Why is Victoria 3 not coming any time soon, my two cents...

  • 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.
All I wrote was my honest opinion, and nothing more, obviously, and I get that you disagree with it, but why the sarcasm? Did I came across as too patronizing, maybe? In this case, I'm sorry, didn't really mean to. What I meant essentially was that Johan intervention seemed (to me) like he was mainly trying to promote Imperator - which is a game I actually like - by, counterintuitively, and dare I say ungracefully, smearing V2's reputation of complexity. Which I didn't like. And I then tried to explain why.

Also, back on topic now, I'm personally confident that V3 has been in the making for quite some time already, and will happen when it's done. And despite my unconditional love for V2 complexity (I insist), I'm not even against a more abstracted version of the previous installment. Let say, for instance, the economy. If you really can't make it work in the V2 style, I understand, maybe nobody can, and so, dumbing it down a bit to ensure its stability and predictability is okay, I guess. On the other hand, the purely political side of the game should be made more complex and more interactive, frankly, it's already pretty dumb as is, with only the "elections" mechanic you have to force every year to have a slight chance to influence the opinions of your pops in the long run... I'd like to appoint ministers, for instance, like in HOI, and interact with a parliament, like the Senate in Imperator, when my country has one, more than randomly, through events only.

But, at this point, I don't really care anymore what a V3 would look like, honestly. I just want, no I need a new PDS game set in the Victorian era. I'm so desperate to again suddenly turn a poor old unsuspecting agrarian society, still semi-feudal at first, into a nationalistic industrial hell hole yearning for safety regulations, pensions, paid leaves and a first world war... the wait is killing me at times. Let me teach once more to those filthy peasants the way of progress, hopefully before 2022!

Fair enough.
 
to be honest, all of this is conjecture. EUV in 2021? No I don't think so.
CKIII is coming out late this year, I believe (this is conjecture too) that VICIII is already being worked on but very early stages so that is probably 2022 and EUV maybe 2023 or 2024.
They just released their quarterly report and EUIV is still one of their top earners. It is a fleshed out game, everyone loves it, they are still releasing expansions, why would they make it obsolete next year! No, EUIV has 3-4 years left. 2-3 years of active players with good population.
Victoria III will derive some aspects of HOI and EU; releasing VICIII now while HOI is still getting fleshed out (through expansions) would be a bad move. HOI will be fleshed out by 2022 (following that will be accessory expansions) and by that time VICIII will be ripe for release.

Also, Paradox is a company that has made it clear that it doesn't like to publish release dates (this is due to the public entitlement) therefore you're going to have to be patient. But just by having common sense and an understanding a bit about business, you would know to a degree, when they wouldn't or shouldn't release a new installment of their IP's.
Frankly, I was surprised they made a release date for Bloodlines 2 but maybe it has something to do with the developer. Notice though that anything from Paradox Development Studio isn't labelled with a release date until it is more than likely in it's polishing stage, including expansions.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
EUIV is still one of their top earners. It is a fleshed out game, everyone loves it, they are still releasing expansions, why would they make it obsolete next year! No, EUIV has 3-4 years left. 2-3 years of active players with good population.

Well, CK2 is still quite popular and definitely fleshed out. Game doesn't have to be dead for the sequel to be released. I think, EU: Rome and Victoria's situation (game dead for years with fans desperate for a sequel) is not the rule, but an exception, and it happened because the devs didn't have the resources to develop the sequels sooner, not because they believe it's a good idea to do so.
EU4 is on it's last legs. Quality of it's updates has been decreasing for the last couple of years, new ambitious DLC is delayed and is not actually going to change that much, so the team obviously is undermanned. There's very little room for revolutionary changes given rigid structure of the base game mechanics (economy, trade, warfare, colonization, internal politics etc.), and without revolutionary changes what exactly are they going to add to the game? Regional flavor packs? Well, they are okay, but it's not something they will be able to keep the game alive for 3-4 years.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I also think EUIV development is ramping down. Emperor is probably akin to what Holy Fury was to Crusader Kings 2; the last swan song revamping some major systems that needed some love before going into maintenance mode. So we'll probably not be seeing any more major DLC after Emperor, although perhaps a content pack or two. If going by CK2, I'd expect EUV to be announced PDXCon 2022, with a release in 2023. Although I reserve a margin of error of +/- 1 year for that prediction.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I also think EUIV development is ramping down. Emperor is probably akin to what Holy Fury was to Crusader Kings 2; the last swan song revamping some major systems that needed some love before going into maintenance mode. So we'll probably not be seeing any more major DLC after Emperor, although perhaps a content pack or two. If going by CK2, I'd expect EUV to be announced PDXCon 2022, with a release in 2023. Although I reserve a margin of error of +/- 1 year for that prediction.

