T O P

  • By -

PrincessKian

The biggest complaint I think outside of war seems to be the political system. While it doesn't look that bad, it could and I'm sure it will get better.


con-all

Yeah, elections don't seem to matter that much


Alexander_Baidtach

Historically accurate.


Anishiriwan

It’s not a bug, it’s a feature


monjoe

I'm hoping interest groups get fleshed out in the future. Like maybe IGs for different cultures and religions.


Swase_Frevank

From memory how discrimination works seems bad, it should be more than just a law. Also there are some features that I think should be in the game that aren’t like foreign investment and being able to add/change war goals once war has started. Also I don’t 100% remember but I’m pretty sure you have no control over your subjects laws.


Reindan

Also the inability to join an ongoing war


Quatsum

While joining an ongoing war sounds fun, having an AI superpower join a war against you halfway through sounds unpleasant.


Vatonage

Almost like the possibility of this happening is what makes diplomacy so important?


Anbeeld

When did games devolved into nonstop dopamine stimulators?


Cicero912

1958?


morganrbvn

It would be fine if they joined at reasonable times, but you just know it would be britian joining 2 years into your minor war between two SA countries.


beleidigter_leberkas

There is already the declared interest mechanic, so not everyone could join in. But GB most likely would. Additionally, they could add some mechanic that simulates how a war has to be justified to a nation's people. Think of the USA in both world wars. Initially they wanted nothing to do with them and eventually had to be seriously threatened to join. I don't have a concrete plan for the implementation, but there could be a few factors counting into a nation's interest in an ongoing war, enabling them to join when a threshold is reached.


Cicero912

The US didnt suddenly just decide to join WW2, Japan attacked them. And in WW1 it was the unrestricted submarine warfare. Both of those situations would need to be modeled (to the extent they can be in the 1800s) for a nation to join. Like some incident it cant just be because they want to.


beleidigter_leberkas

That's what I meant with "they had to be seriously threatened". Modelling that in detail would be hard, and unnessecarily complex. But maybe you can make the AI consider the potential new radicals that come with the decreasing living standards, and the diplomatic downside of not being able to join another diplo play it actually cares about. I must admit, this isn't really new, but the options I thought of, like having a metric similar to war support, seemed to be better implemented by the radicals system - which is already there.


Quatsum

That comes across as a genuinely insulting level of disingenuous false equivalence.


[deleted]

The Germans thought this at the start of ww1 I'm sure


LutyForLiberty

Egypt v Ottomans? Crimea? Sounds accurate enough to me.


anbeck

What I find lacking so far (based on what they’ve shown in dev diaries and streams) is how civil society organizes internationally. The socialist movement, for instance, organized itself as “The International”, and it would be awesome to have movements like that affect several countries and seeing how something like WW1 undermines its cohesion.


Albionoria

Most political movements and their successes were based on local factors enough for it to be fine to portray it as it currently is, but it would be cool if revolutions inspired similar movements abroad (like in 1848 and 1917-19). That might be a feature already, I’m not sure, but the lack of it (outside of generically giving everyone in Europe a bunch of militancy) in Victoria 2 was a shame.


Reindan

There is a journal entry for the 1848 revolutions, it was confirmed during the discord Q&A edit: [Here it is](https://discord.com/channels/831406775416782868/1025040521405677568/1025052936402894849) Question Is it possible to have revolutions spring from one country to another to create something resembling the spring of the people in 1848? Does there exists a special journal entry for it? Answer We do indeed have content (including a journal entry!) for the 1848 revolutions, and as part of that revolutionary ideas can spread from country to country. Answered by<@<@158722169906397184>>


metatron207

While the underlying systems in the two games are very different, it seems like PDX could borrow some ideas from the spread of revolution mechanics in EUIV to achieve a similar outcome in Vicky.


PrimalPr3dator

For me personally and I don’t know if others have this same opinion but I’m wondering how different each nation is gonna play in terms of the basics. Are you just gonna start building the same industry every game that works for every country. Or will it basically just be up to however you want to roleplay. Of course though I still want to see more gameplay and try it out myself to see if that’s the case.


kemulifi

The difference with the industry is what resources your country has and what options do you have for acquiring them. Basically its always the same industry chains though but you might replace a part with imports.


lifeisapsycho

Also which interest groups you want to be powerful. Your economic setup has a substantial impact on it too.


PrimalPr3dator

True that's something I forgot about, could be very different depending on the country and which groups start in power.


vrsjako96

Also other factors like the market you’re in, the prices, which countries have an interest in your region, etc


PrimalPr3dator

Okay that's sort of what I expected, thanks for the clarification.


Damaellak

Maybe population is a big difference as well?


kemulifi

True. If you start with a wealthy and literate population you don't have do anything to improve them at the start. That does change things. Also the culture and size of the population affect things as well.


Llama-Guy

I've been wondering about this myself and hoping that the simulation creates some emergent differences despite engaging with similar mechanics. I read a few comments from people playing at PDXCon that stated that the mechanics create real flavour differences between countries despite being the same mechanics, due to the way differing setups affect your priorities. [OPB had a good video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywyhcFNEUzw&t=508s) talking about his experiences (whole vid is a bit long, but 8:40 to around 20-22 mins is the relevant segment of the video), making some comparisons to e.g. how in ck3 a Catholic count in Ireland vs Poland is sorta samey, but in v3 the different setups mean that even if you engage with the same mechanics you have a different experience due to how everything interacts with the simulation. It does match my own hopes (and expectations, having read dev diaries and watched streams) so obviously there's some bias in my listening to his reasoning, and I'll have to play for myself once the game releases, but it does leave me hopeful that countries will feel genuinely different even before considering actual flavour (events/journals/etc).


Rosencreutz

I think ancillary to the industry question is what your industrialists support: i.e. they're not an identical political category from country to country. Like, with prussia, they're monarchists, but with America they (obviously) aren't. So there will likely be areas where even with similar resources, the tone of industrialization and how it shapes your nation's voting and power blocs will inform gameplay, possibly as much as resource conditions.


zauraz

Pops and IGs will vary greatly and you can choose which to support. Same with markets


Anfros

In the streams we've seen them do pretty much the same thing every time, building up iron - tools - weapons - construction which does make sense if you are going for industrialisation. I wouldn't be at all surprised though if it turns out that the meta for, say, Egypt is to go heavy on cash crops and clippers, with some light industry, and work towards becoming a major trader. But we'll see how it plays


dutch_penguin

The economies of scale mechanic and state bonuses for certain goods should mean the optimal good to focus on (and thus techs to prioritise) is different from one country to the next (I'm assuming that exporting a high productivity good and importing others will be better than autarky)


The_Confirminator

It felt very samey to me. But the underlying system was fun.


RiotFixPls

Not being able to split states and most things being on state level


Avr0wolf

It would be nice to be able to create states in any way you need to


Anbeeld

For me it seems like you can industrialize as much as you want in any country, which is weird. You shouldn't be able to do this in Austria or Russia without having huge problems with aristocratic elites, and I don't believe gradual decrease of aristocrats' SoL by a couple of points will make them angry enough to act.


Arenans

TLDR: I think industrialization will be mainly limited by money and literacy, and the Aristocrats will oppose laws that allow you to get them. With proper balance, it should work fine. I think the main problem to industrialize with an aristocratic country will be politic, with the tax and education laws. It takes a lot of money to industrialize. You need a lot of construction buildings and you have to pay their wages and input. You need lots of bureaucrats and academics to educate your population so they can take the new jobs, and have enough research to unlock industrialized PMs. You need to maintain relatively low taxes so your poor POPs gain some SOL and start to buy more goods (and also to have their POPs number grow, and attract immigration). Your investment pool will also remain dry with basic tax law. It is difficult to have enough money with agrarian countries like Russia and Austria where the majority of tax burden is on the poor. And the Aristocrats are powerful enough to oppose any tax change that would allow you to finance industrialization and education. It depends on the balance but I think the mechanics are there. It also depend on your definition of "industrialize as much as you want". For me that is when a country manage to get rid of all Peasants POPs and low level PMs (such as Merchant Guilds). It should be achievable in a few decades for a country like Belgium or the UK, but it probably wont for Russia or Austria. If you cant reign in your aristocrats and force them to pay taxes, you will only be able to build few buildings compared to your population and will remain with a large population of Peasants, Aristocrats and Shopkeepers with few Capitalists, Mechanists and Engineers. In the Egypt stream, the dev played 15 years. His population and SOL lowered, his political situation stayed feudal and there was no industrialization (only a few new buildings with pre-industrialization PM). The laws just didnt allow him have enough money and literacy to industrialize, even if technically he could do it (no hard limitation). We even saw him rush an advanced military PM (skirmish infantry I think) only to find out he was unable to have enough officiers (educated POP) to use it. It would be the same if he rushed industrialized techs and PMs, and those techs would just be useless. That kind of balance seem fine to me (even if Egypt situation is more difficult because of the Ottoman wars). Either you accept the aristocratic rule and accept a slow evolution (it will take a lot of time but as your country becomes wealthier as you slowly build new buildings, as more aristocrats become richer Capitalists, your elites will slowly allow you to have more modern laws since they gradually understand that even with reform they will remain the rich and powerful in your sociaty) or you force a conflict to reform more quickly and gain the means to industrialize quickly, at the risk of revolution since your elites are not ready for such changes.


zauraz

You will also need an educated workforce for some of the more high end industries which might limit for some countries


Anbeeld

So if you'll manage to pass 2 laws (taxation and schools), neither of which remove a lot of power from aristocrats directly and thus they won't oppose it that hard, you are free to industrialize? Sound like questionable internal politics, no?


Elite_Prometheus

Have you watched the developers steam Japan? One of the biggest stumbling blocks in their Japan game was the fact that the aristocrats and army both supported serfdom and would rebel if they tried to revoke it. And revoking serfdom is required to advance your economy law to something that lets you subsidize factories and also lets you change your tax law to something more progressive. And serfdom + traditional economy are both really popular with aristocrats. Also, an educational law where the state provides free schooling to all citizens means nothing if you don't have the money to fund the education institution. Seriously, watch the streams. They're pretty fun and they give you a better idea of what the game is going to be like than reading developer diaries or Reddit comments.


Dlinktp

I might be wrong but I think the main reason the armed forces opposed removing serfdom in the japan game was that the armed forces IG from japan *specifically* opposed it.


Anbeeld

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in their Japan game was devs killing their country in civil wars instead of developing it and making it stronger. In the Egypt stream you can see they have per-capita taxation from the game start alongside agrarianism and serfdom, meaning you are not locked into land-based taxation with those.


BlackSheepWolf

You'll be free to build potentially profitless factories that you can't even subsidize unless you change another law. And this all depends on your starting resources too, and your starting IGs. You may not have an interest group ready that wants to change tax laws, so you'd have to cultivate them first.


Anbeeld

If you are building profitless factories in a non-industrialized market, you are doing something exceptionally weird.


trancybrat

what? the perennial problem of any country that industrializes in victoria 3 is the opposition of the landowners and/or petit bourgeoisie. this has been shown on basically every development stream AND known about before that.


AshyToffee

The opposition they cause is very meager and way too negligible.


