I guess I have a concern (Victoria 2 's release)

[Bullfrog]

I really don't expect vicky2 to be a whole lot mroe complicated than HoI3, even form an AI POV. Conducting war requires some rapidly shifting goals and objective, flexible strategy etc. Vicyk2 is more complex economically but the goals for the player and AI are more straightforward...Like I said though, its still a very different game, with more straighforward objectives. Conducting war is much more nuanced than industrialising your country IMO.

How is a 19th century war so hard for the AI compared to proper running of the Vicky economy? The HoI3 AI can fight decently*, but it cannot run its sliders, trade or properly attain raw materials for its economy. Using this engine to manage Industrialization seems far more difficult than running a war, at least with the recent PI track record (Clausewitz engine).

*not optimally of course

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

How is a 19th century war so hard for the AI compared to proper running of the Vicky economy? The HoI3 AI can fight decently*, but it cannot run its sliders, trade or properly attain raw materials for its economy. Using this engine to manage Industrialization seems far more difficult than running a war, at least with the recent PI track record (Clausewitz engine).

*not optimally of course

I disagree. To industrialise you have straightforward goals: Get enough of resource x, fulfill conditions to make X amount of pops available to work in factory, try and reduce modifier 'MIL' etc. there is a pretty well-defined goal (obviously this is simplified but thats basically how it works). Running a war on the other hand requires more flexible, less tangible decision-making, like whether to attempt an encirclement, whether you should break off the attempt to divert strength, whether you should attack quickly to destroy the pocket or should conserve manpower by starving them out etc...

Its not that Vicky2's goals are inherently simpler, but they are more based around getting a specific number in a specific box, so to speak. Straightforward, measurable, tangible goals.

 

[Bullfrog]

I disagree. To industrialise you have straightforward goals: Get enough of resource x, fulfill conditions to make X amount of pops available to work in factory, try and reduce modifier 'MIL' etc. there is a pretty well-defined goal (obviously this is simplified but thats basically how it works). Running a war on the other hand requires more flexible, less tangible decision-making, like whether to attempt an encirclement, whether you should break off the attempt to divert strength, whether you should attack quickly to destroy the pocket or should conserve manpower by starving them out etc...

Its not that Vicky2's goals are inherently simpler, but they are more based around getting a specific number in a specific box, so to speak. Straightforward, measurable, tangible goals.

That's exactly what will be an unfortunate aspect of this game's programming. Instead of a strategic plan to gain foreign markets in competition with other powers, through price competition, as well as maintain cheapness of goods domestically through tariffs and production, the AI will run simple checks to determine wether to build a factory, and then have a random chance of building x factory in y province. Awesome.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Vic2 needs primarily not the economics, it needs diplomacy.

I would hate to have a perfect economic simulation but an AI that does not issue ultimatums, does not know when to back off from a threatened war, does not know how to forge alliances (please scrap the silly drift system from HoI3!!), does not guarantee its friends, and does not engage in armaments races when I start building a navy.

Because *THAT* is what a 19th century grand strategy game should be about. Threat of war, strong armed diplomacy, spheres of interest, and collisions.

Screw the industry!!! I want a 19th century game where AI Russia sees me (Austria) invading Serbia, and as a response mobilizes its army and sends me an ultimatum "Back off Serbia---or war!!" I want to be able to negotiate spheres of influence. I want to open a diplomacy window and suggest the deal "USA will issue a promise of non-aggression against France, in exchange France will terminate its mastership over Mexico". Without events! And I want AI France to realize that, with 30 US divisions on the Mexican border, and 70 Prussian divisions on the French border, and Mexico being in my sphere of influence, it better yield to me!!

Because that sort of thing is really what I consider essential to a 19th century game. Not the hoarding of machine parts or the manual promotion of labourer POPs to clerk POPs. That was fun too but for Vicky 2.0, realized in the Clausewitz engine, I would love to see more diplomacy.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

That's exactly what will be an unfortunate aspect of this game's programming. Instead of a strategic plan to gain foreign markets in competition with other powers, through price competition, as well as maintain cheapness of goods domestically through tariffs and production, the AI will run simple checks to determine wether to build a factory, and then have a random chance of building x factory in y province. Awesome.

Well.... no offence, but then your gripe is not with PI but with AIs in general, cause there are no AIs in computer games who are as good strategically as human players.

and I bet you this my friend, you wont win your first game of V2, so the AI won't be all that bad.

 

[Tormodius]

I would hate to have a perfect economic simulation but an AI that does not issue ultimatums, does not know when to back off from a threatened war, does not know how to forge alliances (please scrap the silly drift system from HoI3!!), does not guarantee its friends, and does not engage in armaments races when I start building a navy.

