Johan does L.A and Rome impressions

[HolisticGod]

Alojzy,

And of course, the bottom line is that HOI 2 is an excellent game.

Don't underestimate the marketing power of quality.

Jason,

Your AAR was a pleasure to read, as always. Some of the details are troubling (all cavalry armies, cataphractoi evidently cheap enough to build en masse), but that can't be laid at your feet.

I thought about doing the beta for this one, but I rarely have the time or patience for it anymore. I don't think I even mailed in my NDA for EU III.

If they ever return to Crusader Kings, however, I'll be there with bells on.

 

[STGeorge]

Alojzy,

(all cavalry armies, cataphractoi evidently cheap enough to build en masse), but that can't be laid at your feet.

Winces...no? I now have images of Huge armoured horses roaming all over my empire!!!! :wacko:

 

[unddu]

I really fail to see where everyone's adoration for Vicky comes from. It's for the best example of a game where the devs wanted way too much different things and none of these things become what they should be.

I could invade and beat China with the Netherlands of all countries.. It's more a cumbersome and annoying than any other game that Paradox made. I love Hoi:II EU3 and CK alot, but Vicky is the only game that didn't last me more than 3 run-throughs..

 

[unmerged(71032)]

I really fail to see where everyone's adoration for Vicky comes from. It's for the best example of a game where the devs wanted way too much different things and none of these things become what they should be.

I could invade and beat China with the Netherlands of all countries.. It's more a cumbersome and annoying than any other game that Paradox made. I love Hoi:II EU3 and CK alot, but Vicky is the only game that didn't last me more than 3 run-throughs..

I initially hated Vicky, but its Ricky (Revolutions) iteration is really something I often return to (which can't be said about EU3), especially with VIP installed. I won't say it's completly different game, but at least now it's playable and you can toy with XIX century the way you want.

But yes, I fully agree it's overambitious. It also lacks focus - it appears developers were not really sure what they want to achieve with the title, so they just released it assuming players will decide it for them. On the top of that, it's XIX century - time that was critical in forming of the modern nations and industrial world, but also lacking "focus points" like Napoleonian Wars or WWII . And Civil War/WWI were modeled inadequately, being just sideshows for economical/social simulation. Not to mention quite dull colonial war experience.

I'm not a big fan of CK (mainly because of early bugs, poor interface and general ugliness beating even the usual EU gfx standard), but focusing game on dynasty was a great idea, giving players another unique goal to chase instead of standard ones - world conquest OR correcting history. Vicky had big problem with that - world conquest was pretty much impossible (not because of the opposition, but because of the game mechanics and "whack a mole" rebel issue), while correcting history was... boring. Boring, because most of the people don't know a thing about XIX century history (or don't care) and "big things" of the period like Civil War and Great War were poorly modeled thanks to Victoria's combat system.

 

[Phystarstk]

I don't know. Aside from a few issues (armies can survive without supply lines? really?), I think the combat system in Victoria is pretty sweet.. especially for the later years.

It's none too easy to win a major conflict in 1910-1920 unless you have some sort of ridiculous army.

Edit: And I'd just like to say that I think Victoria has a cool goal of sorts. In the grand campaign, I feel like you're basically preparing (depending on what country you are..) for 'the big push' in late game. For example, as Sardinia, I tend to try to:

A) Unify Italy
B) Industrialize
C) Modernize
D) Build an army
E) Build some sort of colonial empire

All in preparation for 'the big push': Defeating Austria in a likely Great War towards the end of the campaign. Austria has some heavily Italian provinces, and Italy really needs to hit at Austria to feel complete.

As Prussia, you want to:

A) Unify Germany
B) Industrialize
C) Modernize
D) You should have an army by now
E) Get ready to kick ass on all borders

Where you want to take it from that point is your call, but I personally like unifying all German provinces under a Greater Germany.

I don't think it's any more or less goal oriented than, say, EU 2/3.

 

[thezirk]

I agree with most everything Holistic has said. Some of the best posts I've read in a while.

 

[unmerged(71032)]

You might think that way, you still play this game.

But most of the people voted otherwise... with their feet. Go figure.

