The 6 MAJOR PROBLEMS With VICTORIA 3

[@Tarkusarkusar]

Concise, and accurate complaints. Nice. The ability to buy or trade states would probably shoot this game straight from a 5/10 to at least a 6 or 7/10 imo

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Absolutely. I really just want more options in the game. EU4 is one of my favorite games simply because I can do nearly anything to become powerful.

[@ReaperCheaper]

We never predicted 1.5

[@benknudson8317]

Yeah probably my least favorite Victoria 3 feature is having an 8% clout Religious Interest Group and they have a revolt for all provinces except my Capitol when I try and get off state religion

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I once managed to have a revolution that not a single interest group supported.

[@brandonlyon730]

Yeah as much as I hated the old rebel system in vic2, this type of thing greatly annoys me.

[@FighteroftheNightman]

Revolutions have historically been won with only 10% of the total population. Typically people don't join in on either side. No one cares enough about their corrupt government to fight for them but no one cares enough about the revolutionary group to fight for them either.

[@creeperminecraft294]

and then the revolt wont have state religion and they will have the exact law you wanted that started the revolt

[@ryziedexter]

Yea a marginisled interest group leading a rebellion that is your entire country doesn't make sense

[@yexin4093]

The annex subject diplomatic play should not be you against your puppet/vassal, it should be annex but if you do other powers can say "this is unacceptable , if you do it we will go to war". It should be like PU-ing in EU4 where you are on the same side as your PU and you go to war with the one opposing you together with your PU.

[@yexin4093]

to clearify i'm not talking about force-PU-ing in eu4.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

in all honesty, I'd be perfectly content to have an annex subject system like eu4 does, where it just takes forever. Just give me more options besides war.

[@yexin4093]

@@TobyYellsAtThings I'd say fast annexation for infamy and a potential war with those who don't want you to annex the subject is preferable to slow annexation. I think other powers should have the ability to intervene in annexation.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

All they really need to do is use the same war goal they use for German Unification and apply it to subject Unification, then have all your rivals be automatically in the war. That's at least better then what we have currently, though I'd still like to have a way of doing it fully peacefully.

[@grandgibbon2071]

I mean currently annex subject is a forceful annexation, there isnt currently a peaceful option outside of the specific unification stuff.

[@goodluckordie]

I agree with all 6 points! Victoria 3 definitely needs a lot more work for me to enjoy it as much as Crusader Kings 3.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Yeah as it stands, CK3 and Vic 3 aren't even on the same level in terms of game quality.

[@benismann]

@@TobyYellsAtThings and that's funny coz ck3 got like what, just 2 major updates?

[@reheyesd8666]

Because paradox games are alpha versions when they are released, if you don't buy dlc it's just a beta version. Paying 300 on dlc makes it a fully fledged game.

[@154Kilroy]

I finally had a good game as Denmark recently, which isn't easy to do... I got into the Spanish market, had a solid GDP and SOL, and all was well. But the Sweden randomly decided it wanted to unify Scandinavia around 1900. Fine. I had an Army nearly as big as them myself, and the also were fighting Norway and Finland. Annoying, but it could be dealt with. But then, Sweden called in Spain to the war with an obligation. Spain who's market I'm in... Sweden USED to be in Spanish market. But then left for the French market about a decade prior to this. So Spain had a reason to dislike the Swedes, and had a big reason to help me since I was in their market... but no. They help them. Because reasons. This sort of nonsense is what I really hate about this game sometimes. They make war terrible in game, so I try never to go to war. But then the game forces it on me (and its ALWAYS for nonsense reasons) and creates stupid situations that I didn't want. The AI being overly hostile to the player is so annoying. 90% of the time I'm just trying to build an economy. The few times I try do any conquest, some other nation that shouldn't care less what I'm doing, or in some cases should actually be helpful, just gets involved. It always seems to be an obligation that the AI never even uses. But if *I* try to call in someone with an obligation, it's usually a no. Hopefully it'll get fixed, because I really do enjoy this game most of the time.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

That's by far my least favorite part of the game currently, I hate when my allies take my enemy's side in a war, it has legitimately been the cause of several rage quits.

[@FayeRantTheStrong]

Economy also needs rework. There should be more production methods, which aren't just level ups of the former, but also an alternative to other. For example normally you have to get colonies in Africa to have any textile industry, even though historically Russia was a large clothing producer. Sugar is also only available in Africa, even though sugar beets farms outproduced cane plantations during game's time period. There should be alternative way to get certain resources, or to produce more goods with other resources. Migration is too dependant on custom unions and arable land, US rarely reaches historical population in AI hands. The number of mines is set from the start of the game instead of being increased by technology (you can have the same amount of coal extracted in province in 1860 and 1900, which is ridiculous).

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I do think they'll need to update that eventually, though I don't think it's a massive hinderance like the other things on the list are. I do think it's stupid how the only real way of making your economy better, is just getting better techs.

[@brandonzzz9924]

This would be amazing, but technical limitations are currently prevailing over gameplay balance. Every new building type (and to a lesser extent production methods that add new pop types) add checks to the daily and weekly ticks which is the main performance limiter. I've made a couple mods that split production in building like textile mills into basic clothing (fabrics) and luxury clothing factories (dyes and fabrics) and added a new building for silk weavers (silk with lower automation potential than basic clothes), but the game slows down a ton when it has to calculate each different culture/religion pop in each building in each state in each country. We really need optimization before anything else so that we can add cool stuff like your ideas without crashing pc's by 1890.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

@@brandonzzz9924 I definitely agree, performance issues prevent me from touching the game post 1880 currently.

[@grandgibbon2071]

@@TobyYellsAtThings That is more or less how one made their industries better. Industrial factories blew the pants off of non industrial factories.

[@DKforever24]

point 7: turn down the dial on the revolutions. Endless revolutions after 1870 makes the game nearly unplayable after that point. If they just toned revolutions down a bit, then the game would be worth playing.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Honestly yeah, revolutions seem super finicky right now. I've started dealing with them by just never reforming the government, and keeping legitimacy high. Keeps my loyalists up and I don't have to deal with radicalism.

[@conradmills4977]

AI revolutions, especially in subjects, colonies (I know, not really a revolution), and war targets are absolutely the most annoying thing in the game. Mostly because of the limitations on number of diplomatic plays one can initiate at a time. Why 1890s France has a problem crushing a small revolt in Senegal and slapping Belgium around at the same time is unclear, for example. I'm mixed about player nations, as the point of the game is manipulating demographics, which CAN make revolutions a non-issue or good thing for the player, if he's deliberate about how he manages his nation. It is a little odd that winning a revolution started by trying to pass a law does not actually pass the law though. Somewhat related: I would like to see some changes to reflect the actual conflict between the conservative and liberal forces of the day, that is: social stability and economic growth respectively. A valid choice between a progressive fever dream and a more traditionalist approach would be nice. There's motions in that direction, with a conservative government having higher end game pop growth as of 1.5, but this just pales in comparison to migration. Maybe making the PB formed from all accepted pops instead of just primary culture pops would help, considering that is basically what happened historically in the US, Brazil, and Argentina. Or give the Landowners bonuses worth keeping them happy instead of a worse version of the capitalists and a yield which can be gained by pushing a button with minimal gameplay effect. This turned into more of a rant than I had intended. ETA: Why tf do some institution laws bar completely 5/5 levels (eg. Charity Hospitals, National Militia, Poor Laws)? Completely invalidates their mid-late game use, despite each of those persisting through to the modern day, and in certain cases doing a better job than their respective counterparts in their vague game representation (Catholic Hospitals are very much a thing, for example).

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

They could easily remedy your first point by simply capping the player to 1 "offensive" diplomatic play at a time instead of just one play at a time. Though I would preferer to just ditch the cap all together. And I do agree there should be more of a choice to make between interest groups. As it stands the only reason to not kick out the landowners is to prevent revolutions, which doesn't make any damn sense from a historical perspective.

[@conradmills4977]

@@TobyYellsAtThings Elegant though removing the cap is, it doesn't really deal with the problem of a successful revolution "resetting" the nation to a new entity, including infamy and diplomatic scenario. It is kinda weird that a colonial era power would respect a local tiff: "oh sorry old chap, we only wanted to subjugate the aristocratic locals, not this peasant commune. We are definitely not interested in your TEA any more". Very annoying when doing a WC.

[@DKforever24]

My point is that by the 1860s-70s, any time you try to pass a law, the opposition almost always tries to start a civil war. If you cancel trying to pass the law, now the groups that want the law threaten civil war because you aren't trying to pass the law. Same thing with interest groups that try to force you to change away from a law you don't want. For instance, as Prussia, I had Professional Army as my conscription law. Around 1870, I had interest groups want me to swap to Conscripts only, which is worse imo. Ended up going into civil war because you can't effectively suppress interest groups from radicalizing your nation. You are simply forced to always pass bad laws or go to civil war, which also usually ends up going to civil war anyways because of the interest groups who want to keep the law. Victoria 3 is literally just a never ending civil war simulator and I will not play the game until they fix it.@@TobyYellsAtThings

[@ИванДуда-и4с]

Well, the first one is kinda realistic, because great powers were constantly worried about balance of power in certain regions where they had a major srategic objective. I would propose to lower the number of possible interests for GPs in early game and lower their agressiveness in late game. Or maybe they start worrying about your expansion when you get x states, 3 or something like that, or when you do that and your rank goes up.

[@ИванДуда-и4с]

Maybe add a way to justify your wars, so it takes more time, but less people join. Or make it impossible to for other contries like you, for example GPs if you are GP, join against you in plays against countries with much less power

[@temblorjamesronald9427]

I agree with tobias, It really sucks playing whatever nation that most players rarely play like Spain, Italy, Brazil, Netherlands, Persia etc because even if we did catch up to Military technology we are very very VERY low behind other technologies that will help on the war unlike in Victoria 2 where regardless what nation you play, there is a possibility to win against a Major Power

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I'm not a big fan of the way technology works currently, I do wish they would rework it to help behind nations catch up faster.

[@LuckyAJC]

and these problems still persist 1 year later

[@LuckyAJC]

this was perfect timing, just reinstalled to try new beta. i want this game to be good sooooo bad

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Same, I know it can be which is what makes me so mad. This could easily be just as good as hoi4 or ck3 with a few changes.

[@lohtupottu]

I'd like to see these improvements made to the game alongside your ideas (I haven't tried the 1.5 beta yet so I don't know what that includes excluding some dev diaries): - We should be ale to influence the battle in some way rather than it being completely random. There could be decisions like "should we take a risky push or do we hold our ground" or "will we shoot them with artillery them or do a cavalry rush". It would enhance combat while not necessarily adding anything complicated mechanics to it. The wars themselves would still e fairly automated. It would also allow for player control and taking of risks. - I feel as if your military staffs rank doesn't matter at all. All it does is increase the max size of the army. There should be more incentive to promote your generals while also not making it overly cheap. - I'd like to see better peace deals. It should like a refined EU4 where you could negotiate and exchange stuff while also having a limit. I think it's pretty dumb that WW1 starts with a Serbian independence revolt and after the war that's just about the only "big" thing that changes.

[@greentoby26]

While every point is valid, my greatest problem with Victoria 3 is the missing sense of distance. In game, it matters little whether your capital or some remote state in Africa produces something. There's no cost to shipping goods - when some place is in your market, everything appears throughout your realm just like that. In turn, colonizing becomes an absolute no-brainer, no matter how far off and indefensible the place may be.

[@benismann]

you know, for a game called victoria THREE said game doesnt improve much goods-wise from it's predecessor

[@Hotasianchick]

We have local prices now in 1.5

[@eliasnord6402]

Update News! Victoria 3 fixes all of these Problems in the upcoming 1.5 update releasing early to mid november! HYPE

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I'm excited for the patch, it looks super promising.

[@soundfxsar9300]

I really like when im at war for DAHOMEY, the UK joins and stacks their whole army in africa without having any attrition, nor any difficulty to move such a big ass army on difficult terrain.

[@SwordedMan872]

It is also incredibly frustrating that great powers called into wars do not have a treaty with you. For example, as Iberia I decided to puppet Hawaii for fun. Great Britain sided against me in the war, which I eventually got them to white peace at the end of the war. Because my infamy was 0, I decided to annex my puppet of Morocco right after, who could also call in Britain.

[@swedichboy1000]

2:18 Preach. Was playing as Sweden and Norway decided to launch a Peasant Revolt, (In typical Paradox fashion, you are given no indication or procentage of this happening) and everyone around me joins in even though i think it would´be been an internal issue.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I think the way I would fix it is to bar higher tiered powers from getting involved in wars of lower tiered powers, unless they had a defensive pact or alliance.

[@Xictlii]

Your first point isn't NECESSARILY TRUE, you can punch well above your weight as a minor power, it's just SO EXPENSIVE and you would need to sacrifice your country in order to do so, which i somewhat do like.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

That is true. You can dump everything into fighting a single Great power as a minor, however that causes another issue I cut out of the video for simplicity sake. If a minor can bridge that large a gap in the player's hands, that also means the player can turn Great powers into unstoppable God Powers by pumping everything into military, which I have done before. An optimized great power absolutely demolishes an optimized major power. I might make a video in the future talking about it, but Great powers are way too easy to play as in this game.

[@nicolapacella5966]

For me the biggest problem is how your economy snowballs to the point you have to pause 10 min to queue up buildings, just to let 5 minutes run and pause again.

[@ND._o]

Getting rid of the westernization feature is in my opinion the biggest mistake in Vic3. West African countries literally start with pretty much the exact same tech and are allowed to build the exact same stuff as most European countries and can research new technologies from the very start. They also have absurdly high literacy rates (for example Oyo has 40% literacy rate at the start). The only real difference between playing a west African country and a European country is the number of universities you start with. That's literally it. There's absolutely 0 distinction and 0 flavor between playing different countries, the only difference is the journal missions. It's mind boggling how they managed to completely shit on everything that made Vic2 great

[@honeybadger6275]

Pretty sure they did that for real life political reasons.

[@ernestasluza1787]

It's lacking events, very dumb geopolitics

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Yeah, I'm hoping they flesh this out in the future, but right now most events suck and the geopolitics may as well not exist.

[@marcduhamel-guitar1985]

I've played CK3. A lot. I've seen quite a few Vicky 3 video playthroughs- visually, the game is nice, and has a great soundtrack. But even content creators who love the game have serious valid criticisms about the game. I am still hesitant to buy the game, but enjoy channels like you who continue to feature it. Paradox has a hit with CK3, so I guess they will continue to focus on that game in continuing development. But Vicky 3 seems to have enormous potential. Hope they don't drop it. Cheers!

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

The thing that makes me most mad about Vic 3 is that some of the mods I've played manage to make this game a lot more fun. Vic 3 Divergences it one of my favorite paradox experiences to date.

[@marcduhamel-guitar1985]

@@TobyYellsAtThings Mods enhance the CK3 experience as well! The Fallen Eagle total conversion mod allows you to play your campaign in Late Antiquity. I've played thousands of hours on CK3, and that total conversion mod was in my top 3 campaigns for sure. Maybe you could do a "Best Vicky 3 Mods" video. From a CK3 player's perspective, I cannot play without mods. And the CK3 mod community has released some really wild stuff, but also some practical things, and mods that just enrich the playing experience.

[@benismann]

if you're hesitant - don't buy it. Better waiting for major updates than buying now and risking vic3 becoming emp Rome v2

[@benismann]

@@marcduhamel-guitar1985Fallen eagle is so, so slow. If u start as non-tribal u have all the techs 200 years before next era will even become available, which is just awful. And the trade system is dogshit. But it's def a cool experience worth some time

[@marcduhamel-guitar1985]

@@benismann I'll say it again, my Fallen Eagle playthrough was top 3 in all of the CK3 campaigns I've played. Thoroughly enjoyed the mod.

[@512TheWolf512]

War sucks, but for the majority of things you need, you can't go without war. Absolutely asinine game design.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

That's what really gets me, so much of this game is dependent on war, but they themselves said it wasn't a game about war.

[@jefflokanata]

Right now, I don’t like how micromanage country. The UI building tend to uniformed it, but sometimes when you uniform Production Method, it would create shortage or even worst: social unrest. I agree with all your point. Right now, diplomacy is the weakest pillar of them all. Even Stellaris have best global diplomatic mechanic.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

In my play throughs I've started setting everything to Just Auto Expand because I don't care to do it myself.

[@martenkahr3365]

Not sure I agree with the Reinforcements point. The way I see it, the "seemingly random number of troops" isn't just being packed into the front lines all at once. The number of troops in the battle is already including all troops available for reinforcement: the "missing" troops are pinned in minor skirmishes along the front or otherwise unavailable for reinforcements. Which makes a lot of sense once you realise you get big numbers in regions with highly developed infrastructure, but much lower in the jungles of East Asia or the African Interior, where continuous reinforcement by rail just isn't available. Also, having tried the 1.5 Beta several times, I can tell you that big changes are certainly coming to army and front management. Though jury's still out on whether they'll actually accomplish all the goals set out.

[@sasi5841]

The most annoying feature is that when your one province minor subject from halfway across the world has a minor rebellion, the game counts it as a full scale war, so you cant declare war on someone else untill it is resolved (which take minimum of 6 months because war declarations take really long time for the war to even start)

[@roman4409]

You're alive!!🎉🎉🎉🎉 Please make videos Tobias, I was missing you😢😢❤

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Videos should keep coming along. This last break was because I got mad 1 too many times at this game and had to take a break. That and college started so I have to deal with that now as well.

[@154Kilroy]

The one thing Im not sure I entirely agree with on this video, although I absolutely understand the viewpoint; is the journal entries. Going to play the Ottomans for example, with their Tanzimat entry. Im not a fan of being told I have to do this that and the other before a specific date or else the country explodes and its basically game over. The biggest draw to this game for me is the sandbox nature of it. I like picking a country, setting a random goal for myself, or maybe having no goal at all and just playing. The journal entries in some cases limit that. France is basically unplayable for me with the DLC. Theyre not always bad though. Things like uniting Australia/Canada, or the expeditions and canals are fun. But they're optional. You don't have to accomplish them. More things like that could be added. For me, the best way atm to bring diversity to the countries is companies. Which seems to have alot of potential. Rn they're mostly just generic, but having unique companies offering unique benefits could be really awesome. Another thing would be having more nation specific buildings. They have a few already like the Mosque of Djenne and buildable ones like Big Ben. These are cool, and adding more would be awesome. The last way I can think of rn, is just making the individual cultures more diverse. They already have this a bit in the form of certain people having obsessions. The French developing an obsession for wine, for example. Add more stuff like this, and make it more impactful...

[@grandgibbon2071]

I wish the ottomans worked like the maji restoration, something you can do, and there is good benifit in doing it, but not at 20 yaer timer.

[@swedichboy1000]

Plenty of things i dont like about Victoria 3, one of them is how Prestige is used. If you arent a major power or higher, you cant use certain CBs. Why? I have my doubts that Prussia cared what anyone else though when uniting the german states. The problems is that the prestige bar to become a major power is always rising, if you stagnate its gonna be real difficult to get that far. Thats probably why some technologies gives random amounts of prestige, to "even it out". Its too arbitrary.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

It really is, I think the amount of prestige you get from military needs to be nerfed in favor of other things like SoL, economy, and Low infamy.

[@eboysadro1629]

NUMBER ONE, BIG, BIG PROBLEM NO OPTIMIZATION!!!

[@cameronwells3958]

I miss you Tobias and ur daily Vicky content, literally no one has a Vicky centered channel and there a whole in the market!

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Don't worry, I am coming back. Right now I'm getting familiar with 1.5. I'm really enjoying the update so far, still some holes in the game but much better then what it was.

[@genericwhitemale9566]

One of the greats? It can't ever be. No matter how many DLC and bug fixes they release most of the problems with the game are in its foundation which need entire overhauls, not DLC. The war system, The lack of an international market (in the victorian era?!?!?!), the boring gameplay loop of "look at market, see what goods are the most expensive, build a few factories, watch GDP go up, repeat". Plus the fact that 90% of countries in the game are practically unplayable unless you join a GPs market because you'll never have enough labour to make enough goods to keep your factories going.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I do have faith that this game will become good eventually. The problem is the game is probably a 5/10 right now and needs so much done to become good.

[@genericwhitemale9566]

@@TobyYellsAtThings I'd say currently it's maybe a 4/10 with a 6 being the highest it could possibly reach in it's current state. Again, most of it's issues are with the foundation of the game itself which needs to be fully changed and adding more shit might make the game even more bloated with micro management than it is now. It's like building a house on a swamp, adding more shit to the house isn't going to fix the awful foundation that it's built on and it might even make the house sink even further.

[@StalinsGhost]

What about the god awful 'economy' management .

[@redsuncloud]

I disagree with the first point, assuming that the balance is historically accurate. They did do a pretty good job of addressing war post-video, though more is needed. Mods help a lot and wish there was a better base to support the modding community. The economics are the lifeblood and they are pretty effectively simulated. This is a game I want to love, but that still remains below the threshold where I could recommend it to anyone other than a die-hard economist.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I think the only thing keeping me from loving this game is diplomacy, it just feels too rng to be fun at the moment.

[@sasi5841]

*Giving lands to subjects isnt available; or building things in their land; or asking them to focus on specific area of development (be it trade goods, industry, etc.); or use your subjects claims to declare war (sort of how reconquest wars are in eu4)*

[@SDM-Zone]

Yeah I agree with a lot of these points. Personally I thinkt here is an easy change for expanding peacefully, more formable nations and make them all just major unifications. I don't think it will be historically accurate but that can be the glory of one of these games. Form all these partially considered nationstates and superstates. If full on nation formation is too much, then give me a better custom union subject type that allows me to build in their nation too. I think the corporations are a step in the right direction, but for me it would be cool if I could get my nation to control 90% of the world's supply of lumber as Russia by owning a controlling share in all wood buildings. These resources should also give bonuses for being the world's leading producer of a good. EU4 had it and I think it will make a reason to develop your economy differently for different games.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

More major formable nations would make me so happy, formables are always my favorite part of these games, and I hate the way it works in vic 3 right now with minor unifications.

[@platypipope328]

another point is that internal politics is incredibly stale and you'll never see interest groups align with any interest group you wouldn't expect them to, even if it makes perfect sense that they would.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I think I've seen the landowners and Intelligencia align once before, though I wouldn't say once in 600 hours of play time makes it common.

[@tpalmer4757]

very true! and its nice to see you uploading again!

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

It's a bit of a battle with college right now, but I'm going to try and keep videos coming.

[@tpalmer4757]

Nice man, prioritize your education but it's nice to see a Vic 3 paradox KZbinrs, and one day you are gonna get more subs, I just know it

[@lolmenx4]

Its soooo RAM intense that it crashes every time for me... I don't have a toaster and i have done anything besides get more RAM bc idk how to do it + im broke😿😿😿

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I run most games I play at max quality with at least 60fps. I can't run this game past 1880 without it becoming unbearably slow.

[@moonlitee]

Now that you lay it out like that, holy shit this game is a mess. I'm surprised I even enjoy playing it despite these issues 😂 But for real, it's unacceptable they haven't even begun to address some of these despite being relatively easy fixes.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

The 1.5 patch is a step in the right direction, though it's been almost a year now, and some of these things really should have been release features.

[@Zanches85]

Lack of history, lack of flavour, lack uniqueness, build same shit do same shot over again.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

You might try out the Divergences mod on the steam workshop. I swear it does everything that Victoria 3 should be doing, and it's legitimately one of my favorite paradox experiences.

[@ScarletEdge]

Don't worry, all the features you mentioned will be available in paid DLC mixed in with some fluff, so they are not that obvious.

[@Badgear78]

you have to wait for the DLC to come out like all paradox games

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

The most depressing part of being a Paradox fan.

[@Badgear78]

@@TobyYellsAtThings become poor because I Need to buy the dlcs🤣

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Paradox unironically charging over 400$ for all EU4 DLC

[@GlizzyGoblin757]

lmao imagine buying PDX dlc.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I got my EU4 dlc from a deal on Humble bundle for about 20$ all together.

[@benismann]

honestly the first point is how it SHOULD be, at least i think so, it would be a lot more manageable if not the second and the third points

[@liamwarren7590]

Journal and nation formation needs a massive reworks and "personalisation". Got that one 100%. However i disagree about the power balance between great powers and everyone else, but yeah the great powers shouldnt get involved in little conflicts which do not have an outcome that impacts them.

[@duncanharrell5009]

Vic 3 diplo sounds the same as CK3 diplo. Anything less than 80 and your vassals will happily betray you even if you’ve done nothing but good.

[@HearthenRealms]

Tobias... why come no video?!?!? Seriously though where did you go man, I enjoy watching you play vic3. Waiting for your return. Too few content creators of the game anymore.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I'm waiting for the 1.5 update to drop. I just got too frustrated with the game in it's current state. I am looking forward to the 1.5 update though, it looks super promising.

[@HearthenRealms]

@@TobyYellsAtThings Completely understandable. I do look forward to your return. Enjoy the hiatus and when you come back, I'll be there with my view and like.

[@Damian-cilr2]

With victoria 3 turning out like it did,i am worried for eu5 and hoi5...

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

It seems as though that's simply the way of new strategy games now adays. They start off weak then eventually become better then the previous entries. Even if the EU5 Release is sub par, it will eventually become a great game. I have my gripes with Vic 3 right now but they have been disappearing and I'm starting to have a lot more fun with vic 3 now.

[@Noobmaster-of3xk]

I am suprised that you didnt mention the dysfunctoinal clusterfuck that is the Ai Ottomans in vicy3

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I usually don't pay much attention to the ottoman AI in the game because I usually just take their capitol from them and watch them suffer.

[@comp7c310]

Idk how wars work, played italy and tried to 1v1 austria in the lategame. I had trench warfare and they has skirmishers. I also had more troops then them. But still i was unable to push

[@danielflores2492]

You know i have a really bad relationship with this game because i know just about every run-through is roughly the same i know there are going to be stupid reasons that are going to make me scratch my ironman run i know whenever i do a diplomatic play (even if its something as low as 15 infamy) Britain is gonna join against me and even though i know deep down in my soul im gonna rage quit when im done for the day i play that game maybe 2-3 times a week

[@alexmannen1991]

i got banned for commenting similar on their forums, its now hatespeech to point out flaws in games because devs feefees are hurt

[@andrewog3516]

I just got it and damn bro I'm prob just not very economy savvy but I'm just god awful at it I've watched so many videos too lmao I'm coming from ck3 and civ and old world and was mad interested in a economy paradox game but sheesh there isnt an ounce of event or flavor to at least entertain me while my rank plummets hoping it gets some sick updates to make me come back and try again

[@Wesley_Duck]

i find the worst problem that you play for example brazil and invade bolivia, for no reason qing, russia and austria are gonna intervine in the wars. always against you

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Yeah that's a fair point, I kinda forgot about that but absolutely. They need to rebalance the interest regions.

[@swedichboy1000]

In terms of warfare, the problem is that there is no logistics, they simply teleport over there. Thats fucking bullshit.@@TobyYellsAtThings

[@tosspot1305]

​@@swedichboy1000agreed

[@grandgibbon2071]

@@swedichboy1000 Not true, they use convoys, and supply thought hidden directly effects fighting capabilities, and moral. It's just almost never an issue.

[@StalinsGhost]

It effects ability but not movement which is an abstraction too far in my eyes.@@grandgibbon2071

[@mitsev]

Another point is government groups randomly going from -12 to -15 triggering a revolution and there was no event or increase in radicals to make this seemingly random jump justified. Maybe I just don't understand the politics. As well as the game non stop crashing after 1890s.

[@MrShoulder]

Ive had the game from the beginning and I have reallly tried to love the game. Ive only got 80 hrs in that entire time and I just cant be bothered to figure out the mechanics with the lackluster explanation.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

probably, though I really don't trust this game not to pull some BS anytime it gets the chance, which is why I try to play things a little safe if I'm not using a scripted strategy.

[@Lallunalapruna123]

I hate that diplomacy against AI is just improve/damage relations.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

yep, so much potential being wasted there.

[@Lefrancaishonhonho]

What are your PC specs bro? In all your videos Vic 3 seems to run smooth like butter whilst mine is unplayable after 40 years

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Ryzen 7 8 core, 32gb memory, RTX 2060 super, and like 20TB of hard drive space.

[@TurkRoacher]

Can you think of anything it's missing from the first game?

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I assume you're talking about Vic 2, in which case I wouldn't know because I never played it.

[@Dskater84]

I can help you with the question you made at 4:50, why can't you expand without waging war? because that'll be sold to your for 20$ in a year or so as DLC

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

probably...

[@blueskull6789]

$30

[@Zannyzander]

You said that ai nations never declare war which isn't true. They always declare war in areas of the players interest and annoy the hell out of you.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I actually haven't experienced this. Except for a few scripted wars like German unification, Italian unification, America vs Mexico, and a few others. Unless your talking about colonial wars, which do take place pretty often.

[@Zannyzander]

@@TobyYellsAtThings It happens to me every game where if I declare an interest somewhere other countries are waaaay more likely to conquer there. The worst example for me was when I did the Minors not Miners achievement and had Austria france italy usa and UK all fighting for bits of southeast asia.

[@swedichboy1000]

4:44 Its arbitrary. Its there just to force a conflict.

[@LeonV777]

The game is a downgrade to vicky2 in a lot of aspects, it makes no sense and I'm not even talking about DLC stuff I mean just basic systems.

[@VerdantImage]

No more videos?

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Nah, I was just taking a break until 1.5 came out. Right now I'm getting familiar with the 1.5 mechanics so I can start back making videos.

[@AlexOlsenpang]

Economy is also kinda mad in the endagme

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Lmao, I wouldn't know because I don't want to play late game because of lag.

[@dr.samuelsson3423]

Somehow, the AI manages tp be more arbitrary than real life rulers.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Sir, our closets ally over the past 40 years wants to enter our customs union, should we let them? "Nah, I don't really feel like it"

[@besacciaesteban]

It's not that hard to kick france ass as spain at all. Mexico vs usa is harder to pull off, but i've done it several times as well.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

You must know something I don't, because every time I've tried, France starts pumping out barracks like their life depends on it, and makes several defensive pacts.

[@besacciaesteban]

@@TobyYellsAtThings tax as much as you need and try to get your army to be self reliant on supply (any navy will destroy your abillity to import guns and ammo). Get yourself some gold reserves and pass national guard law. Rush skirmish inf, conscription and fieldworks (maybe even explosive shelled artillery. Get high relations with france's rival. Get at least 80% of france regular troops (you should be careful to distribute the barracks across all your states) and full army wages. Now for the coup de grace you should attack a minor nation that france would defend, as they won't call any allies this way (bonus points if you get a GP on your side) and demand war reps. France shouldn't be able to push through the pyrinees and will start to activate mass conscription, this will put them into high debt. Continue defending until they go bankrupt and then get your war reps (this should help you to catch on economy). The AI is quite bad at managing total war so they will probably run into equipment deficit really fast, helping you out. Use your small navy to destroy as many convoys as you can. This strategy usually works well in 1.4, we'll have to see how it goes in 1.5

[@shinapig]

Culture is also a problem. You can never assimilate a group of people who are discriminated against. This may not be a big problem in Europe, because the majority of ethnic groups with European heritage characteristics But in some places where cultures meet, such as the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Americas, ethnic problems are very serious, because many cultures have nothing in common, but we know that many modern Turks are actually Turkic Greeks, but In the game, Turkey and Greece are completely unable to assimilate each other. If you form Byzantium, 40% of the Turks will live in your country, and you will never be able to assimilate them.

[@CausticSpace]

PDX is not going to add genocide mechanics bud, and assimiliation is not feasible in real life in the regions you have mentioned besides America but thats because the cultures are migrating to america and they are minorities, and hence easily assimilated according to game mechanics, whereas in the other regions those are their homes and much of the time they aren't minorities. What you wish for is fantasy at best and a genocide power fantasy at worse

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I definitely haven't found a loophole that let's me genocide an entire nation. trust On a more serious note though, I do wish there where more culture options. Maybe the ability to pass a certain culture into being an accepted culture through the law mechanics. You could possible make a culture one of your primary cultures too if enough of the population is that culture, and you pass a law to set them as a primary culture. Something similar to what EU4 does with it.

[@jefflokanata]

Yes. Force Assimilation is a things in the victorian era. May be it will be added in the future update

[@brandonzzz9924]

Disclaimer: I am highly critical of your points here because I feel that they negatively impact perception of the game based on a lack of knowledge about the current state of the game and improvements being made currently in the open Beta. Videos like this can have a large impact on the future success of games and I would very much like to see this game reach it's potential, instead of being slandered while the devs are working constantly on a Public Beta to address the concerns of the community. I have to take Paradox's side on a couple of these points. Firstly, I think you should play the Beta version because it addresses a couple of your criticisms. The Beta introduces diplomatic ways to acquire subjects and the devs have stated that they are currently working on making diplomacy more complex for a future update. There are also several regions that can be outright purchased/acquired through diplomatic journal entries (Luxembourg, Alaska, and Texas to name a few). Secondly, Warfare is kinda crappy and will probably only be brought up to Paradox standards, which I am fine with, but it has improved tenfold since launch. I don't think that it's fair to expect trench infantry tactics to be present during Napoleonic periods either. Armies would march in blocks and penetrate enemy lines to capture key settlements, as was the intention prior to 1.5. From experience, the warfare system can be modded to work very well, but it's too much work for me to make a good mod that I would feel good releasing. Thirdly, the AI is much better in the Beta build and the system actually works quite well if you understand the capabilities of diplomacy in this game. Everything could certainly use some visibility to make it easier to understand, though I quite like having journal entries that don't enumerate every possible outcome. Finally, differences in power: military score is a waste of energy to contemplate. It doesn't, hasn't, and probably won't ever matter. Even if a GP is much stronger than little España, defense will be higher than offense and you can win by defending efficiently. The new war support mechanics help tremendously with this by making casualties much more impactful. There should be a huge difference in power between nations in this era, and if you don't like a balanced campaign, just turn the ai aggressiveness setting down and the ai to player aggression down as well to make it easy mode. Some tips to address specific points made in the video. GP's will ignore you for trade routes if you use trade for diplomacy. If you alter your economy to specifically increase trade route volume to them (i.e. cranking dyes and luxury drinks as Brazil) then they will change their attitude towards you when the trade route becomes large enough. There are dozens of factors for diplomacy, and I recommend reading the defines file (ctrl + f "diplomacy") if you want all the maths behind it. If you want to control battles more, use terrain to your advantage. Mountainous provinces (like the border of France and Spain) make great defense spots because mountains limit the number of troops that can participate in battles. Warfare needs a lot of work and is still pretty cheesy, but the Beta is addressing just about every critique you have. The AI isn't actually that stupid. It is pretty smart and balanced, but their is a randomness factor that literally adds a random value to many ai decisions. Hopefully they add a setting for this, but as of the live build, you can increase ai aggression to increase their expansion. If you base your opinion of the ai in V3 on how well they emulate a human player, you will always be disappointed. This is a single player simulation game, not a competitive multiplayer game. It is good and healthy that playing as China, you will get rekt by GP's and have to weather the storm to emerge as a GP yourself in the end game.

[@greentoby26]

It's been almost a year since release. 'Play the beta' isn't a valid argument.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Too be fair a lot of my supporting arguments were cut for retention reasons, but I'll try and address your concerns. I too also want this game to reach it's full potential. Hell, the more popular this game becomes the more money I make. I am aware of the beta, but betas are subject to change, and until the full release for 1.5 comes out I won't be considering it as part of the game. I have played it, and I think it will do wonders for the game. The diplomatic play changes are nice, however don't really fix my greatest issue of the game, which I still hold to be balancing. Whether it's historically accurate or not doesn't matter a ton too me if it makes the game less fun. Great powers are incredibly unbalanced, especially in the players hands. I have on numerous occasions decimated the entire world with Austria, Russia, France, and the UK. Just spend all your money and your military and none of the other Great powers will be able to touch you. France can delete the UK from existence in 15 years. I know, because I've done it. The same applies for all other great powers, with very little in game knowledge you can roll over every other nation in no time at all. You can puppet the ottoman empire in less then 5 years as any great power. It's simply unbalanced, and I may make a video hammering this point down because many people seem to disagree.

[@brandonzzz9924]

@@TobyYellsAtThings Also I'm pressing the issue a bit much because I think that people are more likely to leave a Steam reaction/review based on a video than change their hours played, and I've seen Steam ratings tank from videos on other games which makes devs scramble. The V3 devs have supplanted Riot Games as my favorite devs so I want them to feel the warm light of their player's happiness even when the Swedish sun disappears for the whole winter, lol.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

@@brandonzzz9924I feel like in this situation the risk of that is low, as the steam reviews were already mixed when I started making the video. I made this video to highlight the issues of Victoria 3 so that things can hopefully be fixed more appropriately then just reworking the combat system. The 1.5 beta is promising but not nearly enough in my opinion to make the game great. I want this game to be good, but if the community just demands things they think will help the game, it may never do that. I want to try and narrow the criticism down to things that will actually help the game if reworked. As it currently stands, Vic 3 is dying. The player count has dropped significantly since launch, far more the Hoi4, Eu4, or CK3 ever did, and the only way that will stop is if the game becomes more fun. It doesn't matter how historically accurate the game is if it isn't fun, and the player numbers suggest that most people are not having fun with the game.

[@brandonzzz9924]

@@TobyYellsAtThings Holy cow! I looked at the steam playerbases and HoI4 is crushing it! I didn't realize that it had an upward trend of players. That being said, V3 is at about 12-16% of peak player base and has hovered right around 10k (about 16%) of peak for the whole year. That's fairly similar to CK3 but without the DLC spikes. I think that may be a more pressing issue for game longevity, though, because the V3 dlc's don't attract any new players back to the game. I truly believe that V3 has more potential (in terms of the actual game, maybe not popularity) than any other Paradox game and the devs have stated that their plan is to improve the game for years based on player feedback. I think it is necessary and good to provide feedback to the devs so that the game can improve, but I am a fan of positive impact over negative impact and I would like to see solutions proposed by creators that have so much experience in the game. Just modifying simple text files takes a long time when I'm modding, so I would think that the devs don't have a ton of free time to experience all the community feedback. I think that you have some valid critiques of the game and also some ideas on how to improve, and those ideas for improvement can be more helpful than identifying pain points. It is reasonable to assume that the majority of players think that the naval invasion cheese should be removed to balance warfare, but I'm interested in how you would change other factors like GP power differentials or diplomacy to better the game. Because I don't experience the game in the same way that you do, I can understand what you are saying but it is harder to understand why those things matter and what improvement would look like. To me, GP conquest overpoweredness could be solved with increased infamy gain by and against GP's and harsher penalties in the form of the "Anti Napoleon" coalition Cut Down to Size play like happened IRL. Maybe a follow up video with solutions would be a good way to drive engagement and support the growth of the game. (Also I watched your France domination game, and yeah, that was pretty silly. I'm glad that that isn't viable anymore.)

[@davielo1466]

sorry but i think the first problem is not really a problem,in real life,small country did like that,and great power really strong and don't want anyone else to catch them.

[@davielo1466]

still a good video👍🏻

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

@@davielo1466 I understand that it is historically accurate, however this is an issue that makes the game less fun as a whole. Getting your ass handed to you because a Great power decided you aren't allowed to annex your 1 state puppet just isn't fun at all. The way the warfare works right now you simply can't beat great powers as minor powers under any circumstances. The problem also works in reverse because playing as a Great power is way too easy right now. You can legitimately body all of Europe as any great power in about 20 years. It may or may not be accurate, but I'm personally of the opinion that historical accuracy needs to stop when it hinders the game. I have noticed several people arguing against this point, so I may make a follow up video on the topic.

[@yannaloise-d431]

Il y a aussi le système des cultures, j'ai joue l'empire allemand et j'ai colonisé la namibie et l'oman, j'ai plus de 3/4 de ma population qui est allemande dans ses régions ,presque toutes sont protestantes et pourtant ,il y a aucune fonctionnalitée pour decreter que genre ce territoire est la patrie des allemands, sérieusement, le Sinaï avait 50000 allemands pour 30000 bedouins et c'est toujours la patrie des bedouins alors que normalement c'est les deux franchement, ce qui fait que quand ils partent ,ils vident carrément le territoire parce que c'est pas leur patrie , sérieux avec 500000 allemands ,tout le sinai parle allemand

[@emib6599]

I add the post 1900 lag us unbearable for me.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

That's actually a fair point, I've pretty much just stopped playing past 1880 in my personal runs.

[@fredrikeriksson5199]

Exakt så tycker jag oxå :D

[@154Kilroy]

You should also be able to construct buildings in your puppets. Its really frustrating playing someone like the Netherlands, and not having access to coal. The Dutch East Indies has coal. But the AI will either never build a mine. Or never build enough. And as pointed out in the video, you cant annex subjects without war. Which is insane. So theres no real good way to actually access all the valuable stuff in the East Indies. So the Netherlands sucks for no reason in the game. They should be one of the most fun countries imo. And its not like the colonial powers didnt build in their colonies historically. Thats literally the point...

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

There is a way to coax them into doing it, by raising the demand for coal astronomically. But I would much rather just be able to build it myself.

[@grandgibbon2071]

The ai in general should be much better at building lucrative resource industries.

[@ksiaze649]

If they change war system then Vic3 would be great game

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I personally think Diplomacy is the biggest issue, followed by warfare. If warfare was good you would still have the issue of great powers dog pilling you for no reason.

[@StalinsGhost]

Yea it shows a real lack of thought for that mechanic. In vicky 2 you had the same thing but it was few and far between and was its own mechanic. Also wars in vicky 3 are way too drop down sticky and draggy even way before trench infantry.@@TobyYellsAtThings

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

The whole game is just a cluster fuck, I mean paradox hasn’t been best as of late but this whole game imo is just a total loss.

[@potato96hasdrowned66]

yeah vic3 needs a major fixing, ngl, the diplomacy in this game has to be fixed fr

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I think Diplomacy of all things should be one of the first fixed. I can excuse the warfare but not this shallow level of diplomacy.

[@poszukiwacznicku5068]

For me the biggest issue is for sure colonialism. XIX century, peak of EU colonialism, dividing and conquering Africa and we get like stupid click one button puff unlimited resources. XD NAH Colonialism should be fixed, like i cant. I see Japan never colonizing Hokkaido, Russia is fighting vs USA for "Belgium" Congo. Those small countries never gets conquered bc why would AI do that lol. And overall colonies are so mad OP, unlimited resources and nothing like revolts or problems with people not like being colonized. 0 events, 0 flavors. Occasionally you get 4 min war. Berlin conference? NAH forget about it, scrambling of Africa? Nope France Russia USA and GB dividing one state bc why not! Also i will skip talking about Indonesia bc brooo you cant understand this mess at all.

[@Ukalnsk]

I think you should have mentioned something about the political system, since at the moment it doesnt make much sense and is pure luck based.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I tried to keep the video more to the really broken stuff, the political system isn't great but I find it to be at least usable. Unlike a lot of the things I put on my list. Though you are right, in an ideal world I would much rather have laws be based on time and support instead of luck.

[@SamSchlimpert]

Real

[@zakaryloreto6526]

That it crashes every few years

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I actually don't have issues with the game crashing anymore. I definitely used to though.

[@Da__goat]

Diplomacy and War are the two biggest failures of this game. Diplomacy basically doesn't exist. Political maneuvers in a diplomatic play have some kind of limitation, as if there is some kind of limit to the amount of diplomatic maneuvers any nation can do. The limiting factor should be time, you can do whatever maneuvers you want within the escalation phases, you can take sides up until the very end of the countdown to war. Including a limiting number for maneuvers makes no sense. It's just mana 2.0 for no reason. War goals cannot be added after the conflict has broken out, which is beyond stupid. If a war between say Serbia and the Ottomans is not going well at first, because there's a massive difference in population and brigades, and then Serbia's ally Russia starts winning battles and Serbia pushes them back, if you've only added a single state, that's it, that's all you can do. Can't add wargoals after the fact like you could in Vic 2, 14 years ago... They stressed that you can do everything you used to be able to through diplomacy, but you absolutely cannot. Need to form Germany as Prussia, MUST go to war with France. You'll get lucky if France offers that to you in exchange for you joining their side but you guys are historical rivals. I played a game as Russia, literally was going fine until I swapped over my construction to steel frame buildings and my ENTIRE ECONOMY COLLAPSED. I had 1,042 construction industries but even worse was that I couldn't turn some of them off. Either I was going to have to pause every single one or resume it and lose all my money. Tooltips like 40% of the population are below their minimum expected standard of living did nothing to tell me how to fix that problem. Also, it didn't matter because I had 385 weeks of construction going, I couldn't fix it even if I wanted to. Same Russia game, I'm playing a very solid game, I've brought Finland down to puppet status, annexed the states in Central Asia, kept Khiva as a puppet because infamy, have Afghanistan, Makran, Kutch, Persia, Sindh and Oman in my customs union, puppeted Romania after it formed, taken the territory from Qing to get the events. Randomly, Persia keeps joining the Italian customs union, why? I don't know but every five years they just leave mine and go to Italy's for some reason. In that same game, France was hyper aggressive, all of north africa, even took the Ruhr from Prussia so no Germany formed and Prussia lost the Brother's War early on and had 25 brigades in 1898 while Austria-Hungary had 257 and did NOTHING WITH IT EXCEPT TRY AND COLONIZE PAPUA NEW GUINEA, no attempt at expanding into the Balkans, not even willing to help against the Ottoman Empire. I can't even do return state for my eventual puppet Greece on the Ottomans, it's just not there as an option. There are no flavor events about Kars or unifying the Armenian lands at all. Same game now, the Americans beat Mexico, but didn't take Utah and Colorado for some reason then went on a rampage in Indonesia annexing everything from Burma to New Guinea and there were 6 nations that ended up butchering the colonization of New Guinea. Then, and only after this, in 1889, did the Americans finally take Utah and Colorado from Mexico. In the same game, the French tried to take Aydin, Hudavenigar and Bursa from the Ottomans and for some reason the Ottomans changed their capital from Constantinople to Bursa. It just makes no f*cking sense what the AI does. There is no mechanic for "The Great Game" between Britain and Russia, no Crimean War pulse events, no flavor at all for any nation. The benefits to things that are presented in the journals are just not presented. Why should I try to get

[@caisam6621]

This game needs a total rework on everything

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I don't think there is a single area I would say the game is fantastic in. The economy is decent but could be a lot better imo.

[@caisam6621]

@@TobyYellsAtThings All they need to do is rework victoria 2 with better graphic add more decisions add more events and done .Buut they didn’t and mess it up

[@caisam6621]

And refine the military system too

[@damdamgor8014]

And I thouth you were ultra burned out from VIcky 3 and will never even think about the game, I was proven wrong and i'm happy about it. Love your content. (Tho vicky 3 does suck ass and i wloudnt flame anyone for beign burned out of it)

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I want to like this game really badly, but every time I play it, it manages to piss me off. This game could be really really good if given enough time, and I think it eventually will be. I made this video to try and point out the things I think paradox needs to fix to make vic 3 good, and hopefully get people talking about it so changes get made. Like say, I really want this game to be good, and I know it can be, it just isn't right now.

[@Wright1331]

#1 is warfare, but i'll give you a second chance..... uggg

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt with 1.5 before I go too hard on them for warfare.

[@willrobinson5609]

A video 😭

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

Yes sir, hopefully more on the way, I've been grasping at straws to find interesting Vic 3 ideas.

[@IamAWESOME3980]

bs, play spain and grew it into a great power with more military than the rest of the great powers combined. of course, that was in the early versions of the game.

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

The point is definitely simplified for the video sake, but more so I mean you can't do anything without taking several decades to build up first. My problem is that I find the build up process incredibly boring because I'm just sitting there waiting for stuff to build and laws to pass. I want to go fight smaller nations to build up instead but if the great powers get involved while I'm still building up I get wrecked. So I'm stuck with my only option as simply waiting until i can.

[@IamAWESOME3980]

​@@TobyYellsAtThings well, this reflects reality. backwater feudural society does not become an industrialized economic jugganut overnight and small microstate does not become an empire overnight. to make countries equal or semi equal from the starting point is ignoring the economic/political/military challenge of the game. treat state like france as easy mode and states like say tibet as hard difficulty

[@madmayson]

seems to be saying that history is bad and paradox should abandon history. america literally ruined spain in 1895, right?

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

It's a tricky topic, there is a balance to be struck between historical accuracy and playability. I'm all for historical accuracy until It makes the game less fun, then it just depends on the extent.

[@madmayson]

@@TobyYellsAtThings feels like the correct response for 'why is it impossible for Spain to defeat prussia' is 'because its 1835'

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

@@madmayson The issue is a little more complicated then that, it isn't a problem that the powers are that much stronger, it's the fact that there's nothing you can do about it. In history, many skilled generals where able to surmount impossible odds, the warfare system of vic 3 doesn't allow for anything like that. Vicky 3's warfare is too shallow to allow for anything other then the stronger power winning. That also wouldn't even be a big problem if not for the fact that Great powers get involved in wars randomly. So it's a compound issue. Great powers are way stronger, there are no tactics in the warfare system to let a skilled player win, and Great powers decide to randomly fight you when you try to expand. Essentially forcing the player to do nothing but domestic build up for the entire game if they're unlucky.

[@soundfxsar9300]

​@@madmaysonPrussia could not invade Spain, simply because of its geography, logistics, and invading homeland territory is very complicated, especially if those countries do not have a common border. The game doesn't care, the AI ​​can land with all the army possible in a country that is on the other side of the world, don't worry, its troops won't go hungry😂

[@ДімаБогданов-ъ8ш]

0:53 you put russia, us and uk in their current borders, but than why didn't you show Austria in its today's borders?😂 Also, where's Corsica? Okay, I can excuse overseas French possessions, but not the absence of the island, whete Napoleon was from, in the game about post-Napoleonic century?

[@TobyYellsAtThings]

They are in the realm where I bothered to update my assets.

[@Shaddarhim]

The answer to all those points is: the studio developing vic3 ran out of money before the game was completed and instead of going into an early access they sold it as a finished product.

[@AlmostWilder]

1.5 released. could you please unify europe?

[@ericweynands]

F* Pdox and their garbage line of games. Nuff said.

[@TheMaztercom]

Victoria 3 is like a roblox game

[@andrisbig7710]

This game is pointless idiocy to the extreme constantly balancing between A-B-C-D-E-F-G-I, if you increase A you need more of B, if you increase B you need more of C and so on in circle FOREVER and there is never enough. Furthermore there can happen some utterly idiotic even, when SUDDENLY you find yourself lacking THOUSANDS of convoys FOR NO FING REASON WHATSOEVER. Deleted and forgotten. Maybe in 2 - 3 years i will torrent that piece of shit again and see if it has added some IQ points to the gameplay.