RE: Victoria 2 demo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Widell -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/13/2010 7:57:32 PM)

Aha, that's a real bummer if there's no way to lock the sliders!



Phatguy -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/13/2010 8:51:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

Without going into the discussion about who's who on the forum, it seems as if PI has developed a beast of a game engine. The so called "complaint thread" (and not all posters in that thread seems to agree on anything!) talks about "unhistorical" and other strange behaviors. Also that it's too easy to "win" (whatever that means in these kind of games!) etc.

Now, keep in mind, I'm a HOI player and not a EU or Vicky player, but still..... To me it feels like PI got lost after HOI I and II. The engine is way to flexible and has so many moddable parameters it seems almost impossible to create grand scenarios which does not seem to deviate in very, very unhistorical ways. Now, I'm a friend of games that allow the player, aka me, to influence the game in a way that create a new, alternate history, specially with this type of epic, grand scale games, but when the whole engine/scenario design is so unpredictable, it feels like the possibilities in the software has taken over from the player and history is shaped by the randomness in the parameters rather than by the actions of the player.

This type of game would probably be better in a CIV-setting with random maps, as there is no need for historic settings in that context with the exception of technology and research, and I assume Vicky is as good as HOI in that respect.

My 2 cents. PI should maybe benefit from creating more historic games like the previous versions of HOI and maybe Vicky, and possibly develop a "random map/nations" game based on their current philosophy.


If I wanted historical I would just read a history book...Ahistorical is not all that bad.Especially if it's in the realm of plausible ahistory. As long as stupid things like Bhutan declaring war on the Faroe Islands doesnt happen i'm okay with it..Nothing wrong with something akin to WW1 happening in 1901. Dont really see why some over there are so adamant about stuff like this being considered "bad"..



Arctic Blast -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/13/2010 10:15:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

Without going into the discussion about who's who on the forum, it seems as if PI has developed a beast of a game engine. The so called "complaint thread" (and not all posters in that thread seems to agree on anything!) talks about "unhistorical" and other strange behaviors. Also that it's too easy to "win" (whatever that means in these kind of games!) etc.

Now, keep in mind, I'm a HOI player and not a EU or Vicky player, but still..... To me it feels like PI got lost after HOI I and II. The engine is way to flexible and has so many moddable parameters it seems almost impossible to create grand scenarios which does not seem to deviate in very, very unhistorical ways. Now, I'm a friend of games that allow the player, aka me, to influence the game in a way that create a new, alternate history, specially with this type of epic, grand scale games, but when the whole engine/scenario design is so unpredictable, it feels like the possibilities in the software has taken over from the player and history is shaped by the randomness in the parameters rather than by the actions of the player.

This type of game would probably be better in a CIV-setting with random maps, as there is no need for historic settings in that context with the exception of technology and research, and I assume Vicky is as good as HOI in that respect.

My 2 cents. PI should maybe benefit from creating more historic games like the previous versions of HOI and maybe Vicky, and possibly develop a "random map/nations" game based on their current philosophy.


If I wanted historical I would just read a history book...Ahistorical is not all that bad.Especially if it's in the realm of plausible ahistory. As long as stupid things like Bhutan declaring war on the Faroe Islands doesnt happen i'm okay with it..Nothing wrong with something akin to WW1 happening in 1901. Dont really see why some over there are so adamant about stuff like this being considered "bad"..


Totally agree. I've never seen where the draw is if a game is just a note for note replay of actual history. I play a game to possibly change things or do them differently, not just blindly copy what already happened.



Widell -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/13/2010 11:17:56 PM)

I agree with apathetic lurker and Arctic Blast 100%. I prefer ahistorical, specially in games where technology development, buildings and production is involved. Hope no one misunderstood me on that one :-) I was more saying that things went to the "Bhutan declaring war on the Faroe Islands" way too often in the later PI games, and my wild guess was that this is related to the complexity of the engine and the moddable scripts behind HoI III, Vicky 2 and EUIII(? is that correct btw or is there a later version there?). World War I in 1901 is fully OK with me.... and just to prove it, a link to my unfinished AAR of an alternate WWII history: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=241317 [:)]



LarryP -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 12:28:30 AM)

I don't care either way because I was never good at history anyway. [:D] Even if the game were perfectly aligned with historical facts, I would end up wanting to change things. So ahistorical for me! [;)]

Making History didn't bother me along those lines of not following history, but the game just stunk anyway. [:(]



Joe D. -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 1:04:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

... Now, keep in mind, I'm a HOI player and not a EU or Vicky player, but still..... To me it feels like PI got lost after HOI I and II ...


I've played all three, as well as EU Rome, which was unplayable when first released.

Paradox found that trying to force history on its EU engine sometimes made its behavior eratic, so they went w/"smarter": HoI3 was the unfortunate result.

However, EU3 is playable and Para keeps turning out new subversions for it, but forget abt re-playing Euro history as you knew it.



Widell -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 9:06:59 AM)

Thanks Joe. I have EUIII sitting on a CD I got from my local grocery(!) store almost for free. Also have HoI III, and while I have managed to get it to actually run, I haven't really gotten into it.

Again, I agree with everyone on the comments around changing history. I would not enjoy a game in which the outcome was inevitable. To me the point is to develop an alternate history for sure...



SlickWilhelm -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 1:41:47 PM)

What I think should be mandatory in a historical based game is the possibility that one can shape events to achieve more or less historical outcomes. Not the inevitability, but the possibility. It shouldn't be impossible to achieve ahistorical or historical outcomes. 



06 Maestro -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 2:23:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

What I think should be mandatory in a historical based game is the possibility that one can shape events to achieve more or less historical outcomes. Not the inevitability, but the possibility. It shouldn't be impossible to achieve ahistorical or historical outcomes. 


I agree completely. It is standard for me to attempt to play out a game in a completely historical fashion before going off on some non historical path. In my view, if a game cannot replicate the actual history when you are attempting to do so, it is not a historical game. It could be called a half complete model. Of course, if there is no claim to historical accuracy, then it does not matter how it plays out.



wosung -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 6:59:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro


quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

What I think should be mandatory in a historical based game is the possibility that one can shape events to achieve more or less historical outcomes. Not the inevitability, but the possibility. It shouldn't be impossible to achieve ahistorical or historical outcomes. 


I agree completely. It is standard for me to attempt to play out a game in a completely historical fashion before going off on some non historical path. In my view, if a game cannot replicate the actual history when you are attempting to do so, it is not a historical game. It could be called a half complete model. Of course, if there is no claim to historical accuracy, then it does not matter how it plays out.


So are Paradox games able to replicate history, say in hands off games? Is this important at all to you? What do you all think?

Frequently this is discussed over there at the Paradox forums. I'm curious what the Matrix forumites think about this.

Regards




nelmsm1 -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 7:18:17 PM)

I'd say if you ran the game 1000 times you should get the historical results once or twice but if you think of how much history turns on a single decision and how those decisions led to other decisions you would expect the game to have a wide variation of outcomes.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 9:13:10 PM)

If you went back to 1836 and ran real life time 1000 times and then looked at a tree of all the outcomes you would have tens of millions of branches. Paradox games are historical simulators. Kind of like a flight simulator lets you fly within the confines of a real plane but you can fly however you want. Paradox lets you play within the confines of real history but where you want to go is up to you.

And most games get most things right. Italy and Germany usually form. The United States grows roughly to within historical realms. Canada and Aus/NZ break off and found their own nations. etc etc
Africa and Asia may end up looking different.



Widell -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/14/2010 10:01:59 PM)

The "historical vs non historical" discussion will go on forever [:)], and it's down to individual preferences if we like a particular game or not. My pitch is that as long as the player cannot have substantial influence on technology development and production, this will most often lead down the "historical path". The challenge becomes to "do better" compared to history, with given reinforcements and given technology. Once the player gets control over technology and production, the player also control the ToE and OOB and, unless the player makes an effort, alternate history unfolds. Another indicator is of course events. Does the player get to choose if an event trigger or not? Are the likelihood of the events being triggered random, or are they linked to the timeline of the game? As soon as the player can choose if he signs the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact", you're going to open up for alternate history. Is there a 50/50 or 80/20 99/1 likelihood for Churchill become Prime Minister? There you go again.

