Phystarstk said:
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.
Actually, I think we went completly off topic, since comparing Victoria and EU:Rome is barely possible, with former being designed on completly different principles - so this is gonna be my last post about Vicky here, mainly clearing things that might have been interpreted in the wrong way.
Phystarstk said:
Also, I think a lot of people should look at the newest iteration of Victoria... especially with VIP. Everything works a lot better.
I clearly stated in my first post regarding Vicky that Ricky is the thing you want to play. Especially with VIP. So I guess we agree here. I still can't agree with assumption though that expansion pack released 3 years after the initial game (topped with the best mod for this game) can be used as argument for seeing Victoria as good game. It's like saying that HoI1 was great, because HoI2 (with mods) corrected most of the problems. Ricky is in many aspects Vicky 2, especially if you add mods to the equation.
Phystarstk said:
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?
Difference lies in game length that is more similar to the one of HoI series then Eu2/CK. Yes, despite more years, Vicky/Ricky got similar number of "turns", because of the smallest measure of it are days (compared to hours in HoI). What makes Vicky "feel" so much longer to play is managing your country with manual upgrades of every rail track, pop and such. Those problems were to large extend alleviated in Ricky (by loved by all capitalists).
With effective time (real game time, not time spent on micromanagement) available shorter, you would think game will focus on player dealing with big historical events that happened in XIX century. But game does not deliver here - historical events don't happen at all and if they do, they are rather dissapointing (American Civil War). It's result of the lack of focus I mentioned - game delivers great simulation of long time social/industrial trends, while its timeline is slightly too short.
Going back to micromanagement and goals. Even now if player asks what country he should play from a start, people say he should start with Brasil or Belgium. with all respect to Brasilians and Belgs and their history - this is NOT what players are expecting from the game about XIX century. Game should have been optimized for playing countries that people see as important in the said era. Russia should be playable for relatively new player (although mastering playing Russia should take a while), and game title should not be misleading by giving a hint that playing Great Brittain makes sense. All this adds to the lack of focus - new player that wants to change fate of Russia all the sudden learns, that it's actually game about Brasil development, while player that wanted to cope with Queen Victoria's dillemmas is overwhelmed by the task not because of its complexity, but by how tedious it is.
Phystarstk said:
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.
I'm not comparing it to Eu2.
Vicky was released after HoI1 - by that time Eu2 was very old game already and most of the players expected combat system to develop following HoI experience, not go back to Eu2 simplicity.
Problem with Vicky combat system (leaving not working naval combat aside, now that's big stacks battle) is rule of bigger hammer. You don't "use artillery" - you just build units with more attack (which incidently, is the easiest to achieve IF you add artillery brigades) if you have cash/industry for it or more units if you are willing to militarize your population more. But even then, compared to HoI (not to Eu2) combat experience feels so bland. Best part of the system is mobilization, which indeed suits the era well... but then it got issues with said artillery power (mobilized units can't have brigades attached). So we are left with big stacks of units pushed on the map, while players would (rightfully so) expect to recreate Gettysburg or battles of Russo-Japan war.
Add to that colonial warfare, which is basically "send some troops, watch natives go down, then sit there and kill rebels"... It's historically plausible of course, but again, quite tedious and boring - people got their visions of XIX century colonial wars, with Boer guerilla combat being something involving, not "whack-a-mole" game. Maybe it's not a problem for certain players and it's acceptable for me, but for people that approach to the game expecting it to present XIX century in an exciting way, that's big let down.
To not end so negatively - what I like in Paradox is learning from mistakes. Poor rebel system in Vicky had successor in much better in HoI2 and combat model was gradually improved (as well as optimized in terms of interface accessability). Pop system, while never used in new titles, had mayor revamp in Revolutions which made it almost playable (it's playable for me, but I know many will dissagree). Trade/resources in EU:Rome seem to have share aspects of Vicky model (you need horses to have cavalry and such), while character development looks like CK2. Gfx and interface is pimped up EU3, with most of the issues (god, those 3d provinces in EU3 were ugly!) sorted out. Also since Vicky simple technical quality of the games went up sharply, with HoI2 not having CTD on the release (!) and later titles keeping quality level.
Ok, no more Vicky please. Rome!
