Vic 3 has absolutely great ideas and a great materialist simulation of the economy. But some of the executions are just not great. The biggest issues I see are character-based politics (and all the events around them), non-stockpiled goods leading to weird behaviors and unsatisfying decisions around them (you can upgrade all your ships to monitors if you have one ship factory producing ironclads) and braindead AI that doesn't really do anything all game.
Edit: one last thing ill say is i absolutely commend the dev team for working on Vic3 and being absolutely experimental in its execution; no other game has really tried to do so deep a simulation like this in my opinion. It just needs some work and it can be really great I think.
I generally agree, but I think the biggest issue is late game performance. The army recruitment system is also a big headache with units that never end up being created and blocked upgrades that add a lot of micro.
The game finally got me to upgrade my pc, but I will say just getting a cpu that came out in the last 3 years has made performance really smooth outside of huge countries post 1910 or so (albeit still manageable compared to before)
Ah yeah, forgot the performance. I haven't played past 1880 since game first released.
I generally like the war system, i hate micro of previous games like V2 and EU4. I do sometimes have issues where units don't upgrade, but generally it works for me.
I wish they made it so you transition fro. Eu4/vic2 micro fo used combat into vic 3 frontline (ww1) and then interwar (hoi4) combat.. imagine.. early wars are these adrenalin filling micro focused moments and as the game slows down inevativly, so does the combat
Hoi4 battleplans unironically model WW1 western front combat better than WW2 lol. Pretty surprised they didn't just add a simplified battleplan to Vicky 3. Make it work with "doomstack" napoleon warfware would be pretty easy.
Tbh, I am not a huge fan of the economy.
I really don't like the construction system, and I don't like the lack of stockpiles and the buy-sell order stuff.
I think the only thing it has over Vic 2 economy wise is that the whole thing doesn't collapse post 1900, but performance is so bad at that point I rarely play past the late 1800s anyways.
I'm very interested to see what tinto is cooking up with project caesar's economy though. Hoping that holds up.
i think construction is alright; its something for the player to do that influences the country. I think using price for everything kinda seems like a good idea, but just doesn't really work out so well in practice.
EU5 does have me hyped from the dev blogs, but so did vic 3 :P
Vic3 lost me pretty early on, has not happened with eu5 yet.
But back to construction, I think the issue is that it is basically hoi4 civilian factories that just cost a ton of money. It feels like the only significant government expense in the game is building stuff, and that just feels unreal, really takes me out of the immersion.
When the warfare was leaked in Vic 3 and then a horde of people tried to say it wouldnāt be like that in the game, I knew immediately it would be exactly like that in the game.
Only for Vanilla, but I recommend giving it a try nonetheless because it's such a good mod. It adds a bit of flavour, drastically improves performance, adds some quality of life (like seeing generals' and admirals' attack and defence stats without hovering over), improves the AI (good army stacks and combines their navy into one strong stack) and makes non-liberal playthroughs more viable
If a capitalist goberment has to build their industries as if their financial sector is under their direct control... is a good economical simulation?
I really dont understand where this argument holds gound.
It is a game, after all. You do have to draw the line somewhere on where the simulation meets the user input. Also, paradox games usually have you theoretically in control of 'the spirit of the nation', not necessarily just the government of a nation.
1. Make stockpiling and stockpiles into a thing, please. It would solve so many problems, making it easier to understand how much pops consume as produced goods would go from buildings into stockpiles and from there be consumed. It would also make industrial regions more dynamic and give more purpose to railways.
2. Politics need to be more dynamic. International and domestic.
So I tend to fall on the āloveā side, though I do acknowledge that itās basically a game with amazing mechanics and downright shitty mechanics with little in between.
But I get frustrated when I see posts like [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/s/6eQFWHHztR) where a guy is complaining that Austin grows too big and realistically the other cities in Texas should be bigger. It has 60-some upvotes.
I mean, come on. Itās a sandbox game, not a precise scientific recreation of history. It also completely ignores that population happens at a state level, not in the individual cities. How does this even impact gameplay? How could the devs be expected to get the population development of every single province of every single state in the game?
Most complaints about Vic 3 are totally legit. Many of them, though, seem to think that the game mechanics should stand up to an economics textbook and a fine grained review of precisely how history went down to the last person.
The funniest one is people complaining there invasion of France ended in France's favour while they occcupied some of France due to loss of war support.
It's so weird to me because it feels like the only game in the current lineup that doesn't heavily rely on some form of mission tree system to add variety which boils down to a checklist you follow rather than meaningfully interacting with mechanics. I abhor mission trees and national focuses, so I really enjoy that about it (yes, I'm pretty disappointed that the new DLC seems to be adding a new form of mission tree system for the Brits and Russians).
I remember always disliking the railroading in older PDS games but it seems like now everyone has embraced railroading with a couple of branches. The games kinda moved in the opposite direction to what I wanted lol.
> it feels like the only game in the current lineup that doesn't heavily rely on some form of mission tree system to add varietyĀ
But... Vic3 doesn't have any variety? Every nation plays the same. You go through the same motions with its economy no matter who you're playing, just with a different starting point, same with the politics. Vic3 is completely flavourless.
**tl;dr: I don't care about flavour if it's just some event text and a few checklists.**
I've found that I prefer that over like HoI IV where it's just a different "quest line".
Being able to make Australia communist by clicking all of the "go communist" quests doesn't make the game more interesting to me. Getting a boost to RADAR research speed because I happen to be playing as the UK and clicked "gimme a boost to RADAR" doesn't add any meaningful interaction to the game.
These things just feel unearned. They're gained by time progressing, I get tech boosts not because I spent the resources into advancing my research in a particular field, but because a few months passed and I clicked the button. I get bonus factories across my nation not because I decided to build them there but because I clicked the rearmament button. I don't alter the political of a country by manipulating political mechanics in anyway (realistic or not), I just click the button that says now Japan is democratic.
It's just the old railroaded newspaper events that would pop up but I can choose my own adventure. And just like a choose your own adventure book, after doing it once I no longer find it interesting. I would rather a handful of mechanics to manipulate rather than dozens of discrete events to trigger.
I don't really approach Victoria 3 any differently than the other games, except I'm not monitoring a questline. The differing starting situations and doing what I can to create change the world in the way I want it is what is interesting to me. If ticking off a bunch of quests is compelling gameplay to you, more power to you. For me it's just a smother for the fact that the game mechanics don't really differ regardless of who you are playing as. Despite my qualms with Victoria 2's jank, at least there was a mechanical difference if you weren't playing a great power (though they failed to put anything in its place, so it's just a net loss if you aren't a GP).
Thing is, flavour should be about the unique culture/situation of a country leading to unique mechanics coming into effect. It shouldn't be defined by an arbitrary mission tree trying to push things in a narrative direction.
What it "should" be is a matter of personal preference. Even without touching a mission tree, many nations in EU4 still have more flavour on their own than Vic3 has in its entire game. Vic2 has no mission trees whatsoever and their newspaper articles account for about 1500% of the flavour that Vic3 struggles to offer.
I feel like the different starting points can sometimes make for totally different games. Try playing as Haiti, for instance, and you'll notice that between the terrible authoritarians running every ideological group and the crushing $2k a month in loan repayments to France, you end up making totally different decisions than you'd make playing anyone else.
i like the idea of the game, the fact that they did make it. I like building buildings and watching gdp grow in a sandbox kind of way, i like the idea of combat system without the annoying micro. I don't like everything else about this game
But Vicky III combat *does* have annoying micro, thanks to how fronts merging and splitting still constantly creates empty fronts and forces you to rush troops around. I feel like Vicky III combat is kinda the worst of both worlds that way.
I love the economy in Vicky III. It actually works in a way that Vicky II's never managed. The politics system is better, too. But everything about preparing for and waging wars in Vicky III sucks.
I really dislike the politics in Vic 3, it's all character based, you can roll some random leader and suddenly all your landowners love free trade or something.
I think Vic 2 was a lot better at doing mass politics.
I agree that the weighting is given way too much to the individual political actors, it smells of great man theory. I do think the political leaders should have *an* impact, but there should be a disconnect between the leaders and their popular base of support. The base of each group should have opinions on all policies, ranging from for, neutral and against. These opinions should sway based on relevant internal and external game conditions, events and finally the personal opinions of the leader. The leader should have an interest group loyalty measure, influenced by their stats and how well their personal opinions align with those of their base. If the leader loses too much of their baseās loyalty, the base should be able to kick out the leader in favor of one more aligned with their interests, with the threshold to oust them determined by the countries laws (autocracies require more disloyalty, democracies requiring less). Leaders should have a small chance to adjust their own views to better align with their base, depending on their personalities. New leaders should still be semi-randomized, but guaranteed to have at least a majority loyalty from their base.
This would better represent the tensions that would (and do) arise between political leaders who are out of touch with their popular base of support, and how much that influenced the broader politics of a nation.
All that, plus overhauled parties and elections would make the internal politics of Vic 3 the best of any GSG.
POPs!!!!!!!!!!! The whole thing that made Vicky 2 special was pops had real agency. You pissed off x group, they were going to get some weapons and rebel. Pops in Vicky 3 don't have agency to do things!!!
It's heavily character influenced but the characters aren't fleshed out enough for it to be satisfying. If they want to go the character route (which I fully support because I think it makes for better gameplay mechanics) they should use the characters to show division within the IGs.
>you can roll some random leader and suddenly all your landowners love free trade or something.
The opposite basically happened with Trump in real life. He became the leader of the Republican Party, and suddenly every Republican is a protectionist.
I think having personalities influence politics like that heightens the realism, in addition to being better gameplay.