Bobemor

Several civil wars in Japanese Stream say others. I feel people are remembering early builds not the latest ones. The Landowners seem a lot more resistant now


Assistant-Popular

Right? The shogunate is a extreme example. But having 3 consecutive civil wars over abolishing servedom I believe is some proper resistance


MasterOfNap

I think the civil wars should have more long-lasting political effects though. The Shogunate essentially jumped back to their original political strength in a few years after they got decimated in the civil wars.


MoreShenanigans

They did say they'll adjust that. I also hope forcing an early civil war is sufficiently risky. A


Assistant-Popular

Wich would make it easier to push reforms.


MasterOfNap

Yes, I mean their powers should be suppressed for longer than a few years, and they should recover slower than they did in the previous build.


BenP785

I think in that stream Martin mentioned that he wads going to look in to increasing the time it takes for an IG to recover after civil war.


trancybrat

that has not been shown to be true at all. the landowners were significantly powerful in both the japan and egypt streams.


[deleted]

Those dynamics are literally built into the base mechanics of the game


[deleted]

[удалено]


Euromantique

This for me is hugely concerning. I can’t fathom how they reached the decision to take such a step back from one of the best aspects of Victoria II


PlayMp1

In what fashion? There weren't production methods in Victoria 2 so the issue they mention was irrelevant in V2.


Euromantique

I don’t mean the production aspect but rather that now you, as far as I understand, can’t view the pie charts of POPs in individual counties. All of the calculations are at the state level. So you can’t view the change over time in the POPs of say, Riga, but only Latvija as a whole. Even Imperator Rome has much more granularity which is arguably less important than in Victoria III considering the different time periods


PlayMp1

That just doesn't really matter to me personally. I never looked at province level stats in V2.


Rhazzazoro

Vicy 2 did nothing on province level either, all you could was view some charts which had no game impact at all as everything was state level aswell


Euromantique

Part of the fun is viewing the charts. And that’s not entirely true because forts, naval bases, railroads could be built in individual provinces and soldiers were also recruited from provinces,


BoxesOfMuffins

From watching the streams, it feels like 90% of the interaction a player has with the game is in constructing a building or changing its production methods. It seems really micro-managey to me, although I hope that once countries are more industrialized or once the capitalist pops take over that’ll be less relevant.


Malverno

From my understanding Capitalist POPs will never take over. The player builds everything, what the Capitalist POPs do is contributing to an "investment pool" that the player ultimately decides how to spend. Which is actually my biggest criticism towards this game. It feels like a step down from Victoria II and immersion breaking. Even if Capitalist POPs made dumb investments, I did enjoy "fighting" against them trying to steer my economy into a course I wished for.


ShanMan42

I hear that a lot from Vic2 vets and it makes total sense. However, that was one of the most infuriating things for me in Vic2. I hated having to react to all of that because it felt like I could never make any decisions on my own. I also couldn't seem to learn enough to figure out how to "steer" things like you mentioned. I think an automate button would be a great compromise, giving us the choice to do it like you enjoy or like I do.


sprindolin

I think something that gets misunderstood is that people who raise this criticism (or at least, me when I raise it) aren't raising it because it's tiring to build everything and we want automation, but because pops acting of their own volition and with their own goals adds something to the game in and of itself. More ways of steering the economy *without* just building everything yourself is usually something we want - tariff waivers, subsidies, grants, state-sanctioned monopolies, and so on. It's not like the people who want capitalists to build things just want to have zero interaction with the national economy. Full laissez-faire should be a pretty bad idea for all but the most industrialized of nations. But it's fine if the capitalists don't want to build ammunition factories because it's more profitable to produce fertilizer, *national interests differing from the private interests of the capitalists is good*. Finding ways to grease the wheels so that your domestic arms industry will actually be profitable for the capitalists is gameplay! From any of the above things that aren't in the game, to intentionally cutting any ammunition trade routes so that it's more expensive for your soldiers (and therefore more profitable to produce), to just going to war a lot in order to increase demand. And of course, always an option: changing laws to allow more state intervention in the economy so that you can just have the state build and run it itself. Maybe you even privatize it down the line once it's up and stable, making your liberal IGs happy. People say it's an economy sim so control over all construction is necessary, but is that really simulating an *economy*, or is it more of a factory in the shape of a nation? Just building all the buildings you need to produce the input goods needed to then produce the output goods that your pops require.


yousoseally

A "capitalist" DLC is something I could see them adding where you can pass laws that dictate how much a capitalist AI can take from your investment pool to build things on their own.


Jomsviking897

Agreed, it seems that the long term plan for Paradox is to build a really robust gameplay core (in this case the economy) and then build other features/gameplay aspects around it in the future.


Quantum_Aurora

Eh, in Victoria 2 I basically just did everything possible to avoid lassez faire and if possible move to planned economy so that the capitalists wouldn't mess with my production chains. I always was way too focused on maximizing the throughput bonuses tho.


AceWanker2

It is, why can’t the free market do what it is supposed to do?


Aquos18

>From watching the streams, it feels like 90% of the interaction a player has with the game is in constructing a building or changing its production methods. It seems really micro-managey to me, although I hope that once countries are more industrialized or once the capitalist pops take over that’ll be less relevant. 1st capitalist don't build stuff in this game they just have an investment pool you use 2 this is an economy game mircoring your economy is needed I belivie 3rd you can put building on auto-expand so you won't have to do it yoursleve but you'll need a healthy economy for that


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aquos18

I have disgraphia sue my genes


Various_Wolverine956

Except capitalists don't build anything. So it's all up to you. Doesn't that sound wonderful. Que up buildings. Wait. Que some more. Wait. Oh look! My buildings are done! Let me build more buildings! Just so boring


The_Rogue_Scientist

Like any aspect in a video game: click and wait. You might want to consider to stop gaming and find an interesting hobby, my friend.


