I am afraid I can't. There are a number of things that go into the timing of Dev Diaries, most of which have little or nothing to do with me.
Gameplay Feature Questions Megathread
- Thread starter RedRalphWiggum
- Start date
-
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.
I am afraid I can't. There are a number of things that go into the timing of Dev Diaries, most of which have little or nothing to do with me.
Fair enough, thanks for responding. For the record, my guess is some time in October.
I'm going to step in here and alter course to talk about a point that I've been dwelling upon lately, what with the release of HOI3 and the subsequent storm of activity over there.
I've been enamored of Paradox games for the past six years because they are the developers of the great "what if", grand strategic computer games. When you play a Paradox game, you are not recreating history, you're reinventing it.
For years I played board games that "simulated" the great battles and wars of history. A few of those games would offer a couple of "variants" as they called them, that allowed you to more easily alter the outcome of a historical battle. Things like having units arrive on map earlier or later than they did historically
Paradox gives you the basic raw materials and the initial, historical setup and then pretty much says, "Do with it what you will". Your options are pretty much unlimited, except by real-life things like manpower, technology, money, and production.
Now, despite some talk to the contrary of late, I personally hope the this trend of creating wonderful "what if" games continues with Victoria 2. So, naturally, my question is..."Will Paradox continue their proud tradition of wonderful, historically-based, grand strategic games that give the player the opportunity to reinvent history, like Vicky 1, EU3, and HOI3?"
Yes, the question really is rhetorical.
I've been enamored of Paradox games for the past six years because they are the developers of the great "what if", grand strategic computer games. When you play a Paradox game, you are not recreating history, you're reinventing it.
For years I played board games that "simulated" the great battles and wars of history. A few of those games would offer a couple of "variants" as they called them, that allowed you to more easily alter the outcome of a historical battle. Things like having units arrive on map earlier or later than they did historically
Paradox gives you the basic raw materials and the initial, historical setup and then pretty much says, "Do with it what you will". Your options are pretty much unlimited, except by real-life things like manpower, technology, money, and production.
Now, despite some talk to the contrary of late, I personally hope the this trend of creating wonderful "what if" games continues with Victoria 2. So, naturally, my question is..."Will Paradox continue their proud tradition of wonderful, historically-based, grand strategic games that give the player the opportunity to reinvent history, like Vicky 1, EU3, and HOI3?"
Yes, the question really is rhetorical.
Surely Victoria the first was the best What IF of them all, given the potential of the games paradox has made and especially that yourve mentioned, HoI3 with its preset surreneders and narrow events and the vagueness of EU3. With Victoria you could take a small nation and gide to a world power and still have a wealth of events and interaction with the economy and shape of the world so that not only could you ask What If? but you would be given an answer which was acceptable to the thinking of man of how it would effect the world as it was.
but im not entriely sure what your question it, it seems to be that your asking given that the course of things has gone in the direction it already was will it continue staying the same? Im pretty sure Victoria II will be a paradox game, all the signs seem to point it, their the ones making it and the logo is all over the place so if i was a betting man id be more than willing to back the possibility of it being a paradox game.
but im not entriely sure what your question it, it seems to be that your asking given that the course of things has gone in the direction it already was will it continue staying the same? Im pretty sure Victoria II will be a paradox game, all the signs seem to point it, their the ones making it and the logo is all over the place so if i was a betting man id be more than willing to back the possibility of it being a paradox game.
I'm going to step in here and alter course to talk about a point that I've been dwelling upon lately, what with the release of HOI3 and the subsequent storm of activity over there.
I've been enamored of Paradox games for the past six years because they are the developers of the great "what if", grand strategic computer games. When you play a Paradox game, you are not recreating history, you're reinventing it.
For years I played board games that "simulated" the great battles and wars of history. A few of those games would offer a couple of "variants" as they called them, that allowed you to more easily alter the outcome of a historical battle. Things like having units arrive on map earlier or later than they did historically
Paradox gives you the basic raw materials and the initial, historical setup and then pretty much says, "Do with it what you will". Your options are pretty much unlimited, except by real-life things like manpower, technology, money, and production.
