My Comments about the 1.2 Patch All are Welcome to Post!

[Aragos]

So far, I've tried the USA twice in GC v. 1.02. Main thing is that the strategies of 1.01 just will NOT work anymore. No more cranking out a good half dozen or so lux clothes factories, steel mills, etc. IRL that kind of economic expansion would drive a country massively in debt (example: look at China in the 1950s-60s, or much of the underdeveloped world from 1960-80) which would lead to bankruptcy.

Take the game slower than before. Build up slowly. Best game I had so far was where I never went into debt as the USA; as soon as I made 2k, I built a rail line; built factories only when I could afford them. Would probably have been a good game but I had the AI set to aggressive and the Mexicans attacked

Overall, I'm going to play 1.02 more before I give it a final verdict. Yep, it is harder, and I'm not so happy about losing the paradise of Providence, Rhode Island , but seems much more challenging now. It forces the players to either go take the resources they are needing, and makes big countries diversify their industrial base much more than 1.01.

 

[Vharzul]

Hehe I do hope a for a Monday or at least Tuesday late afternoon fix hehe, its driving me mad not being able to play the new patch due to its problems because the bugs and events have been fixed etc which is driving me crazy lol :rofl:

 

[DGuller]

So long as the "dozens against" are posted by the same one or two dozen people, likely so. Should it prove a general belief, likely not.

As for your 1:10 weight of opinion, you are of course wrong. Everybody who does NOT complain is counted a supporter, and the Paradox development team counts for about 1,000,000 in the final equation. :rofl:

On the other hand, your melodrama is quite refreshing, even though it is utterly incomprehensible given how often Paradox has reacted to well thought out critique in the forums before.

It's just highly disappointing that after so many threads about economic problems in Vicky, it seems like Paradox has almost completely ignored them, and made more of the same mistakes. While I do not doubt Paradox's willingness to improve the game, after today I doubt their ability to understand their own game. I'm also troubled by the constant references to the secret beta forum, it's like there is a hierarchy of users on this forum. Some of us non-aristrocrats get a feeling that our opinions are not listened to, certainly so after seeing the economy in 1.02 patch.

 

[Vharzul]

Aragos, i can asure you I have changed my strategy for 1.2 and ive tryed half a dozen ways already, and still no results, I know and most other people know that the old ways of thier strategy's dont and will not really work in certain patches any more, so try not to overly religh on things like that because i know i have tryed dozens of times with verius strats yet nothing!

 

[unmerged(8351)]

That aristocracy thing always happens with beta forums, it is ineveitable...betas always get to the point where they think that since they are the 30 (or 200 or whatever) best players of the game in the world they must understand everything that is going on and that between the lot of them they have deteced all problems

thus the plebs input cannot really be valuable or novel

i had not noticed this trend being too big an issue here but now I am starting to wonder after a few responses I have gotten to queries (which were basically to the effect of "shut up you don't know what you are talking abou everything is WAD" only said much more politely)

And I will point out that I have been on both sides of that divide many times and I realize how easy it is to think you have it all worked out

 

[DGuller]

Well, hopefully this disaster of a patch will open up the suggestion box, I really think that a lot of betas here have lost touch with reality of Vicky, they're really not aware of many game-breaking issues. There is also the perennial issue of trying to make the game Ebbesen-proof and winding up taking the fun out of it. Witness the vanilla 1.06/1.07 patches for EU2.

 

[Brannart]

I should have learned long ago that debating with those in charge here only leads to derision as being a whiner.

I'll validate this statement.

I'll also avoid a blanket "I told you so".

Paradox, as you all know, will make a suitable fix. My faith in their commitment to their products is unshaken, and yours should be too. Be patient and you will be rewarded. Trust me! They will not let you down.

 

[unmerged(4747)]

Three pages of discussion on the 1.02 patch. I've read where 9 people hate it and think it is a disaster. Four people have said they prefer it. Five others explained that they needed to play it more before providing a verdict. I'm ashamed that I didn't even know the patch was out until now. I had shelved the game since 1.01 was so simple. For those of you complaining that the economics are messed up in 1.02, may I remind you that the major complaint about 1.01 was a messed up economy? So the same problem potentially still exists..you can't break what was already broken. If you can't stand it, explain your opinions here and then go back to 1.01 or shelve the game until the next patch. I am a beta for HOI and I assure you that threads are copied and referred to OFTEN from the general discussion forums. There is no feeling of being elite in that beta group that I can tell.

From the various views it is obvious that more work is ahead of the Paradox and beta teams. I have nothing on my schedule for tomorrow, so I guess I'll blow the dust off Victoria and give 1.02 a good work out. I appreciate everyone posting their views and look forward to providing an informed view myself in a day or so.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I'm not being that melodramatic. Look at 1.02. How many people during the debates over 1.01 were saying that factory outputs should be 1/10th of what they were. Yet in 1.02, they are 1/10th. That has to be a fix or change called for by the betas. I think they carry more weight.

As for it being the same people over and over. Fine, point taken. I'll stop. A lot of what I've said today has been repetitive based on replies to what other people are saying. I should have learned long ago that debating with those in charge here only leads to derision as being a whiner.

Edit: To Becephalus: Drama queen? I think I prefer whiner or melodramatic to that. As for a fix by Monday, I don't think so. I think that the betas are generally satisfied, for whatever reason. Otherwise, why defend it as well as Peter has done (not being sarcastic, Peter has defended it well I just think he's wrong or not experiencing the same things I am).

JScott991,

You know I'm going to disagree with you. I'm happily playing a game as Belgium right now with a fully functioning economy by 1858. You just have to learn how to play 1,02.

What I do take exception to is when you make statements as fact that are just plain wrong.

For example

"How many people during the debates over 1.01 were saying that factory outputs should be 1/10th of what they were. Yet in 1.02, they are 1/10th. That has to be a fix or change called for by the betas. I think they carry more weight."

WRONG!

Ask Johan after xmas hols.

Johan discovered a glitch in the code that meant the factories were producing too much. We didn't suggest this at all. We (the betas) would not do this - its too big a change. The factories were incorrectly coded.
(BTW was it 1/10th - I thought its was 1/5th). Likewise the business about POPs wanting only 1/10th of their basic needs in 1.01 was a code glitch.

You can demonise us betas all you like but we just get asked to play the game to see how it works.

Remember - all the changes you got in one go we had about a month to get used to in small daily drips. So we didn't have the culture shock you did.

And no, we couldn't know all this before. We don't get a guidebook to the economic model of the game for betas. We have to learn like you do.

It is just different. UK can industrialise early on - everyone else takes between 20-30 years for European powers. Give it some time and see.

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

Well, hopefully this disaster of a patch will open up the suggestion box, I really think that a lot of betas here have lost touch with reality of Vicky, they're really not aware of many game-breaking issues. There is also the perennial issue of trying to make the game Ebbesen-proof and winding up taking the fun out of it. Witness the vanilla 1.06/1.07 patches for EU2.

Now, I don´t agree with you. Why don´t you try the easiest levels?

Betas are trying to make the game as fun as possible; for ME it was not very funny the way things were running in 1.01. It was awfully easy, by 1890 anybody could have conquered half of the world.

Putting some limits (real and historical ones, BTW) does not destroy the fun.

By 1860 europe was not covered with railroads and by 1870 it was generally far from being industrialized.

 

[BennyB]

I have posed the lack of basic goods on the world market in the bug forum as I realized we are all assuming this is working as designed...I am hoping maybe this is all just some big bug in the first place. Along with the barely productive factories...

 

[Derek Pullem]

And I whooshed it back to General Discussions. Its not a bug. If players don't like the game concept then it needs to be fully discussed in as wide a forum as possible. Bug forum is for clearly identified bugs not wish lists.

 

[BennyB]

Derek: You make some really good points. The reason I do not like 1.02 is because of the fact you said, it takes 20 to 30 years for anyone outside of Great Britain to industrialize. This would be great and historical if it was possible for a pre-industrialized economy to make money and field armies, expand its colonies, and generally expand its power. BUT, in Victoria it is simply not possible to adequatley fund research, army, defense, crime fighting, and economic progress without massive industrialization. SO, the actual result is 20 to 30 years of no game, just watching the screen hoping for that next shipment of paper.

 

[BennyB]

Thankyou for clearing that up, I was posting it there because I really wasnt sure if it was a bug or not.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Derek: You make some really good points. The reason I do not like 1.02 is because of the fact you said, it takes 20 to 30 years for anyone outside of Great Britain to industrialize. This would be great and historical if it was possible for a pre-industrialized economy to make money and field armies, expand its colonies, and generally expand its power. BUT, in Victoria it is simply not possible to adequatley fund research, army, defense, crime fighting, and economic progress without massive industrialization. SO, the actual result is 20 to 30 years of no game, just watching the screen hoping for that next shipment of paper.

