Why VGN crush Victoria

[Fastsnake]

... or not, stop being so rude with the chiefs, boy.

[Adlertag]

And a safe and convenient way to avoid having to model said revolutions

As a PC game design is often a matter of crucial choices, it's true different start and end dates won't lead to the same work load and research.
If you are right ideally, when you propose an earlier start date then this may push forward the release date for several months and pragmatically, it may be unaffordable for a small game studio to do it...

[Zap Brannigan]

I'd imagine that by starting in 1850 instead of 1848 or earlier there should be more freedom for the player to play more varied games (for the longer period). if you started in 1848 nearly every game would be consumed (at the beginning) by dealing with these rebellions every time. It seems like they want a wider scope of possibilities closer to real history - i.e. the revolutions have occurred and the world has changed, now deal with the consequences which you can't avoid by taking out the revolution at the start. The developers seem to want you to deal with the world after these events rather than an alternative where they lost/ didn't happen.

Basically if you play the 1848 events and change it, then the game is longer based on the 19th century we know, right from the start. (Just a theory)

[alexander seil]

I'd imagine that by starting in 1850 instead of 1848 or earlier there should be more freedom for the player to play more varied games (for the longer period). if you started in 1848 nearly every game would be consumed (at the beginning) by dealing with these rebellions every time. It seems like they want a wider scope of possibilities closer to real history - i.e. the revolutions have occurred and the world has changed, now deal with the consequences which you can't avoid by taking out the revolution at the start. The developers seem to want you to deal with the world after these events rather than an alternative where they lost/ didn't happen.

Basically if you play the 1848 events and change it, then the game is longer based on the 19th century we know, right from the start. (Just a theory)

I'm afraid your reasoning is contradictory - certainly, by excluding a tumultuous event, you're limiting the player's ability to experience alternate outcomes of said event, thus limiting replayability. Besides, you could find an event in every decade that would irreversibly change the course of history - what if Alexander II didn't get stupidly assassinated and enacted a constitution?

And the 19th century I know has a big fat liberal revolution in the middle

More to the point, given the militaristic focus of the game - it sadly excludes the Mexican-American War...and there just aren't enough wars in the 19th century to be throwing them away like that

[Zap Brannigan]

I'm afraid your reasoning is contradictory - certainly, by excluding a tumultuous event, you're limiting the player's ability to experience alternate outcomes of said event, thus limiting replayability. Besides, you could find an event in every decade that would irreversibly change the course of history - what if Alexander II didn't get stupidly assassinated and enacted a constitution?

And the 19th century I know has a big fat liberal revolution in the middle

More to the point, given the militaristic focus of the game - it sadly excludes the Mexican-American War...and there just aren't enough wars in the 19th century to be throwing them away like that

Definately didn't make my point clearly - I agree that if you start the campaign at 1848 the changes would make the game very different - but every game will start the same way - you'd be changing these events every time unless the AI was very predictable and the world after this would then be a radically different 19th century. My point is that the developers would appear to want a less pure sandbox game than the likes of Victoria - it looks like they want a game based on the world after the 1848 revolution. By starting right after it they want us to deal with the effects of this event and then change history (the beginning of a new era so to speak - you can't keep the old one alive). A parallel would be starting a game in 1939 versus 1945.

As for the wars, I think I read somewhere here there will be scenarios of certain conflicts as well the campaign (correct me if I'm wrong). The campaign is unlikely to produce the exact wars that occured anyway so unless you started at the exact start of any war you won't see it.

An earlier start might be better, but until we play the game we really don't know.

[McNaughton]

I'm afraid your reasoning is contradictory - certainly, by excluding a tumultuous event, you're limiting the player's ability to experience alternate outcomes of said event, thus limiting replayability. Besides, you could find an event in every decade that would irreversibly change the course of history - what if Alexander II didn't get stupidly assassinated and enacted a constitution?

And the 19th century I know has a big fat liberal revolution in the middle

More to the point, given the militaristic focus of the game - it sadly excludes the Mexican-American War...and there just aren't enough wars in the 19th century to be throwing them away like that

Thank you for your input. There are some things for consideration. Thanks again!

[alexander seil]

Thank you for your input. There are some things for consideration. Thanks again!

Does the game support limited scenarios still? Perhaps Mexican-American War should be one of those.

If one were to set the programmers loose on that, maybe you could import the outcome into the Grand Campaign

[Pocus]

There are definitively limited scenarios indeed.

[Generalisimo]

Does the game support limited scenarios still? Perhaps Mexican-American War should be one of those.

If one were to set the programmers loose on that, maybe you could import the outcome into the Grand Campaign

We can divide the scenarios in Campaigns and Battle Scenarios... if you have played any previous AGEOD game (I mean, with the AGE engine ), the scenarios that you are used to see fall inside the Battle Scenarios (more focused on war only, just obtain some objectives ASAP and the game ends).
The new Campaigns are completelly different in scope... with a whole new set of features.