Yeah, which is exactly what I said, 3 years away for EUV, 4 years if it encounters delays.
 
I will buy CK3 and would buy VIC3 as well. Wonder if I'm in the minority.

I'd also buy both, but not on preorders. They'd have to earn back my trust for that.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ironically v2 has far simpler and cruder mechanics than imperator.

I coded both.. the politics/pop system for v2 is something that i wrote in a week..


You say this but then why it's not in every other game, the POP and economic system of Vicky would make every other game better but yet it's not there. I for one hate that the newer games keep getting more and more simple, for example how is that Stellaris have less resources than Vicky II (which I would argue already needed more of them), basically in Stellaris you never have to fight to corner one particular resource, hell you never really have to try a resource rich Solar System because for some reason most of it it's dependent on the retarded random anomalies.

That's why I love Vicky so much and keep disliking the newer games less and less, the underlying systems are way too simple and all the flavor comes from random stuff (which it's awful), I also hated the random events in Vicky but at least they weren't that important there, except for the dice that's completely random and entirely annoying. Most of Vic2 fun comes from it's dynamic systems not from random stuff happening.

On the other hand Stellaris which like half of the games is the exploring is all random stuff happening with very little control of how it goes, then CKII which about 50% it's the role-playing also pure random stuff.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
You say this but then why it's not in every other game, the POP and economic system of Vicky would make every other game better but yet it's not there. I for one hate that the newer games keep getting more and more simple, for example how is that Stellaris have less resources than Vicky II (which I would argue already needed more of them), basically in Stellaris you never have to fight to corner one particular resource, hell you never really have to try a resource rich Solar System because for some reason most of it it's dependent on the retarded random anomalies.

That's why I love Vicky so much and keep disliking the newer games less and less, the underlying systems are way too simple and all the flavor comes from random stuff (which it's awful), I also hated the random events in Vicky but at least they weren't that important there, except for the dice that's completely random and entirely annoying. Most of Vic2 fun comes from it's dynamic systems not from random stuff happening.

On the other hand Stellaris which like half of the games is the exploring is all random stuff happening with very little control of how it goes, then CKII which about 50% it's the role-playing also pure random stuff.

I'm not sure what do you mean by "random stuff". Paradox are clearly moving away from randomness in their games, and newer games are much less random than Victoria in major gameplay aspects. Responses to diplomatic actions are now determined instead of having % chance of success, CB generation is also not a gamble (unlike Victoria, where you can get 20 or 0 infamy during CB generation depending purely on luck). Inventions in Imperator are bought for money instead of having a random chance to appear, like in Victoria.
Stellaris doesn't need many resources, because it's not a deep simulation of the economy. In Stellaris, all economic activities are controlled by the player, so it would have been very frustrating if we had to keep in mind 20+ different resources. In Victoria it works because the economy is largely out of the player's hands. Also, Stellaris is literally a game about exploration, how do you think this game could have been designed without the anomalies and resources distribution being random?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You say this but then why it's not in every other game, the POP and economic system of Vicky would make every other game better but yet it's not there. I for one hate that the newer games keep getting more and more simple, for example how is that Stellaris have less resources than Vicky II (which I would argue already needed more of them), basically in Stellaris you never have to fight to corner one particular resource, hell you never really have to try a resource rich Solar System because for some reason most of it it's dependent on the retarded random anomalies.

That's why I love Vicky so much and keep disliking the newer games less and less, the underlying systems are way too simple and all the flavor comes from random stuff (which it's awful), I also hated the random events in Vicky but at least they weren't that important there, except for the dice that's completely random and entirely annoying. Most of Vic2 fun comes from it's dynamic systems not from random stuff happening.

On the other hand Stellaris which like half of the games is the exploring is all random stuff happening with very little control of how it goes, then CKII which about 50% it's the role-playing also pure random stuff.

Vicky’s pop system isn’t in other games because different people like different things. I find Vicky’s pop system to be an irritating distraction, so I prefer simpler pop management systems in my games.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Ironically v2 has far simpler and cruder mechanics than imperator.

I coded both.. the politics/pop system for v2 is something that i wrote in a week..

Pop system from vic2 was a big feature. the variables consciousness/militancy work pretty well, and I don't see any gain in trivializing this in the happiness that is being used in another pops.

part of the fun in vic2 is the chaotic behaviour from the pops, that they can't be tamed. No cookie cutter builds.

Not always a parsimonious model is the answer. If the behaviour modeled is chaotic and there is enough PC power, then good complex agent based models is the way to go.

