War Game vs. Political Sim

[unmerged(7365)]

From what I have seen in this forum, it seems to me that most of the people who have expressed disappointment with Victoria because of non-technical issues fall into one of two camps.

1. People who expected Victoria to be more of a wargame like HOI or something. These people want more details in the military aspects of the game (generals, unit types, etc.) and area not happy with the combat system.

2. People like me who expected Victoria to be more like a political simulation. I am more interested in the political and diplomatic aspects of the game. I really only care about the economy and war as extensions of politics and diplomacy.

SOLUTIONS?

Military System:

Of course the wargamers want more units, more leaders, and more “historical accuracy” in terms of the wars that were fought and the ways they were fought.

I on the other hand would prefer a much simpler combat system and I prefer to play an ahistorical game. I hate being forced into certain events just because that is the way it happened in real life.


Political/Diplomatic System:

I suspect that the wargamers would prefer a simpler political system whereas I would prefer more complexity and more options in the political system.

I think both camps would agree that the diplomatic system is currently dysfunctional. You should always be able to declare war or offer peace.

To me diplomacy is an extension of my foreign policy. To only be able to take one foreign policy action a year really kills my enjoyment of the game. As I have stated previously I would like more diplomacy/foreign policy options. Let me contact other nations as many times as I want just make these actions take time or money to limit me. (more like Shadow President, less like EU).

I think we can also agree that peace negotiations need serious improvements.


Economics/Trade

This is another area that I think we can all agree needs improvements. I would like to see it simplified or at the minimum at least give me the option to fully automate trade and economic decisions. I want the people to decide how to build the economy and to make policy based on how this is done. More like how it works in capitalist countries now.

The comodities system is too much like Civilization. There are simply too many commodities now and too short supplies of most. The machine tools situation is just one example of how fucked up this is.


Any comments? (Please don't bother with "Victoria rocks, you are an idiot" or "you just don't understand the game" types of replies.)


P.S. There are projects underway to improve various aspects of the game. Is anyone interested in improving the diplomacy and political systems? Are there any projects doing this now?

 

[Stingray]

I'm rather happy with it as of now.

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by Penultimate
To me diplomacy is an extension of my foreign policy. To only be able to take one foreign policy action a year really kills my enjoyment of the game. As I have stated previously I would like more diplomacy/foreign policy options. Let me contact other nations as many times as I want just make these actions take time or money to limit me. (more like Shadow President, less like EU).

Did you know that with high prestige and great power status you get significantly more DI points?

 

[GLENN]

Don't use vulgar language.

If you want a simple game go play something else.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

Originally posted by GLENN
Don't use vulgar language.

If you want a simple game go play something else.

I am trying to start a thoughtful discussion of the game. This kind of ignorance is not welcome here.

Read the entire post. I want a more complex game in some ways too.

 

[Galleblære]

Originally posted by GLENN
Don't use vulgar language.

If you want a simple game go play something else.

I just hate your kind of preacher fanboys that see no room for a rational discussion. "Don't like the game? Play something else!" Bah! Bullocks!

 

[unmerged(7365)]

Re: Re: War Game vs. Political Sim

Originally posted by Stingray
I'm rather happy with it as of now.

That's nice. So why did you reply? That adds nothing to this discussion.

Originally posted by Grosshaus
Did you know that with high prestige and great power status you get significantly more DI points?

I am well aware of that. I HAVE played the game. Read what I wrote and THINK about it. Enough knee jerk responses!!!!!


As I said before I am trying to start a thoughtful discussion about how the game can be improved. I would like this discussion to be among people who like the game but would like it to be better, people with imagination, people who use their heads for something other than a hat rack. IF YOU DON’T FIT THE CATEGORY DON’T BOTHER RESPONDING!!!!

Or as I wrote before:

Please don't bother with "Victoria rocks, you are an idiot" or "you just don't understand the game" types of replies.

 

[Aragos]

Pent,
I think you make an excellent point. Wargame-focused players want more detail. Case in point is someone who mentioned in a older thread that it would be great if the battles were fought Age of Rifles style ('grand tactical' as Jomini would say). At the same time, others are complaining about the unreality of the economic system (and yes, that includes me) or the political system.

