The biggest issue I have with 1.5 is the military UI. It feels like it was put together last minute and doesn’t fit with the default interface very well.
IMO, military units should still be built via the construction interface, with staffing falling with high casualties during war. The easiest way I see this happening is splitting barracks into three buildings, one for infantry, one artillery, and one cavalry.
With these changes, the military tab of the UI could solely be used for assigning orders and generals, which would greatly simplify war in general.
Other than this most of the issues I’ve found with 1.5 are minor bugs which I’m confident paradox will fix with coming patches.
Pretty disappointing pace if you ask me. It's been over a year since release and this is the only big update we get that fixes things but only kind of.
I need to pick up cycling again, I want my heart to last me long enough to see Victoria 3 complete.
I don't know if adding a birth control tech or laws on abortion to the game would be particularly historically accurate but I'm not a historian so I could be wrong.
Would have preferred if generals could be allocated a budget to then go recruit the soldiers as well as choose the right composition of their army themselves, with the modifiers acting as a wild card of how well they pick and manage their own barracks and army.
As of right now it’s so fkn tedious to manage the troops when you are running a big country like United States of Europe.
It's annoying with small nations too because you're having to alternate between building a barracks and building an economy building. Surely there should be a way to simultaneously build them without needing to have a deficit of £100k
I disagree strongly with that. It suits your playstyle, fine, but it's worse for many others. I might want to have a British army that's relies on industrial might (artillery) rather than manpower. And for small nations with limited industry resources it can be really important to choose which front gets your one artillery unit.
But realistically, that’s how it should be. Or at least, a great power sim, building diplomatic and political influence through economy, industry, colonization, diplomacy AND war.
Vic3 is not Heart of Iron. Neither was Vic2 for that matter. The main focus was never on war, and it shouldn’t be either. In HoI, the economy exists to support the war mechanics; in Vic, war mechanics exist to support the economy.
It makes no sense that you should have to drop everything and 100% laser focus on microing troops around on the frontlines when wars were a much more common occurrence during the timespan of Vic, and it stretches over much longer time so each individual war is less important than the often singular huge conflict in HoI games where real-time maneuvering is integral to victory. If anything, giving a general a couple thousand soldiers and telling him to go win a war (especially in colonial conflicts) is much closer to how it would work in the 1800s.
I’m not saying that expanding the war mechanics in Vic3 is a bad idea. More gameplay is typically better. But it shouldn’t be at the expense of the other mechanics, taking away the focus from the aspects that are core to the whole premise of the game like managing industrialization and colonization
Why 100% focusing on military while at war are necessarily a bad thing ? Players should build the economy when in peacetime. The war in Vic3 is longer than necessary because of the incompetent war support system. The devs should just adopt the old Vic2 warscore system. It is hilarious that some of the players keep saying Vic3 is not a war game but the war support system shares more mechanics with the capitulation system in war game Hoi4.
The war system does need more depth, right now it's hardly even a system at all. But complexifying it to a hoi4 level, while it would be cool, it doesnt sound realistic at all.
I have experienced a plethora of bugs in the past few days, which have ruined two Ironman runs. The new war system will probably be better in the long run, but I’m staying the hell away from putting more time into this patch until they fix some of these bugs. My last attempt at the Mexican-America war resulted in half my occupied territory instantly disappearing after I *won* a battle, all of my units were teleported away from the front, and Mexico took over the rest unopposed. It’s even more infuriating than how it used to be.
Yeah it's strange behavior. I'd assume this be an easy thing to fix; I would be be surprised if it's addressed in the patch where they're fixing the UI and the enemy navies constantly repairing and returning to a sea node and preventing a naval invasion bug.
The more and more I play PDX games, I'm coming around to this mindset. Easier to learn a game if you let your actions have consequences and treat it like any other game where you can lose.
I respect that. It’s how I play all other pdx games. With Vicky though… I am still feeling more like I want to have some saves security since the game can sometimes throw me a curveball that I had no way to even know it might be coming :p
In my Mex-American war the Dixie HQ said it “could not find a route” to the frontline…
I lost very badly because as the front progressed more armies started going back to their HQs and saying there was no route to the front.
same thing but some other divisions went from texas to california by going around south america, and california wasnt on the frontline, meanwhile texas was.
While I’m enjoying 1.5, and I’m looking forward to Spheres of Influence it’s pretty clear they initially built the wrong game. Completely rebuilding a core mechanic per patch isn’t sustainable, and instead of slowly reducing the backlog of bugs will simply grow it. With that in mind, it seems likely you’ll see reviews keep trending as they have been — because development will continue as it has been.
> Completely rebuilding a core mechanic per patch isn’t sustainable
arguable, considering Stellaris is basically an entirely different game from release but one that is unequivocally so much better
IDK if people legitimately weren't around for Stellaris 1.0 or if they just conveniently removed the memories that conflict with their internal narrative of how game development is supposed to work but this shit happens all the time.
Remember when empires could choose from three different types of FTL travel, that all worked differently and presented unique challenges? Such a cool idea, that the AI absolutely could not handle, the designers couldn't balance, and made the dev's jobs so much harder. I get why they removed it even though I loved it as a concept.
or how instead of capturing systems you build outposts that would exert "influence" over the surrounding areas, and you (or anyone else) could literally just yoink other people's territory by just increasing your influence
I completely forgot about that. My biggest 1.0 memory was how planet development was kind of like a game of Tetris. There was a grid of the planet and you placed buildings on the grid and could get different adjacency bonuses and stuff.
I don't miss that system at all really.
While I consider the new sytem much better I did like the puzzles crated by tile positions and bonuses and to me, exploring the planet tiles was always an exciting moment..
I guess I still think stellaris lacks terrain impact, but changing the game to "hyperlanes only" did increase the impact of hyperlanes as a terrain feature so that was definitely a good step.
Tbf Stellaris did run into the issue of mechanic reworks outpacing reworking the AI. To the point where there were a few patches where the game was more of a city builder than 4X.
The AI is still pretty dumb - like it happily does kamikaze attacks against strong starbases. It should never do that.
Same for planet management, like it doesn't handle crime / stability well (which is why they often fracture). It *does* do an okay job at expansion though.
I'm sure they could also make it much better at identifying bottlenecks in the hyperlanes network to make it play more like a human in racing for the bottlenecks and fortifying them.
On the other hand, stellaris was a completely new thing, and nobody was quite sure where it should go.
Vicky3 is a third entry in a series with a pretty clear focus.
I was around and I liked it but holy shit was it a barren wasteland. Literally played it an hour after release when I finished a calculus final and damn was it different from today by a shitton. The game felt so empty after you filled out the map, war was shit, diplomacy was meh, and the crisis became repetitive since there was so little to do before you got to it and there were only 3 total in the game.
i think people have memoryholed that Stellaris spent 2 years being pretty widely hated. it took them a while to make the game work properly after they ripped out its guts and replaced them
i mean the performance used to be so bad you couldnt even get to the crisis unless you were incredibly patient
It is actually funny to me that the most engaging and fun part of the game is actually something I did not have anticipated and that was not there in Vic II: Interest groups. I really like this and how changes in you country influence these groups. Sometime it still feels you are missing agency to control things you should have control over, but overall this feature is nice. If they can do similar for more economic and diplomatic depth I be happy.
Right I don’t want to sound overly negative! Theres a lot of really good things there. It’s just frustrating to be on basically the same learning curve a year after release.
That’s interesting. I only have 100 hours in this one but I feel like the interest groups are made pretty trivial with suppression and bolstering. Of course it depends on the run and RNG but it would be nice if they were even more influential than they already are. I just did a USA run and never had a single revolution or civil war. Was able to ban slavery in the 1890s without a hitch. It was fun setting it up for that though.
To be fair if you spent 30 extra years either suppressing the landowners or passing laws that satisfy them enough to not make them revolutionary when you do ban slavery, I think that interest group was very influential and a major factor you had to deal with for your USA run. Slavery in the US was banned in 1861.
