Why this game is so loved?

[Cziwochel]

As stated in title, I'm wondering why this game is so loved, because I have tried this game many times and my every playthrought ends with frustration e.g. the last one playing as France on HPM mod (suggested by many players as the best one), I declared war against Prussia and called my all allies (Russia is one of them). I thought easy victory = profit, but no. For some reason Russia became the war leader, added their own wargoal and sign a peace without giving me anything. WHY?! It was my own war, I haven't lose my great power status.

 

[Nussor]

Herd mentality and nostalgia. Victoria 2 is more a looking at pie charts simulator than a game. Many mechanics are outright broken, unexplained or nonsensical, as in your case. Playing as anything but one of the major established powers is utterly pointless, because of how backwards the growth model is. At very few points you are even allowed to make decisions.

 

[Avian Overlord]

To quote myself:

Some of it is that V2 was the last paradox game before CK2. CK2 introduced a lot of concepts that for better or worse have become mainstays of paradox games and was Pdox's first really big hit. So V2 becomes a symbol of "the way things were before", whatever that before might happen to be.

 

[RAID186]

It's far from perfect, but there's just something it achieves that other PDX games fail to..

Maybe it's the timeframe, or maybe it's the AI actually achieving a balance of power(big thing for me) as it's very hard to just blob. I dunno, I just suck at the game and genuinely love it.

 

[dannypk16]

Something I love from Vic2 is it's focus on politics, which is more relevant than in the other games. It's also an interesting century to focus on politics, so it gained my respects for it.

 

[warsmith17]

I enjoyed the focus on economics and the lack of blobbing. It was fun trying to find the best ways to industrialize, and max one's economy. I just really want something to do other than blob.

Sure it has a lot of annoying mechanics (rebellions) but for whatever reason its the only Paradox game I consistently found myself coming back to. I have about 1200 hours in Vic II compared to a few hundred in EU 4, and about 200 in CKII.

 

[Plastic_Duke]

For some reason Russia became the war leader

Probably because they had more military points than you? Or just more points in total, they were a greater great power? When a nation is more "relevant" than its allies in a war, it takes the warleader spot, as happened a few times in history. It's indeed quite frustrating as a game mechanic, but it's not completely absurd either. It prevents smaller countries from turning their big bad GP allies into mindless attack dogs, doing all the legwork. The better solution would be a weighted warscore for each participant, and somekind of peace treaty system, as in HOI4, but we'll have to wait until the mythical Vicky 3 for that.

Also, to answer you're actual question, well... Firstly, I guess all vicky 2 players agree that this game is a clunky mess on quite a few levels. It's full of bugs and opaque mechanics, with a very shaky economy, and often get pretty tedious and micro heavy, during wars or when managing a big industry for instance. It also lacks a bit of player control, the focus system being quite restrictive in some ways. So yeah, many, many parts of this game could use a complete rework, or are at least in dire need of a fix, starting with how the global market behaves.

But still, despite all of its flaws, Vicky 2 remains a fan favorite for some very good and solid reasons, other than nostalgia.

As a game, it might not be an amazing one (still a good one, IMO, as far as GSG goes), but it is, nevertheless, an amazing attempt in the simulation genre. While V2 fails quite miserably in the economic simulation department (but gets an honorable mention for at least trying), it definitely sports the most complex and fascinating demographic and political simulation of any game to this date, aka the POP system. This alone, for me and many others, turns this otherwise clunky mess of a game, into a marvelous breathing, living world, with which you can interact, as the godly spirit of a nation. It makes everything you do in this game feels more real, and more colourful. I find myself caring more for every decision I make, every little button I click, when I know that it always got somekind of effect on my POPs, on their wealth or their opinions, and that everything else in the game kinda depends on these.

It's a game that tries to be subtle, permiting you to influence the greater scheme of things by making a long follow-up of small decisions. At least in theory, since, in practice, the game is admittedly too buggy and opaque, so it's hard to know exactly what you're doing and the real consequences of your choices.

Other than the amazing POP system, the Sphere Of Influence concept is great, albeit also micro heavy. I love to expand my diplomatic and economic clout in a foreign country by investing diplo points and money in there, it has a soft power vibe to it I really like, being another alternative to (or justification for) war. Because, that's the best thing about the Victoria franchise, not being entirely focused on conquest, not being a full-on map painter. The main point, and best selling point, of Vicky, is being about managing the political and economic transitions happening in your country of choice, during that era. Both of which were probably the most rapid and brutal in the history of mankind.

To me, it's a game mostly about change, about witnessing, surviving, and also influencing changes in your country. You have the choice to embrace modernity (pushing for industrialization, and deal with the consequences), or to resist it, at least in part, slow it down (or even stop it) if you prefer to preserve more traditional ways (mainly a more autocratic rule). This is absolutely unique, not only in the PDX catalogue. And that's why I love it.

Finally, it's got the best soundtrack.

 

[Kovax]

As Plastic_Duke points out, the idea of a multitude of POPs, each with their own cultures, agendas and needs, sets it apart from practically every other game I've ever played. Several of Paradox's other games NEED POPs, although probably much simplified without half of the diversity that V2 has.

While the Influence mechanics are certainly tedious and frustrating, they do work, and I have yet to find a better system to replace them.

The world market was alright for a first try, but it either needs regional markets or some kind of transportation cost factor to simulate the added costs and difficulty of moving goods from continent to continent. It also needs a limited stockpile of goods to reflect that fact that any unsold goods today don't get thrown away on the following day, and a full stockpile should deter investment in factories for that product (so your capitalists don't build their 12th ammo factory, only to have it close a month later just like 9 of the previous 11) and/or should lead to a round of layoffs, allowing craftsmen to seek work in other more profitable industries.

The one aspect I don't care for is the heavy "inevitability" of liberalism and socialism as inherently "better" systems than conservativism, without including their own down sides, while reality seems to be a mix, with each liberal or social change creating a new conservative or reactionary element. My last Prussia game at one point in the mid 1870s had around 35% Liberals, 30% Socialists, 15% Communists, 10% Reactionaries, and only about 10% Conservatives, despite me choosing Conservative values in most decisions, with occasional Socialist choices to allow a few social reform laws to pass. Those figures were AFTER a Communist uprising with 232 brigades as early as 1873, in which the 1.5 million Communist rebels lost roughly half of their total numbers. Basically, the developers seem to hate Conservatives, despite MOST cultures having a fairly even split between Liberal, Conservative, and Socialist values. Still, the different ideologies at least play differently, unlike a lot of the games with politics included as an afterthought, where other than one or two specific bonuses there's little practical difference between them (in HOI3, for example, there are 9 different political parties, but each group of 3 might as well be a single ideology other than a couple of specific bonuses for National Socialists and Stalinists - they don't even change leaders, so whether you elect the Democratic or Republican party in the USA, the President doesn't change). Victoria 2 handles politics far better than that.

 

[Pro]

Probably because they had more military points than you? Or just more points in total, they were a greater great power? When a nation is more "relevant" than its allies in a war, it takes the warleader spot, as happened a few times in history. It's indeed quite frustrating as a game mechanic, but it's not completely absurd either. It prevents smaller countries from turning their big bad GP allies into mindless attack dogs, doing all the legwork. The better solution would be a weighted warscore for each participant, and somekind of peace treaty system, as in HOI4, but we'll have to wait until the mythical Vicky 3 for that.

I think the difference has to be of a certain size. In my last game I was Germany allied to Britain, and whichever one of us started the war was always war leader.

 

[Gurkhal]

To me Victoria II will be a winner because I can play a whole game from start to finish in reasonable time and even without fighting wars, I'll be entertained and have something to do in peace.

 

[FOARP]

My answer - This game-series had so much potential. It pretty much is the only series that even tries to do something as ambitious as what it does, which is close to a whole-world politico-military-economic strategy game.

For me, though, whilst I enjoyed playing Vicky 1 greatly, I was hoping that Vicky 2 would deliver on its promise and it didn’t, not really. It was as if HOI1 (which was also basically just a proof-of-concept) had been followed by an equally-poorly-executed game rather than a solidly-implemented one (I.e., HOI2).

Still, to this day (and it’s now more than ten years since V2 was announced) this remains the only game-series of its kind. It’s just a pity that the poor implementation of so many of the game mechanics makes it such a chore to play.

 

[Thrake]

As stated in title, I'm wondering why this game is so loved, because I have tried this game many times and my every playthrought ends with frustration e.g. the last one playing as France on HPM mod (suggested by many players as the best one), I declared war against Prussia and called my all allies (Russia is one of them). I thought easy victory = profit, but no. For some reason Russia became the war leader, added their own wargoal and sign a peace without giving me anything. WHY?! It was my own war, I haven't lose my great power status.

All of the old Paradox games work like that. There was even the infamous cascade war where declaring on some random OPM would have his bigger but weak ally become war leader (you don't care because you can handle both), and the new war leader calls in his allies, one his stronger, becomes war leader,... and instead of fighting Ulm and friends you end up fighting half of Europe and France. It's partly annoying because you have no solid way to guess it's going to happen, but you know it's a thing so you work with that (including not calling allies whenever you can when you don't need them).

I mean it's just a minor thing. If you want to attack the game then you should tackle economic or political aspects which are what the game is all about. It's certainly not fail-proof, far from it, but no other game has these refined mechanics where you end up with infamous commies revolts, not because you clicked on the "here be commies" button but because you allowed the communist party to grow over many many clicks and you let the militantism grow over many many clicks and you let consciousness grow,... So you eat the consequences of your choices sometimes 30 or 40 years later. It's obscur, but it could well not have happened if you behaved differently, not overtaxed low class,... This is IMO the real awesomeness of sandbox, each of your choice has direct consequences but also many indirect consequences that you might or might ignore and might very well blow up on your face later. With lots of flaws and roughness.