Ah yes - the period between 1836 - 1854. Not alot of colonisation went on in real life. And up to the Crimean war, not alot of major wars (in fact not many since 1815).

I think what everyone is complaining about is that

a) it's harder
b) it takes longer and the start game is slower

I actually like it. Now if we can only stop Russia and the Netherlands colonising Africa and persuade France to do some all would be peachy.

 

[BennyB]

The era of 1836 to 1854 didnt see any major wars and true little colonization went on...but shouldnt we be able to if we wanted? In EU II at the start of the GC you could make money and finance wars and if you knew the map you could colonize well before 1492 and be any country in the world and do it. In Vicotoria your economy is in the ****hole at the start and your country cant mobilize itself to do anything without further destroying your economy...I guess we just have different playing styles. My point is EU played to both styles while this one plays to ONE. Im hoping more people feel this way but if most like this change then I hope they enjoy.

 

[DGuller]

Now, I don´t agree with you. Why don´t you try the easiest levels?

Betas are trying to make the game as fun as possible; for ME it was not very funny the way things were running in 1.01. It was awfully easy, by 1890 anybody could have conquered half of the world.

Putting some limits (real and historical ones, BTW) does not destroy the fun.

By 1860 europe was not covered with railroads and by 1870 it was generally far from being industrialized.

I can run the profit, that's not the problem. The problem is that half the materials that should be produced are absolutely not produced for decades. When less than 1 clothing per day is sold WOLRDWIDE, you know that something is badly, badly broken. Denying that is being in, well, denial. Sure you can survive, but what fun is there in playing a broken game? Nomadic tribes had better success producing clothes than European countries in this game.

 

[unmerged(12910)]

Derek: This would be great and historical if it was possible for a pre-industrialized economy to make money and field armies, expand its colonies, and generally expand its power. BUT, in Victoria it is simply not possible to adequatley fund research, army, defense, crime fighting, and economic progress without massive industrialization. .

I disagree: you have to make choices: fund army and defense as an priority to the risk to lag in economic development ( russian choice ) or choose to be peaceful the time needed to develop a masssive industrialisation( japanese, prussian or piemont choice).

1.02 is far more realistic than 1.01. Players have to choose carefully rather than conquer the world.

 

[unmerged(12910)]

I can run the profit, that's not the problem. The problem is that half the materials that should be produced are absolutely not produced for decades. When less than 1 clothing per day is sold WOLRDWIDE, you know that something is badly, badly broken. Denying that is being in, well, denial. Sure you can survive, but what fun is there in playing a broken game? Nomadic tribes had better success producing clothes than European countries in this game.

You forget Vicky is emphasizing factory system birth. Economical model is just describing industrialization and international exchanges. Domestic production and autoproduction is totally abstracted ( no starvation for example). What was the part of imported clothes for any nation in 1860? A few percents at best.

You can in Vicky get a balanced budget without industrialization even with a massive military expense to the cost of economic, social and technologic stagnation. By the contrary, you can industrialize to the cost of massive debt which was historically unavoidable to the exception of exceptional circumstances ( USA ) with the hope to become proficient two or three decades later.

 

[DGuller]

You forget Vicky is emphasizing factory system birth. Economical model is just describing industrialization and international exchanges. Domestic production and autoproduction is totally abstracted ( no starvation for example). What was the part of imported clothes for any nation in 1860? A few percents at best.

You can in Vicky get a balanced budget without industrialization even with a massive military expense to the cost of economic, social and technologic stagnation. By the contrary, you can industrialize to the cost of massive debt which was historically unavoidable to the exception of exceptional circumstances ( USA ) with the hope to become proficient two or three decades later.

I'm just troubled that for most goods, the worldwide demand outstrips world supply by a factor of 1000. Do you see such a scenario every happening in real life? You still can't escape from the fact that having less than 1 fabric sold worldwide per day is downright moronic. I just don't see how some people can deny it. In real economies, the quantity supplied and demanded converge, that didn't start happening in 1860, it happenned since people started trading. In Paradox land, apparently the formula for supply is 1/demand.