For the low, low price of $15, you too can have unique French content for this unfinished game.They already provided this information. As this is the Immersion Pack it would be 14.99 (euro or dollar)
- 16
- 4
- 1
Victoria 3 is basically in Early Access, now $15 DLC?
- Thread starter heliostellar
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why do you say this? I am honestly confused as to why you think countries are centrally planned autocracies in Vic3 but they aren't in Vic2.
Both games feature private investment and government investment in the economy.
Both games have laws that dictate how and when private investment and government investment can happen.
Both games have political limitations on changing laws and putting parties into power.
Both games feature a "goods based" system for building most things.
Both games feature various possible limitations on enfranchisement.
Both games feature mechanics for discriminating against POPs.
Both games feature political agitation from the population that can result in revolutions and secession movements.
Both games feature POPs being happier or unhappier if their economic conditions are good or bad.
Both games feature literacy that has an impact on how POPs either promote (Vic2) or qualify for jobs (Vic3).
Both games feature social institutions that have different levels of funding and political support.
What both games do not have is the "boost militancy to scam conservatives into voting for reforms you want" mechanics, as that's only in Vic2. And both games do not have the "aristocrats are !@#$ing useless because they don't ever invest their money back in the economy" as, again, that's only in Vic2. In Vic3, you can't just keep boosting the anger among your population to generate support for programs you want to implement, and in Vic3, aristocrats can (and will) interact with the private investment mechanics. In some cases, they can be really efficient at investing in projects that they should be involved in depending on your laws.
- 7
- 6
- 4
- 1
Not going to comment in regards to the "unfinished claim" as that is largely a difference of opinion.
But I hate to crush people's dreams, but $15 is not very much money anymore. I swear gamer's minds perpetually exist in 2005. After inflation, change in development costs, increase in software complexity, $15 is quiet frankly pennies. The cash put towards music and art alone dwarfs what it used to be. A single fast food lunch costs close to that. 3 gallons of gas. A month of multivitamins.
Video games are one of the few things that have not increased in cost in decades. In fact, it has gone down. Which is part of why pumping out DLC and skins are how companies make their money.
Taking into account inflation, games should be costing over $100. People can disagree all they like, this not an opinion, it is a monetary fact. A lot of times people lament DLC and how good expansions were back in the day, but cost-adjusted, those expansions were as expensive as multiple DLC today combined.
This isn't a comment on how good the DLC will be however, it could be hot garbage. But that is a separate issue. PDX definitely has quality issues, but I'm speaking on cost, not quality control.
Last edited:
- 9
- 9
- 2
Honestly some nuance in what IGs are willing to support and oppose would add some nice depth to Vic 3. Fear of revolution really did lead to groups accepting changes in this period that they might otherwise have opposed, and there's historical examples of pragmatists that allowed some change to keep power just as there are those of dogmatists who failed to give enough and lost out for it.
There should be some nuance (royalist conservatives should never back the end of monarchy, obviously, and some IG/party leaders should just never want to back down over anything, especially in more radical movements), but I can't totally write off this element of Vic 2 politics just because it could be gamed. It would be nice for IGs to be more than eternal, unwavering "ayes" or "nays", and to have some political depth.
- 4
- 1
I don't disagree. In fact, I like what I'm seeing in the upcoming DLC release.
But let's not pretend that the Vic2 system wasn't open to weird manipulation. The idea that the conservative establishment would compromise to prevent revolution is a good one, but when optimum gameplay in Vic2 sometimes boiled down to "click on 100% of militancy increasing events so I can pass some legislation," it can sometimes make the politics of the game seem silly.
Imagine this news article from an alternate timeline:
"In other news today, Bismark was able to convince the legislature to enact universal male suffrage because he ordered repression in German Cameroon that increased militancy enough to make the Junkers scared enough to allow its passage."
- 5
- 2
- 2
- 1
Oh I'm not interested in pretending the Vic 2 political system was a work of art. But I do worry that sometimes flaws and weaknesses and areas where Vic 3 lack depth are justified because something in Vic 2 was also flawed or weak or lacking in depth. I'd sooner we made the underbaked but decent idea from Vic 2 work than lose it altogether!
- 6
- 1
- 1
Victoria 3 is basically in Early Access, now $15 DLC?
The game can barely even do what Victoria II could do out of the gate. Let's face it. Victoria 3 is still not complete. Elections don't even work for christsakes, and we JUST got autonomous investment last patch. I think it is pretty tone-deaf...
I tried to warn Wiz about the UI multiple time before the release of the game, including on Twitter, but he won't listen. The UI and design is very bad, It's not because we play a victoria period game that we want a vintage design, the text are too overhelming and typography hard to read, ADD ICONS NOT TEXT, MORE VISUALS LESS TEXT our eyes will thank you.
