One last Expansion pack, before saying goodbye?

[Matrim_Cauthon]

Most of Victoria 2's systems seem to faulter as they go on. This is because Vic2 covers the period where humanity progressed the most during history. During its 100 years, the amount of tecnological changes and productivity increases changed lifestyles completely. The way wars were handled changed completely, both at land and at sea. That's why people are discussing and thinking that two systems is better than one. Maybe Vic2 should be changed into 2 different games?

 

[Orko80]

Most of Victoria 2's systems seem to faulter as they go on. This is because Vic2 covers the period where humanity progressed the most during history. During its 100 years, the amount of tecnological changes and productivity increases changed lifestyles completely. The way wars were handled changed completely, both at land and at sea. That's why people are discussing and thinking that two systems is better than one. Maybe Vic2 should be changed into 2 different games?

One problem with 2 games would be where do you draw the line? When did the big change come? Surely it wasn't for every nation around the same decade...

 

[EUnderhill]

. . . which is why it's so useful when the economy is bad and social progress is in the doldrums, as numerous dictators have found

What I like best about the crisis system is that it forces you to at least be ready to fight if you want to stay in the top 8, even if you would rather not get involved you at least have to divert sufficient resources just in case you do.

 

[Sarius1997]

Most of Victoria 2's systems seem to faulter as they go on. This is because Vic2 covers the period where humanity progressed the most during history. During its 100 years, the amount of tecnological changes and productivity increases changed lifestyles completely. The way wars were handled changed completely, both at land and at sea. That's why people are discussing and thinking that two systems is better than one. Maybe Vic2 should be changed into 2 different games?

As sad as it is, i somehow agree with you.
But i just like the timeline, and i´d love to see a game then can actually represent the progression of the world, and of society in this 100 years. I think that it could be possible, and (if done right) could become one of those games who stay legendary for a long time.

 

[FOARP]

Most of Victoria 2's systems seem to faulter as they go on. This is because Vic2 covers the period where humanity progressed the most during history. During its 100 years, the amount of tecnological changes and productivity increases changed lifestyles completely. The way wars were handled changed completely, both at land and at sea. That's why people are discussing and thinking that two systems is better than one. Maybe Vic2 should be changed into 2 different games?

The problem is there didn't seem to be a lot of thought going into the time period Vicky covered - it just seemed to be decided based on the start-date of HOI (1936). A natural start was there with the start/end of the Napoleonic wars. Another natural start-date is 1861 just before the wars of German unification and the American civil war.

Start/end dates are something I really hope they have a sit down and think about before they make Vicky 3 - does it really make sense to try to cover the 1830's and the 1930's in the same game, even if only at a general level? Dividing the period into two games is certainly an option.

WW1 deserves its own game, but if it can't get one, I would hope that Vicky should at least be able to cover it in a generally realistic fashion.

 

[Damerell]

Start/end dates are something I really hope they have a sit down and think about before they make Vicky 3 - does it really make sense to try to cover the 1830's and the 1930's in the same game, even if only at a general level? Dividing the period into two games is certainly an option.

I think the real thing is that... it doesn't. We don't get the rise of air power, with 1936 V2 aeroplanes being still canvas and plywood scouts; we don't get event chains or game mechanics that tend to produce Great Depressions or New Deals, except by accident. (I'm not saying we should be forced into one, but the factors that produced the real one should be present - if anyone can agree what they are). If we had personalities, we'd get Churchward but not Gresley.

 

[EUnderhill]

The problem is there didn't seem to be a lot of thought going into the time period Vicky covered - it just seemed to be decided based on the start-date of HOI (1936). A natural start was there with the start/end of the Napoleonic wars. Another natural start-date is 1861 just before the wars of German unification and the American civil war.

Start/end dates are something I really hope they have a sit down and think about before they make Vicky 3 - does it really make sense to try to cover the 1830's and the 1930's in the same game, even if only at a general level? Dividing the period into two games is certainly an option.

WW1 deserves its own game, but if it can't get one, I would hope that Vicky should at least be able to cover it in a generally realistic fashion.

100 year anniversary of The Great War next year; if there is a more suitable time to release a WWI game please tell me.

OldVic (pre-Revolutions) ended in 1919; it was the expansion that extended the game and tech tree to 1936. Paradox legend is that the start year was chosen because Johan wanted Texas to be in the game at war with Mexico at the start. Can't verify directly, but that is the lore among the old hands.

Were it my choice I would go with a start date 1848-9 ish; whenever the revolutionary dust has settled and either end the game with the outbreak of the Great War or with the Great Stock Market crash (perhaps holding back the latter possibility for dlc).

 

[FOARP]

100 year anniversary of The Great War next year; if there is a more suitable time to release a WWI game please tell me.

Johan already said they're not planning to make a WW1 game, which is a great pity. I was hoping BL-Logic would do a WW1 game, but they did EvW instead. From what some of the devs have said, they did think about a WW1 expansion for Vicky, but the features needed to make it work just aren't there.