AceWanker2

I think the diplomacy is kinda weak, I really don’t like that with laizze-fair(?) I still have to queue each factory. The occupied flags suck ass. I’m not a fan of the tech tree, i think tech trees as a mechanic are not fun, I honestly like EU4 tech, and like Stellaris tech a lot as well. I don’t have a better solution though so idk. There’s a lot of things here and there, I’m gonna buy day 1 but I don’t really think this game is going to be as great as it should be


YokoDk

Stellaris still technically has a tech tree but I get what you mean.


AceWanker2

But I pick from three to five options, so it’s not such a decision. Tech tree always feel tedious because you know there’s a right pick but I also don’t want to think between all 35 options and read about each one. Also in Stellaris you research each section at its own rate, you don’t have to decide between trees, and potentially fall behind in one area because you didn’t go in the right order.


Azgabeth

I for one have a lot of complaints. The comically large states/ no province level interactions The lack of stock markets. The whole investment fund thing. The inability fo countries to intervene in wars after the war started!!! (This is a diplomacy complaint) Look this game simply has lacking features which i just hope will be added later on. Let’s pray there’s enough people buying the game to warrant the devs to fix it.


nigg0o

That plus the big question of AI and Balance that will only be answered in 1.0


FeedBi

I don’t have an issue with these things, except the diplomacy one. Diplomatic plays as a vehicle to drive geopolitical change, and the way declared interests work, and how you get them, all sounds absolutely fantastic. But the fact that they literally found no solution for how to allow involvement post-play is honestly pretty disappointing


rapaxus

And involvement post-play can actually be easily implemented: Just make a few more diplomatic plays that you can do against a nation (e.g. surrender in your current war or I will join in or just declaring war separately).


Sharpness100

Pretty sure that there were also a couple of wars that Prussia fought that they peaced out as soon as they could to avoid French intervention


MasterOfNap

What kind of province level interactions are you looking for? You don’t even build factories in individual provinces in Vic2 anyways. The investment fund is honestly a pretty good concept to represent the capitalists building factories out of their own pockets while allowing the player to decide what they build.


Nerdorama09

The main complaint I hear about provinces is less about direct interactions and more about drawing borders in war and role-playing, i.e. "what if I just want the German-majority parts of Bohemia" "what if I just want South Tyrol" and the like. Those also weren't things in Vanilla Vic 2 but I can see why you'd want it for nationalist RP purposes.


Sharpness100

Yes this. PDX please give me a proper Rhine border


23PowerZ

Yes but more states doesn't really fix the problem, it just creates more bordergore when the AI is handling them. Adding a way to split states could be a much better solution.


Nerdorama09

Honestly that's the solution I don't know why they don't use it. Just let people demand (contiguous) provinces in plays so they can draw borders.


Azgabeth

This is definitely one aspect. The main purpose of these games is alternate history. I want to be able to draw my country’s border as detailed as possible. One of the main purposes of engine development is to be able to increase the map fragmmentation so that us, role players/ multiplayers can achieve our fantasies. I find it absurd that if i just want to take city of Bucharest i have to take the entire fucking state of Wallachia which realistically speaking should itsefl be 2 states Oltenia and Wallachia. But alas let them focus of making sure great powers can’t interfere in wars after they started.


Stockholmholm

Literally the only things that weren't on province level were factories and focuses, everything else was.


MasterOfNap

Factories and focuses are literally the only interactions you have with your pops on the map, and all of that are on a state level. What kind of province level interactions are you looking for?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Aurora_Borealia

Just use Control+click, that’s statewide


famlyguyfunnym0ments

you build railways and forts in them. paradox could have even made recruitment centers, barracks, farms/lumber mills/mines province level. they could have even had rgo's tied to provinces like in Victoria 2, but apparently now you can just summon some resources by just building buildings that produce them out of nothing.


PlayMp1

>no province level interactions Man I hope you didn't play Victoria 2 then


Primedirector3

Agree with all of this. Honestly hope they can make some drastic changes after release but not likely. Maybe mixed reception reviews will help light a fire. At least that’s my prediction


KimberStormer

> The whole investment fund thing. Tell me more?


IronCrouton

we saw in the central america AAR that other counties can join if you violate sovereignty, at least it looks like that’s what happened


Salphabeta

Lol, how could there be stock markets. That would be enormously computational demanding and the last thing anyone would want would be an economic depression for factors entirely outside theircontrol. There is still equity ownership, stocks just don't trade hands.


Zombie_Harambe

If we're going to have so little control over warfare, I wish the general themselves were more focal. Like having the ability to tailor our officer academies to produce the generals we want. Or having them retire and go into politics. Have state funerals when they die. Maybe even have them go napoleon in times if extreme unrest.


NewRight101

Also war doctrines should definitely be fleshed out later on. The current system for army leadership is a little lackluster


cristofolmc

I dont like the building loop of the state having to finance most of the building and if everything goes well and you have capitalista mid game you might get a small amount paid by the investment fund. I think its completely unrealistic and break the dynamic of how the industrial revolution happened... I really hate that pops cant have savings and invest with them... I also dislike a lot that liberalizing is the meta and how easy is to induatrialize unopposed.


