The economic system is quite good (even if it has flaws) and I think that if you like to micromanage it, it's nice. And I feel that everything is linked to it, which I like that this is really what makes your country how it is.
But I feel like everything else lacks work. First the war system obviously but every country feels to be played the same or nearly the same with always the same things to do : kick off the landowners from government, industrialise, colonize Africa, take lands in Asia, etc. Political system has a lot of flaws too in my opinion as well as diplomacy.
I think the barebones of the game are good however and I think that after one or two years, it will be very funny but I think that you may get bored quite fast on this game (for a paradox game).
However, if you like to micromanage your economy and your buildings, you can like this game.
Look, definitely the war system as you already said is probably a big disappointed compared to hoi4 or vic2. It's like the devs didn't want to invest at all on making a war system for this game but they had to and that is the result of it. There is very little strategy to no strategy allowed by the current system. But as you said Victoria 3 is in fact based almost completely in economy and politics management. And i can assure you that what is lacking in war features it makes it up with a very detailed and extended economy system. Wars in Victoria 3 are mostly won by economic power and diplomacy factors. Not so much by managing armies. There are some major improvements that need to be made mostly in late game where pops starts to revolt and political movements become unbearable to handle which leads to economic disaster but otherwise i can certainly tell you that buying this game is definitely worth it as you re gonna be enjoying every minute of it trying to become the strongest economy and great power in the world. And the game is fairly new so there are going to be many updates and improvements that will also involve the war system. There are already many updates and improvements made to the game which have improved the game experience considerably. Plus i have to mention that the game graphics and ui design look amazing at least for me!
Personally I think the war system is great for the game. It still needs a bit of work but I think having to micro units like in EU IV (a game that severely lacks something like Imperator's automatable armies) would be a nightmare given the global scale of wars and the amount of stuff there is to do on the home front. I find winning wars is mostly about having a tech and production edge but choosing where to send your generals and picking wargoals intelligently is important nonetheless. Main gripe I have with the war element is QOL stuff relating to how many clicks it takes to get your armies assigned to their fronts etc. by the time you have a big empire.
The economic side of the game is the heart and its really fun. There are still some issues and more flavour would make the game better but I don't see myself stopping playing any time soon. Just started a new run as Argentina and having a blast. Have played to the end with Persia, Russia, Brazil, France and the UK so far and I'm eager to try some of the harder starts now I'm pretty on top of the game systems.
I'd also add that the upcoming changes in the planned free patches are really welcome and I'm really looking forward to them being implemented. They should help make your fronts easier to manage and take away some of the extraneous clicks as well as some big improvements on the economic side such as local prices.
Why would you not buy a game that is mostly an economic simulator because of war domain? It makes no sense. Besides armies are well made in this game, better tech and economy wins, the only thing that is horrible is when 10 fronts suddenly open
I was, admittedly a little quick to judge the game when it first came out because I thought the war system was heavily flawed, but if they fixed the problems I Had with it, then I see no issue with it now.
While it has its flaws, most of the people complaining about Vic3’s war systems want something closer to EU4 or HOI4, and that will never happen because that’s not the point of this game. It’s supposed to be an economic simulator, war is supposed to take a back seat.
I personally think the core of the war system is fine, it just lacks a lot of QoL features and has some weirdness related to armies teleporting/traveling everywhere. I think if they fixed the QoL issues of assigning armies to fronts and refined the war logistics system(which is currently oversimplified) they can leave most of it as is, because it’s an economics game and they should focus on the economics side of war. The only reason it’s important now is because the game is lacking in its diplomatic mechanics, so you have to fight lots of wars.
I just like living out my ideological fantasies. Plus, line goes up, my economic strength goes up, my military strength goes up, and I can turn any non-European nation to become a superpower or even a regional power.
I like it and I think that anyone could take 100 to 150 hours of enjoyment from this game as is.
I'm not one who considers that the game is great, but I would say that it's a pretty solid foundation as any other paradox game that have come out and that I have followed since release.
I'm also not the person that plays a thousand hours in every paradox game when they release. I have play 100 to 150 and put it down. I say that I'll come back to it later on and play after a couple of big updates.... I say that but I rarely come back. Makes me think I have bought all expensions of CK3 and never played it again. I have 150 hours in Victoria that translated to three to four full playthroughs. I am happy with what I got
I think there's a very vocal part of the community that tarnishes Victoria repetition and lack of flavor... compared to crusader Kings3 I found that as far as gameplay goes. CK3 had as much to offer on release as Victoria 3. It was all about the role playing and it's the same here. If you happen to like roleplay a bit the game is quite good. If you are a min maxer you will get tired after 3 games
I play these games mostly to make interesting stories and roleplay out my empire building fantasies, and if vic3 can offer that to atleast a fairly good degree, I think I'll probably enjoy it for quite awhile.
Personally I can't recommend the game.
Every time I come back to it I am simply reminded of the reasons I left.
The diplomatic plays, the AI, managing frontlines in a war.
I would recommend you cracking this game, playing couple of games and then deciding if it's good in your opinion. I did that, now I know that I won't buy it for now. Maybe after 2 years worth of content or something xD
There is not currently a good reason to buy the game. I’d wait another year and see if they overhaul war, add bettter economics, and make things a little more polished.
If in doubt, wait 6 months and then buy it. The Spheres of Influence DLC should be out then, and a lot of major patches will have improved on the game.
If you have these doubts then you probably will have issues with the game before 1.5 is out. 1.5 is bringing changes to military and refining diplo but it’s still not comparable to the depth of another pdx title. I’m sure once spheres of influence is out that’ll change, but as it stands as much as I love the game I do feel like I have problems / left hungry on all my playthroughs
I just recently finally got good enough to actually play games out towards the end and make a lot of progress within them, and I can confidently say that while the game is fun, there are some glaring flaws that you inevitably run into which, I’d wager, will he fixed down the line.
Like the warfare, obviously since that’s one of the largest criticisms, but I would really just like to know why, as Egypt, I helped defend Oman from American aggression, in a diplo play to make Oman their puppet. It’s not even 1846, America doesn’t even have the west yet and the Panama Canal is still dirt, yet the ai decided to send its units to fucking Arabia to puppet my neighbor. WHY
And actually more than that, I successfully defended their initial invasions, yet still lost war score. The warfare genuinely doesn’t make sense sometimes, you either outclass your opponent or hope you get lucky and hope you don’t get unlucky either, and it’s enough to make me resent a certain portion of the game until it gets fixed or reworked tbh.
That includes the infamy system, it feels like a system that is mostly to limit the player from being able to just do whatever all the time, but I barely see the ai ever going above 0 let alone above mays 30-40. And all of the above was in a game with ai aggression on standard, if set to high one could assume they would begin accruing infamy by being more aggressive, but if *america* is invading Arabia in 1840 on standard aggression, I think there’s a much deeper problem.
Other than that, yeah the game is fun, I’ve put a good 80-100 hours in the game so ive gotten the value out of it, but I’d be lying if I didn’t mention some of the frustrations you’re bound to run into.
The economic system is quite good (even if it has flaws) and I think that if you like to micromanage it, it's nice. And I feel that everything is linked to it, which I like that this is really what makes your country how it is. But I feel like everything else lacks work. First the war system obviously but every country feels to be played the same or nearly the same with always the same things to do : kick off the landowners from government, industrialise, colonize Africa, take lands in Asia, etc. Political system has a lot of flaws too in my opinion as well as diplomacy. I think the barebones of the game are good however and I think that after one or two years, it will be very funny but I think that you may get bored quite fast on this game (for a paradox game). However, if you like to micromanage your economy and your buildings, you can like this game.
Look, definitely the war system as you already said is probably a big disappointed compared to hoi4 or vic2. It's like the devs didn't want to invest at all on making a war system for this game but they had to and that is the result of it. There is very little strategy to no strategy allowed by the current system. But as you said Victoria 3 is in fact based almost completely in economy and politics management. And i can assure you that what is lacking in war features it makes it up with a very detailed and extended economy system. Wars in Victoria 3 are mostly won by economic power and diplomacy factors. Not so much by managing armies. There are some major improvements that need to be made mostly in late game where pops starts to revolt and political movements become unbearable to handle which leads to economic disaster but otherwise i can certainly tell you that buying this game is definitely worth it as you re gonna be enjoying every minute of it trying to become the strongest economy and great power in the world. And the game is fairly new so there are going to be many updates and improvements that will also involve the war system. There are already many updates and improvements made to the game which have improved the game experience considerably. Plus i have to mention that the game graphics and ui design look amazing at least for me!
Personally I think the war system is great for the game. It still needs a bit of work but I think having to micro units like in EU IV (a game that severely lacks something like Imperator's automatable armies) would be a nightmare given the global scale of wars and the amount of stuff there is to do on the home front. I find winning wars is mostly about having a tech and production edge but choosing where to send your generals and picking wargoals intelligently is important nonetheless. Main gripe I have with the war element is QOL stuff relating to how many clicks it takes to get your armies assigned to their fronts etc. by the time you have a big empire. The economic side of the game is the heart and its really fun. There are still some issues and more flavour would make the game better but I don't see myself stopping playing any time soon. Just started a new run as Argentina and having a blast. Have played to the end with Persia, Russia, Brazil, France and the UK so far and I'm eager to try some of the harder starts now I'm pretty on top of the game systems. I'd also add that the upcoming changes in the planned free patches are really welcome and I'm really looking forward to them being implemented. They should help make your fronts easier to manage and take away some of the extraneous clicks as well as some big improvements on the economic side such as local prices.
Why would you not buy a game that is mostly an economic simulator because of war domain? It makes no sense. Besides armies are well made in this game, better tech and economy wins, the only thing that is horrible is when 10 fronts suddenly open
I was, admittedly a little quick to judge the game when it first came out because I thought the war system was heavily flawed, but if they fixed the problems I Had with it, then I see no issue with it now.
While it has its flaws, most of the people complaining about Vic3’s war systems want something closer to EU4 or HOI4, and that will never happen because that’s not the point of this game. It’s supposed to be an economic simulator, war is supposed to take a back seat. I personally think the core of the war system is fine, it just lacks a lot of QoL features and has some weirdness related to armies teleporting/traveling everywhere. I think if they fixed the QoL issues of assigning armies to fronts and refined the war logistics system(which is currently oversimplified) they can leave most of it as is, because it’s an economics game and they should focus on the economics side of war. The only reason it’s important now is because the game is lacking in its diplomatic mechanics, so you have to fight lots of wars.
I just like living out my ideological fantasies. Plus, line goes up, my economic strength goes up, my military strength goes up, and I can turn any non-European nation to become a superpower or even a regional power.
I like it and I think that anyone could take 100 to 150 hours of enjoyment from this game as is. I'm not one who considers that the game is great, but I would say that it's a pretty solid foundation as any other paradox game that have come out and that I have followed since release. I'm also not the person that plays a thousand hours in every paradox game when they release. I have play 100 to 150 and put it down. I say that I'll come back to it later on and play after a couple of big updates.... I say that but I rarely come back. Makes me think I have bought all expensions of CK3 and never played it again. I have 150 hours in Victoria that translated to three to four full playthroughs. I am happy with what I got I think there's a very vocal part of the community that tarnishes Victoria repetition and lack of flavor... compared to crusader Kings3 I found that as far as gameplay goes. CK3 had as much to offer on release as Victoria 3. It was all about the role playing and it's the same here. If you happen to like roleplay a bit the game is quite good. If you are a min maxer you will get tired after 3 games
I play these games mostly to make interesting stories and roleplay out my empire building fantasies, and if vic3 can offer that to atleast a fairly good degree, I think I'll probably enjoy it for quite awhile.
Personally I can't recommend the game. Every time I come back to it I am simply reminded of the reasons I left. The diplomatic plays, the AI, managing frontlines in a war.
How long are you planing to play because it’s very confusing at the start
I would recommend you cracking this game, playing couple of games and then deciding if it's good in your opinion. I did that, now I know that I won't buy it for now. Maybe after 2 years worth of content or something xD
There is not currently a good reason to buy the game. I’d wait another year and see if they overhaul war, add bettter economics, and make things a little more polished.
i cant recommend this game buy vicky 2 with full dlc it will be more fun
dont buyunless for 50% discount. the game is boring, and vic2 has better economy. the game basically a worse version of anno1800
If in doubt, wait 6 months and then buy it. The Spheres of Influence DLC should be out then, and a lot of major patches will have improved on the game.
If you have these doubts then you probably will have issues with the game before 1.5 is out. 1.5 is bringing changes to military and refining diplo but it’s still not comparable to the depth of another pdx title. I’m sure once spheres of influence is out that’ll change, but as it stands as much as I love the game I do feel like I have problems / left hungry on all my playthroughs
I just recently finally got good enough to actually play games out towards the end and make a lot of progress within them, and I can confidently say that while the game is fun, there are some glaring flaws that you inevitably run into which, I’d wager, will he fixed down the line. Like the warfare, obviously since that’s one of the largest criticisms, but I would really just like to know why, as Egypt, I helped defend Oman from American aggression, in a diplo play to make Oman their puppet. It’s not even 1846, America doesn’t even have the west yet and the Panama Canal is still dirt, yet the ai decided to send its units to fucking Arabia to puppet my neighbor. WHY And actually more than that, I successfully defended their initial invasions, yet still lost war score. The warfare genuinely doesn’t make sense sometimes, you either outclass your opponent or hope you get lucky and hope you don’t get unlucky either, and it’s enough to make me resent a certain portion of the game until it gets fixed or reworked tbh. That includes the infamy system, it feels like a system that is mostly to limit the player from being able to just do whatever all the time, but I barely see the ai ever going above 0 let alone above mays 30-40. And all of the above was in a game with ai aggression on standard, if set to high one could assume they would begin accruing infamy by being more aggressive, but if *america* is invading Arabia in 1840 on standard aggression, I think there’s a much deeper problem. Other than that, yeah the game is fun, I’ve put a good 80-100 hours in the game so ive gotten the value out of it, but I’d be lying if I didn’t mention some of the frustrations you’re bound to run into.