- Mar 8, 2019
Victoria is STILL more popular than Imperator with all expansions, so that should give them ideas
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
That is pretty amazing. Especially given how much less integrated with steam Victoria is. It certainly has a smaller percentage of players being counted in that statistic.Victoria is STILL more popular than Imperator with all expansions, so that should give them ideas
It's talked about a lot. I've pushed the idea of calling it Revolutions and pushing back to at least 1774I'm all for re-branding.
I wandered over here looking for a mod that pushes the start date back to the 18th century. I'm surprised there isn't one (that still works) because I think Victoria's mechanics can handle it in a way EU IV (which has been pushed as far as the 10,000th century) can't handle even the French Revolution or early industrialization.
Which got me thinking that Victoria III should really start around Westphalia. It'd require some dynasty mechanics and a political system that simulates estates rather than ideologies, but the political system is Victoria II's weakest and Victoria III should really have a (limited) character system anyway. The existing ideologies work pretty seamlessly with religion post-Westphalia.
The only thing you'd really need is a new name.
Not sure that you can treat a venerable idol in such a way and maintain the favour of the faithful. Better to let Victoria II remain in its temple.A remake ov Victoria II would be a really good idea. Put it on a better engine and do some quality of life updates and then re-releae it. Afterwards you give it the "Imperator Rome - treatment" where you look at the game mechanics and improve them spep by step. Add some DLC-support you can evolve that game into some kind of Victoria III.
Finally everyone would be happy and the world would be a better place.
Having dabbled with code a few times, what may seem intuitive: building and modifying existing code instead of reinventing the wheel, often ends up taking more time and effort because nobody remembers how the old code worked. It often takes far longer to figure out what the old code did than it would be to just rewrite it. Besides, many of the problems are structural within the code, and would take extensive rewriting (after relearning all of it) to change. I believe the engine is now considered obsolete as well, so they'd want to bring that up to the current standard.I'd rather see paradox try and tackle some of the long standing problems in Victoria so it can function as a solid base to design a sequal. Starting from scratch is more costly and more risky.
I agree it could be more time consuming and a bit more costly than the avarage expansion but an expansion is probably still cheaper than an entire new game. I just don't think they will try to create a similar economy and pop system if they make a sequel. I really like the idea of actual numbers of people instead of abstracted entities. Actual numbers allows to like pops more directly to other mechanics like warfare (casualties). Though it's highly unlikely, they could try to get some mods or aspects of mods incorporated in the base game. Things like the serf pop and the ability to buy warships as an unciv. Maybe because the game is so old they could make it more moddable and give modders more tools and handles to implement things in the game.There comes a point where the best option is to rip out and reuse a few of the key pieces that work well, follow many of the original concepts and ideas, and start over almost from scratch. I just hope they stay true to the original feel of the game, rather than streamline (or is it "Steam-line") the game down to a simplistic map painter.
Load the game up when you go to sleep and leave it running.I'm not advocating either trust or hope, but it seems to me if we are to get what we all want, then it might behoove is all to play the game extensively and exclusively on Steam where PDS is *probably* getting all their stats for deciding whether or not the game is still worth investing in.
All conjecture on my part. Who knows?
When you wrote this, I was looking over what another person had did as a patch a couple years ago and then using it and applying it to HPM looks like the economy is pretty much fixed as well as it can be. The big problem is that Vicky was allowing national treasuries to hoard most of the the wealth in late game which caused the tremendous amount of economic problems maybe like 80-90% wealth being stored in national treasuries and no way to give it back to the pops or otherwise have it useful in game at that point.I would settle for another expansion that just upgrades the original Victoria II that should be far less costly as an entire new game. The key changes I think would have to be the late game economy The economy has always been wacky (especially in the late game)
I'm just curious since this may mean it's even worse than it looks. I'm playing Vicky II outside of Steam and I'd wager more are as well. Everyone playing Imperator is listed on Steam.I'm pretty sure that all Paradox games currently under development require a Steam license regardless of how you choose to purchase or play it. They can be played single-player without a Steam connection once installed, however. I haven't tried Imperator without a Steam connection. In fact, Steam autoloads at boot up and I play my games through it now.
I don't think there's any mods or combination of mods can really fix something that just doesn't work. I think there should be crashes (of the economy not the game) in the late game because after WWI over production was a problem. HPM also made the economic changes in the latest few builds with this in mind. I just would like to see that the resources and industries that were important actually are important in the game. I find it very hard to actually have a profitable iron, steel, cement industry in the game while those industries should be the basis of further economic development. Maybe it should also be made harder to save up money because in reality you are hindering your own economic growth by hoarding money instead of spending it. Lending money and investing in smaller countries was also a tool that was used to spread imperialism. Also most great and secondary powers had a gold standard until WW1. During the 19th century this alsmost always meant that those countries could only issue as much currency as they had gold (or gold and silver). The silver in Mexico for example was one of the reasons for the French to get involved there during the American Civil war so they could increase the amount of money they could issue. I'm not sure how that would work in practice in Vicky but in general: Industrialization is too easy, economies are way more fragile in reality. Maybe some smaller changes could be made to better replicate this.When you wrote this, I was looking over what another person had did as a patch a couple years ago and then using it and applying it to HPM looks like the economy is pretty much fixed as well as it can be. The big problem is that Vicky was allowing national treasuries to hoard most of the the wealth in late game which caused the tremendous amount of economic problems maybe like 80-90% wealth being stored in national treasuries and no way to give it back to the pops or otherwise have it useful in game at that point.
The link is to a Working a vanilla version of the patch turned into a mod and also another file for the patch that can be applied to current HPM .
I agree with this. HPM himself has also hinted at trying to create some sort of upkeep for forts and possibly railways (if this isn't hardcoded). The problem would then be to teach the ai were to build them and to relocate resources to pay the upkeep. Still there are a lot of cases in which multiple fortresses per state should be allowed. If a state is divided over multiple countries, or is a state on a border, or maybe geographical easily defended provinces. I would also like to argue that maybe armies could be a bot more expensive and uncivs must have a bit more teeth (especially early and mid game). For example France needed to increase their army in Algeria to 108 000 men to finally be able to conquer it, in the game you can do this with far less troops.Then another thing drew my attention to something else, FORTS. If running the USA or Russia, there could be like hundreds to build. Age of Enlightenment mod allows only one fort per state/region like Navy bases cutting that considerably.
The main thing I would like to see changed in the combat specifically is that one army attacks another while it's moving towards the defended province rather then when both are in the same province. This allows the player and the ai to keep a line without gaps that with the right modifiers can result in situations that resemble WW1 better than the current mechanics can. The main change for naval combat would be the need for fleets to actually find a opponent before they can fight. This change could allow for submarines (and maybe even sea mines to exist). These things would allow for assymetric sea warfare in the late game that played a huge role in the early 20th century. These are the main reasons I think that make HOI mods or scenarios about WW1 a lot more believable than the WW1 situations that the Vicky combat creates.But you bring up things like combat and how another Vicky would improve on that. I suppose that's true in any newer game should improve on the visuals for combat, upgrading units and Navy blockades, the relieving tedium in rotating ships to avoid attrition sinking them, hence ruining the blockade and a few other things. Other than that combat as is seems to be sufficient for the game at hand.