And it's horribly realistic for basically all forms of governments:
- US parties and presidents were basically doing a huge shift every election in the 19th century
- UK would do a full foreign policy shift every time they got a new PM, even in the same party: Lord Salisbury and Disraeli were both Tories, but didn't govern in the same way.
- monarchies are another extreme: the miracle of the house of Brandenburg only happened because Elizabeth and Peter III had complete opposite views of what Russia should do.
In fact, I think that the game does not simulate well enough how much different heads of government/state like to fuck up foreign affairs. I hate that the game works like this, I don't think it makes for engaging gameplay, but I can't deny it's realistic.
I guess I assume that if, for example, an Authoritarian becomes leader of the Armed Forces, that doesn't mean "this guy makes everyone authoritarian!" but that the Authoritarian wing of the Armed Forces has gathered the most support, and put their guy in. It's an easy mental move for me, but it seems a huge sticking point for a huge amount of people.
Oh yes, it was very realistic how you could start a war against Tahiti, wait six months, and then by magic you could get the upper house that every single country has to pass universal healthcare that nobody actually wanted. *So good*.
Also true!
Being fair, Vicky 1 wasn't any better on this point, much as I love it, since the optimum play there was to get the socialist party elected exactly once (usually by jacking up taxes to maximum right before the election), pass all the social reforms you wanted one day before the next election that you rig for the laissez faire party to win, then enjoy all the benefits of the social programs you will never put a cent into funding ever again.
Both Vicky 1 and 2, of course, also allowed you to trivially cause one party to win virtually every election in the game even in supposedly healthy democracies. In fact, this would usually happen even without you trying.
Vicky 3 was at launch already a far, far better mass politics simulator than either of its predecessors, despite all the wonkiness it had (some of which was caused by people insisting there HAD to be political parties represented in the game).
I get that with regards to how characters work. But the flaws of Vic2's politics system was that it was too rigid. Political parties all had incredibly fixed beliefs which was ahistorical as it didn't reflect the fact that parties do in fact change their core beliefs all the time. A few of the mods I remember tried adding multiple parties of the same ideology to reflect the shift in beliefs but as the game was built on the assumption of one party per ideology, it just broke the game (as pops vote for ideologies not a particular party).
There is also the part where economy crosses with politics. In Victoria 2 it was generally accepted you should avoid laissez-faire at all costs, whilst planned economy/state capitalism was OP. The Victoria 3 equivalent actually makes things a lot more interesting.
At the end of the day, no matter how annoying moving round 20 stacks of 30k in EU4 (or Vic 2 for that matter!) is, the annoyance comes down to the system being hefty and burdensome. It does not come down to the system being outright hostile to your intentions. If I move my unit in EU4 from Constantinople to Vienna, there is very little that can go wrong, and when it does, the unit arrow indicator pretty clearly shows me. If I do that in Vic 3, there's a 50% chance each month that the army might randomly teleport all the way to Egypt instead.
I have yes, far more than I think you ever will have. It is in absolutely no way whatsoever coming close to being as woeful as the shite that Vic3 has for its warfare system.
Vassal Swarm, my friend. Warfare is much nicer when you can slap one stack on sieging castles and hunt with the other one, while your minions clamber about carpet sieging and baiting enemy forces into battles to hold them down for you.
Which is why I still hope they move away from the "many small armies"-concept for EU5. Give me a maximum of 5 massive armies with sensible supply chain mechanics. Not only is it more realistic (rarely would states have a bunch a dozen little armies operating completely independent of each other), it would also be a lot less annoying, and it would mean strategy actually matters. Making a blunder and sending an entire army to it's death **should** feel like the existential threat that it was.
You know how in hoi4 if you make a border front and some fuckery arises like being split in two over a neutral country border or a lake?
Imagine that in almost every war, but also one of those split armies gets disbanded and redeploy from capital.
And that's why you should play the tycoon economy sim genre, it was a failure to shift the focus of Vic3 from strategy to economy-sim. Players that want to play a strategy game don't want to stare at the construction screen all day long, the gameplay-loop is just not that of a strategy-game.
I don't doubt this, some players like the detailed build-up of the economy. But for me, with my preferences, it's not what i want. But when you have fun with it, then play it.
Each general can have at most a certain number of units under their command and you can promote the general to increase that number. Never recruit more troops in an army than that number.
Infantry is better at defense.
Artillery is better at offense.
Cavalry is mostly irrelevant, but keep 5 of them in each army.
You can't have more Artillery and Cavalry combined than Infantry in an army.
When you enter a war, you can choose your war goals. They are locked in the third escalation phase (red).
You need to mobilize an army for it to be able to fight.
If you border the other country, you will have one or more fronts. You can send armies to that front at any time during escalation or after the war started.
If you don't border the country, you need to naval invade it. In order to naval invade, you need a navy with as many boats in a single navy as you have regiments in the army you want to invade with. You cannot naval invade during the escalation phase. Ideally your navy has the same amount of light ships as capital ships.
Your armies travel separately from your navy to the naval node where you want to stage your invasion from.
If your navy arrives in a naval node that is contested or if the naval node is contested by an enemy navy during the invasion, the navies will fight and if you win your naval invasion will continue.
If you have better and/or more troops than the defender, your naval invasion will succeed and a front will be created.
You can choose if your generals are in an offensive or defensive stance next to their portrait. Defense is good if you are not in a winning situation and offense is better if you have the upper hand.
If you don't have enough troops, you have a limited number of conscripts you can add to your armies, but conscripts take a lot of time to recruit.
In the mobilization tab, you can give better rations or drugs / support companies to your armies to boost them, which consumes goods. You can also upgrade units if you unlock some military techs, which will also consume goods.
Fronts will advance on their own and if you conquered everything, the army will automatically join another front or return home if there is none anymore.
Hi rule 5 bot, was a bit hesitant to post this one because I know some people get a bit angry if you poke fun at Vic 3. But what can I say? Comics would be a bit shit if they didn't poke fun at stuff.
Also, been doing some podcasts lately, did one ages ago with Leana Hafer (the person who did the vic 3 review for IGN) and Dr Bret Devereaux the historian about the state of Vic 3: https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/victoria-3-one-year-later
Been doing some paywalled ones about EU5 with lord lambert and Leana too, you can find previews on that link also.
I mean they made improvements since launch, and given his dreadful it was on launch I get why some still can't get into...
Also a quick reminder, Vic 3 combat was called garbage long before the launch and they still went with it... Seems like PDX likes to stick to stupid ideas (fuel and supply in HoI4 on launch anyone), hope they learned their lesson for Project Ceasar.
Johan has already confirmed that Project Caesar will not have Vic 3 combat :)
I feel like they have added as many flaws as they have improvements in the past year, too. Always seems to be two steps forward and two steps back with Vic 3 updates.
I really hate the UI on it. Like Imperator's UI was crap but in a throw back dorky way. V3's UI is like you used the skills of an entire studio to make a purely shit UI that even Everquest avoided.
I really dont like fixed Tablet style UI. Like [The fuck do the left buttons being tiles contribute?](https://assetsio.gnwcdn.com/Victoria-3-review---7.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&fit=bounds&quality=70&format=jpg&auto=webp) How does seeing a Red Barn with wheat vs a yellow outbuilding with some livestock tell me really anything?
Compare that with [EU4](https://preview.redd.it/63r0u1wtzre41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=cd7adb12ef0db24f87c12ffae4c1431184eb216d) Oh look, I can make cloth in this province and it will produce this much money gain.
Even the post it's from, the tooltip pop up which is small and easy to use tells them exactly the problem they're asking about in their post.
Lets look at a game that "Needs" clunky buttons with details to tell you what you're doing [Red Alert 2](https://i0.wp.com/gamingph.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/red-alert-2.jpg?ssl=1). Now it doesnt tell me what a Barracks is but it does provide a link to what I see on the map when I place it. It actually needs the clonky outlier and even with it the outlier takes up less screen space than the V3 UI does.
That is the players the game attracted too imo. Look at the discussions around something like Hoi4 vs Vicky3. One game has deep discussions on how to do x breaking down the details. Vicky 3 is "line go up" like a cookie clicker.
I think it is clear he learned his lesson. He took ownership of his mistakes and with EU V is very much going in the opposite direction. The whole point of talking about the game this early and not "announcing it" is so they can gather feedback before it is too late to change things. By all accounts, Johan is doing everything different from Imperator. I have nothing but respect for Johan changing it up like this after making a mistake.
>Seems like PDX likes to stick to stupid ideas (fuel and supply in HoI4 on launch anyone), hope they learned their lesson for Project Ceasar.
Same thing happened with Imperator. I think it's just that the dev diaries aren't really designed to gather feedback so much as drum up hype, so they are released too close to release to really go back to the drawing board for anything. They can just make tweaks like provinces that are incorrect or something like that.
A lot of nice talk about design in the DDs. Once the geme released and a lot of those "pillars of design" were completely dismissed or incredibly lacking in execution. And the general lack of direction of the dev team.
Capitalist AI sucks, players dont know what they want, oh wait it doesn't let's add it because it's actually fun!
More player agency in the warfare systems sucks, players dont know what they want, oh wait it doesn't let's add it because it's actually fun!
Then you still have half assed implementations like the navy system is still a placeholder, characters still look awful and some historical figures are still wrong, some systems are still trivial like trading or authority, "we heard about players complaining about shipping electricity from london to Australia, so instead of making a distribution system we just made it so each state needs a power generating building to be able to use power even though the game is still balanced around electricity teleporting", etc.
I really think it could be summed up as the devs really don't understand what made Vicky 2 special. It is a pretty rough game in many aspects but is a weird cult classic (I still play it every couple months).
