That it wasn't very cool to call all us, who are not thrilled about MDS, are just stubborn and stuck in some way of thinking. Some of us have good reasons to think that MDS is too different from other Paradox games and not that fun.
Why not Vic2 in a modern setting?
- Thread starter Noblejms
- 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.
- Status
That it wasn't very cool to call all us, who are not thrilled about MDS, are just stubborn and stuck in some way of thinking. Some of us have good reasons to think that MDS is too different from other Paradox games and not that fun.
You could say the same about EU:Rome or about CK. We were talking about period 1950-2000 or something similiar.. How is it so different?
Plus, it is not what I meant. Her post was pretty much to say that she doesn't like the idea, what she already stated in her first post. Fair enough, but it doesn't mean that idea is wrong - it just means she wouldn't buy the game. Lot of us would.
"She" meant to suggest that perhaps the idea was not as "slam-dunk" as suggested.
And I really did take offense at the comment about Vicky fans being a "clique" that was pandered to by Paradox.
And I really did take offense at the comment about Vicky fans being a "clique" that was pandered to by Paradox.
It doesn't matter whether Paradox will do a MDS game or not.
The truth is: Paradox is the only company capable of producing an enjoyable, playable, and complex grand strategy game in a modern setting.
I'm not saying that there hasn't been any MDS game out there, but let's face it, Vicky is more fun than all of the other MDS games not primarily because it's set in Victorian Era but because of its great design.
Of course I'd love to be proved wrong....
I want to give GPS a try because with its steep price, lack of a demo, and unfavorable reviews, just not too sure about it.
The truth is: Paradox is the only company capable of producing an enjoyable, playable, and complex grand strategy game in a modern setting.
I'm not saying that there hasn't been any MDS game out there, but let's face it, Vicky is more fun than all of the other MDS games not primarily because it's set in Victorian Era but because of its great design.
Of course I'd love to be proved wrong....
I want to give GPS a try because with its steep price, lack of a demo, and unfavorable reviews, just not too sure about it.
It's a bit more offensive to me that he mentioned Rome but not CKDV
Indeed, more love for CK!!
Also, the whole point there is a bit off. He makes it sound like people who play Victoria don't play anything else. As you can see by my icons, I play all the different series Paradox puts out. Some I like more than others, but still. And I'm hardly alone. Calling them distinct "cliques" is a bit goofy. A better word would be "niche", which would mean something else altogether.
See? OHGamer was right. Paradox didn't even say that they were creating a MDS game yet and you are all already arguing about it!
Just imagine if/when Pdox actually decides to create one!
See? OHGamer was right. Paradox didn't even say that they were creating a MDS game yet and you are all already arguing about it!
Just imagine if/when Pdox actually decides to create one!
Sounds like they're going to need to expand their moderator's list.
I don't understand how clique is insulting especially when I am included in that clique. To me a clique is a group of people with common interest and devout feelings for those interest. If there is a better word for it please let me know.
The only point I was trying to make is that Vicky was not a successful game in a business since. Yet they are making a sequel to it.
Based on that since it was very doubtful before they announced the sequel that they would in fact make one, I predict that PI will break down and make a MDS. Truthfully I am hoping it is after Vicky 2. HOI3, HOI2 AoD, Vicky2, and Hearts of Steel (MDS).
Aw I thought I was the only one who could underline.........rats.....
I think the largest problem is a lack of an enticing 'theme'. I can tell a story about modernization a nation. The Victorian age was exciting and full of new things, Rome one of the great early civilizations, HoI was focused on a dynamic and modern war.
A MDS is just too unclear. We know blitzkreig works in-game and can argue the semantics because it has been done. People fussed about the atomic bomb effects in all the HoI games, but people had to speculate about using those weapons on troops. So much modern hardware and tactics has not actually been tested against capable opponents.
Including the War on Terror? Hunting partisans was not the most enjoyable part about HoI. Conquering an enemy's armies in fantastic encirclements was a key theme. The cleanup and babysitting? Now that was...actually not that fun.
