Do you Agree with me? extending to 1900 and industrial revolution!!!

[babuchas1]

Improve the game mechanics for the actual period. And make a great Vicky 3. Why would you want 1 mediocre game that struggles to represent a long time frame when you can have 2 great games that fit well into their respective time periods?
And about the comparison between EU4 and CK2, these are so different games that you could very well compare Civilization 6 and EU4. They have NOTHING in common, just that Paradox is behind both CK2 and EU4. It's the only thing they have in common. They could very well make a new game that covers EU4 period but focusing in you character and your family (CK2) and also the other way: Make a game that covers CK2 time frame but based in countries and empires, not in dynasties. Every game would appeal different players, even when I am sure 75% of the players play both eu4 and ck2 and enjoy both in different ways.

 

[Incompetent]

Rather than dragging EU4 even further into the industrial age, an earlier start date on Victoria 3 could be worthwhile. It'd be cool to cover the technology of the Industrial Revolution itself in more detail, such as canals, wrought iron and the mechanization of the textile industry. Victoria 2 starts when the first industrial revolution in the UK is almost complete, and ends up going rather quickly to a technological landscape more like the Second Industrial Revolution, with steel, extensive railway networks, and mass production of just about everything including machine tools.

At least going back to 1822-ish wouldn't cause too many problems. You could go even further back, seeing as the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, but then the early-game border changes would have to be pretty drastic for anything like a historical outcome.

 

[TheDungen]

Rather than dragging EU4 even further into the industrial age, an earlier start date on Victoria 3 could be worthwhile. It'd be cool to cover the technology of the Industrial Revolution itself in more detail, such as canals, wrought iron and the mechanization of the textile industry. Victoria 2 starts when the first industrial revolution in the UK is almost complete, and ends up going rather quickly to a technological landscape more like the Second Industrial Revolution, with steel, extensive railway networks, and mass production of just about everything including machine tools.

At least going back to 1822-ish wouldn't cause too many problems. You could go even further back, seeing as the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, but then the early-game border changes would have to be pretty drastic for anything like a historical outcome.

Then ignore the historical outcome, you can have some more open crisis that results in a similar situation where nation states become an idea pushed by the game. Sort of how the game already handles ww1. You're unlikely to get ww1 but you can get conflicts like it which are likely to end up with situations similiar to the post ww1 scenario.

The napoleonic wars could be handled similarly. In fact EU4 tries and fails to do that with it's revolution mechanic.

 

[Willem IV]

I disagree, I rather have Victoria III from (1816-1933)

 

[frolix42]

I would like for EU to reach 1835 someday, to link up with Victoria. Even this pushing the limits of the franchise.

 

[TheWalttu]

Instead prolonging the already bland late game even further, the proper course of action would be to develop new mechanics for late game.

An institution for 1750 and the cancelled "Great Power Frenzy" would be a good start, and I've heard that there was some sort of Révolution and big wars going on too that shook the European continent, yet Revolution without player intervention they are rarer than cobaltarthurite.

When Eu4 actually covers the age it's supposed to, then it might have a chance to expand. But Ck and Vicky are already there so I don't see any the reason for it.

 

[Yxklyx]

The ability to properly start a game at a later date is what needs to be brought back. That was one of the original selling points of the game to me.

I don't agree that it should go that late but I'd like to see it go a few years more to cover the new world revolutions.

 

[StefanFan]

No no and no. I'd rather see more and more content added to the actual timeline, as they are doing right now, and what TheWalttu says, more content to the late game. I don't think the EU4 mechanics are made for an industrial revolution, but what they could do is maybe change the start date 100 years backwards, but nothing more than that. And I am not sure if they should do it, since changing the timeline will involve a lot of work and time that can be spent on further improving the game.

 

[Fast00000000000]

If you want the industrial revolution check out paradox's other game Victoria 2

 

[StefanFan]

The ability to properly start a game at a later date is what needs to be brought back.

I am not sure I get this... Could you please explain?

 

[Emiliana]

Make Victoria 3, unless Wiz is on the Dev Team, or don't even try it.

are you saying "make it unless wiz IS on it, and if so do not try it" or "make it unless wiz ISNT on it and then dont even try it"

 

[Nyrael]

If you want the industrial revolution check out paradox's other game Victoria 2

Why don't so many people in this thread read the entire opening post? He linked to another thread he made in Vic2 subforum, arguing that Vic2 is obsolete because EU4 and HoI4 could take care if its timeframe.

In other words, he is aware of Victoria 2.

 

[Dakka]

Because I love adding to echo chambers: This period is what the Victoria series is for, not Europa. Europa wouldn’t be capable of representing the period without a massive overhaul to game mechanics and honestly is just better suited to be its own game... which it is.

 

[PoulsenB]

The best thing about this thread is that the OP asked "do you agree?" and his post has 92 "respectfully disagree" at the moment

 

[Yxklyx]

I am not sure I get this... Could you please explain?

One example: no buildings are added for different start dates so like the Manufactory institution might be out but no one has one.

 

[StefanFan]

One example: no buildings are added for different start dates so like the Manufactory institution might be out but no one has one.

Got it! Thanks, and you are right. I just forgot how it is, it's been so long since I played without mods, and I usually play long saves.

 

[Pbanned]

THANKS ALL for your reply. if I want to have summation of this discussion I should say all of us loves Vic2! it was a awesome game. many doesn't like to hear "it will never come" ( of course it will come)
but It seems have some limitations.Thanks all of you. to hope of the Vic3 announcement day. Thanks again

 

[grommile]

One example: no buildings are added for different start dates so like the Manufactory institution might be out but no one has one.

Because nobody wants to maintain data for 2706 provinces over the 376-year span of the game.

 

[Badesumofu]

If anything they should disable all start dates other than November 11 1444 by default and put in a 'try it at your own risk' option to reenable them. It's a broken feature that shouldn't have been included to begin with.

As for the main point of the thread - patiently looking forward to Victoria 3.

 

[Pbanned]

If anything they should disable all start dates other than November 11 1444 by default and put in a 'try it at your own risk' option to reenable them. It's a broken feature that shouldn't have been included to begin with.

As for the main point of the thread - patiently looking forward to Victoria 3.

it seems you love Vic2. me too.