Crusader kings -v- Victoria

[Red Rainbow]

One off-topic point... I have never played Victoria, but it seems that the micromanagement of this game is more complex, and therefore Victoria players consider CK too simple... It is interesting then to read all the reviews of CK in games magazines stating that one of the cons of CK is "it’s so detailed"... I don't really know what these reviewers then thought about Victoria...

Good question, siekel... IMO, for some unknown reason, Vicky is an "under-considered" game... As I sad above, I can understand players not enjoing with Vic (Cagliostro explained his point very well..), but if I was a "reviewer" I think I should admit that the level of complexity and detail is "appealing"...at least...

 

[Judge]

When I first played Vic I thought “Wow, I am going to copy the achievements of Bismarck”. Instead I found myself very busy running small factories and dealing on the world market to get machine parts and so on. Moreover the game has a short time span so when you really have managed to shape up your country it is “game over”. On the positive side the game was rather well balanced (historically when comparing countries) and not at all buggy when it was released. The graphics were very good too. However the game got unbalanced after a while (small countries could easily expand to monsters under human leadership; Chile for example) and the Mongol equivalent to solve game matters back then were the “grasshopper rebels” that appeared everywhere (instead of the feared space alien Mongols we see in CK). Vic had many good ideas but failed to provide the important feeling of being a statesman of that time.

CK is a more primitive game and was heavily bug infested on release. The time span is good and the graphics are ok. I like the court system as an idea but it shouldn’t make up so much of the game as it does today. The risk is that instead of a “Vic horse dealer feeling” you will end up running a kindergarten instead of running a kingdom; i.e. too much micromanagement. While Vic had a better balance when it comes to playable countries CK is distorted since the Mongols are space aliens and the Byzantines are extremely overpowered. If these features change the game will improve a lot. The lack of diplomatic options is also very negative, you get a “sandbox feeling” when playing.

In all Vic was the better game purely technically speaking on release and I think Vic is underrated. However I still have hopes that we one day will see a much improved CK game. Right now Vic is the healthier of the two games but I hope/ almost bet CK will be the better game if we have this discussion again in say six months.

 

[unmerged(30793)]

It is interesting then to read all the reviews of CK in games magazines stating that one of the cons of CK is "it’s so detailed"... I don't really know what these reviewers then thought about Victoria...

A lot of those reviwers are just FPS freaks who think the Counter-stike weapon buying menu should be simplified...

Sometimes is is quite clear that they didn't play the game for a even day. They just look into it for an half an hour and then returned to trying to figure out the CS buying menu

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Good question, siekel... IMO, for some unknown reason, Vicky is an "under-considered" game... As I sad above, I can understand players not enjoing with Vic (Cagliostro explained his point very well..), but if I was a "reviewer" I think I should admit that the level of complexity and detail is "appealing"...at least...

Only if that is what you personally thought.

A lot of those reviwers are just FPS freaks who think the Counter-stike weapon buying menu should be simplified...

Sometimes is is quite clear that they didn't play the game for a even day. They just look into it for an half an hour and then returned to trying to figure out the CS buying menu

And more often it is clear that the reviewer knows exactly what he is doing - he is attempting to play a game, that he fails to love, most commonly because of simple problems that good interface design (which, alas, is so expensive in time to produce) would have avoided or because of bugs that would, in an ideal world, never be present on a gold-master disc.


One thing that many people fail to understand is that a review of a game is exactly that - a personal opinion of what a game is like to play by the reviewer. If you, as a reviewer, do not like great complexity but find it present in a game, that is exactly what you should mention, and you should let it detract from the score. A review is never an objective description of what the game is like for some emotionless robot, how could it be? It is a fully subjective experience. There are really only three things, that a good review needs to contain (though most contain more):

1. A description of technical problems the reviewer had with the game (and which you might or might not suffer)
2. A description of which game design decisions the reviewer really likes, and which he does not (possibly giving reasons for his views)
3. A description of what it feels like, to the reviewer, to actually play the game: Is it fun, engaging, easy, hard, frustrating, repetivive, gratifying....

And most commonly, based on all of the above, a rank. Not a rank that you can use to say "Game A is better than Game B", really (though many use them so), but rather a rank that says "this is what it was like for me".

I have read most of the Victoria and CK reviews and though I like both the games, I certainly cannot fault reviewers, many of whom like the strategy genre, for commonly assigning pretty low scores to Victoria and only marginally higher to Crusader Kings. I would most likely have done the same. The games were not shipped in a state that could, in any way, be considered "good", "exceptional", or "state of the art" except to the most fanatical player. (Of which a large part are present on these boards, and to which category it is entirely possible that I belong )

A very nice reviewer will also note the exceptional previous support of Paradox and that the game can be expected to be patched to solve many of the problems the initial releases suffer from over the next few months or years, but that should not boost the ranking in any major way.


