Will Victoria 3 be the next Imperator?

[Soulcocoa]

I sincerely doubt that the game will turn out to be a new Imperator situation, primarily because as anyone that followed the dev diaries for that game, the backlash there was immediate, consistent and had very few defenders, with Victoria 3 so far the only controversies was the early one about capacities which some people argued were mana but fizzled out pretty hard, and this ongoing one, that's pretty normal for a game tbh, especially one that is making such radical changes.

Personally i would say it depends on what the fans think make the game worth playing, speaking as someone that has played more Vicky2 than is healthy, what i enjoy was everything other than war, so it doesn't super bother me, but there are people out there who loved war in Vicky 2. Whether this will make or break the game for them remains to be seen, it's entirely possible that all the other mechanics that look hugely improved will be enough to get them playing anyways. I also wanna remind people that a move like this can be seen as a way to broaden the appeal, at which point the question becomes, do they get enough new people in that it offsets the loss in fans playing the game (probably yes).

I would also remind people that we have yet to see several war mechanics so before anyone decides to pitch a full rework, they should probably wait and see first.

When it comes to Imperators failure, like others have pointed out here in the forum, the issue was not that the game was too revolutionary, it was quite the opposite, the game just played like euIV with CK2 slapped ontop, the development mechanic while better than the euIV one (low bar tbh) wasn't exactly that different. It let you move people around and had dynamic slavery, cool stuff but also not really anything that made anyone angry. It also suffered from similar issues to euIV where there ends up being a meta for devving, though that also happens with Vicky pops. The combat was just euIV combat with a stance mechanic (you set a stance and hope it counters whoever you are fighting) and slightly more units, it was barely different, naval combat barely existed on launch with only one type of boat, characters barely existed, like there were a lot of problems with Imperator and almost all of them came from the fact the game didn't really distinguish itself from it's peers till it was too late, this is not at all the same issue as Vicky 3 (insofar as you can argue it has an issue at this time)

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

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.

i wouldn't call the implementation of gambling-like mechanics as innovation at all. the "strategic" aspect of vic3's warfare is simply adjusting chances. sorry, but every slot machine can do that! if that is it then they really should bring the "tactical aspect" back as it, in fact, is more intellectually demanding than staring at slightly adjusted rng visualisations

when the player base pointed out that the excessive use of mana is a wrong design choice the devs didn't listen. even upon release they were stubborn, and look where it ultimately led them to: a total rework to version 2, rebranding and massive communication campaign (basically a re-release). and still they had to discontinue further development of imperator

this is very much likely to happen to vic3 too, unless the design choices are reconsidered before the release. and if this happens, they'll lose their reputation as developer of complex strategy games for good

 

[Vernichtere]

For me personally it is like this:

I'm an old fan of paradox games. I've been playing the games for twenty years. So I'll probably buy the game because I'm too interested in some areas. Unless I see absolutely damning reviews from youtubers I trust for a week.

As for the war mechanics, I actually expect a mechanic to be immersive. I mustn't get the feeling that I've lost something very important here.

The critical phase begins for me after the publication. If I don't really enjoy it, I won't buy the DLCs. I have to get the feeling that the game is moving forward well. So it depends very much on the two months after publication.

Right now I'm just trying to change a few things that don't work well. The mechanics of war still look very aimless conceptually. It is too much about the removal of the Mirkros for the sake of removal.

When people like me are mostly dissatisfied, things get difficult. This is not a Stellaris. The target group is much smaller.

 

[Nelfe]

V3 won't be the next Imperator (which is, btw, a good game now). If the new war system is proved to be a terrible fault, they'll quickly fix it.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

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

because it was burnt

and yes, i:r has a MUCH better warfare system than eu4. in fact, i:r has overall better mechanics than eu4 (just way too less flavour)

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.

"grand strategy" is defined by an engaging and complex gameplay in many aspects. if you simplify that you're not having a "grand" strategy game
anymore, and if you replace the strategic aspect with dull rng buttons and cartoonish animations, then you're not even having a "strategy" game anymore

 

[PK_AZ]

Moving your army is making decisions.

No. It is not. Not in Paradox Games. In Total Wars, yeah, I can agree with that. But in Paradox Games, moving your armies is just putting them into carpet sieging, and looking after them to concentrate them when enemy army come.

Im devastated that people protects this new warfare system so blindly. Its automatic and ai controlled with no choice. Of course it wont be fun. I cannot belive people want to simplify one of the most major things.

It is not that we protect new warfare system. It is that your arguments are so weak that we are physically unable to agree with them.

 

[Revshawn]

I think Victoria 3 Will be fine. The biggest problem that Imperator had was the lack of common history with the rest of the world combined with the fact that Paradox did a terrible job telling classical history within the game. It was literally a map painter because no one could associate with the game. One or two playthrough then you have experienced most of the content of the game.

Victoria 3 is already set to be far different

 

[Aquae Sulis]

I think a lot of the appeal of the combat of EU4 and, less so, HOI4 is that a skilled and dedicated human could outplay the AI. Given you outplay the AI why on earth would you leave anything to the AI.

I like the idea of fronts but they need to be implemented well. Any quirks, uncertainties or even the feeling that players can't affect proceedings and the calls for a new system will only get louder.

 

[grommile]

a skilled and dedicated human could outplay the AI.

The level of skill and dedication needed to outplay the EU4 AI is... not really high enough to be satisfying.