OldVic (pre-Revolutions) ended in 1919; it was the expansion that extended the game and tech tree to 1936. Paradox legend is that the start year was chosen because Johan wanted Texas to be in the game at war with Mexico at the start. Can't verify directly, but that is the lore among the old hands.

Yeah, actually thinking about it I remember hearing this - but the Mexican war really isn't big enough to warrant this, and there's kind of a dearth of significant events until 1848.

Were it my choice I would go with a start date 1848-9 ish; whenever the revolutionary dust has settled and either end the game with the outbreak of the Great War or with the Great Stock Market crash (perhaps holding back the latter possibility for dlc).

1848's not a bad start-date, though the actual events of 1848 are also something Vicky's not been great at modelling.

 

[Icendoan]

I think it's quite important that the game, in order to understand the period, starts before 1848. No, nothing interesting is happening. The world is in a collective sigh of relief after Napoleon has been dealt with. The revolutions of 1848, showing that liberalism cannot be contained by force, go on and mean very interesting things for the period. It would be a misnomer to start with them in full flow, as if that's just something that happens, or afterwards, as if that was how the period was viewed at the time. What's important is that the player gets the sense that there is revolutionary fervour under the lid of society, and to watch that build up and, then, eventually erupt over Europe. There is this period between 1816 and 1848 where monarchies felt that they were secure ideologically; they had contained the French revolution, barely, but, ultimately, that revolution was a failure, and we had returned to the status quo. Europe is in concert, conducted now primarily by Britain, and the status quo they work so hard to maintain is definitely not one of revolution. This false sense of security, and the massive upheaval that the revolutions brought, with it's German nationalism, the rise of nationalism in the balkans, etc, is very important to the way history progresses through the period.

It would be wonderful to have the revolutions set in motion, but the build up period is necessary.

 

[EUnderhill]

Johan already said they're not planning to make a WW1 game,

Here's hoping it's a bluff.

 

[justin6477]

Here's hoping it's a bluff.

That, or they do what a bunch of us suggested for March of the Eagles and make alt. scenario DLCs. It's a relatively fleshed out mil game as-is, and makes for great multiplayer, it just needs more content.

 

[Six-Monts]

Most of Victoria 2's systems seem to faulter as they go on. This is because Vic2 covers the period where humanity progressed the most during history. During its 100 years, the amount of tecnological changes and productivity increases changed lifestyles completely. The way wars were handled changed completely, both at land and at sea. That's why people are discussing and thinking that two systems is better than one. Maybe Vic2 should be changed into 2 different games?

I certainly understand what you mean but this transition is one of the things i really love about this game. Going from an almost feudal society to an industrialized modern nation is wonderful. Yes, it does bring some problems since - as you said - the game goes from one system to another. But it is this transition that defines the 19th century, without it this game is not the same.

 

[wildbillhdmax01]

I kinda like the 100 year it's portrays now. Why Shorten a game?

 

[Damerell]

I think it's quite important that the game, in order to understand the period, starts before 1848. No, nothing interesting is happening.

I know I'm obsessed with railways, but absolutely yes, interesting things are happening, and not just the rise of the railways. The situation isn't just that after the fall of Napoleon everyone sat on their hands until 1848; those revolutions were very much driven by the effects of industrialisation.

The difficulty Vicky always has, I think, is that it is a period of unprecedented change. I get constant cognitive dissonance from the idea that people who were alive at Trafalgar saw much of the Victorian era; that Huskisson, who invented being killed by trains (sorry, trains again), was also a great source of "interest" for naval officers fighting Villeneuve.

If anything I'd make the game shorter, but the trouble is, WW1 might make a great HOI-equivalent by itself, but what to do with the interwar period?

 

[FOARP]

I kinda like the 100 year it's portrays now. Why Shorten a game?

Reducing the number of years in the game does not mean shortening it. HOI3 is not 'shorter' than Vicky, Vicky is not 'shorter' than CK2, CK2 is not 'shorter' than EUIV.

Instead, a game that focused on a reduced number of year but with increased content would be lengthened, and a much more enjoyable game than one that cannot properly simulate the last 40 years of the period it is supposed to cover even at a very general level.

I certainly understand what you mean but this transition is one of the things i really love about this game. Going from an almost feudal society to an industrialized modern nation is wonderful. Yes, it does bring some problems since - as you said - the game goes from one system to another. But it is this transition that defines the 19th century, without it this game is not the same.

The problem is that the transition does not really happen: instead you get bizarre kludges like communist clergy, airforces modelled as cavalry, 'anarcho-liberals', etc. etc.

That, or they do what a bunch of us suggested for March of the Eagles and make alt. scenario DLCs. It's a relatively fleshed out mil game as-is, and makes for great multiplayer, it just needs more content.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but the lack of move=attack just makes MoE not the right basis on which to build such a mod.

Personally, I'm holding out for a WW1 DLC for HOI4 - something like what ToG was like for CK2, with an earlier start date, WW1-specific mechanics etc.

 

[Oliver Twopence]

Reducing the number of years in the game does not mean shortening it. HOI3 is not 'shorter' than Vicky, Vicky is not 'shorter' than CK2, CK2 is not 'shorter' than EUIV.

That is a truth with some modifications.

I personally believe that a great deal of the "thing" with paradox games is that you are able to take history in new great directions. The shorter you make the period the game is set in, the harder it gets (and should get!) to make, say, Mexico a GP. By limiting the the period you may not make the game shorter, but you will game a lot of nations harder to do something cool with, and I think that is a loss I would rather be without.

Both For CK2 and EU4 this is obviously not an issue at all. You have all the time in the world for all sorts of crazy conquests and schemes. HoI3, though covering a fairly short period, surfs along on the WW2 wave. But for the Victoria I would say things are a little different.

Of course, historically speaking that may not be so much of an issues for that many people. Making Transwaal a secondary power and annex Korea isn't exactly for the faint of heart history buff. Still... it's fun.

 

[podcat]

The dev's talked a while back about having ideas for at least two more expansions, so I'm hoping for at least one more.

Yeah, most of the cool stuff is definitely more sequel material. As said we wont do any more expansions for V2 though so you will have to hold out for a V3 hopefully at some point. The old expansion model makes it much trickier to make smaller dlc/expansion packs as well.

V2 players are really loyal, which makes sense, there is really no other game quite like it out there, so while the game might not have been as popular as CK2, EU3, HOI3 etc i see lots of people playing it and being very visible on forums and reddit etc so doing a sequel would feel pretty safe. I think there are lots of things we could do to improve it much like EU4 and CK2 have done as well with much better interfaces and a good abstraction level without dumbing anything down. You can be sure it will contain a rethink on the market so we can get decent submarine mechanics. Submarines are awesome , but not really compatible with the current world market system.

I don't know about implementing move=attack into Victoria 2. This system seems to only fit in when trench warfare comes prominent.

Yeah I dont know that it fits that well and doing a switch mid-game will be confusing. Perhaps do it based on unit types so normal infantry fights as normal, tanks can perform movement is attack and artillery can not conquer but can support nearby attacks and bombard nearby provinces without movement. Just a random though.

 

[spiller68]

wow a reply from a dev, doesn't happen very often but it's always great to see you guys respond to our questions. so no more victoria 2 expansions but it sound like we will eventually get a 3rd one yes this has made my day (if i read right). but could we at least get another patch maybe.
edit- regarding the attack=move how about this early game its normal then a tech turns it into trench warfare which will then become mobile again when you have resasearched tanks maybe, just a thought.

 

[Sarius1997]

Yeah, most of the cool stuff is definitely more sequel material. As said we wont do any more expansions for V2 though so you will have to hold out for a V3 hopefully at some point. The old expansion model makes it much trickier to make smaller dlc/expansion packs as well.

V2 players are really loyal, which makes sense, there is really no other game quite like it out there, so while the game might not have been as popular as CK2, EU3, HOI3 etc i see lots of people playing it and being very visible on forums and reddit etc so doing a sequel would feel pretty safe. I think there are lots of things we could do to improve it much like EU4 and CK2 have done as well with much better interfaces and a good abstraction level without dumbing anything down. You can be sure it will contain a rethink on the market so we can get decent submarine mechanics. Submarines are awesome , but not really compatible with the current world market system.

So an sequel is confirmed... Kinda...

Yeah I dont know that it fits that well and doing a switch mid-game will be confusing. Perhaps do it based on unit types so normal infantry fights as normal, tanks can perform movement is attack and artillery can not conquer but can support nearby attacks and bombard nearby provinces without movement. Just a random though.

Hmm. Doesn´t sound any less confusing then a switch mid-game. But what about this idea. You start with unit types that use the current system. Then, at some point you could upgrade to other units which would use the move=attack system. Then in the end game all unit types could use the move=attack system. But your idea with the artillery sounds pretty epic.

 

[Damerell]

Hmm. Doesn´t sound any less confusing then a switch mid-game. But what about this idea. You start with unit types that use the current system. Then, at some point you could upgrade to other units which would use the move=attack system. Then in the end game all unit types could use the move=attack system. But your idea with the artillery sounds pretty epic.

I think less complicated would be to use move=attack, but have the speed with which a full-strength engagement develops and the ability of the defender to retreat early change as the game goes by. In 1821, the first few days of combat will just be cavalry skirmishes, and the defender will have a good chance of retreating with little penalty; in effect, the armies will maneuver like EU3 doomstacks. In 1921, the enemy's tanks will be in your face the moment they commit to the engagement.