Allow me to elaborate. XIX century is considered by many people time "between French Revolution/Nappy and Great War". Considering that first of those in not in Victoria and second is rarely happening in game (actually, for quite a long time AI was unable to even unify Germany, let alone lead to WWI), it leaves people with not that many historical "big things" they can focus.

Yes, IF you start this game with goal "I'll make my country poweful and important", you can play it. But it's not common player mindset. Common player doesn't like such general goals - it's usually either world conquest or achieving something ahistorical that is important for him (like HoI2 "I'll defend Poland in 1939" or "I'll try Seelion/Africa first startegy as Germany"). But in Vicky those important historical situations are hard to nail, because game is mainly economy/social driven, and if they happen (Civil War in USA), they are anticlimatic because of "make big stack and push it forward, keep small stacks for rebels" combat system. So you are left with game that rarely have things players can feel strongly about.

It's ok if you are player that is taking pleasure from journey, not the destination. In Vicky destination is usually very blurry (I mean, what is my goal as Mexico? Make my citizens satisfied, sure, but does it make ME satisfied?), which is confusing for all except from people knowing this period of history quite well.

Example is initial american perception of Victoria. For many US citizens this historical period is all about Civil War. It's defining moment, birth of the nation, yadayada. Big part of the american playerbase didn't expect the game about promoting farmers to clerks or craftsmen and making them work in canned food factory, but about changing the history by defending Confederates independence, then leading it into industrial era. Instead, they got the game where you can win this war (in rather boring combat involving big stacks of troops moved over map)... then you face USA attempting to destroy you every few years, no matter what you do. What do you think can be said about such game from the perspective of the player that is not totally devoted to Paradox games?

It's certainly less goal oriented for common player then EU2 (because EU gives you bigger goals to pursue and time for it). As for EU3 - this game is a product of completly different design philosophy, it can't be really compared.

 

[unmerged(11531)]

I really like Vicky, but I never play it. I like the game, but not the gameplay, if that's possible.

I think the fundamental problem for me has something to do with the POPs and the factories. I think it's a fantastic idea; but in order to make things work as efficiently as possible -- and, to me, knowing that I've achieved that efficiency, or knowing how I should get there, is a must -- there is, fatally, no end to the fiddling that the current POP system requires.

And from what I understand, Revolutions only exacerbates that problem: allowing you to split POPs! And I hear that if you choose not to engage in the additional fiddling that the split-POP thing opens up, that's like throwing resources into the garbage... a spiral of madness, really...

For me, the same paradox (appropriately, I suppose) beset the resource system. I really like the system in theory... but in practice it just ended up being... I don't know... "Where are the machine parts now?!..."

 

[unmerged(11531)]

Yes, IF you start this game with goal "I'll make my country poweful and important", you can play it. But it's not common player mindset. Common player doesn't like such general goals

hmm... this might require a rethink. I'm a common player who plays every Paradox game except Vicky -- Yet I go for "powerful and important" over "world conquest" every time. If I want a game that's so easy and ridiculous as to allow "world conquest," I'll play Civ....

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

And here I was thinking that this was a thread about the new Paradox game Rome.

If you want to discuss Vicky please do so in the Victoria-forum

 

[STGeorge]

If you want to discuss Vicky please do so in the Victoria-forum

hear hear!

 

[Rhion]

http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/news/411/

Funny stuff, but had me worrying a bit. Does this mean there will be no horses in Italy? What about Campania? That region was famous for its horses and cavalry.

 

[Phystarstk]

You might think that way, you still play this game.

But most of the people voted otherwise... with their feet. Go figure.

Allow me to elaborate. XIX century is considered by many people time "between French Revolution/Nappy and Great War". Considering that first of those in not in Victoria and second is rarely happening in game (actually, for quite a long time AI was unable to even unify Germany, let alone lead to WWI), it leaves people with not that many historical "big things" they can focus.

Yes, IF you start this game with goal "I'll make my country poweful and important", you can play it. But it's not common player mindset. Common player doesn't like such general goals - it's usually either world conquest or achieving something ahistorical that is important for him (like HoI2 "I'll defend Poland in 1939" or "I'll try Seelion/Africa first startegy as Germany"). But in Vicky those important historical situations are hard to nail, because game is mainly economy/social driven, and if they happen (Civil War in USA), they are anticlimatic because of "make big stack and push it forward, keep small stacks for rebels" combat system. So you are left with game that rarely have things players can feel strongly about.

