My wishlist for Vic 2

[RELee]

Victoria is not a war game and should really not be made into one.

Amen, brother!

 

[unmerged(76802)]

Amen, brother!

Although, it would be nice to have some revamping so Marse Robert doesn't constantly lose to Anonymous General #91 just because the Yanks have more warm bodies to waste.

 

[RELee]

Although, it would be nice to have some revamping so Marse Robert doesn't constantly lose to Anonymous General #91 just because the Yanks have more warm bodies to waste.

Oh, I wouldn't be adverse to a bit of change to the battle engine in Vicky. I just don't want to see it complicated to the same level as the HOI battle engine.

I agree it would be nice; but considering the scale of this game it is just the way things work out. Perhaps a simple limit to the number of divisions that can be supported in a province would help, but that suggestion in itself can spark an entire multi-page thread.

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

Victoria is not a war game and should really not be made into one.

Unless, of course, the elements drawn from HoI2 are more linked to industrial power than direct combat modifiers, I think. I for one would gleefully welcome some sort of supply lines and need to use not only money but also several industry products to upgrade and maintain military forces. Use of ammunition during wartime, for example, would be quite nice as then nations would have to produce the ammunition by themselves or buy it from WM - or suffer to consequence of being backwards agricultural nation.

 

[OHgamer]

Unless, of course, the elements drawn from HoI2 are more linked to industrial power than direct combat modifiers, I think. I for one would gleefully welcome some sort of supply lines and need to use not only money but also several industry products to upgrade and maintain military forces. Use of ammunition during wartime, for example, would be quite nice as then nations would have to produce the ammunition by themselves or buy it from WM - or suffer to consequence of being backwards agricultural nation.

Again I'd find that to be yet another micromanaging chore to keep track of - making sure I'm importing in the inputs and the like while having to also keep watch over my forces in the field.

Eliding everything into supplyconsumption is perfectly fine with me. I either have an economy to produce the wealth to keep the troops in the field and I'll come out of the war with either diminished reserves or, if I have established my economy strong enough, an increase in reserves, or rack up huge debts to be paid later or face bankruptcy and the consequences that produces (which I think should be beefed up even more to make it even riskier to try and run deficit-spending to keep the armies in the field until the end of the war).

If this was a true war game I could understand the importance, but since the military focus of the game is even less tactical than HoI, makes no sense to me to add additional levels of complexity for what in the end is only one aspect to the game, and not even the most important for many of the countries in the game. Let the player worry more about keeping the home front happy and productively humming so I can produce the resources needed to keep the troops in the field and not have to keep order at home rather than worrying about the tedium of the number of rounds of ammo needed to keep my soldiers in the field actually able to fire at the enemy.

 

[Gen. Skobelev]

Again I'd find that to be yet another micromanaging chore to keep track of - making sure I'm importing in the inputs and the like while having to also keep watch over my forces in the field.

Eliding everything into supplyconsumption is perfectly fine with me. I either have an economy to produce the wealth to keep the troops in the field and I'll come out of the war with either diminished reserves or, if I have established my economy strong enough, an increase in reserves, or rack up huge debts to be paid later or face bankruptcy and the consequences that produces (which I think should be beefed up even more to make it even riskier to try and run deficit-spending to keep the armies in the field until the end of the war).

If this was a true war game I could understand the importance, but since the military focus of the game is even less tactical than HoI, makes no sense to me to add additional levels of complexity for what in the end is only one aspect to the game, and not even the most important for many of the countries in the game. Let the player worry more about keeping the home front happy and productively humming so I can produce the resources needed to keep the troops in the field and not have to keep order at home rather than worrying about the tedium of the number of rounds of ammo needed to keep my soldiers in the field actually able to fire at the enemy.

Well, of course it's a matter of how one would like the game to be. I would welcome the extra management problems. I guess I'm just a bit tired of seeing some mad dash invasions where for example single cavalry corps can capture dozens of provinces without any line of supply to the home country.

The idea with units using other things than only money would become important if and when there was a major war or crisis in the world. Countries without proper industrial muscle could find themselves in trouble if the supply of military hardware on WM would dry up. Of course I'd like to see similar mechanism on money supply and demand (loan money should come from somewhere). Then things like Russia having supply & monetary problems in Crimean war would be possible. And Russia, while having quite nice income from grain exports and other sources, did suddenly find herself in great trouble against more industrialised nations. But I think you are quite familiar with these kind of things from your work with VIP so I believe you understand what I'm trying to say.

