It truly frustrates me that thie game's availability was scuttled by the distributors. Victoria had the chance to become a revolutionary game within its genre. The mistake of the distributors should not be allowed to become the people's loss. Victoria is a great game because it combines intelligence, finesse, and patience (three virtues rare in modern society) with the propers historical context.
Victoria certainly requires a great amount of intelligence to play. This may sound like I'm pating myself on the back and calling myself smart, but that's not what I mean. The game requires you to have a sense of the long run. You have to plan, you have to reason, and events force you to have a knowledge of the history of the world around you. I can imagine someone who'd never taken a history class being unable to play this game:
"Ug want to unify Germany. Ug declare war Bavaria! Bavaria will not know what hit it!"
And then Ug sits own on the floor and cries when the Austrian army marches into Berlin, saying that it's not fair. He'll never play the game again.
Then there's the aspect of finesse required to play the game. Any successful game requires you to restrain your urge to co on a conquest spree, because that's what typical computer games have trained you to do. You're given an army (which suffers no attrition and can heal in the field, by the way), and you're expected to use it to crush your neighbors. Industry in other games goes only so far as armament factories and the like--things directly useful for your army.
In Victoria, on the other hand, you have to have the kind of subtelty to realize that conquest isn't always the way to go about things. Conquest makes you a lot of enemies, and people don't know how to deal with a game whos'e opponent countries actually realize that you're out to destroy them.
"Ug want to conquer Russia! Ug declare war!"
Then, Ug proceeds to sit down on the floor and cry again when the Russian army takes Berlin. It's not fair, Ug, I know, I know...
Then theres the aspect of patience--something which is lacking in most people today. Unless you're playing as the UK or Russia, the army you start out with is capable of doing very little. The warrs you can fight for the majority of the game have to be restrained. You have to stick to the objective, get it done, and pull out, because that's all you can support. Besides, you can't even annex a country that's larger than three provinces.
"Ug want Italy! Ug want it now!!"
Can you gess where Ug is going to end up this time?--exactly. On the floor, crying, saying it isn't fair that he can't annex Italy in one go.
Best of all, though, Victoria shines in it's history. Within its timeframe, it encompasses what some people argue to have been the Golden Age of Western Civilization--when the course of world events was determined by the heads of state of a select few European nations. The true model for a successful head-of-state comes from this era and the one before it. It was the Victorias, the Bismarcks, the Metternichs, the Cavours, and the (Teddy) Roosevelts that defined what it meant to be a modern international statesman. People like FDR and Churchill were great in their own way as well, but they only built upon the existing model of international diplomacy. They were working within a system that had been created by the people who'd come before them. So few people recognize that.
Victoria, perhaps more than most Paradox games, appeals to someone who really has an interest in more than just warfare. They have to be willing to manage a full scale economy that (like real economies) doesn't always bend to the will of the governments trying to control them. They have to have a grasp of the timeframe of the game, recognizing that what can be done today couldn't always be done back then.
Most importantly, though, they have to have intelligence, tact, and patience. So few people have those qualities today that the game can't appeal to a large segment of the population, but those to whom it does appeal will always support it with tenacity.
Victoria certainly requires a great amount of intelligence to play. This may sound like I'm pating myself on the back and calling myself smart, but that's not what I mean. The game requires you to have a sense of the long run. You have to plan, you have to reason, and events force you to have a knowledge of the history of the world around you. I can imagine someone who'd never taken a history class being unable to play this game:
"Ug want to unify Germany. Ug declare war Bavaria! Bavaria will not know what hit it!"
And then Ug sits own on the floor and cries when the Austrian army marches into Berlin, saying that it's not fair. He'll never play the game again.
Then there's the aspect of finesse required to play the game. Any successful game requires you to restrain your urge to co on a conquest spree, because that's what typical computer games have trained you to do. You're given an army (which suffers no attrition and can heal in the field, by the way), and you're expected to use it to crush your neighbors. Industry in other games goes only so far as armament factories and the like--things directly useful for your army.
In Victoria, on the other hand, you have to have the kind of subtelty to realize that conquest isn't always the way to go about things. Conquest makes you a lot of enemies, and people don't know how to deal with a game whos'e opponent countries actually realize that you're out to destroy them.
"Ug want to conquer Russia! Ug declare war!"
Then, Ug proceeds to sit down on the floor and cry again when the Russian army takes Berlin. It's not fair, Ug, I know, I know...
Then theres the aspect of patience--something which is lacking in most people today. Unless you're playing as the UK or Russia, the army you start out with is capable of doing very little. The warrs you can fight for the majority of the game have to be restrained. You have to stick to the objective, get it done, and pull out, because that's all you can support. Besides, you can't even annex a country that's larger than three provinces.
"Ug want Italy! Ug want it now!!"
Can you gess where Ug is going to end up this time?--exactly. On the floor, crying, saying it isn't fair that he can't annex Italy in one go.
Best of all, though, Victoria shines in it's history. Within its timeframe, it encompasses what some people argue to have been the Golden Age of Western Civilization--when the course of world events was determined by the heads of state of a select few European nations. The true model for a successful head-of-state comes from this era and the one before it. It was the Victorias, the Bismarcks, the Metternichs, the Cavours, and the (Teddy) Roosevelts that defined what it meant to be a modern international statesman. People like FDR and Churchill were great in their own way as well, but they only built upon the existing model of international diplomacy. They were working within a system that had been created by the people who'd come before them. So few people recognize that.
Victoria, perhaps more than most Paradox games, appeals to someone who really has an interest in more than just warfare. They have to be willing to manage a full scale economy that (like real economies) doesn't always bend to the will of the governments trying to control them. They have to have a grasp of the timeframe of the game, recognizing that what can be done today couldn't always be done back then.
Most importantly, though, they have to have intelligence, tact, and patience. So few people have those qualities today that the game can't appeal to a large segment of the population, but those to whom it does appeal will always support it with tenacity.
