Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[Tyrr]

Like the music player.

It had to be added to sell the new €5 music DLC.

 

[Sranchammer]

This any better or should I wait for 2025?

 

[Nirvash]

This any better or should I wait for 2025?

well, getting this in 25 gonna be like getting imperator now.

 

[Axioms]

Vicky3 now peaking around 20% higher than previous weeks. Of course we'll see how it goes on the weekend. There's a question of whether there will be a standard weekend boost since the update released right after the weekend. Personally think you can't compare Monday to Monday due to the timing of the release. Could be wrong. Maybe the game will gain a 50% boost in players.

 

[Fedora Master]

I still don't see where the actual gameplay is. You still just watch line go up. Can you do wacky alt-history stuff? Not really.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

I still don't see where the actual gameplay is. You still just watch line go up.

Game for autists who like management sims tbh. Diplomacy is barebones, war is barebones, but you have some boring gameplay loop to build your economy.

 

[Fedora Master]

https://steamcommunity.com/app/529340/discussions/0/3782499798638364851/

Good summary.

 

[Axioms]

This is basically just shit factorio or idle industrial sim or something. I don't respect people complaining about the diplomacy. It is a Paradox game lmao.

 

[whydoibother]

This is basically just shit factorio or idle industrial sim or something.

Its shit Factorio, if you play isolationist. Or more like shit Anno 1404.
The point of the game is two systems: the spheres of influence + separate markets, and the domestic population standard of living + political demands. Both are unique for the game, so it has merit.
Issue is, a lot of the stuff you do isn't really decisions. You know that you HAVE to get textiles and clothes production, you HAVE to get wood and tools, you HAVE to get wood and furniture, you HAVE to make food cheap, you HAVE to tax vices like drink and luxury, you HAVE to invest all spare money into the construction sector, etc.
Its the kind of game where what the player does a lot of the time could be taken over by a a 500 line Lua script. For almost any situation you find yourself in, there is a correct way to act, and its obvious.

The "all nations play the same" thing is true, and the lack of flavor hurts, but honestly this was always true in all such games and people are fetishizing the tiny differences in playing this or that nation in Europa Universalis. Woooo you press the protestant mana button instead of the catholic mana button woooow! This is an old issue, that people have gotten used to. The actual issue is the game gets dull, because at any point in time there's a correct thing to do, and its the same thing you did last game. It plays itself.

 

[Axioms]

This is basically just shit factorio or idle industrial sim or something.

Its shit Factorio, if you play isolationist. Or more like shit Anno 1404.
The point of the game is two systems: the spheres of influence + separate markets, and the domestic population standard of living + political demands. Both are unique for the game, so it has merit.
Issue is, a lot of the stuff you do isn't really decisions. You know that you HAVE to get textiles and clothes production, you HAVE to get wood and tools, you HAVE to get wood and furniture, you HAVE to make food cheap, you HAVE to tax vices like drink and luxury, you HAVE to invest all spare money into the construction sector, etc.
Its the kind of game where what the player does a lot of the time could be taken over by a a 500 line Lua script. For almost any situation you find yourself in, there is a correct way to act, and its obvious.

The "all nations play the same" thing is true, and the lack of flavor hurts, but honestly this was always true in all such games and people are fetishizing the tiny differences in playing this or that nation in Europa Universalis. Woooo you press the protestant mana button instead of the catholic mana button woooow! This is an old issue, that people have gotten used to. The actual issue is the game gets dull, because at any point in time there's a correct thing to do, and its the same thing you did last game. It plays itself.

Yes all Paradox games substitute interesting play variance with mission trees or w/e. And it is terrible. But the goal of EU4 is to stack specific modifiers and it leans into being an idle game. Whereas V3 or CK3 try to fight against that. So EU4 is a decent game because it accepts its true nature. CK3 pretends it has meaningful roleplay and V3 pretends it isn't a building queue watcher.

 

[thesecret1]

If you want to see where EU4's intended design leads, I suggest playing Anbennar. It's chock-full of MTs (they are arguably its main draw) and seems to mostly embrace the direction and mindset of EU4 development. Except they do it competently so, you know, it's pretty fun despite being really shallow. Isn't even all that idle since most of the MTs encourage you to aggressively paint the map. It even manages to make nations play quite differently.

 

[Axioms]

If you want to see where EU4's intended design leads, I suggest playing Anbennar. It's chock-full of MTs (they are arguably its main draw) and seems to mostly embrace the direction and mindset of EU4 development. Except they do it competently so, you know, it's pretty fun despite being really shallow. Isn't even all that idle since most of the MTs encourage you to aggressively paint the map. It even manages to make nations play quite differently.

They went really hard on stuff like Road Warriors. Definitely a unique playstyle although it is done through massive buffs/nerfs of specific variables.

 

[thesecret1]

If you want to see where EU4's intended design leads, I suggest playing Anbennar. It's chock-full of MTs (they are arguably its main draw) and seems to mostly embrace the direction and mindset of EU4 development. Except they do it competently so, you know, it's pretty fun despite being really shallow. Isn't even all that idle since most of the MTs encourage you to aggressively paint the map. It even manages to make nations play quite differently.