Now, despite some talk to the contrary of late, I personally hope the this trend of creating wonderful "what if" games continues with Victoria 2. So, naturally, my question is..."Will Paradox continue their proud tradition of wonderful, historically-based, grand strategic games that give the player the opportunity to reinvent history, like Vicky 1, EU3, and HOI3?"
Yes, the question really is rhetorical.
The deisgn philosophy works something like this. We try to set up historical constraints and let the game run from there. So you are free to do what you want inside the constraints we set. So we make it harder for Wallachia to create a huge colonial empire in Africa, but not impossible.
ΑΙ
IIRC i've read in the developers diaries for HOI3 you had a system with 2 AIs running for each country one dealing with the every day needs and the other planing the grand strategy aspects, will we have something like that in Vicky2?
IIRC i've read in the developers diaries for HOI3 you had a system with 2 AIs running for each country one dealing with the every day needs and the other planing the grand strategy aspects, will we have something like that in Vicky2?
[pertaining to historical party leaders]
For what it's worth, I think it's a very good idea. I was actually thinking about it earlier today before I saw this thread, what a coincidence! This type of historical flavoring seems in-line with your design philosophy. Any party can still win, of course, but if any party wins then we see the historical leader of that party lead the country. It's a neat idea, for democracies, and can add a lot to the feel of the game, in my opinion. I would like to actually see that Abe Lincoln is now president because the Republican Party won that particular election. They don't need stats or anything, just a name. It's similar to the historical generals you had in the first one, which I think should remain. You didn't get a general forced on you, but if you made a general in a certain time period, you had a chance of getting a general that really existed then. It was neat and added some personality to the game.
Of course, the biggest issue would probably be research, I guess. Researching every single party leader for every single country in the entire 100 year time line would be a lot of work, and possibly time spent improving other things. The resulting flavor would be worth it, in my mind. The other issue would be monarchies. A different party doesn't mean a different king. And I think having historical kings for every country might be a little too much in accordance to your general design philosophy.
Just my 2 cents.
Will there be missions like in In Nomine?
I think this was a great way to give countries a historical path, without being too deterministic.
I think this was a great way to give countries a historical path, without being too deterministic.
Well you Devs sure liked "In Nomine" when it came out didn't you?
You put a lot of elements of it in HOI3, are you people sure your gonna want to put that in Victoria 2 as well?
You sure its not gonna turn out to become a EU:IV like HOI3 did?
You put a lot of elements of it in HOI3, are you people sure your gonna want to put that in Victoria 2 as well?
You sure its not gonna turn out to become a EU:IV like HOI3 did?
Brilliant... I started a thread about how the great game oculd be simulated by the missions system, might be worth your having a look at
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=426963
What I mean is that different country's missions could be related to eachother, and victory conditions dependent on beating the rival country as opposed to fulfilling a set mission goal
Quick off topic, King, if you have time for it.
Didn't you tell me once you were involved with the first Victoria project, or did I just dream that?
Didn't you tell me once you were involved with the first Victoria project, or did I just dream that?
I was a beta tester for the original Victoria, I also scripted some events, OOBs and POP files. The events that reduce the resource stockpiles were my handywork for example. Revolution was my first project as a Paradox employee.
OK.
I thought it was something like that. Even better than I remember, actually.
All I can say is ...
Brilliant!
Well, I don't actually talk that way, mind you. I guess I should say...
Yee-haw!
I knew there was a reason I was looking forward to this project.
I mean, between you and Johan, what could go wrong?
Y'all try and stay on schedule. I'm not getting any younger you know.
OK.
I thought it was something like that. Even better than I remember, actually.
All I can say is ...
Brilliant!
Well, I don't actually talk that way, mind you. I guess I should say...
Yee-haw!
I knew there was a reason I was looking forward to this project.
I mean, between you and Johan, what could go wrong?
Y'all try and stay on schedule. I'm not getting any younger you know.
We will do our best
That must be sort of a fairytale job... poster and beta tester dreams of one day working for paradox and eventually does. A fantasy I bet many a paradoxplaza poster has indulged themselves in. Does this mean if I wish hard enough that Hugo Chavez will pluck me from obscurity to become his right-hand man it may actually happen, y'ken?