Transportation of supplies should not be made the major aspect of game or micromanaging wars. The supply usage and demand would only ensure that industrialised nations would have definite edge on conflicts with less industrialised nations as the former could always rely on domestic production to have at least some supplies and ammunition. Less-developed countries would either have to use very much obsolete equipment or try to obtain their needs from WM. And I think it would be rather historical case. Old equipment would be easy to buy from WM while newest gadgets could be bought only by the highest-ranking nations.

And of course if unit upgrades would demand new equipment, there might be real demand for military products on WM - and I'd like to see much more realistic supply/demand on Vicky2. With greater processor power and memory available such calculations should be possible to do, I think.

But then, if I had my wishes, most of the casual gamers would turn away from Victoria 2 as it would be far too complicated. And as I believe Victoria 2 (if it's ever made) will be much less complicated, I have little hopes in seeing Victoria 2 as my ideal strategic game. Anyway, that's just how I feel about it.

 

[Hardstuff]

The worst thing to do would be to reduce the micromanaging elements of Victoria and then pile up all the tedious micromanaging elements for fighting wars from the HoI series. I'd rather split POPs than have to worry about having to resend units out on patrols or some such foolishness. Keeping the military element simplified as it is now is perfectly fine by me - Victoria is not a war game and should really not be made into one.

Agreed.



And yes, I've come around now to the EU3 graphics for Victoria II school of thought. Mainly due to actually playing EU3.

 

[unmerged(46065)]

Alright, maybe Vicky should forever remain to be an economic game. But still, shouldnt it be the goal to make things more realistic and historically viable? The best of both worlds to create HoI militarism with Vicky economics would be beautiful to me.

 

[ComradeOm]

Alright, maybe Vicky should forever remain to be an economic game. But still, shouldnt it be the goal to make things more realistic and historically viable? The best of both worlds to create HoI militarism with Vicky economics would be beautiful to me.

Twice the micromanagement does not equal twice the fun. If I want to play a war game then I'll play HoI.

 

[unmerged(77251)]

Vicky pop system and Community co-dev

So much has been said about it; time to put it together:
I think we all agree to say that pops is what makes Vicky what it is, since no other game emphasizes as much population details as Vicky. On the other hand, we (nearly) all agree that pop micromanagement can become all hell, when your goal are political/military one, as the game goes one.
So, why not vote for on industrialization slider a la OHGamer ( late game ) while keeping the possibility to disable it, and do it all manually ( especially in early gaming ) ? The conversion costs could be computed either dynamically (see upgrade slider in HiO2 ) or at once, when you convert manually.

As of the development time required, I'm just wondering if it couldn't be shrinked by involving a large community, just like M$ did. Based on my own poor coding experience, the actual engine code isn't that much time-eating. The largest part of the game work relies on graphics designing (and sound) and TEST DEBUG TEST DEBUG. Lets say Para writes an all buggy alpha minus version with minimal graphics and no events, and we test it seriously: development time (and probably costs) could be halved. And when i take a look on OH's work when it comes to mods and graphics (new map) is think that job could really rely entirely on community working. As a reward, each member involved in the co-development project could be rewarded with one free game. You know, it's really time to think WITH communities in the game world; when you write a new WoWW, everything comes out of the box, but when it comes to real-history strategy, the possibilities are reaching far behind the scope of any programmer. And actually, community member do the work, even if nobody asked (for an example: OHGamer, could you please tell us how you when into wiki community ?) - so when you have this opportunity, why now use it ? The more poeple involved, the better the result.
Look at me: now I playing EU2 because of AGCEEP and myMap - this is amazing.

Perhaps one day, companies will only write core-engines they sell online for about 10 bucks, and you will be able to download the remaining part (graphics - sound - configs) from different community sites, building completely different games based on one same engine.

 

[Spruce]

Victoria doesn't need a new graphical engine - it needs an overhaul of its fundaments.

one of the most annoying things about Victoria is the peace AI and the consequences from it. A gigantic clutter and mess results in a total unplayable game.

Also the wars with the majors are ridiculous. Recently I retried a game as Turkey against Russia. I slaughtered zillions of Russians - yet they don't feel it. Millions of soldiers dy and Russia is still in good shape. Then my ally UK comes and takes out their capital - now Russia gets scary. Russia cedes some "clutter" provinces to me and the UK. I continue the war and I get some more clutter from Russia.

Then finally after this war - I look at the map to see - once again clutter all over Europe. The UK has some enclaves in France. ETC. ETC.

Victoria is one of the worst games made by Paradox, just because of this peace AI. And the economical model is way too simple - it's just about investing money and picking the trivial industries that go along with that.

From all PI games Victoria gives me the least of suspense. CK - as a game - has many faults and glitches, but it has the most solid fundaments of all PI games.

Victoria needs a serious overhaul in it's basic design. For now - it's clutter ...

 

[Spruce]

So what should Victoria then rather be =

- sensible peace negotiation and their effects. Lands are transfered in "groups or region" - no more clutter !

- peace negotiation could be more prestige and money orientated. I can understand that Russia tries to cave into Scandinavia - but Rusland going after Spain and Italy - and expanding little enclaves is a little bit too crazy.

- industrial revolution should be more complex. Now you just build railroad and the "trivial" industry. There should be more behind that ...

- I don't like the colonisation model - you can easely shield the coasts and then it's just a matter of time.

- the "prestige", "crime" and "science" part of this game are really good. Just expand a little more will give this game more depth - and fun (f.e. broader tech tree, you should really choose what to research),

- avoiding ridiculous stuff - like the 1000 dreadnought fleet of the UK ...

 

[Keynes]

Seems a little odd to complain about map "clutter" and then cite CK as a model Paradox game.

 

[TiggyFiggy]

man they usally transfer land as states, i rarely see any clutter unless Germany has been invaded preunification and someone annexed all the minors. Maybe you should try patching you game

 

[HMS Enterprize]

I do think that even though vicky is not a 'war game' the combat model should be reworked and brought up to spec. I think this will enhance the game not detract from victoria experience...

 

[unmerged(46065)]

Twice the micromanagement does not equal twice the fun. If I want to play a war game then I'll play HoI.

Oh and I'm wondering...It doesn't? lol.

Would for me probably, most people here agree that they don't want Vicky 2 to be dumbed down, why should we keep the military aspect of Vicky dumbed down? And how does it really add more micromanagement? It would just enhance the system.

 

[fudd_bopo]

-I'd like to see provinces with more than one RGO, listed and working like factories, but not possible to build if the resources are not there. So when oil or precious metals are found one can build an RGO for that there.
Also when oil or precious metals are found the old ones would still be there.
A province could produce both cattle, grain and fish for instance, and then you could decide where to put the workers.

-The possibility for modders to create new resources and factories.

-Auto army reinforcement, it's a pain to select and reinforce each army (especially from attrition).

-Possibility for modders to add new divisions and brigades.

-Ability to detach and attach brigades to divisions if you would like to move them to another division or change to some other brigade.

-Blockades, I'm actually not sure if it's allready possible to intercept convoys of an enemy country but it would be nice.

-Expeditionary forces (and non-expeditionary) not taking attrition damage in allied territory.

-Possibility to have other members of your alliance get a hold of provinces in peace deals (that you propose).

-Partisan duty like in hoi2 where an army would attack rebels in nearby provinces.

-Some kind of supply lines for armies. Maybe just something small like an out of supply surrounded army would lose morale over time.

 

[unmerged(68912)]

-To build your own political party.

 

[unmerged(77251)]

-To build your own political party.

Simply edit your db/parties/XXX_party.cvs file, where XXX is your country tag (eg GER for germany, ENG for UK ...) and mess around at your own risk. I think there is a tool shipped with the game that allows it via an editor, but still very buggy.

 

[unmerged(83112)]

Unless, of course, the elements drawn from HoI2 are more linked to industrial power than direct combat modifiers, I think. I for one would gleefully welcome some sort of supply lines and need to use not only money but also several industry products to upgrade and maintain military forces. Use of ammunition during wartime, for example, would be quite nice as then nations would have to produce the ammunition by themselves or buy it from WM - or suffer to consequence of being backwards agricultural nation.

Logistics simulations could conceivably be the basis of a very fun game.

That game probably should not be built with any of the existing Paradox engines.

However, the guys who code this are obviously geniuses, and they could code an excellent logistics simulation if they were so inclined.