will Vicky or HOI be responsible for a WW1 scenario?

[FOARP]

Warfare in Victoria should be different than in Hearts of Iron. Victoria 3 should also be in general better and more advanced than HoI4, otherwise no one would ever buy Vic3 but instead keep on playing HoI4 forever. To say something sweeping like "World War 1 doesn't belong in Victoria" is to severely underestimate Paradox's potential.

No, it is simply to state plainly what the developers themselves only too readily admit - Vicky is not a war game. Did you not buy Vicky 2 because it lacked the sophisticated combat model of HOI2/3 even though it came out after both those titles? No? Then why do you assume that people won't buy Vicky 3 because it will (inevitably, as it too will not be a war game) also not be as sophisticated in modelling combat as HOI4?

World War 1 could go into Hearts of Iron, I just don't think Paradox should be the one to put it there.

I, on the other hand, believe that the people who understand the game best, who have access to the .exe, are best placed to do so, and would be happy to pay for the privilege of seeing it done. I cannot see that I am in a minority on this thread or even amoungst paradox fans in general.

So I strongly feel that releasing WW1 as a HoI4 DLC is a terrible business decision and Paradox would never do it. If World War 1 is not connected to World War 2, it doesn't make sense for Paradox to put something stand-alone behind a paywall.

Non sequitur - just because one scenario is not part of a continuous play-through does not make it unreasonable to sell as a DLC. Many, many games have stand-alone scenarios as DLC (e.g., Far Cry 4 and the Valley of the Yeti DLC to take one example from thousands).

Steam doesn't give companies the prominence to advertise DLC and games in the same way.

And? All they'd be doing is selling a DLC for their game.

If Paradox sells WW1, if they make it it's own game they'll be able to price it higher, they'll be able to emphasize it's differences.

They can do the same with a DLC.

They'll be able to make a case that it's not simply a reskin of HoI4.

No more of a concern for a WW1 DLC than it would be for any other DLC.

So it's not really like ToG, a DLC which is an earlier start date connected to the main campaign. A stand-alone is like March of Eagles and Sengoku, which have much worse, and at best mixed, reputations.

You appear to be arguing against a stand alone game again, which is not the main topic of discussion.

 

[loup99]

- A WW1 DLC would not need to simulate the run-up/run-down as a minimum viable product. All it needs to do is simulate the actual 1914-18 war itself. Of course, it is desirable to also be able to play through the Balkan Wars and the Russian Civil War, but not absolutely necessary in order to fight WW1.

This I agree on, I think this is the best way of simulating WW1 in a HoI-way.

 

[Jazumir]

Okay, i am gonna tell you about my reoccuring wet-dream of grand strategy:
Idelly, PI´s four main franchises (CK,EU,Vic & HoI) would not stand isolated to each other, but be merged into one great experience with gradually changing rules.

Warfare in Vic2 is in dire need of changing rules, i feel anyways. It may be representative and fun early on, but it becomes a total mess in the late game. For example, armies retreating ´forward´ into enemy occupied territory might be okay in 1840 (esp. when it´s cavalry), but seems a lot less appropriate for the assaulted army in WW1 (it´s like after a battle the germans sat in the french trenches and the germans in the french - that´s just grossly absurd!). There are a lot of game-changing techs in that game and very fast development overall - i dont see why it should be impossible to have some army-tech coming with significant boni (that you wont be able to do without if your enemies have them) also make it impossible to "withdraw ahead".

In this fashion all the changes in game-mechanics should be gradually sprinkled in between the beginning of CK and the end of HoI to merge them all. Then, DLCs would more or less be only scenarios: well prepared historical (or not, if so announced) bookmarks for you to start from, if you dont want to go the whole distance.

Okay, financial suicide for PI, probably... haha. But one may dream, right?

But to the topic: Well, it´s not without a reason i mentioned the thoughts above - if Victory3 is able to do WW1 well, it should require such rulechanges, if it also wants to do 1836 well. But then, i dont see, why it couldnt also do WW2. Will HoI 5 be a Vicky 3 DLC?

 

[seijika-san]

DLC for a popular franchise tends to be easy money for a game studio in any case. I have the full array for the more popular Paradox games though with many (especially skins/sprites/etc) I'm unlikely to use or perhaps even notice them. When I don't - ho hum, at least in some minor way I'm supporting a studio I like. When I do - its jolly nice, I appreciate it and I'm still supporting them. Most Paradox players I game with do the same. Thus to create a DLC or full expansion (be it for WWI, Interwar or Cold War) for something like HoI4, I'd say is a far safer investment than trying to create a whole new game - even Vicky III, as yet.

Plus as a graduate historian specialising in 19thC history, I'd say that many of us think of it as a long century going from the French (or for some even American) Revolution and dying with Edward VII (or perhaps Franz Ferdinand). At both ends, the world (albeit in Eurocentric terms) seemed to change very suddenly and all bets were off. Thus I'd sooner see a Vicky III game along that kind of timeline than shunting it inappropriately forward. Similarly HoI as the flagship Paradox WARgame seems a sound and appropriate standard-bearer for the early-to-mid 20thC where suddenly ideology mattered more than prestige while established powers and orders crumbled in the wake of such change. Such is my perspective in any case.

Bottom-line: stand-alone or integrated for a much longer campaign/importable saves, such DLC would seem worth buying to a great many even if some never play it or even just complain about it. More money for Paradox to make the games we love and more gameplay/flavour for those who want it. Thus even if there ends up being overlap - huzzah a different/approach/perspective to look forward to.