I'll take an FPS expert, who bitches over crashes, counterintuitive aspects of the gameplay, unacceptable MP lag, and repetitive micromanagement, and gives 5/10 over a Strategy expert, who gushes over innovative solutions, the depth of the game, the level of detail in scenario setups, the humour of some events, and gives 9/10 because who cares about bugs or balance.

The first one may not understand the game completely, and he may make mistakes in his presentation of some game mechanics, but he will give me a good idea of what the game can feel like to actually play if I am unlucky, the second tells me nothing but that the player likes deep strategy games and has an unknown tolerance for bugs.


EDIT: The most glaring example of the second type can be found by reading reviews on Strategy Gaming Online. They have managed to find every single new Paradox Game from EU1 and onwards worthy of being an "Editor's Choice", with Solo Play consistently getting a 10/10 and Multi Play getting 9-10/10. Considering the problems of Valkyrienet, the rather extreme laggyness of some of the games in early patch versions, and the completely gamebreaking bugs that several of the games have shipped with (multiple reproducible crashes, savegame corruption etc), this is, as advice goes, much worse than anything an FPS veteran can do.... And a VERY good example of how ranking is highly personal.

 

[unmerged(27589)]

I find that I spend a ridiculous amount of time figuring out which provinces I have built up and how, checking where I need clerks, etc. One of the earlier games I played in Vicky was as Texas, and I conquered western America and most of Mexico. Managing that many provinces turned out to be intensely boring, as were the inevitable wars with the US. There's just far too much work you have to do all the time, there's no option to automatically upgrade stuff or do it for large areas, and any large scale economics or warfare requires a huge amount of multitasking.

On a small scale it's very entertaining, and I enjoy playing countries like, for example, Haiti. But once I start conquering myself an empire the same problem resurfaces. It just requires too much input for my taste, and there's no way to delineate tasks to the AI to figure out.

I never really experience the "read a book" phenomenon - frankly, I find that the pauses are my opportunity to look around and see what's going on. And really there's a lot to do in CK - it's just a matter of deciding what you want to do. It's just that it doesn't require you to manage every single task.

I think PE's analogy of Vicky as a "clerk's" game is kind of apt; the unavoidable micromanagement gets kind of tedious for me.

If you'd post this in the vicky forum, oh yeah, they'll blast you of with something haha (no offense, it's just a non-serious word about that vicky fans will be angry at you)

Basically, micromanagement was designed to vicky as it is now although it's somehow complicated to some players. To be honest, when you are playing a big country, you don't really have to micromanage every bits of the country unless of course you are trying to squeeze the £1 your factory so that your daily income would reach £1001 or something like that unless of course you are trying to write the best ever managed "huge" country in an AAR.
Try not to bother about the 1k POPs in some province and concentrate on where the big ones e.g. 50K POPs and build factories in there. When i was playing as an civillized China, which every vicky player is aware that almost everywhere in the country has lots and lots of people. Try not to bother about some provinces. I'm saying this to tell you that vicky is that hard to play and you should try it. If you feel you need more events and a more realistic game , try the VIP.
Paradox is just trying to provide us (their customer) some alternative history game which i found interesting. Try look at vicky. As for CK, what can i say, i haven't even complete a game. Some of us likes events while some doesn't.
Actually, the game shouldn't be compared as they don't appeal to everyone.
CK has it's own pros and cons and Victoria has it's own.
Finally though, I am interested to know about how is the outcome of this thread.

 

[unmerged(28851)]

Right now Vic is the healthier of the two games but I hope/ almost bet CK will be the better game if we have this discussion again in say six months.

Depends do you ask in the CK or in the VIC forum. People have different tastes, so you can't judge which game is "the better", based on your own opinion.

I personally think that CK is boring, but that's my personal opinion, not the Truth.

 

[november]

These kinds of threads are fun, but it’s not a competition, now—is it? Vicky is possibly my all-time favorite game. I’ve played the heck out of it and plan many many more games.

But I like CK. I fully expect to play it some more after a few more patches. The difference is easy enough to describe. It’s like the girl that has your heart: when you see her your heart beats faster. And that little crook in her nose endears her to you all the more. Whereas that other girl--the one everyone says is more beautiful—leaves you cold. In this example, CK is the other girl (for me).

 

[Judge]

Depends do you ask in the CK or in the VIC forum. People have different tastes, so you can't judge which game is "the better", based on your own opinion.

I personally think that CK is boring, but that's my personal opinion, not the Truth.

Well on which opinion are you going to base the judgement then?

I agree that CK became boring after a couple of games (don’t play it for the moment) but hopefully future patches might change that impression.

 

[crash63]

There is a poll here to vote for the best Paradox game.

Johan choose CK.

 

[Judge]

There is a poll here to vote for the best Paradox game.

Johan choose CK.

Easy, EU 2 of course

 

[unmerged(28851)]

Well on which opinion are you going to base the judgement then?

