OT: Victoria

sachmo71 · 05-07-2003, 10:08 AM

I can't wait for this little gem to come out!

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/victoria.asp

Franklinnoble · 05-07-2003, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo71
I can't wait for this little gem to come out!

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/victoria.asp

I guess the name "Civilization" was already taken.

sachmo71 · 05-07-2003, 11:51 AM

This isn't quite Civilization. Did you ever play Europa Universalis? This game is made with the same engine. No one would ever mistake on for the other. Besides, EUII is fun to play. That same cannot be said for the latest incarnation of Civ.

Anrhydeddu · 05-07-2003, 12:02 PM

...nor could I have said anything good about EU.

mrsimperless · 05-07-2003, 12:03 PM

sachmo, tell me more

ScottVib · 05-07-2003, 12:06 PM

Victoria Forums:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=160

sachmo71 · 05-07-2003, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
...nor could I have said anything good about EU.

What don't you like about EUII, Bucc?

Anrhydeddu · 05-07-2003, 02:10 PM

sach, I did not even bother with EU2 since it was pretty much the same as EU, which I gave up trying to like. I went back to my old posts at the EU forum and from a semi-popular one I started on the importance of Being There (and how EU did not immerse me), a long time friend and civer, John-SJ, summed it up perfectly for me in that thread

Quote:

For me, the Being There (BT) factor is largely dependant on being able to see the outcome of my actions. In EU I know that I need to promote officials because I get higher income, how much higher? I don't know, higher. I know I need to start colonies because I'll get a tax and production income boost, how much of a boost? I don't know, a boost. If I promote a bailiff now, how long will it be before the investment is paid off? I don't know... And it goes on and on.

By way of comparison, in Civ II I can answer the equivalents of these questions easily. I can increase production by building a marketplace, my city income is 4 gold now, so I will get 6 gold after the marketplace is built (-1 maintenance cost). I can alter the rate of gold, shield, and trade produced by a city by altering the city squares they work on, and the effect is instantaneous (and alterable), I don't have to wait a year to promote a bailiff.

Civ, and many games like it, display their inner workings and let the player play around until he gets things just right. EU seems to do it's best to make these inner workings unavailable, or at least very inconvenient so all you get to see is a cumulative effect over time.

For some this is obviously very satisfying and it suits their play style. For me it just makes me feel distant from the game. I spend a lot of time trying to make myself part of the action by placing myself in the middle of it and EU says, 'No, I can't be controlled that way. Go sit waaaay over there, and whatever you can reach from that distance, that's what you get to control.'

Sorry to hijack this thread, but it is somewhat related to anything Paradox has been about and their game design philosophies.

sachmo71 · 05-07-2003, 03:34 PM

It's not a hijack, since the game is built on the same engine!

I can see your points, but I don't really think of them as the same kind of game.
To me, Civ is about creating history. There are so many more levels to civ that EU doesn't have. You start at the dawn of time and try to have your civilization survive. You discover techs and spread your influence.
EUII is about changing history. Everyone's civilization starts at about the same capibilities, and with the same objectives. You have to be careful with the politics or you could wind up fighting a war against you next ally. Techs are there, but very abstract. Combat is abstract, as are the economics.

That's why I like both. Well, Civ II anyway!

If I want to play a political game where all of my actions can have very far reaching consequence, I'll break out EUII. If I want to make treaties until I'm powerful enough to destroy the world with bombers and battleships, I'll load up Civ II.

Anrhydeddu · 05-07-2003, 03:51 PM

I don't think it was so much the comparison to Civ2 but more on the point of the first paragraph. Just like my review of 1503, I want to play a game of this nature that shows me what I like to know and also to know what are the results of my actions. This is not about predicability at all but about making all of the decisions along the way. EU purposely kept too much of that hidden or vague for my taste. I don't know if this changed at all for EU2, or even if HoI or Victoria plays the same way (I doubt it on HoI since reading the dynasty on this shows exactly what happens when you research X and the effect it has).

tucker342 · 05-07-2003, 06:02 PM

sounds like it could be an interesting game...

Schmidty · 05-07-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo71
This isn't quite Civilization. Did you ever play Europa Universalis? This game is made with the same engine. No one would ever mistake on for the other. Besides, EUII is fun to play. That same cannot be said for the latest incarnation of Civ.

Hmmmm. I thoroughly enjoy Civ3, and thoroughly detest EU.

ColtCrazy · 05-07-2003, 10:38 PM

Comparing Civ and EU are hard. They both may be empire games, but Civ is extreme alternate history. You start off by creating history, while EU is set in a historical backdrop. You shape history from that point, obviously changing its course, but not to the extent of Civ. It comes down to a matter of taste.

Mine happens to be with EU2. I love its depth, grand strategy and diplomacy options. I still play it, sometimes online with a friend as well.

With this game, Paradox with have 4 titles that will span nearly 1000 years.

Crusader Kings comes out later this year. It'll run from 1066-mid1400s. You'll be able to load that game into EU2 and keep playing.

EU2 1419-1820

Victoria 1835-1920

Hearts of Iron 1936-1948.

Personally, these are the types of grand strategy titles I've been waiting for since Civ2. I don't even own a copy of Civ3 anymore.

Thanks sachmo, I've been wanting a game in this time period. It's often overlooked(except Civil War games) since the great Age of Rifles war game.

sachmo71 · 05-08-2003, 09:51 AM

Coltcrazy,

I like this time period also. There is some pretty lively debate on the Victoria forum about how they are going to be able to model the changes in warfare during the period without compromising something, especially since they are using the HOI code as a basis for the game. At least we know that eventually, it will be an excellent game. Paradox doesn't stop working on a game until it's done.

wbonnell · 11-12-2003, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
sach, I did not even bother with EU2 since it was pretty much the same as EU, which I gave up trying to like. I went back to my old posts at the EU forum and from a semi-popular one I started on the importance of Being There (and how EU did not immerse me), a long time friend and civer, John-SJ, summed it up perfectly for me in that thread

Quote:

For me, the Being There (BT) factor is largely dependant on being able to see the outcome of my actions. In EU I know that I need to promote officials because I get higher income, how much higher? I don't know, higher. I know I need to start colonies because I'll get a tax and production income boost, how much of a boost? I don't know, a boost. If I promote a bailiff now, how long will it be before the investment is paid off? I don't know... And it goes on and on.

By way of comparison, in Civ II I can answer the equivalents of these questions easily. I can increase production by building a marketplace, my city income is 4 gold now, so I will get 6 gold after the marketplace is built (-1 maintenance cost). I can alter the rate of gold, shield, and trade produced by a city by altering the city squares they work on, and the effect is instantaneous (and alterable), I don't have to wait a year to promote a bailiff.

Civ, and many games like it, display their inner workings and let the player play around until he gets things just right. EU seems to do it's best to make these inner workings unavailable, or at least very inconvenient so all you get to see is a cumulative effect over time.

For some this is obviously very satisfying and it suits their play style. For me it just makes me feel distant from the game. I spend a lot of time trying to make myself part of the action by placing myself in the middle of it and EU says, 'No, I can't be controlled that way. Go sit waaaay over there, and whatever you can reach from that distance, that's what you get to control.'

Sorry to hijack this thread, but it is somewhat related to anything Paradox has been about and their game design philosophies.

This is a fascinating analysis because it parallels the old debate between OOTP's closed engine versus Strat-o-matic's open engine (based on the board game). Some prefer Strat-o-matic because they know why something happened and they can calculate odds before the play(a similar division exists between FOFC and Action PC/Strat football).

Paradoxically, it is the open Strat-o-matic, like EU, that simulates reality, whereas the closed OOTP, like Civ, that creates an alternate universe modeled after reality.

wbonnell · 11-12-2003, 09:08 PM

dola:

Clearly, it is unrealistic to have precise information a priori; however, since we are abstracting, the simulation model is essentially arbitrary; the developers could ultimately include/exclude what they wish. Therefore, I think Bucc makes a good case for an open model.

Daimyo · 11-12-2003, 09:24 PM

The funny thing to me is that, at least in the case of the three examples given, the payoff is very clear cut and deterministic for actions in EU. I think the problem is that EU had the all-time worst manual ever created so you had to figure it all out yourself.

Also interesting because EU is probablyt he only game as customizable as civ. They both even have similar text files that can easily be edited to customize the game however you want!

wbonnell · 11-12-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daimyo
The funny thing to me is that, at least in the case of the three examples given, the payoff is very clear cut and deterministic for actions in EU. I think the problem is that EU had the all-time worst manual ever created so you had to figure it all out yourself.

EU's manual was a poor translation, yes. And, you're right, it didn't cover the details adequately. However, it was clearly written by a consumate historian, although the prose was dry as dust.

Quote:

Originally posted by Daimyo
Also interesting because EU is probablyt he only game as customizable as civ. They both even have similar text files that can easily be edited to customize the game however you want!

What's more, the game has been thoroughly dissected and analyzed at the paradox forums. From what I know of Bucc, I would assume this would be his "perfect" game...

Buccaneer · 11-12-2003, 09:40 PM

I'm glad you found this again because I really like what John-SJ wrote. To me, the point of any (strategy) game is the manner in which decisions are entered and the manner in which the results of those decisions are presented. It's not about open or closed systems, user interface or customization but in short-term and long-term cause and effects. Too much of EU was purposely vague and abstracted despite the richness of the features and the level of detailed customization. That was why I rejected EU and any subsequent releases by Paradox - that is not my style whereas Civ2, ImpII, CotNW, RRT, P!G, Pharaoh, etc. are exactly what I love in strategy games.

wbonnell · 11-12-2003, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
I'm glad you found this again because I really like what John-SJ wrote. To me, the point of any (strategy) game is the manner in which decisions are entered and the manner in which the results of those decisions are presented. It's not about open or closed systems, user interface or customization but in short-term and long-term cause and effects. Too much of EU was purposely vague and abstracted despite the richness of the features and the level of detailed customization. That was why I rejected EU and any subsequent releases by Paradox - that is not my style whereas Civ2, ImpII, CotNW, RRT, P!G, Pharaoh, etc. are exactly what I love in strategy games.

however, it seems to me that a goodly portion of the model has been quantified. No?

Nevertheless, complexity does not a great game make. Do I even have to mention chess? Whoops!

Buccaneer · 11-12-2003, 09:49 PM

Again, I only speak from experience with EU. Not talking about the worthlessness of combat resolution, I found the trading/merchant model to be ludicrous for a game. It does somewhat model history with its trade centers but for a game, players like me prefer more 2 + 2 = 4 (minus 1 for maintenance).

Fritz · 12-01-2003, 07:10 PM

VICTORIA IS OUT
and on my PC....

more in the games section

05-07-2003, 12:03 PM	#5
mrsimperless College Prospect Join Date: Apr 2003	sachmo, tell me more __________________ "All I know is that smart women are hot. Susan Polgar beat me in 24 moves in a simultaneous exhbition. I slept with the scoresheet under my pillow." Off some dude's web site.

05-07-2003, 10:38 PM	#13
ColtCrazy College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Midwest	Comparing Civ and EU are hard. They both may be empire games, but Civ is extreme alternate history. You start off by creating history, while EU is set in a historical backdrop. You shape history from that point, obviously changing its course, but not to the extent of Civ. It comes down to a matter of taste. Mine happens to be with EU2. I love its depth, grand strategy and diplomacy options. I still play it, sometimes online with a friend as well. With this game, Paradox with have 4 titles that will span nearly 1000 years. Crusader Kings comes out later this year. It'll run from 1066-mid1400s. You'll be able to load that game into EU2 and keep playing. EU2 1419-1820 Victoria 1835-1920 Hearts of Iron 1936-1948. Personally, these are the types of grand strategy titles I've been waiting for since Civ2. I don't even own a copy of Civ3 anymore. Thanks sachmo, I've been wanting a game in this time period. It's often overlooked(except Civil War games) since the great Age of Rifles war game. __________________ The Field Generals and Statis Pro Basketball Super League

12-01-2003, 07:10 PM	#22
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	VICTORIA IS OUT and on my PC.... more in the games section __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

05-07-2003, 11:51 AM	#3
sachmo71 The boy who cried Trout Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: TX	This isn't quite Civilization. Did you ever play Europa Universalis? This game is made with the same engine. No one would ever mistake on for the other. Besides, EUII is fun to play. That same cannot be said for the latest incarnation of Civ.