Most of what's been going on in the past decades is still going on. People have their set opinions on what 'works'. But we really don't know.
I'd have to say Vicky is the closest 'model' since so much of the Modern setting is economic, but it would have to be on hourly incriments like HoI.
But it still lacks a theme. What about a MDS where getting to the Moon was an objective? It dominated a decade of international politics.
I think a semi-post MDS would be ideal. Once you start making things up I just suggest making a unique 'world' with its own theme to build on. If they suggest any border changes in a post-MDS someone's gonna let'm have an earful.
A MDS is just too unclear. We know blitzkreig works in-game and can argue the semantics because it has been done. People fussed about the atomic bomb effects in all the HoI games, but people had to speculate about using those weapons on troops. So much modern hardware and tactics has not actually been tested against capable opponents.
Including the War on Terror? Hunting partisans was not the most enjoyable part about HoI. Conquering an enemy's armies in fantastic encirclements was a key theme. The cleanup and babysitting? Now that was...actually not that fun.
Most of what's been going on in the past decades is still going on. People have their set opinions on what 'works'. But we really don't know.
I'd have to say Vicky is the closest 'model' since so much of the Modern setting is economic, but it would have to be on hourly incriments like HoI.
But it still lacks a theme. What about a MDS where getting to the Moon was an objective? It dominated a decade of international politics.
I think a semi-post MDS would be ideal. Once you start making things up I just suggest making a unique 'world' with its own theme to build on. If they suggest any border changes in a post-MDS someone's gonna let'm have an earful.
I agree in general. It would be difficult to make a modern-day game that wouldn't feel directionless, at the very least in the style of Vicky. What are the great social upheavals of our times? The Revolutions, the wars, etc.? There are none. We live in an era that, from a grand strategy point of view, is about as exciting as the heyday of the Metternich system in 1820-1830. There's a reason Vicky excludes those years...
Jesus Christ, do you know ANYTHING about second half of 20th century???!
Korea? Vietnam? All the Israeli-Arab wars? Decolonization and creation of independent african countries? Spreading and then fall of the communism? Electronic revolution?
Ignorance is a bliss, eh?
Jesus Christ, do you know ANYTHING about second half of 20th century???!
Korea? Vietnam? All the Israeli-Arab wars? Decolonization and creation of independent african countries? Spreading and then fall of the communism? Electronic revolution?
Ignorance is a bliss, eh?
Those events (and many more) are indeed significant ones - but are also very anticlimatic game-wise.
Korea? Vietnam? Arab wars? What about those - if you take Vicky-scale warfare? Are those really interesting? To be fair, I get such "grand wars" every 3 years in EU3 and I hardly notice them.
Spread of communism - ok, that's better. But you got to answer yourself a question - what exactly end of colonialism and spread of communism will mean in such game. If you play UK for example, and you are about to lose colonies, what should be your "winning tactics" - and I'm not talking "whacking a weasel/rebel!"? What exactly will you gain if colonies leave you peacefully? What if not?
Electronic revolution - again, what will it give to the player? So he will invent some tech. Yay. Behold, now we live in information era. :rofl:
I think what you are missing here is that Vicky, just like all Paradox games, is all about making your country a superpower. In Cold War world you already have 2 of them - and not much space for others to form. And it's not comparable to EU3/Vicky era at all - because post-WWII world is so limited by diplomatic and economic ties, as well as so subdued by fear of nuclear confrontation, that EU3/Vicky style expansion is next to impossible. If you are small fish, you will remain small fish - you can improve your economy, you can start some local war (that will bring whole hell on you if ends up as annexation). If you are big guy, you will be bored as well - you can hardly ever annex, you have to bring countries to your camp instead and if you go for mayor war (and any small war can turn into it), you lose the game.
What would be your game goals playing as Romania for example? As Finland? As Belgium?
You can of course make decent Cold War (or MDS) game - but you need to choose your focus. Either you go for game of subtle diplomatic/economic domination (which will be playable for 2-3 countries, leaving the rest as pawns) or for "Cold War goes Hot" scenario, where you simply accept that players want to conquer provinces and you deliver them.
