Victoria 2 demo

[Lützow]

Here we go with the first complain thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491261

[diablo1]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Here we go with the first complain thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491261

Someone discovered the pig had lipstick on afterall.

[bairdlander2]

Whatever you say Ravinhood

[Phatguy]

LoL

[diablo1]

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Whatever you say Ravinhood

LOL I remember him. So, you think I'm him eh? You that paranoid? roflmao

[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.

[SlickWilhelm]

I played around with the demo a bit last night, and it looks like an interesting game. Something new for me, so I'm going to buy it and give it a try. 

[LarryP]

I noticed that the sliders no longer lock when you double click them. That's a shame. [:(]

There also is no option for game difficulty. Here is the Paradox thread addressing this issue:
Difficulty Setting

[Widell]

In HoI II and III the sliders lock if you right click them. Worth a try at least.....

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Widell

In HoI II and III the sliders lock if you right click them. Worth a try at least.....

Right clicking and double clicking does not affect them like in other Paradox titles.

[Widell]

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

[Phatguy]

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]

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

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]

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/sho ... p?t=241317 [:)]

[LarryP]

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. [:(]

[decaro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

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