Grand Strategy Where is Victoria III?

[Silva]

Humanophage has a point about Vicky and CK, and I include Imperator (post 2.0) as another "good at peacetime" entry. Everything else Pdox does is map painting. Problem being: Map painting is what gives them the most money, both now and historically.

About CK peacetime: Axioms , remember that roleplaying your character through events is peacetime, as is spending hours on a UI for selecting the right wife. So I think CK peacetime is decent, even if it's not related to what one expects from a pure strategy game like building, research, etc. But then the game never sold itself as a pure strat game, it's an hybrid.

 

[Axioms]

Humanophage has a point about Vicky and CK, and I include Imperator (post 2.0) as another "good at peacetime" entry. Everything else Pdox does is map painting. Problem being: Map painting is what gives them the most money, both now and historically.

About CK peacetime: Axioms , remember that roleplaying your character through events is peacetime, as is spending hours on a UI for selecting the right wife. So I think CK peacetime is decent, even if it's not related to what one expects from a pure strategy game like building, research, etc. But then the game never sold itself as a pure strat game, it's an hybrid.

The options available for various activities are incredibly limited. CK2 peacetime was absolutely unique and even moderately impressive for 2011 but it isn't now a decade later. We didn't even get secrets until CK3 and even then the secrets system is more potential than actualization. And we got barely anything else as far as intrigue. Internal politics is a joke. Diplomacy is about equal to EU4.

For people who read my annoying wiki links you can see how much more could be done peacetime wise. And Victoria 3 is arguably halfway between CK2 and what is in the links. Assuming they follow through on promises.

CK2, and later 3, left so much on the table. Even silly event shit but especially systematic stuff.

 

[Larianshill]

I hope they don't fuck this up.

 

[AgentFransis]

abstract combat games like Fields of Glory 2

What do you mean here by abstract? Field of Glory 2 has an extremely solid and detailed tactical combat system. If by abstract you mean devoid of a larger strategic context then you can try Field of Glory: Empires which has an optional FoG2 integration. It's a solid historical strategy game with some interesting mechanics to reign in mindless map painting and a very nice province development system to keep you busy in peace time.

 

[Theodora]

Who makes good historical games? All I see are just highly abstract combat games like Fields of Glory 2 or games that focus on some individual narrative like A Legionary's Life. They generally don't have anything except warfare. Paradox was the best and most detailed option. Unfortunately, their games have been turning more and more into boring gamey map-painting contests with mana that fail to register any differences between countries.

Have you tried Imperator anytime recently? It's basically alien to the release version (which admittedly was mostly just a mana heavy map painter). I've seen plenty of people say it's their favourite paradox game now, largely due to the peacetime gameplay.

 

[Harthwain]

I've played almost 1000 hours of CK2. Ya'll are way off base. Sure there were technically non-combat systems but they were shallow as fuck and mostly revolved around waiting for timers.

[...]

There's no explanation for people insisting that CK2 has amazing non-combat mechanics except a deficit of imagination. Sure from like 2011-2015 CK2 was pretty good, mostly due to lack of competition but even with heavy mods it couldn't really replicate the experience of reading a feudal political thriller. Plots were especially egregious.

Sounds to me like it's you who lacks imagination.

I played more than 1000 hours in CK2 and the most fun I had was by going from a lowly Count to King (and then - as King - trying to keep everything together, especially when targeted by a powerful neighbour). When you're making plans and looking for the means to accomplish them there is rarely a dull moment, even during peacetime. And I say that as someone who played only the base version of the game, without any mods.

For people who read my annoying wiki links you can see how much more could be done peacetime wise.

You mean that game you never finished? Anyone can make grandiose concepts. Getting them to work though...

 

[Axioms]

I've played almost 1000 hours of CK2. Ya'll are way off base. Sure there were technically non-combat systems but they were shallow as fuck and mostly revolved around waiting for timers.

[...]

There's no explanation for people insisting that CK2 has amazing non-combat mechanics except a deficit of imagination. Sure from like 2011-2015 CK2 was pretty good, mostly due to lack of competition but even with heavy mods it couldn't really replicate the experience of reading a feudal political thriller. Plots were especially egregious.

Sounds to me like it's you who lacks imagination.