- 6
- 2
- 1
- 1
I am not saying that Victoria 2 was some flawless IP, but at least it was feature-complete.
As to centrally planned economies in V2, please tell me how I can centrally plan this economy without enacting political reforms:
- 5
- 5
- 1
Versus this:
and...
I mean, you can literally nationalize entire industries by just flippantly changing the ownership production method. Stalin's ghost wishes he didn't have to starve millions of Ukrainians to get this level of central control.
and...
I mean, you can literally nationalize entire industries by just flippantly changing the ownership production method. Stalin's ghost wishes he didn't have to starve millions of Ukrainians to get this level of central control.
- 6
- 4
- 1
It is like defending Amazon corporate practices because "they increase productivity".
Forge of the Chaos Dwarves cost almost 20$ and it is a huge expansion, with mechanics, a lot of new models, animations, maps, balance passes and other stuff.
RimWorld biotech DLC is a whooping 25$ and it overhauls entire game, with amount of content worth dozens of "Voice of the People".
VoP is a FLAVOR PACK for 15$.
- 5
- 3
- 1
Umm, by doing what I did with basically every monarchy in the game and appointing reactionary parties with state capitalist policies to the lower house?
Day 1 of the game, and I've started construction of a liquor distillery in one of the stupidest places imaginable. Centrally planned for your convenience. This isn't a Russia strategy, either. Load up Austria, France, Prussia, or any other monarchy with a reactionary state capitalist political party (basically all of them). This should even work for uncivs if they have factories unlocked in their westernization process. (Ye old "appoint reactionaries as Japan and build factories as you westernize" strategy.)
Hell, I consider appointing reactionaries to the lower house and kick starting the liquor industry an important opening gambit in all Vic2 games unless I'm playing a democracy or Britain (because Britain has other things to do). Given the high demand and low input costs for liquor, it always made a solid investment early on. Better than letting your idiot capitalists start construction on yet another new fertilizer factory that will fail... again.
There are other strategies, of course, but let's not pretend that the prevalence of state capitalist parties and allowed ideologies for various iterations of monarchies isn't a recipe for easily running centralized economic planning. Sure, you can't appoint the communists or socialists to power as Austria in 1836 even if they exists (because monarchies except for HMs were restrictive about parties you were allowed to appoint), but you don't need them, either.
In fact, I dare say one of the most powerful overall strategies in Vic2 was to use state capitalism early in the game to get baseline industries going, then ease of to interventionism and finally LF later in the game once the factory slots were filled up. The capis then couldn't make stupid decisions by building stupid factories, but they could invest money in expanding existing factories you built earlier. And this isn't an exploit, either. It's literally a basic part of game design.
- 10
- 2
- 2
I repeat,
Unlike in Victoria 3 (where you always allowed to centrally plan), if you do appoint a reactionary government you will get militancy, and a democracy would never be allowed to manually appoint its party in power.
Again, V2 was not perfect, but it at least tried to pretend that not all countries were autocratic centrally planned states.
Last edited:
- 6
- 3
- 1
Appointing a political party isn't a reform in the context of Vic2. Reforms in Vic2 specifically require the consent of the UH as you well know.
Appointing a political party is merely a typical function of monarchies and other autocracies in Vic2 (although the other autocracies have strict restrictions on the ideology of parties they are allowed to appoint.)
By your definition, any political party winning and election is a "reform." Democrats win in 1860? That's a reform. Bismark appoints Zentrum? That's a reform. The Kadets win the 1900 election in Russia? That's a reform, but then the next day the Tsar fires them and appoints the Slavophiles giving us a second reform.
I'm sorry, but parties gaining power in the lower house is simply "business as usual" in Vic2. It's not some kind of reform, and it's not even unusual. It's something that happens with great frequency. It's also not how the game uses the term.
- 5
- 2
- 2
Dial back the tangents, please. We're talking about a game.
In V2, appointing a political party made you pay a price, albeit it may not have been well-balanced. It pissed off your non-accepted cultures and increased militancy--there were trade-offs and if it gave you enough militancy it would spawn rebels. You didn't get to centrally plan all the time or "for free." You had to actually strategize and manipulate your political situation, and pay the requisite (again, poorly balanced) price.
Now, the game doesn't bother with tradeoffs, everyone automatically gets the right to centrally plan at the jump and never loses it. There are no tradeoffs, it's always optimal to centrally plan and micro everything.
What is new is actually the increased level of centrally planning you are allowed. Apparently, capitalists in the Victoria 3 world use only the production methods their government tells them to?
