V3 before CK3

[Kriegsspieler]

Had a game once, Imperialism, (DOS based) that covered the time period. For the time it was quite complex: the production lines to build finished products to feed the military and the masses; needed to make nice with the undeveloped countries to get access to their raw materials; go to war with the other 4 super powers... Nice game. I was constantly looking for a replacement since it wouldn't run on even a year 2000 machine. Someone engineered a way to get it to work on an advanced Windows machine, but it looked like a crayon drawing.

Then I found Vicky II. Well, I found the original, but 2 was already out and I didn't play the first one much before I moved up. Then it took me a year of one loss after another, usually for different reasons, to finally start holding my own. I have a few Paradox titles, but I just keep going back and getting trashed in different countries in Vic 2.

Imperialism was an interesting and challenging game, but I would not have thought of comparing it to Victoria. Interesting that you thought of it.

Anyway, the great thing about Vicky 2 is that there's plenty of interesting things to do in it that don't involve accumulating the highest score. Sure, you can game the system so that you come out ahead of the UK, but watching and trying to manage everything else that's going on is a game unto itself.

 

[Oxymore]

Imperialism!

So many hours spent on that on my old mac. Trying NOT to win so the game would go on.

I’m a sucker for games with supply/production chain management. Imperialism tickled that itch, Anno to a lesser extent, and of course Victoria 1&2.

Securing raw materials through war or diplomacy, blanketing the country with rail, managing shipping, military build up etc, and of course the time period. There are similarities with Imperialism for sure. Viccy took it many steps further with global markets, politics and all.

Now if ViccIII could have all of that except it works properly, adds proper international trade agreements, a balance between private and public interests, real war logistics, and... and...

I’ll stop now.

One thing that I would like to see one day is a more realistic model of currency. That is one tool the state has a lot of control over irl, more than industrial development in laissez faire economies anyway.

The whole world exchanging ducats or pounds at a fixed rate in pdx games works for gameplay reasons, but I wonder if it could be a fun lever to play with in-game.

Talk about simulation and complexity...

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Stop, please -- you all are making me want to find it somewhere and start playing again. Surely by now someone has ported it to Windows 10?
I don't care if the graphics are primitive.
Ahh -- I see that GOG has a version for sale that they claim runs on Windows 10.

 

[Challenge]

Ahh -- I see that GOG has a version for sale that they claim runs on Windows 10.

Oh, you Bas...

You just had to go and find one didn't you.

I found one on Steam, but it looks to be a modern remake and is divided in Dark Continent (early access) and Fate of India. Not the same game at all from the look of it.

As far as comparing the original to Vickie, I would think it was a natural thing. Both dealt with the same time period and the same types of issues. Vickie is just the game on massive amounts of steroids. Very much more complex, but all the same pieces: How much population to put where; Spend on military or industry, army or navy; developing the resource production and rail transportation; make and break alliances; influence undeveloped countries to sell you their raw materials and then make them colonies; go to war to protect your Empire.

Imperialism was quite complex for its time.

 

[RELee]

Strategy and Tactics magazine had a small boardgame of WWI that I thoroughly enjoyed back in the 70s.

 

[Ethanol]

The one consideration on the part of Paradox is that a revamp of CK2 > CK3 should pay off fairly quickly, as it appeals to a broader base of support than V2 and has a lot of immediate recognition from strategy gamers. V3 will probably sell well in the long run, as the die-hard adherents to more historical simulations will very likely show almost fanatical support over time (when you've only a couple couple of choices, you support them fanatically), but it won't be the quick shot of cash that a mass-market game would provide.

Basically, we're talking about two decent sellers, one that makes its money up front and the other that generates nearly as much or more, but does so more gradually over the long term. After Imperator, they may have opted for the quick shot of cash.

The other consideration is that a mass-market targeted remake of the Victoria series would very likely drive away the players that it's supposed to satisfy, while not capturing nearly as much of the popular market as a Dark Ages or WWII game tends to draw by its very nature.

I'd also wager that after the IR release they probably revisited their assessment of the expectations of the fanbase in regards to V3, I can just imagine the state of the forums if they released a V3 "EU4" style...

The mistake they made with IR is that they assumed the EU4 model was good to apply everywhere and that their market population is way more homogenous than it really is. The truth is that every pdx game is sensibly different which allows for a completely different gaming experience and avoids dejà vu and boredom between the titles. In a way it's good that IR released like that since it would have been quite a shame to see all paradox games slowly drift into the same game experience. (And we need a victoria V3, not a EU4/HOI4 one !)

 

[Garuda]

Disappointed that again a new game is announced and its not Vicky 3.

I spent so much money on CK2+DLC that I don't really want to start again with CK3.

Still waiting for that elusive holy grail that is V3. I wonder whether it will it ever come to be?

 

[deanwebb]

SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO GET VICTORIA 3:

1. Have some redshirts arrive to unify all the development teams, then combine them into one grand V3 dev team.
2. Create an "Ems Dispatch" sort of missive to Paradox, thereby goading them into aggressively developing V3.
3. Sail a gunboat up to their offices and "negotiate" with them regarding how V3 development cycles translate into less shelling.
4. Call in a hot tip to the governments of England, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Italy, and the USA that there are Boxers holed up in the PDX offices, holding western diplomats hostage and preventing the development of V3, a game which represents their economic and political interests.
5. I learn how to code and do it myself. (Seems this last one is a bit far-fetched. I'm sure one of the other schemes will work just fine.)

 

[Acularius]

Well, at least one game in this list won't appear from Paradox before Vicky 3. Terminal Conflict is in an early-release stage, and its being developed by at least one or two of the people who tried to do East vs. West.

http://terminalconflict.com/

Looks like a decent game, actually.

Appreciate the shout out!

Ahh -- I see that GOG has a version for sale that they claim runs on Windows 10.

Ah damn... now I have to give it a shot.
Previously, I just had this account for some Sierra games, like Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom.
Now Imperialism!
Will give it a shot.

Edit: It runs, I'll see if it plays.



That said, as for the topic at hand.
Crusader Kings II feels too fresh, and whereas I understand the appeal of the 'blank slate' of CKIII it just feels too recent.
Whereas the Victoria series hasn't been explored by the new engine yet.
So I'm a bit wary of CK3, given Imperator Rome's release, and yes it has improved over the past half a year since release but I tend to think that's where we should have been a half a year ago.
That said, I'll follow CK3's development but I don't feel the hype the same way I had for Imperator... or Victoria 2.

 

[Vohen]

I can only really understand this move when taking Imperator into account.
PDX was in a very good place to take risks up to this year, and they did, with Imperator.
So seeing how things turned out at the release of that game, perhaps they would indeed need to go for a safer option next time, and that is CK3.
Of course, that would imply that Vic3 would be a risky option, which I don't quite agree, but I can't argue that the safest one is indeed CK3.

Seeing how Imperator's release was, I'm glad they didn't announce Vic3 last year, and if an Imperator had to be sacrificed at release for a better Vic3 in the future, I'd take that deal.
But it might've had this side effect as well, delaying Vic3 even further in favor of something safer.

 

[deanwebb]

Imperator proved that we, the Paradox gamers, *demand* complexity and realism.

 

[Kovax]

Imperator proved that we, the Paradox gamers, *demand* complexity and realism.

I just hope they don't take entirely the wrong message from it, and say "we didn't streamline it enough for the masses".

 

[Vohen]

I just hope they don't take entirely the wrong message from it, and say "we didn't streamline it enough for the masses".

Well, seeing the direction Imperator is going currently, I'm quite confident that they got the right message.