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.Still comes off as an incredible douchebag.
- 9
- 2
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.Still comes off as an incredible douchebag.
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.
Listen up! In my opinion, what you are suggesting is very cruel. Victoria 3 may have come out with flaws, but they are fixable!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.
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.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.
This ignores the likelihood that if Vicky3 fails we will never see another Vicky game.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.
Tomorrow is dev diary day! Before that, a small teaser! Can you spot the difference compared to 1.1?
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!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.
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.
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?
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?
I'd think those would be worker cooperative economic systems.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?
This is correct.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?
It really doesn't, unless your definition of Socialism is X-Year-Plans.This is basically saying "socialism and democracy are incompatible"
This ignores the likelihood that if Vicky3 fails we will never see another Vicky game.
Why should a company invest into a failed franchise?
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.Testbed for new technology or engine is what gave us Imperator (EU Rome 2) and Sengoku.
And Rome was already a failed franchise.