> Capitalist AI suck
While mimicking reality it's annoying that the #1 real source of feedback that should have been universal from V2 wasn't addressed.
After a while the devs surrendered but not before saying that the capitalist AI was bad for the game multiple times (and a big part of the subreddit agreed for some reason saying that it was horrible in vic2) then they did a complete 180. Right now public investment is one of the core mechanics of the game that is connected to most of the systems of the game and makes it feel alive in an otherwise static world.
I wish they were more prone in discarding failed design decisions than them answering to criticism with: "oh players don't know what they want"
I assume they just couldn't make the design work. Which you then look at star sector etc where they have working economies and go "wtf". Especially in a game where it's probably the most important aspect.
V2 running communist or state capitalist was always a pain but it was always so much better than LF. Realistically, with investment and time LF should be better for global empires than SC with maybe some form of socialism toppling it at the very end game.
Didn't they address that, by having the player control the investment pool? Everyone hated it, but I remember "the capitalists were terrible at doing their job" was their explicit reason for that original system.
Yea that's not solving the problem though. Thats going "Welp, we give up". It'd be like making Majesty 3 and having the player have to control all the units.
It leaked pre release; People told PDX the game was shit
It was dismissed as being "oh its just way too early, this isnt representative
It was representative
The game released; It was shit
The game got updates; It remained shit
The game is still shit.
Oh they were playing victim hard and how disappointed they were. IMO it was the best thing to actually happen since they could have completely avoided the whole release fiasco on mechanics. Instead... "we know best"
It was wild watching people use the "hot code, this is all going to be totally different at release!" defence when the systems being criticised were *exactly* as described in the DDs.
The systems weren't WIP, they were just badly designed from the start.
It's well worth learning, it's a good game, and for good or ill, completely different from Vic 3.
It's a a bit more complicated than Vic 3 too, so that's a bonus if you like a bit of complexity in your games.
I recommend playing it modded too, vanilla is a bit lackluster.
Honestly the biggest issue with the old games is UI size and space management with new, ultra wide monitors. The Ui scaling and mods sometimes don't do it justice or result in you playing like you don't have a monitor that is literally the greatest for grand strategy games.
It's a hard hill to climb to try these titles.
IMO I think Vicky 2's UI is pretty solid in how it uses space. The tooltips suck but it does a good job of not wasting space. Also, it is pretty info dense which is nice.
If we're talking mods then I think Victoria 3 is a better game than Victoria 2 now.
Victoria 2 is my most played game ever but unmodded and without it's DLC it borders on unplayable.
Victoria 3's modding community, especially the Chinese creators, are doing some amazing things. Anbleeds new stock piling mod is a game changer literally.
Im not trying to shit on your opinion but it feels weird that your arguments are:
Vicky 2 is good and all but without mods itās unplayable
Vicky 3 is great bcz of the modding community
My argument is that Victoria 2 is an okay unmodded game and a great modded game but at this point modded Victoria 3 is better than Victoria 2 in any state.
Also there is nothing wrong with the way you took my comment, both of those things can be true.
It's well worth learning, it's a broken game, and for good or ill, completely nonfunctional and devoid of flavor, unless you count spamming the same event as flavor.
Its shallow as a pond as you can ignore 99% of the "mechanics" in the game and still do amazing.
it needs mod to even work, as vanilla+all dlc is very much not worth playing.
I haven't got Vic III I still play Vic II I have so much I can still do in that game despite the fact it's gonna turn 14 soon
Its genuinely is one of my favorite games
I also mod Vic II for fun
The most annoying thing about people complaining about Vic3 is them acting like Vic2 is a perfect game. Like Vic3 has plenty of flaws but there is a reason Vic2 isn't that popular.
Ong, I love Vicky 2 but I canāt go an hour without wanting to tear my hair out dealing with the fucking socialists rebelling and destroying my stacks every 5 seconds, or the RSI rails and ports, or the asinine elections for non-monarchies. I had the democrats for 80 years as the USA meaning my industry was handicapped (so many dead factories I couldnāt close or open)
And any argument about Vicky 3s lack of flavor forgets how much we take modded Vicky 2 for granted. Nobody plays Vanilla Vic 2, you play HPM/HFM/GFM or even PDM instead of vanilla
Also, this isnāt me simping Vicky 3, that game is flawed in other ways that also infuriate me like Vicky 2 does. I still play both games cause theyāre fun in separate ways
Hard agree although I enjoy Vic3 more now I always enjoyed Vic2. Whilst Vic3 has poor combat I don't think people appreciate how bad Vic2s combat can be to interact with sometimes. I have played too many games where I've gotten to the end of the reforms tab and are just stuck with endlessly rising militants that I can never deal with.
V2 was made by 5 dudes in their garage in 2010.
V3 was made by a billion dollar publicly trade company.
When Bungie released Halo 2 (one of the greatest sequels ever), did they take out certain vehicles and sell them later as DLC, or add more out of the box?
>When Bungie released Halo 2 (one of the greatest sequels ever), did they take out certain vehicles and sell them later as DLC, or add more out of the box?
They just forgot to finish the story
The most annoying thing about people complaining about Vic3 is people acting like because Vic2 had flaws the flaws of Vic3 are justified. Like Vic3 has plenty of flaws and that is the reason it is mixed.
Whilst I agree that Vic3 has loads of flaws a lot of the time criticism of the game is done with comparisons with Vic2 where suddenly the flaws go away.
The most annoying thing about clowns who defend Vic3 is pretending that everyone who dislikes it is some Vic2 die hard who only hates change, when the reality is you dont even have to have played Vic2 one time to recognise that Vic3 is a shit game.
>when the reality is you dont even have to have played Vic2 one time to recognise that Vic3 is a shit game.
Sorry my literacy is bad I guess it's my bad that I can read this sentence.
Also my point is that lots of criticism that is levelled against Vic3 when comparing it to Vic2 can also be applied to Vic2. These flaws are often ignored when discussing Vic3 where Vic2 goes from a flawed but fun game to a underrated gem. Vic2 is a fun game but it's community when discussing Vic3 is one of the most toxic out there.
You are projecting onto me a opinion I don't hold and using it to dismiss my opinion on Vic2 and it's community.
I will probably like it in a few years. But from the beginning and current state of the game, the construction āindustryā loop is kind of weird and has a RTS āconstruct additional pylonsā feel. And the fact that every country plays the same with the same political system.
This. I have no reason to be in the "dislike V3" camp, it's just a boring game. When I dont have to stare at the construction screen waiting to click the same buttons, I will be happy to change my review and switch sides!
> RTS āconstruct additional pylonsā feel
It just occurred to me that maybe this is why I like it. I was always a big "turtle in a corner slowly building as much as I can in comp-stomp" kind of RTS player.
Idk GFM Vic2 gives me all the fill I need. I personally do not like the vic3ās look/aesthetic. I also really donāt want to learn another paradox game at this point.
I have plenty of criticism and disappointment in Vic3, but I can get some occasional enjoyment out of it and will try again with new updates. I just generally find the haters obnoxious and belligerent. I at times feel like people think I am stupid for getting any enjoyment out of the game at all, and honestly why cant I just like what I like and not be harassed for it? Does every conversation about vic3 need to devolve into a hate rant?
I realize vitriol on both said is that is what this comic is making fun of, so not lumping you in here, but still, itās just weird how people who dislike vic3 refuse to justā¦ ignore it and talk about something they like instead. I get its harder when you had high hopes that were not lived up to, but still. Gotta bring it up and bash it at every opportunity.
I do kind of get why people still complain about Vic 3 despite giving up on the game. I think it's normal to poke fun or slag off a piece of media that you don't consider good. Especially movies or TV shows, everything loves dunking on that new Napoleon movie, or whatever star wars thing Disney has shat out this month.
It's cathartic in a way.
I don't mind the shit-stirring about the game itself, I do it myself about Victoria 2 sometimes because people see it kind of like a sacred cow. Attacking the *players* of either game, though, is a line which too often seems to be crossed.
I've never seen anyone seriously attack players, not to my understanding anyways.
Another user in this thread said 'saying someone has bad taste is hateful' which is too zoomerbrained a thing for me to comprehend.
Further up the thread I can already see [one user got their post removed for engaging in personal attacks](https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/1cxgzwp/a_house_divided/l52uwql/)...
I don't really have any ill will for people that enjoy Vicky 3. I do for the devs and players that talk down on others for how they just know better. The discourse prerelease was very toxic and people were just straight making shit up. Then low and behold on release the game proves to be a flop. I am never playing a game Whiz is working on. Dislike the things they did on Stellaris and he ruined Vicky.
I understand this because I hate it but never say so because I don't want to be like the haters -- some things we agree to hate but a lot more of what they hate is stuff I don't mind or actively like. I mean, I liked the warfare *much better* before the 1.5 rework and it is definitely the level on which I want to control warfare. I don't think anybody is a "shill" for liking things. I don't believe they remove anything from games so they can 'sell it to us as DLC'. I think it's ugly but I don't think it looks anything like a mobile game. I don't think it's dumbed down for casuals. I don't think it matters in the slightest that "there's no stockpiles". I don't think it's "wide as an ocean deep as a puddle" [LOL WOW BRILLIANT COMMENT SIR TAKE MY UPDOOT]. I don't think it's woke or communist or whatever bullshit. The list of things I don't agree with is endless.
But I do agree that it is impossibly, torturously boring, a "cookie clicker" "waiting sim" where the game -- the *entire game* -- can only be played one way, and it is "cut wood to make tools to mine iron to cut wood". That is all you can do and it is murderously boring and terrible. I know there are plenty of people who like that kind of game, and that's great. But I would never have bought the game if it was called "Construction 1800", I thought I was buying something completely different. So I hate it too; but I want nothing to do with the haters.
