I Finally Understand Victoria 3 - The 1000 Hour Review

[@aguyfromflorida4842]

Paradox's biggest fan hates everything they've ever released

[@christianthompson7915]

real

[@Prubbs]

Yea that sums the paradox experience pretty well.

[@SuperExplosivegames]

Imagine, it's like if you really liked eating burgers with bacon but only one company made burgers with bacon so you can only buy from that company. You can love bacon burgers a lot but have a lot of complaints about the bacon burgers you're getting because having no competition means no standards of quality. I could love bacon burgers so much that I myself could believe I can make a much better bacon burger if only I had the cattle ranches that this hypothetical company had. So yeah, I'll continue eating my poor quality bacon burgers(grand strategy games) and yelling about it in hopes that enough complaining might change something. Unless I win the lottery I won't be buying any cattle ranches to make my own bacon burgers so the best can do is put perspectives out there in hopes that someone who does owns a cattle ranch might listen.

[@andreaparolini1755]

​@@SuperExplosivegamesim seriously saving money to invest them in strategy games companies and make some change 😂

[@AlanValdes]

5k hours and I HATE these fucking games

[@connorvic3]

I cant belive you could lie and claim to have 1k hours when we all know you have atleast 1.1k shown in one of your recent videos

[@pelayla]

bro has a PhD in yapology from who asked university

[@keglez4924]

🤡

[@iNecron]

Wrong. Yapanese.

[@bigworm3886]

Gottem!!😂

[@hakonaae9636]

Your brain has rotted to dust

[@blodi2188]

​@@hakonaae9636🤫🤫🤫 It's peak

[@francislafayette7301]

Napoleon was the change, not the reaction to him. Napoleon's soldiers were paid decently, and they were far more driven to fight as Frenchmen than their opponents were to their respective countries. Generally Napoleon created the Victorian Era. Through his conquests of Italy and the establishment of the Kingdom of Italy puppet, he planted the seeds of Italian nationalism that formed later Italy, through the Confederation of the Rhine Napoleon planted the seeds of German nationalism that formed the German identity and nation later in the century; Clausewitz and Von Moltke were less shameless in admitting this, although Bismarck was more reluctant to. Low country and Polish identity were both resparked, and Spanish and Russian identities were revived in their resistance to Napoleon. There's mountains of reading on this, but Napoleon wasn't a "last of" but rather the kindling that sparked the era.

[@Notphenix]

some people are seriously believing that Napoleon was a reactionary? LOL

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Best comment, man 🔥

[@tehduffman]

@@Notphenix He absolutely was a reactionary to The Revolution. Progressive compared to the monarchies sure but still a reactionary in France.

[@lillowlynx7486]

He was a reactionary to a decent number of the French but very progressive compared to the monarchies. At the end of the day it’s all a matter of perspective and context.

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Honestly based, and yeah, this is why I didn't exactly dive into Napoleonic history. I'm sure I got lots wrong with reference to history but you know, the videos' more about how all this is relevant to the decision-making around Victoria 3's design. I had never really thought of Napoleon as being the catalyst for the Victorian era, but yeah he really is in many ways.

[@corentincaspers8229]

It is CRAZY how much you've improved your delivering when it comes to how fast you used to speak. I remember a year or so ago, when I sometimes had a hard time following you, since you brought complex ideas and delivering them way too fast for a non native speaker to digest. Now you sound more charismatic and confident, and I am quite jealous of that, since I struggle today with this issue. I am way too nonchalant and sometimes hard to follow.

[@ryteth6038]

Crusader Kings is about characters, Europa Universalis is about nations, and Victoria 2 was about nationalism. For myself and other fans of Victoria 2, Victoria 3 is disappointing because it continues the title, but does not try to be a sequel. It must be judged on its own merit. Paradox is not going to make another game about nationalism. In V2, you wanted to monopolize your nation's accepted cultures. In V3, you can pass a policy to accept all other Europeans before 1850. In V2, there was limited room for great powers; prestige was a currency worth ravaging Europe to receive, or to deny for someone else. In V3, there's room for more if you just increase your GDP. I felt more like a villain in Victoria 2 than in any other game. Colonization, militarization, industrialization, expansion, and politics all encouraged oppression for the glory of the ever-changing state. The only part of Victoria 3 where that still feels present, is in angering the radicals to get the more progressive laws.

[@Tarkusarkusar]

I think this is absolutely spot on with regards to the upset with Vic 2. Vic 3 is marketed, and presented as a continuation of Vic 2, when its mechanics are very much its own. It's why I brought up the idea of renaming this game to Bismarck I (or maybe Marx I lol) and that way, it could be seen as a different product. The game was so weighed down by its own mechanical issues on release, but that weight was tripled by the expectation that this would be Victoria. I haven't played Vic 2 but I had expectations that felt unfulfilled because of the game's name.

[@MrEnric98]

I see your point but Paradox games are actually based on different perspectives on History. Crusader Kings is about "men that shape history", that is, personalistic and invidualistic. Victoria 3 is about historical materialism, which is economic interests and conflict of classes that shape and advance history. EU4 is more about realpolitik, geographical determinism. Countries are the same even at the pass through centuries, their position on the world is based on where their land stands on.

[@concernedowl614]

It entirely depends on the player though. I played a lot of vic2 and would consider myself a fan. But i was more facinated by political/market mechanics of the game than it's nationalism angle, so for me vic3 was just a straight upgrade in terms of what i enjoyed. I dislike how the internet lumps everyone into the same pot

[@woomod2445]

@@concernedowl614 Same, Victoria 3 is closer to the game i wanted trying to slam my head against viccy2. It may have issues as an economics and society game, but it's much more that than viccy2.

[@charliebarton]

I played Vic 3 a few times and was extremely disappointed. We're covering, as you say, an era of nationalism, and it felt like what I had instead was a vision of everyone coming together to play some bongos. Victoria 2 couldn't cover certain things very well, but the overall system was great. I actually learned a bunch of history from Vic2. I read Thorstein's Theory of the Leisure class because of that game. It was brilliant stuff, and it felt like the people who made it really loved history. Vic3 just made a mockery of history. I have no idea what the developers were thinking. The game play itself was absurd. Make more steel mills, make more iron mines, make more coal mines. Exciting as hell!

