devastating for minors

[unmerged(16133)]

Would you prefer "Here guy, his game lets you play hundreds of selectable nations; but be warned that they all play exactly the same, play the UK or Peru, you can build factories at exatly the same rate with either!"

While I agree the WM coould do with more goods so that the likes of Spain can get at least a good part of their supply from it, I don't want to see 3rd world nations buying everything they need and becoming economic powerhouses.

they don't have to play the same and really it is a game, which i think is what people might be looking at we are not (atleast i am not) looking for an experience that always has the same set of 10-12 outcomes mandated, if the right decisions are made by a country in the game why shouldn't a player be able to build up another of the smaller countries to a level the way japan did, someone will think well they didn't, yes i know that but this is a game and does have the ability to play so many of the interesting minor countries that were A: either near the same level as japan or B: above the same level as japan in 1836 in terms of modernization but they can not do even close to what japan does in the game because the events are there for japan but not possible for anyone else.

I want to play a game as egypt as the force behind them (which is semi what the game is allowing us) and rewrite the history not just add footnotes.

I want to play as the CSA and rewrite history (oh they allow this, which if you look at it the way they do with other countries is a truly baffleing switch of ideas)

 

[unmerged(23774)]

IMHO gaining colonies to increase prestiege, and selling tech are gamey exploits to the system. There are always methods of increasing prestiege, or buying the world's supply of goods on day 1, but none of these are particularly good solutions.

One can look at gameplay in a number of different ways, for me; when fighting the system and using every exploit is the only way to go then it's not much of a game experience.

The day one issue is an exploit but I have no problem with it. I don't see how going after colonies from the start (as the AI is doing) or trading technology is an exploit.

Clearly to get a non-historical result with a minor country I need to do something non-historical. Running a great agrarian economy didn't lead to industrialization in real life. I'm not sure why it should be possible for it to lead to early and significant industrialization in the game.

 

[unmerged(23774)]

they don't have to play the same and really it is a game, which i think is what people might be looking at we are not (atleast i am not) looking for an experience that always has the same set of 10-12 outcomes mandated,

You weren't trying to bring it up but your quote perfectly states my complaint about Victoria. There need to be more random big events and fewer historical events as time goes on. If France wins a war against Prussia in the mid 1850's and is even stronger relative to Prussia in 1869 why should the Franco-German war goes at it did historically?

 

[Dinsdale]

The day one issue is an exploit but I have no problem with it.

That's where we differ. Perhaps different settings for exploit and rules lawyers is necessary in the game.

I don't see how going after colonies from the start (as the AI is doing) or trading technology is an exploit.

Colonization is far too easy and hopefully about to be tweaked. Seeing Africa filled in before 1860 does not sit right with me, though when it's controlled by majors it's a little more palatable. I see no need to play a game style where the only option is as realistic as colonizing Mars as well as inner Africa.

Selling techs is an exploit in my opinion, somehow I can't quite enjoy seeing my national income dwarfed by the proceeds of some tech sales.

Running a great agrarian economy didn't lead to industrialization in real life. I'm not sure why it should be possible for it to lead to early and significant industrialization in the game.

Tell me how nations industrialized then. If there was no route from agrarian to industrialized then did wizards conjure factories?

Great Powers were able to influence the world, fight wars and build their internal infrastructure during transition towards industrialization. Speed of industrialization did not depend upon random events, or African colonization leading to a greater position in some global machine part queue.

 

[unmerged(7034)]

The Goal of the Game

"The major goal in Victoria is to become one of the eight great powers of the era. This is accomplished by achieving global hegemony, by spanning the globe to become the dominant empire of the period.

Victoria is about RECREATING WORLD HISTORY ACCORDING TO YOUR WISHES. While we strive to simulate the conditions and prerequisites of the time period as close (sic) as possible, we leave all decision making to you, the player. (...) THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE GAME IS TO ENSURE THE PLAYER HAS FUN."

This isn't me (although the emphasis in caps is mine), it's Paradox. The above text has been taken from page 2 of the manual.

I rest my case.

 

[Darkrenown]

Are you implying that a game just cannot be made good all around, that it HAS to be screwed up in one area or another? That it's impossible to handicap smaller/poorer/uncivilised nations without crippling gameplay? I think that's, er, animal manure.

Unless you want to make seperate economic models for different countries, woundn't any model that lets the majors make a reasonable amount of money leave minors dirt poor? If you pour enough money into the game to let the minors have a good income it would give the majors 1.01 style incomes.

 

[Darkrenown]

"The major goal in Victoria is to become one of the eight great powers of the era. This is accomplished by achieving global hegemony, by spanning the globe to become the dominant empire of the period.

