Anything? I doubt that. I have fired the other scenarios. But 95% of the time I play teh grand campaigns, and I rather think so does everyone.
But that's just my opinion.
Scenarios
- Thread starter unmerged(144721)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Anything? I doubt that. I have fired the other scenarios. But 95% of the time I play teh grand campaigns, and I rather think so does everyone.
But that's just my opinion.
surely when one writes an AAR one isnt playing the game, they are using the game to write an AAR, so not only is it a completely different type of play but its different motives for doing it, so the most of people who play to play might well use another start point than the minority who write and read AAR's and so its not representive. Writing an AAR would necessitate the early state, playing the game wouldnt as doesnt, its an entirely different situation.
Now i support the focus on one start point in order to make the game as good as it should be, but im not sure i can suffer the idea that you actually believe what people write AARs about as a representation as the majority of your players. Most people who use this forum dont write AARs, but that doesnt mean they dont play the games, i think i can say with pretty much full certaincy that all people who use this forum play your games or else they wouldnt be here, but AARs, thats something else
Now i support the focus on one start point in order to make the game as good as it should be, but im not sure i can suffer the idea that you actually believe what people write AARs about as a representation as the majority of your players. Most people who use this forum dont write AARs, but that doesnt mean they dont play the games, i think i can say with pretty much full certaincy that all people who use this forum play your games or else they wouldnt be here, but AARs, thats something else
On the other hand Orinsul, no one even claims that forum members, and even less forum members that participate in Vicky 2 discussion, are mayority of Victoria players.
So decisions made by Paradox under assumption that they cater to the largest possible playerbase might be completly different then the ones prefered by the forum members - even though it might seem unfair for us.
Of course, Vicky forumites are usually well experienced players that might have spotted weakpoints of original design and have clever ideas how to eliminate them, so their input is valuable. Still, IF Paradox intends to design a game for more then just this group, it can't just stick to the forum denzien ideas - it got to compare it to its own vision of the product and act depending on the result of said comparision.
I for one find Paradox decision rather risky, but for quite different reasons then plently of the people here. Limiting the game to 100 year scenario is fair deal, giving potential player clear message - "It's not ACW or WWI wargame!". It's going to limit somehow initial sales for sure, but might (doesn't have to) hit closer to the target regarding the audience.
So decisions made by Paradox under assumption that they cater to the largest possible playerbase might be completly different then the ones prefered by the forum members - even though it might seem unfair for us.
Of course, Vicky forumites are usually well experienced players that might have spotted weakpoints of original design and have clever ideas how to eliminate them, so their input is valuable. Still, IF Paradox intends to design a game for more then just this group, it can't just stick to the forum denzien ideas - it got to compare it to its own vision of the product and act depending on the result of said comparision.
I for one find Paradox decision rather risky, but for quite different reasons then plently of the people here. Limiting the game to 100 year scenario is fair deal, giving potential player clear message - "It's not ACW or WWI wargame!". It's going to limit somehow initial sales for sure, but might (doesn't have to) hit closer to the target regarding the audience.
It's derived from player size. Since my bulk makes up 50% of players alone, it was easy to determine that the dissenters would make up only a small percentage of the remaining bulk.
I'm surprised that as few as 5% of AARs are non-GC actually - I would assume that at least 5% would be ACW-themed. I personally have never played the non-GC scenarios in any real sense.
There is a reason...
Vicky was just very, very poor in representing what ACW and WWI were all about. If there is a ACW AAR, it is usually short story how CSA defends itself, then long, long story how the alternative history unveils (problem was that USA was constantly trying to destroy CSA anyway, so you had to annex it to have some peace). Similarly, there was no proper peace resolution system for WWI, warfare was tedious and unrewarding, and on the top of that, it's only 6 years of game (22 with Revolutions) - which means you end the game before you really start having fun with it.
It's something you start once, play... stop, then come back to GC. You might try couple more times, if you are big CSA fan (you got to ultimately annex USA though, it's really bent on destroying you).
So on the top on rather unrewarding gameplay, they are quite poor AAR material - WWI too short, ACW relatively long, but taxing because of constant, boring war with the North.