I'm basing my judgement on my own opinion of course. I'm not trying to convince others to accept my judgement as the judgement (not saying that you're). People have to make up their mind themselves.

This is why these discussion are pointless. Even after six months.

 

[unmerged(27373)]

Vicky's micromanagement becomes easier once you get used to the game and learn to use ledgers effectively. I have written a brief ledger guide to vicky on vickywiki to help players.

Honestly, vicky's economy is not hard to do, unless you strive for perfect achievement, squeezing every last penny out of your nation, then it's hell. If you are willing to let a few penny slip by, managing a big nation or playing MP games without pauses (except deploy, big bad events, fixing lag induced problem such as unable to build RR, split army, add worker to factories, etc.). I have done it, people have done it, our Europe Ablaze is a testament to that.

World conquest in vicky is not a very enjoyable experience, compare with EU2. I enjoyed WC in EU2 but vicky WC can be a pain. I've done it and I may try it again, as a 1 province minor in Vicky but I really hate dealing with those incessant constant non-stop rebellions in vicky, especially in populated place such as China, Korea, India. I get a couple revolt messages a day popping up, it's not fun, it's work and chore. Frankly, I would rather AI handle that aspect.

 

[Taear]

Personally, I would pick CK.
It certainly has it's problems, like the bizzare way in which Bad Boy is accumulated, along with the massive effect it has, and the ahistorical power of the Byzantine Empire and I was often sitting around with little to do.

However, I love creating new kingdoms, as well as carving out huge chunks of Pagan/Muslim provinces without a care in the world. Even when it turned insane, like the time a massive Moorish army landed in my united Danish kingdom. I even like finding new brides for my leaders, and clawing my way up from the dirt to take my place as a king of europe, even though I started as (for example), count of chernigov. That's one great plus that CK has over many other Paradox games, like HoI and Vicky, and even over EU2 to an extent.

In contrast, I found Vicky exeptionally hard to play. Though I really enjoy the period, and wanted the opportunity to do things such as winning the American War Of Secession as the CSA, or WW1 as Imperial Germany. All of these dreams went down the toilet when I first played though.
I'm a fan of complexity, to a degree. I like to have a lot to do, and I like to be given a lot of options in diplomacy. Victoria, for me, just took it much too far. I may have had more fun if the game had a Tutorial right out of the box, like HoI did, so I could have learnt the ropes without having to come to the forums to read up on them all.

As it was, the huge trade menu and having to check through every single province to make sure my industry didn't go in the hole just got tedious for me. It felt like a job, rather than a game.

Of course, as said before, it's a matter of personal taste. If you enjoy the economics side of strategy games, and lots of micromanagement, then Vicky is the game for you. If, on the other hand, you want to rampage across europe slaying infidels and carving out new realms, CK is the game you want. From what you've said earlier, I'd say CK is probably the better choice for you.

 

[C.N.]

Right now my preferences are:
1. Victoria
2. EU2
3. CK
...
50. HoI

I have placed Vicky first, so lets compare how the other fails in my comparision:
- HoI is only playable for majors, have a rotten diplomacy system and suffers from too much micromanagement (and yes, I mean compared to Vicky).
- EU2 has a map that sucks compared to later games, an annoying trade system, a stability system that is very annoying (Your ruler fart in court, -2 stab) and a boring tech system.
- CK needs to give the player more options. It seems to me that everything reduces to numbers and luck. The only place where skill required, is to spot opportunities. It is also hard to dig up the relevant information in some cases (no ledger, no bridefinder).

I would say that CK after some patching might pass EU2 on my list, but the rest on the placements looks fixed to me.

 

[Cagliostro]

If you'd post this in the vicky forum, oh yeah, they'll blast you of with something haha (no offense, it's just a non-serious word about that vicky fans will be angry at you)

I know, and I actually was one of the most avid defenders of Vicky, and suggested a lot of fixes, especially to the Italian unification system. It really IS a good game, and if EU and CK didn't exist I'd probably play it a LOT. It's just that EU and CK *do* exist, and they aren't as frustrating and time consuming to me.

I don't mind (and actually prefer) the OPTION to micromanage, but I hate being forced to - and I don't like the idea that I'm losing lots and lots of progress because I'm not bothering to update all my crap.

All of the Paradox games are deeply flawed, but also deeply intense and enjoyable - there are few historical games around that live up to any of them, but each one has its own weird idiosyncratic problems - to me they are EU's extremely goofy and trying economic system, and Vicky's extremely frustrating micromanagement. CK's main "baffling problem" seems to me to be the "let's remove the ledger" idea. Certainly there are a lot of small problems, but I expect most of them to be fixed. A lot of them can't be fixed because there's no easy way for the player to look at what's going on in the world, IMHO.

Obviously this is just my personal preference, but that's what the poster asked for.