Victoria is about RECREATING WORLD HISTORY ACCORDING TO YOUR WISHES. While we strive to simulate the conditions and prerequisites of the time period as close (sic) as possible, we leave all decision making to you, the player. (...) THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE GAME IS TO ENSURE THE PLAYER HAS FUN."

This isn't me (although the emphasis in caps is mine), it's Paradox. The above text has been taken from page 2 of the manual.

I rest my case.

I'd say that quote worked against your case. Look at:

"The major goal in Victoria is to become one of the eight great powers of the era."

Right there, unless you want to be able to take a minor and make it a GP, you can see that the game's focus is on the major to major-minor countries. The minors are there and playable, but there's no way to achive the major goal of the game with them.

 

[unmerged(16133)]

You weren't trying to bring it up but your quote perfectly states my complaint about Victoria. There need to be more random big events and fewer historical events as time goes on. If France wins a war against Prussia in the mid 1850's and is even stronger relative to Prussia in 1869 why should the Franco-German war goes at it did historically?

but the thing is your point there is something i was trying to bring up, not specifics like the french wars but in general, later events in the game half of the time make no sense when earlier occurances have changed history into a what if.

Quate
The Goal of the Game
"The major goal in Victoria is to become one of the eight great powers of the era. This is accomplished by achieving global hegemony, by spanning the globe to become the dominant empire of the period.

Victoria is about RECREATING WORLD HISTORY ACCORDING TO YOUR WISHES. While we strive to simulate the conditions and prerequisites of the time period as close (sic) as possible, we leave all decision making to you, the player. (...) THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF THE GAME IS TO ENSURE THE PLAYER HAS FUN."

This isn't me (although the emphasis in caps is mine), it's Paradox. The above text has been taken from page 2 of the manual.

I rest my case.
__________________
Life kills.
END QUOTE

right it needs to be fun and having some of the effects as they are now leaves some of the fun out of it. it's too scripted at times.

 

[unmerged(24302)]

this is a game

i am agreeing with ppl saying uncivilized nations should be able to become a great power rather stay uncivilized. Frankly, i believe that's the whole point of the game, which is to transform a weakest nation into a great world power. Isn't that's the "fun" part of playing something challenging? what's the point to play a great world power nation? personally, i found the fun to play a low ranking nation and rewrites the history instead just to let the history repeats itself. i find it quite boring just to play accoring to the history, just like reading a boring history book. as a player we should be able to write our own history depending on our skills.

btw: i have been trying to play china since it's the easiest uncivilized nation to begin with, but i don't have any luck. kinda impossible to get any machine parts except 5 i got from trading publishing industry using my colony claims. also, i can't increase my prestige because of weird treaty events. i have nanking, peking, (-100 each) etc treaties that i am forced to sign whenever i am signing a truce with british even when i am kicking british all the way into india........ don't know if that's a bug. furthermore, the entire 2nd opium war lasted almost 50 (out of 80 total) years for me when the entire war was basically a stalemate and britsh won't even sign the treaty when their war exhaustion is 30+% sigh hopefully there's a new patch to fix all these problems

 

[Dinsdale]

I'd say that quote worked against your case. Look at:

"The major goal in Victoria is to become one of the eight great powers of the era."

Well it wasn't my case but I'd say that "becoming" implies that it is possible to do so. That's simply not true. For many nations it's 40-50 years of very little, by which time it's either invade and conquer or never gain the points to enter the top 8.

In a perfect world, all nations would have that possibility, but if even a dozen or more had the chance it would allow for the kind of variety which longevity requires.

 

[unmerged(7034)]

I'd say that quote worked against your case. Look at:

"The major goal in Victoria is to become one of the eight great powers of the era."

Right there, unless you want to be able to take a minor and make it a GP, you can see that the game's focus is on the major to major-minor countries. The minors are there and playable, but there's no way to achive the major goal of the game with them.

That's exactly what's wrong with the game in its present state; it should be excruciatingly difficult, but not impossible. Having spent part of my life (thankfully small) in advertising, I must say I admire the way you managed to interpret the text to exclude 90% of the playable nations in the game. There isn't even a smidgin of a hint of what you propose in the manual copy. On the contrary, it actually implies that you can turn a country - any country - into a great power. What's the goal of playing Victoria, if you already ARE one of the eight great powers? There's no way you can 'become' a great power if you already are a great power from the very start. Perhaps the copy should read:

"The major goal in Victoria is to retain your country's status as a great power of the era."

Now, that would make things clear indeed. Of course the last sentence with the 'fun' business should be edited out.

 

[unmerged(22409)]

I for one would not like it if it only took 20 years to take any nation into a fully industrialised superpower status.
Yes it should be possible to bring them up to this state, but it should be a hard and arduous slogfest.

