Yeah. I really dislike Vic 3 right now especially due to war but actively wishing for the game or studio's failure is so counterproductive its stupid.
- 9
- 2
Twitter Teasers Thread
- Thread starter Fallofthepurple
- 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.
Wishing for the studio's failure is stupid - but game's financial failure is the only way big studios really learn something is wrong. If You want a good Vic3 game You need current one to fail.
- 28
- 7
- 2
- 1
Listen up! In my opinion, what you are suggesting is very cruel. Victoria 3 may have come out with flaws, but they are fixable!
- 11
- 5
No. What you get isn't a better Vic game, what you get is nothing because you just showed the business case for that type of game isn't good enough.
If you think pdx would approve millions more to be spent on a new viccy if v3 fails them you will be waiting a very long time.
Don't think that I'm happy with the current game, I'm not, in fact I don't even own it as the core building game looks dull as dish water to me. Despite this I still think the best chance of getting a modern viccy that I'd want to play is by the devs supporting v3 for years to come.
- 25
- 2
This ignores the likelihood that if Vicky3 fails we will never see another Vicky game.
Why should a company invest into a failed franchise?
- 25
Jan. 25 - Central Planning
Fingers crossed we'll see some implementation of appropriate diplomatic fallout to big changes in mode of production/government like this, so that monarchies react much more violently to neighbors/subjects turning to republics, and everyone reacts more violently to nations implementing central planning/workers cooperatives/council republics. If there's not a unique system in place, there should at least be a journal entry alongside "Road to Socialism" or w/e the current one is that has a timer to make the domestic government more amenable to foreign concerns or else great powers with interests in your strategic region are pushed to make the Regime Change diplomatic play.
But wont be until foreign investment becomes a thing that there will be a real organic motivator for AI to try to stomp out foreign revolutions.
- 13
- 4
I concur - we have the "change government" play in diplomacy, but I cannot ever use it as "government of x is too close to ours" - when targeting communist Germany as Autocratic Russia!
- 9
- 3
One day, when there is foreign investment as feature implemented many other nations will have a good reason to be pissed off if you turn into central planning law and seize their foreign investments.
- 12
I'm personally more interested in ideological fears. "What if the revolution spills over to us if unchecked?" was a very serious concern for socialist, liberal and nationalist revolutions. Movements should be inspired/bolstered from pops looking at countries you have good relations with, and keeping your contacts homogenous (either through forced regime changes or selectively making relations) should grant more internal stabilityOne day, when there is foreign investment as feature implemented many other nations will have a good reason to be pissed off if you turn into central planning law and seize their foreign investments.
Last edited:
- 15
- 3
Interesting that they seem to have decided that Command Economy requires you to not allow people to vote, I wonder if other changes are being made so that this makes more sense.
- 2
This is an utterly baffling and backwards change unless there's a new economic law not being shown here, and even then I question the utility of splitting it off. This is basically saying "socialism and democracy are incompatible", which is something the existing design philosophy specifically avoided with how the Council Republic, Universal Voting, and Command Economy were all separate categories that could coexist. Is this implying that Council Republics with suffrage are just going to end up being Interventionist or Laissez Faire social democracies?
- 15
- 8
- 3
Actually, why is it allowed by Autocracy/Oligarchy, but disallowed by Anarchy? You don't have either of the allowing ones, if you have Anarchy, so doesn't it always mean it disallows it?
Or is it, that you can enact the law only with Autocracy/Oligarchy, but then you can have voting and it still works, but if you switch to Anarchy it auto changes to something else?
- 3
- 1
I must admit that I am a bit confused by the requirements. I wonder if it means that we must have both Central Planning and either Autocracy or Oligarchy or if we now can use Command Economy earlier with Autocracy/Oligarchy even without the tech. I hope it's the latter.
- 4
I'd think those would be worker cooperative economic systems.
Command economy kinda implies some authoritan principles being applied to economy (I.E. the central governments dictating the goode olde 4 year plan) wich fits into authoritan communist countries and some fascism variants.
Worker cooperative implies decentralized planning with little centralized coordination only, wich is at least closer to what democratic communists and anarchists aimed to achieve.
- 7
- 2
- 1
This is correct.
You also need Central Planning unlocked on top of that, the wording is just bad.
It really doesn't, unless your definition of Socialism is X-Year-Plans.
That said ive always had issues with the way the Economy laws specifically work in the game right now, some of which will hopefully be addressed by tomorrows DD on 'Government Shares' which implies that there will hopefully be a more granular way of government intervention.
- 2
If the game's simulation works well, now capitalists won't be too happy to raise people's wages just because. So you have a situation where you can have a revolution, seize the factories, continue to grow the industrial economy, and then enact anarchy once living standards have risen. Becoming an anarchist society should preclude the continuation of central planning.
- 1
- 1
Testbed for new technology or engine is what gave us Imperator (EU Rome 2) and Sengoku. And Rome was already a failed franchise.
- 1
Dude, that's just an excuse they use after a game fails. A game publisher is not going to actually throw good money out the window just for a "test bed". There are far easier ways to test new technologies. Remember, every failed game hurts the brand. Every game that's released is released with the expectation that it will succeed in making money. It's that simple.
Yep. And look at what happened to it's successor. Do you think they'd risk doing this a second time?
- 7
Sengoku was literally them just polishing the future mechanics for CK2 to make some money. It was intended as a short term release to make money.
I think Rome was a more serious effort, but it was still them trying to make money while working out the kinks of the Jomini engine upgrades before CK3.
I think they will 100% do it again before releasing CK4. It shows a game release for shareholders, and buys them time to put out the bigger release in a better state.
I think Rome was a more serious effort, but it was still them trying to make money while working out the kinks of the Jomini engine upgrades before CK3.
I think they will 100% do it again before releasing CK4. It shows a game release for shareholders, and buys them time to put out the bigger release in a better state.
- 2
- 2