I played more than 1000 hours in CK2 and the most fun I had was by going from a lowly Count to King (and then - as King - trying to keep everything together, especially when targeted by a powerful neighbour). When you're making plans and looking for the means to accomplish them there is rarely a dull moment, even during peacetime. And I say that as someone who played only the base version of the game, without any mods.

For people who read my annoying wiki links you can see how much more could be done peacetime wise.

You mean that game you never finished? Anyone can make grandiose concepts. Getting them to work though...

Sounds more like you are shifting the context of lacking imagination. I am talking about what kind of gameplay CK2-3 could have. Not about patching gaps in the games as they exist. I played vanilla CK2. It was fun. But my brain was doing too much of the work to cover up limitations of the mechanics.

My game was unfinished, for personal financial reasons mostly. But the issue isn't the specifics of those mechanics and their implementation. It is whether or not you could extend the complexity of the simulation of D/I/P mechanics to compare with combat. CK2 doesn't, much less CK3, although CK2 beats most other games that is only in relative terms. Vicky 3 looks like it is going to do more for peacetime than CK2, and even less CK3, ever did. Not just on pops/factories but in other areas as well.

 

[Harthwain]

Vicky 3 looks like it is going to do more for peacetime than CK2, and even less CK3, ever did. Not just on pops/factories but in other areas as well.

I will believe that when I see it. I still remember how Stellaris was at release. Maybe it's better now, but I can't get bothered to buy a ton of DLCs to get game in playable state. Same goes for Imperator - I heard horror stories from my brother about it (and he plays Europa Universalis 4 A LOT) when it was released, so I wrote it off then and there. It's a shame, because Imperator too looked like it had very interesting elements, but (similarly to Stellaris) they were better on paper than in action.

 

[Axioms]

Vicky 3 looks like it is going to do more for peacetime than CK2, and even less CK3, ever did. Not just on pops/factories but in other areas as well.

I will believe that when I see it. I still remember how Stellaris was at release. Maybe it's better now, but I can't get bothered to buy a ton of DLCs to get game in playable state. Same goes for Imperator - I heard horror stories from my brother about it (and he plays Europa Universalis 4 A LOT) when it was released, so I wrote it off then and there. It's a shame, because Imperator too looked like it had very interesting elements, but (similarly to Stellaris) they were better on paper than in action.

I mean original Imperator was always kinda trashy IMO. Not just the mana but a bunch of other stuff. Stellaris was always intended to be a 4x game where they just had only custom nations. Basically GalCiv or Stardrive but with slightly more options. But it was never, for instance, intended for races to be anything but buff stacking, even if they had more buffs with slightly more flavor than other space 4X games. Planet bonuses, building adjacency, etc were all typical 4X stuff. CK3 similarly was a let down from the get go.

Vicky3 is promising a lot more interesting stuff from the start. For me anyways. People like different stuff. With Paradox you just have to cut through the fanboy hype and be realistic about what the devs actually said. Now maybe Martin doesn't live up to what he said about Vicky3 but the actual info contains more cool stuff than most Paradox games, again for me personally.

 

[Silva]

Same goes for Imperator - I heard horror stories from my brother about it (and he plays Europa Universalis 4 A LOT) when it was released, so I wrote it off then and there.

Fair. But notice that Imperator became an actual good game now, including arguably the best peacetime as a pure strat game in Pdox recent memory. Only Vicky2 surpasses it in this regard, IMO.

(of course, most EU4 players will disagree, because all they want is fantasy painting while ignoring peacetime altogether)

 

[Axioms]

Same goes for Imperator - I heard horror stories from my brother about it (and he plays Europa Universalis 4 A LOT) when it was released, so I wrote it off then and there.

Fair. But notice that Imperator became an actual good game now, including arguably the best peacetime as a pure strat game in Pdox recent memory. Only Vicky2 surpasses it in this regard, IMO.

(of course, most EU4 players will disagree, because all they want is fantasy painting while ignoring peacetime altogether)

I don't think I've played Imperator after the redo, I might look at it. But the original was just such a let down that I never even thought of going back.