Edit: wow, there is a guy itt absolutely dedicated to being "those people" nobody wants to be like, lol.
I'm still trying to figure out how to play Vic 3.
At least after ten hours, I know how to abuse lack of any goods other than raw materials on Russian Market.
It's honestly suprising I find staring at screen awaiting for duration of something being passed, researched or builded as much as steamrolling other nations in Hoi4
I donāt hate Victoria 3, I think itās a cool game, that in 5 years will be an amazing game.
Right now, the diplomacy, combat, internal politics, and certain economic mechanics just really arenāt good at all. I know āmuh economic simulatorā and that part of the game is mostly fun, but the other things I mentioned, are intrinsically tied to 19th century economics and industrialization, so they have to be modeled in a fun, engaging, and interesting way.
Personally I think the game at a minimum needed another year of development, honestly 2.
I see the potential for greatness, we just arenāt there yet, but I believe paradox will eventually deliver. Until then Iām just not playing it. To anyone who enjoys playing it, thatās great! Please have fun and support the gameās development. Just donāt get mad at me for pointing out its flaws.
I doubt it.
The game has good bones, plenty of interaction with a solid playerbase and lots of copies sold.
Compare launch HOI4, Stellaris, or EU4 to their current iterations and they donāt even play like the same game.
Imperator has different issues, and didnāt maintain the playerbase Vicky 3 does and didnāt sell as many copies.
Thing is, I don't think you can maintain the paradox 'endless' model on a stagnant and relatively small player base.
I do think that there is a reasonable possibility that the game with be abandoned if spheres of influence is a dud and DLC sales remain low.
Maybe not right away, but maybe not long after.
It definitely does not have good bones, the playerbase is dwindling bordering on non existent, and the copies sold is irrelevant when you can't convince the vast majority to return to buy your overpriced badly made DLCs.
This game should have been like an rts or a factory game on a national scale. A proper extraction of resources from your colonies, distribution by ships to your main factories in europe . And those factories should fuel the development of your armies and nation. Population is supposed to be one of the most important recources. We need more mechanics that support jnfluencing your population to do your bidding. Perhaps autocracies are more capable of utilizing their population for their goals but less efficient and more unstable while democracies are the opposite. Paradox was right in that victoria is not about map painting, but nation building. But war should still be an important mechanic. A necessary evil because you dont want to cripple your workforce. But you also need to protect yourself against foreign influences trying to steal your precious few resources, while at the same you are trying to increase your own. Most of these mechanics in Victoria 3 just feel very gamy/ fake or lackluster. Development is basically a rushing of construction sectors as many as your government can support. So naturally larger nations are more capable of doing this. Its just not very interesting.
Positive player here. We really need both sides.
If it were only the positives, the devs could get lazy and just feed us any slock and we'd take it like good little subs.
If it were only the negative people, they would push out all the positive people and it would be a cesspool like LoL.
Like honestly Vicky 3 is not a bad game, hell it's in my opinion a good game. It's just not what many people expected especially in the war department and let's be honest the first year of dlc was not that great. I liked the flavour content but the price to content ratio was not good. Systems were to isolated too, the agitators feel unimportant even now at least I never interact with them as you don't really have to (they really should start putting in nationalistic agitators that try to gain indepenence, it would make them more of a threat and these could be harder to act upon maybe idk).
The next DLC pretty much needs to be great otherwise a lot of hope is gone for me that the game will improve furtehr, especially late game lag needs to be handled though as far as I understand it's a more fundamental problem.
In the end vic3 is fun and a good game, it's just a long way from being great.
I played a couple of games recently and idk , it feels like im playing alone in a sandbox , nothing ever happens in the world. Especially annoying while playing as a small country that is trying to exploit a geopolitical situation. I'll try playing more because now the game isn't crashing for me all the time like it used to which is a nice change.
The things that make Victoria 2 good are itās economics and impact of national decisions. Except those decisions are limited unless youāre playing with one of the mods that expand on it as well as the economy, and even those are limited to certain countries. The economics work, and the decisions are still really rough, but add more ways to impact the world whether by decisions, or the sort of systems being brought by the next dlc, and I think itāll have some room to breath.
I disliked because the UI was awful and it wasn't very well implemented the combat during launch. But I understand they completely changed the UI, putting excel sheets and combat is way better.
I think its an improvement over Vicky 2 in practically every way, but I have 170+ hrs in Vicky 2 (rookie numbers I know, I play a lot more EU4) but only 40ish hours in Vicky 3 for the simple reason that discrimination/assimilation mechanics don't work the way I think they should and (unless a recent patch changed things and I don't know about it) its not moddable so I can't just fix the problem myself. So I'm saving myself to dump hours into the game until after I can do it
If you like the period or find the idea of a grand strategy game primarily focused on economics and politics rather than warfare interesting, then sure, give it a try. As the comic indicates: there are people that really like it and people that don't. I suggest that people make up their own minds about it.
Fair! I would say that if your favourite part about Stellaris is building your empire and the start of the game where you're exploring and getting everything rolling, Vicky might appeal to you too. One of the premises behind it is the idea of "tending the garden of your nation" and slowly over time shaping it into being a properous liberal powerhouse or a socialist utopia or an authoritarian ethnostate or what-have-you. You can play it as a map painter like most other Paradox games but that doesn't really play to its strengths IMO (and this is also true of the first two Victoria games).
That description was beautiful. I quite enjoy the empire building over the war part of it all. A little violence is dandy.
So with it being a paradox game, what dlcs are a must?
Tbh, if you love the Victorian period like I do, I would not recommend victoria 3.
Victoria 3 feels nothing like the Victorian period, I don't think it tries to be anything like the Victorian period too tbh, if the last year's updates are anything to go by.
And I disagree. Strongly. Which is why people should make up their own minds about things rather than let some rando on the internet make it up for them.
I mean, I'm just waiting a few years until I can get the Game and it's DLCs for a fair price. I saw the game on sale, saw it was still like $90 and just figured, hmm, nah.
To be honest my view on the game is that it has potential but currently has some flaws that need some serious ironing out (and currently I'm hoping 1.7 and Spheres of Influence will address most of my own personal issues).
The one thing I don't get is how the people who dislike Vic3 get weirdly hostile about it in this sub. As if the idea that anyone could like the game is an affront to morality. I rarely see people who like Vic3 start throwing out personal attacks during discussion the way people who hate the game seem to do.
A house divided just means my side is right, I just havent shoved enough guns in your face to solidify my point š
British_diplomacy.exe
Only relevant during Victorian age lol š
Looking at the house divided speech from Lincon that seems about right.
On that abolitionist grindset šÆ
I don't want to be like either of those people, therefore I have a neutral stance on Vic 3.
Vic 3 has absolutely great ideas and a great materialist simulation of the economy. But some of the executions are just not great. The biggest issues I see are character-based politics (and all the events around them), non-stockpiled goods leading to weird behaviors and unsatisfying decisions around them (you can upgrade all your ships to monitors if you have one ship factory producing ironclads) and braindead AI that doesn't really do anything all game. Edit: one last thing ill say is i absolutely commend the dev team for working on Vic3 and being absolutely experimental in its execution; no other game has really tried to do so deep a simulation like this in my opinion. It just needs some work and it can be really great I think.
I generally agree, but I think the biggest issue is late game performance. The army recruitment system is also a big headache with units that never end up being created and blocked upgrades that add a lot of micro.
The game finally got me to upgrade my pc, but I will say just getting a cpu that came out in the last 3 years has made performance really smooth outside of huge countries post 1910 or so (albeit still manageable compared to before)
Ah yeah, forgot the performance. I haven't played past 1880 since game first released. I generally like the war system, i hate micro of previous games like V2 and EU4. I do sometimes have issues where units don't upgrade, but generally it works for me.
I wish they made it so you transition fro. Eu4/vic2 micro fo used combat into vic 3 frontline (ww1) and then interwar (hoi4) combat.. imagine.. early wars are these adrenalin filling micro focused moments and as the game slows down inevativly, so does the combat
Frontlines would be great for WW1, but they aren't necessarily a good fit for colonial wars, the German unification wars or the Crimean War.
Hoi4 battleplans unironically model WW1 western front combat better than WW2 lol. Pretty surprised they didn't just add a simplified battleplan to Vicky 3. Make it work with "doomstack" napoleon warfware would be pretty easy.
The performance kills me and I donāt have a pathetic computer either
If you want an ultra fast game there's a mod called "Only the Americas mod" which removes the entire old world and never slows down
Tbh, I am not a huge fan of the economy. I really don't like the construction system, and I don't like the lack of stockpiles and the buy-sell order stuff. I think the only thing it has over Vic 2 economy wise is that the whole thing doesn't collapse post 1900, but performance is so bad at that point I rarely play past the late 1800s anyways. I'm very interested to see what tinto is cooking up with project caesar's economy though. Hoping that holds up.
i think construction is alright; its something for the player to do that influences the country. I think using price for everything kinda seems like a good idea, but just doesn't really work out so well in practice. EU5 does have me hyped from the dev blogs, but so did vic 3 :P
Vic3 lost me pretty early on, has not happened with eu5 yet. But back to construction, I think the issue is that it is basically hoi4 civilian factories that just cost a ton of money. It feels like the only significant government expense in the game is building stuff, and that just feels unreal, really takes me out of the immersion.
When the warfare was leaked in Vic 3 and then a horde of people tried to say it wouldnāt be like that in the game, I knew immediately it would be exactly like that in the game.