Waiting around for machine parts or a few chairs is indeed a stupid and artificial way to prevent this, but I think it would also be very hard to model the socio-political (sometimes even religious) reasons why many of the worlds nations were and (still are) hard and expensive to industrialise.
And I have a feeling that if they did manage it, people would still be complaining they can't take "pissweakia" up to superpower status.

Am I the only one that thinks you don't have to turn the (lets say) zulu's into a great power to have fun with them?

 

[Darkrenown]

That's exactly what's wrong with the game in its present state; it should be excruciatingly difficult, but not impossible.

You think it should be possible to take the Zulus and make them more powerful than France then? I'm sorry, but that just seems silly to me.

. On the contrary, it actually implies that you can turn a country - any country - into a great power. What's the goal of playing Victoria, if you already ARE one of the eight great powers? There's no way you can 'become' a great power if you already are a great power from the very start. Perhaps the copy should read:

"The major goal in Victoria is to retain your country's status as a great power of the era."

Now, that would make things clear indeed. Of course the last sentence with the 'fun' business should be edited out.

Ah, I see your evil advertising powers are coming into play I said the focus was on the majors and major-minors, not just on the great powers. Countries around Mexico's level and upwards should be able to become great powers. So that's all of Europe, North america, the Ottomans and the uncivilized nations with events to become civilized. Much like in real life. There's still plenty of countries to have fun with, or does the lack of a world spanning Hawaiian empire spoil the game for you?

 

[unmerged(7034)]

Nope, I wouldn't want the Zulus to equal France, not even playing on the easiest level. But given excellent gameplay and a big dash of luck, I'd like to be able to make them a regional power. However, this splitting of hairs is largely irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because at the end of the day, what counts is the amount of gaming excitement one can get from a game. Victoria, in its present form, severely limits the player in this respect, restricting him to less than half of the playable countries (and that's a pretty generous assesment). Bad and boring gameplay stays bad and boring gameplay no matter what lofty purposes it serves within the game. Any argument in its favour is bound to be ridiculous; it's akin to saying 'we have to have all this boring, silly gameplay so that you can get an equally boring, but historically correct ending'.

And I still think the manual signals an entirely different intent. Unless, of course, the Goal of the Game section was just an exercise in empty advertising copy.

To all the trolls that are rubbing their hands with glee: I love Victoria, okay? That's why I want her better, and more beautiful.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

I notice that the old historicity vs playability discussion of EU won't go away.

Lack of machine parts (or whatever) on the world market was not a major reason for the late or failed industrialization of the ROTW in the 19th Century.

Of course, nobody really knows why some countries managed to industrlaize early, while some were late and some never managed at all. What is fairly certain is that the countries that were most advanced at the beginning of the 19th Century advanced faster than the rest. The gap between the West and the ROTW was greater in 1900 than in 1800.

Being "advanced" in 1835 meant having a decent "intellectual establishment" and a functiong judiciary that actually protected life and property. Security of property is the main precondition for economic development. Such security was, in general terms, absent from the ROTW.

The basic development model of Victoria suffers from the same problem as that of EU: The attempt to use a single universal model to simulate politics across a range of qualitatively different political systems. THe Ottoman Empire and the United Kingdom were qualitatively different societies in 1836, Japan was in fact as different from China then as now. These differencers, relating to basic social structure (anything from family patterns to pattern of political authority) are as "real" as the differential ability to manufacture sulphuric acid.

Paradox is not alone in experiencing problems with this approach. The same approach has been tried, and is continually being tried, in the real world. And has proved to be a dismal failure.

There are ways to enhance the historicity of the model. The simplest is posibly to tweak the "crime-fighting" model - enhancing the effect of high expentiture in this sector on econoimic effieciency and giving it an effect on the militancy/consciousness7trust in government of the POPs.

Making the minors playable depends on your view of what constitutes "playability". But a model of the 19th Century that allows the Zululand or Honduras or even Spain to become great powers belongs to realm of fantasy gaming, not historical simulation.

 

[Darkrenown]

Nope, I wouldn't want the Zulus to equal France, not even playing on the easiest level. But given excellent gameplay and a big dash of luck, I'd like to be able to make them a regional power.

Um, when I said Minors should not be able to become great powers you said:

That's exactly what's wrong with the game in its present state; it should be excruciatingly difficult, but not impossible.

So, if you want to make a minor a regional power, I agree. If you want to make them a Great power, I disagree.

 

[unmerged(24302)]

not sure

Johnny, this is simply not true. I ran several high speed tests with civilised minors and got zip, nada. You're advising the wait may take 'many' decades? The whole goddamn game is over after 8 decades and a bit.

well in the case of china that i played couple times, i eventually get redundant machine parts toward the end of the game 1890+ with a negative prestige and start to industrialize with my only tech "freedom of trade" aquired by either trading my colonly claims or 50+ yrs of research......... which is kinda late.....