Why VGN crush Victoria

[Pocus]

Mmmh interesting then!

[Aragos]

Don't know about you fellows, but I'm planning on buying both.

But I'll love VGN more

[Pocus]

I think I'll buy only one (pun)

[boajack]

Well I will certainly bye both games

At the moment (looking at screenshots and reading dev. diarys) me thinks that victoria is a litte more promissing

[Andriko]

Well I will certainly bye both games

At the moment (looking at screenshots and reading dev. diarys) me thinks that victoria is a litte more promissing

It looks like it has kept all the things I didn't like about the first one, and added all the slowness of the new map engine

Atleast VoN wil have fresh ideas, and also, if other AGEOD games (except WW1!!) are anything to go by, will run nice and smooth on my pre-historic PC

[tagwyn]

Hurrah!! Great to have PI and AGEOD both making games. t

[gchristie]

will run nice and smooth on my pre-historic PC

Andriko, somone on the forum recommended this for older PCs and it helps mine limp along much faster: http://www.iobit.com/gamebooster.html

Regards.

[boboneilltexas]

I also play a few Paradox games along with my Ageod games and I'll probably buy Vickie2 and Vainglory and Rise of Prussia. Hey, I'm retired and have enough time.
I really prefer turn-based games because I'm always getting interrupted.

[ETF]

I should hope that VGN does crush Vicky. The game is much more up-to-date, and so I'd expect it to be a vast improvement.

Ah what about VICTORIA 2 that is coming out. Don't get me wrong both these companies are awesome. I do though think they certainly will go head to head. I doubt any will be crushed. I would though give Paradox the nod as it will be there second go at the time period. Time will tell. I wish lots of sales to both.

[Evans]

Ah what about VICTORIA 2 that is coming out. Don't get me wrong both these companies are awesome. I do though think they certainly will go head to head. I doubt any will be crushed. I would though give Paradox the nod as it will be there second go at the time period. Time will tell. I wish lots of sales to both.

Paradox owns AGEOD now so sales for both is mutually beneficial

[Pocus]

yes, and I know the games are much different

[Garuda]

Only just dicsovered this VGN game forum. I like what I see so far. Looks like a really interesting concept.

I do wonder about the size of the regions though. For instance, so few (but large) regions in the Egypt screenshot means it is going to be hell for an attacker to shift a defensive stack. The defender doesn't need to spread his forces, just pile everything into one stack and dig in.

I am with the OP on this one, I sincerely hope that VGN proves to be way better than Victoria. Why? Because Victoria is my favourite game of all time and if any game can top it - then I want to be playing it.

[truth is life]

Victoria stole my heart a long time before I ever heard of VgN

But seriously, I suspect that I will prefer Victoria over Vainglory in the end. Why? I'm an economic gamer, not a wargamer. The first complex strategy game I ever played was Sim City 2000. Not that I mind a good battle, but for me it has always been the economic development and research that has drawn me to grand strategy and 4X games, not wars and conquest. Admittedly, being neither a developer nor a beta I can hardly have definite knowledge about Vainglory, but the limited pool of resources seen in existing screenshots makes me suspect that the economic model is less complex than Vicky's.

Even so, I can hardly count it as a bad thing that there are two different grand strategy games covering the Victorian Age coming out soon!

[Clovis]

Victoria stole my heart a long time before I ever heard of VgN

But seriously, I suspect that I will prefer Victoria over Vainglory in the end. Why? I'm an economic gamer, not a wargamer. The first complex strategy game I ever played was Sim City 2000. Not that I mind a good battle, but for me it has always been the economic development and research that has drawn me to grand strategy and 4X games, not wars and conquest. Admittedly, being neither a developer nor a beta I can hardly have definite knowledge about Vainglory, but the limited pool of resources seen in existing screenshots makes me suspect that the economic model is less complex than Vicky's.

Even so, I can hardly count it as a bad thing that there are two different grand strategy games covering the Victorian Age coming out soon!

Complex doesn't signify better...

[truth is life]

Complex doesn't signify better...

Ah, but it usually does signify more to do! You're right that it might be busy work, but consider this: if all else were equal, would you go with the wargame with the:
* more complex and detailed rules?
* or the less complex and simpler rules?

A lot of people here would go for the former, I bet...otherwise why would they be AGEOD fans and not TW fans?

But seriously, since I prefer economic development, that means I generally don't fight very much (awfully expensive, and you have to start building loads of troops) if I have half a chance. That means that there needs to be lots of non-fighting things (like economic management) for me to do, otherwise I will get bored as I am basically reduced to watching the game play itself. That means that a more complex ruleset will tend to be better for me, as it will usually mean that I can do more things while playing and hence keep my interest up.

Like I said, though, I do like wargames fine, and if VgN is just the best Victorian-era wargame ever made, with relatively simplistic economics, diplomacy, politics, etc., that will be fine with me and I will probably end up liking the game (well, if I buy it, which entirely depends on my finances when it comes out). I know the AGEOD staff will at least try to make a good representation of the economics and politics of the time. And of course if it ends up being the best representation of the Victorian-era in a game, period, then I will be very happy, just like Garuda, since it will have beaten one of my favorite games.

[McNaughton]

Ah, but it usually does signify more to do! You're right that it might be busy work, but consider this: if all else were equal, would you go with the wargame with the:
* more complex and detailed rules?
* or the less complex and simpler rules?

A lot of people here would go for the former, I bet...otherwise why would they be AGEOD fans and not TW fans?

But seriously, since I prefer economic development, that means I generally don't fight very much (awfully expensive, and you have to start building loads of troops) if I have half a chance. That means that there needs to be lots of non-fighting things (like economic management) for me to do, otherwise I will get bored as I am basically reduced to watching the game play itself. That means that a more complex ruleset will tend to be better for me, as it will usually mean that I can do more things while playing and hence keep my interest up.

Like I said, though, I do like wargames fine, and if VgN is just the best Victorian-era wargame ever made, with relatively simplistic economics, diplomacy, politics, etc., that will be fine with me and I will probably end up liking the game (well, if I buy it, which entirely depends on my finances when it comes out). I know the AGEOD staff will at least try to make a good representation of the economics and politics of the time. And of course if it ends up being the best representation of the Victorian-era in a game, period, then I will be very happy, just like Garuda, since it will have beaten one of my favorite games.

Given the number of turns in an entire VgN 1850-1920 scenario, over-complexity will result in nobody ever finishing a game.

One big falacy in most computer games is to allow the player to completely micromanage everything, given the ability to pause time, and spend an aeon on a single aspect. This micromanagement and efficiency is really unrealistic, ignoring real handicaps about the limitations of control of even a strong autocratic leader. Read up on Germany in the 1880s, Bismark had a difficult time trying to get his bills passed, and had to use extreme measures of propaganda to initiate his plans.

While I am not involved in the aspect of economics for VgN, I do see that the general trend in the game is to 'influence' and not 'control' every situation.

[Fastsnake]

Yeah, ok, but this argument is absolutely not sustainable. Because, if it was realistic, no one rule an entire country from top to bottom.
Even the most dictatorial autocrats just can't handle a whole nation, and are very far from managing everything in the country (even in North Corea!).

[enf91]

Everyone should buy multiple copies of Vicky 2. If it shows a profit, Frederik (the Paradox CEO) will shave his head and post the pictures on the forum. Then we can sell our extra copies on e-Bay (probably a bigger market than GG or Steam) and use the money to buy VGN. What do you think?

[Fastsnake]

Everyone should buy multiple copies of Vicky 2. If it shows a profit, Frederik (the Paradox CEO) will shave his head and post the pictures on the forum. Then we can sell our extra copies on e-Bay (probably a bigger market than GG or Steam) and use the money to buy VGN. What do you think?

Folk, you're hella right!!

[kayapo]

But I am sure most of us will try both games...

Amem

[Zap Brannigan]

Well I plan on buying both games - I know they are in the same period but they also seem quite different games - AGEOD games seem more war inclined than the paradox games (especially Victoria). Obviously since there is now going to be a decent gap between releases they shouldn't cannabalise each other.

The risk I'd see is that if Victoria is no good it could put people off buying another game about the period. If it is good it will likely raise more interest for VGN (especially with people like a bit more emphasis on war than economics)

[beatoangelico]

The risk I'd see is that if Victoria is no good it could put people off buying another game about the period. If it is good it will likely raise more interest for VGN (especially with people like a bit more emphasis on war than economics)

imho is the opposite...victoria 2 will get a decent amount of publicity anyway, but if it fails to deliver a good product at release I think people would start to look to VGN with more attention.

[Pocus]

The games approach history differently also, Victoria II being more 'sandbox' while VGN will be more 'historical simulator'. Both approaches are valid

I can confirm that VGN will still be very detailed on warfare, each major nations will have several dozens of units types to play with, most of them showing their historical uniforms (graphically).

[Zap Brannigan]

The games approach history differently also, Victoria II being more 'sandbox' while VGN will be more 'historical simulator'. Both approaches are valid

I can confirm that VGN will still be very detailed on warfare, each major nations will have several dozens of units types to play with, most of them showing their historical uniforms (graphically).

While I will buy both this is the reason why I'm looking forward to VGN more than Victoria 2

[alexander seil]

While VGN is practically guaranteed to have a better military system, it's worth noting that the main AGEOD team never designed a game with a substantial political or economic component, and it's rather notable that the game starts two years after the greatest social upheaval of 19th century Europe...

[Fastsnake]

But these dates are really strange, I've always thought this way.
And that was even more shocking when I saw Ageod planned to make a game during 1850 - 1920 also... And I'm still very thinking this is kinda weird. It's not about 1914 - 1918 or something like that you know.

[Adlertag]

Starting the game 2 years after the waves of revolutions is a safe and convenient manner to avoid players toying too much at start with their "empires".
They will have many opportunities to do that after, during the 70 year span of the game...in respect of course of some historicity the game will try to maintain.

[alexander seil]

Starting the game 2 years after the waves of revolutions is a safe and convenient manner to avoid players toying too much at start with their "empires".

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

[McNaughton]

Realistically, I have heard the same argument/discussion with Victoria. Why start at 1836? Why not model the Napoleonic Wars? The issue with history is that there is no beginning. The revolutions of 1848 were caused by events in the 1830s and 1840s, caused by events in the 1790s and 1810s, caused by events in the 1770s, etc., etc., etc.

The decision for the dates of VgN is based upon the desired model of VgN, that being the era of unification, colonialization, and grand alliances. Where does this begin? Nationalism could have started in 1848, or 1792, or even earlier, or possibly later.

One has to draw the line somewhere, it was drawn here, for a variety of reasons, one not being laziness.

[alexander seil]

Realistically, I have heard the same argument/discussion with Victoria. Why start at 1836?

To be able to play as Texas. Originally, Vicky was supposed to start in 1840.

Why not model the Napoleonic Wars? The issue with history is that there is no beginning. The revolutions of 1848 were caused by events in the 1830s and 1840s, caused by events in the 1790s and 1810s, caused by events in the 1770s, etc., etc., etc.

The slippery slope fallacy.

The decision for the dates of VgN is based upon the desired model of VgN, that being the era of unification, colonialization, and grand alliances. Where does this begin? Nationalism could have started in 1848, or 1792, or even earlier, or possibly later.

One has to draw the line somewhere, it was drawn here, for a variety of reasons, one not being laziness.

It's the issue of manpower, money and experience, but the natural starting point for a game that purports to be a political game, too, is really 1830 and the collapse of the post-Napoleonic system in Europe