[@pawys5792]

Finally someone talking about the historical materialism of vic 3.

[@theorixlux]

Check out Rosencreutz or An_economist_plays

[@fish5671]

lmfao

[@Dr-Jesus]

pfp checks out

[@NaJeSiv]

Love your pfp

[@jonasastrom7422]

If you literally have to remove capitalism from a game about the era of free market capitalism to have your worldview reinforced, it's not much of a worldview in the first place. Marx's predictions didn't come true but you can play pretend that they did in Victoria 3.. so have I guess

[@austinquinn476]

How I role play Vic 3 is to pretend that I (the player) am a cabal of influential bureaucrats, industrialists, & academics who have a goal for their society and carefully manipulate the “leaders” to achieve this goal. I also have some rules that make it much more interesting to play. I state the goal for the run and the parameters for achieving them. For example, Japan modernizing and taking Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. Or playing as France and focusing on internal growth and turning into a communist utopia. I can never have the authority below 50% unless that is the most legitimate gov I can make. I only save scum if the result of an action breaks immersion. For example, why is Prussia getting involved in S. America when they don’t have a navy? I don’t use strats like breaking up India or taking land in S. Africa unless that makes sense with the goals of the cabal. I will also join diplo plays to “Maintain the balance of powers” which was a huge driver of conflict during this time and make the game so much fun. Checking Britain globally as France can be an extremely fun run. This makes the game so much more fun. By framing the game in this way, you can really get immersed in the game play. I just did a run where I played Vietnam, conquered Laos and Cambodia and then formed a SEA military alliance power block to force out the colonizers. It was so much fun. I think the Devs need to make a mission system to create game play like this.

[@wheatyes2104]

I do something similar but for HOI4. Roleplay is great

[@rabidfurify]

​@@wheatyes2104 It's not even really roleplay for me, I just play assuming that there are extra gameplay mechanics which make clearly absurd things impossible. Like, if I'm Greece in 1836 and have a tiny navy and no pop I can't just go and annex Gaza, Transvaal and Oranje because there should be some kind of limit on overseas power projection but there isn't. Or scumming civil wars by only having armies in your capital. Or getting bankrolls from the AI for nothing (though at least in 1.7 this isn't as easy as it used to be) If you only play minor states and ban yourself from conquering overseas territory until you have at least a somewhat reasonable amount of navy and ports the game gets massively harder and more interesting because virtually every colony is already contested by France or GB, the game becomes much more about trying to keep on good terms with the great powers and when you do managed to develop internally enough to eclipse one it feels really good

[@liquidmodernitytasteslikeu2855]

god forbid another mission tree, then all dlcs will be focused on them instead of meaningful features

[@bighillraft]

Evil Paradox fans be like: this game was very intuitive, I feel confident in it after playing the tutorial and doing my first playthrough

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Show me someone that really said this, and I will delete my channel. Bet

[@EpicMiniMeatwad]

If you read the entire dev diary between 1-100+ and play each major version (1.x), that's basically the tutorial, so.. yeah. Tutorial's longer than the game sometimes.

[@GrafSchocola]

It's kinda ironic how "Dialectics" is a tech in game but not implemented in it's political system xD Btw: as someone who has studied political philosophy, I think your Marxist analysis of the game was pretty good ;)

[@emeraude5898]

Welcome to the 1000 hours club on Victoria 3.

[@0th_Law]

Honestly, trade should be _so_ much more prevalent and stronger in V3 than it is. Like, during the civil war, the largest source of income for the US was the port of New York and the tariff revenue generated.

[@wonkyslipshod1925]

Also trade is just too annoying to micromanage

[@WhereTheFunBegins]

Man, I agree with most of what you said, for me it boils down to it being single player being boring. Why on earth is GB getting involved in my Mexican American war? MP (non competitive) is a blast it’s just hard to find people to sit down for a combined 12 hours.

[@JimStorrie-v3s]

historically the uk was meddling in the region and did want to get mexico under their thumb. in 1838, mexico had a mini-war with france called 'the pastry war,' and the uk got involved in that one (on mexico's side.) one reason the uk didn't jump into the mexican-american war historically is because at the time they were doing some border-painting through their puppet miskito kingdom in the hopes of both controlling central america and specifically controlling the yet-to-be-built panama canal. basically what i'm saying is that if things had shaked out a little different politically the uk would definitely have gotted mixed up in the mexican-american war, and it's kind of weirder that they historically didn't than that they fictionally did in your run

[@SpookyScarySkeletor]

thats why people do it in sessions like 4 hours a day over the span of either 3 days or once a week.

[@SkyDogDaddy]

Well, Napoleon III got involved in Mexico over an alleged... bakery.

[@dethmin173]

What Vic 3 advertises on its steam page is what the devs want the game to be. What the game actually is is a marxist interpretation of the world filled with people who act 100% rationally in order to have a better standard of living. The devs realize this and want to change political movements, pops, and (I think) governments in order to have a more dynamic simulation, but change is slow moving. The way I see it, they started with the marxist line of history and want to expand it into a branch where agrarian monarchies, capitalist democracies, and all the branches of socialsim can all be successful at the end game. Paradox is aware of a lot of the criticisms and observations in this video, but changing the game to better represent their advertised simulation is a lot of slow work.

[@JimStorrie-v3s]

disagree a bit that history ends after socialism in this game, so to speak: most of the 'socialist builds' end up giving you very strong petite bourgeoisie, and they're the ones will who press for reaction. if they get powerful, the trade unions will start siding with them by spawning more ethnonationalists/corporatists/etc. i have indeed had late games collapse because the fascists managed to get the workers to join them in a revolt. ironically the best ways to forestall this are to have some slightly less-progressive policies: private or religious schools instead of public schools, because public schools homogenize your populace which drives more into the pbs--and maintaining appointed bureaucrats instead of allowing elected ones, which also powers up the pbs. the petite bourgeoisie are the big villain of the final phase of the game imo, it's just that performance gets so bad that most people bail before they become a problem. you can still get the same experience offline though. just go outside. the pbs are the big villain there too

[@ZahrDalsk]

It's funny how the petit-bourgeoisie (aka, workers who own their own means of production, what the communists claim to want) are the big villain in a communist game, lol.