[DooberGuy]

I am a HUGE customer for both paradox and ageod. I have most of the games from both (well, at least all of the major ones like ACW, HOI, Vicky, EU...) and I have to say that paradox is much more hit or miss with their games, but when they hit, man do they hit. I actually really liked Vicky 1 and I played it a lot.

On the other hand HOI3 REALLY let me down. I mean I had such huge hopes for the game, especially because HOI2 was so nearly perfect. It's not that I minded the fact that it needed patches to be finished, that I can understand. What I can't understand is why they basically went back to their HOI1 setup, and then added a crazy leadership system. I understand that they did it in order to allow the AI to take over for you, but man, it is just impossible to work. The other thing that I can't understand is why they charge me for freaking SPRITES AND MUSIC! That is just disgusting. Then they charged me for Semper Fi, to fix what they screwed up the first time.

AGEOD has had their fair share of mistakes, but the way that they refunded WW1 made me a believer in them in a whole new way. They may be French, but they are okay in my book.

[DooberGuy]

Please forgive the rant...

[PhilThib]

You welcome

[Pdubya64]

Yeah, I think just about all of us "strategy types" have their own mixed-message story concerning Paradox... an apt name if there ever was one!

On one hand, I want a game company to push the boundaries of war/strategic gaming as we know it. So, Paradox gets points in my book for doing so. However, they frequently seem to bite off more than they can chew- pulling off these new ideas isn't easy (as I am sure the Phils can attest) but man, does it ever get frustrating when the inevitable "turd" gets released and just never lives up to the hype. I wanted HOI3 to succeed so bad it hurt- but I suppose if I am being honest I would say I had a bad feeling about it even midstream in the development cycle.

Of course we are all quite the demanding lot to please too, so you can't help but keep giving these guys chances to redeem themselves. As DooberGuy mentioned, when they are "on" it has been great. Here's to hoping their fortunes change for the better.

I have to say that I am in the "wait for the reviews" camp with regards to the latest Victorian releases. I don't know about you guys, but between work, the necessaries of life and all the other gaming areas competing for my time these days there aren't enough hours in the day anymore... not to mention money in the wallet!

[tagwyn]

Until we get the game we can only be hopeful and guess at its play. t

[tagwyn]

DG: YOu are correct in every way. t

[marcusjm]

Well Paradox must be doing something right since they make good money and seem to have a very loyal fanbase. Let's face it, these type of complicated games will always be hard to do right.

It comes down to interest in the end, my interest for this time period is greater than my worries about bugs. I am one of those who actually prefer ETW to MTW2 and RTW . This is how much interest I have in this period.

AGEOD has a superb track record when it comes to supporting their games so buying this will be a no-brainer for me.

I honestly can't see what people have against micro-payments either, it is still a choice you make, you don't have to use those sprites. Just see how successful Apple has been with cheap pricing on games. When you buy a game for 6 bucks you can excuse some bugs .

[geiramk]

Humble opinion: Turn-based > real-time

[Ashbery76]

Why is it that on the Vicky2 forum it seems most of them just want turn their nation commie,and that is the only thing that interests them about the game.

[John Sedgwick]

I've been a huge fan of Paradox ever since the first EU, bought all their games until they went 3D - my aging PC just couldn't keep up. I was eventually able to give EU3 a try on a new compy, and enjoyed it, but it never charmed me the way the first two did. HOI3 was a total let-down compared to its predecessors - which is a shame because it showed so much promise. Victoria was and is my favourite P'dox title by far (HOI2 and Crusader Kings are tied for second), because I'm obsessed with the Victorian era and I loved the micromanagement and pops and all the things other people seem to hate. I was hella excited when they announced Victoria 2 - never thought I'd see the day - but I was sadly dissapointed; I suppose it could never have lived up to my expectations. It's a decent game and I think they struck the right balance between micromanagement and a more intuitive UI, but I still prefer Ricky with VIP.

As for who will crush whom, it's not a zero sum game. Different strokes for different folks. I have a good feeling about PoN, and I think I can trust AGEOD not to let me down. I generally prefer turn-based to real-time, prefer 2D to 3D, and value gameplay over graphics, but I did like Victoria's emphasis on economics and industrialization over warfare. However, I think I'll be happier with PoN because of its (hopefully) greater historical accuracy, or at least plausibility. Of course changing history is the name of the game, but I found EU3, HOI3 and V2 went too far in the ahistorical direction, and over time the wildly implausible outcomes would destroy my suspension of disbelief. That said, although I feel Paradox has gone downhill, they still rank among my favourite developers of all time, and I hope they may yet surprise me. But AGEOD is my new number one fave

By the way, I'm Alice on the P'dox forums, though I doubt if anyone will remember. I was never very active there, but I did make some city icons for Victoria that were included in VIP, among other minor graphical mods. Lots of familiar faces, I see!

