How did such an anticipated game do so poorly? Victoria 3

[@Lawlietho]

It's simple, this game is not a sequel of Victoria 2, that is Victoria 3. It's some other game the people at Paradox named Victoria 3.

[@gizzy5788]

You know those REALLY long game analyses videos? That would be something I would actually like to see you do. You have the perfect voice for it and you always have pretty unique takes on games. Don't even care what game.

[@goldenmairon2371]

@@gizzy5788 Yeah that'd be great though it would feel kinda bad if he made like a 6 hour long video and it didn't get picked up by the algorithm

[@FeZe1997]

how tf they sold 1 million copies and the all time is 68k

[@presidentialsystemenjoyer]

well, as a instance. I bought it more than year ago, i am well aware that paradox gonna build and fix this game gradually. I checked game sometimes but it seemed too complicated for me to understand it so i procrastinate my playthrough. There must be soo much people like me

[@OnlyKarlos]

Paradox played a big gamble by releasing a strategy game with a very lackluster warfare system, it didn't pay off. Players were skeptical when it was announced, on release date they got to experience it and many dropped the game after that. Not that easy to convince them to come back. It's as simple as put your armies on the frontline, bigger and better army wins. Sometimes bigger is enough to win, sometimes better is enough to win. What does that mean? It means that if you're a small nation behind on tech, you're screwed. Your gameplay as a small non-european nation will consist of you trying your best to not be small and behind on tech for that long, and hope the great powers won't conquer you on a whim. If they want to, they will, because they're bigger and better and that's it, game over. It might be more realistic to the time period but it's not fun. It's not fun to lose because your enemy starts 100 techs and 30 million dollars ahead of you. And even if you do start as a european great power, now what? Just be even more greater and more powerful than you already are? Bully the small, weak and behind on tech nations until you've had enough? With the AI being as smart as a fly trying to get out through a window, you can surpass the AI in a few decades, but you still have like 8-9 decades of gameplay where you're stronger than everyone else. Where's the fun in that?

[@lensketw4718]

you have seriously misunderstood what victoria is about.

[@matthew5226]

​@lensketw4718 You say this but my limited time with Victoria convinced me that the game didn't know what it was about either.

[@lensketw4718]

@@matthew5226 That's why i said victoria and not victoria 3. I don't like vic3 either but not because I can't fight GB as a minor.

[@matthew5226]

@lensketw4718 I didnt say vic3 either... Would you perhaps prefer arguing with a wall? I could cut out a picture of my face and tape it to the wall for you if it helps

[@OnlyKarlos]

@@lensketw4718 Victoria is about tending a garden with no plants because Paradox didn't release the DLC where those resources are added to those states yet. It's about aiming for the same political goals in every country ever because it's just better to have high literacy and multiculturalism than not. It's about hoping the next update will finally make the game fun but it's just temporary solutions on top of temporary solutions. I refunded the game because Vic2 is still more fun and engaging than "wait until constructions are finished" simulator.

[@borginburkes1819]

They intentionally released the game in a state so that they can sell 500 DLC packs. The AI doesn’t pose any sort of challenge, so most of the gameplay is spent sitting at 5 speed staring at the map.

[@jeffersonclippership2588]

Idk about intentionally. The fact is if they waited to release the game in a more "complete" state, the whole thing would take years longer to develop. That's years of money they'd lose out on otherwise, and yeah, the DLC model is more profitable, too. Welcome to capitalism.

[@bargiona]

The free updates are what changed the game the most. DLC are currently cheesy content. The game was in an unacceptable state at release, but has improved a lot and I would recommend interested players should give another chance to V3 by now, even without DLC.

[@borginburkes1819]

@@jeffersonclippership2588 oh so capitalism is the reason why games suck nowadays? Thanks for the info.

[@Sanvone]

DLC mess is partially thanks to collective wisdom of PDX community (players), who complained about DLC locked mechanics or needing several DLC to have full features of mechanics. Thanks to it now we have big mechanics in FreeLC and fluff in paid DLC. Which further bombs sales and contributes to increase in price as most people don't bother buying non-needed DLC. Contrary to previous popular believe people aren't happier as less profits leads to closed circle of not having more funds to keep developing bigger/better DLC's which can't pay for development time. The game is cruising on overall quality and loyality of V3 playerbase. Extra funny is that now those who purchase DLC are complaining about sponsoring the game for people with just base game as they feel exploited. Cause DLC feel not worth the money as most meat is in free updates. Yet those who keep getting those free updates will defend current business model as it is logically in their best interest. Saying "I would buy DLC if it was better" costs nothing in the end ;) P.S If anyone wondered what my personal take is - Stellaris and Custodian Initiative. Their older worse DLC (Plantoids) got updates years after release for free to make it up to standard of newer DLC, which was pro-consumer move on PDX part. So yea Stellaris players are paying premium but at least can expect longterm support for DLC. It isn't always top quality but there is reasonable chance of being fixed later with player feedack.