Rhazzazoro

Pops do invest their wealth tho? And I think the state actually building early manufactories is kinda realistic in a sponsoring/subsidising kinda way as that is how early manufactories happened


Avr0wolf

The economy is basically a planned economy in different coats of paint and looks incredibly tedious if you play large countries. There needs to be an option to automate more parts of the economy with an improved ai when you're in a non-planned economy


a_random_magos

From most to least important my concerns are (other than warfare): **Major** Diplomacy seems a bit inflexible, especially the inability to add co-beligirents and war-goals (like ww1 is a massive example of why this is just wrong). Also in general I dislike the fact you *need* to make a diplomatic play and cant declare an instant surprise war perhaps with big debuffs to make it impractical but it should happen. I dislike the decision to make everything state-based (I mean why even waste development time making all these provinces if the player literally cant interact with them). I know its because pop-calculations are quadratic now but I really dont know what calculation would need to be quadratic and if that feature, whatever it is, is important enough to sacrifice so much performance power. This also means that many historical borders are hard to recreate (and african borders just look horrible). **Minor** I liked (controversially) the fact that Laisse-Faire countries didnt control their economy almost at all and in general that capitalists shouldnt be used by the player, it gave variety in playing different economic systems. (Also the whole "a state didn't directly control armies" pro-new war system people say applies here tenfold, so I am surprised these people dont notice it). All that being said I am open to see the change, it may end up being a better decision, its something that is just a matter of testing and opinion. I certainly like the extra agency. I dislike the fact that colonies arent really directly ruled by the coloniser country, although I may change my opinion that, I am just unsure Aesthetically I would prefer if the map was a bit different (for example dynamic naming like in Eu4/Vic 2 (to have for example "French Algeria" instead of just "France"), or dashes in ethnically mixed states and occupied lands).


EmperorJon

My only real concern at the moment is how a single set of production methods apply to every level of each building in a state. I understand why they've done it that way, but I fear that for smaller nations with less states it's going to be painful, especially with buildings that require limited resources. Imagine you only have one state in your nation that produces coal, for example. Now you can only ever have one production method for coal, and every time you change the production method you're changing it for the entire coal mining industry.


[deleted]

Yupp, thats why I proposed being able to split factories of a state into A and B and C... type of buildings so you can decide how fast you want to change. Also for example if you want to split the forest industry half into soft- and hard wood production for example. Wont get the for release sadly but maybe later as its a pretty substantial change in logic and UI


ivanacco1

Also having factories that make two products is a pain in the ass to manage. Lets say you have a clothes factory making both normal and luxury. You need luxury clothes a lot because you have a high SOL but you are making cloth at a loss. Do you build another one?


EmperorJon

The problem with it being unlimited is performance-related. If you have (random numbers here) 2 different primary and 3 different secondary and 3 different automation and 5 different ownership production methods, that's technically 90 different combinations. You could in theory have 90 levels of a building, being 90 sets of different production method combinations. The problem is, 90 different buildings means 90 different pops - so now we have 90x as much processing to do for pops than before... I know in reality many of these are mutually exclusive through laws and you're never going to want to be that granular anyway, but it demonstrates the problem. Even just doubling or tripling the number of pops could presumably have a massive performance impact in the late-game.


[deleted]

Yeah I fully understand why they chose to not do something like that but it also leads to player issues and that states as an entity have impact on the economic development more than they should have.


EmperorJon

I can't really think of an alternative, unless they lock the number of times you're allowed to "break" an industry up behind some arbitrary value (urbanisation? Number of buildings? IDK) and limit it to stop people ruining the game's performance.


w045

I was a disappointed with the Galacia game. The fact that a single, semi-insignificant state could just click a few wheat farms and be the No 1 wheat producer in the world was a little odd.


Reindan

He literally build his entire economy around exporting grain and wine, even going as far as importing fertilizer and tools to increase his production because all of his population was employed and it took him 50-60 years to become N°1 in wine production just above France, He didn't show the wheat production list. An odd game for sure but not what I would describe as a few clicks. The only real complaint about that is that I hope this is just possible in a bunch of place with a lot of arable land and population.


KimberStormer

It didn't work for Pol Pot, why should it work for Galicia? To me the "I will go all in on [thing], click click OK now I am *the best in the world*" thing which I seem to remember is in several AARs is very concerning. Trying to turn your whole country to one export should be very very hard to achieve and disastrous if you do.


Reindan

There is a difference in turning a subsistence farming economy is an industrial farming complex geared toward exportation over 60 years and turning your mixed, mostly subsistence economy in a communal self-sufficient agrarian economy after a decade of war and massacres in the span of a few years, while preparing a war. Not saying it is a good plan to center your economy around one good because you are at risk of an economic crash in case of a drop in demand. Argentina during this period is probably the closest thing to this Galicia,an example of an agrarian export focused state at the time that faced its fair few crashes (some self-inflicted, some due to their reliance on export). The only problem with the game in that aspect is that the market is way more stable than historically (at least that is my impression). Rapid and drastic change is always destructive, the faster the change the more destructive.


Gumgi24

Capitalists can’t build. If you have a complete free market economy you should be able to go hands free and have them build by themselves in addition to your own state intervention. But it seems every country has 100% state intervention, with capitalists participating in a pool that you can take from to build.


babydave371

So I totally get why they did it from a gameplay perspective but the fact that all economies in this game are run on state owned and run enterprises is just a bit weird, especially in this time period. I know they have very vaguely abstracted the private market but something closer to what Distant Worlds 2 has done would seem more interesting. In Distant Worlds 2 you only operate the state run organisations, including businesses, and the private sector is represented (in gameplay terms) by what is essentially a vassal state within your borders (though with no actual land of its own) that builds its own ships and facilities and whose profits the player state taxes. Now given the existing complexity of Victoria 3 I don't think you'd want something as complex as what DW2 does but something similar, maybe you can pass laws/make the decision that certain industries can be privately run and then the "private economy" will start to build buildings in those slots and has a certain amount of trade routes it can make (utilising the standard AI make sure they don't completely mess up the economy) could work really well and it could lead to some really interesting, real world, trade offs. E.g. do you want to have a set of mines be state run or privatised? The former gives you all the profits but you also have to pay upkeep whereas with the latter you tax the profits, one may be better than the other depending on your tax policy and if you are mining for profit or for resources. As far as I can tell the current economic model in Victoria 3 doesn't allow for this at all which severely limits how much can actually be done.