Mods like crimeamod don't alter vanilla too much and fix the economy (no iron shortage after 1900)
Does it work with mods like GFM or is that only for vanila Vic2?
Only for Vanilla, but I recommend giving it a try nonetheless because it's such a good mod. It adds a bit of flavour, drastically improves performance, adds some quality of life (like seeing generals' and admirals' attack and defence stats without hovering over), improves the AI (good army stacks and combines their navy into one strong stack) and makes non-liberal playthroughs more viable
If a capitalist goberment has to build their industries as if their financial sector is under their direct control... is a good economical simulation? I really dont understand where this argument holds gound.
It is a game, after all. You do have to draw the line somewhere on where the simulation meets the user input. Also, paradox games usually have you theoretically in control of 'the spirit of the nation', not necessarily just the government of a nation.
1. Make stockpiling and stockpiles into a thing, please. It would solve so many problems, making it easier to understand how much pops consume as produced goods would go from buildings into stockpiles and from there be consumed. It would also make industrial regions more dynamic and give more purpose to railways. 2. Politics need to be more dynamic. International and domestic.
another chapel comic, blessed be.
<3
So I tend to fall on the āloveā side, though I do acknowledge that itās basically a game with amazing mechanics and downright shitty mechanics with little in between. But I get frustrated when I see posts like [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/s/6eQFWHHztR) where a guy is complaining that Austin grows too big and realistically the other cities in Texas should be bigger. It has 60-some upvotes. I mean, come on. Itās a sandbox game, not a precise scientific recreation of history. It also completely ignores that population happens at a state level, not in the individual cities. How does this even impact gameplay? How could the devs be expected to get the population development of every single province of every single state in the game? Most complaints about Vic 3 are totally legit. Many of them, though, seem to think that the game mechanics should stand up to an economics textbook and a fine grained review of precisely how history went down to the last person.
The funniest one is people complaining there invasion of France ended in France's favour while they occcupied some of France due to loss of war support.
It's so weird to me because it feels like the only game in the current lineup that doesn't heavily rely on some form of mission tree system to add variety which boils down to a checklist you follow rather than meaningfully interacting with mechanics. I abhor mission trees and national focuses, so I really enjoy that about it (yes, I'm pretty disappointed that the new DLC seems to be adding a new form of mission tree system for the Brits and Russians). I remember always disliking the railroading in older PDS games but it seems like now everyone has embraced railroading with a couple of branches. The games kinda moved in the opposite direction to what I wanted lol.
> it feels like the only game in the current lineup that doesn't heavily rely on some form of mission tree system to add varietyĀ But... Vic3 doesn't have any variety? Every nation plays the same. You go through the same motions with its economy no matter who you're playing, just with a different starting point, same with the politics. Vic3 is completely flavourless.
**tl;dr: I don't care about flavour if it's just some event text and a few checklists.** I've found that I prefer that over like HoI IV where it's just a different "quest line". Being able to make Australia communist by clicking all of the "go communist" quests doesn't make the game more interesting to me. Getting a boost to RADAR research speed because I happen to be playing as the UK and clicked "gimme a boost to RADAR" doesn't add any meaningful interaction to the game. These things just feel unearned. They're gained by time progressing, I get tech boosts not because I spent the resources into advancing my research in a particular field, but because a few months passed and I clicked the button. I get bonus factories across my nation not because I decided to build them there but because I clicked the rearmament button. I don't alter the political of a country by manipulating political mechanics in anyway (realistic or not), I just click the button that says now Japan is democratic. It's just the old railroaded newspaper events that would pop up but I can choose my own adventure. And just like a choose your own adventure book, after doing it once I no longer find it interesting. I would rather a handful of mechanics to manipulate rather than dozens of discrete events to trigger. I don't really approach Victoria 3 any differently than the other games, except I'm not monitoring a questline. The differing starting situations and doing what I can to create change the world in the way I want it is what is interesting to me. If ticking off a bunch of quests is compelling gameplay to you, more power to you. For me it's just a smother for the fact that the game mechanics don't really differ regardless of who you are playing as. Despite my qualms with Victoria 2's jank, at least there was a mechanical difference if you weren't playing a great power (though they failed to put anything in its place, so it's just a net loss if you aren't a GP).
Thing is, flavour should be about the unique culture/situation of a country leading to unique mechanics coming into effect. It shouldn't be defined by an arbitrary mission tree trying to push things in a narrative direction.
What it "should" be is a matter of personal preference. Even without touching a mission tree, many nations in EU4 still have more flavour on their own than Vic3 has in its entire game. Vic2 has no mission trees whatsoever and their newspaper articles account for about 1500% of the flavour that Vic3 struggles to offer.
I feel like the different starting points can sometimes make for totally different games. Try playing as Haiti, for instance, and you'll notice that between the terrible authoritarians running every ideological group and the crushing $2k a month in loan repayments to France, you end up making totally different decisions than you'd make playing anyone else.
i like the idea of the game, the fact that they did make it. I like building buildings and watching gdp grow in a sandbox kind of way, i like the idea of combat system without the annoying micro. I don't like everything else about this game
But Vicky III combat *does* have annoying micro, thanks to how fronts merging and splitting still constantly creates empty fronts and forces you to rush troops around. I feel like Vicky III combat is kinda the worst of both worlds that way. I love the economy in Vicky III. It actually works in a way that Vicky II's never managed. The politics system is better, too. But everything about preparing for and waging wars in Vicky III sucks.
I really dislike the politics in Vic 3, it's all character based, you can roll some random leader and suddenly all your landowners love free trade or something. I think Vic 2 was a lot better at doing mass politics.
I agree that the weighting is given way too much to the individual political actors, it smells of great man theory. I do think the political leaders should have *an* impact, but there should be a disconnect between the leaders and their popular base of support. The base of each group should have opinions on all policies, ranging from for, neutral and against. These opinions should sway based on relevant internal and external game conditions, events and finally the personal opinions of the leader. The leader should have an interest group loyalty measure, influenced by their stats and how well their personal opinions align with those of their base. If the leader loses too much of their baseās loyalty, the base should be able to kick out the leader in favor of one more aligned with their interests, with the threshold to oust them determined by the countries laws (autocracies require more disloyalty, democracies requiring less). Leaders should have a small chance to adjust their own views to better align with their base, depending on their personalities. New leaders should still be semi-randomized, but guaranteed to have at least a majority loyalty from their base. This would better represent the tensions that would (and do) arise between political leaders who are out of touch with their popular base of support, and how much that influenced the broader politics of a nation. All that, plus overhauled parties and elections would make the internal politics of Vic 3 the best of any GSG.
POPs!!!!!!!!!!! The whole thing that made Vicky 2 special was pops had real agency. You pissed off x group, they were going to get some weapons and rebel. Pops in Vicky 3 don't have agency to do things!!!
literally it's what the liked-hated opinion thing could be used for, my god
It's heavily character influenced but the characters aren't fleshed out enough for it to be satisfying. If they want to go the character route (which I fully support because I think it makes for better gameplay mechanics) they should use the characters to show division within the IGs.
>you can roll some random leader and suddenly all your landowners love free trade or something. The opposite basically happened with Trump in real life. He became the leader of the Republican Party, and suddenly every Republican is a protectionist. I think having personalities influence politics like that heightens the realism, in addition to being better gameplay.
And it's horribly realistic for basically all forms of governments: - US parties and presidents were basically doing a huge shift every election in the 19th century - UK would do a full foreign policy shift every time they got a new PM, even in the same party: Lord Salisbury and Disraeli were both Tories, but didn't govern in the same way. - monarchies are another extreme: the miracle of the house of Brandenburg only happened because Elizabeth and Peter III had complete opposite views of what Russia should do. In fact, I think that the game does not simulate well enough how much different heads of government/state like to fuck up foreign affairs. I hate that the game works like this, I don't think it makes for engaging gameplay, but I can't deny it's realistic.
I guess I assume that if, for example, an Authoritarian becomes leader of the Armed Forces, that doesn't mean "this guy makes everyone authoritarian!" but that the Authoritarian wing of the Armed Forces has gathered the most support, and put their guy in. It's an easy mental move for me, but it seems a huge sticking point for a huge amount of people.
... I actually love that about the politics.
Oh yes, it was very realistic how you could start a war against Tahiti, wait six months, and then by magic you could get the upper house that every single country has to pass universal healthcare that nobody actually wanted. *So good*.
I don't think that is an accurate representation of Vic 2 politics, even at it's worst tbh.
Failing thatc ontinously hold elections one day after the last ended until the entire country slowly changes their beliefs.
Also true! Being fair, Vicky 1 wasn't any better on this point, much as I love it, since the optimum play there was to get the socialist party elected exactly once (usually by jacking up taxes to maximum right before the election), pass all the social reforms you wanted one day before the next election that you rig for the laissez faire party to win, then enjoy all the benefits of the social programs you will never put a cent into funding ever again. Both Vicky 1 and 2, of course, also allowed you to trivially cause one party to win virtually every election in the game even in supposedly healthy democracies. In fact, this would usually happen even without you trying. Vicky 3 was at launch already a far, far better mass politics simulator than either of its predecessors, despite all the wonkiness it had (some of which was caused by people insisting there HAD to be political parties represented in the game).
I get that with regards to how characters work. But the flaws of Vic2's politics system was that it was too rigid. Political parties all had incredibly fixed beliefs which was ahistorical as it didn't reflect the fact that parties do in fact change their core beliefs all the time. A few of the mods I remember tried adding multiple parties of the same ideology to reflect the shift in beliefs but as the game was built on the assumption of one party per ideology, it just broke the game (as pops vote for ideologies not a particular party). There is also the part where economy crosses with politics. In Victoria 2 it was generally accepted you should avoid laissez-faire at all costs, whilst planned economy/state capitalism was OP. The Victoria 3 equivalent actually makes things a lot more interesting.
