Please Do Not Give Up On Victoria 3 Paradox

[halbort]

I thought the main reason was bc it was so bad at release that it tainted the waters and the reworks were too late. It was a pretty good game and I can't wait for Imperatrix: Victoria so that I can have my soldiers back lmao.

However, Anno actually has good naval warfare, something that Victoria 3 lacks lol

I think the reason it died it that it wasn't good to eclipse EU4 its main competitor. Stellaris survived a bad launch because it was so unique. Victoria 3 will probably survive as well imo.

 

[wilcoxchar]

However, Anno actually has good naval warfare, something that Victoria 3 lacks lol

And Anno, like all the city builders that try to shoehorn warfare into them, suffers for it.

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

And Anno, like all the city builders that try to shoehorn warfare into them, suffers for it.

Try out Songs of Syx. It's a game that Victoria 3 can learn from, it has economics nearly as good as Victoria 3's (or even better in some respects), has campaign mechanics that are getting deeper/are approximating Victoria 3's and combat that is nearly as good as old TW games. It's 2D rather than 3D though.

 

[Jimboy93]

I'm sure Vic 3 has still a high priority. The game has too much potential and a very large fanbase to be considered a failure so early on.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Try out Songs of Syx. It's a game that Victoria 3 can learn from, it has economics nearly as good as Victoria 3's (or even better in some respects), has campaign mechanics that are getting deeper/are approximating Victoria 3's and combat that is nearly as good as old TW games. It's 2D rather than 3D though.

Nah. The point is the city builders that try to add any combat to them are worse off for it. Doesn't matter what the combat is, it inherently gets in the way of and detracts from the city building part of the game.

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

Nah. The point is the city builders that try to add any combat to them are worse off for it. Doesn't matter what the combat is, it inherently gets in the way of and detracts from the city building part of the game.

As long as the two systems actually interact with one another and isn't just the equivalent of switching off the city builder to boot up the TW simulator then it can certainly work...

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

I'm sure Vic 3 has still a high priority. The game has too much potential and a very large fanbase to be considered a failure so early on.

Hmm this reminds me of something, doesn't it @Lamisatr ?

 

[MyLordFellington]

Have you looked at the playercount? It's not good.

 

[StenKilla]

This doesn't make any sense considering the old system already existed and could basically be copied. Creating something new requires far more brainstorming, designing, and testing than making some slight adjustments to something you've done a dozen times before.

But in the DD didnt they pretty much say that programming is hard and that's why warfare is wat it is?

 

[lin001]

But in the DD didnt they pretty much say that programming is hard and that's why warfare is wat it is?

Not as far as I remember. Actually, oddly enough, they mentioned on discord during the Q&A that the military system had to go through several design changes and took up a lot of development time.

 

[wilcoxchar]

just the equivalent of switching off the city builder to boot up the TW simulator

Yes that's the problem, this describes what any combat mechanic inherently does to player attention in any city builder.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

If I had a pound for every doom and gloom thead here I would probably have enough money to buy Twitter…
Edit: I love how there are four people that don’t think I would have enough to buy Twitter.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

Have you looked at the playercount? It's not good.

I’ve always sort of expected paradox games, and GSG’s in general to be pretty jank, unbalanced, or plain broken at launch and for some time after. But today, there are actually quite a few good, relatively modern, mature grand strategy titles out in the wild. So it’s hard to stay glued to a new title with all those potential issues once the hype factor wears off.

If I had a pound for every doom and gloom thead here I would probably have enough money to buy Twitter…

I wasn’t really that active during the time that Imperator launched and was abandoned, but that seems to have had a lasting effect on the psyche of the forum.

Spoiler: City builder, ANNO OT

Nah. The point is the city builders that try to add any combat to them are worse off for it. Doesn't matter what the combat is, it inherently gets in the way of and detracts from the city building part of the game.

Yes that's the problem, this describes what any combat mechanic inherently does to player attention in any city builder.

Naval combat can get tedious in ANNO games and I wouldn’t mind some automation tools. But IMO warfare was quite well done in ANNO 1404/Age of discovery. An ANNO two games prior to 1800.

Unlike ANNO 1800 which has no land armies, you had land units that were pretty well represented IMO for a city builder. If you’ve never played it you recruited military camps from your castles. You had a small military camp, a large military camp, and a trebuchet for bombardment. The camp was a physical thing on the map with a limited area around it that you could attack things.

When you gave the order to move a camp it would take time to break the camp down, then it would consolidate into a troop column with a horse drawn wagon or two at the rear. It would then take some time to rebuild the camp at the destination. I honestly liked it, and it flowed with the general pace of a city builder game sooooooooo much better than your typical rts micro fest mechanics.

I think ANNO 1800 regressed a lot in the military front since now once you blow up all of an island’s coastal warehouses literally every building on said island gets destroyed.

 

[VineFynn]

I don't necessarily buy into the doom and gloom but honestly it does strike me as very much a reasonable reaction to what happened to Imperator.

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

the reason in my opinion was production costs. Why program ai to move things on map that you know will be terrible anyway

I view it more as CPU/RAM budget. There's only so much resource on a consumer PC to run everything, including the UI. Why burn CPU on a secondary focus?

I think the reason it died it that it wasn't good to eclipse EU4 its main competitor. Stellaris survived a bad launch because it was so unique. Victoria 3 will probably survive as well imo.

Do people recall when Stellaris did v2.0 with the huge backlash from people that didn't like separate FTL types being "removed"? Even though Jump Drive and Gateways kept the features, just locked behind mid/lategame tech? Stellaris survived a rocky start (heck, they're only just now getting message settings in next version), a period that lasted longer than the launch.

I:R once it had removed the "spend mana, instant flip things" gimmicks was still stuck with an identity crisis. It could not compete with EU4 - I really really missed the upfront information EU4 presents so I can reason about what to expect when I declare war. It could not compete with CK3 - characters vaguely mattered but they weren't important enough for me to get attached to them, never mind whatever they did behind my back. It could not compete with HoI4 or Stellaris or CK3 for combat: I never felt unit composition mattered enough to care what my army was. So its main selling point was the historic era and seeing the map grow cities as you play tall. That won't appeal to the player demographic that only cares about min/max'ing instead of indulging in flavour.