Come to think about it, part of the problem with CSA AAR was also lack of idea, what to do with South when it wins the war (remember, war was boring, so it couldn't be a focal point of the AAR). Since game was pretty much about industrialization and optimal economic setup included LF party, it ment that CSA agricultural economy would get inefficient very fast, thus, forcing player to either fall behind the world, or modernize as fast as possible... very much against the ideals he was just fighting for. Tough nut to crack.
Last edited:
First of all, we are not 5%. By no means whatsoever. If you want to judge by AARs and support comments, at some point realize that the reason people only care about 1836 is because your other scenarios were so poorly done! Even with that handicap, we are still probably no less than 20% including the many who learned to play in different scenarios. If you were to play with the same mods that I did, I assure you that greater profit would be made from the influx of WW1 and ACW nerds. If a mod can do it, paradox can do it. Just ask for their help. In fact, I'm sure many here would do it for free. If Victoria 2 just has 1836, 1861, 1914 and all are well done, I can guarantee that you will attract far more customers, and that 5% may become a majority. Because you aren't going to make a profit with just Vicky 1 fans.
Exactly. If they had unlimited time and resources, then of course they should include dozens of scenarios. But they dont, so they can get the core game right, and then scenarios can wait for either modders or an XP.
The problem is that making well-rounded scenarios requires (paid) workhours, which brings us back to the whole reason why they decided to restrict themselves to the GC. If they'd have to invest as many hours on a Civil War scenario as on the GC, then they'll either have to neglect other aspects of the game or spend more money on development, which may not be warranted by additional sales.
Look, if you just have 1836, you will just get Vicky 1 fans and maybe a few more. But if you have 1836, 1861 and 1914, not only will vicky fans buy it, so will ACW fans and WWI fans. Remember, there are very few WWI strategy games, so that might be a good idea to attract those customers. So I think the profit is greater than the cost. The cost could probably be cut down by using some work already done by the excellent mods here. They already did that with CLIO, so that could be a good way of cutting costs; not having to start from scratch. That way, most of Paradox's attention can still be turned to the grand campaign. Anyway, just think of what reviewers will say when they see it has only one scenario! They will attack it for lack of variance, I'm sure they would expect to play other campaigns, as has been done in all other major paradox games. I think that this decision will hurt Paradox more than help, especially since Victoria 2 has the potential to be popular enough to attract a wider range of customers.
Can you make good WWI wargame on the daily "tick" basis? How are you supposed to simulate naval encounters in viable manner? What about night and day difference, where every single battle (being it land, naval or, hopefully, air) in game have to last AT LEAST 1 day? That means either very short battles (as 7 "ticks" is a week already) or very, very much lenience from WWI strategy fans.
It's even more true for ACW. I mean, no battles, you just walk your army to state-sized province and watch it slowly lose soldiers against the enemy, then after a week or 2 you get the result? How fun is that for people that played games like Antienam, Gettsburg and such? Even in old 8-bit game North&South you had battles!
No matter how you look at that, people that want to play ACW or WWI will be dissapointed by Vicky, because this game is not for them.
Just look at EU:Rome - do you think people that liked war aspect of the ancient history moved from old Rome:Total War to EU:Rome? Hell no! Now, if they were interested in internal politics, dynasty building... maybe. But not people that wanted to play out 2nd Carthage War and such.
What you ask for is basically making Vicky 2 viable wargame for 2 completly different eras - post-nappy musket times and semi-modern, mass combat of WWI. And making such game would be a daunting task - probably more ambitious then HoI3. That is without even touching economic and social aspect of the gameplay.
So I understand why Paradox is not doing that (Or do they? Hmm....). Just to be clear - I think it's bad for publicity for sure, since plently of people see WWI and ACW as only things interesting in (long) XIX century. On the other hand though, I don't think Paradox is aiming at those particular people - rather for Imperialism crowd and Eu3 fans that will gladly try to play similar title, but in the industrial era.