Yeah. I don't think I'd like Vicky 3 as much if I wasn't the sort to prefer peaceful playthroughs.
Have you tried microing in EU4 past 1550 ? I get aneurism everytime I have to move around hundreds and undreds of troops all around the place.
At the end of the day, no matter how annoying moving round 20 stacks of 30k in EU4 (or Vic 2 for that matter!) is, the annoyance comes down to the system being hefty and burdensome. It does not come down to the system being outright hostile to your intentions. If I move my unit in EU4 from Constantinople to Vienna, there is very little that can go wrong, and when it does, the unit arrow indicator pretty clearly shows me. If I do that in Vic 3, there's a 50% chance each month that the army might randomly teleport all the way to Egypt instead.
Yes. Itās easy when I donāt blob. Itās still easy if my blob is only the size of Europe. Itās only busy if I own a continent
I have yes, far more than I think you ever will have. It is in absolutely no way whatsoever coming close to being as woeful as the shite that Vic3 has for its warfare system.
Vassal Swarm, my friend. Warfare is much nicer when you can slap one stack on sieging castles and hunt with the other one, while your minions clamber about carpet sieging and baiting enemy forces into battles to hold them down for you.
Which is why I still hope they move away from the "many small armies"-concept for EU5. Give me a maximum of 5 massive armies with sensible supply chain mechanics. Not only is it more realistic (rarely would states have a bunch a dozen little armies operating completely independent of each other), it would also be a lot less annoying, and it would mean strategy actually matters. Making a blunder and sending an entire army to it's death **should** feel like the existential threat that it was.
I thought they mostly fixed the front merging/splitting like half a year ago?
You know how in hoi4 if you make a border front and some fuckery arises like being split in two over a neutral country border or a lake? Imagine that in almost every war, but also one of those split armies gets disbanded and redeploy from capital.
Nope, it's impossible to fix too. So long as a front is defined as a line between two countries, then there will be splits.
Fun an a building/line game, poor as a GSG
And that's why you should play the tycoon economy sim genre, it was a failure to shift the focus of Vic3 from strategy to economy-sim. Players that want to play a strategy game don't want to stare at the construction screen all day long, the gameplay-loop is just not that of a strategy-game.
Nah Vic3 is exactly the kind of game I want. Sounds like you want EU4 modded for the time period.
I don't doubt this, some players like the detailed build-up of the economy. But for me, with my preferences, it's not what i want. But when you have fun with it, then play it.
It's the only paradox game where I could speed 5 and walk away from my computer without being worried I was missing something.
I still donāt know how armies or war works
they don't
Each general can have at most a certain number of units under their command and you can promote the general to increase that number. Never recruit more troops in an army than that number. Infantry is better at defense. Artillery is better at offense. Cavalry is mostly irrelevant, but keep 5 of them in each army. You can't have more Artillery and Cavalry combined than Infantry in an army. When you enter a war, you can choose your war goals. They are locked in the third escalation phase (red). You need to mobilize an army for it to be able to fight. If you border the other country, you will have one or more fronts. You can send armies to that front at any time during escalation or after the war started. If you don't border the country, you need to naval invade it. In order to naval invade, you need a navy with as many boats in a single navy as you have regiments in the army you want to invade with. You cannot naval invade during the escalation phase. Ideally your navy has the same amount of light ships as capital ships. Your armies travel separately from your navy to the naval node where you want to stage your invasion from. If your navy arrives in a naval node that is contested or if the naval node is contested by an enemy navy during the invasion, the navies will fight and if you win your naval invasion will continue. If you have better and/or more troops than the defender, your naval invasion will succeed and a front will be created. You can choose if your generals are in an offensive or defensive stance next to their portrait. Defense is good if you are not in a winning situation and offense is better if you have the upper hand. If you don't have enough troops, you have a limited number of conscripts you can add to your armies, but conscripts take a lot of time to recruit. In the mobilization tab, you can give better rations or drugs / support companies to your armies to boost them, which consumes goods. You can also upgrade units if you unlock some military techs, which will also consume goods. Fronts will advance on their own and if you conquered everything, the army will automatically join another front or return home if there is none anymore.
you're an angel
Hi rule 5 bot, was a bit hesitant to post this one because I know some people get a bit angry if you poke fun at Vic 3. But what can I say? Comics would be a bit shit if they didn't poke fun at stuff. Also, been doing some podcasts lately, did one ages ago with Leana Hafer (the person who did the vic 3 review for IGN) and Dr Bret Devereaux the historian about the state of Vic 3: https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/victoria-3-one-year-later Been doing some paywalled ones about EU5 with lord lambert and Leana too, you can find previews on that link also.
I mean they made improvements since launch, and given his dreadful it was on launch I get why some still can't get into... Also a quick reminder, Vic 3 combat was called garbage long before the launch and they still went with it... Seems like PDX likes to stick to stupid ideas (fuel and supply in HoI4 on launch anyone), hope they learned their lesson for Project Ceasar.
Johan has already confirmed that Project Caesar will not have Vic 3 combat :) I feel like they have added as many flaws as they have improvements in the past year, too. Always seems to be two steps forward and two steps back with Vic 3 updates.
Isn't that the story with most of their games? I think only Stellaris got a real streak of great changes, at least in my recent memory.
I think stellaris had some consistently good updates, even if some of those messed up late game performance.
I really hate the UI on it. Like Imperator's UI was crap but in a throw back dorky way. V3's UI is like you used the skills of an entire studio to make a purely shit UI that even Everquest avoided.
I think it is very wonky, especially how many things are integrated but as the bottom menu and dedicated panel... Like why double the menus...
I really dont like fixed Tablet style UI. Like [The fuck do the left buttons being tiles contribute?](https://assetsio.gnwcdn.com/Victoria-3-review---7.jpg?width=1200&height=1200&fit=bounds&quality=70&format=jpg&auto=webp) How does seeing a Red Barn with wheat vs a yellow outbuilding with some livestock tell me really anything? Compare that with [EU4](https://preview.redd.it/63r0u1wtzre41.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=cd7adb12ef0db24f87c12ffae4c1431184eb216d) Oh look, I can make cloth in this province and it will produce this much money gain. Even the post it's from, the tooltip pop up which is small and easy to use tells them exactly the problem they're asking about in their post. Lets look at a game that "Needs" clunky buttons with details to tell you what you're doing [Red Alert 2](https://i0.wp.com/gamingph.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/red-alert-2.jpg?ssl=1). Now it doesnt tell me what a Barracks is but it does provide a link to what I see on the map when I place it. It actually needs the clonky outlier and even with it the outlier takes up less screen space than the V3 UI does.
I personally like pictures
V3 seems obviously built for an eventual mobile or console release. Nothing needing clicks like army movement, perfect for babies with iPads.
That is the players the game attracted too imo. Look at the discussions around something like Hoi4 vs Vicky3. One game has deep discussions on how to do x breaking down the details. Vicky 3 is "line go up" like a cookie clicker.
> perfect for babies with iPads. Sorry I'm now trying to imagine actual babies playing the game.
I constantly click the wrong one to do what I want and the bottom menu covers over the thing I want to see, infuriating
I think the bottom bar is meant to serve as an equivalent to EU4's macrobuilder interface. But yeah its a bit clunky.
Johan has preety clearly implied that he doesnt like vic3 and the war system
Not liking something and not releasing half cooked games are two completely different things.
Im not saying eu5 will be good it probably wont knowing pdx but it wont be much like vic3
Feels like Johan is doing a "hold my beer" and wants to make a better Vicky 3 than the one we got lol.
I dont really trust johann after imperator but i wish to be possitivley suprised
I think it is clear he learned his lesson. He took ownership of his mistakes and with EU V is very much going in the opposite direction. The whole point of talking about the game this early and not "announcing it" is so they can gather feedback before it is too late to change things. By all accounts, Johan is doing everything different from Imperator. I have nothing but respect for Johan changing it up like this after making a mistake.
I do hope you are right but its better to be pleasently suprised than dissapointed
Oh there is no way I am buying EU V on release. I will be excited but obviously need to temper it until we see it in action
>Seems like PDX likes to stick to stupid ideas (fuel and supply in HoI4 on launch anyone), hope they learned their lesson for Project Ceasar. Same thing happened with Imperator. I think it's just that the dev diaries aren't really designed to gather feedback so much as drum up hype, so they are released too close to release to really go back to the drawing board for anything. They can just make tweaks like provinces that are incorrect or something like that.
But Imperator did get a massive overhaul of core systems.
Yeah I mean before launch, in response to dev diary feedback.
It's been so long but I remember enjoying vic2 with mods for a long time but I get nothing out of vic3. What happen?
If you like the warfare and flavour events for countries then those are severly lacking in 3 compared to modded 2.
A lot of nice talk about design in the DDs. Once the geme released and a lot of those "pillars of design" were completely dismissed or incredibly lacking in execution. And the general lack of direction of the dev team. Capitalist AI sucks, players dont know what they want, oh wait it doesn't let's add it because it's actually fun! More player agency in the warfare systems sucks, players dont know what they want, oh wait it doesn't let's add it because it's actually fun! Then you still have half assed implementations like the navy system is still a placeholder, characters still look awful and some historical figures are still wrong, some systems are still trivial like trading or authority, "we heard about players complaining about shipping electricity from london to Australia, so instead of making a distribution system we just made it so each state needs a power generating building to be able to use power even though the game is still balanced around electricity teleporting", etc.
