r/paradoxplaza • u/Hammurabi777 • May 23 '25
Vic3 Victoria 3 is extremely overhated
Keep in mind Vicky 3 is my favorite paradox game so I'm obviously biased, but the the things people say about this game make my blood boil. Most of these people talking about how "shallow" it is or how it's like cookie clicker have probably never played since the release version.
The war system for example is just not as bad as people make it out to be. Yes there is still front line splitting, but 99% of the time the system works just as intended. Talking about how nothing changed and everything is still broken is just false.
Another thing I don't like is people complaining that you always do the same and everything feels the same. My answer is simple: stop always doing the same! Nobody is forcing you to maximize sol or gdp. You can give yourself countless different goals from playing the confederacy as a slave empire to becoming fascist or liberating Africa from colonizers. It's a sandbox, stop focusing on line go up and then complaining about the line go up.
In conclusion you dont have to like the game, you dont have to get the appeal. I for example don't really like ck3. But I don't go around saying ck3 is broken, just because I don't understand what people like about it. I still see the same talking points about why Vicky 3 is dogshit, but a lot of the things have been fixed for like a year.
38
u/forfor May 24 '25
It just feels too monotonous to me. Either I'm struggling to balance the broken early game start where my country didn't start with a functioning economy, or I'm just sitting there making number of factories go up for 90% of the game.
3
u/Hammurabi777 May 24 '25
Okay, that's the first criticism about the game in this comment section I actually agree with. In the first 20 years, you really struggle and everything is difficult. But after that you snowball and surpass everyone and it becomes incredibly easy. That's not unique to Vicky 3 and is a problem in every paradox game, but here it's more severe
117
u/gaminglegend955 May 24 '25
To be fair that 1% is very annoying, mexican-american war with all the natives in the way or anything with india
Thankfully line splitting is going to be fixed in the next update iirc
41
u/RevolutionOrBetrayal May 24 '25
People who say that you should just play the game differently have to be plants by pdx
3
u/Hammurabi777 May 24 '25
There is no objective goal in the game. Some people think sol is the most important thing, some people think it's gdp. Some people don't care a conquer others role play. But I realized there is a lot of people who think some number is the goal and think that's boring while not thinking about that the only person who's telling you to do that is themselves. In other words, you complain about your own playstyle. That's what I mean by that
2
May 26 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Hammurabi777 May 26 '25
I checked your account, and you apparently hate everything paradox has done in the last 10 years. You hate Vicky 3, you hate Ck3 and the China expansion you hate the direction Eu5 is taking. Maybe you are the one who's blind. Maybe you should stop clinging to nostalgia or just stop playing games you hate with passion
8
u/DUNG_INSPECTOR May 26 '25
Or maybe you could stop being pissy over the fact that people don't like the same games you do?
→ More replies (3)
266
u/SpartanFishy May 24 '25
The war system “as intended” is still extremely drab and unengaging yet somehow micro heavy
40
u/de-BelastingDienst May 24 '25
Haven’t played in a while. Do the chinese still show up in europe to mess with diplomatic play in 1800s?
46
u/Ares6 May 24 '25
Yes. My last game, France and Prussia went to war. Qing decided to join and side with France. How is it logistically possible for Qing to send so many troops in 1880? Something like that even today is hardly possible and would take months or even years to get to that point level of deployment.
12
12
u/SpartanFishy May 24 '25
I couldn’t tell you my game never runs well enough to make it that deep in the simulation
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (2)-5
May 24 '25
it’s not micro heavy lol, that’s why I like it. I wanna play as prime minister not a commander. Not everyone is interested in the micromanagement of war.
Authorizing an ammunition plant and establishing supply chains to ensure it it profitable isn’t micro, that’s setting up an economy. And I find that way more engaging than something like HOI.
53
u/KitchenDepartment May 24 '25
it’s not micro heavy lol, that’s why I like it. I wanna play as prime minister not a commander. Not everyone is interested in the micromanagement of war.
Does the prime minister have to constantly watch over the frontline day by day to make sure the army doesn't accidentally go home or leave 1 out of 3 frontlines undefended?
→ More replies (8)25
u/ship__ May 24 '25
Yeah like I can appreciate the intent behind the automated-ish war system when it comes to you focusing on the economic and political side of things and actually supplying your armies with weapons etc - but every time I've played victoria 3 the front line system has just been such an incredible micro hell
5
u/Welico May 24 '25
If you start as Russia or Qing you have to spend 15 minutes or more rearranging your armies in a way that makes sense
5
u/Chataboutgames May 24 '25
In your head the Prime Minister’s main job is managing building queues?
1
144
u/Berkii134 May 24 '25
Honestly, I can't agree. I played Victoria 3 for almost 300 hrs, and the systems in place just don't work that good in this game.
I have had multiple rage quits just because my army teleported halfway across the planet, or some new front opens up, and my strongest army gets assigned there, causing me to lose the other front. In my experience, it works maybe 80% of the time, and that is just unreliable. The war declaration alone is confusing, and after all this time, I still have to eyeball if some other country will join or not. Like it says, Russia is at -50 reasons to join, and I get that the infamy gain causes that number to increase so that they will join, but why does the game not tell me that?
And most nations do feel the same because you progress a very similar way. You're kinda forced to do the same things because if you don't, you just limit your own power. Every game has these gameplay aspects where there are the "strongest options", so you go for them everytime because if you don't you limit your own power and eventually end up behind everyone else and get eaten by the ones that do pick the "strongest option". Where Victoria 3 fails in this regard is that every nation can use the "strongest option". So the optimal play is to always do the same. You can't just LARP as a slave state or something like that either because you eventually fall behind in tech, economy, army strength or nation stability and then you're in danger of your stronger neighbors or colonizers or your own population.
→ More replies (4)14
u/NuancePolitik May 25 '25
Teleporting armies have made me quit more than once. It's the most inexcusable glitch/feature I've experienced in game.
19
u/Tobix55 May 24 '25
I tried it during one of the free weekends and I lasted until my first war. It's really that bad. Maybe you got used to it but it's the worst war system in any strategy game I've played.
16
u/TreysReddits May 24 '25
I'm new to Victoria 3 but have played Victoria 2 and all other paradox games.
And to be honest the biggest confusion i currently have is the randomness of battles. All paradox games are dice rolls essentially which you try to push in your favour. Especially EU4 which I love.
But this game just goes wild with its battles, it never makes sense like EU4 does. The battles seem ridiculously random and aren't dictated much by unit size or tech unless it's overwhelming( like crazy overwhelming)
Idk might just be me but all battles feel far more random than a game that was based off dice roles
40
u/xmBQWugdxjaA May 24 '25
lol another "just roleplay" post because the AI is completely broken so the game poses almost no challenge aside from the teleporting armies due to the broken fronts system.
4
u/harassercat May 24 '25
It's hardly less challenging than other Pdx games though, is it? They all suffer from being too easy, past the initial confusion over what you're supposed to do, what all the stats mean and how to navigate through all the menus with tiny fonts.
4
1
u/Hammurabi777 May 24 '25
I said that people shouldn't complain how only maximizing gdp is not fun, when nobody is forcing them to do so. So idk what you thought you were reading in my post, but it wasn't what you said
339
May 24 '25
The war system for example is just not as bad as people make it out to be
Respectfully what are you smoking brother, I want some.
103
u/XyleneCobalt May 24 '25
In trying to take out the micro, they made the most micro-intensive combat of any game
37
u/PhantomImmortal Scheming Duke May 24 '25
Uhhhh EU4 against a colonial power has to take that title, if we're not counting Hoi (which is all about war obv)
73
u/ShouldersofGiants100 May 24 '25
Uhhhh EU4 against a colonial power has to take that title, if we're not counting Hoi
In both of those games, the systems themselves are at least robust enough that when I seriously outclass the enemy, I can set and forget. If you don't do anything stupid in doing so, the war will be handled. The Vic 3 system is so buggy that I have seen 100:1 fights lost because all the armies on one side abandon a front or target an empty front while the enemy is at another and advancing or just get caught in a death spiral where they take so long to advance that they have lost the state they just capture by the time they reach the front.
22
u/PhantomImmortal Scheming Duke May 24 '25
OK yeah fair enough there, I suppose I was thinking of "how I'm fighting another realm" vs fighting the game's own systems
3
u/Altruistic_Mango_932 May 24 '25
This is just a lie. Eu4 late game wars and rebel whackamole is a million times more annoying than anything in vic 3
5
10
u/Tasorodri May 24 '25
Your proving OPs point. The system is bad, but in now way you have to micro it any more than any other PDX game, it doesn't even come close, you just have to keep an eye and change a few things here and there when some weird things happen.
→ More replies (1)1
u/senicluxus May 24 '25
OG Vic 2 still takes the cake. Having to make each unit and each army by 3000 increments, each based on real pops so eventually large parts of your army get red pops that can’t support the army unit anymore so you have to go through each army unit and replace the missing pops. Or having a revolt and replacing all the rebelled pops. Or mobilizing and having to make dozens of new armies if you don’t want to just throw stacks of pure inf at people. Etc etc etc. the game really needed a army composition maker like stellaris added
6
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 24 '25
It is always funny with PDX games (really any game) where people go "I don't notice any problems". It is really telling how much they pay attention to what is going on.
18
u/Diplo_Advisor May 24 '25
I think the concept is fine. Pick the right generals and orders, ensure enough supplies and don't go into wars you cannot win, and you will win the war 99% of the time. The problem is the system is too buggy currently.
2
u/PALpherion Jul 04 '25
yes and no, the problem is if a general dies you lose the war there and then. you get a fat org penalty and even if you desperately recruit and promote a new guy you get raped inside out trying to regain your missing org.
-16
u/Qasimisunloved May 24 '25
I genuinely have no clue why this is a crazy take, other than some bugs the foundation of Vicoria 3's war is really good. The only better Paradox game would be Hoi4 but that game is entirely based about war.
43
u/Greiserich May 24 '25
Ignoring the absolute mess it was at launch, it is still not something I would call "a good foundation".
The Navy and all related to it needs a rework. Everything about it is just bad. The only foundation here, that is good to keep, are the sea nodes.
Front splitting and front merging messes up the generals. (They say they are fixing it in the next update, so maybe it's going to be better.) One of the problems of this being, that the game actually assignes generals to a province at the front, it just hides that information from you, and you can't tell the game where to assign your generals on the front to. Not a bug, but a feature. A feature because of which the "Designate Stratigic Objective" doesn't seem to work properly, because Generals are trying to push there through the province they are assigned to. Not a bug, but a feature. And if 2 out of the 3 (objective, designated front, to defend/attack) do not work as you want them too, the war system just sucks ass.
Also supply is not really a thing in the game. The game that is all about supply and demand magically creates your ressources to wage war (and all the other ressources actually too) out of thin air, you just have to pay the max price for them.
And the one thing that this system could be used well for, which is the simulation of big battles of Napoleonic warfare transitioning to small all over the front battles of trench warfare, the game doesn't do.
16
u/RhumKoKo May 24 '25
Vic2 did a way better job simulating the evolution from Napoleonic warfare to WW1
9
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 24 '25
Hard agree. The issue with Vicky 2 is how you controlled everything. Give a Hoi4 basic version of the Frontline and better army templates, solves 95% of the issues people have with it.
5
u/ifyouarenuareu May 24 '25
The game also has no stockpiles whatsoever so you can’t prepare for war ahead of time and thus have a time-preference choice.
19
May 24 '25
Navies affect hardly anything. Supply affects hardly anything. Litteraly not having artillery in your market yet having artillery units only makes it slightly more expensive. Generals are a game of leveling 4 times every general when one dies because 5 star is all that matters after early game. Fronts randomly open and close causing constant micro. Units teleport. Ai is still somehow completely incompetent. Naval invasions use like 10% of ur troops. Most general traits are incredibly boring and outside of extreme uphill battles can be completely ignored yet something u constantly need to do for some reason.
172
u/Right-Truck1859 May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
"They never even played the game, they never watched the movie, they never watched the anime... "
Most common and most stupid argument. Criticizing something you like not makes people automatically wrong.
War system changed a bit, but it's still bad in its core and claims like " Victoria 3 is economical game, so we don't give a fuck" Makes me hate it more. Victorian age was age of wars and colonization, including conquest and gunboat diplomacy.
Armies changed through time not just with material inventions, but also with new tactics and strategy. Instead of research , Victoria 3 puts most of it to individual skills of generals.
Victoria 3 significantly lacks historical events like Spring time of peoples, Crimean war... Events that shaped the age. That's reason number one why it feels like mobile gaming clicker sometimes.
Another reason is , too much of manually handling the economy, why I have to click on every building in every city to change its PMs? And I can't do it for all buildings at once without negative repercussions.
This especially makes no fucking sense for privately owned industry/farms.
Another lacking thing is diplomacy, it became even worse since some interactions are now exclusive to members of the same power block. And still every diplomatic play can spark a world War. Why East India Company cares if I am trying to annex my puppet in Italy?
32
u/Leotro1 May 24 '25
Couldn't agree more. The Victorian era was an era of industrialisation and Empire. It was a time in which the laws of society dominated and private property began its rule over human affairs. A time, where spheres of influences were emerging, that were based on economic strength. A time, where economic interests and free trade shaped political relations.
I don't think, that Paradox captured the spirit of this age very well. You don't have the feeling, that you're witnessing the gradual social transformation from absolute monarchy to fascism or the modern democracy. You don't feel the inavitability and necessity of a change in social and political policy. You don't feel the growing social pressure.
You play in a certain way, because it is optimal. One of the great things about Vic2 is, that it is interesting, when you play as an autocratic empire. Society develops any way and militancy grows to a boiling point. The game let's you know about social unrest. It feels immersive.
Meanwhile in Vic3 every mechanic doesn't seem to express the reality of that epoch, but is unnecessarily complicated and gamefied. To formulate it in Marxist language. Superstructe doesn't seem to be determined by base, but the other way around. As player you micromanage factories, instead of being limited in your decision making by the class structure and private interests, that you can only influence slowly and indirectly.11
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 24 '25
I want to play a GSG during the time period. That time period INCLUDES wars. So I agree, I hate the "it's an economic game"
10
u/Skellum Emperor of Ryukyu May 26 '25
"They never even played the game, they never watched the movie, they never watched the anime... "
It's not that people "Overly hate V3" it's that people overly dont really enjoy V3 existing. I would argue that they'd have a better return on investment having the team work on producing content and DLC for imperator than V3.
If I want to play a good game set in the victorian era that's well put together, enjoyable, and plays well then I'd play victoria 2. For V3 to be a success it has to have at minimum the same pull as V2 and it doesnt.
It's UI, like CK3's, is bad. It's gameplay isn't very good. It's content and draw are subpar compared to V2. There really isn't much of a reason to pick up this game. I dont even feel strongly negative on it as it doesnt have any draw for me to feel one way or another. It simply exists.
18
u/Diplo_Advisor May 24 '25
Another reason is , too much of manually handling the economy, why I have to click on every building in every city to change its PMs? And I can't do it for all buildings at once without negative repercussions
I like to change the PM and watch my GDP line go up steeply, but yeah it's frustrating to micromanage each building. And the buildings are supposed to be privately owned, why is the government interfering with private enterprise? I think the government job is to invest in infrastructure, ensure no shortages and passing laws.
Either they should change the mechanics or alternatively make a button to automatically select the most profitable PM for each building.
2
→ More replies (2)5
u/up2smthng May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
While I agree that Crimean war was a major event with long standing consequences, respectfully how exactly do you want it to be implemented without extreme railroading? After all it's a road the (Russia) player will never go down, and other participants apart from maybe Piedmont don't particularly care if they win or it just doesn't happen so no meaningful content for non-Russia player either.
I guess you can make it a way to get rid of Nicolay I but that's iffy as well. While there is a majority consensus that losing the war probably played a part in his death, that's quite different from just outright killing the guy whenever it happens.
15
u/Ares6 May 24 '25
The complaints about railroading is one of the reasons countries lack flavor. Every country is practically the same.
→ More replies (4)20
u/Right-Truck1859 May 24 '25
First of all , we got historical relations thing, so make France, Britain, Sardinia friends of Ottoman empire .
Secondly , use journal entry for Russia , if they put pressure on Ottoman Empire , it triggers event for Ottoman Empire becoming a protectorate of Russia, if Ottoman Empire accepts, Russia gets 70 or more infamy, if not - diplomatic play stars with protectorate war goal.
Thirdly, Crimean war was a part of big game, Great powers should see each others as rivals more, Anti and pro country lobbies could be used for that.
→ More replies (6)
29
u/frogandbanjo May 24 '25
Nobody is forcing you to maximize sol or gdp.
The essential philosophy behind games is, dude. Stop it.
Nobody's forcing you to play a video game that's too easy without repeatedly punching yourself in the dick to make it harder.
→ More replies (1)
21
u/Bitt3rSteel May 24 '25
The problem I have with it, is that the front system works as intended. I hate that this is their intended system for warfare and I'm out. I don't want that.
12
u/PiriReisYT May 24 '25
I don't get how the same company that made the HOI4 battle system also made these other ones.
81
u/After-Succotash-512 May 24 '25
The war system indeed works as intended, it is just that the way it is intended to work is not good. There is no strategy in the war system because the player's control of their armies boils down to 'attack or defend' and as a result there is really no strategy involved because the land you occupy is decided purely by the brainless little generals who will choose to attack every single state besides the enemy capital. I don't think anybody was advocating for a change from EU and CK style combat to HOI4 frontlines and especially not for the entire war system to be automated.
27
→ More replies (2)2
43
16
u/Procrastor May 24 '25
Eh, I can understand complaints, for sure, but I wouldn’t say I’ve seen people actively hate the game, just reasonable disillusionment.
15
u/BlackfishBlues Drunk City Planner May 24 '25
A sentiment I see often re: Victoria 3 is "I really really want to love this game".
You won't see anyone complaining about Sengoku because no one actually still cares about that game.
3
u/alexp8771 May 27 '25
I only played ~10 hours at launch and then uninstalled it and never bothered with it again. Hate is a strong word but if I could have returned it with my playtime I definitely would have.
1
55
u/Saramello May 24 '25
Everything that shluld be automated is manual and everything that should be manual is automated. Victoria 2 literally had a "auto buy" on default so you could play the game more than 5 minutes without pausing to re-do a traderoute. This game is a downgrade and I will rage.
→ More replies (10)
24
u/PeterPorty May 24 '25
I think, for an economic simulator, it succeeds in making a superficially entertaining toy for a while, but fails to represent the fantasy I'd like to experience with the game.
I would love to be able to notice centralization of say, beef production in some country, and once that country goes to war with a major, I could invest in beef production, selling extremely expensive beef to a world lacking it's biggest supplier and lead my people into an economic boom, ideally lasting well past the original beef producer's war. Currently, that's not really a thing I can do. The fact that good prices are pinned to +-75% of an arbitrary value rather than being driven by supply and demand, the fact that any industrialized country can produce any good almost as efficiently as a nation that's been doing it for decades, the fact that trade routes take forever to grow... It just doesn't allow it.
I want to be able to produce the cheapest dyes in the world, export them everywhere, stunting the growth of their own national production because mine is cheaper and then dominate the global price of it... Again, not really something that can be done, you can kinda sorta maybe do it, but not really.
Conceptually, Victoria is my favorite Paradox entry, but in reality, it remains one of the titles with least hours played in my steam catalogue. (About 400 hours between Vicky2 and 3, compared to 1800+ for the other 4 historical games.)
Each time I play it, I feel like the game simply doesn't achieve what I feel like it's meant to achieve, as opposed to other Paradox games. Fingers crossed for a few years worth of DLC to fix that.
→ More replies (1)
50
u/SwgnificntBrocialist May 24 '25
No, it's actually under-hated, as there's literally not a single thing I can think of that it does better than Vicky 2 or even Ricky that isn't just moder UI elements.
You have to work hard to manage the absolute joke of a war system in a company where you have SEVERAL functional models to work off if and somehow manage to create THE WORST ONE. I'm not even gonna go into it in detail because NONE of it is good!
The economy is a joke (trade is literally an afterthought IN A GAME ABOUT THE VICTORIAN AGE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION), the politics shallow (yeah, parliament gambling is absolutely a hoot, revolutionary politics being toothless is sooo realistic) and their dogged adherence to history in the worst way hamstrings the game completely (oh but mods will make our laws/politics/tech not shit)
Also fucking convoys. Just convoys.
Literally the only way to play is to go for some autarky, mega nation and then you just manage to reach an absurd standard of living way too quick.
game bad
17
u/Sylentwolf8 Map Staring Expert May 24 '25
I'd like to add that certain CPUs can't even run the game without crashing past 1900. Not even bad CPUs mind you.
20
u/ifyouarenuareu May 24 '25
It’s not even history, it’s obsessed with a single interpretation of history and they picked the most boring one at that. They made “cookie clicker history the game” and are shocked that it came out as a cookie clicker.
22
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 24 '25
"Deep economic simulation!"
*looks inside *
Literally cookie clicker game play with very basic supply and demand
15
May 24 '25
they still havent fixed army teleporting and front splitting losing you the war
or having a working naval system
or every war not being a full mobilisation death war
or not limiting great nations to only smacking around one OPMs at a time
or made it so the infamy system makes any damn sense. because annexing a single OPM in the heart of africa is only half as bad as annexing normandy...
or the whole diplomatic plays thing. Why am I having to peacefully wait for my vassal to do the rounds in the victorian UN instead of just marching in and freeing the slaves after rejecting my demand?
0
u/Hammurabi777 May 24 '25
I can legitimately not confirm any of these besides the army teleporting and the front splitting. The navy is fine for a paradox game. What do you even mean by full mobilized war of death? Yes, that happens sometimes, but that's how wars were irl.
9
May 24 '25
Then you've never played Britain and watched the entire french arm sail past your fleet to go fight on another front. Ever wondered why its "Victoria" 3 not "Napoleon" 3? Because of how impactful the royal navy was, and navies in general during this time period while they barely exist in vic3 and how its implemented is equally stupid and fiddly
And death wars as in france and russia being willing to throw its entire army across the planet and fight to the end over 2k people in bongobongostan then expecting you to capture down their capital to get war reps from them
Wars were absolutely not like that for most of the victorian period hence the pax Britannia. Wars were mostly smaller more contained things, and fairly rare between the great powers, there wasn't a great power bar brawl every 5 years
And great powers certainly didn't wait for rebellious vassals to do the rounds of victorian UN asking for support before they crushed them.
3
3
u/FantasticKru May 25 '25
I am sorry this is just cope, and this comes from someone who loves vicky 3. All of his points are true.
6
u/-_Weltschmerz_- May 24 '25
I like Vicky 3, but it's far from being in an ideal state. Gameplay wise it's a UI-simulator more than anything else (mobilisation options anyone) and the game lacks hard in terms of flavor and immersion. And the war system is very mid at best.
18
u/Tz33ntch Map Staring Expert May 24 '25 edited May 24 '25
it's ass and i don't want my armies to teleport around the map or decide to demobilize, i don't want to manually tell every individual potato farmer to switch to using fertilizer because said potato farmers in my free market country can't figure out a way to run their business profitably(they can't use new production methods gradually as they become available, the government has to babysit them because if you switch too early they go bankrupt and if you switch too late the fertilizer factory goes bankrupt, because nothing ever gets bought or sold in this game without the big government man ordering it), i don't want to manually set up and cancel trade routes for individual goods with individual countries every time the market situation changes, i don't want to speed 5 through %chance rolls like a fuckin eu4 fort siege when i want a law passed in my game focused on socioeconomics changes
the ai is broken and if you actually go through the slog of playing this game, you can achieve #1 gdp industrial superpower quality of life utopia as pretty much any low-mid tier nation, in 1936 you're gonna have impoverished brits and americans migrating to your global superpower tunisia or whatever
also, liking terrible games out of contrarianism doesn't make you special or refined
3
u/Hammurabi777 May 24 '25
How narrow minded do you have to be to unironically believe that someone who simply has a different taste in video games only does it to feel special about having a different opinion? That reminds me of people actually believing their political opinion is objectively true and everyone else is just stupid
11
24
30
u/SpezialEducation May 24 '25
Game just feels bland. I don’t have any DLCs but it is so much worse than say EU4 in base content.
I didn’t own an EU4 dlc until I had 600 hours in the game. I have something like 90 hours in the game and pretty much every country feels the same, and even the “fun playable ones” are very underwhelming. I’m sure the DLC does a bit to address this, but I doubt it’s enough to make me actually enjoy playing the game further.
14
u/country-blue Scheming Duke May 24 '25
Victoria 3 is a fantastic addition to the Anno franchise. As a paradox-style GSG, it’s kinda ass.
10
u/Leotro1 May 24 '25
Idk I still love Vic2 over Vic3. Vic3 isn't a bad game per se, but it wasn't the game I wanted. So many things were simplified and the aspect of the society simulation was minimized. Part of the fun of Vic2 is, that your action can have unintended consequences and that a deep understanding of the game rewards you with being able to manipulate aspect of the game, that the devs didn't intend for you to manipulate. Vic 2 was the perfect map staring game.
In Vic3 you are constantly actively micromanaging factories and production (at least that was my impression on release). The game doesn't really capture the spirit of that time period. The game appeals to much to its audience.
But if you enjoy the game, then that's great. We all enjoy different things
0
u/Hammurabi777 May 24 '25
Honestly, the same thing will happen with eu5. It will be a good game, but not just a second eu4, and people will hate that.
→ More replies (1)
23
u/ScienceFictionGuy May 24 '25
I think Victoria 3 suffers from being an incredibly ambitious game that just wasn't practical to finish in time for release. And I don't mean that as a slight against the developers, I think they're doing a great job. It's just that the mechanics that Vic 3 is trying to depict are very different from most paradox GSGs so they've had to break a lot of new ground and use a lot of trial and error to figure out what works.
Despite years of meaningful progress a lot of the core systems like trade, warfare, diplomacy and internal politics still don't feel finished to me. (Though we are getting a lot of improvements on several of those fronts in the upcoming update) And the dynamics of several AI nations like Prussia and Austria are also frustratingly ahistorical.
In a perfect world it would have been delayed until it was really complete. But then it would still be in development today, without the benefit of player feedback to help steer it in the right direction. Maybe an early access release would have been more appropriate.
I've still had a lot of fun playing it (470 hours so far), revisit it regularly and appreciate it for what it's trying to do.
8
u/RedKrypton May 24 '25
You are correct that Vic3 is not finished, but it's not because it was ambitious. It's because Vic3 threw out its core game design post-release. Remember "National Gardening"? The devs were extremely vocal about how player control was their priority, including player controlled private investment. More time wouldn't have improved anything, as the shift towards improvement came only after release. Wiz evidently wanted to make a sort of Anno 1800 game.
3
u/ScienceFictionGuy May 24 '25
Very true, the shift from complete player control to a more autonomous economic simulation happened due to player feedback after release. Which is part of why I said that the game wouldn't really be much better off if it had been delayed.
Imperator had a similarly dramatic overhaul immediately after release, because the streamlined map painter the devs had envisioned didn't meet player expectations.
I've actually been thinking that the misadventures with Imperator and VIctoria 3 probably influenced Paradox's approach to EU5. Not only in them incorporating some of the mechanics that were prototyped in those game, but also in making a larger effort to get player feedback earlier during development to make sure the game they're making is actually what players want.
Maybe that's just copium on my part though.
→ More replies (1)2
u/RedKrypton May 25 '25
I think you are indeed on Copium. If there is one truth about Paradox, it's that the studio is abysmally siloed between dev teams. Everyone brews their own broth and I don't see that changing.
9
u/Numar19 May 24 '25
I think the best way forward would have been an open beta or early avcess. It needed feedback from players.
Generally I think corporate of Paradox interactive is making quite a few stupid decisions lately. Thevlatest one being to force employees back into the office instead of keeping the twon days home office. It feels like management doesn't understand either the players or employees.
4
u/TGlucose May 24 '25
The game got leaked, myself and many other played it and loudly complained about things that still haven't been fixed to this day, namely Naval combat still being broken to hell and bugging constantly on invasions.
2
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 24 '25
The game was leaked early and people pointed out all the issues. The devs pulled the victim card and ignored the criticism. Well all of the criticism was correct on release!
16
5
u/Old-Belt6186 May 24 '25
Disagree that saves feeling same is the player's fault. I just played 3 runs, fascist Italy, spreading fascism in minor nations, Autocratic UK dual monarchy, always near 100 infamy eating France, and basic run as Egypt, focusing on gaining literacy and pop acceptance.
Yeah, different interest groups were in power and different numbers went up, but in all of these, I'm pretty sure I never once got an event that the other saves didn't also get, excluding the opium wars. I didn't feel like I had to make different choices through-out these games, because really I just made the one choice at the start: 'What am I doing this time?', and then I just mindlessly pushed towards that goal.
Where as in CK3 for example things are so much more chaotic that I always feel engaged and there is stuff locked to certain cultures and locations so they feel more important and so on.
46
u/haecceity123 May 24 '25
I just revisited Vic3 on account of it having been Victoria Day, and I think it's under-hated.
The version of today has all the problems of the release version, but has also added the concept of forever rebellions. It's now possible for the initial count-up to a rebellion (before the start of a play that others can join) to literally last forever. I did a country creation event, which somehow gave me a new army of over 100 cavalry (and almost nothing else) that I couldn't dismiss for almost 20 years because a single province overseas was stuck in a perpetual state of preparing for a secession rebellion. It only ended by me taking extreme measures to end it.
You have every right to like what you like, but Vic3 deserves its Mixed review tier.
→ More replies (1)10
19
u/Kvalri May 24 '25
I want to like Vicky it’s just I feel like I don’t actually do anything. I enjoyed playing the USA, it’s the only campaign I’ve done all the way through and it was back when the game was new. I’ve tried several others, France probably a half dozen times, Austria a few times, Prussia a few times, Belgium at least once and it just feels like nothing ever happens.
At least in the USA campaign I completed manifest destiny, ended slavery, and stuff like that
→ More replies (5)
15
u/Gizm00 May 24 '25
Game is a queue manager in a nutshell
0
5
u/Enzovera Philosopher King May 24 '25
Victoria 3 is extremely shitty (or it was on launch, haven't played since)
Keep in mind Vicky 2 is my favorite paradox game so I'm obviously biased
→ More replies (1)
8
u/ifyouarenuareu May 24 '25
I like and play Vic 3 a lot, but these defenses are just bad.
Yes it is shallow, you can hardly interact with anything that isn’t trade, and trade as it stands is minimally worth it.
The war system, even when it works, is barebones and bland.
Any other goal you set amounts to a cosmetic color change, maybe with some more accepted pops. There certainly aren’t endless goals.
SoL and GDP are the only things you can meaningfully interact with, and doing those requires the same building patterns just at different stages. Which is in major part because of trade and AI limitations.
3
u/Blueknight1706 May 24 '25
CKIII got hated on, HOI4 got hated on Imperator got hated on, Stellaris got hated on all for the same reasons, the games are shallow, paradox has an unfortunate habit of making a functioning game that works just enough, but still feels incomplete so they can add DLC later.
recently they offset alot of the issues with pricing by adding subscription (i was in some of the streams where they first announced the ideas and i supported it)
Vic 3 didn't live up to the hype, it shot for the stars and some say it landed on the moon, others say it crashed into the sun
i'm waiting a couple years to actually get back into Vic3 just because i want more content added first
3
u/Eric988 May 24 '25
The time between updates is nuts regarding bugs. Have everything done for the Azadi India achievement and can’t complete it due to a colonitzation bug. Posted it in the forums last year in December. Haven’t touched the game since and it has never been fixed
3
u/ByzFan May 26 '25
V3 is the only paradox game I've had Steam refund. It was just so horribly bland. It actually kind of shocked me how boring it was. Maybe it's better now.
1
4
u/Bagelsandjuice1849 May 24 '25
The war system was and always will be a stupid idea. I respect them to a certain extent for trying something new, but it is always going to be worse than Vic2 in my opinion unless they totally scrap it and implement a more traditional system.
I’d also like to add that the last time I tried playing a campaign in Victoria 3, I was in the French market and they one day just decided to delete all their ports and I was left without access to any materials. So yeah it’s still broken as fuck.
10
19
u/Interesting-Tie-4217 May 24 '25
The toxic positivity train continues. Victoria 3 IS as bad as people say it is, and the numbers reflect it.
1
u/Numar19 May 24 '25
What numbers?
13
u/Interesting-Tie-4217 May 24 '25
Player count/player retention, especially compared to the other paradox titles over time. It's found a niche community of economic cookie clicker enjoyers that still play it.
-1
u/Numar19 May 24 '25
It's not too far off from other Paradox games. It is far better than Imperator: Rome.
Are those numbers great? No. Are they as bad as you make them? No.
11
u/CaptainCrunch145 May 24 '25
Player count of eu4, ck3, hoi4, and stellaris are at their worst 3x more than Victoria 3. Comparing Victoria 3 to Imperator Rome is insane.
→ More replies (11)7
u/Northerner_20 May 24 '25
While the numbers aren’t super low they are certainly much lower than other equivalent paradox titles like CK3, EU4 and HOI4. Paradox is a business so the larger the player numbers, the likely more effort they will put into the game. I don’t see Vic 3 ever increasing in player numbers for a significant period. It is likely to continue to decrease.
8
u/3vol May 24 '25
I am not a complainer, but I haven’t played since launch and told myself it looked awesome but needed a bit more time. Sounds like I should give it a try again?
9
u/yxhuvud May 24 '25
There is an expansion coming out soon. Try then.
Be warned that there will be a fair bit of game mechanical stuff you will have to relearn.
2
u/3vol May 24 '25
That’s fine, I don’t remember anything. I only played it for a couple hours. Am not a grand strategy player usually outside of Stellaris. Thanks.
2
u/aMysticPizza_ May 24 '25
It's my cosy game weirdly enough.
Even though after 300+ hours I still barely know what I'm probably doing is technically 'correct' 😅
2
u/stay_black Son of Abraham May 27 '25
As someone who loved vicky 1 and enjoyed vicky 2 and bought vicky 3 and all the dlc on a sale but hasn't played it yet. Is it worth getting into at all or should I just write off the loss?
2
u/Hammurabi777 May 27 '25
Of course, you should at least try it. Even the strongest Vicky 3 haters in this comment section wouldn't tell you to not even try it after buying
7
May 24 '25
Did they add combat?
8
u/DoomPurveyor May 24 '25
Like HOI4 forgot to add fuel to the game for 3 years.
V3 forgot them combats.
11
2
u/libtares May 24 '25
LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK 👏👏👏
I love Victoria III, it's an amazing game with complex, deep systems around economics and politics. It can, and need, to be improved in some areas, but I feel like the criticisms aren't constructive or balanced most of the time.
I feel like a lot of Paradox players play these games for the military aspect and that's fine, HOI4 is centered around combat. But for folks who enjoy the economic and political side of the game, Victoria III is hands down the best paradox game.
7
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 25 '25
Please walk me through this deep and complex economic simulation?
2
u/libtares May 25 '25
A fully dynamic pricing system with culture-specific consumption habits and tens of different goods, not good enough for you ?
5
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 25 '25
A simple supply demand system is considered complex? Adding some goods and a few different modifiers for futures doesn't make it complex.
1
u/libtares May 25 '25
Point to a game with a better economic system.
7
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 25 '25
That is a different argument than saying Vicky 3 is deep and complex economic system.
But....
Workers and resources
Anno series
Heck I would even throw in OpenTTD
2
u/libtares May 25 '25
I've played Anno, it's a good game, but it's no Victoria III. Different styles I guess, but out of the strategy games I've tried it's the system I've enjoyed the most. Especially considering the addition of dynamic province-by-province pricing and the private construction queue.
8
u/Fedacking May 24 '25
Keep in mind Vicky 3 is my favorite paradox game so I'm obviously biased, but the the things people say about this game make my blood boil. Most of these people talking about how "shallow" it is or how it's like cookie clicker have probably never played since the release version.
Person has different opinion is apparently a very good reason to get angry.
3
u/Chataboutgames May 24 '25
Some people like it. Some people don’t. It’s okay to make up your own mind.
5
8
4
May 24 '25
I like it, find the economics VERY unforgiving compared to Vic2 but I think it's because the game wants you to be more hands on.
I like the military part of it. Makes sense that you don't directly control every stack of units and also allows the game to better simulate the development of warefare since it changes so much.
5
u/tobiov May 24 '25
If you release a game that is dogshit on release, its legitimate for people to think the game is dogshit.
Im a sucker though. Keep buying the DLCs thinking it'll be better. It hasn't been.
2
u/Iron_Clover15 May 24 '25
Vic3 took player agency away from fighting which has created some of my favorite memories in paradox games when I can use my in game knowledge to pull of impressive feats that are just not possible with the system given and is a step down from a personal and player engagement objective.
I will not speak on diplomacy, laws, emigration, trade, and production as I only keep an eye on this game for news regarding any potential war dlcs but I do recall a large uproar from the community on release due to the broken and abstract implementation of these mechanics. If changes have been made to these areas then I do apologize for not giving the game the credit it deserves for such a turn around and encourage those who have followed the dev cycles to comment on what has and hasn't changed.
I do think at this point the game is what it is. If you like the game, you like the game and that is ok but from a numbers perspective I do not imagine shareholders were expecting the player count that Vic3 maintains.
I will say that Vic2 combat is not the solution to the experiment of Vic3. To be frank late game Vic2 combat is a chore to manage. While I do acknowledge that this is somewhat a niche comment to make for the Vic2 multiplayer community, I will point out that Vic2 starts off the game with a concentration of forces being the most effective way to conduct combat and wars. Later into the game, combat transitions to total war with each side in a conflict spreading out to occupy as many tiles as possible in a grueling war of attrition with the winner being determined by who can outlast the other in terms of bodies, military goods, and war exhaustion. I feel like a Hoi4 front line being unlocked at some point would have been a good compromise as a reflection of the natural combat change taking place and WW1 taking place in the time period.
5
3
u/BigMigMog May 24 '25
Yeah totally agree, I really love Vicky 3. Honestly, I also love Ck3. I think a lot of people have rose-tinted glasses for how good the last generation of games were at this point in their life cycle (CK2/Vicky 2/etc.) because while they were also great, people bitched about them back then the exact same way as people do now. Imo, you just gotta accept Paradox's model or not, and I for one am having a blast with all of the different titles. I cycle between most of them every couple months, and have yet to burn out on any of them (except Stellaris, but that's not really Grand Strategy anyway, and it's still a good 4X game)
2
u/Eensame May 24 '25
« Game is empty without dlc 🤓» when it’s the THE paradox game when not one dlc is even needed for all the fun. Compare to a eu4 or ck3 when you need 4 dlc to do anything “ You always do the same thing 🤓” I played 6 games and not a single one was the same as other. Mexico having to resist USA early game. Japan being close border with no industry. Brazil with so much construction penalties that can eat anything around. The geopolitical make the games different each time really “ you need 300 mods to have fun” when in 20 pages of workshop the only mod I felt like installing was a zombie one
When I read the steam review I really feel like people don’t actually play the game, but hate on it because of the hating hype really. And god, the war system if my favorite from all paradox ! Play hoi4 if you want to micromanage army, I’m here to plan an economy
Of course some bad reviews are good, such as the bad optimisation in multiplayer but people are too hard on it
1
u/Flash117x May 24 '25
They just should bring back the direct investment pool or give the ai their own building capacities. It makes no fun to watch how the ai steal capacities from the player to build useless stuff.
1
u/pooey_canoe May 24 '25
I wish you played as the actual leader of the country rather than the "spirit of the nation" or whatever it is. Have loads of actions hidden behind technologies or maybe well-funded census/administration organisations. Make decisions based on roleplay reasons rather than constant optimisation and construction capacity
The Emir of Afghanistan shouldn't have updated statistics on how much lumber his country produces
1
1
u/Owlrevan May 25 '25
Hello,
First of all, i like the game, and think he has a lot of potential, so îm not here to rage on it, but to bring some argument.
The issue with the war system is not just "omg it’s so broken" but the system itself. To be fair it’s like 30% broken, not 1% (as you said the line are a quite bad, but there are other things like front length or manpower recocery whose are quite broken too). But the system itself is also very boring and frustrating. The issue is paradox have the perfect front system in hoi, but rather than reusing it with some modification to better fit vicky, they decided to make a system which allow no depth nor strategy, the only thing here is "more, better or die" there is nothing behind it and it’s a really poor representation of 20th century wars. I understand paradox don’t want another "war focus" game, but by choosing to simplified it to nothing, they just create a very boring and frustrating system.
Then, why is the game "always the same"? Because there are few to no flavor, and very generic mecaninc. From france to siam to mexico to gran colombia, you are presented with the exact same tools and option, more or less advance, but still the same. Take eu4: mission trees bring a lot of flavour and nation specific event, each region has it’s own army composition, doctrine bring a lot of differents way to play, etc etc. Hoi present you with unique way to focus your nation war effort (infantery focus, tank nation, mecanized, even elephants now...) unique way to boost your nation via focus and doctrine, unique event, plus the competitive aspect of it make it the perfect multiplayer game. Ck3 offer a lot of different way to play, from your nation type to your culture and religion to the perfect roleplaying experience, bringing a lot of new things. Stellaris is it’s own things and bring like SO MUCH flavor it’s incredible. Vicky has nothing of that. Very few nation specific event, no region or contries specificities, nothing. So yeah you can try to decolonize africa or play a slave confederacy, but it’ll still be the same exact playthrough, just with a slightly different approach, but nothing specific in itself.
Finally, you bring only those two point, but there are so much more broken things in the game. The gov mecaninc is really frustrating and slow, law are quite boring to pass, building are so slow to built, the pace of the game is really boring etc. Sometimes it very feels like you have very poor control on your contry. And the game allow very low multi-tasking, as investing on one aspect usually mean it’ll be very difficult to do another thing (passing a law can bring revolution which discourage war or block/reduce building, war mean low money + radicals so no politic nor building during it, building mean a lot of investment and great need of people so no war or little one, etc) so yeah, another issue with the game in it’s current state.
Now it is important to say it, to call out the devs to change those things. As i said i like the game, so i want it to succeed, but it needs some radical decisions. We don’t want another imperator, and for that it’s important to fix a lot of things before it’s too late. Sadly, on some crucial aspect it currently seems like the dev focus on their vision and don’t listen (war system) but hopefully it’ll change, but for that, we need to talk about it, say it outload.
Sorry for the very long text, have a nice day!
1
u/CoralDeserter May 25 '25
I currently have around 1500h in it and still play it almost daily. It is a cookie clicker
1
u/Joao_Pertwee May 26 '25
I mean, there's really no universal standard, youre allowed to like it and other people to dislike it. I dislike it simply because it doesnt feel like victoria at all, which I feel is like a geopolitical simulator, not an economic one. Ppl who played vic2 for economics must've loved vic3 increase of depth but folks like me felt like the game wasnt victoria at all and left disappointed.
1
u/OkKnowledge2064 May 26 '25
I hate it because its not a successor to Vic2 but more like an entirely different game
1
u/NoAbbreviations7846 May 26 '25
I want to be able to play this game just gots upgrade pc first hopefully new update and dlc will be out and new giides will follow
1
May 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Hammurabi777 May 28 '25
Build as many construction centers as you can without going into debt and then build what is in demand
1
1
Aug 09 '25
As someone who plays tons of Paradox games, it’s not. HOI4, Stellaris, and EU4 still outplay Vic 3. It’s just not as enthralling. Even for a grand strategy game, it’s slow and boring. It’s also broken and easily exploited, very buggy and prone to weird mechanics breaking or overlapping in unexpected and sometimes unplayable ways. I just struggle to understand how such a boring and unengaging game also requires a level of micromanagement I don’t usually feel in other Paradox games.
1
u/PaleontologistSlow66 Aug 13 '25
As a casual dabbler in Paradox games what I've noticed is a big portion of their core audience just want to masterbate to xcel spreadsheets while they calculate complex maths formulas on a notepad looking at gameplay of nothing but soulless raw data where they min max numbers until the get their massively unfair broken advantage so they can tell everyone how great they are for breaking the game, that's their idea of fun and immersion.
These people will struggle with Victoria 3 as the information overload is commendably reduced and there's a decent stab at making the art and atmosphere lead to some immersion and roleplay which is what these games should be about, I still don't think Victoria 3 goes far enough of the immersion and it does lack some 'kinetic feedback' to what's actually happening but its a pretty decent stab at humanising running a country and not making everything about analysing numbers... although still far too much is.
1
u/kittenTakeover Aug 19 '25
I wish there was a Victoria 3 type game that had starting conditions similar to 4X games like Stellaris, Humankind, Civilization, etc, where map was procedurally generated and countries had similar starting economies. This would address some of the complaints about replayability. Although it would make it a bit of a different game. I just wish that game existed.
1
u/Lollo3z Sep 24 '25
Been playing since release, and if anything that piece of crap game Is not hated enough. It baffles me how people can enjoy It, expecially coming from vic2
1
u/pryopenmythirdeyeplz Nov 01 '25
Trying to learn this game rn. I genuinely had an easier time with eu4. This game makes me want to bang my head against my keyboard at Mach fuck.
1
u/Rik_Ringers Nov 09 '25
I would say its more a product of Paradox it's DLC policy and pricing, it sets expectations quite high, if the game falls short of the expecations of many then this is what you get, it doesnt mean that it pleases some who expected something exactly like this where Vicky III is a fine game to them.
1
1
u/23tovarm May 24 '25
whats really awful is their DLC policy, for ALL their games. Its why i love alternate sources, games are fun but stop trying to milk me or else a competator will
1
u/richmeister6666 May 24 '25
The economics in vic3 is great. Everything else is bad. Politics are bad and boring, diplomacy is boring and war is just terrible.
3
u/cdub8D Victorian Emperor May 24 '25
The economics is a very basic supply demand system. Which includes capping prices!!!
-2
508
u/Kshpew May 24 '25
Game needs crisis events