[@borginburkes1819]

@@jeffersonclippership2588 so capitalism is to blame for why games are bad nowadays? nice to know

[@meninothomass]

This is a game that takes place in the Victorian Era and they couldn't even give the United Kingdom proper unique content/missions/journal entries on release, not to mention the fact that it's not a "Victoria" game since it is entirely different from the masterpiece that is Victoria 2

[@connorvic3]

14:05 its possible to achieve basically anything as any nation if you know what you are doing for example i took karagwe(a tiny nation around the victorian lakes that starts the game with 3 techologies to #1 great power by 1922 of course doing things like this may be harder in victoria 3 but is definetly possible

[@chichoskruch21]

I was a HUGE Victoria 2 fan, it was (and probably still is) my favorite Paradox game, I have thousands of hours in it and have played almost all of the nations, and most mods. I remember being so excited when they announced Vicky 3, so I started watching the development videos and was massively disappointed. I knew back then that the game would not be as good as Vicky 2 (which is by no means perfect). Anyway, I still got the game after it released and it was even worse than I feared, so I never touched it again. Now, after 2 years, it is sad to see that it is still not good. The only criticism of yours that I disagree with is that the time period is boring because no huge conquests happen. That's exactly the point of Victoria - it should be an industrialization, diplomacy and colonization game with only some wars sprinkled in between (except for ww1), reflecting the historical period. For me personally, that can still be incredibly interesting if done properly, like in Vicky 2.

[@Aratto]

i have 500 hours in and i love it, but i know is very niche

[@solaraspect5255]

The start date is not the most interesting, but not an excuse for the game to be so boring. All of the wars you wrote down, and much much more content of all kinds (so much detail) are included in Victoria 2 mods like HPM, GFM etc. Unfortunately V2 still suffers from a lot of basic QoL and performance issues, as well as some systems like rebels and diplomacy mini-games being unfixable even by the most talented modders. It is still better than V3 though. Two steps forward, four steps back. I feel no desire to play either game. From what I have read, EU5 will just be better than V3 in almost every aspect, and in the areas where V3 is more complex (parts of the economic game, say), it is a trade I can live with.

[@MundaneThingsBackwards]

Eh, it's perfectly fine. A lot of the minors need the time for a proper build up anyway, ESPECIALLY the uncivs. In Vicky 2, you can have no less fun as the majors engaging in some quick but devasting early wars.

[@McHobotheBobo]

Man when I tried going back to Vic2 after playing Vic3 I found it basically unplayable with only a couple neat features. Vic3 is way better and even if the numbers aren't as big as other PDX titles Vic was always more niche than the others. Vic3 has on average double the peak players of Vic2 on Steam, 10x the Vic2 average.

[@crazyduck156]

You didn't even mention the navy "system" Because why would the NAVY be important during the VICTORIAN era. I cant think of a single reason why the VICTORIAN era, with its colonialism, imperialism and international trade would need a working naval system After all the naval power of Britain was a minor footnote in the victorian era... wait hang on!

[@Shinshinvariety]

I literally forgot this game had navies That’s not even me trying to be funny, it literally didn’t even occur to me to mention it

[@Alopen-xb1rb]

Paradox never gets anything naval remotely correct. After 4 iterations of HOI, I am still waiting on a decent Pacific War.

[@MundaneThingsBackwards]

If the start date itself was a problem, then Victoria 2 wouldn't work as a game. It's not only easy to change history in that game (even if you play mods that represent historical events in far more detail) it's incredibly likely. Want to play backwards, landlocked Serbia? You can break out of your corner in one war and begin colonizing to build up your manpower immediately, eventually becoming a great power capable of forming Yugoslavia and crushing Austria, your biggest threat. I turned Nepal from an uncivilized country with 1% literary to 100% literacy, #1 exporter of planes and radios #3 prestige and #15 secondary power without expanding ONCE. If I tried like I could have in the 60s and 70s that would have been 2 decades before the scramble for Africa leaving me with plenty of opportunity to actually become a contender. You have a lot of potential in that game with (almost) every country to make your own history. The mechanics of 3 on the other hand are bad, unfun and overly restrictive which makes breaking out of your minor country status a chore.

[@cathulionetharn5139]

Farmers did work 12 months a year, it's just that a lot of the non-field work is either daily work (taking care of animals like milking cows), in-house work (maintaining tools, element-proofing walls) or handywork (sewing new clothes) and as a result often goes unmentioned, but yes they tended to do less work in certain times of year, but that's like full-time and crunch, then half-time and full-time. Also a big problem with Victoria 3 is that it felt like a massive downgrade from Victoria 2 (whos playerbase screamed for a seguel of for decades), wars were worse, the economy was worse, the global market was gone, countries all felt the same (unlike Vicky2 which at least has westernization), rebels are somehow just as nonsensical but in a different way somehow, laws are just modifiers not full-on mechanics (see building factories in Vicky 2). Yes Victoria 2 had many problems, one dlc, a broken economy that needs a mod to work properly long term and jacobite rebels that make no sense, but the hope was that Victoria 3 would be Victoria 2 but better, bigger and functional, and all it had was a new coat of paint at the cost of several downgrades.

[@csmth96]

On start date 12:45. The theme of this game is Civilisation as Westernisation (National Gardening as they speak, but in reality that is Westernisation). Uncivilised nations need to struggle into civilised nation, but it is nearly opposite to the interest of nobles and intellectuals. It had to be a struggle. Playing as Uncivilised nation is supposed to be painful because your nobles and intellectuals are your own enemy. Being a multi-race empire is doubly difficult. You need to deal with being uncivilised as well as problem of Austro-Hungarian Empire. It cannot be solved by changing start date. There are a few way to improve this. 1) allow small civilised nation to drag power nations into war. Do not allow power nation to monopolise wars. This is historically possible just like WW1. This make history more contingent and unpredictable. 2) Allow small uncivilised nations to drag power nations into path of Westernisation. Power nations have duty to assist westernisation of small uncivilised nations, or take prestige damage. 3) Allow big uncivilised empire to "trim down", discarding territories with little primary/accepted culture, and become more civilised and industrialised. This is the dream of Kemal Atatürk. This is the idea of National Gardening without "Map Painting". Qing and Ottoman should blow up, but possibly in a good way. All in all, give players a reason to be small nation or uncivilised nation, despite there is some ahistoric elements.

[@charliebarton]

I notice that you never mention the Monroe Doctrine which was a policy in 1836 between the British and the Americans. The idea that Russia or any other state can invade a country in the Western Hemisphere and not get pounced on by the American and British navies is absurd. And... it seems to me that worst problem is that the game consists of clicking buttons. Oh, I need more trains, so I need more motor factories, so I need more steel, so I need more iron and coal. Click click click click. Pure excitement. I think you should have compared Vic3 to Vic2 in this. Vic2 was brilliant, so how did the completely muck this up?

[@margustoo]

I was hoping that we get a sequal to Victoria 2 and instead we got an Anno 1800 rip-off made for a mobile phone. Peace time gameplay is horrible. UI is horrible. War is horrible. It's just braindead factory builder. This game needed devs who understood why Victory 2 was so enjoable for many players even decades after it's release.

[@MarkVrem]

This game was awful. It's not really a sandbox but like a suffocating shoe box. Thank god I tried it out before giving them money for this one. Still got hope for EU5.

[@meninothomass]

EU5 is made by a different team, so I have high hopes for it even though i'm not an EU fan

[@Njordin2010]

Vic3 is a good game... now.

[@johnnymonsterrrr]

Next 40 minutes sorted

[@aaronhpa]

Like, bro, we are all waiting on 1.8, i'm going to get my good 50 hours the week it drops.

[@matthew5226]

At this rate it looks like you are all waiting for Paradox to give up on supporting the game entirely lol Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but Paradox never seems to take away the right lesson from these things and keeps releasing unfinished games

[@Shinshinvariety]

Have fun

[@endrien22]

hey man im really liking your long form paradox content, another comment said it but you fr have a great voice for vids like this. Loved this vid and loved your eu5 vids

[@Shinshinvariety]

Hey, thanks!

[@arvidgreat]

I can say a few things but it has been the common thread in the last 3 releses. CK3, Imperator, vic 3 was all relesed without any content, just bones. so that they could sell features for ridicolous prices. ck3 is still lightyears behind ck2 in content and mechanics. Best way to explain Paradox games is a nothing burger that cost 500+ dollars over 10 year before its playble and good!

[@goldenmairon2371]

2:09 Yeah, you gotta get lucky or be more main stream-kind-of entertaining for stuff like this to get watched a lot. I appreciate that you do videos like this though having someone analyse a game while I do something gives me food for thought.

[@thewolfpack5290]

Found you today and you do amazing content! Really enjoy it, well through with an explanation of why you think x or y way. Just great! One minor thing: France did declare on Prussia and not the other way around. "France mobilized its army on 15 July 1870, leading the North German Confederation to respond with its own mobilization later that day. On 16 July 1870, the French parliament voted to declare war on Prussia; France invaded German territory on 2 August." This leads to the next point: Wars in VIC3 are just not great as you have to declare everything that is at play in the start and the actual fronts etc have no impact at all. You could be standing in Berlin as France after millions of dead and only get some minor stuff, allies get even less and can be bribed with poisoned cakes (war goal-wise).

[@thewolfpack5290]

Another problem is the total lack of diplomacy and consequences. Even small nations could be extremely interesting, with a good diplomatic framework in place, which is at this point nonexistent. And the worst of the worst: the AI can't even puppet the game, much less play it. They completely ignore stuff like "general strike" or various nation mechanics on top of mismanaging tons of other stuff. One could see that as "simulation" too, as nations irl do not behave rationally or perfectly (game theory wise), sadly it doesn't simulate that too.

[@badfrad1754]

The devs need to see this video and rework the whole game. I can confidently say that Victoria 3 has no vision. It was just made to be made. You know what I mean? The dlcs are nonsensical. They really need to hit hard with the dlc ww1/war dlc that adds some sort of Great War system like in Vic 2 that makes ur games actually lead to something. All the dlc we got was a mediocre and overpriced rework of diplomacy that still didn’t fix the fundamental issue. The politics in the game are also awful. No movements are pushes pops don’t have agency. History was made by the everyday people who support the movements but we barely get to see that in game. One of the major theme of the Victorian era was the old aristocraticy vs the rising capitalist class. Do we see this conflict at all in game not really besides maybe American civil war. The reason nothing happens in this game is because the devs have no vision. The game isn’t historical (not many prescripted irl wars/events) and game isn’t developed enough to have wacky non historical mode like in hoi4. This game has no vision and it’s why it will suck forever even with more development time

[@siber2830]

We need more kenshi videos/livestreams. You are the best kenshi player existing. 🎉🎉🎉

[@csmth96]

I brought Vic3. I can't play it for more than 5 hours. I had to return to Vic2, and possibly waiting for OpenVic2. (Despite my fav game is still CK2 and seasonally ETS2) Grad that some people publicly say it is a weak game.

[@Gamerzb]

I have 500 hours in Victoria 3, and I agree with everything said. However, my friend and I play the game together, and we actually enjoy having fewer things to do. We have a great time chatting and destroying the AI.

[@Shinshinvariety]

So long as you have fun don’t let anyone take that away

[@Tsintch7568]

Rome Imperator died for Victoria 😢 Btw, I m surprised they did not introduce light versions of hoi 4 systems with stockpiles and front management. Instead they decided to get rid of micromanagement and only made it worse.

[@MarkVrem]

Rome Imperator had promise. Still got it. Gave it a go a few months ago. It is better at current unfinished state than both Crusader Kings 3 and Victoria 3 lol

[@andrzejnadgirl2029]

Frankly not having full control over the army is fine take - especially for the era where some 30 years before start date rogue official conquered whole of India against wishes of the London government. I can understand the idea and that they wanted for Vic3 be different from other games instead of being same stuff but in different historical period. But making economy building being majority of actions player do instead of focusing on some in depth diplomacy is just travesty. Paradox games are overall quite peculiar but whole economy building gameplay loop is just exhausting and simply boring, extremely repetitive with basically no variation... The worst part is that diplomacy aspect is weaker than in any ither PRX game too instead of being actually deeper. And spice it up with wars being simply bugged so long after the release with armies being teleported because reasons and it's completely out of player control as well. The whole standsrd of living hyper focus with most systems playing around it was just mistake to base gameplay around in such grand scale strategy. I don't know, for me while game seems just as some mismanaged project, someone had idea, pushed for it, then seen that results weren't really that grest and it was too late to do much about so here we are. Vicky 3 really shouldn't be economical builder first and foremost, this aspect shouldn't be as involved as it is.

[@Xazamas]

One of the early videos/streams after a release had a Japan player try to conquer Borneo/Brunei. Netherlands intervened at the diplomatic play that you need to do in order to justify a war. This makes some sense: in 1836 Netherlands owns most of what is modern-day Indonesia and would prefer to not have an upstart nation like Japan not to encroach on their colonial region. However if the logistics of moving their army halfway across the globe was modeled, the Netherlands AI could figure out that it's not worth it (depending on how strong the Japan is) or be defeated by otherwise inferior Japan because by the time their main army arrives from Europe, all the wargoals have been captured and Japanese have dug in. To my understanding, you can effectively just have the entire Netherlands army teleport into Indonesia if Japan were to declare a war. Not sure if this changed recently or is planned to be changed.

[@Jules_Diplopia]

Interesting to hear from someone who likes these kind of games. Personally, whilst always attracted to the politics etc, I never buy such games as they are either totally unrealistic, and/or the economics are so totally ridiculous. Finding a game that could offer realistic economic options where you could test out various stategies, other than standard capitalism, would be great.

[@MattFerr100]

You know what's funny? Half of the "balancing" issues ypu mentioned could be fixed by rewinding the game start clock by 50 years and have the game start in 1783 after the American indipendence at which point almost every society on the planet(beside England) was still agrarian based, just need to set the gameplay speed around that and the game wpuld be 100 times better

[@alltheclovers532]

Being set over a time period of little war wouldn't have mattered if they did make peacetime more fun. It was an interesting idea to have war be the undesirable event, where you might want to back down in a diplomatic play to avoid it.

[@Owlr4ider]

Victoria 2 did just fine in the same setting. War isn't everything in Paradox games, at least it didn't use to be. But yeah you're right in the sense that Paradox keeps pushing all non war activities further and further to the backside(automating/oversimplifying most of it) and keep on focusing on the warfare. Which is a huge issue for Victoria 3, CK3, HoI4, etc compared to their predecessors. So it's not a time period issue but rather a modern Paradox issue.

[@ChayGrice]

I had never played any PDX game except CK3 for the longest time. I am however now doing a mega campaign to try each game at least once. I've tried Vic3 and have done the tutorial for EU4. I'm currently in the year 316AD in Imperator:Rome (Invictus/ExtTime/CrisisOfThird) and am restricting myself to only Africa, as each game adds a little bit more available land on the continent. Imperator is amazing, the "macro builder" is so useful, the automatic option for armies is brilliant. The decisions and Missions are interesting. The Technology Tree is pretty nice. I dread moving on to CK3 as I have to say goodbye to all these amazing systems the game has. CK3 is a cash cow that is dying. Every "DLC" they have added should have been part of the base game. The only good thing in CK3 is the custom Religion/Cultures. Everything else feels like a children's cartoon compared to every other PDX game. EU4 needs a UI update. The font is basically unreadable. Vic3 needs to be optimised better. Being a "good" Multicultural/Accepting country creates a massive amount of mid/end game lag due to all the culture/religion pops being simulated poorly. So the best way to play for me is to be the "bad" guy and be an ethnostate with closed borders. Playing "bad" Japan took me less than half the time it took me to play "good" America because Japan had one culture and one religion, that means a single pop needs to be calculated. Compared to America that had about 40 cultures and 10 religions, so about 400 different pops to calculate, really really lagging the game. Add on every point you made and it is just lacking in quality. I ain't tried HoI4 yet.

[@geoDB.]

Have you heard of nimrods?

[@oceaniaimperia1985]

As a member of the Vic 2 old guard I remember vividly when the announcement happened when everyone was excited about the release Vic 3 when most people for the Vic 2 community were optimistic and were excited for the release of this brand new installment, I however was nothing short of pessimistic since I already foresaw the game was going to be shitty due to paradoxes track record completely dropping since the eu4 Leviathan DLC so I knew what I was expecting wasn't worth any sort of time. Fast forward to the announcements for the military system and it completely shattered everyone's expectations since Vic 2 players of the mp kind are very much war gamers that enjoy a strong hard economy to come with their military, so when you take out the main component of the action for a game then what are you exactly left with? Again let us move on to the infamous leak (which I got the opportunity of watching others interact with) since that when it occured it cemented a strong anti paradox mentality that even before it's release (which by the way the game basically has no changes between the leak and launch from observations) it already had a strong resistance against it. The issues that plague it however could be less from paradox themselves and more on their fanbase as they were the ones that kept essentially green lighting this game and shitting on everyone against paradoxes direction but yet these same people turned on paradox on the drop of a hat when they realised the game wasn't fun, it's the community that enabled paradoxes direction and actions which instead of boycotting or taking your part in outrage or resistance you continue to buy their products by the load which to CEO's tells them that whatever they are doing is working, so with the current failures from paradox it is hopefully resulting in a healthy reshuffling of their priorities which in turn should hopefully benefit the consumer. Personally I just recommend anno 1800 since it does pretty much the same thing but way better

[@vt_leviathan]

why keep playing eu 4 when you can wait for eu 5 :D played dai nam, had a revolution cause of a law and then dutch east indies joins the revolutionaries :/ peak gameplay

[@thefernofrommarsgaming4204]

The bulk of the anticipation was from the victoria 2 community, and by the time it was revealed that victoria 3 would be a dumbed-down hoi4 a lot of the hype went away.

[@patrickle2500]

Good vid. Thank you kind sir!

[@Tim_Sviridov]

Regarding the game start, it's so painfully close to the Napoleonic wars. Why not start just fifty years earlier?

[@ComedyJakob]

I think the game would have been better received if it was marketed as a new economic Sim called Age of Industry or something instead of being such a fundamental change of an established IP with expectations from the existing audience.

[@McHobotheBobo]

I think it is overblown, Vic was always one of the most niche of the PDX titles, and it has 10x the average players of its predecessor. It has some issues, has already come a long way, and will continue to get better and better

[@tropicalthunder72]

I think focusing entirely on the economic system was the wrong decision on their part. I think politics, political conflict and political changes are the most interesting aspects of the time period. Making a deep political simulation with good warfare and diplomacy systems supported by a simplified economic system would have made a much more eventful and fun game. Instead, they did the opposite...

[@Tortuga629]

Because, like every other game dev, Paradox is simplifying their game(s) to appeal to a broader audience in hopes of making more money. Reviews don't matter, player retention doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is sales. Soon enough strategy games are going to be easier than opening a world map in paint and using the paint bucket tool.

[@m8956]

I wonder if this game was assumed to be played as primarily for multiplayer, where ahistorical events are more likely to occur and diplomatic moves are done between players.

[@redryan20000]

It didn't do poorly at all. Game's never been better, people are loving it.

[@Njordin2010]

I'm one of the guys who likes the war system a lot. I don't like moving armies myself that much except in ck and hoi. Of course it should at least work. I like vic3 more than 2 now but 3 is missing a lot of content in form.of events / history / journal entries and such. Playing UK should feel different than playing france. Install mods guys! (Btw played since EU2)

[@Owlr4ider]

To be fair, Victoria 3 wasn't nearly as anticipated as it seems as a lot of Victoria 2 fans actually dreaded a Victoria 3 considering the new Paradox regime. Basically most of the old guard from the old Paradox are gone and everyone knew Victoria 3 would go the HoI4 route of oversimplifying its predecessor and dumbing it down. Than you add the new politically correct culture, in an era all about slavery, colonization and other such, lets call them sensitive, topics, and we knew there were going to be issues... Many Victoria 2 players never bothered with Victoria 3 because we knew it was going to be a disaster, especially on launch. They just knew the new Paradox won't do Victoria 2 justice. It's a similar case for CK3 vs CK2 only CK2 was already during the endless DLC era(but the first game of that era if I remember correctly), but in CK3's case it wasn't as drastic. Still unlike say EU3 who barely has any player base left, both Victoria 2 and CK2, as well as HoI3 for that matter, still have very active player bases that refuse to move onto their sequels because the sequels changed too many things from these games, and typically for the worst. I disagree with your analysis regarding the start date and Victoria 3's issues, for the simple reason that Victoria 2 was very successful and did very well in the exact same setting. The Victorian era was actually incredibly dynamic, it's just that the changes were mostly internal rather than external. So rather than wars and border shifts the changes were economic, social and political instead. The problem is that modern Paradox keeps dumbing down all non war related mechanics, which is what the Victorian era was all about, so Victoria 3 ends up being so boring. Victoria 2 had a lot to do other than wars, Victoria 3 doesn't. Similarly the start date itself isn't random at all. It's the date(well year) of the coronation of Queen Victoria, thus beginning the Victorian era. Likewise when you say 'nothing happened during that era' you mean no major wars were fought. However a lot of things did happen, though these things were internal within each of the major players of the time. Be it alliances forming and breaking(for example the short lived British-German alliance), economic changes(for example Spain's near economic collapse, as in nearly went bankrupt) and of course political changes(rise of Communism and Fascism being the most obvious but far from the only changes).

[@Shinshinvariety]

My counter to this is simple: Victoria 2 was FAR less historical than we all pretended it was. It allowed you to do MASSIVELY ahistorical moves. The start date worked easily for that. The new start date makes the major countries giga-majors, and makes all secondaries a blip on the radar. This is seen form Belgium being able to beat France, or Serbia being able to quickly defeat the Ottoman Empire in Victoria 2. In Victoria 3 that's not possible You can say "well the war system" but the war system is just a further example of the game being made MORE historical, which makes this start date suck.

[@Owlr4ider]

@@Shinshinvariety No Paradox title is historical, Paradox titles are map painters first and foremost, nothing historical about that... The Victoria series is the least map painter of all the others but you can still do a world conquest in un-modded Victoria 2. It's tedious as all hell but it's doable. So I don't think Victoria 3's issue is it being more historical but rather it reducing everything you can do during peace time as well as automating wars, so what's actually left to do...? In Victoria 2 there is a lot more to do during peace time and of course war itself isn't automated, you actually build stacks and move them like in any other Paradox title. I mean sure, the start date doesn't help from a pure war perspective, but the Victoria series in particular has never been about that, unlike the other Paradox franchises. One can argue CK2/3 isn't really about war either, and in some campaigns it truly isn't, but warfare does play a major part in CK2/3 even if you're not trying to paint the map. The problem is that Victoria 3 forgot what the Victoria franchise was about, well the old dev teams all left Paradox so forgot is the wrong word, so they decided to turn Victoria 3 into a wannabe EU/HoI which it simply wasn't ever meant to be.

[@alooooooki]

I wish there was a speed 6

[@calebr3067]

You keep saying nothing happened in the 19th century while listing a ton of things that did happen. You dismiss germany and Italy forming as if that wasn’t world changing events for the next century. The start date is perfectly fine, it’s the execution that needs work. War of confederation, the great game, opium wars, 1848 Revolution, Indian Rebellion, Boshin war, Crimean war, brothers war, Italian unification, German unification, Paraguayan war, scramble for Africa, Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese war, Boxer rebellion, French intervention in Mexico, American Civil War, Balkan Wars, the innumerable colonial wars. All of this in the 19th century, seems pretty stacked to me. And that isn’t even mentioning the mother of all happenings the Great War, in the endgame. Now does Victoria 3 model any of the above in a satisfactory way? No it does not. But that doesn’t mean it has to be that way. Victoria 2, has its problems, but at the very least it was interesting. Go look at the innumerable Victoria 2 AARs and the one thing you’ll see is how drastic the world can look In various different versions of 1936. Particularly after a catastrophic Great War. That’s Victoria 3’s biggest problem it’s commitment to materialist history, limits it’s ability to imagine alternative divergences. The game doesnt provide enough tools for the player to change the world.

[@Njordin2010]

This. There is enough content in real history.

[@Anomander44]

36:20 - hard disagree. I feel like SA is the only region that is remotely fun to play until the Great Powers guarantee every nation around you.

[@bobdickens3674]

why don't you play hoi4 hash?

[@prospect2664]

horrible combat is the main reason, it should have been a mix of HOI4 and EU4 rather than super simplified hoi4

[@markfranz7313]

Warfare is not focus... in the game that had some of most world-defining wars, including WWI. This is most stupid decision imaginable.

[@Sanvone]

I really enjoyed your content even though I do not agree with it to some extent. The game isn't as good as people expected. It was discovered before release and probably big chunk of playerbase didn't bothered. It is different game than Vic2 - the first was more centered about guiding and influencing your nation more indirectly while the Vic3 is allowing you this by direct construction input. Release was a mess - even weeks before launch some big things in early game were visibly bugged out on PDX stream. In your take about wars in time period you skipped most important time marks for Vic2 and history: American Civil War, Opium War/Boxer Rebelions (China), World War I. There was also - Scramble for Africa, modernizaton of Japan, slow detoriation of Austria-Hungary/Ottoman Empire/Spain. Birth of Socialism/Communism/Fascism. There is more to gameplay loop that you describe. Beside building&law reforms, you are also: - managing Production Methods (slowly changing them to not crash your economy at once), - balancing the budget with tax levels and consumption taxes, - avoiding bankrupcy as non-major (by stopping construction/deleting construction/stopping subsidies), - micromanaging Edicts (Road Maintenance/Quell the Unrest for faster construction, Enlistment Effort before wars for more mobilized batalions, Migration edict juggle to keep getting Massive Migrations on as many regions as possible), - micromanaging construction queue (important to time finishing contruction of several buildings at once without huge construction sector many small countries have), - micromanaging trade routes to keep resource balance in check/profits high (including checking other market prices), - keepiing on top of Diplomacy (looking for opportunities to get something for backing others), - collecting generals with desirable ideology, keep banishing characters in order to get desired agitators, grant them promotion to affect IG clout, - trying to time journal entry completion bonuses, - keep changing technologies to make the most of technology spread, - making decisions in events mostly affectng your country modifiers or IG clout/happiness, There is more but some of things I didn't mention are related to newer patches/dlc. But what I listed is still plenty to do in peace time. Was kind of obvious once you mentioned that you play on speed 5 that you either don't know what player assignemt is or don't want to do it. It's basically golden rule for any PDX title - you play on speed 5 and complain that game is boring? You are most likely not playing with most game systems. For record it is completely fine not wanting to do something. But you can't claim there is nothing to do in game. There is also not tiny amount of time spent on actually strategizing and adapting to changing situation. Until we get CPU in our brains it still will take a bigger chunk of time if we want to make optimal decisions. You lost me about War. Like you started well and just derailed into weird logical fallacy. First you complained about lack of micro which is valid argument. Then you complained about front system being not good and the need to micromanage it. So you want/don't want to micromanage it? Played Vic2 for 500h and started year before Vic3 so I had my own fresh vanilla memories of micromanaging 500-600 units in World Wars against AI in trench warfare across whole world or against 1.000 hostile chinese units. Swapping damaged units for fresh ones for 20-30minutes while constantly pausing and checking if rest of the front is ok isn't my definition of fun. Manouvering in early game was fun though. Miss it. It was exploitave/cheesy in nature as it depended on just baiting AI to attack you in place with terrain advantage. Something no human opponent will do. But Vic3 system is better for late game. Also more fair for AI opponents as both side suffer from systems retardation. Stockpiles were buggy in Vic2 and beside "trader" gamestyle and maybe incoming famine systems they don't influence much. Trading goods on world market created more issues than benefit - you never was getting enough in return to matter in grand scale of things and it was mostly a way during total world peace time for minor countries to get some reserve of war material/factory construction goods. At worst it forced you to pause the game daily in order to sell all your stockpiles and buy them back again to generate demand for some RGO. Don't believe me? Read Cuba AAR on IMGUR from one of Victoria2 reddit challenge weeks when guy made over 10.000 industrial score as Cuba and described period of time when world demand for Tobacco vanished and he had to keep microing stockpiles for over in-game decade. What I will agree on with is that logistic could use an improvment. Currently lack of war material matters only in fully industrialised late game wars and not in early/mid-game wars (once you are able to upgrade/create military units). England/China sending 300.000 men to fight in Zulu lands before 1850 also makes little sense. Even more for lack of in-game attrition. AI isn't bad because it indebts itself. It is bad because it doesn't indebt itself enough. Thus it can't grow enough and in most games dominant powers cap out around 300-400 milion GDP. According to reddit consensus any playable tag is capable of reaching 1 Bilion GDP in player hands by utilizing modern economic theories of outgrowing your debt. Great Britain or France are capable of reaching 2 Bilion GDP but never reach it in non moded game when AI controlled. So sorry - this is skill issue. The more you learn of game the less you need to start snowballing in any strategy/4x game. Victoria 2 was widely considered one of PDX most complex games, Vic3 remains too. There is seperate issue of civil wars killing nations as both sides delete construction sectors to balance the budget and then indebt itself anyway to win the war. After which they don't have the capabilty to quickly recover. They start losing ranks and thus interest rates increase on their smaller economy thus death spiral begins. AI is also heavily militarised thus making for bigger obstacle in conflicts but being much easier to outgrow economically. I don't know why you say you "can't do generals". Like this is outright wrong and was for quite some time. You do select generals balancing their political impact (IG affiliation and ideology) with war impact (battle modifiers and access to special orders). You set them on one of 2 basic and several non basic orders/stances, keep swapping them between armies depending on circumstances. You also should be micromanaging mobilizations for armies as well as their composition since 1.5 patch. Naval invading behind enemy lines and catching enemy fleets/convoys is also part of war. "Hoping to win battle" sounds like you just didn't learned battle mechanics and I'm not certain at this point, if you know that clicking on those battle icons shows you detailed menu with information regarding tactics used and how well the battle is progressing. You also do get access to information that was only from mods in Vic2 (Vic2 savefile analyzer etc) regarding total war losses and costs. There is no way "This is like 90% of the war system" where micromanaging and helping level up Generals gives you 10-30% bonus to your armies in many technological near-pear wars. AI often will manage to collect relevant commandes with traits that will allow them to resist stronger countries that don't have matching battlefield commanders. Great point on MP being unstable. Don't agree on speed4 mp. Look Bokoen YT MP games - they play on slower speed as they spend most of time on discord doing "euro diplomacy" and trying to convince others to let them win the game. Diplomacy in real time during playthrough. They do play with more people so maybe that was an issue? Still having some experience in strategy co-ops you could still cordinate with other players. Post launch support was initially weak/dissapointing for many. Voice of People beside France flavour added agitator OP mechanics. Have mixed feelings about it as it seems to me as blatant power creep that allows rapid modernization of country via law changes. Sphere of Influence was an ok dlc - it improved Sphere mechanic from Vic2 (goodbye annoying micromanaging of clicking squares to keep changing priority of inluencing countries every single time you added another country or other country started taking over some sphere member) and it also was overall nerf of one of more popular strategies of joining Great Power Market for easier playthrough. There were bugs in both DLC from what I remember so far from cleanest DLC releases. Given their recent roadmap update they won't change war more (as many still naively were waiting for total war system overhaul). But we can expect maybe some more bug fixes (teleporting armies)? Time will tell. Since Sphere of Influence things are looking up as there are more balance changes that community wanted (Multiculturalism nerf through more layered Discrimination system, Fascism buff (both earlier and better) and agriculture sector buff through introduction of famines). We are also on few weeks streak of "Happy Thursdays" when Vic3 dev diary release. Things seem hopeful so let's wait for 1.8 patch which should be huge change wise. I'm curious what they will do with new class system and maybe new India content will weaken GB on top of (hopefully) discrimination finally weakening Austria so Germany forms more reliably. It's weird that Austria by 1900 is often stronger than USA and is up and coming instead of being in crisis while controled by AI. Lack of Germany also hurts cause it is one less Great Power to counter balance Great Britain.

[@dima9171]

Because war is bad. Thanks.

[@AuthenticallyAwful]

Hi Hashinshin.

[@Strix2031]

Idk, the game just doesnt have an engaging gameplay cycle or the RP value. I tried with a mod or two but idk i liked Vic2 more somehow specially with the flavor and total overhaul mods

[@cengiztaner4754]

Idk what you have been smoking but the game is more alive than ever. People expected it to be EU5 but it was just an economics simulator. While the warfare system is just plain bad (and half of its problems stem from the Diplomacy system), who cares when GDP line go up???

[@blueskull6789]

V3 is...boring It may have been interesting if you played as one of the political groups of a country instead of as the country itself Trying to come to power and stay in power

[@doudline2662]

Played like 2 hours, couldn't figure out how to actually start a war. Never played again.

[@Njordin2010]

Well that seems like a you problem.

[@Kuroo39]

it did poorly because its a shit game compared to vic2 and removed features outright, simple as

[@aaronhpa]

Poorly?

[@bargiona]

How many hours do you have in this game? Your descriptions of the ingame loop don't seem to include the political system at all. You don't seem to give any thought to planning your economy and expansion. Diplo is not throwing dice and expecting GP not to interfere, as you can force their hand... You have some fair criticism, but I can't help but think you simply don't play well nor understand the game a lot.

[@connorvic3]

I'm pretty sure he has a lot of hours so Idk how he could have simply not mentioned these things

[@Shinshinvariety]

Because once you get good then all these things are second nature flow charts Sometimes patches change things, like sometimes if you wanna make money you go wine, sometimes it’s wood, but it’s generally just mash as much construction as possible until you can’t afford more then find something to increase your money then back to construction Politics follow a similar flow chart where you generally set up your country in to a certain path every time.

[@Dankbuddha42069]

DRAGON AGE VEILGUARD DROPPED BROTHERS AND SISTERS

[@hugon3895]

Another bullshit take from someone who can't imagine to play tall and want to tell people what is fun. Most your takes are disingenuous to say at least. Victoria 3 is a game for people that want to play tall and focus on economy and diplomacy. You don't like it that ok, not every game has to be fun for everyone. It's paradox only game which focus on playing tall so you can just give it a break and don't screw it into another EU4. Let other people enjoy it.

[@matthew5226]

You: Tall, Gangly, Conventional, Sway dangerously in a stiff breeze Me: Wide, Thicc and Healthy, Daring and Bold, Thrive in chaos, low center of gravity

[@csmth96]

Why must you use word that are so inflaming? He had explained that this game is swallow even when playing civilised nation. You have more 4 tick per day but nothing to do.