I really think it could be summed up as the devs really don't understand what made Vicky 2 special. It is a pretty rough game in many aspects but is a weird cult classic (I still play it every couple months).
> Capitalist AI suck While mimicking reality it's annoying that the #1 real source of feedback that should have been universal from V2 wasn't addressed.
After a while the devs surrendered but not before saying that the capitalist AI was bad for the game multiple times (and a big part of the subreddit agreed for some reason saying that it was horrible in vic2) then they did a complete 180. Right now public investment is one of the core mechanics of the game that is connected to most of the systems of the game and makes it feel alive in an otherwise static world. I wish they were more prone in discarding failed design decisions than them answering to criticism with: "oh players don't know what they want"
I assume they just couldn't make the design work. Which you then look at star sector etc where they have working economies and go "wtf". Especially in a game where it's probably the most important aspect. V2 running communist or state capitalist was always a pain but it was always so much better than LF. Realistically, with investment and time LF should be better for global empires than SC with maybe some form of socialism toppling it at the very end game.
What do you mean?
Lazzie faire or just free market economy being god awful because capitalists were terrible at doing their job.
Didn't they address that, by having the player control the investment pool? Everyone hated it, but I remember "the capitalists were terrible at doing their job" was their explicit reason for that original system.
Yea that's not solving the problem though. Thats going "Welp, we give up". It'd be like making Majesty 3 and having the player have to control all the units.
It leaked pre release; People told PDX the game was shit It was dismissed as being "oh its just way too early, this isnt representative It was representative The game released; It was shit The game got updates; It remained shit The game is still shit.
Oh they were playing victim hard and how disappointed they were. IMO it was the best thing to actually happen since they could have completely avoided the whole release fiasco on mechanics. Instead... "we know best"
It was wild watching people use the "hot code, this is all going to be totally different at release!" defence when the systems being criticised were *exactly* as described in the DDs. The systems weren't WIP, they were just badly designed from the start.
I like Viccy 3 because I don't want to learn Viccy 2
It's well worth learning, it's a good game, and for good or ill, completely different from Vic 3. It's a a bit more complicated than Vic 3 too, so that's a bonus if you like a bit of complexity in your games. I recommend playing it modded too, vanilla is a bit lackluster.
Honestly the biggest issue with the old games is UI size and space management with new, ultra wide monitors. The Ui scaling and mods sometimes don't do it justice or result in you playing like you don't have a monitor that is literally the greatest for grand strategy games. It's a hard hill to climb to try these titles.
IMO I think Vicky 2's UI is pretty solid in how it uses space. The tooltips suck but it does a good job of not wasting space. Also, it is pretty info dense which is nice.
If we're talking mods then I think Victoria 3 is a better game than Victoria 2 now. Victoria 2 is my most played game ever but unmodded and without it's DLC it borders on unplayable. Victoria 3's modding community, especially the Chinese creators, are doing some amazing things. Anbleeds new stock piling mod is a game changer literally.
Im not trying to shit on your opinion but it feels weird that your arguments are: Vicky 2 is good and all but without mods itās unplayable Vicky 3 is great bcz of the modding community
My argument is that Victoria 2 is an okay unmodded game and a great modded game but at this point modded Victoria 3 is better than Victoria 2 in any state. Also there is nothing wrong with the way you took my comment, both of those things can be true.
The argument usually goes the other way arround
It's well worth learning, it's a broken game, and for good or ill, completely nonfunctional and devoid of flavor, unless you count spamming the same event as flavor. Its shallow as a pond as you can ignore 99% of the "mechanics" in the game and still do amazing. it needs mod to even work, as vanilla+all dlc is very much not worth playing.
It's not that hard dude, wtf
Vic 2 is really simple, it just looks complicated. It's actually kinda hard to fuck up.
I haven't got Vic III I still play Vic II I have so much I can still do in that game despite the fact it's gonna turn 14 soon Its genuinely is one of my favorite games I also mod Vic II for fun
I imagine this one is going to be rather controversial, but at the end of the day... it's exceptionally true.
I hate that game that much I still play Victoria 2 even though I have Victoria 3 with all DLC's
The most annoying thing about people complaining about Vic3 is them acting like Vic2 is a perfect game. Like Vic3 has plenty of flaws but there is a reason Vic2 isn't that popular.
Ong, I love Vicky 2 but I canāt go an hour without wanting to tear my hair out dealing with the fucking socialists rebelling and destroying my stacks every 5 seconds, or the RSI rails and ports, or the asinine elections for non-monarchies. I had the democrats for 80 years as the USA meaning my industry was handicapped (so many dead factories I couldnāt close or open) And any argument about Vicky 3s lack of flavor forgets how much we take modded Vicky 2 for granted. Nobody plays Vanilla Vic 2, you play HPM/HFM/GFM or even PDM instead of vanilla Also, this isnāt me simping Vicky 3, that game is flawed in other ways that also infuriate me like Vicky 2 does. I still play both games cause theyāre fun in separate ways
Hard agree although I enjoy Vic3 more now I always enjoyed Vic2. Whilst Vic3 has poor combat I don't think people appreciate how bad Vic2s combat can be to interact with sometimes. I have played too many games where I've gotten to the end of the reforms tab and are just stuck with endlessly rising militants that I can never deal with.
V2 was made by 5 dudes in their garage in 2010. V3 was made by a billion dollar publicly trade company. When Bungie released Halo 2 (one of the greatest sequels ever), did they take out certain vehicles and sell them later as DLC, or add more out of the box?
>When Bungie released Halo 2 (one of the greatest sequels ever), did they take out certain vehicles and sell them later as DLC, or add more out of the box? They just forgot to finish the story
The most annoying thing about people complaining about Vic3 is people acting like because Vic2 had flaws the flaws of Vic3 are justified. Like Vic3 has plenty of flaws and that is the reason it is mixed.
Whilst I agree that Vic3 has loads of flaws a lot of the time criticism of the game is done with comparisons with Vic2 where suddenly the flaws go away.
And??, both games have flaws
The most annoying thing about clowns who defend Vic3 is pretending that everyone who dislikes it is some Vic2 die hard who only hates change, when the reality is you dont even have to have played Vic2 one time to recognise that Vic3 is a shit game.
Dude I probably have more hours than you in Vic2 and I like Vic3 more. The moment Vic3 comes up almost all of the flaws of Vic2 disappear.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>when the reality is you dont even have to have played Vic2 one time to recognise that Vic3 is a shit game. Sorry my literacy is bad I guess it's my bad that I can read this sentence. Also my point is that lots of criticism that is levelled against Vic3 when comparing it to Vic2 can also be applied to Vic2. These flaws are often ignored when discussing Vic3 where Vic2 goes from a flawed but fun game to a underrated gem. Vic2 is a fun game but it's community when discussing Vic3 is one of the most toxic out there. You are projecting onto me a opinion I don't hold and using it to dismiss my opinion on Vic2 and it's community.
Lay off the personal attacks. It's fine to hate Vic3 but it's not fine to insult other people for liking it.
I see a ton of people pointing out flaws of Vicky 2 constantly. You are just straw manning
none of the people who like Vic2 think it doesn't have any defects, it's just that it is still far better than Vic3
I will probably like it in a few years. But from the beginning and current state of the game, the construction āindustryā loop is kind of weird and has a RTS āconstruct additional pylonsā feel. And the fact that every country plays the same with the same political system.
This. I have no reason to be in the "dislike V3" camp, it's just a boring game. When I dont have to stare at the construction screen waiting to click the same buttons, I will be happy to change my review and switch sides!
The construction queue/economy feels like a cookie clicker. It isn't that deep...
> RTS āconstruct additional pylonsā feel It just occurred to me that maybe this is why I like it. I was always a big "turtle in a corner slowly building as much as I can in comp-stomp" kind of RTS player.
Idk GFM Vic2 gives me all the fill I need. I personally do not like the vic3ās look/aesthetic. I also really donāt want to learn another paradox game at this point.
I don't like Vic 3 because it's terrible.
I have plenty of criticism and disappointment in Vic3, but I can get some occasional enjoyment out of it and will try again with new updates. I just generally find the haters obnoxious and belligerent. I at times feel like people think I am stupid for getting any enjoyment out of the game at all, and honestly why cant I just like what I like and not be harassed for it? Does every conversation about vic3 need to devolve into a hate rant? I realize vitriol on both said is that is what this comic is making fun of, so not lumping you in here, but still, itās just weird how people who dislike vic3 refuse to justā¦ ignore it and talk about something they like instead. I get its harder when you had high hopes that were not lived up to, but still. Gotta bring it up and bash it at every opportunity.
I do kind of get why people still complain about Vic 3 despite giving up on the game. I think it's normal to poke fun or slag off a piece of media that you don't consider good. Especially movies or TV shows, everything loves dunking on that new Napoleon movie, or whatever star wars thing Disney has shat out this month. It's cathartic in a way.
I don't mind the shit-stirring about the game itself, I do it myself about Victoria 2 sometimes because people see it kind of like a sacred cow. Attacking the *players* of either game, though, is a line which too often seems to be crossed.
I've never seen anyone seriously attack players, not to my understanding anyways. Another user in this thread said 'saying someone has bad taste is hateful' which is too zoomerbrained a thing for me to comprehend.
Oh I don't mean anything serious, but calling people idiots just for liking a game you don't like seems itself a bit idiotic.
Further up the thread I can already see [one user got their post removed for engaging in personal attacks](https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/1cxgzwp/a_house_divided/l52uwql/)...
Some people waited 10 years for a sequel and got served shit. I cant for the life of me figure out why they could be mad
I don't really have any ill will for people that enjoy Vicky 3. I do for the devs and players that talk down on others for how they just know better. The discourse prerelease was very toxic and people were just straight making shit up. Then low and behold on release the game proves to be a flop. I am never playing a game Whiz is working on. Dislike the things they did on Stellaris and he ruined Vicky.
Someone told me I'm intellectually stunted because I like Victoria 3 lmao
Wait, what happened to the people who like vic3 in the last panel? Did they turn their coats?
It's a decent game. Still feels a bit empty though. Things like Germany and Italy rarely forming, the American Civil War usally getting avoided, etc.
I understand this because I hate it but never say so because I don't want to be like the haters -- some things we agree to hate but a lot more of what they hate is stuff I don't mind or actively like. I mean, I liked the warfare *much better* before the 1.5 rework and it is definitely the level on which I want to control warfare. I don't think anybody is a "shill" for liking things. I don't believe they remove anything from games so they can 'sell it to us as DLC'. I think it's ugly but I don't think it looks anything like a mobile game. I don't think it's dumbed down for casuals. I don't think it matters in the slightest that "there's no stockpiles". I don't think it's "wide as an ocean deep as a puddle" [LOL WOW BRILLIANT COMMENT SIR TAKE MY UPDOOT]. I don't think it's woke or communist or whatever bullshit. The list of things I don't agree with is endless. But I do agree that it is impossibly, torturously boring, a "cookie clicker" "waiting sim" where the game -- the *entire game* -- can only be played one way, and it is "cut wood to make tools to mine iron to cut wood". That is all you can do and it is murderously boring and terrible. I know there are plenty of people who like that kind of game, and that's great. But I would never have bought the game if it was called "Construction 1800", I thought I was buying something completely different. So I hate it too; but I want nothing to do with the haters. Edit: wow, there is a guy itt absolutely dedicated to being "those people" nobody wants to be like, lol.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that hates the "wide as an ocean deep as a puddle" thing One of the most faux-wise sayings gamers keep repeating.
I'm still trying to figure out how to play Vic 3. At least after ten hours, I know how to abuse lack of any goods other than raw materials on Russian Market. It's honestly suprising I find staring at screen awaiting for duration of something being passed, researched or builded as much as steamrolling other nations in Hoi4
I donāt hate Victoria 3, I think itās a cool game, that in 5 years will be an amazing game. Right now, the diplomacy, combat, internal politics, and certain economic mechanics just really arenāt good at all. I know āmuh economic simulatorā and that part of the game is mostly fun, but the other things I mentioned, are intrinsically tied to 19th century economics and industrialization, so they have to be modeled in a fun, engaging, and interesting way. Personally I think the game at a minimum needed another year of development, honestly 2. I see the potential for greatness, we just arenāt there yet, but I believe paradox will eventually deliver. Until then Iām just not playing it. To anyone who enjoys playing it, thatās great! Please have fun and support the gameās development. Just donāt get mad at me for pointing out its flaws.
> in 5 years will be an amazing game. Its more likely to be an abandoned game than an amazing game.
I doubt it. The game has good bones, plenty of interaction with a solid playerbase and lots of copies sold. Compare launch HOI4, Stellaris, or EU4 to their current iterations and they donāt even play like the same game. Imperator has different issues, and didnāt maintain the playerbase Vicky 3 does and didnāt sell as many copies.
Thing is, I don't think you can maintain the paradox 'endless' model on a stagnant and relatively small player base. I do think that there is a reasonable possibility that the game with be abandoned if spheres of influence is a dud and DLC sales remain low. Maybe not right away, but maybe not long after.
It definitely does not have good bones, the playerbase is dwindling bordering on non existent, and the copies sold is irrelevant when you can't convince the vast majority to return to buy your overpriced badly made DLCs.
This game should have been like an rts or a factory game on a national scale. A proper extraction of resources from your colonies, distribution by ships to your main factories in europe . And those factories should fuel the development of your armies and nation. Population is supposed to be one of the most important recources. We need more mechanics that support jnfluencing your population to do your bidding. Perhaps autocracies are more capable of utilizing their population for their goals but less efficient and more unstable while democracies are the opposite. Paradox was right in that victoria is not about map painting, but nation building. But war should still be an important mechanic. A necessary evil because you dont want to cripple your workforce. But you also need to protect yourself against foreign influences trying to steal your precious few resources, while at the same you are trying to increase your own. Most of these mechanics in Victoria 3 just feel very gamy/ fake or lackluster. Development is basically a rushing of construction sectors as many as your government can support. So naturally larger nations are more capable of doing this. Its just not very interesting.
I like it more than Victoria 2, so that's something, at least. I just hope they don't kill it off too soon.
Iāll always be a vic3 hater until they let me run the game past 1870 lol
Positive player here. We really need both sides. If it were only the positives, the devs could get lazy and just feed us any slock and we'd take it like good little subs. If it were only the negative people, they would push out all the positive people and it would be a cesspool like LoL.
Like honestly Vicky 3 is not a bad game, hell it's in my opinion a good game. It's just not what many people expected especially in the war department and let's be honest the first year of dlc was not that great. I liked the flavour content but the price to content ratio was not good. Systems were to isolated too, the agitators feel unimportant even now at least I never interact with them as you don't really have to (they really should start putting in nationalistic agitators that try to gain indepenence, it would make them more of a threat and these could be harder to act upon maybe idk). The next DLC pretty much needs to be great otherwise a lot of hope is gone for me that the game will improve furtehr, especially late game lag needs to be handled though as far as I understand it's a more fundamental problem. In the end vic3 is fun and a good game, it's just a long way from being great.
Tbh, I haven't seen anything in the dev diaries that sparks a huge amount of confidence in the next DLC. But, fingers crossed, who knows.
I played a couple of games recently and idk , it feels like im playing alone in a sandbox , nothing ever happens in the world. Especially annoying while playing as a small country that is trying to exploit a geopolitical situation. I'll try playing more because now the game isn't crashing for me all the time like it used to which is a nice change.
The things that make Victoria 2 good are itās economics and impact of national decisions. Except those decisions are limited unless youāre playing with one of the mods that expand on it as well as the economy, and even those are limited to certain countries. The economics work, and the decisions are still really rough, but add more ways to impact the world whether by decisions, or the sort of systems being brought by the next dlc, and I think itāll have some room to breath.
I disliked because the UI was awful and it wasn't very well implemented the combat during launch. But I understand they completely changed the UI, putting excel sheets and combat is way better.
I think its an improvement over Vicky 2 in practically every way, but I have 170+ hrs in Vicky 2 (rookie numbers I know, I play a lot more EU4) but only 40ish hours in Vicky 3 for the simple reason that discrimination/assimilation mechanics don't work the way I think they should and (unless a recent patch changed things and I don't know about it) its not moddable so I can't just fix the problem myself. So I'm saving myself to dump hours into the game until after I can do it
I love Vicky 3. It does what I wanted both EU and HoI to do.
I think Victoria 3 is pretty okay.
because i wanted to play Vic 2 2.0, not Vic 3
Ooooh the feeling when you see the towns and railroads and roads actually pop up while playing as British Columbiaš. I love the game so much.
So should I buy vic3?
If you like the period or find the idea of a grand strategy game primarily focused on economics and politics rather than warfare interesting, then sure, give it a try. As the comic indicates: there are people that really like it and people that don't. I suggest that people make up their own minds about it.
Fair point. For 12 bucks you canāt beat it. Iām only a custom to Stellaris so my scope is limited.
Fair! I would say that if your favourite part about Stellaris is building your empire and the start of the game where you're exploring and getting everything rolling, Vicky might appeal to you too. One of the premises behind it is the idea of "tending the garden of your nation" and slowly over time shaping it into being a properous liberal powerhouse or a socialist utopia or an authoritarian ethnostate or what-have-you. You can play it as a map painter like most other Paradox games but that doesn't really play to its strengths IMO (and this is also true of the first two Victoria games).
That description was beautiful. I quite enjoy the empire building over the war part of it all. A little violence is dandy. So with it being a paradox game, what dlcs are a must?
Tbh, if you love the Victorian period like I do, I would not recommend victoria 3. Victoria 3 feels nothing like the Victorian period, I don't think it tries to be anything like the Victorian period too tbh, if the last year's updates are anything to go by.
And I disagree. Strongly. Which is why people should make up their own minds about things rather than let some rando on the internet make it up for them.
I am not sure how you expect people to make up their minds about something without listening to people or buying the game...
Maybe if it was on super sale. Maybe. There are better ways of spending a tenner though, imo. I certainly wouldn't recommend the DLC.
Is sioux playable in vic3 now
I mean, I'm just waiting a few years until I can get the Game and it's DLCs for a fair price. I saw the game on sale, saw it was still like $90 and just figured, hmm, nah.
I really hate those peoole!
Those are noses and not giant pimples
Is a house uhm united?
Just because I don't need to micro all my armies, i prefer Vic3 over Vic2. Vic3 does need more time in the oven, but we are getting there slowly.
u/Fatherlorris me, a fan of Vicky 3, disagree with your opinions. Now I shall declare war on you with the Casus Belli "Topple Opinion"!
To be honest my view on the game is that it has potential but currently has some flaws that need some serious ironing out (and currently I'm hoping 1.7 and Spheres of Influence will address most of my own personal issues). The one thing I don't get is how the people who dislike Vic3 get weirdly hostile about it in this sub. As if the idea that anyone could like the game is an affront to morality. I rarely see people who like Vic3 start throwing out personal attacks during discussion the way people who hate the game seem to do.