Will Victoria 3 be the next Imperator?

[MinhowMinhow]

I was a bit disapointed with paradox, due Imperator, but after successful CK3 release and Vic3 announcement, I regained my trust.

But again, looking at combat, it looks that this game is walking into an Imperator path. The combat is very different from other games, with a huge degree of AI control (for a better term) and will remove a lot of player control and leading to frustration. In some aspects is similar to HoI4, like frontlines. But instead of using a proven design (HoI4) and develop it, they made a new one.

Imperator was full of revolutionary concepts, and failed. It started as a mana simulator. With a new pop system, instead of using a proven one, like Vic2, but instead ended like a worst development system (EU4). Combat system tried to innovate, but is worst than EU4. Characters were worst than CK2 (Vic3 will have these too). In the end they tried to revamp the game, but in the end it turned into a failure, with development halted.

So, will excess of innovation kill Vic3? Should the devs implement a proven combat system, like HoI4? For me, looks like this game will end up like Imperator, and they will make a huge combat revamp after release.

 

[ero_sk]

I certainly wouldn't want a combat system to be the likes of HoI4 (people seem to forget that the reason HoI4's system is the way it is, is precisely because HoI is a warfare-focused game), and I do understand and even like the developers' core vision of making game more strategic. However after the latest DD it sadly seems to me that the balance between "strategic" and "abstract to the level of not being fun anymore" has been disturbed.

To me the biggest pain point are the lines of fronts that player has no control over. They are pre-determined by nations' borders and some exceptional factors, which takes away control and fun from players control. I wish we could draw fronts ourselves (leaving "default" fronts for those who don't want to control this) and assigning generals to them. This would return the balance towards "Strategy" vision in my opinion, as the battles and the bulk of warfare would still be in hands of our generals and their forces. At the same time, we could have influence over- for example- determining which part of the theatre (composing of multiple fronts) should be prioritized, which should stand on defense and/or get lower quality general/army.

For example, I would like to be able so split up a border with my enemy into 3 fronts, assign 2 fronts to defense, and one front with best equipped armies and skilled generals to advance on that one front only in order to accomplish the strategic goal envisioned.

To summaries this- developers presented their vision for strategic-level control of the warfare last week and I somewhat cautiously liked it. This week however they presented mechanics that- in my opinion- are no longer strategic but abstracted. Way overly abstracted for a game of this kind.

To answer the question in this topic's title- I am worried that if this doesn't change by the release date, the game will follow I:R's path to some degree. If the system isn't fun to many players, and gets changed retrospectively, then the damage will already be done even if the changes fix the main pain points.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I'd actually say that the problem with Imperator was exactly the opposite, it was too conventional and essentially repeated the same mistakes EU: Rome had a decade ago, as well as using mechanics from more recent games the community had grown tired of.

That being said, this whole war thing will likely be what makes or brakes this game, and since they are treading new ground here I wouldn't be surprised that they will end up spending more resources on development of the military system than they could have done with more conventional one.

 

[Fallofthepurple]

Lol no

But again, looking at combat, it looks that this game is walking into an Imperator path.

By doing something completely different.

 

[Atalvyr]

I'd frankly rather have the devs take a stab at innovating their formula than make Victoria 2.5 by gluing systems from their other successful games together.

I like how everything in Victoria 3 is designed around a shared vision, with each mechanic flowing into each other. I love how war is no longer a bloodsport you play to win a prize, but rather the inevitable conclusion to diplomacy gone wrong. In a game like EU, military units are entirely separate from the society that made them. They use manpower as a resource, which is exclusively used for this purpose and the ebb/flow of manpower has no impact on say the economy. Even in HOI you don't have any real economic impact from having your manpower be full or empty. You might need to increase you conscription law to make more people available for the army, but nothing changes from them being in your manpower pool to them being dead on the battlefield.

Paradox games has always had this weird dynamic of being real-time, but not really. You pause and manipulate things constantly, then turn the speed boost on to fast forward through downtime. Victoria 3 is supposedly designed so that the decisions you have to make can be done while the game is running and don't require you to constantly pause. Likewise, there is supposed to be enough stuff happening that you wont spend long periods on speed 4 waiting for things to do. If they can pull this off, it will be a realization of a long-time potential. I think this is what drives a lot of the design decisions like with fronts in warfare. You need something that is not dependent on player timing of clicking buttons, but is an ongoing development you want to nudge in certain directions. I suspect that is why we also don't have "mana-decisions" where we spend a fixed amount of money or goods on a certain thing. Those require you to pause and take the actions at the moment you have the right amount of resources. Having everything be a process with limited stockpiling means that timing becomes much less important.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Imperator was not revolutionary in the slightest, it was essentially EU: Rome with more provinces and mana replacing money for a bunch of stuff. It was like going back to 2011. And that was the problem.

 

[cdub8d]

I certainly wouldn't want a combat system to be the likes of HoI4 (people seem to forget that the reason HoI4's system is the way it is, is precisely because HoI is a warfare-focused game), and I do understand and even like the developers' core vision of making game more strategic. However after the latest DD it sadly seems to me that the balance between "strategic" and "abstract to the level of not being fun anymore" has been disturbed.

To me the biggest pain point are the lines of fronts that player has no control over. They are pre-determined by nations' borders and some exceptional factors, which takes away control and fun from players control. I wish we could draw fronts ourselves (leaving "default" fronts for those who don't want to control this) and assigning generals to them. This would return the balance towards "Strategy" vision in my opinion, as the battles and the bulk of warfare would still be in hands of our generals and their forces. At the same time, we could have influence over- for example- determining which part of the theatre (composing of multiple fronts) should be prioritized, which should stand on defense and/or get lower quality general/army.

For example, I would like to be able so split up a border with my enemy into 3 fronts, assign 2 fronts to defense, and one front with best equipped armies and skilled generals to advance on that one front only in order to accomplish the strategic goal envisioned.

To summaries this- developers presented their vision for strategic-level control of the warfare last week and I somewhat cautiously liked it. This week however they presented mechanics that- in my opinion- are no longer strategic but abstracted. Way overly abstracted for a game of this kind.

To answer the question in this topic's title- I am worried that if this doesn't change by the release date, the game will follow I:R's path to some degree. If the system isn't fun to many players, and gets changed retrospectively, then the damage will already be done even if the changes fix the main pain points.

Yes people want to copy Hoi4 1-1 and have 0 changes....

No. Hoi4 does some things well that would be fairly easy to fit into Vicky 3. The battle planner for example fights like it is WW1. Which is perfect for late game Vicky3! It would need some tweaks to fit earlier game warfare but I can envision a couple ways to make that happen.

And please don't try to tell me the battle planner is all of Hoi4's military. It really isn't that much or even complicated at all.

 

[grommile]

HoI4's combat system is a very good example of why the concept of "optional micro" is a snare and a delusion.

 

[cdub8d]

HoI4's combat system is a very good example of why the concept of "optional micro" is a snare and a delusion.

Hoi4 is a great example of a game with lot's of potential never realized. The battle planner has a ton of potential but they have barely touched it since release

 

[Atalvyr]

Hoi4 is a great example of a game with lot's of potential never realized. The battle planner has a ton of potential but they have barely touched it since release

The battle planner had a ton of potential, yes. However the community wanting full micro with no downsides killed the idea. As soon as you could keep the planning bonus even when deviating wildly from the battleplan, micro was no longer optional. If they had stuck to the planning bonus being contingent on regiments following the battleplan, there would have been an actual trade-off to manually abusing the AI to force constant encirclements.

 

[Crosswire]

Imperator in its final state is one of PDXs best games. Sadly it got abandoned at that point.

 

[cdub8d]

The battle planner had a ton of potential, yes. However the community wanting full micro with no downsides killed the idea. As soon as you could keep the planning bonus even when deviating wildly from the battleplan, micro was no longer optional. If they had stuck to the planning bonus being contingent on regiments following the battleplan, there would have been an actual trade-off to manually abusing the AI to force constant encirclements.

The problem with the battleplanner is the divisions don't follow the arrows well at all. Also doesn't include a way to coordinate with air and other divisions well.

You are just throwing out a strawman bringing up "abusing the ai". Most players have complained about the hoi4 ai. So ironically it is the opposite of what you say

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

Are you talking about release Imperator or 2.0? I can't speak of 2.0 as I haven't experienced it though, the release version was a complete joke. The downgraded UI compared to EU4, Hoi4 and Stellaris and the mish-mashed mechanics thrown in from other Paradox titles without the complexity from those titles.

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

Imperator in its final state is one of PDXs best games. Sadly it got abandoned at that point.

As far as I have heard the mechanics are better tied together however, lacks content to give regions replayability beyond contextual missions and descriptions...

 

[ero_sk]

Imperator in its final state is one of PDXs best games. Sadly it got abandoned at that point.

I think this is exactly what OP is about. What we don't want for Victoria 3 to happen is to release, receive lot of criticism and shrinking player base, get fixed retrospectively by hard work of developers and be abandoned because by then it would be too late to attract players to the point where sales will prove that it is worth keeping the game alive, maintaining it and releasing new content.

 

[Tullaris]

I find the title and tone of this topic to be extremely childish. Will this game be a failure because i dont like how feature X is implemented?

Wait a couple of DDs, see how it all comes together, then give feedback.

I personally think the changes to warfare they have proposed sound excellent. In all current PDX games you can easily defeat a civil war or rebellion, making the internal politics aspect often trivial. Not in Vicky 3. War, even against weak nations, is costly. Rebellions, are costly. You really have to balance. Reducing agency in warfare makes the stakes for all other stuff even higher. You can't just fight your way out of any situation anymore.

 

[Sapa Inca]

I think that Victory 3 will be a successful game, it will be well received at release and will have dev support and dlcs for a very long time, but it will not be the most played or the most popular Paradox game, because the exclusively warmongering and map painter part of the community will not like the game, Victoria III will attract a player base more interested in simulation and RP, the part of community that see a fun emergent narrative when losing a war instead of alt-f4 and try again.

 

[Atalvyr]

The problem with the battleplanner is the divisions don't follow the arrows well at all. Also doesn't include a way to coordinate with air and other divisions well.

You are just throwing out a strawman bringing up "abusing the ai". Most players have complained about the hoi4 ai. So ironically it is the opposite of what you say

The limitations of the battle planner is exactly why it gave a bonus to unit performance. Basically you had the choice between designing a battleplan and then having the war be more or less AI vs. AI, or manually controlling your divisions but without the planning bonus. Instead they let you have the best of both worlds, but in the process micro became mandatory yet again.

The AI in HOI4 being easy to trick on the tactical level is exactly why the battle planner was a good idea. It gave incentive/balance to not trying to break the AI by giving the more AI-friendly way of doing war a straight up stat bonus. The alternative would have been to make Skynet AI that could keep up with the player no matter their level, which I am sure the team would have loved to do, but where ultimately unable to.

AFIAK there are very few games an AI can provide a fair challenge to humans in, so usually the solution is just to let the AI cheat or reduce the players options to a scope the AI can keep up with. HOI4 tried for a version of the latter and it looks like Vic3 is doing the same. I still like it better than letting the AI cheat.

 

[McRold]

I don't think Victoria 3 is going to end up being the next Imperator. Mainly because the economic, diplomatic and social aspects of the game seem interesting (at least in theory). With enough flavor for at least the big nations, I can see myself playing many campaigns. But I do suspect that warfare being so basic will reduce its player base. A lot of people (myself included) seems to enjoy a somewhat complex warfare system in Paradox's GS games.

 

[dragonluke]

Even if warfare is bad(or middling as it seems to me) I think the rest is good enough to have it not flop