Don't shoot - But seriously, I can't see why Victoria is

[unmerged(71032)]

+1

That's why manual POP conversion should still be possible (at least for some POP types) in dictatorship countries. This way everybody could have a bit he likes - by simply chooisng form of governement.

It's not exactly what I mean.

POP splitting/promoting was NOT good mechanics. Even if some of the extreme regimes of late game period should have option to force change upon their POPs (in game terms giving player manual control over it), it's still not something I consider critical aspect of making Vicky 2 good game.

What I consider critical is keeping players involved in whole economical and social changes process by keeping them busy with it - most likely with lots of policies to choose, events that give them choices, technologies with ability to "choose a path" and so on. Things that allow player to feel he is in control of things, instead of being just a distanced, limited in his ability to change stuff.

It's basically a choice between Populous and Majesty -like mechanics and more classic, "I can do whatever I want (in reasonable limitations)" approach.

 

[CatKnight]

Personally I WOULD like the micromanaging turned down just a little. I could never get into Vic 1 - I had no idea what I was doing, and my desire to play the nineteenth century couldn't overcome the learning curve.

Perhaps a compromise would be to have options detailing the level of AI control within your country and in what areas. That way if you really want to deal with splitting pops you may, and if you don't then let the AI take its best shot.

 

[FOARP]

I did exactly the same thing first time. Came back a few months later and haven't looked back since.

For me its the best game because unlike every other PI game, a country is not just abtracted blobs, its a collection of people and industry. you're a real government, wich has to pay attention to your people, industry, military etc. They aren't pieces on a chess board, they are the country, not you.

In other PI games you are a God, in this you are a politician. I love having to take account of all my actions, think what effect they will have twenty years down the line and what is best for my country (and more territory often isn't best in vicky).

My advice is to wait for V2, which will likely have adecent tutorial, and take it form there. No point in learning V1, only to have to relearn everything in 4 months.

It was the same for me, especially since I was playing with a foreign-language version which I did not entirely understand. Once I got it (and it took a while, let me tell you) I was hooked. P'dox should definitely try to soften out the learning curve a bit, not too much, but definitely a bit.

 

[Snall]

If you don't have any intelligent comment about a GAME, not about somebody's preferences, why don't you shut up?

Calm down man.

 

[Daffius]

... I even enjoyed pre-war preparations in HoI games...

You're not alone, I enjoy HoI right up till 40's. After that I usually switch to a minor and watch how it rolls out for the country I built up.

I guess this is what makes us love Victoria. Grow your country to a super power status without actually fighting. To know that I could steamroll France as Germany was satisfying enough to not want to steamroll France as Germany. (Reading that again seems weird but thats how I felt).

I do understand the frustration in the learning curve, but I believe a better manual would be better than toneing down the game (even a little). I love the fact that I can still find something new in a game after 'x' play throughs. I would like a game which I cannot play in five minutes after I switch it on (which is the case in 95% of games), but rather takes time, patience and an understanding of history (political and economical) to get it going.

On another note, I completely with Alojzy and I get were you are going at. I couldn't really grasp what my fear is... but I believe it is the lack of control. And no, I did not enjoy promoting/demoting and splitting after a unification for example. But the direct control that let me put the game back on track if I felt something go wrong was something that gave me pleasure. And althoug I'm fine with tweaking sliders (fm10 anyone?) I would really enjoy a feature that would differentiate the level of control you have based on your government type.
Very well implemented in Revolutions imo, this could be further enhanced. Then you know which government type/policy would be the most fun for your style of gameplay. Although I do understand that that would require quite some programming...

 

[telesien]

fm10 anyone?

You and me are very much alike

 

[unity100]

it is a more realistic and fluid simulation of real countries. mechanics are there and working, resulting in real results, instead of some added tags and modifiers changing things with percentages in Eu series.

 

[Flooper X]

Because unlike any other paradox game, building a larger army than you can afford and conquering everything isn't a good (or even working) strategy.

Because in victoria, when my rich and indstrialised Piedmont conquered a non-industrialised Italy on its own a bit too soon, my economy collapsed and my country sunk into ruin.

In short because there are more limitations and just growing exponentially forever is more or less impossible. And because all of this makes it so much sweeter when my Hannover grows into the number one great power

 

[Tormodius]

Truly, I'd like to know. Assume I haven't the foggiest idea about the franchise - which really isn't far from the truth. I appreciate any enlightenment.

The fun thing about Vicky is that you develop a nation in a somewhat historical way.
It's unlike the intrigues and wars like EU3: HTTT or Rome. That is fun too i mean, but here it can be more about other things than wars. Its about how your country turns out, and if you want to do it historically or not doesnt matter really. I could have fun playing it without any wars at all. If i managed to avoid them. You set your own goals, and just play it see how it ends up. Playing an "uncivilized" country trying to reach Great Power status. For example with Japan or China you could do this and threaten the western powers.

But honestly after 50 years of doing this developing thing I usually get tired off it. So then i start a big war, or make the pops unhappy so they make revolution and i become either communist of fascist country, freaks out fight against some great powers Then its fun again hehe
For example one time I played USA, started out historically, civil war, etc. Then I made a majority of pops into soldiers, and set taxes high and built lotsa troops and warships. After a while those pops became fascists and voted for "The silver legion" a fascist party. So USA became a fascist country and then I went to a war with UK and Germany that never ended. That was kinda funny.

 

[diskoerekto]

Reason 1: Very interesting timespan. Industrial revolution, cultural revolution, liberal revolution... The longest century of humankind.

Reason 2: Unlike other games, nearly ALL your actions are indirect. You promote capitalists and wait for them to build a factory and other pops to come work in that and you get the product. You make a decision that has no direct effect but in time it causes the ruling party to change and your economic structure changes. Most of the things you make have indirect effects and that gives both a realistic feel and great enjoyment. On the other hand, the exact same thing makes learning of the game hard and a little frustrating.

When I first tried the game, I felt like the OP felt. After a few years I gave another shot and that time I fell in love.

 

[Airfixer]

The best Paradox game up to date. Why you ask? I asked myself that question also when I started playing Ricky, slow, much micro, peace (boring shit), and so on. I wondered why, in the name of PI, people thought this was a good game. But then something happened after a few hours. My country started developing, my economy was growing, immigrants came, and so on. The satisfaction in playing victoria is seeing your country going from a rural undeveloped society to a big growing industrialized welfare state, and feeling that you are behind this, watching the politics evolve and making progress, thats why it is one of the best games PI ever made, even though it is full of completely absurd micromanagement, bugs and stupid design choices (which we all of course hope will be gone in V2)

so give it another go will ya? I'm sure not regretting doing it ...
/Airfixer

 

[True Grit]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to continue to lurk around the forum and watch the development of Vic2. If things remain as positive as I believe they are I think I'll give it a go.

But then something happened after a few hours. My country started developing, my economy was growing, immigrants came, and so on. The satisfaction in playing victoria is seeing your country going from a rural undeveloped society to a big growing industrialized welfare state, and feeling that you are behind this, watching the politics evolve and making progress...

This is another innocent question: An industiralzed welfare state is the pinnacle achievement of the game? I mean, I understand that mechanically speaking, the game needs bonus and malus for certain policies, etc. but is being a large welfare state considered "the best way to go" in terms of economic development? I don't want to start a discussion on the merits of which system is the best in the real world, I was just hoping that perhaps since this is modelling the real world more closely than other PI games that there wouldn't (shouldn't in my opinion) be a "best". I expected that there would be a handfull of modern systems with equalizing bonus and malus, but no true best.

 

[RELee]

This is another innocent question: An industiralzed welfare state is the pinnacle achievement of the game?

One possible outcome, depending on your game play preferences. I've played multiple games where my nation never instituted a single social reform, so becoming a welfare state is not a prerequisite for a successful outcome.

 

[True Grit]

One possible outcome, depending on your game play preferences. I've played multiple games where my nation never instituted a single social reform, so becoming a welfare state is not a prerequisite for a successful outcome.

Well that's good then. I was getting excited about possibilities and what-ifs (someone made an Israel AAR that was neat) then disappointed as I thought he meant that to be successful there was a specific government type you needed to be. So, even if my country has a revolution and the monarchy is replaced with a proletariat dictatorship, I can progress and be successful?

 

[telesien]

One possible outcome, depending on your game play preferences. I've played multiple games where my nation never instituted a single social reform, so becoming a welfare state is not a prerequisite for a successful outcome.

Only if constantly revolting state can be counted as success I really can't imagine how the militancy can be kept under control without any reforms at all. And believe me, I tried...

 

[RELee]

Only if constantly revolting state can be counted as success I really can't imagine how the militancy can be kept under control without any reforms at all. And believe me, I tried...

A democracy with a L-F party in power, low taxes and low tariffs. You get those productive pops happy and keep them that way. Oh, and you're not trying to make the whole world the same color, either.

Like I say, it depends on how you play the game.

 

[unmerged(164401)]

Vicky is a very creative game, could've been a commercial success, but the executory process of the game was its let down IMHO. the idea of the POP system is what makes it the best to me. Vicky 2 should focus more on how to make POPs give the player a harder time than before. they should also try to add more features that would make the player extra busy, now that the micromanagment is gone.

 

[Haukionkala]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to continue to lurk around the forum and watch the development of Vic2. If things remain as positive as I believe they are I think I'll give it a go.

This is another innocent question: An industiralzed welfare state is the pinnacle achievement of the game? I mean, I understand that mechanically speaking, the game needs bonus and malus for certain policies, etc. but is being a large welfare state considered "the best way to go" in terms of economic development? I don't want to start a discussion on the merits of which system is the best in the real world, I was just hoping that perhaps since this is modelling the real world more closely than other PI games that there wouldn't (shouldn't in my opinion) be a "best". I expected that there would be a handfull of modern systems with equalizing bonus and malus, but no true best.

Socialist parties were generally the best in Victoria, but that doesn't mean welfare states were. The only really necessary social reform was good healthcare because it increased population growth. And it would be definitely possible to do well without it in single player.

 

[Airfixer]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm going to continue to lurk around the forum and watch the development of Vic2. If things remain as positive as I believe they are I think I'll give it a go.

This is another innocent question: An industiralzed welfare state is the pinnacle achievement of the game? I mean, I understand that mechanically speaking, the game needs bonus and malus for certain policies, etc. but is being a large welfare state considered "the best way to go" in terms of economic development? I don't want to start a discussion on the merits of which system is the best in the real world, I was just hoping that perhaps since this is modelling the real world more closely than other PI games that there wouldn't (shouldn't in my opinion) be a "best". I expected that there would be a handfull of modern systems with equalizing bonus and malus, but no true best.

It is not the best, it is just that I like transforming into it, like someone said, you can go through the game without a single social reform and preform just aswell or better, me as a leftee would never dream of doing such a thing though

In victoria you are free to shape the political society you like in your country and that is one of the beautiful things about victoria

 

[Sute]{h]

Socialist parties were generally the best in Victoria, but that doesn't mean welfare states were. The only really necessary social reform was good healthcare because it increased population growth. And it would be definitely possible to do well without it in single player.

I disagree. I found liberal parties to outperform the socialist ones. Especially since I got factories for free and could focus the ressources of the state elsewhere. Combined with the liberal parties often having Full Citizenship allowing for a better pop usage.