I think EU4 is my most played Paradox game but I suspect this is because of reasons unrelated to peacetime vs wartime options. Mostly that CK2 was a real letdown for me as more and more DLCs dropped and the game didn't get a ton of new D/I/P content.

 

[Silva]

Honestly, I can't stand EU4. Gave it a fair chance (40 hours or so), but when I realized it had very little to offer beside map painting, I dropped it.

Not saying its a bad game, I just don't see the appeal of pure map painting. I was always a builder in SMAC.

 

[Axioms]

Honestly, I can't stand EU4. Gave it a fair chance (40 hours or so), but when I realized it had very little to offer beside map painting, I dropped it.

Not saying its a bad game, I just don't see the appeal of pure map painting. I was always a builder in SMAC.

EU4 is a min-maxing sim, not a map-painting sim. I always turtle and build in RTS, or even TBS really. But if you approach EU4 just to min-max shit it is fun. Also just like to be Polish in all Paradox games.

 

[Theodora]

I don't think I've played Imperator after the redo, I might look at it. But the original was just such a let down that I never even thought of going back.

You really should try it again. It's a completely different game, barely anything has survived from the original games. Characters, politics, pops, military, UI, religion, and culture have all seen complete revamps. Mana is long gone.

 

[Harthwain]

What are the best/strongest points of Imperator: Rome? What is it all about in the context of all the other Paradox titles?

 

[Axioms]

I don't think I've played Imperator after the redo, I might look at it. But the original was just such a let down that I never even thought of going back.

You really should try it again. It's a completely different game, barely anything has survived from the original games. Characters, politics, pops, military, UI, religion, and culture have all seen complete revamps. Mana is long gone.

Mine still seems to have mana. Or are the 4 stats no longer mana? Maybe I'm missing an update?

 

[Silva]

What these 4 stats are called?

What are the best/strongest points of Imperator: Rome? What is it all about in the context of all the other Paradox titles?

Vicky Pops/Culture + CK2 internal politics/schemes.

I suggest trying a small republic for maximum effect (like Massylia, for example). Avoid Rome as it makes the game broken easy.

 

[Theodora]

Mine still seems to have mana. Or are the 4 stats no longer mana? Maybe I'm missing an update?

Have you pirated it or something? Does your game look like below? It should be pretty obvious given the UI rework that came with 2.0.

Spoiler

There's a bar at the top, but those numbers aren't mana. The only thing that's even close is political influence. The 'stats' that were the fuel of mana in the original game have very different functions now:

https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/Characters#Primary
https://imperator.paradoxwikis.com/Attributes

 

[Axioms]

Okay I probably have the update then.

 

[Axioms]

I don't think I've played Imperator after the redo, I might look at it. But the original was just such a let down that I never even thought of going back.

You really should try it again. It's a completely different game, barely anything has survived from the original games. Characters, politics, pops, military, UI, religion, and culture have all seen complete revamps. Mana is long gone.

I tried it again and mana is mostly gone. Still a few too many time based resources but not mana at least. However there is a lot going on that is poorly explained and very uninteractive. Also it has mission trees. Maybe a 6-7/10 vs the previous 3-4/10.

 

[Theodora]

There are mission trees, but my experience is they are much more open-ended and dynamic than the kinda thing you have in eg. EU4 or HOI4.

The generic/cultural mission trees are more like a more elaborate version of EU3 missions than the railroading of the aforementioned.

Also, if you're struggling to understand, IR 2.0 has the nested tooltip system first implemented in CK3. You can use it to learn a lot.

 

[Silva]

I tried it again and mana is mostly gone. Still a few too many time based resources but not mana at least. However there is a lot going on that is poorly explained and very uninteractive. Also it has mission trees. Maybe a 6-7/10 vs the previous 3-4/10.

Did you grok the differences between assimilating vs integrating cultures? Or how to pass the laws and reforms you want in harmony with the current party + important families as to not accrue tyranny/corruption/civil war? Did you grok how to manage Pop migration/promotion to best optimize your production (trade goods, food, research, etc)?

Managing those three things (culture, politics, production) are what makes Imperator interesting as an "internal development"/building/Vicky-like game and separates it from EU4. And, again, avoid getting Rome and go for a small republic instead.