I hope so much that Vic2 will be very unlike HOI3. They shouldn't reuse anything from HOI3, except for naval battle system hehe. ;-)
I like HOI3 but its so new and it has issues, and its based almost entirely on warfare. What i liked about Vicky is that you could have a fun game without even being involved in any war activities. you could make your opium smoking hippie nation if you liked *

EU3 however is now in very good shape, in quality terms. and AI diplomacy is working in EU3. They do forge alliances, and they do threaten you and stealz your goldz! Its good both in war and in peace

 

[unmerged(36066)]

Sometimes I don't get people. We add features for free in patches, and people say that its BAD.

And they're never late!

 

[Shuriken]

There are several things we are doing. We always try to listen to what this community wants for games.

Eu3 and Rome was bugfree and polished out of the box, but people were complaining they were shallow and not deep enough, so we kind of went over the top with HoI3, in making it "more more more" of everything.

For Victoria 2, we have done several things to avoid another Hoi3-style release.

#1) Better scheduling, with much longer time to just tweak the game.
#2) Not reinvent everything, but refining concepts instead.
#3) Not relying on volunteer betatesters, but using proper QA studios instead.

Thank you for your response on this, this does quite a bit to reassure me. I still won't preorder, but I'll be looking at the forum on release day and for the next few days, if no one is posting about legitimate game breaking bugs, I shall buy it. I'll certainly far less cynical.

 

[Will Lucky]

While I agree with you 100%, I'm afraid that with all the complaints both here and over on the HOI3 forums, that we have pretty much "screwed the pooch", if I may borrow from Tom Wolfe, on that option.

I could be wrong. That's obviously a PI decision on how play testing will be handled. But I remember folks frothing at the mouth because PI did not use "real" beta-testing but relied on "unreliable" free beta-testers.

I swear, if it were all really worth it, I would cry.

If I recall Johans words, A third downloaded the HOI3 Beta and were committed to it. A third downloaded were active for a bit then never came back. And a final third downloaded and never did anything afterwards.

Completely understandable they are going with the QA Studios.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

If I recall Johans words, A third downloaded the HOI3 Beta and were committed to it. A third downloaded were active for a bit then never came back. And a final third downloaded and never did anything afterwards.

Completely understandable they are going with the QA Studios.

It wasn't a 3rd.

We had basically 15-20 betas out of 200 that were active. And another 20-25 that posted once or twice..

The active betas was insanely good, but to find all problems you need a really big good group of people.

The ironical part was that several of the inactive betas were people we HAD taken in cause they had complained alot on the forum on previous games claiming "the betas sucked, I can do a better job"..

 

[l3illyl3ob]

It wasn't a 3rd.

We had basically 15-20 betas out of 200 that were active. And another 20-25 that posted once or twice..

The active betas was insanely good, but to find all problems you need a really big good group of people.

The ironical part was that several of the inactive betas were people we HAD taken in cause they had complained alot on the forum on previous games claiming "the betas sucked, I can do a better job"..

I am really excited at the prospect of having a professionally QA tested Paradox game. No offense, but even your most polished games have been a little rough around the edges, and this is entirely a result of the QA process. As good as the best volunteer beta testers are, nothing can beat rigorous testing by people whose job is to test your game. I'm glad you finally made the plunge and are doing this. Vicky 2 will hopefully be a much better game because of this.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Slightly OT, but I wonder how one becomes a professional beta tester?

 

[unmerged(81228)]

Slightly OT, but I wonder how one becomes a professional beta tester?

Dream way of earning money, huh?

 

[Duuk]

Thanks for undeleting this thread, Johan.

And I may have missed the post, but did someone say that V2 will go through professional beta testing?

Because to me, that would be a massive improvement. I've been part of 2 Paradox betas and I can assure everyone that Johan isn't lying. Real life intrudes and suddenly you're a week behind on the testing and you don't want to read everything to catch up with what has been reported... etc.

A professionally beta tested product would probably allay all of my fears for V2, which was my exact purpose in making this thread originally.

 

[Fire_Unionist]

Sometimes I don't get people. We add features for free in patches, and people say that its BAD.

If it's a gameplay feature (not a minor adjustment), shouldn't it come out of the box?

 

[Gaute65]

Thanks for undeleting this thread, Johan.

And I may have missed the post, but did someone say that V2 will go through professional beta testing?

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10407419&postcount=96

 

[Jayavarman]

A professionally beta tested product would probably allay all of my fears for V2, which was my exact purpose in making this thread originally.

You have made Paradox bend to your will.

 

[Duuk]

Goooooooood.

 

[jamhaw]

If it's a gameplay feature (not a minor adjustment), shouldn't it come out of the box?

The thing is, Paradox isn't making you pay for those additional features. Quite a few companies would make you pay for any additional features whether they should have come out of the box or not.

 

[Fire_Unionist]

The thing is, Paradox isn't making you pay for those additional features. Quite a few companies would make you pay for any additional features whether they should have come out of the box or not.

But if they are integral to the game they should be free. For example the Rome expansion. To me it seemed to simply "complete" the game, not add to it. All of the features in that expansion pack should have been in the original.