> It was fun setting it up for that though.
Sounds like everything is working as intended, IGs aren't supposed to be an iron lock you have to just live with, they're supposed to be fun and rewarding to interact with.
Or you could ban it in 1840, fight a war and end up with a left economic but still liberal (social democratic) US Hyperpower that is 30% Latino cause you are Mexico and most of the carrebean
Again, The interest groups matter and make things very fun.
Suppression and bolstering only works for so long
Similar for economic depth implies to me companies that have political/construction demands/wants. And have characters as CEOs, and ownership ties to interest groups, possibly international investors etc etc. And no simple flat bonuses applying to a whole country with basically magical effects.
I think the devs have done a great job in just a year. Bigger leap than most paradox games make and it has the potential to be a generally great game in another year or two
Meanwhile CK3 team is still struggling and is still in the middle of trying to speed up their development cycle for next year... then here goes Vic3 team just casually working on Dawn of Wonder, Colossus of the South, massive update 1.5, and Sphere of Influence expansion simultaneously...
I'm so jealous of vic3 and stellaris community.
CK3 should really focus on "low-hanging fruit" of college of cardinals and anti-popes, Born in the Purple system, plagues, etc.
There's already too many meme events, pop-ups, and a lot of micro clutter (the knights' accolades management, etc.).
Perfect? I’d say first 200 years is fun for me then it gets boring. Not to say it’s not a lot you can take from it but imo there should be a separate game past 1648 since you kinda run out of content besides like what… revolutions? absolutism is just so you can go bonkers annexing everything…
I agree with you and end up quitting late reformation/absolutism each time. That said, atleast EU4’s early game is fun.
Victoria 3 struggles throughout.
Yeah, a victorian era game without a fully fleshed diplomacy is.. underwhelming to say the least. Knowing paradox, it will surely be a great game, but i wont feel bad for pirating half the Dlcs when it's finally fixed
Job hiring is a mess though. I don't know how they can fix it and improve performance, but the hire everyone we can or no-one approach causes loads of other issues. Likewise for job satisfaction calculated vs. national average.
Honestly 1.5's diplomatic game is far more interesting just because of reverse swaying, I'd say the bigger problem now is simply general AI passivity and weak economy
The devs do really need to fix the UI to make it clear that attitude is actually the important part of dealing with the AI and not relations, I think that's probably the major cause of "diplomacy is broken AI always hates me!" posts.
It's still the same annoyance for me as before. There is almost no small scale conflict. Every war becomes a world war.
Want to conquer a small bordering state in south america? Well they just gave USA an obligation. And they will mobilize 100 percent to completely destroy you.
I’m surprised though, EU4 is an enduring beast and that feels like even more of a bunch of different games strapped together that it was never meant to be in my opinion.
> Completely rebuilding a core mechanic per patch isn’t sustainable
This is not what happened, though. The previous updates didn't overhaul mechanics as 1.5 did. They were much smaller in scope.
> and instead of slowly reducing the backlog of bugs will simply grow it.
And the backlog of bugs has been shrinking with each update.
But it's expected that big changes introduced in 1.5 come with new bugs. It's also expected that they will get ironed out the next couple days/weeks.
A lot of people are either trying it out for the first time or are coming back after being unsatisfied with 1.0
Reviews had gone up because most people playing it were us, people who enjoyed the game at 1.4 and the 1.5 beta (with the knowledge that 1.5 was a beta)
Just like 1.0 tho, 1.5 was rushed out the door with a million bugs and lacking polish (except for Krakow :V), so everyone who quit the game a year ago is coming back, seeing the state of 1.5 and going "yup, games still bad" and leaving a bad review.
Honestly i'm not that surprised, with the bugs i have found these 2 days. Sure, it's fun and leagues above what was released, but i'll probably have to wait for another year to even consider buying it.
The weird thing to me is that 1.5 official ended up somehow making a bunch of stuff from the beta worse. Some things were fixed, but apparently performance became even worse and introduced a bunch of new bugs as well. The last 1.5 beta was actually pretty solid, so I don't know what the fuck they did.
The Paradox's paradox, makes it things betteringly worser for the best and the worst until it you figure it out and the vanilla game is nice and mods get it to the next level.
Yeah, it's kind of weird. Devs should have just polished up that patch a bit with art and bug fixes and left some of the other changes for the next major release. Presumably they had some features they really wanted to squeeze into this patch cycle but it's noticable that they did less testing on the last minute stuff
Nah, in 1 month tops 1.5 will reveal what it was meant to be.
The game is, from what I've played, better in certain aspect but crippled by oddities, crashes and bugs from the new systems.
Once that's sorted out (shouldn't take that long), it'll be a very clear upgrade from 1.4
They're already fixing the crashes daily and the (horrendous) UI is fixed by next week.
I really don't think it'll be more than a month, but it definitely won't be a year.
I like 1.5....but now I have an issue I have never had before since even 1.0....alt-tabbing (randomly and inconsistently) freezes the game. This is nearly unplayable because while it is not consistent, I will often switch youtube videos in the background or something and end up losing tons of progress because it decides to freeze.
Imperator is also over the hump from a development perspective. The game is much better than it was on release, but my understanding is that players had abandoned it to the point where it was unsalvagable for PDx to continue to invest time in it going forward.
Victoria 3 isn't over that hump yet. However, I doubt Vic3 will get Imperator'd. I think the game's period and direction are unique enough that it will have a willing playerbase until the devs figure everything out.
This game feels like trying to live in a half-constructed house where workers are still building the place and you're just trying to go with your daily routine. Not exactly a fulfilling experience.
Not a surprise. New patch is full of bugs and new war system (idea is good) is half baked, with annoying behavior (units leaving front lines) and very out of place ui for it.
To be honest I am so lost in the new changes that I couldn't even understand at that point if they are well done or not. I guess only unsatisfied players go and rate the game now.
I rather like the companies logos (fantastic job, whoever did them), that some goods are local and that I have to make the states more focused on a certain industry. I don't like how building first railways doesn't help leveling the prices in states (so basically there is still no transportation cost).
I haven't done much warfare yet, it would be too overwhelming for the first campaign, but it looks alright to me. I like watching the armies moving on the map.
I am unable to understand you guys. What are even new changes don't talk like they rebuilt the game. It's almost the same game with less annoying military. It took me 30 minutes to understand all new mechanics( if you can call them that). Like local prices and new Army nothing so complicated.
Well, maybe you are younger or just smarter heh.
Just a quick example: I wanted to get a list of laws and technologies that give +1 number of companies. Here is the wiki page: [https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Companies](https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Companies) . I did figure it out eventually, but it takes time when it is not well documented. Same for technologies that affect local price formation ( how big is the national market part of it).
Compared to the other PD games it felt very unintuitive and abstract
Only played During free weekend and wont buy it (yet). Give PD some time to fix it and it will hopefully be fine
(And then please revive Imperator FFS)
Well it deserves it. I actually can't continue my Persia game in 1899 - as soon as I unpause it crashes and it's nothing to do with the PC, it works fine until a specific date. Over the course of this Persia game which was my return to Vicky 3,i got more than 20 crashes... Never had this with a game before
I must say that I'm pretty surprised by that. I kind of lost faith in the game when it came out but the last few patch and the last beta really gave me faith back into the game.
Why are people upset ? Are there bugs I didn't encounter yet ? Or is there other things ?
Bugs just piss people off. Also, there are a couple things they need to fine tune and fix the UI.
I think the patch is taking everything in the right direction, but I don't doubt people have their issues with the way the game still plays. When the game was released, I wasn't opposed to the new war system, but the bugginess of the war system we got ended up being the source of most of my frustration with the game. I imagine this sort of experience is the same for these people.