It's ok if you are player that is taking pleasure from journey, not the destination. In Vicky destination is usually very blurry (I mean, what is my goal as Mexico? Make my citizens satisfied, sure, but does it make ME satisfied?), which is confusing for all except from people knowing this period of history quite well.

Example is initial american perception of Victoria. For many US citizens this historical period is all about Civil War. It's defining moment, birth of the nation, yadayada. Big part of the american playerbase didn't expect the game about promoting farmers to clerks or craftsmen and making them work in canned food factory, but about changing the history by defending Confederates independence, then leading it into industrial era. Instead, they got the game where you can win this war (in rather boring combat involving big stacks of troops moved over map)... then you face USA attempting to destroy you every few years, no matter what you do. What do you think can be said about such game from the perspective of the player that is not totally devoted to Paradox games?

It's certainly less goal oriented for common player then EU2 (because EU gives you bigger goals to pursue and time for it). As for EU3 - this game is a product of completly different design philosophy, it can't be really compared.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and pretty much disagree with your entire argument. How does Victoria really differ from EU2 in terms of goals? Let's say you play France in Vicky and France in EU2. Where are the goal differences? In both, you'd want to keep Germany weak. In both, you'd want to expand your colonial status. In both, you'd want to keep a strong economy and a stable political atmosphere. In both, you'll probably wrestle with England over -something.-

You bring up changing historical outcomes, and there's another thing I don't understand. To me, that's what Victoria is all about. Taking Austria, preventing the rises of Germany, Russia, and Italy, and keeping your vast empire together. As Sardinia, uniting Italy your own way, and try to carve your own empire out of the "sick man" of Austria. As Prussia, uniting Germany and trying to maintain it against France, Austria, and Russia. As Russia, trying to make your military half-way manageable by the time Germany is powerful enough to hit back. Etc. etc. etc.

I don't know, I just don't see the difference. Also, I don't know that many people who play EU2 or 3 or any of the others for World Conquests. Sure, it happens, but I don't think it's really that common. Am I wrong on this?

Also, how is the system of warfare in Vicky any weaker than in Eu2? Both involve just "moving stacks of troops over the map." Neither are HoI when it comes to the military system. However, I think Vicky's system has a lot going for it than EU2 doesn't. It has more troops types, more variables, etc. It's more important to protect your flank, to flank enemies, to use artillery, and to watch your defensive lines. Sure, EU has fortress assaults and sieges, but, in Victoria, trying to take out a dug-in defense is probably harder than taking fortresses in Eu2.

Also, I think a lot of people should look at the newest iteration of Victoria... especially with VIP. Everything works a lot better.


As for how this is related to Rome, I think the discussion is more about the good and bad parts of different design choices. This still relates to Rome indirectly, and I've spent a big chunk of this conversation directly talking about Rome.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Events if properly coded (like in Vicky) .

Seriously, the event coding in Vicky was probably the WORST of any Paradox game: No triggers for events except a date. Horrifyingly railroading, yet still completely unrealistic unification events. ("Conservative Empire"? Please...) Scripted wars. etc. etc.

The only events in Vicky that were actually good were the flavour events.

 

[tomchick]

That speech to Marcus is quite brilliant. It's entertaining, yet would nicely communicate to an outsider what playing a Paradox game is like (especially games on the CK end of things). Who wrote it -- Johan?

The putz who "interviewed" Johan in the article below it is insufferable. I can handle one condescending reference to Paradox's inability to pander to button-mashing gamers, but not four. Dipweed.

Hi Mr. Gnu,

The same dipweed -- me! -- wrote both entries. The byline is the small text at the top.

As for Paradox pandering to "button-mashers", I've been a fan of their games since the beginning, so I'm glad they've resisted such pandering. I do, however, wish they would pander just a little with better UIs and more accessible gameplay. I'm just speaking as an armchair designer, of course, so it's easy for me to say, but I think they could do this without compromising their appeal to guys like us.

As for my "to poor effect" comment about Hearts of Iron II, I'd just like to say that it's being taken out of context. My intent -- perhaps worded poorly -- was just to say that I personally don't think Paradox's exhaustively detailed approach worked very well for WWII. But I do feel they did a great job tidying up a problematic design with Hearts of Iron II. If you don't believe me, you can read my enthusiastic review on Gamespy here.