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

I liked the way you could have fun without having to paint the world map of your color, which is almost mandatory in HoI, EU and Stellaris.

There were horrible downsides like the level of POP detail and the inevitable "France/UK/Whatever 's industry has SKYROCKETED OVERNIGHT, you are now 20000 points behind and counting".

 

[fr-rein]

This game was quite wholesome model. Population behaved greatly, making social-economic ground for your history and country.
No big abstractions. Your game is about actual countries which are not about just spirits of the nation, but collective will of your people.
All processes were fun and natural. The game was really nice and despite quite harshly set in terms of opportunities, with statuses mostly predetermined, it did allow a lot of variety and opportunities.

The main issue as many can say was gameplay and quite a few things like diplomacy and so on, but that was normal for PDX games at time and it doesn't change why we love game.

And because there is no successor to it yet, we still stick to Vicky 2.

 

[deanwebb]

There are a number of mechanics that will burn you as you discover them. My solution was to turn on autosaves and reload before making a decision that had unforeseen cosequences on my part...

So, if Russia becomes the war leader, just go back to 1 Jan and when you declare war *this* time around, do *not* invite Russia or any nation with a larger military score to the party! Choose your allies carefully, and make sure your army and navy are always bigger than theirs!

Now that I've mastered those "gotcha" mechanics, I plan accordingly and love my games. I've also tried NNM and CoE mods and prefer those to HPM, but the CoE mod tends to go off the rails towards the end, so I'm back to playing NNM, even though I like the start of CoE better.

When I play EU4, I don't colonize the interior of Africa, as I know I haven't yet discovered machine guns...

 

[demanvanwezel]

I liked the way you could have fun without having to paint the world map of your color, which is almost mandatory in HoI, EU and Stellaris.

There were horrible downsides like the level of POP detail and the inevitable "France/UK/Whatever 's industry has SKYROCKETED OVERNIGHT, you are now 20000 points behind and counting".

I don't know a single other game where you can exclaim "oh yeah, I'm the top producer in steel" and have that feel as an accomplishment

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

I also have fond memories of the influence system over minor countries, but this may be nostalgia painting it pink.

 

[RELee]

Well, to be honest, and I'm hardly ever any other way unless I'm feeling frisky and trolling my friends, I fell in love with the 1st iteration of this wonderful game even though it took me about 6 months to actually learn how to play (yes, I'm an idiot). But once it all clicked in my head from failed games, using cheat codes to figure out game mechanics and reading a good half dozen AAR's, I have been forever hooked. My love for the game is the opposite of most wargamers I suppose as my best games are those where I am not a warmonger. I gently guide my chosen country through the difficult rite of passage from an agrarian society to a modern 20th Century industrial society complete with a highly educated populace, liberal ideals and just enough military and allies to prevent some warmongering AI from declaring a major war upon me.

Unless I play the USA where it automatically becomes a moral imperative to rule the North American continent.

 

[Kovax]

I tend to play using an early war-mongering approach to expand the borders a bit, then dial down the violence to build on the additional resources and manpower that I've got. War gets harder and harder to justify as the game goes on, as the human and material costs become exponentially higher and there's less time to capitalize on anything you do gain by the war. What begins as a map painter quickly turns into an economic sim, except that a few countries don't seem to get that message.

A pure wargame has its place, but is unrealistic if divorced from the economic realities. A pure economic sim gets boring, especially if you know that there's no real threat. There aren't many (any?) good social/political development sims. Victoria 2 is a good blend of all of that, not perfect, but unlike anything else on the market.

 

[grimkm]

I play vanilla exclusively (well, with the DLC of course). When I first started playing, I couldn't understand why I was being attacked for starting my umpteeth war on some barbarian backwater. I could never understand why elections put liberals in power who ruined my economy, nor why all my people were running away to Murica. But over the years, learning the mechanics and basic game rules, it has kept me pretty much from playing anything else.

I mostly enjoy playing countries that aren't naturally going to be the most fearsome country, but rather plot and strategise my rise to power through good alliances and lots and lots of building. If anything, the war element is my biggest frustration, though having a big army isn't. It's set in an era where pageantry was still a thing, so a big useless navy can make you a more powerful nation than a nation with several million soldiers on your doorstep.

I don't understand the whole thing about the pie charts which is raised by other posters from time to time. There's the pop charts and the political charts. That's it. Looking into what is behind those charts and how to influence them is quite (personally speakign of course) the fun of this game.

Currently, iSorrowproductions is doing a series on youtube. Perhaps a secret paradox marketing ploy to remind everyone how amusing the game can be.