Last edited:
I disagree with you.
Goal for Finland: become the most powerful country in Europe, for example? For the UK? Remain all the colonies? Or keep them as puppets?
Electronic revolution = industralization in Vicky terms. In Vicky country which could produce machine parts before other had luxurious advantage. It would be exactly the same in the 2nd half of 20th century with electronic computers and for example, nanotechnology.
Goal for Asian comust countries: make neighbours communist for example? One of goals for USA: to not allow them? Etcetera, there are hundreds of thing you can do.
Now, Korea and Vietnam are of course wars on smaller scale than Great War, BUT:
1. War is just one of elements of Vic.
2. It is not about PLAYING history, it is about changing history.
Now, you are from Poland, aren't you? So, imagine you are playing Poland, starting in the '50. Your goals, depends what your ideology is, could be:
1. Become and stay second in the USSR block. Rebuild your country after a war, become strong economy and military. In a case of conflict, be able to invade Denmark and Sweden, support invasion in Germany. Assist communist countries around the globe by sending them military aid and money.
...or for example
2. Become strong enough to finish Soviet domination. Become independent country, member of NATO. Help your neighbours to do the same.
...or for example
3. Become world leader in the science. have the most modern industry and the highest standard of leaving in Europe. Close obsolete industry branches and open new ones, more eco-friendly. Become magnet for all sort of immigrants.
Now, you are saying Paradox games are about making your country superpower. Which is not exactly true, it depends what country you are playing and what your goals are. I don't see it much different from original Vic.
EDIT: in my opinion nuclear weapon shoudl be simulated by decisions and be political rather than military tool. Therefore I don't see it as game-braking problem.
Goal for Finland: become the most powerful country in Europe, for example? For the UK? Remain all the colonies? Or keep them as puppets?
Electronic revolution = industralization in Vicky terms. In Vicky country which could produce machine parts before other had luxurious advantage. It would be exactly the same in the 2nd half of 20th century with electronic computers and for example, nanotechnology.
Goal for Asian comust countries: make neighbours communist for example? One of goals for USA: to not allow them? Etcetera, there are hundreds of thing you can do.
Now, Korea and Vietnam are of course wars on smaller scale than Great War, BUT:
1. War is just one of elements of Vic.
2. It is not about PLAYING history, it is about changing history.
Now, you are from Poland, aren't you? So, imagine you are playing Poland, starting in the '50. Your goals, depends what your ideology is, could be:
1. Become and stay second in the USSR block. Rebuild your country after a war, become strong economy and military. In a case of conflict, be able to invade Denmark and Sweden, support invasion in Germany. Assist communist countries around the globe by sending them military aid and money.
...or for example
2. Become strong enough to finish Soviet domination. Become independent country, member of NATO. Help your neighbours to do the same.
...or for example
3. Become world leader in the science. have the most modern industry and the highest standard of leaving in Europe. Close obsolete industry branches and open new ones, more eco-friendly. Become magnet for all sort of immigrants.
Now, you are saying Paradox games are about making your country superpower. Which is not exactly true, it depends what country you are playing and what your goals are. I don't see it much different from original Vic.
EDIT: in my opinion nuclear weapon shoudl be simulated by decisions and be political rather than military tool. Therefore I don't see it as game-braking problem.
Last edited:
Ok, and we are back to square one - Vicky as a base for such goals.
1) So, we take UK for example. Keeping colonies? Nothing easier - just whack the rebels everytime they spawn. Provinces are big enough to not "chase partisans" they will vanish ASAP.
It's the same as Vietnam-like wars btw - Vietnam War in Vicky realities is whacking micro rebellions spawning constantly for couple of years. Fun.
2) Goal for Finland - become most powerful country in Europe. With Vicky-like system, but without XIX century realities, it's impossible. You have less people, less resources and generally less of everything - and you can't expand, because it's second half of the XX century and moving the borders (or forming colonies) is passe. Even R&D will be relatively slow (you generate less R&D points then big countries), so no Nokia for you!