 

[Humanophage]

I suggest trying a small republic for maximum effect (like Massylia, for example). Avoid Rome as it makes the game broken easy.

I bought the game with the Greek expansion.

Are the smaller countries reasonably interesting, or are they too generic with no rich mechanics? I first thought about playing for a Greek colony or maybe one of the Dacian states, but I fear that they're too generic and that playing for anyone barbaric would promote blobbing (I haven't played much). Should I just go for Athens, or are the other less developed Greek states fine?

 

[Silva]

I suggest trying a small republic for maximum effect (like Massylia, for example). Avoid Rome as it makes the game broken easy.

I bought the game with the Greek expansion.

Are the smaller countries reasonably interesting, or are they too generic with no rich mechanics? I first thought about playing for a Greek colony or maybe one of the Dacian states, but I fear that they're too generic and that playing for anyone barbaric would promote blobbing (I haven't played much). Should I just go for Athens, or are the other less developed Greek states fine?

Greek, Diadochi, Rome and Carthage are the most flavorful, with appropriate events, mission trees, traditions, tech, etc. Everything else is one the bland side (Barbarians specially). This means yeah, lots of nations will feel similar, which is the game weak point in a way.*

From there, republics give the most interesting political play IMO, as you must manage the interests of different parties and families with your own goals, which means engaging in CK-like plots & schemes.

And lastly, because the game is a tad on the easy side, starting with small nations is usually more challenging. I've played Massylia (the Greek colony one) trying to follow it's merchantile trees and it was a ton of fun. I also tried Athens a couple times but it's much more challenging as it starts subdued by the one-eyed modafucka and must earn its freedom before any other goal. I've also heard Bosphorus kingdom is an interesting start but didnt try yet.

*there's a big mod called Invictus coming soon, that will introduce flavor in a lot of nations (e.g: Sparta with its 2 kings government system, Scythian appropriate techs and traditions, etc).

 

[Axioms]

I suggest trying a small republic for maximum effect (like Massylia, for example). Avoid Rome as it makes the game broken easy.

I bought the game with the Greek expansion.

Are the smaller countries reasonably interesting, or are they too generic with no rich mechanics? I first thought about playing for a Greek colony or maybe one of the Dacian states, but I fear that they're too generic and that playing for anyone barbaric would promote blobbing (I haven't played much). Should I just go for Athens, or are the other less developed Greek states fine?

Greek, Diadochi, Rome and Carthage are the most flavorful, with appropriate events, mission trees, traditions, tech, etc. Everything else is one the bland side (Barbarians specially). This means yeah, lots of nations will feel similar, which is the game weak point in a way.*

From there, republics give the most interesting political play IMO, as you must manage the interests of different parties and families with your own goals, which means engaging in CK-like plots & schemes.

And lastly, because the game is a tad on the easy side, starting with small nations is usually more challenging. I've played Massylia (the Greek colony one) trying to follow it's merchantile trees and it was a ton of fun. I also tried Athens a couple times but it's much more challenging as it starts subdued by the one-eyed modafucka and must earn its freedom before any other goal. I've also heard Bosphorus kingdom is an interesting start but didnt try yet.

*there's a big mod called Invictus coming soon, that will introduce flavor in a lot of nations (e.g: Sparta with its 2 kings government system, Scythian appropriate techs and traditions, etc).

The problem I had was that it was too much like CK2-3. In that schemes are simplistic. I did play as Rome because minor states are dull in Paradox games. Befriending someone to avoid a revolution, and various other activities are a bit simplistic and RNG. Very much like CK2 this game would have been great if it came out in 2011. Bit behind now. There is just way too much +x/+y% to z type bonus management for me. Had my fill of that from EU4. The historical nature is another limitation for me.

The culture/religion management is still very simple.

If you read the wiki pages from my old project you'd see what I am looking for vs "provincial focus" or w/e. I will say that this game and CK2 have different strengths and limitations for me in this peacetime features. This game has potential if they would put out major DLCs for different important systems. And if I hadn't already played EU:Rome as well as several other Paradox games it would probably feel fresher and more innovative.

Going from 3-5 to 6-8 I think is a fair review score change for the things from the 2.0 update. Vicky 3 to me is looking like a 7-9 game based on their plans. We'll see if they execute.