[@wscheets1600]

@@ZahrDalsk petite-bourgeoisie are not workers who own "their own means of production"... nor do communists want everyone to be a small business owner... also we want "workers to own their full labor value" and all workers to have control over the means of production, not each worker owning their own "means of production", which doesnt exist as thats not the definition of "means of production" "The petite bourgeoisie is economically distinct from the proletariat and the Lumpenproletariat social-class strata who rely entirely on the sale of their labor-power for survival. It is also distinct from the capitalist class haute bourgeoisie ('high' bourgeoisie), defined by owning the means of production and thus deriving most of their wealth from buying the labor-power of the proletariat and Lumpenproletariat to work the means of production. Although members of the petite bourgeoisie can buy the labor of others, they typically work alongside their employees, unlike the haute bourgeoisie. Examples can include shopkeepers, artisans and other smaller-scale entrepreneurs"

[@ZahrDalsk]

@@wscheets1600 Petite-bourgeois are literally workers and they literally own their means of production. If you somehow think otherwise then communism has rotted your brain beyond any hope of recovery.

[@JimStorrie-v3s]

@@ZahrDalsk not that confusing if you think about the interest group mechanics in the game really. pops won't join the petite bourgeoisie unless they are one of your country's primary cultures. so you've got your nice, mostly equal socialist society, and then a bunch of your primary culture pops start thinking hey, screw equality, if things were just a little more racist around here i could be on top!

[@MisterFoxton]

"Communism is when the proletariat become the Bourgeoisie." Move over Marx, here comes 21st century thinking!

[@danielcavalli7953]

For me it helps to understand the game if you think that inside the development team most likely we had two (or maybe three) political views: materialists and post-Keynesians. Those two, while having their similarities, are staggeringly different models for how the world works. This shows on the way politics is managed as a definite thing that is black or white because most of the Keynesian development theory sees the world like that, but there is also the materialistic way of viewing the world through the revolution mechanic and everything you pointed. The economic simulation is simple to focus on the class dynamics. Resources and economic relationships drive societal change, mirroring Marx's struggle of the classes. Meanwhile, our ability to enact policies and guide national development aligns more with the institutional approach post-Keynesian and marginalists theory of development.

[@JustRandomSymbols]

Small correction: despite the fact that most "communist" countries in history tried to achieve autarky, it was more a case of not having any other choice. According to Marx, a socialist revolution has to be international to survive, because the capitalist system is international, so the whole "socialism in one country" business was just another case of Stalin's revisionism. So it's wrong to say that communist economies would try to achieve autarky

[@Noelle-rt9ew]

you legit ont even understand what socialism in one country is lol

[@JustRandomSymbols]

@@Noelle-rt9ew please read the manifesto again

[@Noelle-rt9ew]

@@JustRandomSymbols read more then the manifesto, Marx and Engles wrote alot. And especially after the Paris commune. Im a Maoist, I don't even support SIOC but my god you don't even know what it is

[@Qwerty-of4cy]

@@Noelle-rt9ew your a maoist????

[@Noelle-rt9ew]

@@Qwerty-of4cy sadly, yeah

[@mcmann7149]

One of the things that I found rather strange was the mechanics of decentralized nations replacing the uncivilized nations mechanic but then making it so that the only way to become powerful is through developing in a specifically western way

[@snupchuckles]

The idea of Vic 3 but with Stellaris level nation construction would go so hard (I'm hoping they update institutions to reflect that)

[@g4e4rman54]

I like the fact that you cant/dont need to control the units yourself. In the late game Victoria 2 and Eu4 become so mikromanagment heavy, that it ruins the fun for me.

[@SkyDogDaddy]

Honestly, it's the future for grand sims.

[@LeDoctorBones]

A couple of corrections here: 1: Foreign aid does in no way need to be selfless. If I don't want refugees in my countries and the threat of terror, foreign aid is one way to stop such. Foreign aid can also help more people get productive jobs who will ultimately want to consume things that I can provide them. Foreign aid can also increase my countries political standing in the world and have their will reflected to a greater extent by the international community. A good example of foreign aid helping the aiding country is the US marshall plan. That isn't to say that foreign aid can't have selfless reasons, just that there are also many selfish reaons to do such. 2: I am not sure why you think the Victorian era (Pre-world wars) was an especially war-torn era. The lesser number of countries and the concert of Europe made sure there were much fewer wars between equal powers. The wars that did happen were mostly smaller skirmishes outside of Europe since European technological superiority and a lack of unified resistance mostly made sure no larger conflicts arose. Plenty of uprisings and such did happen, but I wouldn't qualify those as wars in many cases, only conflict.

[@SpookyScarySkeletor]

Just want to clarify you are saying that things like the Crimean war which was heralded as "a look of what to come from the first world war", The wars of Italian independence with battles fought so bloodily that it literally created the red cross, the brothers war which was costly and decisive enough Prussia and Austria decided to become allies rather then fight one another, the wars in South America which literally involved in some cases most of the continent, The Mexican-American war, The Spanish-American War. The Heavenly Kingdom, Boxer Rebellion, Opium Wars. You say that like there were wasn't wars literally all over the place, the world was pretty war torn and had a lot of big battles, the only places who really weren't touched in one way or another is Africa only if you don't count the natives vs euros as a "conflict" and south east asia which pretty swiftly controlled. Most of these wars were *very* big and usually fought on some equal playing field with massive casualties and costs. I would not call any of these "Skirmishes" or "Small", 'tis a very bloody time in history

[@LeDoctorBones]

@@SpookyScarySkeletor Mostly of course doesn't mean all, though, I would argue even "bloody conflicts" like the crimean war were relatively contained and bloodless. 1/10th the casualties as the napoleonic wars or 30 years war even when those wars were earlier and, therefore, had less population. The brothers war had less than 200k casualties - less than the current war in Ukraine and even with that war I wouldn't call the current time anything less than extremely peaceful. While the Victorian era was relatively peaceful compared to - at least in terms of interstate conflict (I.e wars). I am not really sure why you mention the Mexican-American war and Spanish-American war. Those war both had around 50k casualties, basically a normal week in 16th century Europe and also not in Europe. You also for some reason mention the opium wars that collectively had perhaps 10k casualties and most of those were captures. Even the boxer rebellion only had a bit over 100k casualties which is suprisingly small for a chinese conflict. If you want to include China which I deliberately didn't because I talked about Europe, then at least mention the correct conflict - The Taiping Rebellion - which killed 20-30 million. You miss the fact that the world has always been marred in war since the rise of the first political entities. And this of course continued during the concert of europe, though in a much smaller way.

[@theparadoxinteractiveguy]

Bros voice is so arousing

[@taro7145]

True paradox fan hate the game and play a thousand hours

[@BFreeGodzilla]

The point about it being a Marxist interpretation is spot on. A lot of people seem to think that Marxism is an economic perspective, not specifically an ideology

[@namethathasntbeentakenyetm3682]

Marxism is the philosophy of dialetical materialism applied to economics, which then implies a loose set of politics. People disagree about where you go from there using dialetical materialism, which has lead to many strains of Marxist political thought

[@landmine2559]

What i also find interesting is that by taking historical materialism as a basis, the game arrives at a similar conclusions as marx. There seems to be a "natural" progression where power lies in the hands of landowners then capitalists and then the proletariat. At least thats how my games go 90% of the time. The AI is a different beast though.

[@JimStorrie-v3s]

another level to this is that the game's conclusion sort of shifts around with each major patch. early v3 seemed to argue that the natural 'endgame' for victorian societies was multicultural capitalist liberalism. then the gdp investment pool malus came along functionally kneecapping everything except co-op economy in the late game. and now in 1.7 things seem to have rotated again, and now the optimal conclusion around 1936 is to either be a 1000 infamy multicultural capitalist monomaniacal empire or to be some kind of perverse, pretty-racist corporatist/integralist regime. reminds me a lot about the behind-the-curtain ideological debate that seemed to be going on between the devs during the early days of stellaris. remember how long it took them to decide what 'egalitarian' meant?

[@BlueGamingRage]

I'd call it a religion, but yeah

[@hagymascsiposgyros5780]

@@BlueGamingRagelmao no

[@pompom8315]

Johan said openly that historical materialism is a good concept for a game. I think it's fine as long as it's modified to allow you to choose between socialism, liberalism and fascism as the "final" ideology. The ideologies that are in power in HOI4 (ok, there are many neutrals, but that's mostly only in poor countries).

[@l.s.9095]

Victoria 3 would be a much better game FOR ME if it would let the player play as one interest group - competing meanigfully with the other IGs over the available ressources of your country - instead of just playing as the whole country. The goal would of cause still be to see your nation succeed, but also to realise the goals and ambitions of your choosen interest group.

[@saitodosan9377]

Now THAT would make for a great game. Like a politics simulator, but in the Victorian age when capitalism and industrialization was on the rise.

[@chaoticflorius]

Came to see a review. Leave the video with a brand new view on the world 😶‍🌫

[@santiagopenanavas]

Vic 3 video soon?

[@wyvernah]

How have your views changed? 😄

[@profusemoose1488]

It's hard to understate how much I appreciate the quality and direction you come at reviewing/discussing games, across all of your videos. Keep going, keep it up, don't lose your own native frame due to the influences of the game of content creation, you have a fantastic point of view, could be, will be, one of the greats... already are, but you know, sub count. keep it up :) Unless you don't want to... lmao. All the best.

[@M30W3R]

I completely agree on the whole "arrow of progress" aspects of these simulation games being a detriment to the overall immersion. On the one hand sure it's fun to get a minor African colony and transform it into the world hegemon through exploits and careful planning (and a bit of luck), but on the other hand it completely nullifies the individuality of the people inhabiting it. To quote another KZbinr, these modern simulation games are less history and more spreadsheets.

[@robmarney]

Grand strategy games like Vic 3 are already too complex to achieve maximum fun and maximum teaching value. I love your analysis but almost every simulationist criticism you made runs counter to why most people play these games, which is either "Take my country to glory" wish fulfillment or "How would I handle this historical event" interactive history. I would rather delete generals entirely than make them any more complex. Reactionaries and pop ideologies aren't there because players already feel like they can't pass the laws they want. Africa and Asia are easy to conquer because players already feel like they have nothing to do in the mid game without colonial exploitation. Except international trade. That's an existing core game system that would make the game historically richer, and only doesn't work because the numbers are off.

[@Tarkusarkusar]

This is pretty true I'd say, in terms of history being eschewed for more fun mechanics, but imo, the point of these games is to take the history, and turn it into fun game mechanics. I think Victoria 3 could have made fun mechanics out of these ideas, and they instead ignored them for the most part.

[@beastebeat4956]

I think the linear line of progression of all countries makes me enjoy playing a small power and bringing it onto par with the rest of the world. It is easy to quickly become the strongest nation as a great power and go communist and then essentially the game is over. Playing a smaller power makes it much more complicated to get the land, resources, laws, and population that great powers have at the start of the game and makes achieving the #1 spot a lot more of a challenge.

[@idtent8993]

The arrow of progress being a straight line is a fair reflection of history. You might even call it fated or prophetic. It's like the current trend towards decentralization which seems inevitable and built into the destiny of our civilization. What's lacking in Victoria 3, and maybe even in the discourse of modern politics where both sides seem to just throw vitriol at one another, is that lack of synergizing through the obviously emerging Hegelian dialectic.

[@DavidAndrews-eb7gm]

A thoughtful and nuanced analysis that leaves room for differing interpretations? The comments section will be brutal.

[@tili4710]

'He lost his life which is a huge loss of his standard of living' is an amazing quote in context of the game xD

[@zrecul4957]

chat, is it weird to stare at a map for 8 hours a day?

[@Tarkusarkusar]

No, it is not. GIGACHAD

[@GoddessRyo]

Great video as always! Welcome to the 1000 hour club :)

[@1001airstrikes]

Preciate the ES2 soundtrack. That and explaining how the economy worked in you other video. and this video in general explaining what VK3 is. sub earned

[@markjerue9734]

Another few major criticisms: 1) Trickle Down Economics. This is how the SoL operates via wages - the more wealth your capitalists have, the more money they throw into industries, which leads to more jobs & higher lower class wages. Ask anybody today how Trickle Down Economics has done. 2) Colonialism, specifically the story told by it. Despite the UK being portrayed as the #1 great power & earning ludicrous amounts of cash from its colonies, in reality, the Empire part of the British Empire bled money - they took net losses from their overseas holdings. Their economic success was DESPITE, not BECAUSE, of their Empire. Yet in V3 the player easily goes bankrupt if it loses the EIC & other holdings. Historically the British Empire knew it's holdings lost it money. Yet the British ruling class insisted on it for various reasons - philanthropy, national defense, research, national pride, bringing civilization to native peoples. 3) The production of new goods & spontaneous innovation is tied entirely to universities + how open your society is. Which is a wild premise considering how many inventions came from random people in random places who needed solutions to scarcity, or got creative & wanted to try something, or had money to blow on a far-fetched idea. It makes innovation seem 100% academic. How many Vicky3 inventions in the Production or Military tree came from a university researcher? Maybe society ideas, but the other two groups? Not 100%.

[@benji.3002]

Your understanding of colonialism is misinformed, for the states they may have bled money, but for their economies they were immeasurable useful in the success of the colonial power by filling markets with far cheaper raw resources. This was the whole premise behind colonisation, cheaper resources leading to cheaper secondary goods, leading to a better economy, this did not necessarily alway work as intended but that was the exception, not the rule @An_Economist_Plays has a really good video on it if you're interested in learning more

[@Qwerty-of4cy]

well articulated, especially in regards to empire

[@thepedrothethethe6151]

Dude is on his Cecil Rhodes arc

[@aggebojkalos6518]

Another disgusting defender of empire. Why is Britain rich and Kenya poor? Is it because of British racial supremacy? Because if it isn’t the old empire and modern empire, that is the only answer *you* can give. You even included the “white man’s burden”, incredible.

[@fish5671]

The french from what i heard were the only ones who were able to properly extract something from their colonies, namely manpower

[@al3x207]

You mean to tell me that the Swedish devs made a socialist game? 🔥🔥🔥

[@ynkesfan2003]

For professing to enjoy this game, you spend the bulk of your time pointing out its failings. Yes, the game has failings, but I walked away from this video wondering why you spent 1,000 hours playing a game that you have such a negative outlook on. Every positive point was immediately followed by a "but" until the very end of the video, where you call it a fabulous game and give it an 8/10. I was so confused by that score, the cognitive dissonance was real.

[@Tarkusarkusar]

The purpose of the video was to present the things which are received negatively in the game, rightfully so, and readjust the perception of them through a new lens. For example, I talked about how it can be frustrating that progress is a straight line in Vic 3; that once you go somewhere, you can't really go back, and that all roads lead to communism. This is a frustrating lack of strategy, when interpreted initially, but can instead be reinterpreted as a mechanic based around how fast you can "travel along the line." To me, that reframing can lessen the feel that the mechanic is bad. I do have a lot of complaints, and I believe it's a failure of Victoria 3 that it presents itself in such a way that it feels boring. You can find the intention behind a lot of the mechanics, but you just have to dig. I gave the game an 8/10, with respect to the new interpretation that I cooked up in my mind. Most people do not play or see the game that way, and for those people, the game is a lot more like a 3 or 4/10, maybe a 5 if I'm feeling charitable.

[@ynkesfan2003]

@Tarkusarkusar this is diverging from my original comment, but all roads don't lead to communism anymore. Capitalism is much better in the late game with the removal of the IPT penalty, and the pulse events other countries get that give negative relations when you have council republic make maintaining a large power bloc difficult. I generally avoid communism nowadays unless I'm doing a world conquest.

[@muse5722]

One of the key problems today is that media control is able to convince people to vote out of line with their interests, whether those be financial or personal. Even today, in the age of the internet where anyone should theoretically have access to enough information to enlighten themselves on any issue, people still base their poltiical attitudes on things like culture, familial attitudes and heritage. This just.. completely doesn't exist in Victoria 3. In Victoria 3, the pop knows what they want (which is what their IG leaders want) and are somehow always able to mobilize 100% of the assets available to them towards this goal. Never does a movement invest it's time into a fruitful or counterproductive endeavor, like how John Brown's attempted fed into Southern Paranoia about slave revolts and worsened the condition of the slaves in the following years, or how the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia protested against the country's constitution by not showing up to parliament while it was drafted, thereby resulting in a constitution being passed that fulfilled *none* of their wishes. Many times in history movements fail not because they lack power but because they fail to utilize it properly. In Vic 3, there is no randomness to this, no differences in the effectiveness of social/political movements. They just always do what's best for themselves. The way pops behave in Victoria 3, it's (almost certainly unintentionally) kind of in line with Anarcho-Capitalist ideologies, wherein the believers assume that in the absence of government interference, people are somehow always aware of what's in their interest and will always act rationally in said interest. Except that unlike the theory, in Vic 3 this interest is what the IG Leader wants and not personal financial success.

[@googane7755]

No way bro took over 1000 hours to finally understand dialectical materialism

[@HearthenRealms]

As someone with 1500 hours, i always stop before going down the communism rabbit hole when it comes to the economy and voting laws. Ill give them workers rights and some form of poor laws and they join the givernment anyways later in the game. When you stay in the "free market capitalist utopia state," you are speaking of around the 8:00 mark, I have gotten multiple countries to over 10,000 construction, a budget of -300k (Still stockpiling gold) and just steamroll all those in my path with 1000 barracks. Keeping the S.O.L high and everyone rich, the communists never seem to revolt or demand laws out of my scope. I personally feel going down the communist rope is folly when it comes to global domination. Call it the "American" in me but I can never push the country as far under the communism as I can under capitalism path.

[@JimStorrie-v3s]

council republic + coops was definitely just the 'final, best' economic system in 1.6, but you're right, it's not the fated end game anymore. retaining laissez faire all they way through 1936 is real good now. pre 1.7 it was definitely the case that you aimed for communism all the time (unless you were doing some funky tall/small play) because the investment pool got hit with a malus scaling with gdp, so all the investment pool economies (including command economy for strange reasons) became awful as your gdp blew past a half billion or so and you kind of just had to go co-ops to stop bleeding money. in 1.7 while coops does pump your SOL in the short term like it did before you give up far more in growth than you did in 1.6 for it. the reason you do it now i think is to scoop up ownership of buildings that foreigners have built/bought in your country. if you are stuck in a situation where you're getting exploited by an overlord for the first 40 years or so and then break free, collectivizing or nationalizing all your stuff puts an end to it and yanks all those juicy ownership shares back into your borders.

[@HearthenRealms]

@@JimStorrie-v3s Exactly. Laizzes Faire and open market with a presidential republic and universal sufferage with communist wokers rights/poor laws seems to be the best for painting the map this patch. I have tried both routes with multiple countries and going communism hampers your ability to really use the power of capitalist investment pool which is just too strong currently. As you said unless you truly need to take your country back because you couldnt ramp fast enough as a backwater, its not nearly as good. The one negative is it works so well, your PC will be screaming to try and keep up from the amount of construction/trade routes/fronts you can achieve. I even have a very nice PC with 128 ddr5 and 7950x3d. It even starts struggling past 1880 🤣🤣🤣

[@JimStorrie-v3s]

@@HearthenRealms same! as my construction points creep over 3000 i can hear my cpu moaning in pain

[@pawys5792]

@@HearthenRealms welcome back mussolini

[@kernelscout3077]

i dislike how communism just "works" in vic3. its all very simplistic and doesnt at all simulate the difficulty of actually establishing a functioning communist economy apart from a revolt from the old class. the workers all get their share and theres no corruption. i used to go communism a lot when the game came out but i avoid it now. i prefer staying as a capitalist monarchy or republic. going communist every game gets tiring too imo. vic3 is a commie larper's dream.

[@angusvos5914]

OveralI would say I very much agree with the vast majority of your points. However, it is worth noting that political lobbies do change things slightly in that interest groups do care about the actions of your state, at least in so far as it relates to specific countries. While not responsive in the way that I believe is desired here, it definitely is a step forward from what existed previously, and can result in being forced to make strategic choices around that. I do think lobbies were underestimated in the influence they can have on strategic decision making, which is definitely a positive change. Would be interesting as well if rather than leading to interest group dissaproval, it also lead to more radicals

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Lobbies only influence how an IG feels about your actions towards other nations though, not your actions in general, but yes, you are right that your actions can affect the IGs, it's just in so small a way that I effectively hadn't counted it lol.

[@FairyRat]

We need a grand strategy game based on "The Society of the Spectacle" of Guy Debord lol

[@meindert16]

I think the best way the describe the problem with vic 3 is that it just feels like a promising game that was released too early and now a lot of it just feels unfinished and incomplete To be fair the last couple of updates has greatly closed these gaps but it still feels a little incomplete

[@Martin-vp9lv]

Nice critical review, well done. I just picked this game up, and I’m looking forward to learning it. Since you spent 1.000 hours playing it, I expect it won’t be all bad. 😂

[@wongjunkit6205]

IMPERATOR ROME MENTION AVE CAESER!!!! 🗣🔥🗣🗣🔥🔥

[@Leapordskin77]

Vibing out to the Endless space and cult of the lamb ambient music in the background

[@Koupip]

i think what i love about this game is how special the time frame of it is, its really a moment in time where everything goes to absolute shit and everyone gets their shit pushed in if they don't perfectly know wat they are doing. even britain gets their skull caved in with russia, there is just something fun about being in the pit of shit and slime and being the only one to crawl out of it

[@Queekitch]

Decent video but where are the remaining 999 hours and 19 minutes of Vicky III review we were promised? False advertising smh

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Clickbait brother

[@siretriste4045]

Very good review, I didn't see the progress arrow you mentioned. In fact I never finished a game; I asked for a refund when I found out the game was about buildings and economy, while I was looking for a geopolitical simulateur of prestige and grandeur.

[@daveholechko874]

Dear god the timing of this video was just perfect

[@daveholechko874]

I mean this more in the sense that literally when this video came because at the tail end of the week we were talking about marxist and how he saw the system of class evolution

[@matthewfazendeiro9303]

Accidentally watched this before my final year at Harvard. I’ll come back afterwards so I can truly understand this

[@matthewfazendeiro9303]

In all honesty though very good and in depth review on Victoria 3’s take on economics

[@abilayang]

If corruption became a thing in this game, that'd be an endless journey to eradicate them

[@MS-dg7fm]

so congrats for identifying the inevitable (deterministic) "linear progress" of vic3 after 1000 hours. anyway i agree with much of the content, but calling it marxist is wrong. devs have typical mainstream swedish view of progress of history, which even if influenced by marx is at best socialdemocratic/social-liberal. i bet most of the devs would in swedish context vote "right". this is why they view acual communist states as authoritarian, and the made up "worker coop" bullshit as the ultimate utopia (true communism as you call it). eurocentrism also plays a role, this is how they can; 1. make colonialism actually be good for natives 2. have predetermined colonial borders even before they were colonized (destined to be colonized one can say) 3. have only progress of rest of the world is to become more like europe. (i grew up in sweden btw) +1000 points for your comment on imperator ;) edit: you are 100% right about once one abandon the expectations one have of vic3 you might start enjoying it - being a big vic2, i always compared it to that, but after 1.7 i started seing as its own game, own focus, and shouldve really been their own IP)

[@MS-dg7fm]

comment after seing last part,actual review: * in vic2 pops do have ideology, and can be changed slowly in different ways - but in general workers/peasents can be and stay conservative/reactionary even if it goes against their interest. * vic2 have actual goods rather than buy/sell orders of goods, so if you lack a resource you will not be able to build * vic2 doesnt have a centralized building system - each state can build as long as they have resources/money (one building at a time per state) but its an old game, so not easy to get into today if you are used to lots of QoL, less micro in building units and moving them etc

[@Copperhell144]

Isn't the "made up worker coop bullshit" supposed to be Syndicalism?

[@MS-dg7fm]

@@Copperhell144 yeh could be, but i mean, its still had relatively small success to be branded "real communism"

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Whether the actual material of Marxist writing is accurate to the modern-day usage of the term "marxist" is an interesting linguistic issue, which happens to be my expertise lol. I can never get into Karl Marx's mind, nor can any of us, but what I can do is use the word marxist to reflect whatever it means now. I think, even if misguidedly, people see the term marxist and think either of: 1. Jordan Peterson saying "MARXISM" in his Kermit voice 2. Socialism, where the means of production are owned by the workers (whatever that means). Now look, there's also nations which have claimed Marx's legacy, and reimagined it, like China's Maoism, Russia's Leninism, and then Stalinism. There's even Castro's communism, and all of them have their own face, but broadly speaking, I think many people would accept they're derivative ideologies of the ultimate birther "Marxism." The thread that ties all those together is "workers owning the means of production." How that might look is very different across actual implementations. To me, Vic 3 is "Marxist" in so far as what people today call Marxist, this might fit into it, but I do agree that social democracy could be a better label. Idk, lol, I'm not super deeply read into Marx or anything, I just hear the word get used a lot and that has constructed a meaning for it in my head.

[@Boscomon]

Based on a lot of the things talked about in this video I think you should give victoria 2 a try. (play the hpm mod)

[@SlimeJime]

Victoria 2 is a game based on broken economic system that holds itself together just long enough for the long 19th century to explode. It's interesting, but a dive into the mechanics is not very inspiring vis-a-vis paradox

[@Tarkusarkusar]

It's a thought I've had but like, Vic 2 is very old, ugly, and cumbersome. I am unfortunately the kind of zoomer gamer that has trouble playing games that don't present themselves well. Best I can do is CK2 since I grew up on it, but even then going back to that game makes me want CK3 again, even if at times CK2 is deeper.

[@SlimeJime]

@@Tarkusarkusar to be honest, most of the vic 2 ui functions well, in part because the economic stuff just runs on its own and you don't need to interact with it much. however, vic 2's military ui is the unequivocal worst of any paradox game, which is a shame because it's conceptually well designed and forms most of the gameplay there really will never be another vic 2, the game is too inconsistent to ever be recreated.

[@Boscomon]

@@Tarkusarkusar I get that for sure, so hopefully open vic will be good.

[@crimsondawn9397]

I'm studying anthropology and specifically doing a paper on capitalism at the moment and vic 3 is really helpful for thinking about national debt and the rise of neoliberalism

[@microwavedtofu-0]

Very good video and I am actually glad that Victoria 3 is based on historical materialism. I 100% agree with how imperialism seems like this weird interpretation of raising the SoL and becoming loyal of the conquered with hardly any mention of the experience from the conquered.

[@clutrike7956]

Professional yapper back with another BANGER

[@duphasdan]

The notion of self reliance back then is a path to becoming a great power. After WW1, Japan noticed as such and sought to become self reliant themselves to the point of adopting Tolitarianism so as to ensure the survival of the nation. The feeling at the time was an eat or be eaten world.

[@MrShady2099]

its a simulation of the workers and their masters. then 1.7 came out and with absolutely no control on the investment pool, and therefore, no control on who the master is.

[@HeroForOneDay]

Not quite true. Laissez-faire is one of the best economic systems in the game - both for raising GDP and standard of living. This is in stark contrast to Marxism, which claims the opposite. Additionally, the social mobility of the proletariat and rising wages due to competition are central mechanics here, again standing in total contradiction to Marxism with its labor theory of value and the iron law of wages.

[@Tarkusarkusar]

You are right that Laissez-Faire is the best law for raising both GDP and SoL (I didn't mention it cause that's the experience of the meta-players, but your average player won't see it that way.) But I think the intention of the game, with how it presents these laws, is that cooperative ownership is better for SoL. It's just that the developers are bad at balancing the game lol.

[@blazeburner303]

I have never felt more justified in my anger at the illogicalness of pops and laws interacting than hearing vic 3 being called a marxist interpretation of society as for the game mechanics, it feels like the devs started with a simple "what is the defining characteristic of the victorian era? the rise of communism" and that is what they developed on release, with a ton of updates and DLCs slowly pulling us away from the disgusting notion that communism solves all problems and I hope this trend will continue till communism becomes what it was always meant to be, a rotten ideology held by the most useless used to justify their hatred of those who can make something of themselves like ol' karl himself being a basement dwelling moocher who drained his parents dry then exploited his kindhearted millionaire "friend" you are also wrong on the class things, you can hover over various jobs and IGs to see where the clout is going/coming from and it shows that they are not, in fact, monolithic... I have seen the officer class be 80% rural folk supporters even though I am on professional military which is a direct benefit to them as well as 50% peasant support for landowners despite them pushing through serfdom

[@jeremytan739]

So edgy lol

[@jonasastrom7422]

@@jeremytan739 He's still correct, marxist predictions didn't come true, even if Victoria pretends like they did

[@Tarkusarkusar]

While it's true that classes of people can support different ideologies, my point was more that people of a particular interest group entirely support their own interest group leader's ideology, as a monolith. That being said, the share of different interest group supports among pops of the same class tends to be like, 80% one interest group, and then the remaining 20% divided between just a handful of others. The more egregious thing imo is that the interest group leader defines everything.

[@chadgoose7886]

@@jeremytan739it’s edgy to not support mass murdering dictators?

[@yadaman-rm7us]

Watching the gameplay in the background with the insane law switches made my mind explode, monarchy back to republic, the fucking voting rights arc

[@Theshockmaster5eva]

What do you think about the strategy of nation releasing as a means of crippling all the great powers? As the UK you can split France in half, Balkanize Austria, and divide the U.S. permanently on day 1 for little infamy.

[@Airwane]

Thanks for this now I know I shouldn't have bought this game I really thought it was a combination of CK3 and EUIV in victorian times

[@PrussianBlue81]

First time i saw victoria 3 it was already out i saw the steam page love the drawings and installed it and i have 300+ hours now on

[@Forcas115]

aren't they changing the political system so that people from a interest group don't necessarily adhere to all the ideas from that interest group?

[@theggfloupin4084]

That's for societal movements. Not general ideology

[@TelperionMt]

"Imperator Rome is the best one". I see what you did there.

[@MilkJugA_]

There was a game in which I ended up as communist, but the labour unions went fascist. There was some weird bugs regarding the communist journal entry, so this might have just been a bug

[@morganrenders3139]

beautiful interpretation of this game and the world view, it try to emulate

[@emperormanman]

great video hell yeah 💪

[@h.l.malazan5782]

The fact that plenty of Nordic economic models are thriving and juxtaposing to those Authoritarian regimes is a daily reminder, reflecting in comparisons to the GDPs per capita, and, finally, quality in manufacturing. Be chilled and just focus on making a good product, that is the lesson to learn from Victoria 3. You wanna be 'based'? Parroting the word ominously does not make you 'based'.

[@YusufNasihi]

Welcome to the layer cake.

[@kevinhack5406]

This is a great summary! I've always struggled to articulate it, but I think you've absolutely nailed that the key criticisms: 1) the lack of variety in progression paths 2) an economy that doesn't feature trade or comparative advantage that effectively encourages conquest (while also having a mediocre war system 3) a lack of non-economic political ideologies like nationalism or reactionary politics

[@FredrikNaevisdal]

Just see Legend of the Galactic Heroes, society inevitably takes steps back at some point

[@BlueGamingRage]

Thank you for capturing all of my gripes with this game. Maybe one day, someone with a worthwhile vision can build something great out of this mess of a game

[@frite2002]

Endless legend music?? 🔥

[@WoodenPlay]

Please explain vic 2 to us. Im to lazy to learn it by myself :D

[@SlimeJime]

read the military guide, then have fun

[@NON155]

NOTED 📒

[@whitehawk4099]

Whig history and its consequences...

[@PikaPilot]

Naval combat is the weakest aspect of Vic3. I'd love to see the sea zones and task forces of hoi4 to help flesh out the importance of naval supremacy during the victorian era

[@deinemutter8999]

EU4 Vanilla is not more nuanced politic wise because i has no connect to economy. You are right with the critizism of maerialism but to say economy has nothing to do with society and politics is also clearly wrong. EU4 MEIOU AND TAXES although is more nuanced, but also in its own time.

[@Tollard100]

I could tell from the way all the laws were laid out and how pops acted that the devs very much had that Marxist mindset. It fits well into a game, having pops as collectives makes it easier to process. But it entirely removes the concept of human action, pops don't have agency in economics. Even the pops that can create their own buildings require a government owned construction sector, which is strange because usually in real life its the opposite, government goes to the private sector to build something. The problem of course with simulating an accurate economic system is that you would either not touch it at all and let the population run it, or try and run it all yourself with all the issues Economic Calculation has in all of its complexities (The game makes the effort to keep money even in a communist system where it would not function, purely for player convenience) one is boring, the other is not fun. Kind of the reason I prefer vic 2 a little more than 3, at the very least there is more to it then a flawed economic system, which it also has, a shame because there are details from both that I wish had come together in one game.

[@somerandomyoutubeuser271]

The game is too linear. Only way to get stronger is liberalism and combat system is horrendous. Before going into details they need to do something about this big issues.

[@jonasastrom7422]

The fact that the game is a marxist interpretation of history really has it negatives just as marxist interpretation of history does. What is especially apparent is that free market capitalism is impossible in this game about the era of free market capitalism, no matter who's in power, the government is always in more or less total control over the economy, something that wasn't the case in victoria 2. Removing capitalism from the game and not having any natural disadvantages of socialism appear in the game makes the world trend towards socialism in the game as marxists of the 1800s predicted it would, but which didn't actually happen in real life. Either the devs realized that actually having capitalism would be too overpowered and would make the player uninvolved in the economy (Which could make the game boring to some) or they deliberately removed it for the sake of the marxist worldview being reinforced. I don't mind the marxists view of interest groups being in the game as it's a fine point to make and include in the game, but overall the game feels heavily biased and therefore inaccurate. Victoria 2 handled this alot better.

[@LordTyrion]

i played this game a month ago for one weekend. I hate it, I don't ever want zo touch it again.

[@niofalpha]

Victoria 3 suffers from the same issue every Paradox game has faced since they went public. They're bad, full of shallow, isolated, mechanics without much flavor. I still have thousands of hours played in them this year.

[@JudokaMark]

Just bought it, no way I have to suffer that much right?

[@_.l4n3]

Imperator Rome mentioned rahhhh what is march of the eagles stellaris mode

[@jonathankraus6818]

Sorry did man just casually drop that he's read Das Kapital? also obligatory, Tarkusarkusar Comrade?

[@hv30590]

When this game released I was sad to see all the hate it got for what it wasn't. I didn't understand it either because i really enjoyed the game and still do. It's great to see people warming up to it. I hope it's enough to keep it alive and make paradox give it the depth of eu4 or hoi4.

[@MAD22324]

pls do an indian territory and persia guide these achivements are kicking my ass

[@lateph01]

i wish there is some kind of randomise map

[@greendog_9]

epic

[@reverendnon5959]

Good for you, I guess, but for me the game is very boring, you do the same things on every country, Very repetitive, so I got bored after 30 hours

[@antiboyscout]

I realized this game was communist when I learned that fascism is enforced by the petite bourgeoisie, which is a Trotskyite cope

[@ReaperCheaper]

1000 damn thats low, i was addicted, i have about 2024h

[@tjmbernard]

You seem to be famiar with materialist philosophy, so i'd like to write a few comments about your revew, especially with the claim that vicky tries to simulate the theory of value : - yes there is reactionnary politics tied to materialist politics inside the game, it's the false consciousness of the petite bourgeoisie that lead it, and for a bit backward countries, farmers -history cannot go backward, whether in historical materialism or in real life -because players are good at the game, the imperialistic phase o K comes exactly when there's zero peasants in the players's country because 95% of what the player built was smart and profitable. in vicky two it happened in 1880 ->therefore the competing imperialists come in the form of higher productivity (aka, for AI nations it's more efficient to deindustrialise, get lots of unemployement and buy fancy good from player's market);; in vicky 2 it cames in the form of never ending wars to set up permanant military occupation to reduce factory throuput by 50%, in vicky 3 it's nationalize >>> dismantle everything in foreigh land and devastation throu warfare -last but not least, vicky 3 isn't about commodity, it's about pricing (and not even volume or money cycle) wich is insanely wrong for economist and/or marxists and terrible interpretation of marxist theory of value -quick bonus, taxing the capital is reactionnary (proportionnal/graduated) If the state need higher exploitation to get higher taxing and higher "redistribution"/militarization, it's basically saying more exploitation gives less exploitation wich is stupid. It's not even socialist, it's today'(s leftists politics and ignorants left groups (with good hearts and all...)who want to tax big companies because they're clueless about theory of value and their own alienation