But these are both secondary to the business of running a state."īy far and away the bulk of Vicky 3's content is about the careful tuning of your nation's internal working: essentially, balancing the demands of many, many different socioeconomic groups, well enough that you don't end up either smashing into an economic collapse or a revolution. "Yes, there is war to be fought, and there are characters to interact with. Paradox are billing it as a "society simulator", which seems pretty apt. But these are both secondary to the business of running a state. Yes, there is war to be fought (though that wasn't shown to me), and there are characters to interact with (although you can't excommunicate and eat them). If Hearts Of Iron transplants old-school wargame components onto the basic Paradox template, and Crusader Kings does the same with roleplaying elements, then Victoria does so with the stuff of management games.
Where it differs from its grand strategy siblings is in its setting (roughly, the period between the Napoleonic wars and World War 2, centred on the back half of the nineteenth century), and in its strategic focus. In a nutshell, though: Victoria 3 is one of those Paradox games where you're playing as a nation, on a great big map. To the extent where, rather than spend the whole of this post barfing out paragraph after paragraph of mechanics descriptions, I'll urge you to get it from the strategy horse's mouth, and watch what was just shown at PDXCON. As such, as joyless as it sounds, I can't really riff on the Vicky 3 thing much further than I already have - I can only really look at what I've seen of the game so far (a one hour presentation by its development team), and treat it as something new and unfamiliar. Being more into medieval and early modern stuff, I never actually played the Victoria games, and so consequently I haven't really got any emotional investment in them. This one has caught me out a bit, I'll admit.
0 kommentar(er)
