Ipso facto, long-term, non-inbetween, non-military focused games are doomed to fail and making Vicky 3 is bad business.
- 1
Great War: Vicky 3 + HoI 4
- Thread starter Andreu
- 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.
Ipso facto, long-term, non-inbetween, non-military focused games are doomed to fail and making Vicky 3 is bad business.
This is not a short term, cold war should have 4 ticks to 1 ticks per day, instead of 24 of HoI
Victoria 3 is probably one of the more risky moves Paradox has made recently, yes.
But really, East vs. West was just the nail in the coffin for modder-produced games. Whereas stuff like March of the Eagles, or a dedicated WWI game would be inherently more difficult because it's a period of short term historical transition with no real clear historical processes present throughout to model and no real consistent gameplay focus to guide development like there is with the Hearts of Iron, Victoria, Europa Universalis, or Crusader Kings franchises. As much as I would love a proper global Napoleonic era game or a Thirty Years War game from Paradox, it's very understandable why they're not made.
- 1
I problem with converters is, for me personally, I barely finish a campaign in one game as it is let alone acorss two/three/four games. ><
Indeed. The discussion always goes like this:
(On Vicky forum)
Me: "This game should do better at simulating WW1, I mean it's supposed to be the culmination of this era, after all"
Vicky Fan: "Shut up dweeb! WW1 is just peripheral to this game, which is not a war game. What, you don't like ping-ponging stacks?!?! Any way, WW1 is more of a HOI thing"
(On HOI forum)
Me: "How about a WW1 DLC? HOI could do this and I think it'd be interesting"
HOI Fan: "BOOORRRRIIIINNNNGGGG!!! Anyway, WW1 is covered by Vicky"
(On general forum)
Me: "Wouldn't a WW1 stand-alone game be good?"
HOI and Vicky fans: "NOOOOOO!!! Plz only focus on our games"
Anyway, I'm really hoping that a "move is attack" system is used in Vicky 3. This would at least allow the proper simulation of front-to-front warfare and WW1-style warfare can emerge out of that. Without that it's just going to fail at simulating anything like WW1.
Last edited:
- 4
the move is attack probably does not work in the other 95% timeline of Victoria 3
Disagree.
Firstly, this is a 1836-1936 game. We're near-enough talking about the last 40-50 years of that period, not 5. And that 40-50 years of the game is actually where the most fighting tends to take place anyway.
Secondly, how does "move is attack" not simulate battles even before the 1880s with the province sizes we're looking at (~20 miles across)? Which is worse, "move is attack" for the first half of the game, or "arrive is attack" for the second half? I get that "move is attack" is not ideal for Napoleonic-style battles, but "arrive is attack" fails completely at front-to-front WW1-style warfare.
I think its good that people are talking about WW1 early enough in development. Although I doubt its part of the devs schedule for the base game. if there is enough demand we will likely see it fleshed out by a DLC.
The thing that gives me some hope is that Paradox realised the importance of making the entire game challenging in Stellaris, implementing the end-of-game-crises. Hopefully they also see that Great Wars are the end-game crisis of this particular era and will need to work from day one and not just feel tacked on. It's not going to be easy to simply patch in a whole load of Great War combat mechanisms at a later stage via DLC - some of them at least will need to be there in the base game if front-to-front warfare is going to work satisfactorily.
- 2