To explain how the pops in victoria 2 work, I did made 3 videos that last a total of 80 minutes. And there is room for more.


On the other hand, pops in imperator rome can be explained in less than 1 minute.

See the change, in victoria 2 there were complex agents that the player almost could not control that brought a lot of random scenarios organically plausibles.
In imperator, there are trivialized agents that the player can micromanage. (and even in the release the player *had to*)

I prefer the uncontrollabe complex agents of victoria 2 instead of the microable trivialized pops from imperator.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I was really surprised they announced a CK3 before a Vicky 3. I too long for the day they do Vicky 3 and I hope at some point they make 1914 a possible starting point.
I remember them saying a while ago that they're gonna stop adding extra start dates since they're mostly unused as everyone just starts at the earliest they possibly can.
 
I remember them saying a while ago that they're gonna stop adding extra start dates since they're mostly unused as everyone just starts at the earliest they possibly can.

Then I hope if there is ever a Vicky3, it will allow multiple start dates to be added via mods.

If there is one game where multiple start dates make sense, it would be a Victoria game. There is a lot going on in almost every decade, and even start dates up to 1890s would allow rapid industrialization i.e. other countries can catch up to the likes of Germany and Britain, and change history.

I always imagined a Victoria game to have these start dates -

1821 - Concert of Europe, beginning of industrial era
1836 - the standard Vicky start, Opium War in China
1848 - Revolutions and rise of nations in Europe, collapse of Sikh Empire, establishment of the whole American frontier
1853 - Crimean War, Taiping Rebellion, last chance for restoration of old empires in India
1861 - American Civil War, rise of Bismarck and Prussia's path to dominance, unification of Italy, Bakumatsu period in Japan, end of the East India Company's power
1870 - Franco-Prussian War, Vatican Question in Italy, Reconstruction in America, Anglo-Afghan Wars, modernization of Japan, Russo-Turkish Wars and collapse of Ottoman Empire in Balkans
1881 - Scramble for Africa and the start of New Imperialism, colonization across Asia and Pacific, attempted modernization of China, continuation of Trail of Tears and settling of the American frontier...and I think an 1884 (Conference of Berlin) start date can work well instead of 1881 as well.
1890 - turning alliances, establishment of the "Big Three" great powers, Sino-Japanese War, probably final decade for any minor nation to industrialize to the level of a secondary/great power
1901 - height of the imperial era and colonialism, mostly stable borders, rise of modern technology, arms race in Europe, Boxer Rebellion, Russo-Japanese War and the last chance to save the old empire in China
1912 - Prelude to the Great War, Italo-Turkish War, Balkan Wars, Chinese Revolution, and I feel this is a good substitute for a 1914 start date as well
1914 - Optionally, a start date where WW1 has already began. WW1 was the culmination of that era after all.
1919 - Interwar period, a late and final start date like 1789 in EU4, only this time most nations would face massive economic difficulties, debts, a massive pandemic and attempt to survive as revolutions sweep over Russia, Germany and other nations

I would love to make a mod to slowly add these in the game. I am one of the few players who actively play the later start dates.

...Either that, or Paradox could keep only 1821/1836 start date and instead use their new mission/focus trees and event chains to drive the world into a flexible yet historical direction.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So that paradox has a botomless pit of overpriced DLC to sell you.

I wonder when "paradox release incomplete games and then sell tons of dlcs to finish them" meme will finally die. After CK3 release, maybe? It wasn't that funny even at the peak of Imperator + Golden Century fiasco, and it's even less meaningful now (where are the tOnS oF cAsHgRaB dLcS for "featureless" Imperator? They only sell small content packs, and add tons of actual content to the game for free). What are the Paradox games that actually can be described by this template? HoI4? Wow, that's a lot, let's forever believe that every Paradox game will be like this.

Edit: of course, we must call out the developers when they do something questionable or plain wrong. It leads to the devs changing course and is good for everyone (we get better games, devs save their reputation and stay in business). But there is a difference between raising alarm over a particular issue and just being cynical and dismissive based on some stereotypes. I don't believe anyone profits form the latter.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I enjoy the volcanic chaos of vic2’s pop system, but I don’t think pop consciousness/militancy have a place in I:R.

vic2’s pop system works for Vicky because of the era it’s set, ie uneven rising literacy, industrialization etc. leading to challenging of social norms in place since at least 800ad and domination of the world by competing European powers.

Also, Vicky2 games are relatively short compared to EU4, so more randomness/less determinism is not as risky for the player. I don’t like total chaos, I don’t like railroads, but I do like guardrails that allow player/AI freedom within the realm of plausibility.
 
  • 3
Reactions: