Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[Mortmal]

Really a massive change, it sounds like we are playing some aplpha into development. Now it starts to get much more realistic and standard of life will be much harder to raise.

 

[thesecret1]

Really a massive change, it sounds like we are playing some aplpha into development. Now it starts to get much more realistic and standard of life will be much harder to raise.

Imagine making a game set during the industrial revolution, and needing to go to version 1.1 to realize this

 

[Fedora Master]

 

[IDtenT]

I have information that will lead to the arrest of Ida Pea-ACK!

 

[Seigneur Locklear]

'Twas her turn!

 

[HeroMarine]

View attachment 30956

What a ridiculous game.

 

[Fedora Master]

By the way, US doesn't even have suffrage.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Hello and welcome to the second post-release dev diary for Victoria 3. Today we’ll be talking about the first major post-release patch, which we’re aiming to get to you before the end of the year. This patch (1.1) is going to primarily focus on game polish: bug fixing, balancing, AI improvements and UI/UX work, while the next major free patch (1.2) is going to be more focused towards making progress on the plans we’ve outlined in our Post-Release Plans DD by iterating on systems like warfare and diplomacy.

Yeah, gonna wait until next year before playing more of this.

I was going to ask is this playable yet, but I see that the design-by-committee, which inevitably results from Eearly Access releases is in full swing, so I guess the answer is '"no, and likely will never be".

 

[HeroMarine]

I was going to ask is this playable yet, but I see that the design-by-committee, which inevitably results from Eearly Access releases is in full swing, so I guess the answer is '"no, and likely will never be".

 

[Reina]

I was going to ask is this playable yet, but I see that the design-by-committee, which inevitably results from Eearly Access releases is in full swing, so I guess the answer is '"no, and likely will never be".

Lol

Those who played HoI(1) on release will never laugh at this "Early Access" That game was straight up unplayable before patch 1.05 rolled out.

You think Vic2 release was better? You could win just by researching one technology (one which increased plurality to 100) faster than AI (as plurality gave 99,9% of Research Points until ~second major patch).

Weak/buggy releases has been in Paradox DNA since the company was created, with CK2 and CK3 being freak accidents where everything happened to work somewhat well from the start.

 

[thesecret1]

You are mentioning decades old games because you know it doesn't hold true for the new titles. Also lol at CK2 and 3 not being weak at release. CK2 had basically zero content, CK3 is shit to this day

 

[Reina]

You are mentioning decades old games because you know it doesn't hold true for the new titles.

Imperator? HoI4? They were also more or less awful at the release.

Also lol at CK2 not being weak at release.

CK2 was a HUUUGE improvement over CK1 from the start. I had the pleasure of getting early review copy almost a month before the premiere, and I played that version to death, it was that good already.

CK3

It had more content than CK2 at release and no major bugs or balancing issues - by Paradox standards, it was a stellar release.

 

[thesecret1]

Imperator? HoI4? They were also more or less awful at the release.

And are garbage to this day, yeah.

CK2 was a HUUUGE improvement over CK1 from the start. I had the pleasure of getting early review copy almost a month before the premiere, and I played that version to death, it was that good already.

CK2 on release had almost no flavor whatsoever and had you periodically dealing with 20+ individual revolts because every vassal revolted individually, starting a new, separate war. Even today CK2 only shines with mods, the vanilla being insufferably bland

It had more content than CK2 at release and no major bugs or balancing issues - by Paradox standards, it was a stellar release.

Which then failed to deliver later improvements. Like launching a solid early access release, and then not doing anything and just collecting money from the suckers that buy it

 

[Reina]

Which then failed to deliver later improvements. Like launching a solid early access release, and then not foing anything and just collecting money from the suckers that buy it

After 25 years of playing Paradox games, I am not judging them by my imaginary 'ideal' release, but by their previous attempts. And by that metric, both CK2 and 3 were exceptional releases.

And are garbage to this day, yeah.

I am fond of the current version of Imperator, maybe less so of HoI4, but I'd say - no.

Even today CK2 only shines with mods, the vanilla being insufferably bland

Generally, that's the case with ANY grand strategy game, be it from Paradox or not. Making tons of in-game content is not only economically difficult for medium-size studio, and it's clear that Paradox decided that focusing on systems is more rewarding than 'flavouring' various countries.

 

[thesecret1]

Generally, that's the case with ANY grand strategy game, be it from Paradox or not. Making tons of in-game content is not only economically difficult for medium-size studio, and it's clear that Paradox decided that focusing on systems is more rewarding than 'flavouring' various countries.

Really? You say that after Paradox nickel and dimed its way through various "flavor packs" (that were usually meagre anyway)? And systems that more often than not are just "collect enough points, then press button"?

After 25 years of playing Paradox games, I am not judging them by my imaginary 'ideal' release, but by their previous attempts. And by that metric, both CK2 and 3 were exceptional releases.

I judge them by whether the game is good. Couldn't give less of a shit about whether it's better or worse than some release they did sometime in the past

 

[whydoibother]

On my N-th attempt, got a game done from start date to end date. Got my Persia to go from opium farming theocracy to globohomo middle eastern workshop of the world.
Overall, having silk + dyes allows you from some great early growth selling and taxing luxury clothes. Luxury furniture too, if you have wood. That's the backbone until steel and trains.
Also Russia and Britain surprisingly left me alone. In my earlier Persia attempt, both pounced to take my ports and land fairly early on.

 

[Reina]

I judge them by whether the game is good. Couldn't give less of a shit about whether it's better or worse than some release they did sometime in the past

I'd like then to know your example of a good (better) non-paradox, unmodded GSG game, so I can tell to which standard we are measuring them to.

Really? You say that after Paradox nickel and dimed its way through various "flavor packs" (that were usually meagre anyway)?

I think we're discussing releases? I agree that their DLC policy is infuriating, but that's largely irrevelant to the state of the game at its premiere.

And systems that more often than not are just "collect enough points, then press button"?

Paradox really gets a bad rep for the state of Imperator at release, huh. Only games designed by Johan share this philosophy.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Those who played HoI(1) on release will never laugh at this "Early Access" That game was straight up unplayable before patch 1.05 rolled out.

Nice, but commiserating with HoI players from 17+ years ago doesn't help anyone today.

 

[thesecret1]

I'd like then to know your example of a good (better) non-paradox, unmodded GSG game, so I can tell to which standard we are measuring them to

I enjoy Darkest Hour a lot even as vanilla. Wargame first and GSG second, it still scratches that itch, has plentiful content, and solid systems. Paradox only published it, not developed it. Good enough for you? Or was this supposed to be some sorta gotcha moment where I couldn't name anything due to Paradox's virtual monopoly on the genre?

 

[HeroMarine]

CK3

It had more content than CK2 at release and no major bugs or balancing issues - by Paradox standards, it was a stellar release.

Looool are you on crack?

 

[Reina]

Darkest Hour

That's basically mod turned into a game. I do enjoy DH the most out of all HoI family, but it's not a good standard to set (for releases).

Paradox's virtual monopoly on the genre?

Here's the thing: if GSG were easy to produce, that 'monopoly' wouldn't be a thing. And it's not like newcomers don't try, yet for some reason games like Geo-Political Simulator, Age of History or Supreme Ruler end up either as buggy messes worse than any of Paradox's infamous releases, or very shallow/hollow experiences. The reason is that developing proper grand strategy is extremely hard, especially on systems-level. Anyone can write flavour, but making a good skeleton of such complicated game is helluva task.

Sure, one can hold up their ideal imagined GSG as a golden standard and criticize Paradox that their products fall to it - but the cold truth is, that ideal will just not be reached. Discussing and rating the game based on it is kind of pointless - constraints unfortunately DO matter, and Paradox with their limited playerbase does have to make sacrifices.

Sorry, but if you just say "CK3 is shit" then I ask you: what are those games which are inferior to it? What would make CK3 'average'? 'Good'? Is it feasible to achieve? Do you require your game to be made by AAAA-studio with massive budget and dedicated team? Or maybe the game is shit because it doesn't cater you YOURS specific vision. That's a serious problem with rating GSGs- in Call of Duty no one really criticizes the game because game mechanics fail to meet their worldview, while in f.e. Victoria 3 you have ppl calling it awful because "african states can industralize, totally unplayable!!11"
How is that different from some teeny edgelord coming to RPG discussion and writing "Torment/Underrail/{insert other darling RPG] is shit!!!!!" because it doesn't hold to his standards (like having voice acting/top-tier cinematic graphics/super-duper-action)? Would you think "mmm, yes, this kid's opinion has a merit", or rather "yeah, yeah, ignored, retard?" I see no difference between your opinion and such kid, except one comes from youthful edginess, and other from being, presumably, jaded.
Do I want my GSGs to have more complexity and technical prowess? Sure I do, but I judge them by more factors than just that. Otherwise, I wouldn't have anything to play, as everything would fall short of my standards.
And who wants to end like an old jaded man/woman who just complains that everything is shit and 'back in his times, those were GOOD things! Not like modern crap!!".

Sorry about what turned to be a bit of disorganized rant, but this discussion kinda pissed me off.

 

[thesecret1]

Sorry, but if you just say "CK3 is shit" then I ask you: what are those games which are inferior to it?

I think you meant superior. The obvious answer is its predecessor - CK2 remains miles ahead of CK3 in content, mechanics, and flavor.

What would make CK3 'average'? 'Good'? Is it feasible to achieve? Do you require your game to be made by AAAA-studio with massive budget and dedicated team?

You act as though a good GSG doesn't exist. If Paradox took, for example, the Winter King mod from CK2 and added proper, solid mechanics to it instead of the scripts the modders are using for the lack of better tools, I'd praise Paradox to high heavens. Hell, if they took the fantasy mods like Elder Kings or Geheimnisnacht and implemented them with the full budget of Paradox studios, I'd happily pay a hundred dollars a pop. Because they're good, fun mods that are only ever held back by the base game. If they remade EU4 to be simulationist like MEIOU, I'd be ecstatic.

You talk like making a good GSG is oh so unattainable, but modders regularly do it, even without access to source code, with only scripts they hamstring together to work with the vanilla game. That means that going from whatever Paradox releases to an actually good GSG cannot be too difficult for a fully manned, big budget studio like Paradox has. Yet it doesn't. That's the standard to hold their games to.

 

[whydoibother]

I think you meant superior. The obvious answer is its predecessor - CK2 remains miles ahead of CK3 in content, mechanics, and flavor.

Can you list some of those miles?
inb4 republics, China, etc stuff added via DLC: it will probably also be added via DLC to CK3

 

[thesecret1]

inb4 republics, China, etc stuff added via DLC: it will probably also be added via DLC to CK3

Woe is me to expect a sequel to be comparable to its predecessor. By the way, when should I expect those DLCs to drop? Been over two years now, you know?

 

[whydoibother]

inb4 republics, China, etc stuff added via DLC: it will probably also be added via DLC to CK3

Woe is me to expect a sequel to be comparable to its predecessor. By the way, when should I expect those DLCs to drop? Been over two years now, you know?

Chinese Empire was the 13th DLC for CK2, and came out 5+ years after its release.
The CK3 platform is better than the CK2 platform. Mods and expansions come over time, as they did for CK2. And it certainly isn't miles better. Go play CK2 vanilla, you might be shocked at how much you misremember it.
I do still want individual vassal contracts, though.