Personally, I think the game does a decent job in doing what it was designed to do--which is a bit of politics, colonization, military and economics in the era. Simply put, to satisfy everyone, the AI would run on a Cray supercomputer. In effect, it would be 'real life' and folks would complain that it just doesnt give them enough 'choices'

I believe that some of the glaring defiencies will be fixed in the upcoming patches (especially economics and the British/Chinese hordes). Thus far, I've had fun playing the game, and bottom line (for me at least) is that is the main point. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? Nope. But at least it beats the crapload of tank-rushing RTS games people call 'strategy.'

 

[Grosshaus]

Re: Re: Re: War Game vs. Political Sim

Originally posted by Penultimate
I am well aware of that. I HAVE played the game. Read what I wrote and THINK about it. Enough knee jerk responses!!!!!

You wrote: "To only be able to take one foreign policy action a year really kills my enjoyment of the game" which made me to think you didn't know it is possible to gain more DI/year than one. I certainly didn't mean it as a knee jerk response, I apoligize if it seemed like I was.

 

[Aragos]

I have noticed from some of the threads a substantial number of players are upset that megapowerhouse countries like Honduras, Korea or the Zulus do not have the diplomatic power of oh, lets say Russia or the British Empire.

Off hand, I'd say that is pretty much right. If you want to play as a minor, do so, but understand that you won't have the oomph of a major power. Don't expect to win the game, don't expect instant industrialization or to raise armies to conquer the UK with. The game just isn't set up to work that way. Play some other game that allows you to do that--Risk, Civ II or III, etc. Even play the fantasy scenario in EU2 if that is what you are after. Just don't stand around and gripe that Vicky doesn't allow you to conquer the planet as Costa Rica.

 

[unmerged(14583)]

Re: Re: Re: War Game vs. Political Sim

Originally posted by Penultimate
That's nice. So why did you reply? That adds nothing to this discussion.

Of course it does. Your original point is 'some people think this is wrong some people think that is wrong... I think we can all agree the other is wrong'. (this seems to have changed a bit, edit perhaps?). I think it adds to the discussion to point out a) I'm not much of a tactical wargamer persay and really dig the generalized approach and b) I think the diplomacy is rather keen, defensives pacts, trading for land/tech, etc. So iow not everybody falls into a or b, you forget c) people who wanted a mix of war and politics and are happy with it.

I think it's lame people jump down your throat for daring to disagree but don't go doing the same thing when someone disagrees with you....... Indeed your solutions conflict, either piss off the wargamer or piss of the political player. Nothing wrong with stating one is happy with the mix the way it is.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

Aragos, you totally misunderstand. I don’t think that small countries should have the same diplomatic strength as great powers. What I am saying is the entire concept of diplomacy is messed up in this game as it was with EU and EU2. Look back to Shadow President for a good example of the type of diplomatic system this game should have. You don’t need to be a great power to contact other countries where you have an embassy. This doesn’t mean that you will get what you want but you should be able to ask.

Furthermore the whole prestige thing is weird. What is it but a rehash of EU victory points? Except that lack of victory points did not hinder your development in EU. You mean to tell me that a country won’t negotiate with me to buy territory or a tech they don’t have because I have too few victory points—excuse me—prestige?? BULLSHIT! They won’t buy a huge block of land because I am a low life??? It’s fucked up, there are no two ways about it.

Actually, I don’t think there should be any victory points or prestige score. It should be just like in real life (this may be the only time you see me writing that) where you make your goals and see how you do in the end. Unless your goal is world conquest there is no way to really tell who the winner is. Germany and Japan lost WWII but look where they are now, are they winners or losers? Would victory points or prestige points adequately describe their development?


Sadly it seems that, like EU2, one will have to “cheat” to play this game as it should be.


Grosshaus, sorry for snapping at you. It is just that I am sick of comments that imply that anyone who criticizes any part of the game is an idiot who doesn’t know about this or that feature. Your reply sounded like that to me.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

I think it's lame people jump down your throat for daring to disagree but don't go doing the same thing when someone disagrees with you

WTF??? The entire point of the post is that people disagree with what is wrong or right about the game. I recognize that many people disagree with me but this thread is about how to improve the game. If we were discussing green tea vs. black tea and someone posted that they prefer coffee, well, that coffee post would be inappropriate. Here we are discussing the dichotomy of war game vs. political sim, as you can see from the title of the thread. So that post was off topic.

 

[unmerged(3474)]

I am still very new to Victoria, so take my input as very preliminary, however I am a little disappointed with the 10 DI cap. Maybe it would be better to raise this to 12 or perhaps even 20? Is it not reasonable for a nation to do at least one diplomatic action per month? I understand that nations should not be signing peace treaties every day, but I think the current state of Victoria might be a little too restrictive. Perhaps there can be a Prestige penalty for nations that conduct more than a set amount of diplomatic action per month (or year)? This would simulate the reaction of other nations to a "spamming" of diplomatic actions by another nation.

 

[unmerged(14583)]

Originally posted by Penultimate
WTF??? The entire point of the post is that people disagree with what is wrong or right about the game. I recognize that many people disagree with me but this thread is about how to improve the game. If we were discussing green tea vs. black tea and someone posted that they prefer coffee, well, that coffee post would be inappropriate. Here we are discussing the dichotomy of war game vs. political sim, as you can see from the title of the thread. So that post was out of place.

Exactly.. you are speaking of the dichotomy of a war game vs. political sim. Explain to me how 'I think a mix of the two is nice' doesn't fit the thread title to a tee. It's not coffee we're talking about.... more like green tea vs. black tea vs 'gee I like one in the morning and one in the evening'.

You're talking about improving the game... but how? Make the war side bigger and piss of the political player, make the political side bigger and piss off the war player? Do either and piss off the ones who like a mix? What if I personally think the best way to improve this game is by keeping the mix between politics and war strong? I should just shutup and let people go ahead and screw up the balance because it wasn't my place to post?

I fail to see your exact solution, perhaps when you've laid it out we can discuss that in particular. As is I see it you are suggesting there are inherent flaws in the game and want to change it all. Before we go about on an overhaul it seems only prudent to make sure the flaws are better than the fix, lord knows I don't want to play a Vicky with half the trade system, twice the DI, and as many units as HoI.

WTF indeed. It's called conversation, if people disagree you try to explain to them your stance not jump down their throat. If someone thinks its fine the way it is you could try and explain further why it isn't.. why is it flawed. You are asking us to see it all changed afterall.

If I were to post a message detailing what I thought was wrong about Vicky I would expect a few mindless flames about it and I'd ignore them. If I were to post a reply to a message detailing what someone else thought was wrong with Victoria and I disagreed and they told me 'omg get out of my thread' I'd ignore that as well. Point being you have to embrace those that disagree with you and explain to them why they're wrong not dismiss them offhand. Otherwise you're just going to end up with a rant thread.

That's all I have to say about it.. I like it the way it is. I want to see it improved and it is therefore iimperative that I get that across. Thank you, have a nice day, and good luck with any mod you might throw together.. I'll certainly give it a shot.

 

[unmerged(11486)]

This thread quickly went from a discussion about how and what to change to a bs-throwing fight over who is more wrong.

There are a few things I would like to see changed, however. Prestige sould be brought down in importance greatly. Oman, Tibet, and Egypt have no business being a Great Power merely on the basis of having high prestige while they remain completely unindustrialized. I think it should remain in the game, but should be scaled back greatly in importance.

The diplomatic system definitly needs more options and flexibility. Being able to broker a peace deal between other warring nations, having alliances and treaties with multiple signatories, and being able to define the borders of released satellite states (Russia releases Finland, but keeps Mariehamn...) would make things run much better.

The military system, I think, is not too bad. Sure, there abstractions, but except for the abnormal sizes, the only problem I have is with the leader system. I don't have any viable suggestions for change, but it should be changed somehow. Maybe random leaders, a la EU2, or a list of leaders generated for the owners of certain province, but it needs to be reworked.

Steele

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by lamenick
If I were to post a message detailing what I thought was wrong about Vicky I would expect a few mindless flames about it and I'd ignore them. If I were to post a reply to a message detailing what someone else thought was wrong with Victoria and I disagreed and they told me 'omg get out of my thread' I'd ignore that as well. Point being you have to embrace those that disagree with you and explain to them why they're wrong not dismiss them offhand. Otherwise you're just going to end up with a rant thread.

lamenick summed it up pretty well (except for the expecting to getting flamed, flaming isn't allowed here), there's nothing wrong at saying one disagrees with a post. Provided of course it is done in a civil manner.

The person who has started a thread has little extra powers to ban others from posting in the thread. No thread is somebody's thread.

But enough of that, let's focus on the improve-the-game part again:

IIRC defining the borders of satellites was suggested before, but abandoned by Paradox. Apparently too hard to implement.

There are random leaders with varying attributes in the game and there are nation-specific historical leaders with pre-determined attributes. I think going back to EU2 system would be a taking a step backwards.

Penultimate: You must try to think as leaders of the era would have thought. Although actions depending on prestige might not make sense for a modern person, the mindset of the time was different. It was valued to act honorably and with pride, nations like Austria or Russia had more influence than for instance US before WW1. Why was that, US was by far a much bigger power economically? Prestige is an abstraction of all that, perhaps not a perfect one, but I personally think it's ok.

I don't think prestige should be scaled back, but instead tweak the formulas of giving prestige. One factor brought before in beta forum was to scale down the prestige gains of uncivilized nations when they wage war. I personally think industrial might should yield a bit more prestige, what are your opinions?

 

[MegaPIMP]

Excuse my lack of nowledge, but what is shadow president? and how do the diplomacy work there?

Well i can agree that diplomacy is more "bulky" than the rest of the game, what can be done is another question of course.

 

[unmerged(7365)]

Re: prestige. I don't think score should be kept at all, let alone in a way that limits what a player can do. I will keep score of my progress based on how well I meet my goals.

Your WW1 comparison is interesting. The thing is having more or less prestige did not stop a country from even PROPOSING an action. That just makes no sense to me.

Sorry for the ranting. I had very high, maybe unrealistically high, expectations for Victoria that were not met by the reality of the game. I had hoped that the things that frustrated me about EU2 would be fixed. Some were but most were not. Of course there were many things that were improved in Victoria and many great new features were added. But it is not the game I expected it to be based on the advertising and what I saw on this site pre-release. I hate to say it but I feel a bit ripped off.

I understand that it would be impossible for Paradox to make the changes needed for me to enjoy the game as I expected to. The wargamers and “I like the game as is” types would balk. Unfortunately I know now that I am going to get more frustration than fun out of this game just like EU2 was after a while.

Sigh. Anyone know a good book on game programming? Looks like I am going to have to write my own to get what I want...


Edited to answer MegaPimp: Shadow President was a game from the early 90s or late 80s where you play the president of the US. Diplomacy was done like this. You could contact any country and make any number of proposals or actions. However, each action had a timeframe for implementation. So if you wanted to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country it might take a month or more to complete. If you declared war, your troops and any allied troops moved instantly after your DOW as did any enemy and enemy allied troops.

Furthermore, each action had a specific percent likelihood of success or failure and consequences for success or failure—a cost or risk.

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by Penultimate
Re: prestige. I don't think score should be kept at all, let alone in a way that limits what a player can do. I will keep score of my progress based on how well I meet my goals.

As do I, but I also like to have the same limitations as there was historically. Limiting some actions with prestige and great power status is IMHO a good way to do this.

Sorry for the ranting. I had very high, maybe unrealistically high, expectations for Victoria that were not met by the reality of the game. I had hoped that the things that frustrated me about EU2 would be fixed. Some were but most were not. Of course there were many things that were improved in Victoria and many great new features were added. But it is not the game I expected it to be based on the advertising and what I saw on this site pre-release.

I understand that it would be impossible for Paradox to make the changes needed for me to enjoy the game as I expected to. The wargamers and “I like the game as is” types would balk. Unfortunately I know now that I am going to get more frustration than fun out of this game just like EU2 was after a while.

Advertising Nice, some publisher apparently took Victoria seriously.

I'm sorry to hear Victoria doesn't appeal to you, I hope you find a way to enjoy the game. Discussing in these forums about what you'd like to have changed might actually help in achieving this, since the developers do take suggestions given here seriously.

Sigh. Anyone know a good book on game programming? Looks like I am going to have to write my own to get what I want...


Edited to answer MegaPimp: Shadow President was a game from the early 90s or late 80s where you play the president of the US. Diplomacy was done like this. You could contact any country and make any number of proposals or actions. However, each action had a timeframe for implementation. So if you wanted to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country it might take a month or more to complete. If you declared war, your troops and any allied troops moved instantly after your DOW as did any enemy and enemy allied troops.

Furthermore, each action had a specific percent likelihood of success or failure and consequences for success or failure—a cost or risk.

Don't we all love Shadow president...

*falls back in pleasant memories*

But something Shadow President didn't have to address was how to deal with players playing minor countries. It's a lot easier to make a game with one playable country, I doubt there would be many balancing issues left if UK had been chosen as the players' only choice.