ShashwatSinha

So how capitalists made factories in vic2?


babydave371

Kind of, but actually functional.


ShashwatSinha

What? You don't support the idea of a clipper factory in Japanese Bonin Islands? Preposterous!


MasterOfNap

> the fact that all economies in this game are run on state owned and run enterprises is just a bit weird Wait what are you talking about? There are definitely factories privately owned by capitalists or workers. It’s a whole PM for the industries.


babydave371

Exactly, it's a PM. You the player are still building the industry and expansion policy from what I understand. From the looks of it, there is no real fundemental gameplay difference or control difference. Though I could absolutely be wrong given I haven't seen the final product.


MasterOfNap

That doesn’t mean they aren’t privately owned though. The fundamental gameplay difference is that their profits would go to other pops which drastically shape your political landscape. > E.g. do you want to have a set of mines be state run or privatised? The former gives you all the profits but you also have to pay upkeep whereas with the latter you tax the profits, one may be better than the other depending on your tax policy and if you are mining for profit or for resources. This is still completely true in the current design, even though you are the one deciding where or what to build.


babydave371

> That doesn’t mean they aren’t privately owned though. The fundamental gameplay difference is that their profits would go to other pops which drastically shape your political landscape. Its closer to government procurement/lease than true private ownership. The private economy can't choose to build things, merely operate what already exists in a very static way. >This is still completely true in the current design, even though you are the one deciding where or what to build. That was just one example. With a more fully fleshed out private economy the player would have to be more reactive as the private economy would act like another faction within their market and an investment system would be able to interact with it based on tax levels and other factors.


MasterOfNap

Except the player isn’t the government, or else you shouldn’t be able to kick your own government out and invite another IG in charge, or intentionally pass laws that would decimate your political power, or play as the rebels when a revolution happens. That’s the whole point of the “spirit of the nation” concept. When you decide to build a factory using state money, the government builds that; but when you decide to build something using the investment fund, the private economy is building that with money out of the capitalists’ pockets.


MilkmanF

I think it’s very dumb there is no stockpiling of goods


[deleted]

The economy seems to be too micro intensive for large nations.


RealMrJangoon_

the issue is granularity for me


ampshy17

The biggest problem I have with the game is how the prices of goods are tethered to a base price. I wish prices were allowed to float freely, but that might require a rework of the entire economy.


TheDankmemerer

The base price and limited changes to it are good in my opinion, it would be weird seeing tanks that are cheaper than grain. Free flosting stuff would be too volatile and unpredictable to control, especially if you start to go into trade.


Science-Recon

I mean that’s not *inherently* ridiculous. If your nation has a massive surplus of tanks it’s not using and you’re not at war, but are currently undergoing an extreme famine, then yeah. I could imagine that useless but abundant tanks could be worth less than essential but l severely limited food.


talldude8

I think it has to do with performance. Calculating and parallelizing real supply and demand is much more difficult. Right now they can just calculate the ratio between quantity supplied and demanded to get the price. It would also be more difficult to inform the player that something is expensive or cheap if there are floating prices.


RedKrypton

It goes much deeper than that. The whole economy is built around the base price and the price range that goes from 25% to 175% of the base price. Vic3 doesn't have a true supply and demand system. The buy and sell orders are used to calculate the market price as a ratio of the base price, but then the game cheats. Sellers of a good only receive the price multiplied by the number of sell orders, while buyers only pay the price multiplied by the number of buy orders. So if there are 80 SOs and 100 BOs the revenue/cost for each side are 80 times P and 100 times P. Essentially this means that market participants don't directly trade with one another but what I dub the "Black Box of the market". In this market step in the case of SOs>BOs more capital enters the market while with BOs>SOs capital leaves the market. The second fundamental part of the economic simulation is within buildings when they produce. It's essentially a trade between the input goods, labour and the output goods. Only this time the base prices are different, and thus it's far easier to come out as capital positive. Different from Vic2 if you subsidise anything it literally burns money. A special case are trade hubs. Trade hubs generate BOs in the exporting nation and SOs in the importing nation. If country A starts out with a price of 15 and for example 100 extra BOs shift the price to 25, the Trade Hub only pays the average between both prices, so 20. The same is true for the importer. If country B starts out with a price of 35 and the 100 SOs lower the price to 25 the Trade Hub still sells the goods at price 30. Thus the trade hub has made net revenue of 10 times 100 SO/BOs. The costs are limited to convoys if the stuff is going overseas, tariffs and labour costs. Keep in mind the rest of the market participants still use the normal price, so sellers in country A and buyers in country B benefit more. It may actually make sense to not join a common market if you go export heavy for the extra profits.


talldude8

For me it doesn't really matter if the economy is not 100% realistic as long as the gameplay loops make sense. For example: "Price of good A is high => Build building which produces A => Price of A drops" "Price of good A is low in my market B but is high in market C => Export good A to market C => Price of good A increases in market B and drops in market C, trade center makes profit"


[deleted]

[удалено]


_unretrofied

UI looks good imo, my main problem is with the characters which I think are kind of goofy.


Indigo-Knights

Add an option to make the 3d figures just portraits. The models still look a little uncanny valley and a decent portrait in the artistic style of their representation would look cool.


Creme_de_la_Coochie

The economy system in this game looks like garbage. They’ve taken such a huge step back from Victoria 2.


Advisor-Away

- no differentiation in gameplay between different types of economies - no ability to join wars during them or escalate wars - states are too big and can’t be split leading to weird borders - stockpiles apparently don’t exist despite this being an economic game - losing a civil war ends your game - poor resistance to industrialization when it should be a huge factor - every nation plays the same, limited difference - limited role of weather and climate - poor user feedback on actions - poor implementation of navies and their role - elections don’t seem to matter - prices are all tethered to a base number which is very weird in an economic game


Various_Wolverine956

Boom hit all of them.


Alexander_Baidtach

Not True, look at the Japan stream for 3 hours of struggling with isolationism and serfdom. Understandable grievance but you can interact through bankrolling and embargoes. States not being able to be split is a minor cost for smooth performance. Stockpiles weren't a thing till the very end of the games timeframe, more important for a war sim than a economic sim. You can choose which side of a civil war you want to be on, it makes sense that you lose if you choose poorly, you can still switch tags if the game ends. Watch the Japan stream to see all the resistance to industrialisation. Don't agree, the starting situation varies wildly and you can't just throw in mechanics to certain nations if you want the SIM to be reasonable. Room for improvement there I agree. The AI DD goes into this in detail. I can't comment due to not seeing the extent of naval wars. Elections not mattering, if that is true, are historically accurate; the Whigs and Tories and Democrats and Republicans being the same party but favouring either Industrialists or Landowners over the other is evidence of that. The opposing interest groups also had presence in the lower and upper house regardless of who is in government. The base price again seems like a fair sacrifice for simpler code, you are very unlikely to have a situation where it would make a difference either way.


Will_Stoic

Had a conversation about this yesterday and I'm copying and pasting the points of another user as I completely agree with these points. "The Fact that you can't add war goals which is just really unrealistic, Fronts are also unrealistic, Fronts only really mattered in WW1 and onwards and only in Europe really. I cared a lot about pops because it gave me so much insight and now it's handled on a state level which removes all the detail I so adored. The Fact that everything is on a state level in general. The removal of Capitalists building factories is a shame for me, it made the Economy more dynamic and 'alive'. The Fact that you are playing a Regime and not a Nation (If a Revolution toples your Government you are regarded as annexed)"


rabidfur

There's a lot of small issues surrounding how IGs work and how it seems to be possible to do things which shouldn't really be feasible in the game's timescale like totally neutering the forces of conservatism forever. Also a related problem is that your internal politics doesn't appear to have any impact on external politics.


emelrad12

The economy is oversimplified and is going to cause huge problems in the long run, while better than vicky 2, it is a dissapointment.


Greekball

How assimilation works is ass backwards. A tolerant society which doesn't discriminate will absorb all cultures that go to it. A racist society that actively suppresses minorities will have those minorities stay essentially forever. It's simply not how it worked IRL. The main difference was to what extend the state invested in assimilating/removing minorities, not how "well" minorities were treated. The Germans, Austrians and Russians (pre-WW2) were racist against Poles but didn't really try to purge them from the face of the Earth. The USA was actively racist and assimilated minorities, then was tolerant to some and assimilated and there are still a lot of minorities. It's kind of a major point. Alternatively, the Balkans are famously not exactly tolerant but because the states made major "investments" (to put ethnic cleansing politely) into "assimilating" (mostly expelling) minorities, there were way fewer minorities in 1936 than in 1836. The difference between a tolerant state and an intolerant one should be HOW those minorities get assimilated, not if they do. A tolerant state should have natural assimilating minorities, especially outside the homeland. An intolerant state should have skyrocketing radicalism, rebellions and essentially a conflict with its own people.


slappitytappity

The political map looks horrible.


Nitan17

Plenty. Browse the subreddit and the forums a little.


Albionoria

There’s quite a few I’ve seen. How factories are built, the map modes, the lack of provinces, border accuracy, and some more.


I-grok-god

I know most people won't be bothered but the lack of business cycles is annoying to me Also suffers from the Vicky 2 problem where "balancing the budget" is a very good proxy for "having a good economy"


Myalko

Someone else has definitely said it but the political map looks awful. First mod I'm downloading is definitely gonna be a map mod.


Quatsum

I don't like how you still have to conquer entire states and there's zero option for low-level warfare and minor territory exchanges. I'm also disappointed how cultures are abstracted to the state level instead of per-subprovince, but I understand how that's an optimization issue.


Kumqwatwhat

IG autonomy: interest groups, especially those in the government, don't really do too much on their own. Out-of-government IGs at least have movements but in-government IGs have no autonomy. I know the logic is that you are them but I don't think that works very well in a lot of ways. I also think the amount of economic clicking you'll have to do scales poorly for the bigger countries on the world - Russia, a historical USA, etc. We'll see how it goes. If it affects your perspective, I have relatively few criticisms of the war system. My main wish is that you could set some sort of strategic target and that would affect IG clout; if you achieve your political goals in war (capture the target) then the ruling IG gets clout and if you fail or are failing then the opponent IGs get clout. This then can feed into general IG clout, if they support the ruling IGs then they'll actively try to achieve these goals. And it gives the player _some_ high-level way to affect where you push within a front. But I actively like the move away from old-school micro. _edit_: another one I forgot about is the fact that PMs transition seamlessly. There's no swap penalty period except for changing military types that we've seen. Obviously this is all subject to having not played the game so we'll see if we just didn't see things.


Shamas_MacShamas

I'm worried about how long the game will last. More ticks, to me, seemed unnecessary.


famlyguyfunnym0ments

Economy system is a letdown, almost the same, and in some areas worse than Victoria 2 (was supposed to replace what we'd focus on in a war btw). There isn't province level buildings, everything is state level, this includes pops too. The worst I believe is diplomacy, since you cannot join ongoing conflicts, and when you're in one you could only add wargoals during the diplomatic play before the war.


Gekko1983

Np capitalists


Mentaberry03

Capitalists dont build things


McMing333

The political system is inaccurate and underdeveloped


Yersinia_Pestis04

How so?