 

[wingren013]

The problem with Imperator was that the gameplay loop didn't work. You just constantly declared war on featureless and samey enemies while being rewarded with things that had no real substantive value to you. It lacked a reason for players to engage with most of its systems, and your accomplishments felt hollow because the mechanics behind them were hollow. It was also an incredibly tedious game on release, full of mechanics that were best summed up as "wait for mana, click button for more mana"

Vicky 3, despite some controversy and some choices that may or may not pay off seems to have at least a very clear vision of how you are supposed to have fun with the game.

 

[GrafKeks]

i wouldn't call the implementation of gambling-like mechanics as innovation at all. the "strategic" aspect of vic3's warfare is simply adjusting chances. sorry, but every slot machine can do that! if that is it then they really should bring the "tactical aspect" back as it, in fact, is more intellectually demanding than staring at slightly adjusted rng visualisations

Planing is more intellectually demanding, albeit less short-term memory demanding. The slot machine analogy is quite weird, there is a difference between p-random and actually random.

when the player base pointed out that the excessive use of mana is a wrong design choice the devs didn't listen. even upon release they were stubborn, and look where it ultimately led them to: a total rework to version 2, rebranding and massive communication campaign (basically a re-release). and still they had to discontinue further development of imperator

Invictus is pretty good, and abstracting micro away opens access to a wider target audience, so business-wise this makes sense. There are far more euro-gamer than war-gamer. ( Without having further information I am uncertain whether this new or HoIs system is superior, but actual innovation is ver nice to see)

this is very much likely to happen to vic3 too, unless the design choices are reconsidered before the release. and if this happens, they'll lose their reputation as developer of complex strategy games for good

What are your postulates and your interferences for your conclusion? Very much likely sounds extremely certain.

 

[Anna_Gein]

I get pre release hype but people are way to dismissive to the idea an Imperator : Rome situation could happen again given how CK3 is performing theses days.

Edit :

because it was burnt

and yes, i:r has a MUCH better warfare system than eu4. in fact, i:r has overall better mechanics than eu4 (just way too less flavour)

Too bad the "Marius" update largely dowgrated I:R warfare system by restricting the player ability to raise armies and recruits units according to his wish.

 

[GrafKeks]

I get pre release hype but people are way to dismissive to the idea an Imperator : Rome situation could happen again given how CK3 is performing theses days.

Why do people dismiss A when B.

How is CK III specifically related? Why would an Imperator : Rome scenario happen again, the community reactions are far different.

My turn: Why do people dislike complexer but easier to manage systems, HoI IV blows HoI out of the water when it comds to market-performance? Imagine how Vicky 3 will compare to 2.

 

[Anna_Gein]

Why do people dismiss A when B.

How is CK III specifically related? Why would an Imperator : Rome scenario happen again, the community reactions are far different.

My turn: Why do people dislike complexer but easier to manage systems, HoI IV blows HoI out of the water when it comds to market-performance? Imagine how Vicky 3 will compare to 2.

You must have missed Crusader Kings 3 retention numbers. It is comparatively worse than Imperator Rome.
There is even a thread about it in the CK3 forum.

 

[GrafKeks]

You must have missed Crusader Kings 3 retention numbers. It is comparatively worse than Imperator Rome.
There is even a thread about it in the CK3 forum.

12758 on steamdb in-game in CK III
747 Imperator : Rome in-game steam db

Reviews are also vastly different, I actually wanted to say I can relate as Geheimnisnacht is not on CK III yet, whereas Imperator got Invictus. But 12k is far above my wildest imagination.

To be fair though HoI has 30k rn, but it's HoI.

 

[JustJacque]

You must have missed Crusader Kings 3 retention numbers. It is comparatively worse than Imperator Rome.
There is even a thread about it in the CK3 forum.

Ck3 is suffering from everyone waiting for a big summer update and dlc that has no release date 3 months after the end of summer. I love CK3 as is, but I'm not playing it because the promised update isn't here yet. When a single campaign takes me a month to play, a game changing update on the horizon stops me starting one. From conversations with my friends, this is pretty much why they aren't playing either.

 

[Anna_Gein]

12758 on steamdb in-game in CK III
747 Imperator : Rome in-game steam db

Reviews are also vastly different, I actually wanted to say I can relate as Geheimnisnacht is not on CK III yet, whereas Imperator got Invictus. But 12k is far above my wildest imagination.

To be fair though HoI has 30k rn, but it's HoI.

players "retention numbers"

 

[gjfkgjfj]

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.

i dont think so, as you said, imperator used a lot of new systems, vic3 uses old systems but improve them, apart from warfare, the economic and simulation system of vic2 is there, and is more complex, but the warfare system is most likely some type of trash, so, no, vic3 will not be an imperator, but will have mixed views

 

[cdub8d]

Why do people dismiss A when B.

How is CK III specifically related? Why would an Imperator : Rome scenario happen again, the community reactions are far different.

My turn: Why do people dislike complexer but easier to manage systems, HoI IV blows HoI out of the water when it comds to market-performance? Imagine how Vicky 3 will compare to 2.

Something like 43% of Hoi4 players play on very easy and buff themselves. Then just watch the game play for them during combat. Why do you think Paradox games design their games the way they do. Podcat admitted to playing like that. The Vicky 3 devs admitted to just watching combat.