awful.
It can all be fixed. But I would say the obsession over HOI and Crusader Kings has left Victoria in a lurch. It remains in a half-completed state, only having taken steps since 1.00.
spite said:
As was indicated in another currently active thread, each player seems to have different experiences that happen "all the time". I never see Russia owning all of Eurasia except for India. They generally get locked in, from my experience. And why is the period from 1836-1870 boring? Sure, machine parts start off in short supply, but that's over in 1848. So why 1870?JScott991 said:
But overall, many different opinions exist about this game. In general, though, I'd say that those people who are willing to stick with the game eventually come to enjoy it, even in it's quirks. Sometimes it can actually be fun watching alternate history unfold.
JScott991 said:
I don't see how you can complain it's ahistorical and boring at the same time. If it was exactly historical all the time that'd be just as boring.
JScott991 said:
Agree with the first two points. The third is merely opinion. The fourth simply isn’t true.
I can tolerate the same thing happening over and over again if its historical. Then you can argue that game is a simulation.
But to have the same thing happening over and over again and it always be not only ahistorical, but impossible to plausibly justify using even the most outlandish historical theory, that's a problem.
For me its boring.
But to have the same thing happening over and over again and it always be not only ahistorical, but impossible to plausibly justify using even the most outlandish historical theory, that's a problem.
For me its boring.
Darkrenown said:
In my experiences playing unadulterated 1.03 or 1.03b (more 1.03 than 1.03b), the chronic financial and goods shortages do not begin to sort themselves out until around 1870. The date can shift some, but machine parts are not the only shortage that keep the early part of the game from being as active as it was historically. This is less of a problem in 1.03 than in the wretched 1.02, but it remains an issue.
I would be simply flabbergasted if in most people's games, the Russian Empire did not embrace significant Chinese, Ottoman, and Balkan territory for at least part of the game period that it did not acquire historically (or, really, could plausibly have historically acquired). I will admit that once the idiotic 5 year war cycles between Austria and Russia and Germany and Russia start, Russia tends to be rolled back sometimes. However, I have yet to see a game develop where the Russians did not annex at least some of: Persia, Tibet, Afghanistan, Korea, the Middle East, and, not nearly as rarely as it should be, Ethiopia and Egypt. Some of the problem is that the default Austrian AI is hostile and not protective towards the Ottoman Empire. Another contributing factor is the weakness of China and the hatred that Russia and Britain have for the Middle Kingdom. Most of the problem is that the AI is erratic and aggressive to a degree that would make EU-era nations blush.
I would be simply flabbergasted if in most people's games, the Russian Empire did not embrace significant Chinese, Ottoman, and Balkan territory for at least part of the game period that it did not acquire historically (or, really, could plausibly have historically acquired). I will admit that once the idiotic 5 year war cycles between Austria and Russia and Germany and Russia start, Russia tends to be rolled back sometimes. However, I have yet to see a game develop where the Russians did not annex at least some of: Persia, Tibet, Afghanistan, Korea, the Middle East, and, not nearly as rarely as it should be, Ethiopia and Egypt. Some of the problem is that the default Austrian AI is hostile and not protective towards the Ottoman Empire. Another contributing factor is the weakness of China and the hatred that Russia and Britain have for the Middle Kingdom. Most of the problem is that the AI is erratic and aggressive to a degree that would make EU-era nations blush.
Memnon said:
I agree that the historical endings happening more often than not is preferable to massive 'what if'. The what if endings do seem to be a problem. Such as a very warlike USA.
However, if anyone has a better offering of a game, list them (suggest OT for a thread on that). My game time is very important to me and right now I like this one best. I have several Paradox and even Strategy First products and it is hard to find new venues for my non-stopable mind.
Edit: note that some unhistorical is sometimes acceptable, as long as there are many deviations from the norm, the game is thus always different.
However, if anyone has a better offering of a game, list them (suggest OT for a thread on that). My game time is very important to me and right now I like this one best. I have several Paradox and even Strategy First products and it is hard to find new venues for my non-stopable mind.
Edit: note that some unhistorical is sometimes acceptable, as long as there are many deviations from the norm, the game is thus always different.
Last edited:
What about immigration? Is it still hard-coded (ie, do areas still get depopulated no matter what the conditions, and is the US still the only destination?)
Not really depopulated. If you run a decent country anyway.
As Germany 1890+, I get immigrants. Had Spanish, French, Russian, minors...etc.
As Germany 1890+, I get immigrants. Had Spanish, French, Russian, minors...etc.