Some games are more aiming for the player to challenge history and try to make better within reasonably historical boundaries (WitP, the Panther Games series, many of the TOAW scenarios), while others challenge the player to change history more radically (HoI and the PI games in general, many of the "historical" AT scenarios). An interesting middle way, which makes for interesting gaming are the AACW and FOF games which has managed to give the players a lot of freedom to control stuff while still allowing for historically plausible games. Maybe that's because there are only two sides in those games?

IMHO, there's not one answer, to which approach is the better. I have played TOAW since it came out about 100 years ago. Same with HoI. Love them both [:)].



Joe D. -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 12:54:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

So are Paradox games able to replicate history ...


They were up to EU2 where the player could only enter the game at specific times, but that ended in EU3: the player can now pick any date to start the game.

I gave up on EU3 after Para added "Napoleon's Ambition," only the emperor wasn't very ambitious and it was boring.



Lützow -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 12:57:57 AM)

Well, back to topic. [;)]

Playing Prussia through the first 30 years and so far I can tell that Victoria 2 is in a more polished state as HoI 3 was at release. Nonetheless it suffers from balance problems and establishing a working and succesful economy is by far too easy if one takes Vicky as standard for comparison.

The game looks good and is fun to play, but not much of a challenge for veterans. Hopefully next patch or a later community mod will fix this.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 3:57:41 AM)

I would have to agree it is in a more polished state. I would recommend the game. I like it. Is easier than Vic 1 but probley right up some peoples alley.



Widell -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 11:40:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow
... Victoria 2 is in a more polished state as HoI 3 was at release. Nonetheless it suffers from balance problems and establishing a working and succesful economy is by far too easy if one takes Vicky as standard for comparison.


Thank the Gaming God for that. HoI 3 was IMHO a disaster of a release. Hopefully there will be options, or scenarios, available down the road to provide a greater challenge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow
The game looks good and is fun to play, but not much of a challenge for veterans. Hopefully next patch or a later community mod will fix this.


The modders will undoubtedly get to work and will ultimately provide great mods. Question is if they will become available/playable before the game is sold at $9.99?

LOL - I think I'll stay with HoI III, EUIII and Vicky I for a while and monitor the development on Vicky II initially. I'd like to check out a few AAR's over at PI to see where these games take off.



Lützow -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 1:41:49 PM)

What leaves a stale taste for me is the diminished meaning of economy, because I always considered this as the most interesting part of Victoria.

In Vicky you constructed vertical production lines according to RGOs. If a country produced wool, one wanted a cloth factory and on top of that a luxury cloth factory. To keep everything efficient you had to meticulously supervise input of materials and employees, or purchase missing goods on the market - and hurt your economy on the long haul.

In Victoria 2 this system is still in place, aside of pop promotion, but prices are restricted within a narrow band. The AI succesful acquires missing goods and pop needs on the market and one can build a liquid distillery even he does not produce glass. There is no need for vertical production anymore.

To paraphrase it: Victoria 2 requires not much thinking on the economy side and it would be almost impossible to run a major power like Prussia into bancrupty. After 30 years I got 4 mio funds and could bear a negative balance for decades. I consider this as flawed balancing, but guess it was done on purpose to make the game more accessible for a broader audience.



goodwoodrw -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 3:55:38 PM)

I would have recommended this game too, but the revolt bug really is a game killer. The game is turned into a click fest when rebel spawn all over the countryside. This appears to happen when win a war are close to winning one, just really stuffs up a potential good game[:@]



Joe D. -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 6:18:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I would have recommended this game too, but the revolt bug really is a game killer. The game is turned into a click fest when rebel spawn all over the countryside. This appears to happen when win a war are close to winning one ...


Sid Meir did somewhat the same thing in Civilization, only they were called "fanatics".



hgilmer3 -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/15/2010 10:59:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

I would have recommended this game too, but the revolt bug really is a game killer. The game is turned into a click fest when rebel spawn all over the countryside. This appears to happen when win a war are close to winning one, just really stuffs up a potential good game[:@]


I don't know if it's a bug or not, but it sure takes any fun out of my game when you get to the point that nothing you can do will stop the revolts, so you're left with pause/go to/put down rebellion two to three times a gameweek. It's just not fun. I'd like it except for that.

And I played the demo for Vic 2 and I had all the Jacobins revolting. I don't know if it is realistic or not, but haven't all game makers pretty much come around to he belief that if realism gets in the way of it being fun, then maybe you should leave that part out?