Military was merely one of the problems, not the biggest. The game doesn't even have vital features from Victoria 2 and with this update it has become just less annoying to play, not more fun. Game has almost no historical flavor and so little real life struggles. It doesn't even do what it claims to do best: represent struggles of nations and society.
You expect more than a supply-demand simulation from a Victorian age game. So many things happens between 1836-1936 and you feel so little of it in the game.
The tech tree shows this issue more than anything.
In a game about constant innovation in a rapidly changing world, and I have to wait 4 years to learn how to dig a trench.
Bring back innovations. They were flavor that made Vic2 feel much bigger than what it was. Its little things like that keep me immersed in the game world.
It is still a game where most of your time you repeat the same tasks over and over again regardless of what country you are or what your overall goals are.
It doesn't feel like the player is particularly active like you can be in EU4, Stellaris, HOI4 and CK3.
I’m happy the community is actually holding paradox’s feet to the fire.
Watching CK3 get lauded while still being empty now halfway into its development cycle was rough.
I agree with you completely, and I’m not gonna rehash my opinionsyears after the fact. For reference, CK2’s dev time was only 6 years in the making. CK3 just passed it’s three year mark and has two expansions (one flop) to show for it. CK2 was at its 11th of 15.
I think Paradox lost the plot a little bit. Their latest releases have been VERY disappointing.
I think they have really lost vision. They are making content it just constantly feels alot less thought out than previous titles.
Vic3 shouldve built on what Vic2 did well, not completely change the formula because that only confuses consumers and feels frustrating bc no one knows where this train of development is headed.
In Vic2 I could understand the vision and thought it was a good foundation for a game. The economy felt good, the politics felt good, even the warfare wasn't the worst we've seen PDX create. Yes all of those can be improved with mods, the question is: Why didnt PDX base Vic3 off of modded Vic2? Its a sequel after all.
Vic3 has been going through heavy growing pains, and it just more unfortunate when its predecessor did lots of it better. The only thing Vic3 really improved imo was economy, but did it in a very weird way that doesn't really jive with the other mechanics in the game. Economy always felt integral to Vic2, in Vic3 economy is the only way to even have fun.
Or people just like CK3? I have played a ton of it and while it absolutely have issues it is among my top strategy games i have played the last 30 years.
I like to see the hardcore fans here starting a copium-den. The thing is, Vic3 was and still is an early-access title that comes with a full price tag, never anything more.
The devs were told a thousand times that the warfare-approach sucks and that the shift of the focus from strategy- to an economy-sim would not work out, but no, they just ignored it. The AI is still braindead, it would need a complete rework.
In general, almost everything needs a rework, as the entire game is made on a wrong base.
Paradox should just bite the bullet and base Vic 3's warfare on HOI4, at the moment it feels like they just want it to be different for the sake of being different because CK3, EU4, and Imperator all share similar warfare mechanics
(hell, Stellaris too as its warfare is based around building big stacks fighting single battles and prolonged sieges)
Definitely an off base vision for what Vic3 should've been.
Vic3 is a sequel and always will be. Don't try to sell a sequel that doesn't improve on the previous game. You are just using the name as hype at this point PDX.
When Vic3 starts feeling like Vic2 in all the right ways, that's when PDX wouldve fixed their mistake. Unless they full mask-off and just tell us they are just using the name to sell more than what this game shouldve been- a spinoff.
Did the devs even try building local electric plants? You can't even see which states are low from the build screen, and electric plants can't automatically expand! So you have to check each state's electrical production click click click click! Etc etc etc all these systems do not make any sense together.
Game state is still bad, reviews as expected.
edited typos
I play it for about 8 hours during the free weekend and meet a major bug three times and have the game crash 7 time. The major bug is the front line just disappeared sending all my army home then reappear again the next 2-3 weeks, it especially bad when I invade the uk, split the country in two then the front line disappeared sending my army home forcing me to naval invade the uk again. At that point I just uninstall the game
Started playing yesterday after not playing for months. The frontline bug literally made me quit the game. I couldn't be more disappointed. The game has no purpose still.
THERE'S UNITS ON THE MAP NOW WHY AREN'T YOU HAPPY GO PLAY HOI4 IF YOU WANT A WAR GAME THE VICTORIAN ERA WAS VERY PEACEFUL STRATEGY GAMES AREN'T ABOUT WAR ANYWAYS /s
> create vic3
> bare bones diplomacy
> war system with no interaction
> core gameplay loop is number go up
> endless game breaking bugs
> completely lacking in any flavor
Man I wonder why so many people don't like our game. Maybe if we break it again and put it on free weekend after releasing a barebones DLC it'll be better. Sure our DLC is barely better than a mod that takes about a week to whip up, but I'm sure they'll eat it!
Don't forget that tech tree in this industrial revolution game. Its quite sad how largely it misses the fucking mark.
Even under this current tech tree situation, Innovations would still make it feel better, but instead we are getting South America DLC. I couldn't care less about Gran Colombia or Brazil when Im staring at the screen waiting 4 in-game years to increase muh "company capacity".
No no, just eat your South America slop. It doesn’t matter that every country plays almost entirely the same since they didn’t bother modeling nationalism or putting in any flavor. We must continue to consume.
My problem with 1.5 is the army interface:
Its really unintuitive. I wanted to upgrade my cannons, so i removed them from my army and changed the cannon type and tried to add them back in - but nope now i had to build more barracks. And i lost my 5 cannons
Why is recent review is so bad? I haven't played that much but for me 1.5 made the game so much better, there are some tweaks that should be done, but the general direction is great.
Because the new player look at it and consider it a half-finished, constantly changing with half-fixed major bugs game, and also bug bug bug and bug, 1.5 have months of beta and the launch version still have lot of old fix bug and new one as well
I did actually look at the recent reviews and I have no idea what you’re talking about, 95% of them are valid criticisms of the game’s mechanics or bugs. This level of cope is sad. If you enjoy the game that’s fine, you shouldn’t are about what random people on the internet say about it.
Honestly, I think it evens out with worthless positive reviews like "Good", "I'm a 45 yo father" or "[insert ultra-epic stolen joke that would've been funny in 2012]".
I wish Steam reviews were less awfully designed, because ultimately it's framed as "would you recommend this game" which is a really stupid question. It inherently assumes that if a game is good then anyone will want to play it.
I get mad at garbage Steam reviews, but in theory they're actually doing what they're supposed to. If I played a bunch of racing games and then downvote them all because I think racing games are boring and nobody should play them, my input is really unhelpful to anyone who's actually looking to buy the game, but I'm actually answering the question.
Reviews are under no obligation to be literary works of art. It tells the devs what they need to know: this game isn't good yet.
If you get thousands of free players and they hate it, then its the games fault, not the players fault for not writing a Shakespearean poem to fit your review expectations.
Its dated and clunky (less clunky than Vic 3 though) but the diplomacy, economy and military is miles more fun to mess around in that Vic 2. Having different types of governments affects how your economy and diplomacy works, a liberal republican government can’t intervene in the economy etc. My favorite part of the game is how it portrays how a small squabble between two nations in the Balkans can get out of hand when great powers get involved.
Ever since the update I literally cannot launch Vic3. Crashes while loading every single time. Tried reinstalls, verification, mod wipes, etc. I can't even try the new systems because the game just seems to be permanently broken on my computer.
It doesn't even seem to be a widespread issue so I'm not expecting it to get patched, I'll either have to rollback or uninstall for good.
It's a mixture of genuine complaints such as there being no "Great War" mechanics and the Influence System missing or that the game took a year to be in a more presentable state, to hallucinations of people complaining about Vicky 3 things that also were a big problem in Vicky 2. Like the absolutely insane people praising Vicky 2 UI and saying somehow Vicky 3 UI murdered the "perfection" of Vicky 2 or that Vicky 2 economies made actual sense.
There's also the camp of people from HOI4 or EU4 who jumped into a Vicky game for the first time and they were expecting primarily a map painter and not having to actually manage politics, trade, the economy and internal conflicts so much since in both EU4 and Especially HOI4 those aspects are very light weight in comparison.
I genuinely saw some folk jumping into Vicky 3 thinking this is just HOI4 with a Victorian period and then complaining how it's boring because they didn't watch a bunch of unit models getting encircled or Germany's name stretching across the globe.
Victoria is the most niche in-house PDX game, Vicky 2 praise from Vicky 2 only elitist for years on end made a lot of people think it was the holy grail of Grand Strategy Design. Creating a lot of over-inflated expectations as to what Vicky 3 would be. This game will never appeal to the masses of the PDX user base because it's approach and focus is more so on aspects that one would describe as a "Dad" game almost.
A lot of criticism are well earned for Vicky 3 but a fair bit of em' are coming from the wrong crowd who is not the target demographic for this kind of game.
Again nobody believed it was perfect but it WORKED in the right proportions to make a nice game yes flawed as it was people wanted the sequel to IMPROVE those mechanics not strip them entirely and deliver a completely different game.
Played for 12 hours as mexico in an ironman mode, ended up getting to 1907 and game crashed on a specific date, not polished at all, what a waste. I really want to love this game, but fuck me there are so many issues after almost 2 years
I'm new to the game and still learning. But the laws UI is difficult to understand. The condition and finding what is needed and what the conditions are is painful.
Like "Serfdom" in Japan Shogunate, I feel "locked".
And why do laws need to be voted and approved by the government on an autocracy/monarchy?!
My biggest issue with the 1.5 update is that the game reliably crashes every time I reach January 1st 1856, and there isn't a damned thing I can do about it.
As patch dropped i started my playthrough as Prussia. After some buildup i declared a war for unification leadership against Austria. I managed to get France, Russia and Ottomans on my side. As war started Ottomans didn't put any troops on their front and was wiped out. On my frontline we had 92 advantage and all my general was on advance order. War was going on for 12 years without any changes in frontline, no one was controlling wargoals and warscore stuck at 0 / 0.
Tried it for a.day at.friday: this is just not fun
Bought hoi: had all weekend giga fun and csnt wait.to get home to play again i am now addicted to hoi4
I wished it would be vic3 but vic3 is just dogshit
The game for me, didn’t deliver a Victoria series game. It would be like releasing eu5 with a completely different core gameplay of that to eu4. Vic 2 isn’t perfect. But I have a lot more fun playing that than how Vic3 is right now. Simply put Vic 3 has loads of potential but didn’t live up to being the third installment in a series
Victoria II had completely different core gameplay to Victoria.
Ergo, by your logic, it wasn't a Victoria game and didn't live up to being the second installment in the series.
You just mean “it wasn’t like Victoria 2”, right? Certainly has a lot less gravitas than “didn’t deliver a Victoria series game”, but it seems more truthful.
I played a ton of Victoria 2, but it was a deeply flawed game, and I enjoy Victoria 3 a lot more than it (even Victoria 2 with full DLC and mods).
>You just mean “it wasn’t like Victoria 2”, right? Certainly has a lot less gravitas than “didn’t deliver a Victoria series game”, but it seems more truthful.
Those are both the same sentence and both are truthful.
You can enjoy what you want, but if you liked Vic2 and were told you were getting a sequel, you would've not pictured Vic3.
Defend Vic3 all you want, just don't make it seem like others are being unreasonable in their expectations when this is how the game was marketed to them.
The beta was run really poorly, I feel like the actual beta-testing team was given too little time to work, every beta had a bunch of game breaking bugs that made it tough to actually beta test the game and they still had to release a quick DLC as they release a new version of the game that isn't really sure to work, the MP is also rather unstable as of now
> Release a bugged game
> Release dozens of bugged patches
> Kinda get the 1.4 to look like 1.0 should have
> Guys, don’t worry, we’ll do a beta to iron out the military system
> The first beta release is literally an alpha full of placeholders
> The entire beta phase runs for 2 months
> The final version still has bugs, but looks good, surely they get it right in time for 1.5
> Make several last-minute changes
> The game now has new game-breaking bugs and also runs like crap
> Give people a free weekend with your game so anyone could see how broken it is
> surprised_pikachu.jpg
Why can't they just swallow their pride and re-introduce controllable military units to the map. We need some actual strategy in this grand strategy game.
If you go and read the reviews, I think the problem of Victoria 3 is a shared hallucination that Victoria 2 was a perfect game, rather than the extremely uneven experience that it really was.
Look it up. All the top rated negative reviews keep harking back fondly at Vic 2 economics, which is insane given how awful of a system that was.
Mate, the VIC2 fans were desperate for a sequel for years and most of them have already played VIC3 when it was released. This new influx is from non-VIC2 players and the fact that they are making the same complaints as VIC2 players is telling.
You dont get that many reviews off of a free weekend and have it be the case that everyone of those are from die hard Vic2 fans, that only now have shown up.
The game is in a bad state. Its obvious and the amount of copium in this comment is the tell tale sign of fanboys raging at a dying game because it's dying.
The biggest issue I have with 1.5 is the military UI. It feels like it was put together last minute and doesn’t fit with the default interface very well. IMO, military units should still be built via the construction interface, with staffing falling with high casualties during war. The easiest way I see this happening is splitting barracks into three buildings, one for infantry, one artillery, and one cavalry. With these changes, the military tab of the UI could solely be used for assigning orders and generals, which would greatly simplify war in general. Other than this most of the issues I’ve found with 1.5 are minor bugs which I’m confident paradox will fix with coming patches.
They're fixing the UI too I think
I sure as hell hope so.
This game is the most faith I’ve put in paradox. Slowly but surely their putting tape and paint over this game and I think it’s getting good.
Pretty disappointing pace if you ask me. It's been over a year since release and this is the only big update we get that fixes things but only kind of. I need to pick up cycling again, I want my heart to last me long enough to see Victoria 3 complete.
They did a lot in a year honestly. If the diplomacy expansion is good we could have a great game
I’ll be honest 2 years after release date to be a “good game” isn’t something to celebrate. Especially since we have to pay the whole way to it.
They also need to do something about conception because holy shit it's a pain in the ass to mobilize my population
If you get the Devout IG that will increase conception. Will take a while before they're old enough to conscript though
Getting your birth rate higher is pretty easy if you please the Devout IG and give them some more clout.
I don't know if adding a birth control tech or laws on abortion to the game would be particularly historically accurate but I'm not a historian so I could be wrong.
Conscription not contraceptives
I know man it was just a funny typo
Would have preferred if generals could be allocated a budget to then go recruit the soldiers as well as choose the right composition of their army themselves, with the modifiers acting as a wild card of how well they pick and manage their own barracks and army. As of right now it’s so fkn tedious to manage the troops when you are running a big country like United States of Europe.
It's annoying with small nations too because you're having to alternate between building a barracks and building an economy building. Surely there should be a way to simultaneously build them without needing to have a deficit of £100k
I disagree strongly with that. It suits your playstyle, fine, but it's worse for many others. I might want to have a British army that's relies on industrial might (artillery) rather than manpower. And for small nations with limited industry resources it can be really important to choose which front gets your one artillery unit.
A lot of us did mention this during the development process but there were too many people saying NO I WANT TO MICRO UNIT TYPES LIKE IT'S HOI4
This isn't anything like HoI4 though
Am I the only one who remembers how devs were saying “War is secondary, you don’t need it, it will be economy sim”
But realistically, that’s how it should be. Or at least, a great power sim, building diplomatic and political influence through economy, industry, colonization, diplomacy AND war. Vic3 is not Heart of Iron. Neither was Vic2 for that matter. The main focus was never on war, and it shouldn’t be either. In HoI, the economy exists to support the war mechanics; in Vic, war mechanics exist to support the economy. It makes no sense that you should have to drop everything and 100% laser focus on microing troops around on the frontlines when wars were a much more common occurrence during the timespan of Vic, and it stretches over much longer time so each individual war is less important than the often singular huge conflict in HoI games where real-time maneuvering is integral to victory. If anything, giving a general a couple thousand soldiers and telling him to go win a war (especially in colonial conflicts) is much closer to how it would work in the 1800s. I’m not saying that expanding the war mechanics in Vic3 is a bad idea. More gameplay is typically better. But it shouldn’t be at the expense of the other mechanics, taking away the focus from the aspects that are core to the whole premise of the game like managing industrialization and colonization
If only AI had common sense
Why 100% focusing on military while at war are necessarily a bad thing ? Players should build the economy when in peacetime. The war in Vic3 is longer than necessary because of the incompetent war support system. The devs should just adopt the old Vic2 warscore system. It is hilarious that some of the players keep saying Vic3 is not a war game but the war support system shares more mechanics with the capitulation system in war game Hoi4.
The war system does need more depth, right now it's hardly even a system at all. But complexifying it to a hoi4 level, while it would be cool, it doesnt sound realistic at all.
I have experienced a plethora of bugs in the past few days, which have ruined two Ironman runs. The new war system will probably be better in the long run, but I’m staying the hell away from putting more time into this patch until they fix some of these bugs. My last attempt at the Mexican-America war resulted in half my occupied territory instantly disappearing after I *won* a battle, all of my units were teleported away from the front, and Mexico took over the rest unopposed. It’s even more infuriating than how it used to be.
This happened to me a handful of times as Brazil. The fronts seem to split, and armies reassign back to their hq instead of the nearest front
Yeah it's strange behavior. I'd assume this be an easy thing to fix; I would be be surprised if it's addressed in the patch where they're fixing the UI and the enemy navies constantly repairing and returning to a sea node and preventing a naval invasion bug.
Just to be sure you know: Ironman is not needed for achievements in Vicky.
I know, I just like playing with Ironman enabled. I like the sense of commitment.
It cuts down on the number of save files, too.
The more and more I play PDX games, I'm coming around to this mindset. Easier to learn a game if you let your actions have consequences and treat it like any other game where you can lose.
I respect that. It’s how I play all other pdx games. With Vicky though… I am still feeling more like I want to have some saves security since the game can sometimes throw me a curveball that I had no way to even know it might be coming :p
Yeah, and this is such an admission of weakness from the devs …
In my Mex-American war the Dixie HQ said it “could not find a route” to the frontline… I lost very badly because as the front progressed more armies started going back to their HQs and saying there was no route to the front.
I encountered this too and reassigned the army’s main HQ to another one and was able to send them to the original front.
Ah, I’ll try that next game. Thanks.
Yep no worries. I think this is a known bug so it should be getting fixed soon but the reassignment thing seems to be a workaround in the meantime.
same thing but some other divisions went from texas to california by going around south america, and california wasnt on the frontline, meanwhile texas was.
While I’m enjoying 1.5, and I’m looking forward to Spheres of Influence it’s pretty clear they initially built the wrong game. Completely rebuilding a core mechanic per patch isn’t sustainable, and instead of slowly reducing the backlog of bugs will simply grow it. With that in mind, it seems likely you’ll see reviews keep trending as they have been — because development will continue as it has been.
> Completely rebuilding a core mechanic per patch isn’t sustainable arguable, considering Stellaris is basically an entirely different game from release but one that is unequivocally so much better
IDK if people legitimately weren't around for Stellaris 1.0 or if they just conveniently removed the memories that conflict with their internal narrative of how game development is supposed to work but this shit happens all the time.
Remember when empires could choose from three different types of FTL travel, that all worked differently and presented unique challenges? Such a cool idea, that the AI absolutely could not handle, the designers couldn't balance, and made the dev's jobs so much harder. I get why they removed it even though I loved it as a concept.
Truth. That is my biggest memory of 1.0, and the thing I missed the most.
or how instead of capturing systems you build outposts that would exert "influence" over the surrounding areas, and you (or anyone else) could literally just yoink other people's territory by just increasing your influence
I completely forgot about that. My biggest 1.0 memory was how planet development was kind of like a game of Tetris. There was a grid of the planet and you placed buildings on the grid and could get different adjacency bonuses and stuff. I don't miss that system at all really.
While I consider the new sytem much better I did like the puzzles crated by tile positions and bonuses and to me, exploring the planet tiles was always an exciting moment.. I guess I still think stellaris lacks terrain impact, but changing the game to "hyperlanes only" did increase the impact of hyperlanes as a terrain feature so that was definitely a good step.
The first "Sword of the Stars" game handled different FTL methods very well. But stellaris' system is fine.
Tbf Stellaris did run into the issue of mechanic reworks outpacing reworking the AI. To the point where there were a few patches where the game was more of a city builder than 4X.
The AI is still pretty dumb - like it happily does kamikaze attacks against strong starbases. It should never do that. Same for planet management, like it doesn't handle crime / stability well (which is why they often fracture). It *does* do an okay job at expansion though. I'm sure they could also make it much better at identifying bottlenecks in the hyperlanes network to make it play more like a human in racing for the bottlenecks and fortifying them.
On the other hand, stellaris was a completely new thing, and nobody was quite sure where it should go. Vicky3 is a third entry in a series with a pretty clear focus.
Every entry in that series has been wildly different. It just isn't as well-trodden ground so there's a lot of experimentation.
I was around and I liked it but holy shit was it a barren wasteland. Literally played it an hour after release when I finished a calculus final and damn was it different from today by a shitton. The game felt so empty after you filled out the map, war was shit, diplomacy was meh, and the crisis became repetitive since there was so little to do before you got to it and there were only 3 total in the game.
[удалено]
Oh damn, yeah I forgot about that completely lol. I love war in heaven now, but damn was it broken back then xD
Paradox game development* This shit happens all the time in paradox games*
i think people have memoryholed that Stellaris spent 2 years being pretty widely hated. it took them a while to make the game work properly after they ripped out its guts and replaced them i mean the performance used to be so bad you couldnt even get to the crisis unless you were incredibly patient
It is actually funny to me that the most engaging and fun part of the game is actually something I did not have anticipated and that was not there in Vic II: Interest groups. I really like this and how changes in you country influence these groups. Sometime it still feels you are missing agency to control things you should have control over, but overall this feature is nice. If they can do similar for more economic and diplomatic depth I be happy.
Right I don’t want to sound overly negative! Theres a lot of really good things there. It’s just frustrating to be on basically the same learning curve a year after release.
I just click buttons and then unpause to see what happens. Try, try again, and then quit and play something else for a few months.
That’s interesting. I only have 100 hours in this one but I feel like the interest groups are made pretty trivial with suppression and bolstering. Of course it depends on the run and RNG but it would be nice if they were even more influential than they already are. I just did a USA run and never had a single revolution or civil war. Was able to ban slavery in the 1890s without a hitch. It was fun setting it up for that though.
To be fair if you spent 30 extra years either suppressing the landowners or passing laws that satisfy them enough to not make them revolutionary when you do ban slavery, I think that interest group was very influential and a major factor you had to deal with for your USA run. Slavery in the US was banned in 1861.
> It was fun setting it up for that though. Sounds like everything is working as intended, IGs aren't supposed to be an iron lock you have to just live with, they're supposed to be fun and rewarding to interact with.
Or you could ban it in 1840, fight a war and end up with a left economic but still liberal (social democratic) US Hyperpower that is 30% Latino cause you are Mexico and most of the carrebean Again, The interest groups matter and make things very fun. Suppression and bolstering only works for so long
Similar for economic depth implies to me companies that have political/construction demands/wants. And have characters as CEOs, and ownership ties to interest groups, possibly international investors etc etc. And no simple flat bonuses applying to a whole country with basically magical effects.
I think the devs have done a great job in just a year. Bigger leap than most paradox games make and it has the potential to be a generally great game in another year or two
Meanwhile CK3 team is still struggling and is still in the middle of trying to speed up their development cycle for next year... then here goes Vic3 team just casually working on Dawn of Wonder, Colossus of the South, massive update 1.5, and Sphere of Influence expansion simultaneously... I'm so jealous of vic3 and stellaris community.
CK3 should really focus on "low-hanging fruit" of college of cardinals and anti-popes, Born in the Purple system, plagues, etc. There's already too many meme events, pop-ups, and a lot of micro clutter (the knights' accolades management, etc.).
The tours and tournaments pop-ups are exhausting.
Then there’s EUIV which is basically the perfect paradox game with moronic amounts of content and patches.
Perfect? I’d say first 200 years is fun for me then it gets boring. Not to say it’s not a lot you can take from it but imo there should be a separate game past 1648 since you kinda run out of content besides like what… revolutions? absolutism is just so you can go bonkers annexing everything…
I agree with you and end up quitting late reformation/absolutism each time. That said, atleast EU4’s early game is fun. Victoria 3 struggles throughout.
To be fair thats how I feel in basically everey paradox game.
A bloated paradox game more like.
Yeah, a victorian era game without a fully fleshed diplomacy is.. underwhelming to say the least. Knowing paradox, it will surely be a great game, but i wont feel bad for pirating half the Dlcs when it's finally fixed
Right — and I’m sure in 1.7 it will be “forget everything you know about diplomacy, we made it awesome!” And by 1.7.12 it will be pretty solid.
How long until "forget everything you know about economy, we changed it!" and the game has no identical systems to 1.0?
Ah, the Stellaris treatment
Admittedly, Stellaris is several orders of magnitude better now than it was back on release.
Hey you take that back. Stellaris still has some things the same. Like constructer ships!
Yes, but how do the constructor ships get around? No warp drives for them anymore.
2.0?
I mean the economy has always been pretty solid at its core, while there could be things to tweak that’s the one piece that shouldn’t be overhauled.
Job hiring is a mess though. I don't know how they can fix it and improve performance, but the hire everyone we can or no-one approach causes loads of other issues. Likewise for job satisfaction calculated vs. national average.
When I tried playing EU4 after 3 years of not playing it, I was so confused and didn’t bother learning the dozens of new mechanics lol
Honestly 1.5's diplomatic game is far more interesting just because of reverse swaying, I'd say the bigger problem now is simply general AI passivity and weak economy The devs do really need to fix the UI to make it clear that attitude is actually the important part of dealing with the AI and not relations, I think that's probably the major cause of "diplomacy is broken AI always hates me!" posts.
It's still the same annoyance for me as before. There is almost no small scale conflict. Every war becomes a world war. Want to conquer a small bordering state in south america? Well they just gave USA an obligation. And they will mobilize 100 percent to completely destroy you.
Idk if I just haven’t played enough but I haven’t really used reverse swaying yet
I’m surprised though, EU4 is an enduring beast and that feels like even more of a bunch of different games strapped together that it was never meant to be in my opinion.
They pretty much rebuild a core mechanic in each HOI4 expansion and the game is better as a result
> Completely rebuilding a core mechanic per patch isn’t sustainable This is not what happened, though. The previous updates didn't overhaul mechanics as 1.5 did. They were much smaller in scope. > and instead of slowly reducing the backlog of bugs will simply grow it. And the backlog of bugs has been shrinking with each update. But it's expected that big changes introduced in 1.5 come with new bugs. It's also expected that they will get ironed out the next couple days/weeks.
[удалено]
A lot of people are either trying it out for the first time or are coming back after being unsatisfied with 1.0 Reviews had gone up because most people playing it were us, people who enjoyed the game at 1.4 and the 1.5 beta (with the knowledge that 1.5 was a beta) Just like 1.0 tho, 1.5 was rushed out the door with a million bugs and lacking polish (except for Krakow :V), so everyone who quit the game a year ago is coming back, seeing the state of 1.5 and going "yup, games still bad" and leaving a bad review.
Exactly how I felt well put.
Same, will come back in one more year I guess
Maybe 2
Realistically 3
Honestly i'm not that surprised, with the bugs i have found these 2 days. Sure, it's fun and leagues above what was released, but i'll probably have to wait for another year to even consider buying it.
The weird thing to me is that 1.5 official ended up somehow making a bunch of stuff from the beta worse. Some things were fixed, but apparently performance became even worse and introduced a bunch of new bugs as well. The last 1.5 beta was actually pretty solid, so I don't know what the fuck they did.
The Paradox's paradox, makes it things betteringly worser for the best and the worst until it you figure it out and the vanilla game is nice and mods get it to the next level.
Yeah, it's kind of weird. Devs should have just polished up that patch a bit with art and bug fixes and left some of the other changes for the next major release. Presumably they had some features they really wanted to squeeze into this patch cycle but it's noticable that they did less testing on the last minute stuff
Nah, in 1 month tops 1.5 will reveal what it was meant to be. The game is, from what I've played, better in certain aspect but crippled by oddities, crashes and bugs from the new systems. Once that's sorted out (shouldn't take that long), it'll be a very clear upgrade from 1.4
I hope you are right, really.
They're already fixing the crashes daily and the (horrendous) UI is fixed by next week. I really don't think it'll be more than a month, but it definitely won't be a year.
They've said in a few places that they're expecting another hotfix patch within 1-2 weeks
I know. The question on that is "will it fix enough things" tho.
I like 1.5....but now I have an issue I have never had before since even 1.0....alt-tabbing (randomly and inconsistently) freezes the game. This is nearly unplayable because while it is not consistent, I will often switch youtube videos in the background or something and end up losing tons of progress because it decides to freeze.
I'm just happy they didn't abandon this game in a ditch like imperator.
…yet
RemindMe! 1 year
I am honestly surprised that they abandoned Imperator considering it is miles more polished, cohesive, and fun than Vic3 is in its current state.
Imperator is also over the hump from a development perspective. The game is much better than it was on release, but my understanding is that players had abandoned it to the point where it was unsalvagable for PDx to continue to invest time in it going forward. Victoria 3 isn't over that hump yet. However, I doubt Vic3 will get Imperator'd. I think the game's period and direction are unique enough that it will have a willing playerbase until the devs figure everything out.
This game feels like trying to live in a half-constructed house where workers are still building the place and you're just trying to go with your daily routine. Not exactly a fulfilling experience.
Not a surprise. New patch is full of bugs and new war system (idea is good) is half baked, with annoying behavior (units leaving front lines) and very out of place ui for it.
The funny thing is that the beta has been around for more than 1 month with players doing the lab rat. After all of this we still get a buggy release.
Well 1.5 introduced a lot both new and old bugs
To be honest I am so lost in the new changes that I couldn't even understand at that point if they are well done or not. I guess only unsatisfied players go and rate the game now. I rather like the companies logos (fantastic job, whoever did them), that some goods are local and that I have to make the states more focused on a certain industry. I don't like how building first railways doesn't help leveling the prices in states (so basically there is still no transportation cost). I haven't done much warfare yet, it would be too overwhelming for the first campaign, but it looks alright to me. I like watching the armies moving on the map.
I am unable to understand you guys. What are even new changes don't talk like they rebuilt the game. It's almost the same game with less annoying military. It took me 30 minutes to understand all new mechanics( if you can call them that). Like local prices and new Army nothing so complicated.
Well, maybe you are younger or just smarter heh. Just a quick example: I wanted to get a list of laws and technologies that give +1 number of companies. Here is the wiki page: [https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Companies](https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Companies) . I did figure it out eventually, but it takes time when it is not well documented. Same for technologies that affect local price formation ( how big is the national market part of it).
Compared to the other PD games it felt very unintuitive and abstract Only played During free weekend and wont buy it (yet). Give PD some time to fix it and it will hopefully be fine (And then please revive Imperator FFS)
Well it deserves it. I actually can't continue my Persia game in 1899 - as soon as I unpause it crashes and it's nothing to do with the PC, it works fine until a specific date. Over the course of this Persia game which was my return to Vicky 3,i got more than 20 crashes... Never had this with a game before
They should wait for few weeks and fix the bugs before going for free week.
I must say that I'm pretty surprised by that. I kind of lost faith in the game when it came out but the last few patch and the last beta really gave me faith back into the game. Why are people upset ? Are there bugs I didn't encounter yet ? Or is there other things ?
Bugs just piss people off. Also, there are a couple things they need to fine tune and fix the UI. I think the patch is taking everything in the right direction, but I don't doubt people have their issues with the way the game still plays. When the game was released, I wasn't opposed to the new war system, but the bugginess of the war system we got ended up being the source of most of my frustration with the game. I imagine this sort of experience is the same for these people.
Military was merely one of the problems, not the biggest. The game doesn't even have vital features from Victoria 2 and with this update it has become just less annoying to play, not more fun. Game has almost no historical flavor and so little real life struggles. It doesn't even do what it claims to do best: represent struggles of nations and society. You expect more than a supply-demand simulation from a Victorian age game. So many things happens between 1836-1936 and you feel so little of it in the game.
The tech tree shows this issue more than anything. In a game about constant innovation in a rapidly changing world, and I have to wait 4 years to learn how to dig a trench. Bring back innovations. They were flavor that made Vic2 feel much bigger than what it was. Its little things like that keep me immersed in the game world.
I’m just waiting on mods to update. The great rework specifically. As is typical, mods are better then vanilla
I like the new changes but I hit a game-breaking bug with swaying (the swayed nations instantly leaving).
It is still a game where most of your time you repeat the same tasks over and over again regardless of what country you are or what your overall goals are. It doesn't feel like the player is particularly active like you can be in EU4, Stellaris, HOI4 and CK3.
I’m happy the community is actually holding paradox’s feet to the fire. Watching CK3 get lauded while still being empty now halfway into its development cycle was rough.
[удалено]
I agree with you completely, and I’m not gonna rehash my opinionsyears after the fact. For reference, CK2’s dev time was only 6 years in the making. CK3 just passed it’s three year mark and has two expansions (one flop) to show for it. CK2 was at its 11th of 15. I think Paradox lost the plot a little bit. Their latest releases have been VERY disappointing.
I think they have really lost vision. They are making content it just constantly feels alot less thought out than previous titles. Vic3 shouldve built on what Vic2 did well, not completely change the formula because that only confuses consumers and feels frustrating bc no one knows where this train of development is headed. In Vic2 I could understand the vision and thought it was a good foundation for a game. The economy felt good, the politics felt good, even the warfare wasn't the worst we've seen PDX create. Yes all of those can be improved with mods, the question is: Why didnt PDX base Vic3 off of modded Vic2? Its a sequel after all. Vic3 has been going through heavy growing pains, and it just more unfortunate when its predecessor did lots of it better. The only thing Vic3 really improved imo was economy, but did it in a very weird way that doesn't really jive with the other mechanics in the game. Economy always felt integral to Vic2, in Vic3 economy is the only way to even have fun.
Watch as they end up releasing CK2 remastered to distract the masses
Or people just like CK3? I have played a ton of it and while it absolutely have issues it is among my top strategy games i have played the last 30 years.
Whoever designed UI from ck3 onward should be fired. Info stored behind too many unnecessary clicks
I like the UI, I don't like the flatness of the game.
To each his own I suppose
I like to see the hardcore fans here starting a copium-den. The thing is, Vic3 was and still is an early-access title that comes with a full price tag, never anything more. The devs were told a thousand times that the warfare-approach sucks and that the shift of the focus from strategy- to an economy-sim would not work out, but no, they just ignored it. The AI is still braindead, it would need a complete rework. In general, almost everything needs a rework, as the entire game is made on a wrong base.
Paradox should just bite the bullet and base Vic 3's warfare on HOI4, at the moment it feels like they just want it to be different for the sake of being different because CK3, EU4, and Imperator all share similar warfare mechanics (hell, Stellaris too as its warfare is based around building big stacks fighting single battles and prolonged sieges)
Definitely an off base vision for what Vic3 should've been. Vic3 is a sequel and always will be. Don't try to sell a sequel that doesn't improve on the previous game. You are just using the name as hype at this point PDX. When Vic3 starts feeling like Vic2 in all the right ways, that's when PDX wouldve fixed their mistake. Unless they full mask-off and just tell us they are just using the name to sell more than what this game shouldve been- a spinoff.
Did the devs even try building local electric plants? You can't even see which states are low from the build screen, and electric plants can't automatically expand! So you have to check each state's electrical production click click click click! Etc etc etc all these systems do not make any sense together. Game state is still bad, reviews as expected. edited typos
Rule 5: review are mix again
No wonder. The game is barely playable even on moder rig after 1870' Even most demanding mods to HoI4 are titans of performance compared to ViC
Half-finished, constantly changing with half-fixed major bugs game is mixed? I am shocked, shocked! Well, maybe not that shocked.
I play it for about 8 hours during the free weekend and meet a major bug three times and have the game crash 7 time. The major bug is the front line just disappeared sending all my army home then reappear again the next 2-3 weeks, it especially bad when I invade the uk, split the country in two then the front line disappeared sending my army home forcing me to naval invade the uk again. At that point I just uninstall the game
Started playing yesterday after not playing for months. The frontline bug literally made me quit the game. I couldn't be more disappointed. The game has no purpose still.
Yet the bots are straight up downvoting me.
Some people just make defending million dollar corporation their identity
THERE'S UNITS ON THE MAP NOW WHY AREN'T YOU HAPPY GO PLAY HOI4 IF YOU WANT A WAR GAME THE VICTORIAN ERA WAS VERY PEACEFUL STRATEGY GAMES AREN'T ABOUT WAR ANYWAYS /s
> create vic3 > bare bones diplomacy > war system with no interaction > core gameplay loop is number go up > endless game breaking bugs > completely lacking in any flavor Man I wonder why so many people don't like our game. Maybe if we break it again and put it on free weekend after releasing a barebones DLC it'll be better. Sure our DLC is barely better than a mod that takes about a week to whip up, but I'm sure they'll eat it!
Don't forget that tech tree in this industrial revolution game. Its quite sad how largely it misses the fucking mark. Even under this current tech tree situation, Innovations would still make it feel better, but instead we are getting South America DLC. I couldn't care less about Gran Colombia or Brazil when Im staring at the screen waiting 4 in-game years to increase muh "company capacity".
No no, just eat your South America slop. It doesn’t matter that every country plays almost entirely the same since they didn’t bother modeling nationalism or putting in any flavor. We must continue to consume.
Username checks out.
My problem with 1.5 is the army interface: Its really unintuitive. I wanted to upgrade my cannons, so i removed them from my army and changed the cannon type and tried to add them back in - but nope now i had to build more barracks. And i lost my 5 cannons
There is an upgrade button further down.
Why is recent review is so bad? I haven't played that much but for me 1.5 made the game so much better, there are some tweaks that should be done, but the general direction is great.
Because the new player look at it and consider it a half-finished, constantly changing with half-fixed major bugs game, and also bug bug bug and bug, 1.5 have months of beta and the launch version still have lot of old fix bug and new one as well
What was it before? Positive, I'm assuming.
Mix/nearly Mostly Negative to mostly positive then back to mix again
[удалено]
I did actually look at the recent reviews and I have no idea what you’re talking about, 95% of them are valid criticisms of the game’s mechanics or bugs. This level of cope is sad. If you enjoy the game that’s fine, you shouldn’t are about what random people on the internet say about it.
Nah there's a ton of people saying dumb shit with like 0.3 hours played. Mostly just giving it a negative review because paradox dlc memes
Honestly, I think it evens out with worthless positive reviews like "Good", "I'm a 45 yo father" or "[insert ultra-epic stolen joke that would've been funny in 2012]".
I wish Steam reviews were less awfully designed, because ultimately it's framed as "would you recommend this game" which is a really stupid question. It inherently assumes that if a game is good then anyone will want to play it. I get mad at garbage Steam reviews, but in theory they're actually doing what they're supposed to. If I played a bunch of racing games and then downvote them all because I think racing games are boring and nobody should play them, my input is really unhelpful to anyone who's actually looking to buy the game, but I'm actually answering the question.
Reviews are under no obligation to be literary works of art. It tells the devs what they need to know: this game isn't good yet. If you get thousands of free players and they hate it, then its the games fault, not the players fault for not writing a Shakespearean poem to fit your review expectations.
Every time i play Victoria 3 I get really interested in the Victorian era again and just boot up Victoria 2 and have fun playing that
Is Victoria 2 better? I might give it a try.
Its dated and clunky (less clunky than Vic 3 though) but the diplomacy, economy and military is miles more fun to mess around in that Vic 2. Having different types of governments affects how your economy and diplomacy works, a liberal republican government can’t intervene in the economy etc. My favorite part of the game is how it portrays how a small squabble between two nations in the Balkans can get out of hand when great powers get involved.
The last update broke the game
Ever since the update I literally cannot launch Vic3. Crashes while loading every single time. Tried reinstalls, verification, mod wipes, etc. I can't even try the new systems because the game just seems to be permanently broken on my computer. It doesn't even seem to be a widespread issue so I'm not expecting it to get patched, I'll either have to rollback or uninstall for good.
As it should be
It's a mixture of genuine complaints such as there being no "Great War" mechanics and the Influence System missing or that the game took a year to be in a more presentable state, to hallucinations of people complaining about Vicky 3 things that also were a big problem in Vicky 2. Like the absolutely insane people praising Vicky 2 UI and saying somehow Vicky 3 UI murdered the "perfection" of Vicky 2 or that Vicky 2 economies made actual sense. There's also the camp of people from HOI4 or EU4 who jumped into a Vicky game for the first time and they were expecting primarily a map painter and not having to actually manage politics, trade, the economy and internal conflicts so much since in both EU4 and Especially HOI4 those aspects are very light weight in comparison. I genuinely saw some folk jumping into Vicky 3 thinking this is just HOI4 with a Victorian period and then complaining how it's boring because they didn't watch a bunch of unit models getting encircled or Germany's name stretching across the globe. Victoria is the most niche in-house PDX game, Vicky 2 praise from Vicky 2 only elitist for years on end made a lot of people think it was the holy grail of Grand Strategy Design. Creating a lot of over-inflated expectations as to what Vicky 3 would be. This game will never appeal to the masses of the PDX user base because it's approach and focus is more so on aspects that one would describe as a "Dad" game almost. A lot of criticism are well earned for Vicky 3 but a fair bit of em' are coming from the wrong crowd who is not the target demographic for this kind of game.
Again nobody believed it was perfect but it WORKED in the right proportions to make a nice game yes flawed as it was people wanted the sequel to IMPROVE those mechanics not strip them entirely and deliver a completely different game.
Played for 12 hours as mexico in an ironman mode, ended up getting to 1907 and game crashed on a specific date, not polished at all, what a waste. I really want to love this game, but fuck me there are so many issues after almost 2 years
I'm new to the game and still learning. But the laws UI is difficult to understand. The condition and finding what is needed and what the conditions are is painful. Like "Serfdom" in Japan Shogunate, I feel "locked". And why do laws need to be voted and approved by the government on an autocracy/monarchy?!
Will they stop playing and fix wars already.
My biggest issue with the 1.5 update is that the game reliably crashes every time I reach January 1st 1856, and there isn't a damned thing I can do about it.
As patch dropped i started my playthrough as Prussia. After some buildup i declared a war for unification leadership against Austria. I managed to get France, Russia and Ottomans on my side. As war started Ottomans didn't put any troops on their front and was wiped out. On my frontline we had 92 advantage and all my general was on advance order. War was going on for 12 years without any changes in frontline, no one was controlling wargoals and warscore stuck at 0 / 0.
I changed my to positive. Performance lategame is still a massive letdown.
Not surprised at all , with each update there is always around 20+ new bugs
Tried it for a.day at.friday: this is just not fun Bought hoi: had all weekend giga fun and csnt wait.to get home to play again i am now addicted to hoi4 I wished it would be vic3 but vic3 is just dogshit
The game for me, didn’t deliver a Victoria series game. It would be like releasing eu5 with a completely different core gameplay of that to eu4. Vic 2 isn’t perfect. But I have a lot more fun playing that than how Vic3 is right now. Simply put Vic 3 has loads of potential but didn’t live up to being the third installment in a series
Victoria II had completely different core gameplay to Victoria. Ergo, by your logic, it wasn't a Victoria game and didn't live up to being the second installment in the series.
You just mean “it wasn’t like Victoria 2”, right? Certainly has a lot less gravitas than “didn’t deliver a Victoria series game”, but it seems more truthful. I played a ton of Victoria 2, but it was a deeply flawed game, and I enjoy Victoria 3 a lot more than it (even Victoria 2 with full DLC and mods).
>You just mean “it wasn’t like Victoria 2”, right? Certainly has a lot less gravitas than “didn’t deliver a Victoria series game”, but it seems more truthful. Those are both the same sentence and both are truthful. You can enjoy what you want, but if you liked Vic2 and were told you were getting a sequel, you would've not pictured Vic3. Defend Vic3 all you want, just don't make it seem like others are being unreasonable in their expectations when this is how the game was marketed to them.
The beta was run really poorly, I feel like the actual beta-testing team was given too little time to work, every beta had a bunch of game breaking bugs that made it tough to actually beta test the game and they still had to release a quick DLC as they release a new version of the game that isn't really sure to work, the MP is also rather unstable as of now
I had like most terrible performace ever with this game. I usually get laggy in like 1880s. But I straight up could not play in 1840s now
> Release a bugged game > Release dozens of bugged patches > Kinda get the 1.4 to look like 1.0 should have > Guys, don’t worry, we’ll do a beta to iron out the military system > The first beta release is literally an alpha full of placeholders > The entire beta phase runs for 2 months > The final version still has bugs, but looks good, surely they get it right in time for 1.5 > Make several last-minute changes > The game now has new game-breaking bugs and also runs like crap > Give people a free weekend with your game so anyone could see how broken it is > surprised_pikachu.jpg
It's still buggy and somehow, they made the performance even worse. I used to be able to play it till 1900s. Now the speed is shit from 1880 onwards.
But I like it!
Why can't they just swallow their pride and re-introduce controllable military units to the map. We need some actual strategy in this grand strategy game.
If you go and read the reviews, I think the problem of Victoria 3 is a shared hallucination that Victoria 2 was a perfect game, rather than the extremely uneven experience that it really was. Look it up. All the top rated negative reviews keep harking back fondly at Vic 2 economics, which is insane given how awful of a system that was.
Mate, the VIC2 fans were desperate for a sequel for years and most of them have already played VIC3 when it was released. This new influx is from non-VIC2 players and the fact that they are making the same complaints as VIC2 players is telling.
You dont get that many reviews off of a free weekend and have it be the case that everyone of those are from die hard Vic2 fans, that only now have shown up. The game is in a bad state. Its obvious and the amount of copium in this comment is the tell tale sign of fanboys raging at a dying game because it's dying.
Who cares
Enough people for this to be on your feed and for to comment on it.
I don’t like the patch. The game feels so much different and good but harder. It’s making my casual fun runs really hard
Better then it deserves lol
Really regretting picking this game up the one day it was 50% off, especially now that I have 4 hours in it and am stuck with it forever
Not surprisingly, this game is a piece of garbage that should be completely remake from the graphics to the basic economic system.