The Victoria 3 Review

this shit about to be based

I think the problem is that the core mechanics of Vic 3 are based around a wholly different type of problem solving from what you'd see in Vic 2. I feel like it undermines the whole point of what Victoria 2 did, showcasing the cause and effect of industrialization and colonialism in relation to the different peoples of the Victorian era. In Victoria 2 the soldiers are literally drawn from the population and if you mobilize and a large part of your workforce dies they are actually dead and gone from the economical and political system. In Victoria 3 soldiers act more like just another resource that you use money to practically spawn into existence. I think this change you mentioned from highly dynamic to basically static pops is what really sets the games apart.

💅💃

This man has said the truth of his opinion, let he be know as man of integrity at least in Paradox grand strategy games

This feels like civilization franchise. Everyone loved civ 5, vic 2. But due to civ 6 being nothing similar in regard to civ 5 many people either love it or hate it, similar to comparing vic 3 to vic 2.

Agree so much on pops in Vic2 feeling like individual agents, with their own needs and aspirations. It's what I love the most about the game and I can't forgive paradox for basically excluding what I think is the most important aspect of Victoria.

Paradox is like nintendo, create masterpieces, but dont care about your fanbase(dlcs, for example)

My thoughts exactly, as I was playing this game thought just "who designed this and what were they thinking?"

Based

Yeah this seems to be the overwhelming opinion from vic 2 players.

I know the game is divisive but I personally really like the game. Yes it can be improved but the game as is now is very very good in terms of what I look for in strategy games. It's kinda sad that the controversy around the game is so bad, I don't think it's warranted quite to this degree in this particular case, and the negative comments seem to drown out the positive ones giving a skewed view of the actual majority opinion about the game. If you like the game many people try to make it that it must mean you are a PDX shill...
Also many people seem to act as if V3 being so different is this huge betrayal. But just go back and compare V1 to V2. V3 is by no means a larger leap than V2 was back in the day compared to V1. Also I think the DDs and marketing (and the leak) gave a very accurate portrayal of what the game is, so it's kinda baffling to see the reaction of some people...

Vicky 3 reeks of being built by people that care more about authoritarian society than economics.

I haven’t even pirated this game and I have over 1000 hours in vic2. I wish another company would take on the mantle of grand strategy games because paradox is a company I no longer wish to buy from. Whether it is shitty dlc practices or releasing unfinished games, Victoria 3 is a prime example of this. SAD!

Imagine be bystander effect by Green Numbers

This comment is sponsored by Victorian 2 Gangs

We're still talking about the game that is 100% requiring of a fan made mod to be playable yea?
I don't get your point about warfare at all. Here's the thing, if you make your gameplay an unfun, soul sucking slog because you have a POINT to make. Then guess what? Your gameplay is STILL an unfun soul sucking slog! Military matters are always, ALWAYS the least interesting part of any paradox game because it's just crashing your numbers against their numbers and seeing who has bigger numbers, at least in Vic 3 the tedious parts of it are taken out of my hands.
Not to mention Vic 3 actually looks like, yknow, a game. Not a snail slow MS Dos spreadsheet from 1995 that's functionally impenetrable unless you make figuring it out your full time job.

If you guys havnt learnt that we are all beta testers by now then you never will.

I like that there are multiple resources in one state. It makes sense. Vic2 was totally unrealistic in that reguard. And you can argue that certain rare resources like oil,sugar,rubber,silk etc still require you to have a strategy about what you want to conquer next. Other than that I pretty much agree with your points. I had fun for 120 hours but now all countries feel the same.

I'm sorry but I've got to say that you're wrong in at least a few of your criticisms here. You can see which pops are radical and why, there's even a helpful—albeit slightly hidden—tooltip if you hover over the +X number of radicals on the top bar. Further, you can click on those portraits in the pop screen! It gives you a way more detailed overview on a single pop group than Vic II ever did.

With regards to manufacturing upgrades, you don't even want to upgrade production methods most of the time. It's a very contextual decision based on the price of input goods and so on. There's a lot of choice, in fact, to be made in how to structure your economy and the effect this will have on pops. Lean too heavily into industrialisation but want to do a reactionary/autocratic play through? You'll end up radicalising higher educated labourers and the intelligentsia. Attempt to move away from agrarianism and social conservatism without suppressing the material basis for the power of the landowners, rural folk and the church? Get ready for a revolution. IMO a solid improvement over the way it felt in Vic II.

Also, the 'taxation sliders' from Vic II have been replaced with a much more dynamic system, including both the taxation law (prog tax at one end, only consumption taxes at the other) and consumption taxes which do disproportionately effect pops from different groups.

The RGO stuff is a non-sequitur too, imo. You can only mine sulphur, iron, coal in different places. And stacking loads of mines in a province improves throughput due to economy of scale, alongside some province modifiers, does/will naturally lead to areas of much higher interest wrt coal (Silesia as Prussia e.g.).

Trade is much much better.

Other than that, the stuff you said lands. Warfare is a mess and feels very unintuitive atm, probably just balance but I'm not necessarily against the system. Would be interesting as you said to implement capitalists funding stuff/building stuff themselves (the 'manufacturing pool' mechanic is meant to replace this).