I;m sure it would be realistic if you had to feed them three times a day, too, but no one wants to do that for their troops.



goodwoodrw -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 12:21:57 AM)

I think the shear volume of rebels is the issue. You spend several years building up your army and then instantly you lose them, because of a silly little rule that says any unit built in a rebelling province becomes a rebel unit. So unrealistic, and then to compound the issue they multiply far quicker than the player can ever make units. I have seen rebel stacks with over 200 thousand soldiers. Phew! If you build units and the provinces revolts all you are doing is increase their numbers. I to enjoy playing the game as well, however I am not going to waste my time with it until this problem is fixed. I have started 3 games and each time I have given up due to the rebel issue.
Ron



LarryP -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 12:48:12 AM)

Have you tried this tweak for the rebels yet?
Rebels and Reform tweaks
I just installed it and I am going in to try the game now and see if it helps.

There is also the Quick Fix Thread at Paradox, but you've probably already been there:
Quick Fix Thread

[:)]



Lützow -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 12:57:29 AM)

Ok, I lost my first game with Prussia in 1881. [;)]

Fought 4 wars altogether. First time Austria attacked me and it ended with white peace. A decade later I payed it back when they were in a struggle with Russia, and got Bohemia and Moravia as loot. Waited until the Russians were engaged with China and assaulted them. This time I took Wiekopolski, Mazowiecki and Brest for the glory of Germany. What was obviously a tad too much, as it left me with 39 infamy and as soon a I signed the treaty, I got assaulted again by Austria. Still performed reasonably well with the bleeded army and gathered 12 war points already, when in every German province a stack of 6k jacobin rebs spawned and entangled my troops into fights. Can't even blame the commies, because I denied reforms, ignored election results and constituted the nationalist party instead.

Vicky 2 is a mixed bag: smooth and enjoyable on the one hand and more intriguing than Europa Universalis. That said, since you get not much occupied with domestic micromanagement here, it plays rather EU style anyhow. Also the game is not strictly tied to history. Neither the Schleswig conflict, nor the German-French war got triggered in due time. Regarding AI, I'm not sure yet if it plays smart with amphibious landings. No idea why the Russians didn't debark some divisions in my undefended provinces. To my knowlege they had transporters available.

The question if this game sucks or not is a matter of perspective. Who expects a worthy Victoria successor might get disapointed, but the EU followers should be satisfied. Considering the inevitable patches to straighten the balancing I'd give a decent rating in terms of entertainment value at least.



Phatguy -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 1:57:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I would have to agree it is in a more polished state. I would recommend the game. I like it. Is easier than Vic 1 but probley right up some peoples alley.


Yup..right up my alley..I dont know why there has to be a divide between the hardcore Vicky I types and the so-called casual wargamer....I like Vicky II and am glad I dont have to micro/macro manage everything down to the tiniest detail. That would put me in the camp of the casual/noob gamers according to the hardcore crowd..And yet I loved all the detail of Campaign for North Africa and Fire in the East....I'd like to see the majority of them try CNA. I'd throw down great odds that most would rocking back and forth holding their knees and crying uncontrollably after about two or three turns of that monster....



jomni -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 2:24:22 AM)

I think the original Victoria didn't do well because of the complexity.  I for one avoided it like the plague.
The changes are positive for me as I liked EU so much and this looks like an extension of EU. 

Regarding the historical issue... Paradox games do not play in a historical fashion so I'm not expecting.



bairdlander2 -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 2:26:55 AM)

Im downloading now,even though I found Vic 1 too complex.After so much positive feedback here and on PI forums Im taking the plunge.



goodwoodrw -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/16/2010 4:20:00 AM)

Yep I have, but I'm not sure if they help. I still getting rebel problems, Maybe I have to start a new game.
Ron



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/17/2010 2:26:19 AM)

Playing England and Ive been able to beat the rebels that pop up without problem.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Victoria 2 demo (8/17/2010 2:50:05 AM)

I feel for the CSA, they have been going at it for at least 4 or more years(vs USA) and it looks like their losing. They must have wanted to allie with me(UK) a dozen times. Almost jumped in to help but decided against it. [:(][:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.113281