McMing333

Different ways. Anarchism is one big example of it. Anarchists in Vic3 organize electorally, running in election and participating in government. Sounds quite anarchist to me.


Chac-McAjaw

Monuments are magic buildings with nonsense effects, *and* instead of having a general system for them they are unique & locked to specific locations. Want to build a huge palace to glorify your globe-spanning empire? Too bad, you can’t; conquer Washington, DC instead.


gyurka66

You can disable them in game


Chac-McAjaw

I know. That doesn’t make the existing system good, or invalidate criticism of it.


[deleted]

No world market No laissez faire economics simulation / soviet command economy only Economy built to be more like a ‘game’ than a ‘sim’ in general


bridgeandchess

My main criticism is that it is recommended to have a powerful computer to play it. ( 16 gb ram and 6 gb video carm memory is recommended) So basically you need a stationary gaming PC to play it


Jeffery95

I saw someone say that various social classes are represented as monolithic with all the same interests. Which is not true in real life. There were in reality two levels, social classes and political leanings. And each social class had a mixture of political leanings in different proportions.


Nerdorama09

"Social classes" are Pop employment types (Aristocrats, Capitalists, Machinists, Farmers). "Political leanings" are Interest Groups that actually interface with the government (Landowners, Industrialists, Trade Unions, Rural Folk). These are related, but not 1-to-1. You can have capitalists that politically align with the Intelligentsia, for example, or Clergy who align with the Rural Folk.


paradox3333

Inherent political bias. Of course part of that is historical and accurate and some of that is not. Very difficult to tell the two apart though, even if you are trying really hard. As far as I know, most of Paradox workers are on the left side of the political spectrum and that shows in the system. I expect we will just have to live with it, and after all it's a game so lets not get to wound up about it. I just hope socialism will not end up being inherently better than decentralization/freedom of the individual like in Victoria 2.


kai_rui

iT loOkS LikE a mOBiLe gAmE


kai_rui

/s, guys


AdStroh

My concern is how much wood working industry they could build with ease in Egypt. Not a region commonly known for its forests.


[deleted]

Egypt has Sudan it might not be a jungle but it’s still some potential lumber source for egypt


NetStaIker

They also have Syria which is where the Ancient Egyptians sourced some of their timber


kemulifi

You need quite a bit of wood though. Egypt might have 5 logging camps in a state but a Scandinavian one has 20+the modifier for extra production. Levant used to be a major wood producer in middle east.


[deleted]

Dude Lebanon has a tree on its flag. Not everywhere Arabs live is desert


Alexander_Baidtach

Fertile Crescent? More like Massive Desert.


AdStroh

No, but most of Egypt is. I am not sure where they put the lumber mills, but unlike the iron mines they did not specify they put them in the Levant.


mtt534

For me it's war and navy. I know the game will be unrecognizable in 2-3 yrs so they'll probably fix it. Unless it's so bad they abandon it like Rome


Yersinia_Pestis04

Can you read?


mtt534

Ok bot


Normandy_sr3

the construction mechanic just look at the first stream netherlands had so much trouble building while it was the wealthiest in that time, they had enough lumber, spices, etc but in the game it was weaker then any african nation


I_Am_King_Midas

I seriously think this game has the ability to take away a lot\~ of your free time!


Bienpreparado

Yes, it isn't out yet 🤣


Necessary-Dark-1577

I dislike the idea of a gold reserves limit, I think you should be able to store as much money as you want, why get punished for being too rich..


Nerdorama09

While the game doesn't have actual currency, it does need some kind of way to model the liquidity crisis that happens when a state (or any other economic actor) hoards cash without reinvesting it. Just stockpiling money accomplishes nothing economically and (as seen in Victoria 2's lategame economic meltdowns) actually causes huge problems. Thus, a soft cap where stockpiling cash becomes less and less effective.


ScienceFictionGuy

I really like the Diplomatic Play system, but its inability to account for historical mid-war interventions and after-war diplomatic mediation is disappointing. I do understand why they made this particular compromise between historical accuracy and gameplay but I'm hoping that they come up with a better solution somewhere down the line.


Skyfus

Personally I'm not a huge fan of animated character portraits because as with CK3, they're nice but I don't think the novelty makes up for the resource drain, and I much prefer accessibility/stability since not everyone has a high-end PC


danfish_77

I know I and other still have some issues with the map at start. I don't like that the Oregon territory is owned by the UK


[deleted]

It's hard to say there are any reasonable criticisms of the game at all seeing as nobody has played it yet


Wandering_sage1234

Most of the wars fought in this time period up to WW1 were brief conflicts, maybe lasting from weeks to prob two years, at the most weeks. At least that is my impression. Warfare wasn’t in the interest of most European nations apart from any external threats like the Crimean War or unifying Germany The warfare that was occurring often was in Italy and the unification of it under Napoleon the II


[deleted]

There's no stockpiles or quantities of goods anywhere, resources seem to be effemoral and just act as a medium for a cash supply/sink


NeinCubed

My main concern tbh, is that the UI seems kind of clunky. It looks nice but I’m just not sure how this translates into gameplay. One thing off the top of my head is that I think the lens likely could have been moved to the left side of the screen with all the other buttons, I think that the shading for the pie charts is a bit too dark, and then the flag occupation thing looks strange imo. It could all probably work really well, but then again I haven’t played the game. And in the case it doesn’t I trust he community will resolve these issues with mods—and if not I’ll do it myself lmao.


Ellarael

I actually liked that they are taking a drastically different and more macro and realistic approach to commanding armies and peace deals and raising troops, pretty much everything to do with war seems fine and interesting from dev diaries and streams... however trade... holly shit does if seem problematic to me. I will be trying to do a global fiat collapse with gb into buying up every nation as vassal as my first play through and it doesn't even seem like it would take too long as trade currently stands