Finally, I don't think I'm violating any review embargo rules by pointing out there there aren't any horses on the Italian peninsula. You have to import the little buggers.

-Tom

 

[HolisticGod]

Tom,

"Finally, I don't think I'm violating any review embargo rules by pointing out there there aren't any horses on the Italian peninsula. You have to import the little buggers."

Thanks for dropping by and breaking our hearts.

Would it be violating the embargo to confirm that the Romans cannot, in fact, build roads at game start?

 

[lordy80011]

As for Paradox pandering to "button-mashers", I've been a fan of their games since the beginning, so I'm glad they've resisted such pandering. I do, however, wish they would pander just a little with better UIs and more accessible gameplay. I'm just speaking as an armchair designer, of course, so it's easy for me to say, but I think they could do this without compromising their appeal to guys like us.

As for my "to poor effect" comment about Hearts of Iron II, I'd just like to say that it's being taken out of context. My intent -- perhaps worded poorly -- was just to say that I personally don't think Paradox's exhaustively detailed approach worked very well for WWII. But I do feel they did a great job tidying up a problematic design with Hearts of Iron II. If you don't believe me, you can read my enthusiastic review on Gamespy here.
-Tom

So, what do you mean by "more accessible gameplay"? As an adult who is not content to endlessly play Starcraft anymore (although games like that have their place -- don't get me wrong), I'm not interested in a game that is superficial. If you need a "beer and pretzel" game -- then go pick up one of the hundreds that are available at any given time. Leave Paradox games deep and complex, as it is this factor that accounts for the fact that I still load up EU2, Crusader Kings, Victoria, HOI2 and other old Paradox games years later, and still look forward avidly to their latest release.

I liked HOI2's "exhaustively detailed approach" just fine -- thanks! Let's have more of the same -- not less.

 

[tomchick]

Would it be violating the embargo to confirm that the Romans cannot, in fact, build roads at game start?

HG,

Well, that's a bit misleading, although technically correct. Also, it depends on when you start the game. Rome can build roads if you begin with a starting dates around 600AVC or so. But even in the earliest scenario, Rome starts with roads running around the middle of the peninsula. But before they can expand them, they have to get their construction tech to somewhere around level 15 (I think...). At this point, they can build them in provinces that don't have them.

It's a bit weird, but you can abstract it to mean not that Rome doesn't know how to build roads. They do, because they have them in their core provinces. Somebody built those things, and it sure as heck wasn't the Greek road faeries. It's just that Rome doesn't have the construction know-how and resources to extend those roads into newly conquered territory yet.

Yeah, okay, historically suspect, unrealistic, yadda, yadda, yadda. But more importantly, it's an effective gameplay convention that affects the mobility of your armies and the reach of your trade. EU: Rome is a historical sandbox, not an exhaustive sim. I'm sure you guys on this forum have devoted pages and pages to the issue, so I'm not telling you anything you haven't heard.

BTW, I'm happy to answer any questions about the game's particulars once the reviews can be posted, but until then, I should probably beg off any specific questions. I will say, however, that I'm having a great time playing EU: Rome.

-Tom

 

[mirell]

I have to say I really liked both of your writings on the game (although I liked the Marcus one a bit more) However, I was wondering if it'd be okay to to link to the AAR forum in your forum? I think this'll give a good picture of the game to alot of people who've never heard of it before, and get more sales for my favorite company.

 

[tomchick]

So, what do you mean by "more accessible gameplay"?

Well, for starters, and in order of preference: 1) Better UI. 2) Better manuals. 3) Goal-oriented scenarios or gameplay for new players.

I could write pages and page about #1, which I think is the main killer for people who try to make that transition from, say, CivIV to a Paradox game. Because, frankly, I don't think there's a person out there who's played CivIV who wouldn't also appreciate what Paradox does. Heck, maybe this is pushing it, but I'd go so far as to say many Sims players would really like CK if it had a better UI.

-Tom

P.S. Mirell, I'm pretty sure Paradox is already well-known on the Quarter to Three forums. Many of us are old-school strategy guys.