05-07-2003, 12:02 PM	#4
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	...nor could I have said anything good about EU.

05-07-2003, 12:06 PM	#6
ScottVib High School Varsity Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: My Computer	Victoria Forums: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=160

05-07-2003, 03:34 PM	#9
sachmo71 The boy who cried Trout Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: TX	It's not a hijack, since the game is built on the same engine! I can see your points, but I don't really think of them as the same kind of game. To me, Civ is about creating history. There are so many more levels to civ that EU doesn't have. You start at the dawn of time and try to have your civilization survive. You discover techs and spread your influence. EUII is about changing history. Everyone's civilization starts at about the same capibilities, and with the same objectives. You have to be careful with the politics or you could wind up fighting a war against you next ally. Techs are there, but very abstract. Combat is abstract, as are the economics. That's why I like both. Well, Civ II anyway! If I want to play a political game where all of my actions can have very far reaching consequence, I'll break out EUII. If I want to make treaties until I'm powerful enough to destroy the world with bombers and battleships, I'll load up Civ II.

05-07-2003, 03:51 PM	#10
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	I don't think it was so much the comparison to Civ2 but more on the point of the first paragraph. Just like my review of 1503, I want to play a game of this nature that shows me what I like to know and also to know what are the results of my actions. This is not about predicability at all but about making all of the decisions along the way. EU purposely kept too much of that hidden or vague for my taste. I don't know if this changed at all for EU2, or even if HoI or Victoria plays the same way (I doubt it on HoI since reading the dynasty on this shows exactly what happens when you research X and the effect it has).

05-07-2003, 06:02 PM	#11
tucker342 Pro Starter Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Iowa City, IA	sounds like it could be an interesting game...

05-08-2003, 09:51 AM	#14
sachmo71 The boy who cried Trout Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: TX	Coltcrazy, I like this time period also. There is some pretty lively debate on the Victoria forum about how they are going to be able to model the changes in warfare during the period without compromising something, especially since they are using the HOI code as a basis for the game. At least we know that eventually, it will be an excellent game. Paradox doesn't stop working on a game until it's done.

11-12-2003, 09:08 PM	#16
wbonnell College Prospect Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Round Rock TX	dola: Clearly, it is unrealistic to have precise information a priori; however, since we are abstracting, the simulation model is essentially arbitrary; the developers could ultimately include/exclude what they wish. Therefore, I think Bucc makes a good case for an open model.

11-12-2003, 09:24 PM	#17
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	The funny thing to me is that, at least in the case of the three examples given, the payoff is very clear cut and deterministic for actions in EU. I think the problem is that EU had the all-time worst manual ever created so you had to figure it all out yourself. Also interesting because EU is probablyt he only game as customizable as civ. They both even have similar text files that can easily be edited to customize the game however you want!

11-12-2003, 09:40 PM	#19
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	I'm glad you found this again because I really like what John-SJ wrote. To me, the point of any (strategy) game is the manner in which decisions are entered and the manner in which the results of those decisions are presented. It's not about open or closed systems, user interface or customization but in short-term and long-term cause and effects. Too much of EU was purposely vague and abstracted despite the richness of the features and the level of detailed customization. That was why I rejected EU and any subsequent releases by Paradox - that is not my style whereas Civ2, ImpII, CotNW, RRT, P!G, Pharaoh, etc. are exactly what I love in strategy games.

11-12-2003, 09:49 PM	#21
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	Again, I only speak from experience with EU. Not talking about the worthlessness of combat resolution, I found the trading/merchant model to be ludicrous for a game. It does somewhat model history with its trade centers but for a game, players like me prefer more 2 + 2 = 4 (minus 1 for maintenance).

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)