Victoria 2 demo

[nelmsm1]

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]

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]

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 [:)].

[decaro]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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[:@]

[decaro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Titanwarrior89]

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. [:(][:)]