Should I buy Victoria 3 in 2024?

Today I've made a scripted video essay about whether or not a new player should buy Victoria 3. I'll explain the pros and cons of the game. What I love about the game (how its systems connect to create an amazing political and economic simulator), and what I think is wrong with the game(the warfare system and glitches). I'll also explain what kinds of people will enjoy the game.
Music Used:
Enjoy Yourself by Steven O'Brien | www.steven-obrien.net/
Music promoted by www.chosic.com/free-music/all/
Creative Commons CC BY-ND 4.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...

[@auag7208]

I'm a huge fan of Victoria 3, I incite people to try it out, because there's a lot to love about this game, but it does get quite janky and frustrating at intervals. And indeed, if most of what you wanna do is map paint, Victoria 3 is not the game for you. Unless it unlocks you a new primary good, conquering isn't particularly rewarding in the short term.

[@user-tv3cz3ss6n]

This guy reads my mind, and has express this in exactly the same opinion as the conclussion i make

[@JulienDLauriers]

That's the most honest review i have seen yet

[@auag7208]

Cool vid!

[@ErnestIsGaming]

Your points really makes sense. Victoria 3 is very different from other pdx titles, this is a game where you slowly shape your society, and the grind to industrialize as a nation. Im afraid victoria 3 might go in the wrong path because of the war/battles demands from fans.

[@kaztarihtanu]

You can not start multiple diplomatic plays even as Major powers. I think Major powers should be able to start 3 diplo plays at the same time. For great powers 2 and minors should do only 1 play at one time. Also as vassals/puppets you can not declare independence war when your suzeren is at war/diplo play while historically separatists most of the time declared independence exactly when overlord is busy at wars. The only way to declare independence is to enact ridicolous laws to start revolt and then switching sides.

[@rabbaniazzahra1784]

what i dont like : 1.its bad because i cant play it above 1.13 early gray, it just crashes like crazy bro 2.the warfare is also quite terrible (i know you said its not the point) but if your playing as the ottomans, warfare is kinda required againts egypt or if you fail that, to be recognized. now this is a major problem because the warfare sucks, i kinda dont care about micromanagement, but what i do care is that the AI is trash. often i found myself outnumbering the enemy in the frontline 2:1, but for some reason my generals always only deploy 2 divisions to attack 23 enemy divisions, like is he stupid? 3.another bad thing is, since every country has the exact same goals and stuff, the gameplay kinda gets boring. the geography also doesn't really play a role that much, there are some modifiers like rivers and the amazon rainforest but its kinda just that. where as in CK2 and Eu4, where you are on the map actually matters, there are strategic reasons why you want to control trade, why you want a navy or where you want to take the trade ports. this stuff is just absent in victoria 3 what i like : the economics system is just uncommentable, the trade market system (not overal trade, just the market concept) is also really good, the technology is really great, the population mechanics, the industrialization mechanic, the revolution mechanics, bassically other than those 3 bad things, is excellent so in conclusion, its mixed. my ratings is mixed "but you only hate 3 things and love the rest" yea but, the first reason made the game basically unplayable after 1843, the second reason makes me rage quit every time and the third reason, theres not really much point to try other nations. its more of a 1 trick pony or somesorts, you would really love the game when you started playing, but after sometimes its quite a "meh"

[@NotGuy64]

while I can agree that vic 3 may not be for me considering I do not like how the completely changed the warfare system, that is completely poor argument to make in favor of Vic 3 making a objectively bad warfare system, and while I appreciate your section of "what makes victoria 3 special" trying to highlight good things about Vic 3, many of the points you made were already possible in a previous game you neglected to mention. Victoria 2 10:45 Taking a feudal nation and turning into a great power, while you can do that in victoria 3 it hardly feels special when every country shares the same tech tree and building options, Sokoto in africa can just build the same type of industry as England and make the same type of government changes. The westernization System from Vic 2 made it so that these small countries stuck in the past had to work their way up to a modern way of doing things while meeting resistance with the pops that did not want these changes. 11:32 Yea, That's kinda not true most of the time, I once passed a reform to turn the U.S. into a monarchist state with Joshua Norton in charge and faced 0 revolt. Pops rarely resist the changes you want. you can choose whatever government you want. Victoria 2 did this way better, remaining a monarchy in Vic 2 was hard. and pops would rebel if a popular change wasn't enacted. Victoria 2 just did most rebels and revolts better in general. Vic 3 has just generalized this as "radical pops" which isnt as interesting as Vic 2 as there were multiple types of radical pops Communist, Fascist, Jacobins, Rebels of certain pops you conquered, and even Pan-Nationalists to name a few. Most of Vic 3's mechanics are watered down from Vic 2 or not even in the Vic 3 at all.

[@obsidianspectre4281]

Victoria 3 is already in a very impressive state. Awesome game.

[@EmpiresEGG]

As a newbie 4€ for the game doesn't seem bad and I enjoy it

[@disser3849]

Imho its just not fun to play. Its like a free to play game where you just spam whatever resource or production you need at the moment.

[@MrDontcareify]

Laissez Faire even though it’s the best economic law, isn’t represented accurately. For example, controlling the production methods with Laissez Faire is entirely absurd. Laissez Faire should be one of the most automated economic laws in Victoria 3 but even with Laissez Faire, too much power is given to the player. In fact, I would argue that too many of the economic laws are too micromanaging. There should be less micromanaging for the economic systems in general unless someone wants to play a command economy/communist country.

[@heathclark318]

100% NO. Not worth the full price tag. $110 all in for a broken 1/4 the experience game. $34 for Victoria 2 and ALL its DLC. Victoria 3 is a shell of what Victoria 2. Your channel may do better playing Victoria 2 as well or more than Victoria 3. And trying to say warfare isn't part of the Era is just plain ridiculous...

[@zombiefirebot6066]

I very much agree, especially with the parts comparing vic 3 to hoi4 where as in hoi4 the game is pretty shitty and doesnt actually feel like roleplay unless you are forcing yourself to pretend to be doing anything related to a genocide of a specific population and a resurgence of an economy through goddamn focuses like you are telling me that germany was doing this shit through 70 day buffs that magically recovered the economy like where is the immersion its a much better feeling learning how to work an economy during one of the most dramatic time periods that spans multiple decades rather than just one with the events being locked into placed by ai and even when hoi4 isnt on historical the ai can still manage to get the correct and historical events in place. Also literally nothing changes other than idealogies and what factions you can only sometimes join. I mean its bs that democratic nations and non alligned cant even declare war and you need a "spirit" aka a line of code determining if you can create a faction

[@LexiFromEuphoria]

TL;DR It's not worth it

[@acidkettle4303]

Especially if you came from vic 2, I was so disappointed by this game 😔

[@Notphenix]

For now unfortunately yes

[@ihateyankees3655]

You couldn't pay me to play Vicky 3