When will Victoria 2 be developed?

[RELee]

I'm not sure what aristocrats represent in European terms, but in the Americas, I see them as farmers and laborers who "done good" for themselves raising cotton, establishing fishing companies, tending rubber plantations, creating coal companies and other such RGO-related businesses. So I see aristocrats coming out of the poor base instead of coming from a capitalists base. So, in the Americas at least, the aristocrats are the Jeffersons, Washingtons, and Lees - the large plantation owners and successful dry goods businessmen. Once these successful businesses are in place, the economy is ready to develop the factories for manufactured goods, and the successful businessmen in these ventures become your capitalists. To my mind, it would make more sense to have capitalists evolve from the aristocrats, who already have money to risk on new factories, but I also believe that you could have capitalists come out of your poor base as well. The current system of creating capitalists out of clerks seems kind of out of step, another cart before the horse deal if you will.

Of course, the whole system is a heavily abstracted approximation of how society is put together, but it stays consistent with the current develop the RGOs first, followed by the manufacturing segment, which in a broad brush stroke sense of the world is the historic way the economy grew and developed.

For what it's worth.

 

[GrimPagan]

Actually, what I want from a new game is a mix of the different paradox games.

I want:
Victoria's pop, political and economy system.
EU3 dynamic event and relationship model.
HoI2 combat and unit modelling (and HoI3 research).
Crusader kings pool of adviors, political leaders and commanders. I liked the rivality that could araise between different persons who were supposed to work for me.

Then give me different epocs between 1066 and 1960.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

To answer the original question: Never.

There are just too many things counting against it, not the least of which is the unattractiveness of the time period to the US market (19th century but not a game about the US civil war? Pass) and the focus on societal and economical issues (boring - pass), but ignoring that, so many of the experiments in Victoria just didn't work out as well as was hoped for - POPs are the crowning example of that: the idea looked great in principle, was fun for a brief period of time, but turned out to be a nightmare to deal with both with respect to game balancing for developers and micromanagement for players (something that that generation of Paradox' games was very, very, poor at dealing with; Victoria (railroad, PoPs), Hearts of Iron (province upgrading....), and Crusader Kings (bridefinding, courtsizes, eventspam).

I could see Paradox making another 19th century game but, if so, I doubt it would be much like Victoria - it would have to be developed to be attractive to non-masochists with only a peripheral interest in history, with most complex interactions automated beneath the hood and manipulated via high level strategic and logistical choices, so to speak.

My major problem with Victoria was that it failed at one of the basic goals. Playing it made me feel like a clerk, which is a really bad thing for people like me who expected to play something that would make me feel like a statesman.


It is the difference between: "- an Empire under the Sun" and "- the Dawn of Accountancy".

 

[unmerged(77251)]

And thus youth goes...

Beeing only a point-visitor to this forum (once every month), I can't help noticing the change of view which takes place in particular concerning a hypothetical vicky 2.

Remember the HUGE whish list ? Basically, over the last years, I would say we had a rather young player base, amazed or not by the simulation offered by vicky, but committed to the game. Thus, a lot of us invested time and energy in hoping for a sequel which would reward in some way that commitment. (bringing in the ONE feature I always wanted )

And now, you take the first pages of that topic, and can't help noticing the difference, since many many posts express first satisfaction with the actual game, and secondly only a whish for improvement. I first wondered: were is the angry mob ? Where are all those who always shout for innovation ? But given the high fidelity of paradox games players (especially for vicky), I think most of us didn't left, and in fact just grew older.

As the year passes, youth and revolutionary blood are leaving too, and more and more of those who are in since the very beginning (5 years now!) just don't want a lot of new stuff to learn, but a loyal game proven able to do its job to get us out of our reality for a few hours. Thus the question of a new vicky changes over time; and I really think that the concept of a sequel aimed to satisfy a fan-base should be revised. To me: a sequel needs first new players, and than only old players. This situation is also emphasized in vicky because it targets an older player population: the 19th century more complex than the basic feudal system of EU2 in that it is a lot closer to us an the timescale. So if you started playing vicky in your late teens, early twenties your have now graduated, perhaps a job too, and games become a question of time rather than a question of innovation to you ...

I don't think this applies to everyone, but a least to the core-fan base of regular posters in this forum, from which I read stuff for 4 years now. So guys, here is just a short thought about going conservative over time: we have to let our youth go so that others can catch it !

VIVA VICKY 2 !

(As always: just a few thoughts from an old-Europe philosopher; everything may be wrong - anything can be discussed...)

 

[The Super Pope]

I'm new to Vicky, yet POPs don't seem to be it's major problem. I played 1.03 (or whatever it was) and loved it, even if I didn't understand all of what I was doing. It's the only strategy game I've played where peace time isn't boring. The latest patch which gets rid of the machine parts at the start makes it more boring, waiting around for the neccessary parts. But aside from that, there's no problems. Any sequel would simply nail new graphics on.

Any major changes would move it away from Victoria as we know it, and it would simply be an official version of Age of Imperialism mod with EU3 graphics.

If they are going to make a 19th century game they should give it a new name and draw a line completly under Victoria. It was a great game, but anything else should have a new name to clearly indicate that they are moving on

 

[unmerged(22834)]

Yeah, sad truth is I'm confident we'll never see vicky2

 

[jamhaw]

snip

I think that the American civil war could be popular as would the Great War. You just need to focus less on the factories and micromanagement on the back of the box. Have the screenshot be during the great war or something.

 

[unmerged(105833)]

I think that the American civil war could be popular as would the Great War. You just need to focus less on the factories and micromanagement on the back of the box. Have the screenshot be during the great war or something.

Like how Empire: Total War has the added Road to Independence campaign U.S boxart that features the revolutionary war. It would certainly be more catching than Queen Victoria.

 

[Jayavarman]

I think that the American civil war could be popular as would the Great War. You just need to focus less on the factories and micromanagement on the back of the box. Have the screenshot be during the great war or something.

AGEod has taken the approach of creating two seperate grand strategy games for the ACW and WWI, though they are also coming out with a grand strategy Victorian game.

 

[unmerged(25947)]

I think that the American civil war could be popular as would the Great War. You just need to focus less on the factories and micromanagement on the back of the box. Have the screenshot be during the great war or something.

Mislead? It disappointed me more than once in the NES days when I chose games based on their pretty covers or action packed back covers. Lesson learned, but there are always lots of people who buy games on the criteria how the box art or official screenshots in the gaming magazines look like.

Granted, some cliché pic of a man with a warcry facing towards the customer with raging battle in behind rather than some old hag would draw more buyers.
However they won't be drawn to the game by the facts why we were drawn to this game but their own idiotic impulses and would bring wrong kind of feedback with them if they haven't abandoned the game and badmouthed to ten other people who could be interested about what the game actually is.

Despite what the trend in Paradox forums is, how everyone plays the role of publishers aide - more buyers is not necessarily a good thing.

 

[RELee]

I do ever so much agree. Keep the good games from the masses. They would never understand them anyway, and the next thing you know they would be wandering around on this forum soiling the place up horridly. I could never stand for that, you know. Why, the next thing you know it would be like that horrible, horrible HOI forum where folks are so utterly rude!


:rofl:

Just kidding around. But I do agree with the point regarding misleading potential buyers.

 

[JoeGiavani]

I'm not sure what aristocrats represent in European terms, but in the Americas, I see them as farmers and laborers who "done good" for themselves raising cotton, establishing fishing companies, tending rubber plantations, creating coal companies and other such RGO-related businesses. So I see aristocrats coming out of the poor base instead of coming from a capitalists base. So, in the Americas at least, the aristocrats are the Jeffersons, Washingtons, and Lees - the large plantation owners and successful dry goods businessmen. Once these successful businesses are in place, the economy is ready to develop the factories for manufactured goods, and the successful businessmen in these ventures become your capitalists. To my mind, it would make more sense to have capitalists evolve from the aristocrats, who already have money to risk on new factories, but I also believe that you could have capitalists come out of your poor base as well. The current system of creating capitalists out of clerks seems kind of out of step, another cart before the horse deal if you will.

Of course, the whole system is a heavily abstracted approximation of how society is put together, but it stays consistent with the current develop the RGOs first, followed by the manufacturing segment, which in a broad brush stroke sense of the world is the historic way the economy grew and developed.

For what it's worth.

In Europe, the "capitalist" bourgeoisie grew out of the merchant classes of the middle-ages, meaning the middle-class suddenly had as much wealth as the aristocratic upper-class, which completely changed the political climate as the new bourgeoisie often held very liberal views.
I would have thought aristocrats in America would simply be rich plantation owners, though I don't know enough about American history to know whether these people went into business as the US industralised.

 

[Empty86]

I think that the American civil war could be popular as would the Great War. You just need to focus less on the factories and micromanagement on the back of the box. Have the screenshot be during the great war or something.

Please not the American civil war, it means nothing to us Europeans. I can think of a dozen wars to be a lot more interesting to focus on, like the Napoleon Wars. I actually prefer they don't focus on one war, a timeframe of about 100 or 200 years seems preferable to me. Not from 1700 till 1900 though, there were too many changes in that timeperiod to make a convincing theme for a game. 1700-1800 or 1800-1900, but not both.

 

[RELee]

Please not the American civil war, it means nothing to us Europeans. I can think of a dozen wars to be a lot more interesting to focus on, like the Napoleon Wars. I actually prefer they don't focus on one war, a timeframe of about 100 or 200 years seems preferable to me. Not from 1700 till 1900 though, there were too many changes in that timeperiod to make a convincing theme for a game. 1700-1800 or 1800-1900, but not both.

I'll agree that the ACW may mean nothing to you, but to claim it means nothing to Europeans as an entire group is incorrect, since AGEOD's ACW is selling well in both America and Europe, at least according to the developers on the forum. So there is a market for the ACW in Europe. Just not to you.

 

[jamhaw]

Like how Empire: Total War has the added Road to Independence campaign U.S boxart that features the revolutionary war. It would certainly be more catching than Queen Victoria.

Exactly although incidently I think they should have chosen different box art/ads for Canada. And to Empty 86 obviousley they would have to regionalise it, I was basing this of the Victoria box which I recently saw at Zellers and had to consdider how boring they made it look.