-
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.
And I thank you. Sort of like EU3 + NA + IN (or EU3 complete). Definately worth the investment.
Indeed. VV is a must. It's like EU:Rome 2 and once HOI 3 is done I think they might come back to finish patching this one (which is still needed).
Yes, if they haven't convinced you yet let me assure you starting with VV is by far the best way to go. VV is substantially different so you are better off just learning to play it first.
In a better world than the one we live in, there would be no VV -- it would be what EUR was to begin with. In this better world, there would be an expansion that offers new features instead of missing features. In this better world, I wouldn't tell you to not even bother with EUR without VV.
In the best world I would get every game for free, and game developers would love to die in hunger.
Haven't you heard? Starvation is good at stimulating creativity!
That can't be the best world anyhow - people would still complain. Thus, in the even better best world, people would not describe improvements to a working system via a patch, an expansion, or a sequel as "something I ought to have gotten for free in the first place with the first game, since it makes the game better".
You can buy Rome and play it if you want.
After a couple of games play VV and you will appreciate the value.
Just for the interface and micro management is reason enough to only play VV
After a couple of games play VV and you will appreciate the value.
Just for the interface and micro management is reason enough to only play VV
Peter Ebbesen from...
That name sounds awfully familiar... You used to be a EU2 head, were you not?
They didn't have the entire EURVV on a drawing board and decide 'hey, let's add just these features. we'll come back later with an expansion pack and make everybody pay us more money. mwahahaha!" The world is not out to get you. The world doesn't know you exist.
BTW: Yes, buy VV. It's a good investment. It adds great and new features. Enough new features that Paradox can legitimately charge money for it.
:rofl:
Sorry. I'm sure I'll buy it when not having the little Roman helmet icon gets to me enough
Here's a question:
I'm thinking about buying Vae Victus.
I stopped playing Rome because the character system was, well, pointless and random (especially as a monarchy, who was going to inherit was anyone's guess with 'Random McButters' as likely as 'Governer-General McFamous' to get the throne), which killed the fun for me (huge CK fan).
Otherwise, the game was fine, as far as I was concerned. I know VV helps cut out a lot of the micromanagement, but are your characters still pointless?
I'm thinking about buying Vae Victus.
I stopped playing Rome because the character system was, well, pointless and random (especially as a monarchy, who was going to inherit was anyone's guess with 'Random McButters' as likely as 'Governer-General McFamous' to get the throne), which killed the fun for me (huge CK fan).
Otherwise, the game was fine, as far as I was concerned. I know VV helps cut out a lot of the micromanagement, but are your characters still pointless?
@Alfred Packer: VV doesn't make Rome a CK, but the character system is now definitively better.
First of all, the family of the character is now clearly visible (this is a *huge* improvement in my opinion) so nepotism is now much easier
Secondly, the characters have realistically feeling ambitions, which as the player one can attempt to (ab)use (like a character wanting to become a Legate -> make him a Legate and he will get Martial+1) or avoid by throwing them in the dungeons (like a character wanting to become the ruler who is also a rival of the current ruler... might be time to send him to an exploration voyage to the dungeons).
Inheritance is changed via the laws. If you are in a monarchy where the eldest son will be next king, all you have to take care of is to hope you get a son. Likewise, you can change the laws if you want to get somebody else to the throne (it is not cheap in stability though). If there is no legal heir, then the advisors support their own favourites to heir, and this may cause friction. You can see who is the heir apparent and who are the other two characters considered by the characters for next king; if the legal heir is not the heir apparent, you are in deep poo unless you take care of the situation (make the legal heir more popular (for example, give him four ships and send him pirate hunting; due to the combat engine you will never lose a battle with four ships vs one, so popularity is guaranteed to rise), send the other heir-candidates to the dungeons, etc).
Best of all for characters however is the way governors now rule whole areas instead of spesific provinces. Much easier on the micromanagement side, and also easier to find good governors (or loyal governors, as it may sometimes be). Also, the advisor system is excellent for Kingdoms, and works ok in republics too (the whim of the populists is hard to control at times).
First of all, the family of the character is now clearly visible (this is a *huge* improvement in my opinion) so nepotism is now much easier
Secondly, the characters have realistically feeling ambitions, which as the player one can attempt to (ab)use (like a character wanting to become a Legate -> make him a Legate and he will get Martial+1) or avoid by throwing them in the dungeons (like a character wanting to become the ruler who is also a rival of the current ruler... might be time to send him to an exploration voyage to the dungeons).