Last edited:
There is no need to go all out and try to create games with in a game. But I, and many people, had a lot of fun with certain mods that did a decent job, and besides, fighting is not the only thing going on in war. Victoria will always be very different from HoI, and that's a good thing. But there are things about war that HoI cannot simulate, such as the wartime economy, internal politics, and adverse affects of war of the shape of the world. I would love to be able to win WWI as Germany and shape the interbellum period. Same with the CSA. This doesn't need to be HoI, nor should it be. But I still feel that there are many gamers who would like to play the 1861 and 1914 campaigns. There are plenty of ACW games, but none that I know of that allow you to shape the future after the war. What if I want to go further, win the war then build the CSA economy, maybe abolish slavery, etc. And there are very few WWI games, none that I know of who are as prominent as Paradox is, so that should also be a very interesting scenario to play.
Anyway look at Paradox's covers. One has to do with the CSA, the other with Bismark unifying Germany. What will players say when they realise they can't do any of that in 1836?
Anyway look at Paradox's covers. One has to do with the CSA, the other with Bismark unifying Germany. What will players say when they realise they can't do any of that in 1836?
Hey, on the US cover Lee is fighting Britts. Doesn't look like ACW to me.
Note that so far all the comments from devs indicate you actually can do that. Note Johan's comment on "long event chain to create CSA" - I"m fairly sure similar chains will be present for mayor unifications of the era (Germany and Italy) as well as things like Japan modernization and such.
I have no reason to not trust them, if they openly stated that they WANT to have CSA formed in Vicky 2 as well as other mayor political events of the era. And hopefully, thanks to the better preparation and focus, this time it will be balanced much earlier then after multiple patches/xpacks.
Thing is, those are still not the things that will cover what common ACW/Germany unification fan considers as something he/she would like to see. What they expect is ACW simulation with battles (Total War style) or playing out battles on the way to Paris (as well as battles of war over the Silesia and such). In game of Vicky focus, such things are more or less afterthought compared to the nation evolution, its political, social and economical changes. So, luring such people to the game that won't deliver might, or might not be a good idea. Some of them might like what they see ("Hey, war is boring there, but I can try to steer CSA to XX century") but I expect most of them leave the title with disgust (like it was with Vicky 1, I still remember those angry posts) and become Paradox sceptics for long time.
"So I think the profit is greater than the cost." Something Paradox obviously doesn't think.
And yes, there are very few WWI games out there, but Victoria isn't designed to be a WWI game, it's designed to cover a whole era, of imperialism, nationalism and industrial revolution, and all the movements associated with them. Someone's who's going to buy the game for WW1 is always going to be disappointed because warfare is highly abstracted. To include such a scenario just to attract those folks would be misleading them.
I'm in agreement with this.
Like I said before, if Vic 2 only have 1836 scenario, it would only attract Vic 1 player. That way, PI won't even break even (no pun intended) with this game. So IMHO I think it is best if Vic 2 have at least 2 or 3 other scenarios excluding the GC. At least that way PI could attract more potential buyer (read: profit).
And really, a game that has only one scenario compared to it's predecessor that had at least 3 scenarios (vanilla) would only get clobbered by game reviewers which ultimately hurts sales.
Think about it PI...
At this point in time, PI is not going to deviate from their design plan. No extra scenarios in the original release, that's for sure.
my guess is after realise u might get american civil war, maybe ww1 and another few important points
The good decision of a problem is unique is to release V2 with one scenario, and later to release official addition with the new companies also. It will be good for us and for PI.
Although the GC is obviously the most important scenario, I'm disappointed that 1861 and 1914 won't be in. This effectively means that WWI, the most important war in the period 1836-1935, will not be in the game in any form. You can include an event chain for the ACW in the GC, but not WWI.
Despite this, if 95% of players really did only play the GC it would still make sense, but I doubt that's the case.
I actually won't mind so much if Paradox release an expansion with 1861 and 1914 scenarios soon after the game, but I'd rather we didn't have to rely on modders.
Despite this, if 95% of players really did only play the GC it would still make sense, but I doubt that's the case.
I actually won't mind so much if Paradox release an expansion with 1861 and 1914 scenarios soon after the game, but I'd rather we didn't have to rely on modders.
Last edited: