Page 1 of 47 1 2 3 11 26 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 927

Thread: Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

  1. #1
    TheNewTeddy Nickjbor's Avatar
    A Game of DwarvesCities in MotionCities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIDarkest Hour
    Deus VultEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine WindFor The Glory
    For the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneLeviathan: Warships
    MagickaMarch of the EaglesVictoria: RevolutionsRome GoldSemper Fi
    SengokuSupreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisWarlock: Master of the ArcaneKnights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV
    Warlock 2: The ExiledEUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseEUIV: Res PublicaEUIV: Art of War

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Province of Ontario
    Posts
    2,248
    Blog Entries
    8

    Proposal(s) for Victoria 3

    When EU II came around, Vicky was created and used the same engine.

    EU III came around, Vicky II used the same engine.

    I'm working under the presumption that Vicky III will use the EU IV engine.



    I know it's a bit early for a thread like this, but, I have some ideas that would fit well with the new EU IV engine that I think would fit in perfectly with Victoria.


    My biggest idea is to allow players to set a national focus in another nation. This would be done as to increase relations with other nations, form alliances, etc, like the EU IV diplomatic system. This would also be how you gain or lower influence. Of course nations will need more focuses than just 7, but being able to tie so many things into these focuses, and, limiting the max you can have, will make the game more "even" for top level nations.
    ALL FORUM POSTS ARE NOT SAVED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

    ALSO CALL ME TEDDY. OR THENEWTEDDY. BUT TEDDY IDEALLY.

    ALSO WHY ARE WE YELLING?

  2. #2
    I thought EUIV was using the Clauswitch engine still?

  3. #3
    Yeah, pretty sure EUIV uses same engine....Maybe not though, it might be 2.5 rather than 2

  4. #4
    Field Marshal Sarius1997's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria: RevolutionsRome GoldThe Showdown EffectVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessRome: Vae Victis500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order
    EUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseCrusader Kings II: Legacy of RomeCrusader Kings II: Sword of IslamCrusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
    Crusader Kings II: The RepublicCrusader Kings II: The Old GodsCrusader Kings II: Sons of AbrahamCrusader Kings II: CharlemagneCities: Skylines

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Delta Lightning
    Posts
    2,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Math2 View Post
    Yeah, pretty sure EUIV uses same engine....Maybe not though, it might be 2.5 rather than 2
    EUIV (and CKII) uses Clausewitz 2. Victoria II is still on a rather minor improved version of Clausewitz 1 (i think 1.2 IIRC). But i think that it might still be a little to early for VicIII (although i´d love a new, heavily improved game )
    I can forgive, but i can´t forget. Still one day, AE and badboy decay, and so do bad feelings.

    And luckily the reality has no advertising budget...

    Commander of the 1st South German Jäger-Regiment, in the Victoria II forum jacobin revolt.

  5. #5
    I'd organize the map around cities rather than provinces or states per se. In a period of rapid urbanization and industrialization, cities should have massively more importance than the countryside. That includes only being able to build structures (like naval yards) and factories in cities.

    I'd change railroads from something you built on a per province basis to something that explicitly ran between cities. You build a railroad station in a city, corporations/bureaucrats automatically handle connecting it to the rail network by building it out to other cities.

    I'd organize the eocnomic game around corporations rather than factories or capitalists per se. You could still have independent capitalists and factories, but a rich one would choose to found a corporation and become an actual character with a picture and a name and all that. And that corporation would seek to purchase/build factories all over the place. Meaning internationally. It'd also be able to purchase goods from any market where it had built or was building a factory. It could also build and operate railroads, even if the government wanted nothing to do with it.

    I'd use the EU4 trade system to determine what markets you're linked to. Controlling the trade flows means controlling what markets your pops can buy from and produce goods for. I'd also make it so that goods couldn't transit through a market. So if you're Brazil and only have trade links to your neighbors (by setting up a trade station in one of their adjacent cities, which causes your country and their's to build over to the border) and to Great Britain by the sea you can only sell to/buy from those countries even though GB is connected to the whole world. Dominate access to the markets and you make your nation the obvious workplace of the world by having access to the most customers.

    I'd change the sphere and diplo systems to use national focuses rather than click intensive madness. You want to dominate or negotiate with a country, you need to burn a focus on it.

    I'd eliminate rebel stacks entirely. Rebellious factions would drain your MP and your cash based on how militant they are and how numerous they are rather than fight you in the countryside. You'd either give up or get choked out. If sufficiently pissed they'd also lower the supply limit of provinces where they live. If they're nationalists you'd regularly get events about them demanding their freedom. If civil war does erupt it'll involve cities flipping and rebels running around with actual stacks rather than their goofy tardstacks that sort of lumber about until they die.

    I'd massively cut back on the size and number of units in armies (mobilized and standing). The player shouldn't have to ever deal with more than eight to ten mobile entities, and certainly should absolutely never be faced with a screen that includes hundreds of them.

    "To move your unit, use left click to select it, then right click where you want it to go."
    -Sun Tzu, The Art of War

    "I'm old and fat and I smell like cabbage. But then, so do you!"
    -Winston Churchill

  6. #6
    Field Marshal Rylock's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    8,867
    Personally? I'd like to see refinement of the current system rather than a complete re-vamp from the ground up. I think Victoria 2 plays pretty well, and I'd hate to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater if it came time to do another sequel.

    There are, however, some places where the game falls down and could stand improvement.

    See my proposal thread on Cores and Claims, for instance.

    I also think the economic side of the game is incredibly difficult to penetrate-- and, even when one does figure out how it works, runs counter-intuitive to how you think it should. I think the game would be far better suited to abstracting most of the economics rather than trying (and ultimately failing) to realistically simulate supply and demand. Abstraction doesn't have to mean simple, it's just that a few game issues really need to be confronted:

    * Shortages of goods due to reasons you as a player cannot figure out, and likely due to the AI not knowing how to operate its own economy.
    * Economic ebb and flow, all of it presenting more information that you can possibly disseminate and have only indirect control over.

    So ignore supply and demand. Let every good have a set "value", and if that value needs fluctuation let it relate to things that would normally fluctuate value like wars and such. Base a country's economy on how much of a good the people have access to... so do you produce it yourself? If not, do you have good trading infrastructure? Are you being blockaded, or do you have trade routes overland with railroads? Do you have trading partners (being able to arrange trade deals as a diplomacy option would be nice)? Do you have tarriffs, ones that actually protect local industry at the expense of making access to foreign goods harder? All of this could contribute to "ease of access" your people/industries have to goods and THAT should be the determining factor for how well your economy does. Something that the player can actually do something about.

    Having a way to represent rebels that isn't them raising up as units your armies fight would also be good. There were indeed some uprisings which could be considered "armies" (the Carlists come to mind), but most times these groups were incredibly difficult to find and uproot. It wasn't a case of going to a province, having a straight battle and we're done with the rebellion. Provinces could have "unrest factors" (shade it more and more red) leading all the way to open rebellion... and you can send an army to go and sit on the province to lower the factor, but that not only weakens the army (and can lead to defections, depending on the army's own ideologies/culture) it will need more and more power to counter the more potent the rebellion is. If a province gets into "open rebellion" you don't get any money from it, and it probably drains your coffers, and it will start to infect nearby provinces... perhaps certain governments have options to quell rebellions in ways that reduce prestige or cause a crisis, but once a rebellion reaches a certain potency then it's victorious. No matter what, whatever the player has to "do" in order to combat the rebellion should be clear... and not be something that just causes constant aggravation.

    And the last thing? The Infamy/diplomatic system. If the goal of Vic2 is sandbox play rather than historical recreation, it's still more rewarding to see the rest of the world reacting to your ahistorical actions in a consistent manner. Alliances should have a "strength" rating, and not have long-time allies White Peaceing out. Indeed, late game should open up factions, and Great Wars should force the AI to stick it out to the bitter end. Great Powers should be worried about Balance rather than Infamy-- they should be just as concerned, if not more, about another GP getting too powerful as they are about one minor country conquering another minor country.

    Anyhow, just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

  7. #7
    i would add more events, allow any German nation to form Germany, Italian nation to form Italy... ect. i would also add the ability to form factions (like the allies and axis) and deepen the political and international politics elements of the game. Finally i would also allow rebel factions to form their own nations like they do in crusader kings.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by nkrushchev View Post
    Allow any German nation to form Germany, Italian nation to form Italy... ect.
    They already can...
    I am the only one on the internet that knows things!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Rylock View Post
    I also think the economic side of the game is incredibly difficult to penetrate-- and, even when one does figure out how it works, runs counter-intuitive to how you think it should. I think the game would be far better suited to abstracting most of the economics rather than trying (and ultimately failing) to realistically simulate supply and demand. Abstraction doesn't have to mean simple, it's just that a few game issues really need to be confronted:

    * Shortages of goods due to reasons you as a player cannot figure out, and likely due to the AI not knowing how to operate its own economy.
    * Economic ebb and flow, all of it presenting more information that you can possibly disseminate and have only indirect control over.

    So ignore supply and demand. Let every good have a set "value", and if that value needs fluctuation let it relate to things that would normally fluctuate value like wars and such. Base a country's economy on how much of a good the people have access to... so do you produce it yourself? If not, do you have good trading infrastructure? Are you being blockaded, or do you have trade routes overland with railroads? Do you have trading partners (being able to arrange trade deals as a diplomacy option would be nice)? Do you have tarriffs, ones that actually protect local industry at the expense of making access to foreign goods harder? All of this could contribute to "ease of access" your people/industries have to goods and THAT should be the determining factor for how well your economy does. Something that the player can actually do something about.
    I think we all learned a lot from V2, and that looking back there's a lot of stuff about the economy the devs would do differently. I know a couple of dozen ways you could code round the economic problems of V2, but only because I've been able to look at V2 to develop from - so I don't really think there's any need to do away with price fluctuations or supply and demand. Some of the market mechanics need addressing, tho.

    First up, I'd ditch buying order on the WM. Everyone buying from WM buys simultaneously.

    An SOI owner would buy first from their sphere's market, but after them all other members of the sphere buy simultaneously.

    Every continent would have a 'regional market' SOI, which was just a passive SOI with no leader (so everyone in it buys at the same time). They'd buy from the home continent before the WM, but after their internal market.

    If a POP works in a RGO that produces a Life Need, it takes it's share of that need in lue of cash.


    I'd also have money work entirely differently, since I think money's current design in the game is fundamentally flawed from the first concept; it was approached from the point of view of an in-game resource, like in EU3, but in Vicky money needs to operate as a medium of exchange. Money always has to come from something and go somewhere when it's spent, rather than vanishing in a puff of smoke like it can in the other games. This is a major, pretty unsolvable problem with the V2 model.

    You need a working debt mechanism which the pops can use, and you need leverage and an interest rate. You need an elastic and responsive inflation device, which precious metal mines are completely insufficient for. And you need a means to distribute the money.

    So i'd use banks. I'd create the banking sector in-game, and I would have each bank store a set amount of money, and be allowed to lend upto X times that amount of money to POPs at interest (set by government policy, or by a slider in the budget panel). The bank would get money back from the interest, allowing it to lend out more money. This would permit a flexible cash supply - if there was too little money in the system, POPs will borrow and spend, and if there's too much money, POPs will earn too much and pay off their loans, preventing the cash from growing (and reducing the amount in circulation as the cash flows back to the bank). If POPs fail to pay their interest, the bank takes the hit, but if POPs are earning cash, the bank swoops in before they can spend any (note that this excludes farmers eating their product straight from the field).

    Sovereign debt, I would switch to a bond issuing system, where a country issues bonds at their own interest rate. Banks will automatically buy bonds issued at interest rates equal to or higher than their own (each bond being bought in equal parts by all eligible banks). Countries may also buy bonds in each other. If you're flat broke and a bond fails to sell, then a country goes bankrupt. These mechanics should automatically produce a credit system which forces the player to bid increasingly high interest rates when trying to sell bonds, but a simple credit system using event mods is perfectly possible.


    So, with that we'd a) be able to have financial powerhouses like Switzerland, b) have solved the cash capping the WM issue, c) have solved the debt making no sense problem, and d) have produced an interesting, believable and reasonably straightforward banking system.
    For every subtle and complicated question, there is a simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.

    Creator of PDM:PoD for Heart of Darkness: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ownload-thread
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Creator of '1792' for March of the Eagles: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...69074-1792-mod

  10. #10
    TheNewTeddy Nickjbor's Avatar
    A Game of DwarvesCities in MotionCities in Motion 2Crusader Kings IIDarkest Hour
    Deus VultEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine WindFor The Glory
    For the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneLeviathan: Warships
    MagickaMarch of the EaglesVictoria: RevolutionsRome GoldSemper Fi
    SengokuSupreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisWarlock: Master of the ArcaneKnights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV
    Warlock 2: The ExiledEUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseEUIV: Res PublicaEUIV: Art of War

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Province of Ontario
    Posts
    2,248
    Blog Entries
    8
    Points I like:

    Improved railroad system with more interactivity. I'm not talking Railroad Tycoon level, but some limited transportation management might be fun if done right.

    Goods not being accessible from the other side of the world if nearby goods are fine. Some kind of transportation cost via distance, perhaps trade routes, etc.

    Rebels taking civil rather than military action against the country. Shutting down factories and/or RGO operations, etc.
    ALL FORUM POSTS ARE NOT SAVED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

    ALSO CALL ME TEDDY. OR THENEWTEDDY. BUT TEDDY IDEALLY.

    ALSO WHY ARE WE YELLING?

  11. #11
    Field Marshal Rylock's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneVictoria 2

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    8,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Naselus View Post
    So, with that we'd a) be able to have financial powerhouses like Switzerland, b) have solved the cash capping the WM issue, c) have solved the debt making no sense problem, and d) have produced an interesting, believable and reasonably straightforward banking system.
    I agree, but on the other hand you already have an issue where the game slows down due to so many things it must process. Personally, I'd much rather abstract the economy outside of things the player can actively affect and do something about and keep the processing power for things like emigration/immigration and ideology modeling. But that's probably because the economic part of the game doesn't hold a lot of interest for me. I'm not certain why I have things like an entire screen dedicated to goods trading when there's very little influence I can have over that-- for most players, it's information overload. And it still doesn't tell me why my ammunitions factory is failing badly-- sure, I know that perhaps ammunition is over-produced or the sulfur I need is in short supply... but why?

    Speaking from a gameplay standpoint, I'd prefer the game to model things that directly affect me and which I can directly affect... rather than spend its time trying to model an accurate economy which will probably never work very well. At best it'll be a house of cards which will fall apart sometimes for reasons invisible to the player, and they're left scratching their head having no idea what happened. It just doesn't seem fun.

    But then, like I said, I'm not all that interested in Vic2 as an economic simulator. I don't think economics are fun outside of the parts of it that actually intersect with gameplay. I might be in the minority on that, but if I were to surmise why new players might find Vic2 a bit inaccessible, I'm sure that would be near the top of the list.

  12. #12
    I figure the main headscratchers in V2's economy are caused by the game's frustratingly opaque attempts to give you relevant information (something which I'm hoping MotE represents a turning point on, given it's delightfully helpful interface), combined with bugs, really. The big confusions are caused by behaviours that simlpy shouldn't ever happen, like when you have a RGO good in high demand and yet no-one's buying from it, or when you have POPs starving to death in a market awash with grain. Covering these isn't so much a matter of keeping the player informed, as it is about designing a system where the player never needs to know if he doesn't want to. That means it needs to avoid bizarre collapses which make no sense (like the liquidity crisis), and ditch WM buying order (because WM buying order was just a bad idea, frankly).

    I doubt there'd be a significant increase in overhead from the above suggestions; it's little more than an extra good, really, and we both know the game's happy enough for you to add 22 extras. Besides, if we're talking of a putative V3, I'd expect it to be a good year or two further down the line (at least), which means we won't have to have a game that runs on 2 gig of memory and a single core processor. If the market code (and the POP code, for that matter) was written to be multi-threaded in the first place, performance from it could be much, much better.
    For every subtle and complicated question, there is a simple and straightforward answer, which is wrong.

    Creator of PDM:PoD for Heart of Darkness: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...ownload-thread
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Creator of '1792' for March of the Eagles: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...69074-1792-mod

  13. #13
    What ever the case will be, Vic 2 can still be milked more...... After HoD I figure it would take roughly 1-2 more expansion before it's exhausted...

  14. #14
    Major CptVicky's Avatar
    HoI AnthologyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDarkest Hour
    EU3 CompleteDivine WindFor The GloryFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMagickaMarch of the EaglesVictoria: Revolutions
    Rome GoldSemper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order
    EUIV: Wealth of NationsEUIV: Conquest of ParadiseEUIV: Res PublicaEUIV: Art of War

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Jenkintown Pennsylvania, United States.
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Naselus View Post
    I think we all learned a lot from V2, and that looking back there's a lot of stuff about the economy the devs would do differently. I know a couple of dozen ways you could code round the economic problems of V2, but only because I've been able to look at V2 to develop from - so I don't really think there's any need to do away with price fluctuations or supply and demand. Some of the market mechanics need addressing, tho.

    First up, I'd ditch buying order on the WM. Everyone buying from WM buys simultaneously.

    An SOI owner would buy first from their sphere's market, but after them all other members of the sphere buy simultaneously.

    Every continent would have a 'regional market' SOI, which was just a passive SOI with no leader (so everyone in it buys at the same time). They'd buy from the home continent before the WM, but after their internal market.

    If a POP works in a RGO that produces a Life Need, it takes it's share of that need in lue of cash.


    I'd also have money work entirely differently, since I think money's current design in the game is fundamentally flawed from the first concept; it was approached from the point of view of an in-game resource, like in EU3, but in Vicky money needs to operate as a medium of exchange. Money always has to come from something and go somewhere when it's spent, rather than vanishing in a puff of smoke like it can in the other games. This is a major, pretty unsolvable problem with the V2 model.

    You need a working debt mechanism which the pops can use, and you need leverage and an interest rate. You need an elastic and responsive inflation device, which precious metal mines are completely insufficient for. And you need a means to distribute the money.

    So i'd use banks. I'd create the banking sector in-game, and I would have each bank store a set amount of money, and be allowed to lend upto X times that amount of money to POPs at interest (set by government policy, or by a slider in the budget panel). The bank would get money back from the interest, allowing it to lend out more money. This would permit a flexible cash supply - if there was too little money in the system, POPs will borrow and spend, and if there's too much money, POPs will earn too much and pay off their loans, preventing the cash from growing (and reducing the amount in circulation as the cash flows back to the bank). If POPs fail to pay their interest, the bank takes the hit, but if POPs are earning cash, the bank swoops in before they can spend any (note that this excludes farmers eating their product straight from the field).

    Sovereign debt, I would switch to a bond issuing system, where a country issues bonds at their own interest rate. Banks will automatically buy bonds issued at interest rates equal to or higher than their own (each bond being bought in equal parts by all eligible banks). Countries may also buy bonds in each other. If you're flat broke and a bond fails to sell, then a country goes bankrupt. These mechanics should automatically produce a credit system which forces the player to bid increasingly high interest rates when trying to sell bonds, but a simple credit system using event mods is perfectly possible.