[Bruit Bleu]

Why is it that on the Vicky2 forum it seems most of them just want turn their nation commie,and that is the only thing that interests them about the game.

Hopes for the engine to be easier to mod than current Ageod games !

[noddy102]

Hi guys,

I've been keeping my eye on this title over the last few years, but haven't actually been keeping track of its progress.

The idea of the game appealed to me from the beginning, since as far as I remember it was announced before Victoria 2 was announced? Any way, it is really great to hear this game is almost ready to be released.

I've got Birth of America, American Civil War, and even Great Invasions, but have found it really hard to get into these games. I don't know exactly why. All three titles are extremely appealing on content and subject alone, but I've found it difficult to be pulled into the gameplay side of things.

Here's hoping however that I'll have an easier transition with Pride of Nations and that you'll have me hooked with the gameplay. Rest assured, I'll be buying it upon release, and hopefully playing the demo soon enough!

Best of luck with the release!

[Mirandasucre]

i still don't know PON but i suppose it won't be easier to get into.......i can understand you found hard to get into Great invasions ( me too), and AACW , but, if it's the case for BOA,..perhaps there aren't games for you....seriously BOA is easy to play....try again...

[NefariousKoel]

The combat, alone, in an AGE engine game blows away the sad excuse that passes for it in Pdox games.

If the AI is still capable in any way, and there isn't complete screwiness in the gameplay, it'll also be an easy rout.

[Ashbery76]

The combat, alone, in an AGE engine game blows away the sad excuse that passes for it in Pdox games.

If the AI is still capable in any way, and there isn't complete screwiness in the gameplay, it'll also be an easy rout.

Vainglory is a Paradox game now.

[Pocus]

the AGE engine was at the start a pure military engine, and we are not toning the battle module for Pride of Nations (aka Vainglory of Empires ). In fact, you should get extra like tanks able to disrupt enemy trenches, artillery on 'offensive mode' that are even more lethal than usual, airplanes, sub warfare, etc.

[DooberGuy]

One more reason that VGN will be better than Vicky... NO DAMN DLC! I HATE DLC! The idea of having to pay for things like music, a better looking map, and authentic looking units is insane. I won't do it out of principle, and I won't buy anymore paradox games as long as the rip-off DLC remains.

Don't get me wrong, DLC has its place in certain games, Total War for example adds a new campaign, or some new historical units/battles. I'll live with that, because they're giving me actual game content, not just making the game look and sound how it should right out of the box.

Sorry about the rant...

[DooberGuy]

Oh, and the AGE engine. The AGE engine allows the plucky little guy to win a game every once and awhile. With the paradox system victory always goes to the side with the bigger armies, and those bigger armies always belong to those with the better economies.

This means that Texas could never beat Mexico, Finland could never hold the Soviet Union off for years in the Winter War, Japan could never beat Russia in a land war, America could never beat Britain in the Revolution/1812, the CSA could never hold off the USA for 5 years....

History is full of examples where the little guy, with the help of outstanding generals and more motivated individual soldiers, managed to defeat or almost-defeat opponents that were much stronger than they.

That is what you get with an AGEOD game vs. a Paradox game.

[Hohenlohe]

I still hope to play additionally some minor nations like The Ottomans, Egypt, Ethiopia, Paraguay or even China or perhaps the Zulus or the Boers...

I have some special interests in the Ottomans and Paraguay because I want to do an alternative approach to history.

Related to Paraguay this would mean that I would try to make Paraguay a more modern state and nationa in that era and to choose another way like it was done in history by Paraguays Leader in that era.

As the Ottoman Sultan-Kaliph it would be interesting to try a decent modernization of the Ottoman Empire to survive in a better way than it happened historically.

As the Zulus it would be something interesting if they would be able to develop from a somehow protostate into a more modern nation.

Sofar I understand it would be possible to modify some data in an easy way thus I assume it would be possible to start as Paraguay or the Ottomans.

But I would be glad to know if there will be any related event files belonging to this nations or whether it would be necessary to create some from scratch.

Sofar my personal opinion and wishes...Some advice from the Dev Team would be nice...

greetings

Hohenlohe

edit: I still pre-ordered the game at Amazon, sry if it bring you not enough money by the way...

[Pocus]

We will post the procedure to switch to another faction when the game is released, no problem.

[Flop]

I think China is the most obvious "missing" nation in the game, although by 1850 there's probably no longer any chance of it catching up to western Europe in the short term. It might still be fun to play for a challenge, though, maybe trying to keep Qing alive.