Inheritance is changed via the laws. If you are in a monarchy where the eldest son will be next king, all you have to take care of is to hope you get a son. Likewise, you can change the laws if you want to get somebody else to the throne (it is not cheap in stability though). If there is no legal heir, then the advisors support their own favourites to heir, and this may cause friction. You can see who is the heir apparent and who are the other two characters considered by the characters for next king; if the legal heir is not the heir apparent, you are in deep poo unless you take care of the situation (make the legal heir more popular (for example, give him four ships and send him pirate hunting; due to the combat engine you will never lose a battle with four ships vs one, so popularity is guaranteed to rise), send the other heir-candidates to the dungeons, etc).
Best of all for characters however is the way governors now rule whole areas instead of spesific provinces. Much easier on the micromanagement side, and also easier to find good governors (or loyal governors, as it may sometimes be). Also, the advisor system is excellent for Kingdoms, and works ok in republics too (the whim of the populists is hard to control at times).
No.
With regards to monarchies, the most likely to succeed is the primary heir (heir apparent) and you can, at any time, see which characters in your government supports which character as your successor. Typically, you will want to manipulate your government into favouring your primary heir - sacking some who are just too untrustworthy and favouring others. You can at all times see who is your current primary and secondary heir according to the law.
Things can go bad - there's no such thing as a guaranteed smooth transition - but it is definitely possible to skew the odds in favour of your preferred outcome and having loyal people in positions of power makes it less of a bumpy road in general. You must, however, keep a really good eye on any character who gets the ambition to "become ruler"; such one must be kept close and under tight control or eradicated. Imprisoning is easy, but if it is a man of good stats and family, you'd rather get use of him, right?
(Of course, if you've got a good strong king and have managed to set up a really nice succession scenario, you'll curse the ungrateful offspring when he assassinates his father because he's tired of waiting; these things happen occasionally)
It isn't CK scale of character interaction - for one thing, you won't have to deal with court sizes going critical or arranging marriages for all and sundry (THE worst CK minigame of them all*) - but what is there works well.
* EDIT: An opinion that is not universal; See e.g. uly's post below for another view.
Last edited:
VV replaces provincial governors with regional governors, thus reducing the number of governors needed. Otherwise there's no real reduction in micromanagement. On the other hand, if you're running a republic, factors such as omens, buildings, and especially unused traderoutes all become influential on the national politics, so in fact micromanagement may be increased rather than decresed.
On top of that, the increased character details also adds a level of micromanagement, but most would probably consider this a good sort of micro.
As for "pointlessness" of the characters, it's rather subjective. You still have fundamentally no control over character development and family politics, and no say over the most crucial things like marriages. For me this makes the whole character system too detached and impersonal; it's still more like a god-game rather than an RPG. Surely some will disagree with me on this, but personally I think it's still very much "pointless".
Final questions (I'm leaning towards buying this now)
Okay, so what I'm hearing about the characters is good, with easily viewable and understandable drives and traits. Heck - as annoying as it might be, I like the scenario Peter described - with a smooth set succession ruined by a jerk of a son. What about marriages? I disliked that 90% of a clan would be 'Random Guy,' with no parents or any link to characters who have come and gone...has marriage and kids become more common? Has this been effected at all?
I'm a little bummed to hear that the trade routes are just as tedious and even more difficult to just ignore (I'm too ADD to cope with micro-managed trade routes and min-maxing province unit types), but if it a result of Paradox making republics more interesting to play, I can cope.
Okay, so what I'm hearing about the characters is good, with easily viewable and understandable drives and traits. Heck - as annoying as it might be, I like the scenario Peter described - with a smooth set succession ruined by a jerk of a son. What about marriages? I disliked that 90% of a clan would be 'Random Guy,' with no parents or any link to characters who have come and gone...has marriage and kids become more common? Has this been effected at all?
I'm a little bummed to hear that the trade routes are just as tedious and even more difficult to just ignore (I'm too ADD to cope with micro-managed trade routes and min-maxing province unit types), but if it a result of Paradox making republics more interesting to play, I can cope.
That's exactly what happens. Micromanagement isn't reduced, but it's more important than before. It does make republics more interesting but only at a certain stage in the game. In a small country the issue is too small, but in a big empire without road technology, it's pretty much impossible to stop the mercantile faction from dominating the senate. If you don't have a popular ruler to override the senate, this can lead to a whole lot of boredom since mercantiles don't like wars and lots of other stuff. The bright side is that, as a big empire, you probably don't care much about the benefit from trade anyway, so micromanagement become slightly less important as well.
The thing is that this can be fixed, in theory, simply by tweaking the effect of unused traderoutes on politics. If, say, each unused traderoute gives a diminishing, rather than flat, boost to the mercantile party, this probably wouldn't be a problem. Either that or they can simply cap the attraction bonus from unused routes.
Well, I for one hope they fixed this in the next patch.
Last edited: