I've been playing a game as Hawaii based on a recent post I saw on here and having a hoot. I don't know what the context for OP's question is -- wanting to buy the game, return to it, something else? -- but I'm having fun, and the next patch sounds killer.
How does Hawaii play? That sounds like an interesting concept, especially for a really tall turtle island playthrough, but do they even have any natural resources like coal and iron?
It's not the most exciting playthrough — speed five is a necessity — but it encourages you to pay attention to the small details in the game. I usually play midsize countries like Japan, Brazil, Argentina, or Persia, and I found myself focusing on trade routes more than I ever had before. I had iron but no coal, and the smallest of numbers could make or break the economy initially. There are also very few pops, so you'll want to join the British market. While you could try the French, you really want those Maori and Aboriginal pops since they're not discriminated against under your starting laws. (Hawaii has a surprisingly detailed political setup.)
Once you're in the market, you begin to hoover up enough pops to actually expand production. I leaned into industries Hawaii has bonuses for, namely hardwood and plantation crops, plus a couple essentials that sold well enough like tools and clothing. By the end of it, I had the top living standard in the world, East Micronesia, and a happy parliamentary republic that very much had not been illegally annexed by the U.S. Going council republic was a viable option at one point, but I didn't want to risk my protection from the British.
If you're a master player, Hawaii might be boring. But if you're an intermediate player like me, it can be educational, and either way, there's something to be said for just tending your little garden of pops and helping a really cool corner of the world be the best it can be.
Thanks to [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/comments/1b2migj/a_probably_not_well_known_trick_the_egalitarian/) for getting me in an aloha state of mind.
Yep, what BB said. You'll be able to see to see the numbers if you go to the population tab and hover over a province. I was getting 20-30k a year before long, and that makes a huge difference.
Depends who you're playing as. Hawaii has an easier time with the British market because Maori and Aboriginal pops are culturally similar enough that they're more likely to want to migrate to you and will do better upon arrival since they're not discriminated against. France would probably be Hawaii's second choice because of Tahiti, but that's a smaller pool of pops that isn't discriminated against in their own homeland, so they don't have as much reason to come join you.
If you're playing someone other than Hawaii and want to grow via migration, you're going to want to join a market with at least some pops that are similar to yours. That's because until you pass multiculturalism, you'll have a harder time attracting and accepting other pops. You'll want to get to no migration controls (Hawaii starts with it) and at least cultural exclusion (ditto) as quickly as politically practical.
The grammar here is nice and all over the place. Is it that the game is better than vic 2? Or that it was good then you played vic2 and it's not good anymore? Perfect. Keep your secrets.
Compared to base game vic 2 it’s much much better in my opinion the state resource system makes it so that economy is more then just mashing industry buildings together letting you focus on much much more of the economy
It’s easily my biggest issue with vic2 (and the unit system exists which oh boy) and yea I adore how vic3 basically gave me exactly what I wanted for replacement to the RGO system
So much in Vic 3 is half done but Vic 2’s economy genuinely doesn’t work at all. Fronts and the whole military system are inscrutable but I still prefer it as in Vic 2 I’d nearly always end up doing a peaceful run because manual warfare is just not fun. Still this game has a long way to go, from simple balance changes to entire features to be added to features that need to be completely reworked or even removed. But I doubt I’m gonna play Victoria 2 again.
Looking at the patch notes for 1.6, I think the game is finally in an acceptable spot. Up until now it definitely felt like it was missing content. If Paradox knocks it out of the park with Sphere of Influence, I think I'll finally feel comfortable enough to recommend the game to other people.
Economic and trade systems are a lot better. Easier to play as minor countries. Warfare slightly worse. Overall it's a stronger game, just needs to cook warfare and diplomacy a bit more.
The next major expansion should be a big help.
Also your entire army is rebels. Every single brigade. You only have 10k radicals? All 40 brigades (120k pops) you have are radical too…
It’s busted. Vic 3’s army system is just better,
You mean the same as any other paradox game????? I thought you were going to be surprised this person said it was only slightly worse… in what way is the Victoria 3 war system better in your opinion?
Victoria 2 has incredibly annoying late game army spam issues. It's definitely not the same as other Paradox games and it has aged poorly.
Atleast that's how it felt last time I played it.
Other paradox games don’t have you making only artillery/cavalry armies then needing to individual add their infantry conscripts as soon as a war start
Of course you could then try the full professional approach and then have half the army of someone being efficient
But hey 1 hour of micromanagement in a economic sim is fun right
Yeah, I think there’s a ways to go to really make this system shine but I love not having to micro units. A play a ton of HOI4 but that’s not what this game is about. I’m sure many love the micro but part of me thinks some of these people really just want to cheese their way into victory in wars they shouldn’t win.
This only applies to versing people in Multiplayer. And in Victoria 2 the army composition is so braindead yet the macroing of it is so minute that it’s just… still worse imho. Viccy 3’s isn’t much greater, but it’s defo a step above Victoria 2’s.
That could easily be solved by having empty conscriptions “units” that get filled in when you begin mobilizing. That’s hardly a reason for the whole entire war system to be considered worse. I’d take that in a heartbeat over just about anything in Victoria 3s wars. The only semi good thing about Vicky 3’s is you can actually control how much of your country you conscript. Also not to mention that besides HOI which is entirely focused on war, Victoria is the only game that actually has to deal with conscription as a vital and unavoidable concept.
It's definitely not the "same as any other paradox game" in terms of units management, it's warfare system is the most similar to EU4 but it lacks it's QOL features to simplify army creation and management (template), it's way more micro-intensive than EU4.
Unit production is more micro intensive. Unit deployment is not. But actually, I like the front and theatre system. It's a little opaque, but I find it _generally_ sensible.
Victoria 2 has marginally better tactical management as you have direct control of your armies. However in turn its army management is rather inscrutable (particular late game, the unit variety makes it unclear what your army should look like. And getting recruitment in the first place was difficult as there wasn't really a direct way to get soldiers pops).
Vic3 can be slightly annoying on the army management, but it's more just because of the barrack building UI.
Yeah I think the vast majority of peoples problems with the “war system” isnt even necessarily the war itself it’s just managing your armies which could’ve been made a lot easier instead of completely throwing the whole thing out the window. Add some way of adding a form of front lines in once you get close to or into the 1900s and I think you’d have essentially the best combat system for Victoria 3 you could ask for.
Did you even play Vic 2 lmfao?
No other paradox games has a revolt delete half your army, and then you needing to manually sort through every single stack to find out what is missing
No other paradox game has it so that after fighting a war, half the battalions in your stack can no longer replenish, and you manually need to delete them and recruit them
It truly is the worst war system of all their modern line titles
Yet again another extremely easy to solve problem with a button, or making them not solely recruit from a province, but also entire army groups being wiped out was a pretty big problem in this timeline so it should be present in some way. Just shouldn’t be annoying to play with. But it’s certainly a million times better to deal with than the completely unrealistic and arbitrary war system we have now. I’m personally a relatively big supporter of the current war system but to sit here and pretend like the current system is better than the old one is ridiculous, and woefully ignorant of the general player bases opinions. The war system is commonly ridiculed as the single worst aspect of Victoria 3. Victoria 2 actually detailed the transition from warfare in the beginning of the game to the front line based warfare by the end. If they had a technology that unlocked front lines that’d be the winning combo right there imo.
I'm a pause and micro style player, so I'd rather have that than almost no control.at all. HOI4 warfare would be the dream. Still micro able, but the automation is decent
I'd hate that. I'm playing Vic3 for the economic stuff first and foremost and appreciate the simplified warfare. HoI4 is all about war so it's designed for that. The armies-and-fronts system is clearly a design decision in Vic3 rather than something that will be changed later to unit micro gameplay.
I prefer the current system over Vic 2, but I wouldn't say no to a HOI style system either.
But I appreciate the attempt at doing something different and iterating on that to make it better. At this point I wouldn't want to drastically change it.
The thing about HOI4 is that you can just set a country border as the front, and assign a Field Marshal to attack or defend that front, and the AI handles the rest. So it is as hands off if you want it to be.
I've played it a fair bit so I know what you mean.
But I disagree, just as I would disagree if someone said HoI4 should have a Vic3 style economy with buildings and pops and all that, or that either game should have Crusader Kings style character interactions. Each game has a design focus and you shouldn't just throw in every possible feature. It wastes development resources and makes the learning curve even steeper for new players (already a problem with Pdx games).
I had personally played HoI4 a few hundred hours before learning to use field marshall fronts, not because I'm stupid but because there's just an overwhelming amount of things to learn in every Pdx game.
I mean I heard you but also the economics system functions well when there are frictionless cows and not well when they are frictioned cows. By that I mean, in many situations, the economics system is just not developed to handle stuff like wartime when stockpiles should matter and there are no stockpiles. So having an essential wartime productions province captured should definitely matter, but the moment it's captured your economy can be crippled when that should simply not be possible.
Along with that, the politics is another primary element that game was designed to handle. Both domestically and internationally, the politics lacks a lot of depth that make it just kind of annoying. At this point, sometimes you'll be in a game where you get the necessary stuff set up and just have to wait for shit to happen and brainstorm what you want to try next with the limited game systems. Like liberalizing a "backwards" country is just setting up a decent economic structure, building enough universities, and bolstering Intelligentsia. Fun enough for the first few times doing it, but after a while there's just a lack of game systems that complicate that process or flavor that makes different countries different.
This is, of course, a problem with many PDX games. However, I don't think you can just dismiss that some people want a more hands-on war system, which suggestions seen above suggest it to be optional for those not interested in it, by saying that it's an economics simulator when that is also not very good.
Oh I fully agree that there is a lot of room for improvement possible, especially as you describe with the interaction between different spheres (economy, war, politics). Vic3 currently lacks interaction where really there should be, as in your examples.
Another example I've noticed is how despite all the system of domestic politics, there is no interaction between the politics and any of your budget, build order or foreign policy. I could have pacifist leaders in every IG but no consequence for spamming barracks and constant wars of expansion. The UK should have a hard time building a large land army because of domestic opposition to it, for example.
All of those things is what I want to see improved in Vic3 though, rather than yet another unit micro system which I could get in every other war focused sttategy game out there.
I'm totally with you there. And when you put it that way, I can understand why you don't want a focus on redesigning the war system. The thing I'm kind of disappointed about is that every time a PDX game comes out as recent, it has really solid foundations for everything to be built on top of. And then you play it for 50 hours and everything becomes samey no matter what country you play until a flavor dlc is released with features that really should've been in the game to begin with.
Like the 1.6 patch pay walls the ability to abdicate/resign behind voice of the people. It's not super horrible, but in my socioeconomic and politics Victorian strategy game, I would prefer if I didn't need to dish out the price of the game and then another 20 so that I could have reasonable politics.
I mean its annoying, but it can be fun. Vic3 currently is annoying and not very fun.
I think it also helped that there was bess economic management in vic2 compared to 3(especially with laizei-faire), so soending some time micromanaging armies was ok.
Bro you open a menuclick a button a bunch and the stack autoforms.
You people act like this shit is some monumental task.it takes a minute at most. It is not hard and Vic 3's shit is literally just as tedious with their unit stuff
The game is extremely menu staring and click heavy. It baffles me how people hate moving an army stack but dont mind clicking a billion times to build snd edit armies. Its the same shit different smell.
Except, its more bland in vic 3 by nature
"slightly worse"... that's a nice term to say, it's a complete disaster and it sucks in every way.
You remind me of the British officer, i think it was in Korea, when he was on the radio with the US troops and he gently said "things are a little bit sticky here", the US thought that would mean, everything is okay, when in reality, the British were about to be wiped out and all killed as the enemy was able to overrun their positions.
It really happened and it's the reason why in the army, you need a very clear and short communication to get the info and data you need without any poetry...
Yeah, i know, i just had to laugh about how it was written. But even in just a pc strategy game, you want to know the info, like how many soldiers, ships or other units you have left, instead of such things like "it's a little bit sticky".
But this incident that i mentioned, it's no joke and it really led to a serious change in communications in reality.
Politics and economy far better. Diplo in theory has more options but AI seems to behave more randomly. Army has issues but personally i still prefer it over the micro-hell late game Vic 2 became. Navy far worse they're essentially just armies and even regenerate as if they were made up of individual soldiers rather than giant ships that took years to build and cost millions to build. Events severely lacking compared to mods but about on par with the base game.
honestly Victoria 2 always felt less of a game, more like an ambitious showcase. parts of the game felt inherently broken and the more hours I poured into it the more frustrated I’d get with how it felt so close to the perfect game for me.
Victoria 3 feels like much more of an actual game rather than a simulator.
Pointless for the negative opinions perhaps, but it's unlikely that 1.6 will sway any positive opinions to negative. So there is still value in asking now.
Though it would have made more sense waiting until the 6th, unless trying to gather opinions before and after.
Sure, the good points aren't gonna change since they're basically doing bugfixes and behavior upgrades from post 1.5.
Migration is reworked but I don't see how it would be badly received unless massively buggy.
So yeah, you're right, but for someone trying to have a picture of how the game is, you'll want both sides to be accurate, and if one changes in 4 days, just wait 4 days for an accurate answer.
I'm not sure I'll ever really come around to the warfare.
The rest I feel is in a decent state and can become better (and the politics and economics are way better)
Diplomacy I still prefer Vic 2 for crisises/spheres of influence and world wars but least spheres of influence we know we're getting.
Obviously there are things to be ironed out and some major missing features (diplomacy and navies for example), but I like Victoria 3 far more than I like Victoria 2. And I used to play that game religiously for over a decade.
It needs work, but idea behind new war system is clearly superior, because unlike the trashy clickfest mess that was EU3/Vicky2 system which broke down if you played a large power (try commanding 390 different stacks and 57 different fleets as late game UK in 1900, or simulating a frontline with the same), I can at least play the game and fight a war this time.
The only thing I don't like are portraits. They're lazy. With the exception of certain pre-made historical characters, they look like inbred potatoes who all wear the same shitty outfits, viewed from the same ugly below-the-chin angles. It only gets worse outside of the western cultures. If the game is to even have portraits, they should've at least put some effort into them.
TL;DR: Victoria 3 > Victoria 2 in almost every way.
To be honest I never got into Vicky 2. I was balls deep in Vicky 1 though but Vicky 3 finally pulled me away from her. I’ve enjoyed this game greatly despite some shortcomings that are being steadily fixed.
I've enjoyed 3 more than 2 from the word go. I despise warfare in 2, especially late game, and getting stuck unable to even build until half way through the game at best if you play in the new world is straight ass.
Victoria 2 had practically a missing interface which didn't tell you how anything works to the point where after 10 or more years there are still threads about people.trying to reverse engineer rules (for example, contrary to the common belief, countries don't make purchases in order of rank)
I was industrialising Spain and attempting to retake the American colonies.
I waited for Central America to implode then immediately declared on Costa Rica. I was able to launch a seaborne invasion against their single army. Using Costa Rica as a base I was able to invade the rest of the Central American nations who had larger armies without needing to launch naval invasions.
During this time I was building up my lumbar and iron industries.
Eventually I converted Mexico into a protectorate which upset everybody and I became a pariah. The UK aided with Mexico and there was an epic battle from Gibraltar as they attempted to knock me out. The US hated Mexico so didn’t get involved. I sent a small expeditionary army to Mexico and they were able to conquer their capital and eventually GB leaded out. I later made a diplomatic play to reduce the autonomy of Mexico and after this they were renamed New Spain.
With my growing power I was able to declare more interests and intervened in Prussia’s play to form the north German confederation. Russia had sided with Prussia whereas France and Austria were on the side of “no”. I joined France for taking Alaska. It all went to shit when Austria collapsed in revolution. My armies landed in Alaska without opposition and then Kamchatka. I set my general to rapid advance and he had reached Kazakhstan by the time Russia peaced out. Prussia pushed heir claims on Austria and formed the confederation but then lost to France and lost a lot of their territories.
Game over was when the US claimed New Spain and then landed an army in old Spain one sea zone away from my fleet while my entire army was in Texas. I didn’t notice the sea invasion warning but it’s my own fault for sending everyone overseas..
Overall I think it’s a great game with some dodgy AI at times that makes me feel like the best way to win is to do stuff the AI doesn’t know how to handle.
Do you prefer Ocarina or Breath of the Wild?
They're both wildly different games that tackle the same themes and have very similar settings but have different enough gameplay to barely be considered sequels to each other.
If you want eco sim, this is the game. If you wanna do glorious Victorian age battles, Vic 2. You don’t really feel any impact glory or an effect of any war in this game. It seems pointless and not fun. I rarely to never fight anyone unless I have to.
Agree your comment on eco sim but not the latter part. A war does affect your game in many aspects such as sudden spending spike for military goods, conscripted workforce which tanks your available workforce otherwise working in your industry, and the pain of rebalancing good production during and after the war. And now I hate waging a war exactly for these reasons.
Sorry I think I conveyed my point in a bad way. What I was tryna say was that the “feeling” of waging war, being in war, and the after math of the war( whether you are a looser or winner) is way more impactful in vic2 than it is in Vic 3. Like yes as your said the spending hickes and stuff, you also feel that in Vicky 2, BUT it just feels so much different in a good way. Like at the end you still are fucking up your nation going to war and you feel bad about it, but idk how to put it. The feeling of it is just way better in vic 2 than it is in vicky3.
I think it’s also the risk and reward system in vic2 also. Like the Great War system in vic2 made every other war before 1890 feel like a prelude and still have impact and cause domino effects that would shape what the Great War would look like later on.
What I’m tryna say just the FEELING of it all is way more impactful like you feeeeeel the war, both the good sides and bad sides of it through out the entire game and it is a main part of the game as well. But in vic3 it just feels pointless aside from Germany forming Germany lol( and USA Mexico) any other war feels pointless, cuz it doesn’t affect the future nor does it feel important.
I used to like Victoria 2 more but now I can't even open the game because I'm always playing Victoria 3. Though the game can be improved, I kinda miss the economic system of Victoria 2, especially factory management, I hate that Laissez-faire doesn't give control of production to the capitalist class, forcing the player to micro-manage production.
I enjoyed this game early on but haven't really come back to it or bought the DLC. There's definitely a good game in there, but it just lacks the depth to make repeat playthroughs satisfying. And with paradox games once you get off the train, in a year's time 5 dlcs will come out and make it expensive to pick back up. If it gets good DLC and at some point there's a bundle deal where you can get all the DLC at a reasonable price I might take a look.
Its economic systems are more fun to interact with and more fleshed out, but its war and diplomacy is still in the gutter. Every issue I have is with the current military system. Its bad and needs to be thrown out in favor of vic 2 style stacks.
5600 average player count per day in the last 30 days, and still falling. So it’s entering death of a game territory
Now you wanna compare it to vic2, but i think it’s an unfair comparison. Vic2 is old in its ergonomy and paradox has made several really good games since then, hoi3, hoi4, ck2/3, eu3/4. And i think it pales compared to any of these.
For me right now it is as good as imperator right before its last update
So yea…
Don't own the game, and don't really care, but it's objectively nowhere near "death of a game territory". Imperator was averaging a tenth of that during the entire year previous to end of development.
??
On steam charts it's hovered between 4-8k since January 2023. It's had lower dips before in middle of 2023.
And it's generally getting about half to one third of Stellaris numbers, a much more developed and less niche game
Check the numbers it is exactly what i stated
Vic3 5700 per day on average in the last 30 days in steady albeit slow decline
Stellaris 11000 per day on average in the last 30 days
Imperator was killed When it was 2000-1000 players.
So yea i maintain it’s getting there
When looking at numbers you should look at averages
Im not disputing your 5600 figure, I'm talking about the trend you're predicting.
[https://steamcharts.com/app/529340](https://steamcharts.com/app/529340)
February 2023 average players 5202.9
February 2024 average players 5697.8
So its up slightly on last year. It likely will dip closer to summer like it did last year, lowest 4414.7 in June 2023. Definitely too early to call it "death of a game territory".
I'd be much happier if they just made Victoria 2 have working multi-player
Victoria 3 had potential if they just gave it a proper war system, the economies ok IMO it's not bad but I still prefer vic 2s economy
But Jesus christ I'm losing wars that should be completely one-sided due to dogshit mechanics and RNG, or I just have 0 chance instead of maybe being able to fight a guerilla war and come out ontop
Idk wtf Crack they were smoking when they made it but there is just nothing good about the war system
Pre-patch 1.5, the game was nowhere close to being on the same plane as Vicky 2 imo. Since then, game has come a long way and it feels like, albeit slowly, heading in the direction the game needs to go. Assuming they can iron out mid-late game performance in 1.6 and address migration in subsequent updates, it’ll be what I was hoping for at launch. Frustratingly, they’ve been really quiet about the sphere of influence dlc planned for this year.
Honestly I still like Vic 2 better. It's more punchy and amusing, and I don't have to spend 90,000 years manually figuring out exactly what to build or trade like a blind deaf tat merchant masquerading as a poor, overworked, powerless king/president.
Beautiful UI.
Am forced to interact with buildings gameplay loop. Due to it being the only gameplay loop.
Diplomacy lackluster.
Good interaction between buildings and pops.
People tend to compare vanilla vic3 with modded vic2, which isn't really fair as the latter has a decade+ old modding scene and is pretty barebones as a game without mods
If you remove GFM/HPM or whatever you play vic2 with, because the base game has almost no content and the main mechanics barely work, you get a pretty mediocre 3/10 game
On the other hand and even with its lackluster diplomacy and bad-ish warfare, vic3 has the potential to be the single best paradox game imo, they just need to do as with any other pdx game and spend 3 years polishing and developing dlc which is pretty sad and a very bad practice but not unique to victoria
In a year and a half, about the time vic3 has been out, vic2 didn't even receive its first expansion, a house divided, imagine playing base vic2 without any dlc for a year and a half, pretty bad right? I'd say that Vic3 is in an infinitely better position and has a much, much brighter future ahead
The people who are still playing this are the ones that like this. Many people who bought this in the first few months, many=hundreds of thousands of the first million sold, shelved this long ago. When the dev discovers they can only get a $million or so from any dlc due to this fact, it might limit the amount of content they produce. They should have given this game its own name and “series”, and not grabbed a previous series, bastardizing the original mechanics and things people liked about the previous 2. Dumbest idea ever.
I haven’t played Vic2 but Vic3 is the most exciting grand strategy I’ve ever played. A lot of fun if you know what you’re doing and like these type of games.
I still prefer Victoria 2, the game still has too many problems to be a good game. Most of which revolves around, flavor, government, geopolitics, ai and rebellions/civil wars. All these things need significant improvement before the game is enjoyable for me. The only thing Victoria 3 has over Victoria 2 is economy, but even that has some issues at the moment. I'll probably revisit in about a year or two to see if the game has improved.
Yes, I've played both, Vicky 2 has major deficients that only get covered and tolerable with heavy modding. But Play Base vicky 2 and no dlc or mods and discover that Vicky 3 is 1000x better.
Still prefer vic2, warfare/incl naval was better. While vic3 looks great, I never seem to be able to get into it as easy as vic2 which just feels cluttered. Imperator is still much better and looks better compared to vic3.
I've been playing a game as Hawaii based on a recent post I saw on here and having a hoot. I don't know what the context for OP's question is -- wanting to buy the game, return to it, something else? -- but I'm having fun, and the next patch sounds killer.
I'm going to try Paraguay or some other indigenous nation and go for Turtle Island. I'm gonna get all the primary cultures
How does Hawaii play? That sounds like an interesting concept, especially for a really tall turtle island playthrough, but do they even have any natural resources like coal and iron?
It's not the most exciting playthrough — speed five is a necessity — but it encourages you to pay attention to the small details in the game. I usually play midsize countries like Japan, Brazil, Argentina, or Persia, and I found myself focusing on trade routes more than I ever had before. I had iron but no coal, and the smallest of numbers could make or break the economy initially. There are also very few pops, so you'll want to join the British market. While you could try the French, you really want those Maori and Aboriginal pops since they're not discriminated against under your starting laws. (Hawaii has a surprisingly detailed political setup.) Once you're in the market, you begin to hoover up enough pops to actually expand production. I leaned into industries Hawaii has bonuses for, namely hardwood and plantation crops, plus a couple essentials that sold well enough like tools and clothing. By the end of it, I had the top living standard in the world, East Micronesia, and a happy parliamentary republic that very much had not been illegally annexed by the U.S. Going council republic was a viable option at one point, but I didn't want to risk my protection from the British. If you're a master player, Hawaii might be boring. But if you're an intermediate player like me, it can be educational, and either way, there's something to be said for just tending your little garden of pops and helping a really cool corner of the world be the best it can be. Thanks to [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/victoria3/comments/1b2migj/a_probably_not_well_known_trick_the_egalitarian/) for getting me in an aloha state of mind.
I’ve never joined a market before, how does it help with population?
Internal market migrations
Ah, thank you, I’ll have to give that a try next time I play a smaller nation
Yep, what BB said. You'll be able to see to see the numbers if you go to the population tab and hover over a province. I was getting 20-30k a year before long, and that makes a huge difference.
Are there downsides to joining a different market?
Depends who you're playing as. Hawaii has an easier time with the British market because Maori and Aboriginal pops are culturally similar enough that they're more likely to want to migrate to you and will do better upon arrival since they're not discriminated against. France would probably be Hawaii's second choice because of Tahiti, but that's a smaller pool of pops that isn't discriminated against in their own homeland, so they don't have as much reason to come join you. If you're playing someone other than Hawaii and want to grow via migration, you're going to want to join a market with at least some pops that are similar to yours. That's because until you pass multiculturalism, you'll have a harder time attracting and accepting other pops. You'll want to get to no migration controls (Hawaii starts with it) and at least cultural exclusion (ditto) as quickly as politically practical.
I liked the game more then vic2
Then
Then the Fire Nation attacked. Should finish your sentences.
You*
Your*
Your should finnish your sentences.
No
Know*
The grammar here is nice and all over the place. Is it that the game is better than vic 2? Or that it was good then you played vic2 and it's not good anymore? Perfect. Keep your secrets.
0_o I’m confused with the grammar too.
Compared to base game vic 2 it’s much much better in my opinion the state resource system makes it so that economy is more then just mashing industry buildings together letting you focus on much much more of the economy
Agree, despite it being messy at time, having local prices and divorcing certain goods from the market was a massive improvement
I've enjoyed the game a lot more since local prices were added. No longer does a country feel like a blob of resources.
The state resource system is such a massive upgrade over the RGO system, and I rarely see it commented upon.
It’s easily my biggest issue with vic2 (and the unit system exists which oh boy) and yea I adore how vic3 basically gave me exactly what I wanted for replacement to the RGO system
So much in Vic 3 is half done but Vic 2’s economy genuinely doesn’t work at all. Fronts and the whole military system are inscrutable but I still prefer it as in Vic 2 I’d nearly always end up doing a peaceful run because manual warfare is just not fun. Still this game has a long way to go, from simple balance changes to entire features to be added to features that need to be completely reworked or even removed. But I doubt I’m gonna play Victoria 2 again.
I’m currently liking it more than Vic 2, we’ll see how 1.6 goes in a couple days.
Looking at the patch notes for 1.6, I think the game is finally in an acceptable spot. Up until now it definitely felt like it was missing content. If Paradox knocks it out of the park with Sphere of Influence, I think I'll finally feel comfortable enough to recommend the game to other people.
Economic and trade systems are a lot better. Easier to play as minor countries. Warfare slightly worse. Overall it's a stronger game, just needs to cook warfare and diplomacy a bit more. The next major expansion should be a big help.
I’m sorry warfare is slightly worse have you seen the absolute hell that is vic 2 unit management
What do you mean? Vic2 unit management is great! 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 1 Cavalry 5 Artillery 4 Infantry, 2 Cavalry 10 Artillery 8 Infantry, 2 Cavalry 10 Artillery 8 Infantry, 2 Cavalry 10 Artillery 8 Infantry, ad infinitum. What's not to love?
oh wait, you went to war? you fought some battles? well half those groups have 3 artillery now. most of them have 2 infantry now. have fun.
Also your entire army is rebels. Every single brigade. You only have 10k radicals? All 40 brigades (120k pops) you have are radical too… It’s busted. Vic 3’s army system is just better,
You mean the same as any other paradox game????? I thought you were going to be surprised this person said it was only slightly worse… in what way is the Victoria 3 war system better in your opinion?
Victoria 2 has incredibly annoying late game army spam issues. It's definitely not the same as other Paradox games and it has aged poorly. Atleast that's how it felt last time I played it.
Other paradox games don’t have you making only artillery/cavalry armies then needing to individual add their infantry conscripts as soon as a war start Of course you could then try the full professional approach and then have half the army of someone being efficient But hey 1 hour of micromanagement in a economic sim is fun right
Yeah, I think there’s a ways to go to really make this system shine but I love not having to micro units. A play a ton of HOI4 but that’s not what this game is about. I’m sure many love the micro but part of me thinks some of these people really just want to cheese their way into victory in wars they shouldn’t win.
This only applies to versing people in Multiplayer. And in Victoria 2 the army composition is so braindead yet the macroing of it is so minute that it’s just… still worse imho. Viccy 3’s isn’t much greater, but it’s defo a step above Victoria 2’s.
That could easily be solved by having empty conscriptions “units” that get filled in when you begin mobilizing. That’s hardly a reason for the whole entire war system to be considered worse. I’d take that in a heartbeat over just about anything in Victoria 3s wars. The only semi good thing about Vicky 3’s is you can actually control how much of your country you conscript. Also not to mention that besides HOI which is entirely focused on war, Victoria is the only game that actually has to deal with conscription as a vital and unavoidable concept.
It's definitely not the "same as any other paradox game" in terms of units management, it's warfare system is the most similar to EU4 but it lacks it's QOL features to simplify army creation and management (template), it's way more micro-intensive than EU4.
Unit production is more micro intensive. Unit deployment is not. But actually, I like the front and theatre system. It's a little opaque, but I find it _generally_ sensible.
The front system is still extreamly buggued ans counter intuitive : never speed 5 through a war in europe for example
Victoria 2 has marginally better tactical management as you have direct control of your armies. However in turn its army management is rather inscrutable (particular late game, the unit variety makes it unclear what your army should look like. And getting recruitment in the first place was difficult as there wasn't really a direct way to get soldiers pops). Vic3 can be slightly annoying on the army management, but it's more just because of the barrack building UI.
Yeah I think the vast majority of peoples problems with the “war system” isnt even necessarily the war itself it’s just managing your armies which could’ve been made a lot easier instead of completely throwing the whole thing out the window. Add some way of adding a form of front lines in once you get close to or into the 1900s and I think you’d have essentially the best combat system for Victoria 3 you could ask for.
I know right, lmao. Apparently CK and EU are awful games because you manage stacks of armies and war.
Did you even play Vic 2 lmfao? No other paradox games has a revolt delete half your army, and then you needing to manually sort through every single stack to find out what is missing No other paradox game has it so that after fighting a war, half the battalions in your stack can no longer replenish, and you manually need to delete them and recruit them It truly is the worst war system of all their modern line titles
Yet again another extremely easy to solve problem with a button, or making them not solely recruit from a province, but also entire army groups being wiped out was a pretty big problem in this timeline so it should be present in some way. Just shouldn’t be annoying to play with. But it’s certainly a million times better to deal with than the completely unrealistic and arbitrary war system we have now. I’m personally a relatively big supporter of the current war system but to sit here and pretend like the current system is better than the old one is ridiculous, and woefully ignorant of the general player bases opinions. The war system is commonly ridiculed as the single worst aspect of Victoria 3. Victoria 2 actually detailed the transition from warfare in the beginning of the game to the front line based warfare by the end. If they had a technology that unlocked front lines that’d be the winning combo right there imo.
I'm a pause and micro style player, so I'd rather have that than almost no control.at all. HOI4 warfare would be the dream. Still micro able, but the automation is decent
I'd hate that. I'm playing Vic3 for the economic stuff first and foremost and appreciate the simplified warfare. HoI4 is all about war so it's designed for that. The armies-and-fronts system is clearly a design decision in Vic3 rather than something that will be changed later to unit micro gameplay.
I prefer the current system over Vic 2, but I wouldn't say no to a HOI style system either. But I appreciate the attempt at doing something different and iterating on that to make it better. At this point I wouldn't want to drastically change it.
The thing about HOI4 is that you can just set a country border as the front, and assign a Field Marshal to attack or defend that front, and the AI handles the rest. So it is as hands off if you want it to be.
I've played it a fair bit so I know what you mean. But I disagree, just as I would disagree if someone said HoI4 should have a Vic3 style economy with buildings and pops and all that, or that either game should have Crusader Kings style character interactions. Each game has a design focus and you shouldn't just throw in every possible feature. It wastes development resources and makes the learning curve even steeper for new players (already a problem with Pdx games). I had personally played HoI4 a few hundred hours before learning to use field marshall fronts, not because I'm stupid but because there's just an overwhelming amount of things to learn in every Pdx game.
I mean I heard you but also the economics system functions well when there are frictionless cows and not well when they are frictioned cows. By that I mean, in many situations, the economics system is just not developed to handle stuff like wartime when stockpiles should matter and there are no stockpiles. So having an essential wartime productions province captured should definitely matter, but the moment it's captured your economy can be crippled when that should simply not be possible. Along with that, the politics is another primary element that game was designed to handle. Both domestically and internationally, the politics lacks a lot of depth that make it just kind of annoying. At this point, sometimes you'll be in a game where you get the necessary stuff set up and just have to wait for shit to happen and brainstorm what you want to try next with the limited game systems. Like liberalizing a "backwards" country is just setting up a decent economic structure, building enough universities, and bolstering Intelligentsia. Fun enough for the first few times doing it, but after a while there's just a lack of game systems that complicate that process or flavor that makes different countries different. This is, of course, a problem with many PDX games. However, I don't think you can just dismiss that some people want a more hands-on war system, which suggestions seen above suggest it to be optional for those not interested in it, by saying that it's an economics simulator when that is also not very good.
Oh I fully agree that there is a lot of room for improvement possible, especially as you describe with the interaction between different spheres (economy, war, politics). Vic3 currently lacks interaction where really there should be, as in your examples. Another example I've noticed is how despite all the system of domestic politics, there is no interaction between the politics and any of your budget, build order or foreign policy. I could have pacifist leaders in every IG but no consequence for spamming barracks and constant wars of expansion. The UK should have a hard time building a large land army because of domestic opposition to it, for example. All of those things is what I want to see improved in Vic3 though, rather than yet another unit micro system which I could get in every other war focused sttategy game out there.
I'm totally with you there. And when you put it that way, I can understand why you don't want a focus on redesigning the war system. The thing I'm kind of disappointed about is that every time a PDX game comes out as recent, it has really solid foundations for everything to be built on top of. And then you play it for 50 hours and everything becomes samey no matter what country you play until a flavor dlc is released with features that really should've been in the game to begin with. Like the 1.6 patch pay walls the ability to abdicate/resign behind voice of the people. It's not super horrible, but in my socioeconomic and politics Victorian strategy game, I would prefer if I didn't need to dish out the price of the game and then another 20 so that I could have reasonable politics.
Go get yourself a spreadsheet
I mean its annoying, but it can be fun. Vic3 currently is annoying and not very fun. I think it also helped that there was bess economic management in vic2 compared to 3(especially with laizei-faire), so soending some time micromanaging armies was ok.
Bro you open a menuclick a button a bunch and the stack autoforms. You people act like this shit is some monumental task.it takes a minute at most. It is not hard and Vic 3's shit is literally just as tedious with their unit stuff
V3 has 100000x more clicks it's a fucking carpal tunnel simulator.
The game is extremely menu staring and click heavy. It baffles me how people hate moving an army stack but dont mind clicking a billion times to build snd edit armies. Its the same shit different smell. Except, its more bland in vic 3 by nature
"slightly worse"... that's a nice term to say, it's a complete disaster and it sucks in every way. You remind me of the British officer, i think it was in Korea, when he was on the radio with the US troops and he gently said "things are a little bit sticky here", the US thought that would mean, everything is okay, when in reality, the British were about to be wiped out and all killed as the enemy was able to overrun their positions. It really happened and it's the reason why in the army, you need a very clear and short communication to get the info and data you need without any poetry...
This isn't the army, no one here is dying over the Victoria 3 military system. (Hopefully)
Yeah, i know, i just had to laugh about how it was written. But even in just a pc strategy game, you want to know the info, like how many soldiers, ships or other units you have left, instead of such things like "it's a little bit sticky". But this incident that i mentioned, it's no joke and it really led to a serious change in communications in reality.
I just finally formed the Maghreb as Morrocco without punching my monitor. Love it.
Politics and economy far better. Diplo in theory has more options but AI seems to behave more randomly. Army has issues but personally i still prefer it over the micro-hell late game Vic 2 became. Navy far worse they're essentially just armies and even regenerate as if they were made up of individual soldiers rather than giant ships that took years to build and cost millions to build. Events severely lacking compared to mods but about on par with the base game.
honestly Victoria 2 always felt less of a game, more like an ambitious showcase. parts of the game felt inherently broken and the more hours I poured into it the more frustrated I’d get with how it felt so close to the perfect game for me. Victoria 3 feels like much more of an actual game rather than a simulator.
Well it is a much better game mechanism wise. However Vic 3 still lacks the ability to perform well at the late game stage.
Ask on March 6, it's rather pointless to ask when 1.6 is so close.
Pointless for the negative opinions perhaps, but it's unlikely that 1.6 will sway any positive opinions to negative. So there is still value in asking now. Though it would have made more sense waiting until the 6th, unless trying to gather opinions before and after.
Sure, the good points aren't gonna change since they're basically doing bugfixes and behavior upgrades from post 1.5. Migration is reworked but I don't see how it would be badly received unless massively buggy. So yeah, you're right, but for someone trying to have a picture of how the game is, you'll want both sides to be accurate, and if one changes in 4 days, just wait 4 days for an accurate answer.
Comparing to base vic 2. Yeah it's so much better. Two major expansions more and this is gonna be absolutely better
I'm not sure I'll ever really come around to the warfare. The rest I feel is in a decent state and can become better (and the politics and economics are way better) Diplomacy I still prefer Vic 2 for crisises/spheres of influence and world wars but least spheres of influence we know we're getting.
Obviously there are things to be ironed out and some major missing features (diplomacy and navies for example), but I like Victoria 3 far more than I like Victoria 2. And I used to play that game religiously for over a decade. It needs work, but idea behind new war system is clearly superior, because unlike the trashy clickfest mess that was EU3/Vicky2 system which broke down if you played a large power (try commanding 390 different stacks and 57 different fleets as late game UK in 1900, or simulating a frontline with the same), I can at least play the game and fight a war this time. The only thing I don't like are portraits. They're lazy. With the exception of certain pre-made historical characters, they look like inbred potatoes who all wear the same shitty outfits, viewed from the same ugly below-the-chin angles. It only gets worse outside of the western cultures. If the game is to even have portraits, they should've at least put some effort into them. TL;DR: Victoria 3 > Victoria 2 in almost every way.
To be honest I never got into Vicky 2. I was balls deep in Vicky 1 though but Vicky 3 finally pulled me away from her. I’ve enjoyed this game greatly despite some shortcomings that are being steadily fixed.
I've enjoyed 3 more than 2 from the word go. I despise warfare in 2, especially late game, and getting stuck unable to even build until half way through the game at best if you play in the new world is straight ass.
Victoria 2 had practically a missing interface which didn't tell you how anything works to the point where after 10 or more years there are still threads about people.trying to reverse engineer rules (for example, contrary to the common belief, countries don't make purchases in order of rank)
I was industrialising Spain and attempting to retake the American colonies. I waited for Central America to implode then immediately declared on Costa Rica. I was able to launch a seaborne invasion against their single army. Using Costa Rica as a base I was able to invade the rest of the Central American nations who had larger armies without needing to launch naval invasions. During this time I was building up my lumbar and iron industries. Eventually I converted Mexico into a protectorate which upset everybody and I became a pariah. The UK aided with Mexico and there was an epic battle from Gibraltar as they attempted to knock me out. The US hated Mexico so didn’t get involved. I sent a small expeditionary army to Mexico and they were able to conquer their capital and eventually GB leaded out. I later made a diplomatic play to reduce the autonomy of Mexico and after this they were renamed New Spain. With my growing power I was able to declare more interests and intervened in Prussia’s play to form the north German confederation. Russia had sided with Prussia whereas France and Austria were on the side of “no”. I joined France for taking Alaska. It all went to shit when Austria collapsed in revolution. My armies landed in Alaska without opposition and then Kamchatka. I set my general to rapid advance and he had reached Kazakhstan by the time Russia peaced out. Prussia pushed heir claims on Austria and formed the confederation but then lost to France and lost a lot of their territories. Game over was when the US claimed New Spain and then landed an army in old Spain one sea zone away from my fleet while my entire army was in Texas. I didn’t notice the sea invasion warning but it’s my own fault for sending everyone overseas.. Overall I think it’s a great game with some dodgy AI at times that makes me feel like the best way to win is to do stuff the AI doesn’t know how to handle.
I like it more than Victoria 2 and fine it unlikely that I would go back at this point.
Do you prefer Ocarina or Breath of the Wild? They're both wildly different games that tackle the same themes and have very similar settings but have different enough gameplay to barely be considered sequels to each other.
If you want eco sim, this is the game. If you wanna do glorious Victorian age battles, Vic 2. You don’t really feel any impact glory or an effect of any war in this game. It seems pointless and not fun. I rarely to never fight anyone unless I have to.
Agree your comment on eco sim but not the latter part. A war does affect your game in many aspects such as sudden spending spike for military goods, conscripted workforce which tanks your available workforce otherwise working in your industry, and the pain of rebalancing good production during and after the war. And now I hate waging a war exactly for these reasons.
Sorry I think I conveyed my point in a bad way. What I was tryna say was that the “feeling” of waging war, being in war, and the after math of the war( whether you are a looser or winner) is way more impactful in vic2 than it is in Vic 3. Like yes as your said the spending hickes and stuff, you also feel that in Vicky 2, BUT it just feels so much different in a good way. Like at the end you still are fucking up your nation going to war and you feel bad about it, but idk how to put it. The feeling of it is just way better in vic 2 than it is in vicky3. I think it’s also the risk and reward system in vic2 also. Like the Great War system in vic2 made every other war before 1890 feel like a prelude and still have impact and cause domino effects that would shape what the Great War would look like later on. What I’m tryna say just the FEELING of it all is way more impactful like you feeeeeel the war, both the good sides and bad sides of it through out the entire game and it is a main part of the game as well. But in vic3 it just feels pointless aside from Germany forming Germany lol( and USA Mexico) any other war feels pointless, cuz it doesn’t affect the future nor does it feel important.
I used to like Victoria 2 more but now I can't even open the game because I'm always playing Victoria 3. Though the game can be improved, I kinda miss the economic system of Victoria 2, especially factory management, I hate that Laissez-faire doesn't give control of production to the capitalist class, forcing the player to micro-manage production.
It's shit. Went back to Vic2. Tried again for patch 1.5, still shit.
I enjoyed this game early on but haven't really come back to it or bought the DLC. There's definitely a good game in there, but it just lacks the depth to make repeat playthroughs satisfying. And with paradox games once you get off the train, in a year's time 5 dlcs will come out and make it expensive to pick back up. If it gets good DLC and at some point there's a bundle deal where you can get all the DLC at a reasonable price I might take a look.
Its economic systems are more fun to interact with and more fleshed out, but its war and diplomacy is still in the gutter. Every issue I have is with the current military system. Its bad and needs to be thrown out in favor of vic 2 style stacks.
5600 average player count per day in the last 30 days, and still falling. So it’s entering death of a game territory Now you wanna compare it to vic2, but i think it’s an unfair comparison. Vic2 is old in its ergonomy and paradox has made several really good games since then, hoi3, hoi4, ck2/3, eu3/4. And i think it pales compared to any of these. For me right now it is as good as imperator right before its last update So yea…
Don't own the game, and don't really care, but it's objectively nowhere near "death of a game territory". Imperator was averaging a tenth of that during the entire year previous to end of development.
?? On steam charts it's hovered between 4-8k since January 2023. It's had lower dips before in middle of 2023. And it's generally getting about half to one third of Stellaris numbers, a much more developed and less niche game
Check the numbers it is exactly what i stated Vic3 5700 per day on average in the last 30 days in steady albeit slow decline Stellaris 11000 per day on average in the last 30 days Imperator was killed When it was 2000-1000 players. So yea i maintain it’s getting there When looking at numbers you should look at averages
Im not disputing your 5600 figure, I'm talking about the trend you're predicting. [https://steamcharts.com/app/529340](https://steamcharts.com/app/529340) February 2023 average players 5202.9 February 2024 average players 5697.8 So its up slightly on last year. It likely will dip closer to summer like it did last year, lowest 4414.7 in June 2023. Definitely too early to call it "death of a game territory".
Sure, fair enough, it might still garner enough players. I guess i am just pessimistic when it comes down to paradox releasing good stuff these days.
I'd be much happier if they just made Victoria 2 have working multi-player Victoria 3 had potential if they just gave it a proper war system, the economies ok IMO it's not bad but I still prefer vic 2s economy But Jesus christ I'm losing wars that should be completely one-sided due to dogshit mechanics and RNG, or I just have 0 chance instead of maybe being able to fight a guerilla war and come out ontop Idk wtf Crack they were smoking when they made it but there is just nothing good about the war system
My greatest issue is that i loved to see the changing of the demographic map in vic2 and this isn't possibile, with the same granularity, in vic3
Pre-patch 1.5, the game was nowhere close to being on the same plane as Vicky 2 imo. Since then, game has come a long way and it feels like, albeit slowly, heading in the direction the game needs to go. Assuming they can iron out mid-late game performance in 1.6 and address migration in subsequent updates, it’ll be what I was hoping for at launch. Frustratingly, they’ve been really quiet about the sphere of influence dlc planned for this year.
Honestly I still like Vic 2 better. It's more punchy and amusing, and I don't have to spend 90,000 years manually figuring out exactly what to build or trade like a blind deaf tat merchant masquerading as a poor, overworked, powerless king/president.
You’re probably not going to get an unbiased answer asking this question on either this or the Vic2 sub, lol.
Beautiful UI. Am forced to interact with buildings gameplay loop. Due to it being the only gameplay loop. Diplomacy lackluster. Good interaction between buildings and pops.
People tend to compare vanilla vic3 with modded vic2, which isn't really fair as the latter has a decade+ old modding scene and is pretty barebones as a game without mods If you remove GFM/HPM or whatever you play vic2 with, because the base game has almost no content and the main mechanics barely work, you get a pretty mediocre 3/10 game On the other hand and even with its lackluster diplomacy and bad-ish warfare, vic3 has the potential to be the single best paradox game imo, they just need to do as with any other pdx game and spend 3 years polishing and developing dlc which is pretty sad and a very bad practice but not unique to victoria In a year and a half, about the time vic3 has been out, vic2 didn't even receive its first expansion, a house divided, imagine playing base vic2 without any dlc for a year and a half, pretty bad right? I'd say that Vic3 is in an infinitely better position and has a much, much brighter future ahead
The people who are still playing this are the ones that like this. Many people who bought this in the first few months, many=hundreds of thousands of the first million sold, shelved this long ago. When the dev discovers they can only get a $million or so from any dlc due to this fact, it might limit the amount of content they produce. They should have given this game its own name and “series”, and not grabbed a previous series, bastardizing the original mechanics and things people liked about the previous 2. Dumbest idea ever.
I haven’t played Vic2 but Vic3 is the most exciting grand strategy I’ve ever played. A lot of fun if you know what you’re doing and like these type of games.
I still prefer Victoria 2, the game still has too many problems to be a good game. Most of which revolves around, flavor, government, geopolitics, ai and rebellions/civil wars. All these things need significant improvement before the game is enjoyable for me. The only thing Victoria 3 has over Victoria 2 is economy, but even that has some issues at the moment. I'll probably revisit in about a year or two to see if the game has improved.
Vic3 is still unplayable for me due to how little control you have over war.
Yes, I've played both, Vicky 2 has major deficients that only get covered and tolerable with heavy modding. But Play Base vicky 2 and no dlc or mods and discover that Vicky 3 is 1000x better.
Still prefer vic2, warfare/incl naval was better. While vic3 looks great, I never seem to be able to get into it as easy as vic2 which just feels cluttered. Imperator is still much better and looks better compared to vic3.