- 5
- 3
- 1
You mean the same militancy players would use to pass reforms, so it was actually a benefit sometimes?
And if you go look at the screenshot I posted, Russia gained a whopping 1.42 militancy. On day 1 of the game. And since there are no elections in Russia at game start (or in some other countries), you don't have to keep doing it.
It takes more effort to justify and invade Korea as Austria in 1836 than it does to implement a centrally planned economy in Vic2. And it's one of the optimal approaches at game start for several countries.
LF in Vic2 has some real strengths. And since it steals away a big chunk of your construction and allocates to the AI, giving up that control allows you to make use of LF's other benefits in Vic3. The efficiency with which capitalists and shopkeepers invest in LF is nice, and the reduction in interest rates is a license to run a government deficit permanently.
The only problem I have with the way the game works in this regard is that at certain levels of economic development, there are problems with how the AI tries to use the investment pool. I think there's a bug where the AI can only order X number of constructions per unit of time, so past a certain point, private investment can't utilize as much construction as it legally should be able to. We're talking about economies of scale along the lines of 24,000 CP and such.
If that's your complaint, then yes, I do find it odd that under LF and interventionism, industries aren't choosing their own PMs. But let's not forget that in the period there were plenty of situations where governments did mandate specific PMs in specific cases for various reasons. (Some of which were disastrous.)
So, yes, I agree that this is not really optimal and under LF and interventionism, the ability of your government to dictate all PMs all the time is weird.
- 2
- 2
- 2
This is simply not true. The only industry that you can nationalize under LF and interventionism is railways if I recall correctly. To change ownership PM into state owned you need to change your economic law.
And regarding PMs, if changing them makes the economy centrally planned in Vic3, the same is true for Vic2. Because the equivalent of the PMs in Vic2 was researching certain technologies that changed the way all factories in your country operated (well actually it was just a modifier). And that’s without counting that you could made people convert to certain pop types, or made them vote certain parties using national focuses. Or decide the results of elections by choosing options in events (something that I miss). But deciding every technology researched in the country is not centrally planned communism, not all of that above. It is funny how people can accept this unrealistic control of the technological progress, but not the idea that the player can be put in shoes of the investors in capitalist economies for gameplay purposes. That’s apparently unacceptable for some.
But I guess this bunch of Stalin loving communists had it coming. How did they dare making capitalist economies playable? With all the fun and immersion you got in Vic2 having to play your liberal country under state capitalism while ordering the creation of capitalist with NFs, so you could play the game and industrialize.
My strategy in monarchies with elections was to make a liberal party to win the election and then switch to a reactionary one with state capitalism. Then as soon as I could call for a new election I did it. After that rinse and repeat. All to get that sweet militancy so I could pass political reforms. The main challenge was that militancy reduced too fast. This was my to go strategy with Spain.
If you ignore that you could tell people what to vote in the elections…
- 6
- 2
- 2
Technology bamboo forest was quite a weak part of Vic 2. I do not accept player being put in shoes of the investors in capitalist economies as much as I do not accept directing technological progress. Worst offenders were cultural and commerce techs. National focuses are okay in my book, but I wish they had associated administrative costs.
- 1
- 1
I wonder if OP even played victoria 2 out of the gatwe.On release that game, as much as I love it was a complete bug fiesta and hardly operational. Even with all the patches and dlcs to the end of the games development its still a bug fest. Victoria 3 in comparison works and does mostly what it sets out to do.
Last edited:
- 7
- 2
- 1
For me is the opposite. I can put myself in the shoes of investors and researchers, because they exist in the real world. But I’m not sure what national focuses are supposed to be, they are very abstracted IMO. But this kind of stuff at the end is a matter of taste.
- 2
- 2
- 1
That argument is starting to get very outdated. New full releases of PC games these days seems to be priced at $49.99-$69.99, which is an increase from a decade ago. Vic 2 had a suggested retail price of $39.99, Vic 3 cost $49.99, that's a 25% increase (before adding any localised price adjustments).
In addition, video games are probably one of the industries which has had the biggest growth over the past decades, and it has also evolved from being an industry where producing more copies led to higher costs to being an industry where producing extra copies is basically free. Paradox have seen a good share of that growth.
Based on my experience with being able to buy physical copies of games at a reduced price as an employee at a store selling video games, digital distributors such as Steam also takes a smaller cut of the retail price than what was the case with physical stores, but there may have been local variations to that.
Companies does not need to pump out the amount of monetised content they do, nor does it need to cost as much as it does. Most of them would do just fine with for example slightly lower prices. Most people won't care if it costs $13.99 or $14.99 though, so why would they charge $13.99, or add an extra small free patch? They certainly won't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
- 1
- 1
- 1