3) Goals for Poland - you are a vassal of USSR, you can pretty much play hands off game for 45 years. Sure, you can tweak this or that with economy and population - but you are limited in the same way as for example Finland and internationally, you can't do a squat.
Don't get me wrong - Paradox can make decent Cold War game. But NOT with Vicky as a base, and not without total overhaul of such things like economics, culture, social dynamics, diplomacy, international organizations, prestige scoring and such. Assuming that all that is needed for good Cold War scenario is some events propped on the top of Vicky game engine is naive at the best.
1) So, we take UK for example. Keeping colonies? Nothing easier - just whack the rebels everytime they spawn. Provinces are big enough to not "chase partisans" they will vanish ASAP.
It's the same as Vietnam-like wars btw - Vietnam War in Vicky realities is whacking micro rebellions spawning constantly for couple of years. Fun.
2) Goal for Finland - become most powerful country in Europe. With Vicky-like system, but without XIX century realities, it's impossible. You have less people, less resources and generally less of everything - and you can't expand, because it's second half of the XX century and moving the borders (or forming colonies) is passe. Even R&D will be relatively slow (you generate less R&D points then big countries), so no Nokia for you!
3) Goals for Poland - you are a vassal of USSR, you can pretty much play hands off game for 45 years.
Sure, you can tweak this or that with economy and population - but you are limited in the same way as for example Finland and internationally, you can't do a squat.Don't get me wrong - Paradox can make decent Cold War game. But NOT with Vicky as a base, and not without total overhaul of such things like economics, culture, social dynamics, diplomacy, international organizations, prestige scoring and such. Assuming that all that is needed for good Cold War scenario is some events propped on the top of Vicky game engine is naive at the best.
Last edited:
Well, no
1. UK keeps colonies - mass hit to the international relations, mass rebels in Africa etc. etc. Yes, it is fun.
2. How many people are at the beginnng of Vic in south America? Finland can have improved standard of living and vacancies in the industry - what, according to King will be magnet to immigration. So yes, Nokia still in Finland
3. But you do NOT have to - you don't have to play historical. You are pupper at the begionning of the game.
I'll give you example. I had some very good games as.... Hyderabad. At the beginning the goal was to declare and maintain independence from the UK. Than to annect other small Indian countries around (VIP). Then fight British India. Then, when I finally manage to unite India, to do communist revolution and spread communism around.
So, again, based on example of Poland:
- rebuild country after a war, declare independence, defend it and that try to do the same with your neighbours.
Is it so differnt from original Vic in the terms of playability? I seriously do not think so.
1. UK keeps colonies - mass hit to the international relations, mass rebels in Africa etc. etc. Yes, it is fun.
2. How many people are at the beginnng of Vic in south America? Finland can have improved standard of living and vacancies in the industry - what, according to King will be magnet to immigration. So yes, Nokia still in Finland
3. But you do NOT have to - you don't have to play historical. You are pupper at the begionning of the game.
I'll give you example. I had some very good games as.... Hyderabad. At the beginning the goal was to declare and maintain independence from the UK. Than to annect other small Indian countries around (VIP). Then fight British India. Then, when I finally manage to unite India, to do communist revolution and spread communism around.
So, again, based on example of Poland:
- rebuild country after a war, declare independence, defend it and that try to do the same with your neighbours.
Is it so differnt from original Vic in the terms of playability? I seriously do not think so.
I am not sure here, although I agree with everything else. I remember playing Columbia and having 1.xxx research points early on. Maybe it was because of VIP, but that still means it can be easily moddified.
I disagree, second half of XX century is so much different then XIX century realities that its barely comparable.
I repeated my arguments multiple times. Those are things that I see as absolutely neccessary to have good Cold War / MDS game. Might be a matter of expectations, I dunno. I know that if they have made Cold War scenario based on present Vicky 2 engine as we know it from dev diaries, I would most likely not buy it.
- Status