Will Victoria 3 be the next Imperator?

[ikki]

umm.. people walked away midway in imperator development as designers kept insisting players love to micro (pop demotion per conquest, manually promote later.. across hundreds and hundreds of provinces). That no matter how much you could want to love it, its just too much sheer tediousness.
I hear that was later amended post release. But i had already walked away at that announcement & insistence of fun of megamicromanagement.

 

[Eddie121]

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.

This would be a micro hellfest
The right way to go is to have one front for each border province. It just offers the right amount of strategic and operational control

Edit: I was confused about the nomencIature. I meant border state or strategic region of course!

 

[Prince Ire]

It feels like a lot of people here really think that "The player will not have a lot of control over the war" means "During the war the player will just sit on the 5th speed and wait". Have you guys forgot that before Dev Diary 22 there were about 21 others? You know, the war will not magically pause your economy, your pops, your interest groups etc. and will actually interact with them a lot. For an example, I am pretty sure that the increased demand for military equipment will drive the steel prices up, which will drastically impact a lot of other sectors of your economy, making some of your buildings to lose profits, causing their workers losing their jobs and becoming very angry. And you will need to manage all of this on top of waging the war - are you sure that larger player engagement into warfare will not end up being distracting?

The problem is that I don't want to micro my economy. I loved the fact that the economy was mostly run by capitalist AI in Vicky 2 and am dreading having to do everything relating to it myself in Vicky 3.

 

[ero_sk]

This would be a micro hellfest
The right way to go is to have one front for each border province. It just offers the right amount of strategic and operational control

I think I made it clear that fronts based on nation borders would still remain default, so I don't see how it would be a micro hellfest if players were given an option to have more granular control by drawing their own fronts if they wish so.

At the same time you're suggesting province-based fronts. Do you realise that provinces are the smallest territorial units in Victoria 3? I see some logical fallacy here, because you're suggesting that a little bit more granular fronts are micro, while proposing a way more micro approach based on provinces.

Also given the developers' vision for the game, there is no room for operational control as they clearly aim for strategic warfare control. All I'm saying is that the lack of fronts control by players takes away even the strategic aspect of the warfare gameplay. This is no longer about strategy but about abstraction.

 

[Skales]

The issue with Imperator was that it was entirely formulaic. I recall back when the whole 'one consul' controversy was going on, it was explained to silly me that obviously there can't be two heads of state (Not uncommon in Antique governments) because EU4 doesn't allow for that. I am not kidding, that was the reasoning.

I do not see how Paradox radically changing a system is at all similar to this kind of conventionalism. It is breaking the mould, which is good because in many ways it was holding Paradox back. Though admittedly, CK3 was basically just a copy of CK2 with better graphics, and it did fine, so I think the issue with Imperator was just how plain it was.

Edit: Just to offer my two cents on the issue. I think smaller fronts (region or several regions put together), to allow the player more decision making power in regards to troop concentration + the ability to direct the army to tactical objectives, would alleviate much of the issue.

 

[Eddie121]

I think I made it clear that fronts based on nation borders would still remain default, so I don't see how it would be a micro hellfest if players were given an option to have more granular control by drawing their own fronts if they wish so.

As soon as splitting fronts will become an option, the gamer in me will min-max it to death.
I will make 'fronts' 1 province large, and assign enough troops for proper encirclement operations.
It will be much more tedious than HOI IV but produce the same effect (lopsided victories against all odds).
It really has to be set by the game: 1 front per border state or strategic region.

 

[Trunting]

Plz gender it appropriately: Will Victoria be the next Imperatrix?

 

[5687VB]

I think it can be worse than imperator. Because imperator was a good game and the main issue was the excess of the mana system, without it the game is pretty good. In Vic 3 I see lots of possible major issues, lack of stockpiles, open economy and bad war system. This is too much to pack. Imperator need 1 year to get out the mana simulator feeling. This will need more.

 

[Vernichtere]

Vicky 3's problem can be on two levels. The economy has a relatively high probability of causing unpredictable effects when released. It's just complicated and will need patches. If there is also a war mechanic that is absolutely new, it can turn bad very quickly. And then it depends on how much patience the company will have. Imperator Rome was dropped relatively quickly, although the game would have been a lot easier to fix.

 

[Eddie121]

At the same time you're suggesting province-based fronts. Do you realise that provinces are the smallest territorial units in Victoria 3? I see some logical fallacy here, because you're suggesting that a little bit more granular fronts are micro, while proposing a way more micro approach based on provinces.

I was confused about the nomenclature. I meant having one front for each state or strategic region on the border

 

[Basileus2]

I'm getting that early Imperator dev diaries feeling too...albeit not quite as bad since literally every aspect of Imperator 1.0 was unsatisfactory. Its just that a major 1/3 of the game in this case (military) is basically non-existant.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

I'm getting that early Imperator dev diaries feeling too...albeit not quite as bad since literally every aspect of Imperator 1.0 was unsatisfactory. Its just that a major 1/3 of the game in this case (military) is basically non-existant.

Even if the military aspect of the game is minimal, I think it could very well be an excellent game. Diplomacy is, I've been told, one of the best board games ever made, and it focuses on diplomacy almost entirely to the detriment of a more intricate military system. I too would rather have a more hands-on approach to warfare for V3, but I think it'll still be a lot of fun even if there isn't one.

 

[Mauer]

The problem is that I don't want to micro my economy. I loved the fact that the economy was mostly run by capitalist AI in Vicky 2 and am dreading having to do everything relating to it myself in Vicky 3.

Have you considered that this might simply not be the game for you?

 

[Prince Ire]

Have you considered that this might simply not be the game for you?

Possibly, which is extremely frustrating because Vicky 2 is one of my favorite games ever and I was looking forwards to Vicky 3 up until it was announced that the player would control all factory construction.

 

[uleslaw]

I did not play Imperator a lot, but it seems to me that one of the main reasons for its failure is that it has decent warfare - and nothing much else. it lacks very hard in an area of internal politics and economy, which are extremely sophisticated in Victoria. so, Imperator is like Victoria à rebours.

If I have to choose between warfare and internal management in a grand strategy game, I think I would choose the latter, but heavily neglected warfare - which seems to be a case in Victoria - could not be good for the reception and future of any game, and especially in a game which covers World War I period. The two most successful, in terms of currently active players and the extent of MP community, PDX games are EUIV and HOI4 - and both are that type of game where you fight a lot.

we, grand strategy players, like to fight a good war or ten. And the team responsible for Victoria III should know that.

 

[maxk94]

I did not play Imperator a lot, but it seems to me that one of the main reasons for its failure is that it has decent warfare - and nothing much else. it lacks very hard in an area of internal politics and economy, which are extremely sophisticated in Victoria. so, Imperator is like Victoria à rebours.

If I have to choose between warfare and internal management in a grand strategy game, I think I would choose the latter, but heavily neglected warfare - which seems to be a case in Victoria - could not be good for the reception and future of any game, and especially in a game which covers World War I period. The two most successful, in terms of currently active players and the extent of MP community, PDX games are EUIV and HOI4 - and both are that type of game where you fight a lot.

we, grand strategy players, like to fight a good war or ten. And the team responsible for Victoria III should know that.

So why Imperator was no success while warfare there is so much better than in EU4?

It seems to me, that paradox wants more diversification between their GSGs, CK3 starts to be more a Roleplay while HoI4 is a wargame and Victoria 3 should cover internal politics and macronomics. I dont need an Hearts of Iron for every era in history.

 

[kviiri]

I think a rather big thing to mind is that while many people, including pro-crackpots like myself, were rather underwhelmed by DD23, the desire many have for a different take on warfare is strong and Victoria 3's new warfare system has many supporters on a conceptual level even if the initial implementation does seem quite minimal. I am personally hopeful that the warfare will improve iteratively from its new design, in which case people who like the concept but dislike the implementation (eg. for its barebones nature) will find it ultimately satisfying.

That said, I advise no one to buy games in the hopes they "will turn good eventually". What you do with your money is your biz of course but I personally prefer to keep my game studios at an arm's length barring exceptional circumstances – they get the money when they provide the quality I seek. Personally, I am going to get Victoria 3 because I think I can tolerate the warfare side being less involved if the economic, political and diplomatic sides of the game are solid.

 

[uleslaw]

So why Imperator was no success while warfare there is so much better than in EU4?

because everything else beside warfare is terrible in Imperator

 

[Kliwarrior]

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.

Imperator:Rome v. 2.0 it's a VERY good game. I'm so sad the development was halted.
Imperator:Rome v.1.0 was a joke .

But this forum is about Victoria.3 .

 

[Vernichtere]

because everything else beside warfare is terrible in Imperator

Let's put it this way. If it had been published as it is today, the response would have been much friendlier.

The Paradox games also live very much on the promise of further development. but for that it has to be interesting enough to play when released and have something special.

The more complicated the mechanics get, the more difficult it becomes to make a good release. If you also break with tradition, it can be difficult.

Theoretically, Imperator Rome had much simpler conditions and failed. Victoria III is much more risk-oriented in this regard.