    So, with that we'd a) be able to have financial powerhouses like Switzerland, b) have solved the cash capping the WM issue, c) have solved the debt making no sense problem, and d) have produced an interesting, believable and reasonably straightforward banking system.
    Nas I love you.

    Anyway, yes, money distribution is a big thing. I felt like I always wanted to dump my useless cash reserves back into my population directly. Something that was missing from Vicky2.

  15. #15
    I'd like some economic warfare options. Being able to refuse a nation certian goods, refuse to trade with a nation at all, lean on my allies/underlings/weaker nations to go along with the embargo of goods to a nation I don't like.

    Basically options that let you squeeze an enemy short of going to war. If I control enough of a resource I really should be able to use my dominance in that field to my advantage. At the very least I don't want to be shipping weapons to people I've decided are conquest targets, supplying their army is just silly.

    Also, certain market behaviors are.... strange. Market always seems to crash hard whenever you load a game, and late game you'll end up with poor supply chain decisions, like your Oil RGO's empty, because you have a hundred synthetic oil factories, but a massive coal shortage because you are turning all the coal you come across into oil. RGO's really shouldn't be capable of being driven out of business by a factory. I suspect that's the market being too local, individual factories are profitable, and dont care that an empty RGO and a massive coal shortage have been collectively triggered.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Naselus View Post
    Sovereign debt, I would switch to a bond issuing system, where a country issues bonds at their own interest rate. Banks will automatically buy bonds issued at interest rates equal to or higher than their own (each bond being bought in equal parts by all eligible banks). Countries may also buy bonds in each other. If you're flat broke and a bond fails to sell, then a country goes bankrupt. These mechanics should automatically produce a credit system which forces the player to bid increasingly high interest rates when trying to sell bonds, but a simple credit system using event mods is perfectly possible.
    When I read this I instantly thought of GPs lending/giving money to defaulting nations in order to add them to their SOI (even steal them from another GP who cant afford helping or doesn't want to help). Would spice up diplomacy.

    I think the economic part of the game is one of the most important aspects and would love many of the changes Naselus mentions.

  17. #17
    Colonel Buladelu's Avatar
    Cities in MotionCrusader Kings IIVictoria 2Warlock: Master of the ArcanePride of Nations
    Rise of Prussia500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Minsk, Belarus
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickjbor View Post

    My biggest idea is to allow players to set a national focus in another nation. This would be done as to increase relations with other nations, form alliances, etc, like the EU IV diplomatic system. This would also be how you gain or lower influence. Of course nations will need more focuses than just 7, but being able to tie so many things into these focuses, and, limiting the max you can have, will make the game more "even" for top level nations.
    You assume that V3 would be mostly the same as V2. That's not how it works. It will have design built from scratch, even if it is somewhat similar to what we have now. It's like saying that in next car BMW makes there should be a specific bumper. You don't know anything about design, technical specifics etc of the new product. So specific recommendation makes no sense. You may ask them to concentrate on some historical events as mechanics and show what gamers are interested in but no more than that.

  18. #18
    Would the maps from EU IV serve as the basis for Vic 3 though? I actually doubt such a thing...

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by MN121MN View Post
    What ever the case will be, Vic 2 can still be milked more...... After HoD I figure it would take roughly 1-2 more expansion before it's exhausted...
    That sounds quite negative but Vic 2 is a great game and AHD was a great expension and it looks like HoD will be also be awesome. Another 1-2 expansions would not be bad.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by kakashi2003 View Post
    That sounds quite negative but Vic 2 is a great game and AHD was a great expension and it looks like HoD will be also be awesome. Another 1-2 expansions would not be bad.
    If they keep putting out decent expansions, I'll keep buying them. Keyword is decent. They did a good job with EUIII, I think.

Page 1 of 47 1 2 3 11 26 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts