@@sephikong8323 but there is the zooming in and out change of map modes so when I choose one and then zoom about it changes again. But mainly I was referring to THE APPROACH
I really miss the large battles from VIC 2, it seems so silly that we have thousands of units on both sides of a war, only to have like 20 fight 20 at a time, for the whole front...
you enjoy microing hundreds of units across multiple continents while you bait the ai into a battle that a human player would never take whilst forgetting to check out another war front and the ai takes over half your country? I guess I can see why people don't like the vic3 war system early game but I think late game it will become obviously superior to the old system
@@therealoldnosey8689 no sorry, that was not what I meant. I do prefer not having to manually maintain a long front line. I just think it's weird that a frontline only have one battle at a time and it uses so few of the regiments from both sides.
@@therealoldnosey8689 Yes. I want a return to the Victoria 2 war system. Just because you're bad at it doesn't mean it's a bad system. If you don't want to forget a front, turn proper notifications on.
The large battles were even more unrealistic though, the current war system is nigh awful but it still can stimulate more realism than micro ever could
I don't know if anyone else agrees, but I just miss the newspapers with immersive titles from Victoria 2. I feel like I'm not immersed enough while playing Victoria 3
@@fightingtothepoint4u732 Very mood setting game, especially with the atlas map mod. Modded or not, though, EU4 is by far one of the best Paradox titles and although it is outdated, it's systems work so well that it is not obsolete.
How would you say the UI choice Paradox went in Vic 3 compares to Vic 2 in easy reading of information, no redundancy and more? I felt Vick 3 UI is very bloated and hard to find information with ease.
I'm learning to just stick with the buttons on the left. Trying to use the map, lenses or hyperlinked text just results in more visual clutter and a more circuitous route to whatever you're looking for.
The UI is in some ways MUCH better than Vicky 2 - but it lacks a lot of information that players want and could really need. It’s strange almost. The building blocks are there, and it’s an 80% great UI, but it lacks that 20% of vital information you’re going to need here and there, and it’s weird that there are so many ways to get to the same window, when they could’ve just added more information instead.
@@Yeured It's very easy to set buildings and do certain actions, but a lot of the info you want to see (worst example of this is population) is a lot of windows or clicks apart from the actionable, relevant part of the UI that you wanted the information for.
V3 micros too much where it shouldn't and macros too much where it shouldn't. Pdox changed a ton of Stellaris after launch. Hope they do the same with V3.
I’m sure they’ll listen to player feedback like they did with Imperator: Rome and made it a great game. One thing I’m certain of is that they won’t abandon this
Bruh, no concert of Europe? It was something that kep Vic 2 super interesting and tense I suppose I will wait until paradox makes an update or something. See you all in a couple of years.
i miss red death toll numbers coming out of armies in battle, that looked so dramatic. Also the way market was represented, pop's statistics, etc... From my point of view, everything is wrong in vic3
Yeah its a real pity that economic policy automation isn't in Viccy 3. Missed a trick there, not only was a great quality of life Incorporated into a meaningful mechanic that rippled through your nation, but it was a great way to ease newer players into the game.
Yeah, It's because I don't see it working in this game...I would 100% not trust the AI in this game to run my economy, based on how it runs the other great powers in my current playthrough. I'm sitting on 1.2BN GDP, France, Britain and Germany all have a sub 200 GDP in 1924....and I didn't spend the game beating up on them either. THeir SoL's are also in the garbage. The thing is, I don't think they can fix the AI without giving them a financial crutch, a crutch that an automated player economy wouldn't get. The reason Laissez faire could work easily in vicky 2 is the construction aspect was far simpler. When a new "production method" is researched etc, factories just "use it". There is no concept of having to switch and the associated costs. All the AI capitalists have to care about is if shit will turn a profit. There is far more to economic expansion and management in victoria 3 and I think the AI is trash and handling it and they know that which is why they will never allow for a truly Laissez faire economy for the player.
There is kinda a automation system where u set everything to auto expand when they have full up thier treasury. This is perfect for large nations like France. All u need to do is build stuff u are not producing.
I'm new to Victoria 2. Got the entire dlc + base game for like 10$ as a self Christmas present. I'm currently having fun building railroads and navy bases as Netherlands. Thanks for the vid, it helped me make my decision
Aw man I missed a sale didn't I? I got the complete edition before with a sale but it was too hard and I refunded it but now I kind of regret not giving it enough time.
You should really try out the greater flavor mod (GFM) for Victoria 2. It’s how Victoria two should have always been. It’s such a good mod I can’t ever go back to vanilla
It starts with a constructive conciliatory tone, but when they don't listen to you for years it'll feel a bit different. All the points in this video are valid of course.
One big gripe i have is the back down system, if i have multiple claims on a target they shouldnt grt out easy by backing down, what if i want a fight to take them down a notch
@@AndysTake give a person infamy for not giving mercy, its that simple, and i also find it odd that you can for example ally the balkans as serbia, start a play and cannot free a puppet but they can wage war against their ‘master’
I think the warfare aspect needs the most work, I think that things are way too vague regarding the combat modifiers. I also believe a manufacturer casus belli would be good as well or perhaps false flag operations.
@@Freedmoon44 haha. I like the game, though. But it really needs some work. The warfare is BAD, but it's a bit better than I thought. Everything is just a bit TOO streamlined now. People confuse tedious micro as meaning more complex. I have fun with it though, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed.
What about comparing to victoria 1 ? I always think victoria 3 lacking the historical aspect unlike victoria 1 which always triggers event on certain time frame which is cool.
@@AndysTake yup. It's just so bizarre. Surely someone noticed it missing in testing, and it really can't be hard to code an extra map mode, just set the color gradient to change based on pop size rather than economy.
One gripe I have is how when fighting a war generals seem to just materialize on the Frontline even tho I have a large navy and raiding convoys. Also naval invasions is stupid cause idk how many troops the defending troops have
I refuse to buy Vic3 because at the moment it is just a command economy simulator, when in reality the majority of the world during this time period was experimenting with Capitalism and Free Trade. It’s really a huge disappointment that 90% of the gameplay loop is micromanaging your supply chain.
I think that paradox would make capitalists again do things at random if they were to implement laissez-faire But in a game about economy you probably want to manage your economy
@@tuluppampam I was hoping they would have concentrated on fleshing out the Capitalist and Free Trade mechanics from Vic 2 rather than overhauling the game into a Supply Chain simulator. I so badly wanted this game to be good, I have had the $80 reserved since it was announced and almost preordered it. I really wanted Vic 3 to be great, or at least interesting, but from everything I can see it just doesn't seem like it was the improvement upon Vic 2 I was hoping for. I felt Ck3 was enough of an improvement on Ck2 (others have reservations which I totallty understand, but I felt the good outweighed the bad). With Vic3, it just seems like at the moment Vic2 is vastly superior. I have no doubt (which may set me up for disappointment again) that the Devs (who seem passionate) will implement some more nuanced systems, but until I know what the next DLC is going to be I am going to wait on purchasing the game to experience it for myself.
I'm not angry with PDX, but Vicky 3 just seems like it's half the game Vicky 2 is with a more complicated ui. I'm happy just getting reactionaries elected, building the Panama and suez canals, annexing johore and southern zhili, and painting Africa the colour of whatever nation I feel like playing!
Really nice video, I agree with everything you said. Maybe a video about what victoria 3 does better than 2 would also be nice. I find that victoria 3 is funnier to play with minor nations because of the new building mechanics. in Vic 2 if you didnt have coal or iron RGO you are doomed the whole game.
i think there needs to be some expansion of the deplo plays mechanic as the us in the current version i keep demanding one state at a time because Mexico always backs down and i can only get the primary demand anyway. so it takes like 40 to 50 years to finish the Mexican secession mission
Their is also a lack of a "westernization" system as well as another youtuber pointed out, heck they described V3 as "another Imperator Rome". Like every country is the EXACT SAME upon further inspection, the only difference is some of the Numbers in the top left. So basically, Play Victoria 2 till Victoria 3 gets its $#@! together. Which will probably involve SEVERAL updates and DLC as time goes on, as is tradition at this point.
Westernization can burn in the deepest circle of hell, it made playing with any "uncivilize" nation way too boring, trying to change that asap so you can actually have fun, besides being a weird abstraction to represent things that the interest group system in V3 is far better for (Whether the game use it correctly to represent resistance to change is another thing), along with maybe some economic modifiers which may be connected to the interest group system. The laws already do part of that job, besides being better at representing half point between westernize or not than the name change for status you got in Vic2 for a couple of reforms passed which had no real effects. Basically, instead of having a single nonsensical system, a union between interest groups, economic factor and laws are FAR better to represent the difference between european/ ex-european colonies with Africa or Asian countries
While some nations still play kind of similar (especially due to how versatile you can be in a good and bad way) I don't want to see westernization to return, especially not in the same way it was in Vic2. I absolutely hated playing as a non westernized nation, it made the early game so boring and somewhat a slog. My Jan Mayen game in Victoria 2 managed to be way more fun than any of the non westernized nations I played
Wesyernization mechanic was trash. Sit here and press button. Current system with Europe starting with small advantage and gaining momentum and adge with tech spread could be better, if implemented correctly. We need trade routes to speed up tech spread, maybe some sub-tech and more country/region-specific jornal entries. But first of all they need to fix the AI
I meet the bare minimum PC requirements and I still get a lot of crashes and lag. If there was a way to have a permanent paper map mode or a mod that makes its like the political map mode from EU4, that would be great. I don’t need to see individual mines, trains, and forests. They really went overboard on presentation, which is good and bad for a map game.
Have you guys noticed that when colonizing new territory or capturing enemy territorry the states are actually split up to very small parts, similar to how HoI4 is? Which means the foundation for a HoI4 type combat is right there. I bet you that the first or second DLC will bring a combat system similar to HoI4 and they will charge you 20€ for it instead of simply made it in the base game. In my view Any and All feature that is missing (like influence) or dumbed down (like warefare) is something that was intentionally cut to make it a DLC. I had no problem with paradox DLC business style when the DLCs actually had new features and fun stuff. In the past 3 years its more like EA style, lets cut it out and sell it as a DLC mindset. This makes me radicalize. Saddening.
I've refrained from buying into Vicky 3 yet as I wanted to see where reviews landed. While I have experience with other PDX Grand Strategies, I've never tried any Vicky game yet so I've been cautious. It seems like a lot of the negative reviews I'm seeing are coming from Vicky 2 players who aren't happy with the new direction and I can definitely empathise with that. It seems like there should at least have been the option to have a true laissez-faire economy and a more in-depth warfare system for those who wanted to lean into those styles of play while allowing for the current market and warfare systems to co-exist alongside for those who want the other style of play. Almost like they've alienated the original fans to try and bring in new ones. It leaves me not knowing whether to pick this up yet or not. I really like the idea of the game even in its current form but I don't want to go through a repeat of my Stellaris experience where I drop a bunch of money on a game that feels like it fully reworks itself with every other patch and I have to re-learn the entire game every few months just to play it and I'm wondering if Vicky 3 is going to go onto that same path to satisfy its older fans.
If you enjoyed Europa Universalis and didn't extremely like its' clumsy units , Vic 3 is definitely for your and it will be fun. If u're Vicky 2 diehard fan you won't like it (you will like it but u'll keep bitching about it cuz u want to be cool and don't want to admit that the price is extremely cheap with today inflation for what it is atm and extra money for DLCs are fair too)
I would say as a person who had played Victoria 2 for years I really like the new direction Victoria 3 went in. But relating to your questions I would recommend getting it but understand it is going to be buggy for the next couple months so if you want to wait till after that you can
@@milansvancara or if you play imperator like me who think it will get better but then they give up on and they promise with new battle plan but when in come out they remove it because hard to implement you will never want buy new game from pdx again
I say the game is fantastic. It’s a bit rough around the edges, but it’s honestly perhaps my favourite PDX title at launch - better than EU4, Imperator, CK3 and HOI4 at launch, so much more exciting and deep!
The moment they dont have even basic things like Unit Models, is basically just a mobile game. Heck even mobile games, have unit models and actual battles. Now is like having an air force region, even in HOi4 they can show animation combat in air zones.
As far as the war system, map, borders, populations, etc. go, Paradox basically directly lifted it all from Victoria 2 then just put on a coat of paint over the top to obscure this fact. You can see with the border movement and seemingly random opening and closing of odd frontlines that indeed there are units moving around and capturing or losing provinces on the map. Rather than improving on this system and simplifying the UI and micro, Paradox instead wasted development time on trying to make the AI less terrible so they could dump all war management onto the AI, and then they worked on visually masking everything happening so all we get to see is a fiery orange line moving around and a red/green number go up or down. But the battalions are there on the map. The fact that they went out of their way to remove player control from the military and tucked it under the hood as an AI-only mechanic, but then made the market system really tedious, bothers me a lot. I was just hoping they'd remove the tedium of assembling armies and having to move individual units around so much, and they advertised their war system as a way of reducing tedium. Yet their new economic system is plagued by a huge requirement for constant player management even if you have free trade laws and such. Boring as unit micro can be, at least moving units and affecting the game map can be engaging. Staring at numbers shifting then just clicking to remove or add an import or export route is extremely boring and way more tedious than Vic 2's war system ever was. But don't worry, none of this was intentional, Paradox will coincidentally release DLC over the next few years that fix these obvious, glaring problems that everyone called out before release.
I don't miss the maps that much although more info could help. The wars are a lot less fun. Pdx games already had wars that weren't that engaging and I remember that that it's the thing I noticed the most when I played my first pdx game, EU3. I also miss the economic part which was by far the most interesting thing in Vicky 2, I totaly agree with you on that. The european concert is a nice idea but I'm not that excited about it, I would like more political interactions, it feels like by midgame you're done with the big changes and that stops being a layer to play with and there's nothing to pick up the slack. I would definetly like more techs, specially late game.
You must be new to paradox games if u don’t care about maps and want MORE detailed combat features . Look at this game u think they gonna add combats when they said so many times to u fools that they not focusing on the combat at all. Look at all their games which of these games have good combat ? Tell me bro which one ???
@@Георг-л5л I actually played EU3, EU4, CK2, Vic2 and Stellaris. I stand by my comment, I understand that they go for something else in these games but feel that battle is something they should flesh out more. I don't know about HOI4, didn't play that one yet. About the maps... I really feel like the mechanics that they were based on had little effect on most playthroughs. I think that if you want that much more complexity it should affect the game more like revolts, aliances, policies, etc. You can easily ignore culture, religion, regional wealth, etc for 95% of your play and you are still good.
@@AndysTake You should try, and maybe post a video about it - it's very different from EU4, for many oldschool players like myself it's better than EU4. ;) Really a great game. :)
The battle system in Vic3 is the worst I've ever seen, yesterday my US troops invaded Italy, won naval invasion battle and then just teleported back to the midwest in one day after establishing HQ. Then when I ordered them to advance front it was about to take them 70+days meanwhile italy took that hq back. wtf is that shit xD
Everything you just said I agree with 100%.. especially the warfare mechanics... Kindergartners would have made it more complex than it is. They will most likely hit us with DLC to "Fix" the game up..................
well it doesnt need to be complex and its not the focus if the game andthey not tried to make it complex ... u have hoi4 for it. i like this way more i skipped hoi4 cause iof the warfare
There is no fixing Vic3 man, there isnt even a real economy in the game, there is no real market its just an illusion. Also the people have gone through the actual code of the game and there is no war mechanics, its literal dice rolls based on battle, roll dice for size between 1-10, then proceed to roll dice for damage and losses 1-5.
Ease of access is what's gone wrong. I hate the new people coming and then bragging and hating on the older BETTER games. And I do oppose the new warfare system. It must be removed, we must not let paradox make these games idle games.
Good thoughts here, thanks for making a productive approach to feedback rather than just complaining about warfare like some youtubers have. I hope paradox listens to this feedback.
140 hours so far in vic3, and gotta say I still find myself going back to vic2. For the time being, I don't see a reason to play the game. In vic2 I absolutely loved winning/losing a Great War, having rebels take control of my government and having to rebuild my country from practically scratch. I loved winning the war and having to oversee my new colonial holdings and/or keeping my new puppets in check. I love losing the war, planning a series of events that will most likely lead to a second world war once I transfer my game file to hoi4. I loved the political system, changing social and political reforms drastically and having to figure out how to operate my country with Liberals in power, or having to appease Communists and Socialists when Conservatives were in power. Then we get to vic3. The game that "wasn't rushed we swear" when it released without a music player, the game the community modded the *same day* to have a music player and fix a lot of bugs/economic shortcomings. The game that "enterally was created to center around it's economy" when the first *two patches* were specifically made to *fix* the economy of the *economy* focused game. The programmers did an amazing job with the graphics, and I love the flags. Diplomacy is more detailed (somewhat) then vic2, atleast when it comes to the amount of options. Besides this however, a lot of the content just doesn't add up. War wasn't just "not focused on" it was completely overlooked. I enjoy the combat system, I do not enjoy reasons/meaning of the wars in the game. Why can I only add my wargoals *before* the war starts? Someone on reddit (I know) said it best I believe "The Treaty of Versailles wasn't written before World War 1" The main enemy at the start of World War 1 was Austria, it quickly grew to be Germany however as Germany became a much bigger threat to the entente then Austria ever could. France suffered way more casualties then it was ready for and Russia straight up collapsed. France definitely wanted Alsace back before the war but after wanted to see Germany *destroyed*. A better example would be in the east when Germany sent their first treaty to Russia, which demanded a sizeable portion of the east to become their own countries under German and Austrian supervision. Russia refused, leading to more Russian defeats and a second German treaty, this one more harsher then the last. This is an example of the wargoals *expanding*. Yet, in vic3, this simply doesn't happen.
I think people were naive thinking it will be for Victoria 2 fans.. there is simply not enough market for that. I expected it to be for Europa universalis fans and I think I was right, it's exactly what I wished next Europa Universalis to be
Dude, Paradox was never a company for the masses. Or do you think Shogun, EU 3, CK2, HOI1-3, etc. appealed to console players or something? The market has always been there and IS there. They just wanted to expand to the masses and this is the result.
@@van-sx1332 Lulz nah, look at steam stats, majority of pdx players have their one dedicated title they play with occasionally one more bought and not played as much. Most people don't treat every pdx game as a sequel... And if you really think that this company could survive from pleasing diehard boomer fans, u're naive af:)
@@milansvancara isnt ceo of paradox in the past also didnt believe vic 2 would be a financial success but made the game anyway because fans asking for it? In the end he lost the bet and shave his head
How do you those camera wide swoops? Struggling to do this in my vids haha I'm loving the game, things need to be improved in certain areas, but this game is a success to me.
I dont understand the society we live in. All there is in life these days is a franchise system in the movie, music and gaming industry. Most movies, music and games now are pretty much rehashes of the ones before. Ppl buy games and wish they were like its predecessor but why do we live in a society where we want the same things over and over again. What has happened in the movie, music and games industry. What I do know is that they all lack creative talent. By that I mean just look at those 3 facets of entertainment that we all live within. What I do know is that the movie and music industry is crap unlike 25 or more odd years ago where there was so much variety is so many different ways and fields that you couldnt keep up. Movies is nothing but marvel movies, rom coms and animation now or has been for a good 10yrs or so. Music is just 2 line lyrics, one beat and just outright painful. Games are just the same games and game designs with nothing fresh and innovative other than a cashcow for developers and publishers. The amount of greed that has enveloped these industries has destroyed the creative talants they once were. Their thought process is just sell junk and promote it and the ppl will buy it or watch it. Then theres always those that have a bit of a whine about the new stuff but quickly get over it because they buy the next crap that comes out those in these industries know this full well. Where has all the creative imaginations gone in these industries. The gaming industry is the same way now. Its always the same type of survival, strategy or whatever games and they bring them out every year or few years. Same games, music and movies, just different technology added to it. Thats pretty much all society is happy with these days. Even so called 'smartphones' are brought out every year but its the same rubbish that does the same thing. Is the gaming industry that bad that we are satisfied with the same game rehashes paid dlcs and stripped down base games they sell thsee days. I dont mind this game once you really get into how it all works because I like strategy games but in the end they are pretty much all the same anyway.
I think I'm definitely in the minority, but I really love the new war system. The 2 gripes I have with the game (and the second is very much related to your point about concerts of Europe) are the UI issues and diplomatic plays. UI issues include the lack of map modes, tooltips inside tooltips inside tooltips, vital information that needs to accessed regularly being hidden. Why the hell do I need to go 3 tooltips deep every time I want to check the prices of goods required to upgrade the standard of living? I need to check that info every 15 mins or so to see how to continue improving, and every time it's mouse over the standard of living, wait. Mouse over the strata I'm working on, wait. Mouse over the price comparison, wait. Finally, I have the info I need. If I hadn't seen that on a dev stream before release, I would never know. How the hell is a new player ever going to find that? I actually thought that they simply forgot to include Romania as a formable nation during a Wallachia run because I couldn't find the tab for formable nations, and I was convinced it was a decision that should appear if you fulfill the conditions. It's so hard to find anything in this mess of a UI. Diplomatic plays are glorified war declarations at this point. Why the hell are they strictly binary? Why can't I offer a "peace deal" inside the diplomatic play which gives away something for getting something? I can't start a diplomatic play for Eritrea as Ethiopia against Egypt if Egypt is friendly towards me, which makes sense in the current system, but why can't I offer a trade? Something like give me Eritrea and I become a puppet, or Eritrea for war reparations, something like that. Egypt could then accept or refuse. The diplomatic plays themselves need some way of offering something for both sides, which the 2 main participants need to say yes to. The fact that it requires a winner and loser before the war, but both sides can get stuff in an actual war is such a glaring omission.
"tooltips inside tooltips inside tooltips" I don't see this as a problem. It's not forced on your gameplay experience and it's a smart way to reference detailed information in case one would need so. Never have I felt it being cumbersome.
Yep, just cranked out simplistic garbage using the same lazy toolset for every game. It all feels the same. I hate to say it but I think Hoi4 was their last good game. We'll see if DLC gets Vic 3 into proper shape but I am not hopeful.
Going from ck2 to ck3 was easy I still haven't managed to get into vic3. I get a fucking migraine from all the clutter and bullshit going on on the screen, and I have zero ideas on what my opening moves should be. So I quit and start another run of vic2 to try something new, because the few minor clunky things are kind of endearing compared to the vomit on my screen titled vic3
I missed the part when capitalists and aristocrats took care of most of the production I wish that there is an update for Victoria 3 to add that feature again otherwise I would go back to Victoria ii
Mapmodes, I agree . In the game with most stats dependency in your core gameloop it is baffling that this is the game paradox chooses hide things. Most likely to not scare off newbies , however instead of scared of they will be clueless and frustrated. Not only mapmodes, bring back the ledger! Luckily mods are bringing the ledger functionality back somewhat. Warfare, yes more like HOI4 was needed. Not micro hell but not this very obscured warfare either. It seems like it was the very last thing they did, and it was too late to redevelop before release. They will take feedback and redesign this I'm sure, don't bring back vicky 2 though. Economy, sorry hard disagree. Laissez faire was terribly boring. It was only a necessary evil for big countries because the micro would overwhelm you otherwise. I think the prevention of subsides and investment bonuses is a good compromise that doesn't take away the games biggest plus, building, while still differentiating between the different economic models. The sphere of influence minigame, was awful imo. It was too simplistic and gamey. I think the new one much better captures all kinds of relationships that are described under a sphere. Diplomatic plays has other problems, mostly regarding AI, but sphere of influences already exist.
Victoria 3 is too complicated and user unfriendly, for me the right combination would be HOI4 with a well made economic and trade system like Victoria 2 had.
i have to ask why my market screen excludes good i dont have simply not having them shouldnt mean that they have no price or thag i cant see their potential or where theyre produced
Vic 3 is the Velma of video games. New devs hate the original game, but need to use the IP according to management, so they just shovel it full of their own hot air and claim it's not meant for you, the Victoria 2 fan who literally demanded Vic 3 and drove the hype train, as if a sequel should be a completely different game for a completely different audience. It's just baffling. They hear that people who don't agree with them politically have valid criticisms about the game and their brains just shut off
I never played victoria 2. it seemed way too daunting to me. after having spent 10+hrs in Victoria 3 though... im gonna have to give vic 2 a shot. it seems like every single economic system was done better in 2 and the only bad thing about vic 2 was the war micro. not gonna refund vic 3, ill wait for improvements, but vic 2 just seems like the better game at this point. gonna be pissed when they put all the basic features back in 3 through paid dlc.
I played Victoria 2 for 1200 hours and Victoria 3 for 36 hours. I think Victoria 3's economy is actually better, I love the new game, for me it just lacks flavour like events
@@NB-yu4lj the fact that it actually feels like a goddam economy? Wow daddy government has to do everything soo good, honestly Vicky 3 economy is just stupid, even more stupid than Vic 2 capitalists.
@@dasm9657 I've played 1.2K hours of vicky 2 and 21 in Vicky 3. Vicky 3 is just building shit based on what is the most valuable + what the market is lacking so you can get more money to build more construction buildings so you can build stuff faster to get more money and the cycle continues. THERES NO thought put into it. I got to number 1 GDP as Australia by doing this. Victoria 3 is incredibly boring. I can tell you've never actually played Vicky 2
@@AndysTake I know you are a good UA-camr because you go through the comments liking them or replying to them, just like me that makes people's day. I can't wait for the next video
Hard disagree on the spheres of influence, absolutely hate that mechanic. Micromanagement of influence and making sure the ai doesn't try and randomly steal away someone in your sphere halfway around the world was annoying
Just a single question for Vicky 2 "fans" that liked Vic 3, how can you consider yourself a fan, if you dislike every single aspect of the last game? Dislike westernization, dislike the war, dislike the organic economy, dislike pops, dislike navy like bro why do you even play the game.
i don't understand the people who just want victoria 3 to be a reskinned victoria 2. i love victoria 2 with gfm mod but holy shit i'm happy they made a lot of these changes. it was janky as hell
Thats literally what the entire vic2 community originally wanted all these years. Just a victoria 2 with updated graphics and QoL changes to it. And maybe a compromise between complete army automation and micro. That were the sole demands and see how paradox fucked it all up in one swoop
@@pradyumnabanerjee3333 i don't think that's true at all. people were devouring the dev diaries and if that had been true you would've heard people complaining about how they're changing the game but everyone on the forums was very excited. if they had rereleased victoria 2 with updated graphics and UI many people would be pretty upset. you're supposed to advance a game like this with its sequels and i think they've done that. you should just play victoria 2 with gfm mod if that's all you want.
@@riotdrone People were devouring the dev diaries, yes, but not Vic 2 or long time Pdx players. It's a bunch of people who just found out about the game or company through recent marketing and are presenting themselves on social media. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a new fan, but it's extremely grating to have people gaslight you all the time about "what people wanted," as if this hypothetical potential group being loosely represented by very new fans mostly from marketed content on youtube or reddit should have a bigger influence on a sequel to actual fans of the series.
@@utewbd dude the people on the paradox forums are the most dedicated grand strategy players. nobody sees an ad on youtube and then makes a forum account and posts about it constantly. these are people who have been playing paradox games for years. my brother in law who plays almost exclusively paradox games loves it. the victoria 2 youtubers/streamers with the most skill at the game are generally loving it. i've been playing paradox games for over a decade and i literally stay up until sunrise playing it. you know how weird it would be if all these years they were just making a reskinned victoria 2? the majority of the hardcore victoria 2 fans are ecstatic to get an updated take on the game. and as far as paradox launches go it's great. way more depth than ck3 had on launch.
@@riotdrone Nobody wanted a literal reskin though. They wanted less tedious, repetitive mechanics and for the core gameplay to just be improved, and for nice quality of life changes. Nobody asked to completely neuter the warfare and make economics very granular and rote. Quit trying to gaslight me about what people wanted or want. You can't advertise a game as a sequel then pretend it's odd people wanted an improved version of the previous title in the series. That's what sequels are you doof. The fact that some vocal defenders of Victoria 3 exists doesn't mean there's an overwhelming positive opinion. Outside of reddit there is minimal positivity and a pretty big consensus that Paradox did their classic "release it hollow so it has room to sell DLC" design and clowns like you are trying to act like none of the criticism is justified. The warfare system is buggy and awful and way too opaque. It needs some level of player engagement and a little more complexity to be any good. I have no problems with them having an autopilot option like there exists now but having NO system in place for the player themselves to conduct warfare in a Victorian era strategy game? That's absurd and you know it. The economic system has a lot of superficial complexity and is plagued by the sort of tedium and micro that Paradox claimed they wanted gone as their excuse for the warfare system. I've played about 30 hours and there's a lot of potential there but undoubtedly the game is shallow and in a poor state at the moment. Is it good fun for a few play throughs? Sure. Is it a solid, fleshed out grand strategy game that can retain replayability and fun for hundreds or thousands of hours like older Paradox games? No. Could it be good with proper DLC? Yes. Which is why people are giving specific criticisms about what sucks, because of the classic Paradox model of intentionally releasing things in a such a state that people will be begging for DLC and updates. So get lost with your gaslighting and baseless assumptions and insults and shilling.
The best change in vic3 is the ability to tab in and out in a reasonable time where in vic 2 it rather takes 30 seconds or crashes which is quite bad In a multiplayer setting where you are probably using discord
If they had wanted to make VICTORIA THREE, they would have done all of this. They just wanted to make a game that would appeal to people who don't like Vic 2 and HoI 4. That's why every defense of Vic 3 is just someone complaining about the basic game mechanics or fundamental economic principles in Vic 2 as if they were objectively bad and unplayable, (and not obviously fixable and largely playable with mods,) and then gushing over cringey 3d models and more flavour for socialism. (hmm wonder why?)
I don't mind the new combat however could've been better HOI4 style. It would be better to see economy with Capitalists actually do things unlike what it is now.
i just pretend victoria 2 keeps coming out and i just keep playing that...i play more of hearts of iron 2 darkest hour trp mod and vic 2 and ck2 lol...the new games just suck
Warfare in vic2 is fun in the early game as long as you're in europe. Late game microing gets ridiculously tedious especially if you're playing as Japan, Russia, US, China etc. since AI can invade random places deep in your country. EU4's fort zone of control system made large scale wars manageable and predictable.
Unpopular opinion, I absolutely hated VIC2 war system. Chasing around units, baiting AI into battles, endless clicking, killing rebels.. it was the least fun part of the game
Tbh every paradox game should be combined into one game from ancient Rome to ww2 or even ww3 if you have mods , I'm sick of over monetization and paradox is worse than ea for it
My god. I really hate the lack of map modes and their new approach since CK3.
Basically since the new HOI...
@@DeWiseman HOI4 still has map modes though
I really miss a RGO and migration map modes , i play as uruguay out of nowere 500k polish in my 200k country 😅
@@murilohenrique1201 you mean the migration map mode you didnt discover, yet?
@@sephikong8323 but there is the zooming in and out change of map modes so when I choose one and then zoom about it changes again. But mainly I was referring to THE APPROACH
I really miss the large battles from VIC 2, it seems so silly that we have thousands of units on both sides of a war, only to have like 20 fight 20 at a time, for the whole front...
you enjoy microing hundreds of units across multiple continents while you bait the ai into a battle that a human player would never take whilst forgetting to check out another war front and the ai takes over half your country?
I guess I can see why people don't like the vic3 war system early game but I think late game it will become obviously superior to the old system
@@therealoldnosey8689 no sorry, that was not what I meant. I do prefer not having to manually maintain a long front line. I just think it's weird that a frontline only have one battle at a time and it uses so few of the regiments from both sides.
@@therealoldnosey8689 I agree overall but a middle ground has to be met. The new war system is too simple, 2 buttons doesn't cut it.
@@therealoldnosey8689 Yes. I want a return to the Victoria 2 war system. Just because you're bad at it doesn't mean it's a bad system.
If you don't want to forget a front, turn proper notifications on.
The large battles were even more unrealistic though, the current war system is nigh awful but it still can stimulate more realism than micro ever could
I don't know if anyone else agrees, but I just miss the newspapers with immersive titles from Victoria 2. I feel like I'm not immersed enough while playing Victoria 3
werent they added in HOD dlc ?
This is true, I’m fairly certain they’ll add much more flavour like this in the future!
I want to buy eu4 but dont know if its immersive. I found victoria 2 and crusader kings 2 to be very immersive, is eu4 as immersive or not?
@@fightingtothepoint4u732 EU4 is immersive af, perhaps my favorite PDX game
@@fightingtothepoint4u732 Very mood setting game, especially with the atlas map mod. Modded or not, though, EU4 is by far one of the best Paradox titles and although it is outdated, it's systems work so well that it is not obsolete.
The amount of map modes seem to be a steady regression each newer Paradox game.
One feature I like with Vic3 over Vic2 is that it actually launches on my computer. Huge plus.
Only other plus I can think of is steam workshop integration
well for some people its the exact opposite :D
Bruh vic2 launches on my Linux 4gbram notebook what the hell is wrong with your PC
@@Joleyn-Joy nothing, actually. Thanks for asking.
If it’s your first time launching the game (or successfully launching the game) you probably need to delete your map cache
How would you say the UI choice Paradox went in Vic 3 compares to Vic 2 in easy reading of information, no redundancy and more? I felt Vick 3 UI is very bloated and hard to find information with ease.
I'm learning to just stick with the buttons on the left. Trying to use the map, lenses or hyperlinked text just results in more visual clutter and a more circuitous route to whatever you're looking for.
Paradox's anything 2 and readable information is a contradiction.
The UI is in some ways MUCH better than Vicky 2 - but it lacks a lot of information that players want and could really need. It’s strange almost. The building blocks are there, and it’s an 80% great UI, but it lacks that 20% of vital information you’re going to need here and there, and it’s weird that there are so many ways to get to the same window, when they could’ve just added more information instead.
I think you're used to Vic 2 and don't notice the easiest UI Vic 3 has.
@@Yeured It's very easy to set buildings and do certain actions, but a lot of the info you want to see (worst example of this is population) is a lot of windows or clicks apart from the actionable, relevant part of the UI that you wanted the information for.
I miss the war plans map mode, it barely got used but I miss role playing and directing. My self in a planned or unplanned war
V3 micros too much where it shouldn't and macros too much where it shouldn't. Pdox changed a ton of Stellaris after launch. Hope they do the same with V3.
I’m sure they’ll listen to player feedback like they did with Imperator: Rome and made it a great game. One thing I’m certain of is that they won’t abandon this
Bruh, no concert of Europe? It was something that kep Vic 2 super interesting and tense I suppose I will wait until paradox makes an update or something. See you all in a couple of years.
i miss red death toll numbers coming out of armies in battle, that looked so dramatic.
Also the way market was represented, pop's statistics, etc...
From my point of view, everything is wrong in vic3
Yeah its a real pity that economic policy automation isn't in Viccy 3. Missed a trick there, not only was a great quality of life Incorporated into a meaningful mechanic that rippled through your nation, but it was a great way to ease newer players into the game.
The problem was the notorious capitalist AI
Yeah, It's because I don't see it working in this game...I would 100% not trust the AI in this game to run my economy, based on how it runs the other great powers in my current playthrough. I'm sitting on 1.2BN GDP, France, Britain and Germany all have a sub 200 GDP in 1924....and I didn't spend the game beating up on them either. THeir SoL's are also in the garbage.
The thing is, I don't think they can fix the AI without giving them a financial crutch, a crutch that an automated player economy wouldn't get.
The reason Laissez faire could work easily in vicky 2 is the construction aspect was far simpler. When a new "production method" is researched etc, factories just "use it". There is no concept of having to switch and the associated costs. All the AI capitalists have to care about is if shit will turn a profit. There is far more to economic expansion and management in victoria 3 and I think the AI is trash and handling it and they know that which is why they will never allow for a truly Laissez faire economy for the player.
There is kinda a automation system where u set everything to auto expand when they have full up thier treasury.
This is perfect for large nations like France. All u need to do is build stuff u are not producing.
I'm new to Victoria 2. Got the entire dlc + base game for like 10$ as a self Christmas present. I'm currently having fun building railroads and navy bases as Netherlands. Thanks for the vid, it helped me make my decision
Aw man I missed a sale didn't I? I got the complete edition before with a sale but it was too hard and I refunded it but now I kind of regret not giving it enough time.
You should really try out the greater flavor mod (GFM) for Victoria 2. It’s how Victoria two should have always been. It’s such a good mod I can’t ever go back to vanilla
It starts with a constructive conciliatory tone, but when they don't listen to you for years it'll feel a bit different. All the points in this video are valid of course.
I hope we will see a change, and I’m sure they’re listening to the feedback in one way or another!
Did you know companies don't have to listen to thier customers. And u don't have to buy thier products either.
One big gripe i have is the back down system, if i have multiple claims on a target they shouldnt grt out easy by backing down, what if i want a fight to take them down a notch
This is true, the system needs to be changed, although I love it in concept
@@AndysTake give a person infamy for not giving mercy, its that simple, and i also find it odd that you can for example ally the balkans as serbia, start a play and cannot free a puppet but they can wage war against their ‘master’
@@chandlerkivett40 You’re right, things like this should be tweaked
Isn't that what Force Diplomatic Play is for
I only recently started playing Victoria 3 is Forcing Diplomatic Plays also a recent addition?
"Hey Paradox, I'd like to see a map mode to see which areas have the best potential amount of this resource"
Paradox: That's illegal
I really wanted to love Victoria 3. But I must admit after 10 hours I am missing Victoria 2.
Yea im hopping back on 2 tbh
@@keith5524 you guys took this long to go back?
I think the warfare aspect needs the most work, I think that things are way too vague regarding the combat modifiers. I also believe a manufacturer casus belli would be good as well or perhaps false flag operations.
You just woke up the white knights of justifying bad game design. "It's an ECONOMIC GAME!!!" *echos in the air* Stay safe, son. They're here.
Yeah, fleshing out the warfare is my first wish for a major update/expansion
@@ItIsYouAreNotYour "but there not even an actual economy in Vicky III ressources Spawns out of thin air infinitely"
@@Freedmoon44 haha. I like the game, though. But it really needs some work. The warfare is BAD, but it's a bit better than I thought. Everything is just a bit TOO streamlined now. People confuse tedious micro as meaning more complex. I have fun with it though, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed.
What about comparing to victoria 1 ? I always think victoria 3 lacking the historical aspect unlike victoria 1 which always triggers event on certain time frame which is cool.
I dont understand why there isn't a population map mode in Vic 3. It actually confuses me.
Like I’ve been saying, map modes are definitely missing
@@AndysTake yup. It's just so bizarre. Surely someone noticed it missing in testing, and it really can't be hard to code an extra map mode, just set the color gradient to change based on pop size rather than economy.
@@argosime yeah, just like they couldn’t make their own political map mode as an option, so bizarre
uh, there is a population map mode?
@@tsdobbi for your nation but not the whole world
I also like Victoria 2's graphics more, unironically. Especially with the better textures in mods such as DoD or just HPM
One gripe I have is how when fighting a war generals seem to just materialize on the Frontline even tho I have a large navy and raiding convoys. Also naval invasions is stupid cause idk how many troops the defending troops have
Convoys are trade ships. You want to patrol coastlines to ships from landing.
I refuse to buy Vic3 because at the moment it is just a command economy simulator, when in reality the majority of the world during this time period was experimenting with Capitalism and Free Trade. It’s really a huge disappointment that 90% of the gameplay loop is micromanaging your supply chain.
I think that paradox would make capitalists again do things at random if they were to implement laissez-faire
But in a game about economy you probably want to manage your economy
@@tuluppampam I was hoping they would have concentrated on fleshing out the Capitalist and Free Trade mechanics from Vic 2 rather than overhauling the game into a Supply Chain simulator. I so badly wanted this game to be good, I have had the $80 reserved since it was announced and almost preordered it. I really wanted Vic 3 to be great, or at least interesting, but from everything I can see it just doesn't seem like it was the improvement upon Vic 2 I was hoping for. I felt Ck3 was enough of an improvement on Ck2 (others have reservations which I totallty understand, but I felt the good outweighed the bad). With Vic3, it just seems like at the moment Vic2 is vastly superior. I have no doubt (which may set me up for disappointment again) that the Devs (who seem passionate) will implement some more nuanced systems, but until I know what the next DLC is going to be I am going to wait on purchasing the game to experience it for myself.
Goods don't even exist in Victoria 3, it's all just supply and demand which is absurd.
I wish there was a ledger to see ALL things your country produces rather than having to click and scroll through several lists.
Same… the ledger is the best thing in EU4 lol
Every time I watch a Vicky 3 video I just want to play more Victoria 2!
I'm not angry with PDX, but Vicky 3 just seems like it's half the game Vicky 2 is with a more complicated ui. I'm happy just getting reactionaries elected, building the Panama and suez canals, annexing johore and southern zhili, and painting Africa the colour of whatever nation I feel like playing!
Really nice video, I agree with everything you said. Maybe a video about what victoria 3 does better than 2 would also be nice. I find that victoria 3 is funnier to play with minor nations because of the new building mechanics. in Vic 2 if you didnt have coal or iron RGO you are doomed the whole game.
Thank you! That’s a good idea! :)
Victoria 3 is Anno 1800 without 3d graphics. nuff said
i think there needs to be some expansion of the deplo plays mechanic as the us in the current version i keep demanding one state at a time because Mexico always backs down and i can only get the primary demand anyway. so it takes like 40 to 50 years to finish the Mexican secession mission
Their is also a lack of a "westernization" system as well as another youtuber pointed out, heck they described V3 as "another Imperator Rome". Like every country is the EXACT SAME upon further inspection, the only difference is some of the Numbers in the top left.
So basically, Play Victoria 2 till Victoria 3 gets its $#@! together. Which will probably involve SEVERAL updates and DLC as time goes on, as is tradition at this point.
lol vic 2 is UNPLAYABLE given so UGLY it is, besides individual armies for that period is STUPID and OVERWHELMING
Westernization can burn in the deepest circle of hell, it made playing with any "uncivilize" nation way too boring, trying to change that asap so you can actually have fun, besides being a weird abstraction to represent things that the interest group system in V3 is far better for (Whether the game use it correctly to represent resistance to change is another thing), along with maybe some economic modifiers which may be connected to the interest group system. The laws already do part of that job, besides being better at representing half point between westernize or not than the name change for status you got in Vic2 for a couple of reforms passed which had no real effects.
Basically, instead of having a single nonsensical system, a union between interest groups, economic factor and laws are FAR better to represent the difference between european/ ex-european colonies with Africa or Asian countries
While some nations still play kind of similar (especially due to how versatile you can be in a good and bad way) I don't want to see westernization to return, especially not in the same way it was in Vic2. I absolutely hated playing as a non westernized nation, it made the early game so boring and somewhat a slog. My Jan Mayen game in Victoria 2 managed to be way more fun than any of the non westernized nations I played
Wesyernization mechanic was trash. Sit here and press button. Current system with Europe starting with small advantage and gaining momentum and adge with tech spread could be better, if implemented correctly.
We need trade routes to speed up tech spread, maybe some sub-tech and more country/region-specific jornal entries.
But first of all they need to fix the AI
"Every country is the EXACT SAME" As in eu4, vic 2 and ck3
I meet the bare minimum PC requirements and I still get a lot of crashes and lag. If there was a way to have a permanent paper map mode or a mod that makes its like the political map mode from EU4, that would be great. I don’t need to see individual mines, trains, and forests. They really went overboard on presentation, which is good and bad for a map game.
Have you guys noticed that when colonizing new territory or capturing enemy territorry the states are actually split up to very small parts, similar to how HoI4 is? Which means the foundation for a HoI4 type combat is right there. I bet you that the first or second DLC will bring a combat system similar to HoI4 and they will charge you 20€ for it instead of simply made it in the base game.
In my view Any and All feature that is missing (like influence) or dumbed down (like warefare) is something that was intentionally cut to make it a DLC.
I had no problem with paradox DLC business style when the DLCs actually had new features and fun stuff. In the past 3 years its more like EA style, lets cut it out and sell it as a DLC mindset. This makes me radicalize. Saddening.
Please push Paradox to bring military battles in this game like in Victoria 2 or EU4, that is a big feature missing from V3
They will DLC it, mark my words.. they are deliberately unfinishing games to "fix" them with paid DLC.
I've refrained from buying into Vicky 3 yet as I wanted to see where reviews landed. While I have experience with other PDX Grand Strategies, I've never tried any Vicky game yet so I've been cautious. It seems like a lot of the negative reviews I'm seeing are coming from Vicky 2 players who aren't happy with the new direction and I can definitely empathise with that. It seems like there should at least have been the option to have a true laissez-faire economy and a more in-depth warfare system for those who wanted to lean into those styles of play while allowing for the current market and warfare systems to co-exist alongside for those who want the other style of play. Almost like they've alienated the original fans to try and bring in new ones.
It leaves me not knowing whether to pick this up yet or not. I really like the idea of the game even in its current form but I don't want to go through a repeat of my Stellaris experience where I drop a bunch of money on a game that feels like it fully reworks itself with every other patch and I have to re-learn the entire game every few months just to play it and I'm wondering if Vicky 3 is going to go onto that same path to satisfy its older fans.
If you enjoyed Europa Universalis and didn't extremely like its' clumsy units , Vic 3 is definitely for your and it will be fun. If u're Vicky 2 diehard fan you won't like it (you will like it but u'll keep bitching about it cuz u want to be cool and don't want to admit that the price is extremely cheap with today inflation for what it is atm and extra money for DLCs are fair too)
I would say as a person who had played Victoria 2 for years I really like the new direction Victoria 3 went in. But relating to your questions I would recommend getting it but understand it is going to be buggy for the next couple months so if you want to wait till after that you can
Just pirate it lol
@@milansvancara or if you play imperator like me who think it will get better but then they give up on and they promise with new battle plan but when in come out they remove it because hard to implement you will never want buy new game from pdx again
I say the game is fantastic. It’s a bit rough around the edges, but it’s honestly perhaps my favourite PDX title at launch - better than EU4, Imperator, CK3 and HOI4 at launch, so much more exciting and deep!
The moment they dont have even basic things like Unit Models, is basically just a mobile game. Heck even mobile games, have unit models and actual battles. Now is like having an air force region, even in HOi4 they can show animation combat in air zones.
Needless to say there are probably going to be a lot of DLCs for this game like there is for HOI
Oh yes, I’m excited for them
I miss the old paradox CK2/Vic2/HOI3 maybe a new company will come out to take the reigns of true Grand Strategy
As far as the war system, map, borders, populations, etc. go, Paradox basically directly lifted it all from Victoria 2 then just put on a coat of paint over the top to obscure this fact. You can see with the border movement and seemingly random opening and closing of odd frontlines that indeed there are units moving around and capturing or losing provinces on the map.
Rather than improving on this system and simplifying the UI and micro, Paradox instead wasted development time on trying to make the AI less terrible so they could dump all war management onto the AI, and then they worked on visually masking everything happening so all we get to see is a fiery orange line moving around and a red/green number go up or down. But the battalions are there on the map.
The fact that they went out of their way to remove player control from the military and tucked it under the hood as an AI-only mechanic, but then made the market system really tedious, bothers me a lot. I was just hoping they'd remove the tedium of assembling armies and having to move individual units around so much, and they advertised their war system as a way of reducing tedium. Yet their new economic system is plagued by a huge requirement for constant player management even if you have free trade laws and such. Boring as unit micro can be, at least moving units and affecting the game map can be engaging. Staring at numbers shifting then just clicking to remove or add an import or export route is extremely boring and way more tedious than Vic 2's war system ever was.
But don't worry, none of this was intentional, Paradox will coincidentally release DLC over the next few years that fix these obvious, glaring problems that everyone called out before release.
I don't miss the maps that much although more info could help.
The wars are a lot less fun. Pdx games already had wars that weren't that engaging and I remember that that it's the thing I noticed the most when I played my first pdx game, EU3.
I also miss the economic part which was by far the most interesting thing in Vicky 2, I totaly agree with you on that.
The european concert is a nice idea but I'm not that excited about it, I would like more political interactions, it feels like by midgame you're done with the big changes and that stops being a layer to play with and there's nothing to pick up the slack.
I would definetly like more techs, specially late game.
Hoi4 is their poster child for war games. Every other one is SO FUCKING BORING.
I like general direction bit I need more info so I know what’s actually going on. Like how eu4 gives you a whole tab of modifiers for your army.
You must be new to paradox games if u don’t care about maps and want MORE detailed combat features . Look at this game u think they gonna add combats when they said so many times to u fools that they not focusing on the combat at all. Look at all their games which of these games have good combat ? Tell me bro which one ???
@@Георг-л5л I actually played EU3, EU4, CK2, Vic2 and Stellaris. I stand by my comment, I understand that they go for something else in these games but feel that battle is something they should flesh out more. I don't know about HOI4, didn't play that one yet.
About the maps... I really feel like the mechanics that they were based on had little effect on most playthroughs. I think that if you want that much more complexity it should affect the game more like revolts, aliances, policies, etc. You can easily ignore culture, religion, regional wealth, etc for 95% of your play and you are still good.
I do not want moving individual armies to come back, but I really think the military aspect does need more depth
Indeed. I actually love the frontlines, but I want a bit more tactical gameplay on the fronts still
My current issue is the game is missing alot of flavor and not a fan of how simple and boring the war system
Hey, there is a mistake in you video - EU 3 also had a concept of sphere of influence, that was added in one of expansions.
Interesting, thank you for letting me know, I never played EU3 :)
@@AndysTake You should try, and maybe post a video about it - it's very different from EU4, for many oldschool players like myself it's better than EU4. ;) Really a great game. :)
My missed features are the text fluff on technologies and music. Also there is no jazz tech!
The battle system in Vic3 is the worst I've ever seen, yesterday my US troops invaded Italy, won naval invasion battle and then just teleported back to the midwest in one day after establishing HQ. Then when I ordered them to advance front it was about to take them 70+days meanwhile italy took that hq back.
wtf is that shit xD
Everything you just said I agree with 100%.. especially the warfare mechanics... Kindergartners would have made it more complex than it is. They will most likely hit us with DLC to "Fix" the game up..................
well it doesnt need to be complex and its not the focus if the game andthey not tried to make it complex ... u have hoi4 for it. i like this way more i skipped hoi4 cause iof the warfare
There is no fixing Vic3 man, there isnt even a real economy in the game, there is no real market its just an illusion. Also the people have gone through the actual code of the game and there is no war mechanics, its literal dice rolls based on battle, roll dice for size between 1-10, then proceed to roll dice for damage and losses 1-5.
Stop putting red arrows in your thumbnails
but that's what generates the views
Victoria 2 it's simple and fun.
Victoria 3 is complex and boring.
Simple as that
On a roll!!! Uploading everyday this week!
Thank you!! :D
Tell them to fix the launcher so I can play the game I bought
Ease of access is what's gone wrong. I hate the new people coming and then bragging and hating on the older BETTER games. And I do oppose the new warfare system. It must be removed, we must not let paradox make these games idle games.
Good thoughts here, thanks for making a productive approach to feedback rather than just complaining about warfare like some youtubers have. I hope paradox listens to this feedback.
That’s my plan indeed, hating just to hate is just… not useful
140 hours so far in vic3, and gotta say I still find myself going back to vic2.
For the time being, I don't see a reason to play the game. In vic2 I absolutely loved winning/losing a Great War, having rebels take control of my government and having to rebuild my country from practically scratch. I loved winning the war and having to oversee my new colonial holdings and/or keeping my new puppets in check. I love losing the war, planning a series of events that will most likely lead to a second world war once I transfer my game file to hoi4. I loved the political system, changing social and political reforms drastically and having to figure out how to operate my country with Liberals in power, or having to appease Communists and Socialists when Conservatives were in power.
Then we get to vic3. The game that "wasn't rushed we swear" when it released without a music player, the game the community modded the *same day* to have a music player and fix a lot of bugs/economic shortcomings. The game that "enterally was created to center around it's economy" when the first *two patches* were specifically made to *fix* the economy of the *economy* focused game.
The programmers did an amazing job with the graphics, and I love the flags. Diplomacy is more detailed (somewhat) then vic2, atleast when it comes to the amount of options. Besides this however, a lot of the content just doesn't add up.
War wasn't just "not focused on" it was completely overlooked. I enjoy the combat system, I do not enjoy reasons/meaning of the wars in the game.
Why can I only add my wargoals *before* the war starts? Someone on reddit (I know) said it best I believe "The Treaty of Versailles wasn't written before World War 1"
The main enemy at the start of World War 1 was Austria, it quickly grew to be Germany however as Germany became a much bigger threat to the entente then Austria ever could. France suffered way more casualties then it was ready for and Russia straight up collapsed. France definitely wanted Alsace back before the war but after wanted to see Germany *destroyed*. A better example would be in the east when Germany sent their first treaty to Russia, which demanded a sizeable portion of the east to become their own countries under German and Austrian supervision.
Russia refused, leading to more Russian defeats and a second German treaty, this one more harsher then the last.
This is an example of the wargoals *expanding*. Yet, in vic3, this simply doesn't happen.
I think people were naive thinking it will be for Victoria 2 fans.. there is simply not enough market for that. I expected it to be for Europa universalis fans and I think I was right, it's exactly what I wished next Europa Universalis to be
Dude, Paradox was never a company for the masses. Or do you think Shogun, EU 3, CK2, HOI1-3, etc. appealed to console players or something? The market has always been there and IS there. They just wanted to expand to the masses and this is the result.
@@van-sx1332 Lulz nah, look at steam stats, majority of pdx players have their one dedicated title they play with occasionally one more bought and not played as much. Most people don't treat every pdx game as a sequel... And if you really think that this company could survive from pleasing diehard boomer fans, u're naive af:)
@silverfoxeater Good enough if you've read the whole section and sacrificed your time to comment
@@milansvancara isnt ceo of paradox in the past also didnt believe vic 2 would be a financial success but made the game anyway because fans asking for it? In the end he lost the bet and shave his head
Can someone explain me how the last point "the concert of Europe" was better in Vic 2?
How do you those camera wide swoops? Struggling to do this in my vids haha
I'm loving the game, things need to be improved in certain areas, but this game is a success to me.
I just hold the WASD keys in one direction and the mouse panning in another :)
Concert of Europe should be in the game!
I dont understand the society we live in. All there is in life these days is a franchise system in the movie, music and gaming industry. Most movies, music and games now are pretty much rehashes of the ones before. Ppl buy games and wish they were like its predecessor but why do we live in a society where we want the same things over and over again.
What has happened in the movie, music and games industry. What I do know is that they all lack creative talent.
By that I mean just look at those 3 facets of entertainment that we all live within. What I do know is that the movie and music industry is crap unlike 25 or more odd years ago where there was so much variety is so many different ways and fields that you couldnt keep up. Movies is nothing but marvel movies, rom coms and animation now or has been for a good 10yrs or so. Music is just 2 line lyrics, one beat and just outright painful. Games are just the same games and game designs with nothing fresh and innovative other than a cashcow for developers and publishers. The amount of greed that has enveloped these industries has destroyed the creative talants they once were. Their thought process is just sell junk and promote it and the ppl will buy it or watch it. Then theres always those that have a bit of a whine about the new stuff but quickly get over it because they buy the next crap that comes out those in these industries know this full well.
Where has all the creative imaginations gone in these industries. The gaming industry is the same way now. Its always the same type of survival, strategy or whatever games and they bring them out every year or few years. Same games, music and movies, just different technology added to it. Thats pretty much all society is happy with these days. Even so called 'smartphones' are brought out every year but its the same rubbish that does the same thing. Is the gaming industry that bad that we are satisfied with the same game rehashes paid dlcs and stripped down base games they sell thsee days.
I dont mind this game once you really get into how it all works because I like strategy games but in the end they are pretty much all the same anyway.
I think I'm definitely in the minority, but I really love the new war system. The 2 gripes I have with the game (and the second is very much related to your point about concerts of Europe) are the UI issues and diplomatic plays.
UI issues include the lack of map modes, tooltips inside tooltips inside tooltips, vital information that needs to accessed regularly being hidden. Why the hell do I need to go 3 tooltips deep every time I want to check the prices of goods required to upgrade the standard of living? I need to check that info every 15 mins or so to see how to continue improving, and every time it's mouse over the standard of living, wait. Mouse over the strata I'm working on, wait. Mouse over the price comparison, wait. Finally, I have the info I need. If I hadn't seen that on a dev stream before release, I would never know. How the hell is a new player ever going to find that? I actually thought that they simply forgot to include Romania as a formable nation during a Wallachia run because I couldn't find the tab for formable nations, and I was convinced it was a decision that should appear if you fulfill the conditions. It's so hard to find anything in this mess of a UI.
Diplomatic plays are glorified war declarations at this point. Why the hell are they strictly binary? Why can't I offer a "peace deal" inside the diplomatic play which gives away something for getting something? I can't start a diplomatic play for Eritrea as Ethiopia against Egypt if Egypt is friendly towards me, which makes sense in the current system, but why can't I offer a trade? Something like give me Eritrea and I become a puppet, or Eritrea for war reparations, something like that. Egypt could then accept or refuse. The diplomatic plays themselves need some way of offering something for both sides, which the 2 main participants need to say yes to. The fact that it requires a winner and loser before the war, but both sides can get stuff in an actual war is such a glaring omission.
I agree with all of these points!
"tooltips inside tooltips inside tooltips"
I don't see this as a problem. It's not forced on your gameplay experience and it's a smart way to reference detailed information in case one would need so. Never have I felt it being cumbersome.
war should be like hoi4
All pdx games after stellaris stink that charactetistic "mainstream smell"
Yep, just cranked out simplistic garbage using the same lazy toolset for every game. It all feels the same. I hate to say it but I think Hoi4 was their last good game. We'll see if DLC gets Vic 3 into proper shape but I am not hopeful.
Going from ck2 to ck3 was easy
I still haven't managed to get into vic3. I get a fucking migraine from all the clutter and bullshit going on on the screen, and I have zero ideas on what my opening moves should be.
So I quit and start another run of vic2 to try something new, because the few minor clunky things are kind of endearing compared to the vomit on my screen titled vic3
It just feels like mobile garbage, I can't even relax from all of the popups
Is there any chance you could upload your mod to a direct link as well?
I missed the part when capitalists and aristocrats took care of most of the production I wish that there is an update for Victoria 3 to add that feature again otherwise I would go back to Victoria ii
We will never see that feature in this game because the AI isn't capable of abstract thought.
HOI style combat would not accurately represent Victorian warfare. Concentrated armies fighting set battles were standard until WWI.
I know, I’m just saying HOI4 style, not exactly like HOI4. I just want a bit more tactics and information involved
How so? Wasnt franco-prussian quite "mobile" for the time?
Victoria 2 is a perfect game.
I think you give V2 way too much credit on the economy front. V2 had next to zero economic gameplay.
Perhaps I did, but my point was more about the concept of the economic systems working quite differently.
Mapmodes, I agree . In the game with most stats dependency in your core gameloop it is baffling that this is the game paradox chooses hide things. Most likely to not scare off newbies , however instead of scared of they will be clueless and frustrated. Not only mapmodes, bring back the ledger! Luckily mods are bringing the ledger functionality back somewhat.
Warfare, yes more like HOI4 was needed. Not micro hell but not this very obscured warfare either. It seems like it was the very last thing they did, and it was too late to redevelop before release. They will take feedback and redesign this I'm sure, don't bring back vicky 2 though.
Economy, sorry hard disagree. Laissez faire was terribly boring. It was only a necessary evil for big countries because the micro would overwhelm you otherwise. I think the prevention of subsides and investment bonuses is a good compromise that doesn't take away the games biggest plus, building, while still differentiating between the different economic models.
The sphere of influence minigame, was awful imo. It was too simplistic and gamey. I think the new one much better captures all kinds of relationships that are described under a sphere. Diplomatic plays has other problems, mostly regarding AI, but sphere of influences already exist.
Victoria 3 is too complicated and user unfriendly, for me the right combination would be HOI4 with a well made economic and trade system like Victoria 2 had.
i have to ask why my market screen excludes good i dont have
simply not having them shouldnt mean that they have no price or thag i cant see their potential or where theyre produced
Very good point, I totally agree
Vic 3 is the Velma of video games. New devs hate the original game, but need to use the IP according to management, so they just shovel it full of their own hot air and claim it's not meant for you, the Victoria 2 fan who literally demanded Vic 3 and drove the hype train, as if a sequel should be a completely different game for a completely different audience. It's just baffling. They hear that people who don't agree with them politically have valid criticisms about the game and their brains just shut off
Everything.
I never played victoria 2. it seemed way too daunting to me. after having spent 10+hrs in Victoria 3 though... im gonna have to give vic 2 a shot. it seems like every single economic system was done better in 2 and the only bad thing about vic 2 was the war micro. not gonna refund vic 3, ill wait for improvements, but vic 2 just seems like the better game at this point. gonna be pissed when they put all the basic features back in 3 through paid dlc.
I played Victoria 2 for 1200 hours and Victoria 3 for 36 hours. I think Victoria 3's economy is actually better, I love the new game, for me it just lacks flavour like events
@@CorvusLeukos All new paradox game lack flavour at start
@@NB-yu4lj the fact that it actually feels like a goddam economy? Wow daddy government has to do everything soo good, honestly Vicky 3 economy is just stupid, even more stupid than Vic 2 capitalists.
@@CorvusLeukos This. The only people who think the economy worked better in Victoria2 are those who never played the game for more than two hours.
@@dasm9657 I've played 1.2K hours of vicky 2 and 21 in Vicky 3. Vicky 3 is just building shit based on what is the most valuable + what the market is lacking so you can get more money to build more construction buildings so you can build stuff faster to get more money and the cycle continues. THERES NO thought put into it. I got to number 1 GDP as Australia by doing this. Victoria 3 is incredibly boring. I can tell you've never actually played Vicky 2
A great video, keep it up friend
Thank you so much, mate :)
@@AndysTake I know you are a good UA-camr because you go through the comments liking them or replying to them, just like me that makes people's day. I can't wait for the next video
No mode to make vic3 like Vic 2?
wait two years it will be a good game after some couple hundred dollar dlc
hoi4 war system wouldent work for a game mostly in the 1800's
Subscribed! Algorithm worked in your favor!
Why thank you, Brandon!
Hard disagree on the spheres of influence, absolutely hate that mechanic. Micromanagement of influence and making sure the ai doesn't try and randomly steal away someone in your sphere halfway around the world was annoying
Just like in real life when American influences a lot of far countries, why do you hate that.
@@nguyenhan2145 because it was implemented in a tedious way
I just don’t enjoy it. It’s about as deep as a puddle and the only way it feels improved is the map graphics
Hard disagree, I find it very deep indeed. How much time do you have in it?
Just a single question for Vicky 2 "fans" that liked Vic 3, how can you consider yourself a fan, if you dislike every single aspect of the last game? Dislike westernization, dislike the war, dislike the organic economy, dislike pops, dislike navy like bro why do you even play the game.
i don't understand the people who just want victoria 3 to be a reskinned victoria 2. i love victoria 2 with gfm mod but holy shit i'm happy they made a lot of these changes. it was janky as hell
Thats literally what the entire vic2 community originally wanted all these years. Just a victoria 2 with updated graphics and QoL changes to it. And maybe a compromise between complete army automation and micro. That were the sole demands and see how paradox fucked it all up in one swoop
@@pradyumnabanerjee3333 i don't think that's true at all. people were devouring the dev diaries and if that had been true you would've heard people complaining about how they're changing the game but everyone on the forums was very excited. if they had rereleased victoria 2 with updated graphics and UI many people would be pretty upset. you're supposed to advance a game like this with its sequels and i think they've done that. you should just play victoria 2 with gfm mod if that's all you want.
@@riotdrone People were devouring the dev diaries, yes, but not Vic 2 or long time Pdx players. It's a bunch of people who just found out about the game or company through recent marketing and are presenting themselves on social media. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a new fan, but it's extremely grating to have people gaslight you all the time about "what people wanted," as if this hypothetical potential group being loosely represented by very new fans mostly from marketed content on youtube or reddit should have a bigger influence on a sequel to actual fans of the series.
@@utewbd dude the people on the paradox forums are the most dedicated grand strategy players. nobody sees an ad on youtube and then makes a forum account and posts about it constantly. these are people who have been playing paradox games for years. my brother in law who plays almost exclusively paradox games loves it. the victoria 2 youtubers/streamers with the most skill at the game are generally loving it. i've been playing paradox games for over a decade and i literally stay up until sunrise playing it.
you know how weird it would be if all these years they were just making a reskinned victoria 2? the majority of the hardcore victoria 2 fans are ecstatic to get an updated take on the game. and as far as paradox launches go it's great. way more depth than ck3 had on launch.
@@riotdrone Nobody wanted a literal reskin though. They wanted less tedious, repetitive mechanics and for the core gameplay to just be improved, and for nice quality of life changes. Nobody asked to completely neuter the warfare and make economics very granular and rote.
Quit trying to gaslight me about what people wanted or want. You can't advertise a game as a sequel then pretend it's odd people wanted an improved version of the previous title in the series. That's what sequels are you doof.
The fact that some vocal defenders of Victoria 3 exists doesn't mean there's an overwhelming positive opinion. Outside of reddit there is minimal positivity and a pretty big consensus that Paradox did their classic "release it hollow so it has room to sell DLC" design and clowns like you are trying to act like none of the criticism is justified.
The warfare system is buggy and awful and way too opaque. It needs some level of player engagement and a little more complexity to be any good. I have no problems with them having an autopilot option like there exists now but having NO system in place for the player themselves to conduct warfare in a Victorian era strategy game? That's absurd and you know it.
The economic system has a lot of superficial complexity and is plagued by the sort of tedium and micro that Paradox claimed they wanted gone as their excuse for the warfare system.
I've played about 30 hours and there's a lot of potential there but undoubtedly the game is shallow and in a poor state at the moment. Is it good fun for a few play throughs? Sure. Is it a solid, fleshed out grand strategy game that can retain replayability and fun for hundreds or thousands of hours like older Paradox games? No.
Could it be good with proper DLC? Yes. Which is why people are giving specific criticisms about what sucks, because of the classic Paradox model of intentionally releasing things in a such a state that people will be begging for DLC and updates.
So get lost with your gaslighting and baseless assumptions and insults and shilling.
Make the armies and combat more like Vicky 2 please.
The best change in vic3 is the ability to tab in and out in a reasonable time where in vic 2 it rather takes 30 seconds or crashes which is quite bad In a multiplayer setting where you are probably using discord
i like vic 3, but i have MORE fun playing vic 2
TL;DR Everything
Im back to V2 for life...V3 is just a pretty mess for market oriented ppl....just an android game
If they had wanted to make VICTORIA THREE, they would have done all of this. They just wanted to make a game that would appeal to people who don't like Vic 2 and HoI 4. That's why every defense of Vic 3 is just someone complaining about the basic game mechanics or fundamental economic principles in Vic 2 as if they were objectively bad and unplayable, (and not obviously fixable and largely playable with mods,) and then gushing over cringey 3d models and more flavour for socialism. (hmm wonder why?)
I don't mind the new combat however could've been better HOI4 style.
It would be better to see economy with Capitalists actually do things unlike what it is now.
Yeah I hope we’ll see a revamp of both warfare and economic systems in the future!
i just pretend victoria 2 keeps coming out and i just keep playing that...i play more of hearts of iron 2 darkest hour trp mod and vic 2 and ck2 lol...the new games just suck
Unfair comparision. Vic3 does not have expansion packs yet while vic2's many features came in DLCs.
Warfare in vic2 is fun in the early game as long as you're in europe. Late game microing gets ridiculously tedious especially if you're playing as Japan, Russia, US, China etc. since AI can invade random places deep in your country. EU4's fort zone of control system made large scale wars manageable and predictable.
Not when the ai cheats and just walks passed the forts
DLC DLC DLC bois..
War
You guys are normies. Of course we miss the ones we've used to play. Just like how we miss Windows 7 when Windows 8-10 is introduced.
well the windows has the same problems with vic3, too much ui change and clutter
Victoria 2 did war better
EVERYTHING lol
Vic 2 is the same ui as ck2
Unpopular opinion, I absolutely hated VIC2 war system. Chasing around units, baiting AI into battles, endless clicking, killing rebels.. it was the least fun part of the game
Agreed! I just liked the visual representation of armies, but the battle systems itself… not fun nor epic
Tbh every paradox game should be combined into one game from ancient Rome to ww2 or even ww3 if you have mods , I'm sick of over monetization and paradox is worse than ea for it