They went really hard on stuff like Road Warriors. Definitely a unique playstyle although it is done through massive buffs/nerfs of specific variables.

Road Warriors are pretty extreme, but even other nations play very differently. Kobolds, for example, or ogres. It is mostly by shuffling variables, but if it works...

 

[whydoibother]

It is mostly by shuffling variables, but if it works...

I mean, in the most zoomed out technical sense of the word, the difference between a machine gun, a shotgun, a grenade launcher and a laser in some shooter game is just shuffling variables. If the shuffle is dramatic enough, they feel different, and play different.

 

[Axioms]

If you want to see where EU4's intended design leads, I suggest playing Anbennar. It's chock-full of MTs (they are arguably its main draw) and seems to mostly embrace the direction and mindset of EU4 development. Except they do it competently so, you know, it's pretty fun despite being really shallow. Isn't even all that idle since most of the MTs encourage you to aggressively paint the map. It even manages to make nations play quite differently.

They went really hard on stuff like Road Warriors. Definitely a unique playstyle although it is done through massive buffs/nerfs of specific variables.

Road Warriors are pretty extreme, but even other nations play very differently. Kobolds, for example, or ogres. It is mostly by shuffling variables, but if it works...

I think a key issue with Paradox games is the map is so prominent and the political map mode so ubiquitous. Playing different play styles really lacks the visual feedback and feeling of power that map painting provides. You could maybe train people to spend more time in the development mode or other map modes but it is probably too late. Even Anbennar struggles with this to some degree. This affects most strategy games generally but it hits Paradox a bit harder than games with 4X style evolving maps. Possibly the Paradox strategy of adding dynamic decorations to maps will offset this? But they'd need more gameplay support to go with it. "Like oh my nation has way more infrastructure decoration than the rest of the world I'm winning!" That's a good attempt and decorations can be shown on the political map mode as well.

 

[Victor1234]

Victoria 3 is back hovering at 10k players for the first time in months. Will patch 1.2 be enough to keep them there? Who knows...

 

[Axioms]

The game hasn't actually cracked 10k in the last 3 days given it is lower at a given hour today than yesterday. And it peaked on Tuesday overall. We'll see if it gets a spike on Th/Fr or Sat/Sun as well. They released on Monday which was a bit weird. Ideally you'd want the weekend boost and the patch boost to coincide for the maximum peak. I guess they always release late Monday/early Tuesday, though. Maybe you can claim a shorter but longer/smoother peak this way as well. We'll see.

 

[thesecret1]

I think a key issue with Paradox games is the map is so prominent and the political map mode so ubiquitous. Playing different play styles really lacks the visual feedback and feeling of power that map painting provides. You could maybe train people to spend more time in the development mode or other map modes but it is probably too late.

I think the issue there is that usually, there is fucking nothing to do other than war. EU4 is boring as shit when you aren't warring (barring, perhaps, MEIOU where you can go full autismo on economy). CK2, same thing – plots, taking over by marriage, etc. are all just you waiting for RNG, the only part of the game where you have immediate control over shit is warfare. V3 has no real warfare, granted, but then all you can do is play queue simulator. If there's even to be a discussion about other playstyles, then there would first need to be mechanics that actually support them. CK2 looked hopeful with the trade republics... but Paracucks abandoned that fucking shit entirely, and republics are ridden with bugs to this day because of it. When the game let's you pick between warring, and waiting, then obviously, the players are going to pick warring.

 

[Axioms]

I think a key issue with Paradox games is the map is so prominent and the political map mode so ubiquitous. Playing different play styles really lacks the visual feedback and feeling of power that map painting provides. You could maybe train people to spend more time in the development mode or other map modes but it is probably too late.

I think the issue there is that usually, there is fucking nothing to do other than war. EU4 is boring as shit when you aren't warring (barring, perhaps, MEIOU where you can go full autismo on economy). CK2, same thing – plots, taking over by marriage, etc. are all just you waiting for RNG, the only part of the game where you have immediate control over shit is warfare. V3 has no real warfare, granted, but then all you can do is play queue simulator. If there's even to be a discussion about other playstyles, then there would first need to be mechanics that actually support them. CK2 looked hopeful with the trade republics... but Paracucks abandoned that fucking shit entirely, and republics are ridden with bugs to this day because of it. When the game let's you pick between warring, and waiting, then obviously, the players are going to pick warring.

If you wanted to do trade republicans you'd have to go full Patrician 3 I think is the issue. CK2 had no resources and barely an economy. It didn't even have construction materials much less actual trade goods.

That's almost the same as their shallow character simulation pushing you into war. Realistically having a strong social sim makes more sense than adding trade. At least that is intended to be a core mechanic which trade wasn't.

I really think they should have at least added the Imperator trade system to EU4. Don't even scrap the EU4 one, just add the trade route bonuses on top of the existing system. Already fits into the modifier stacking paradigm.

Adding trade to CK3 would be much harder than adding it to EU4.

 

[Fedora Master]

The only thing I actually noticed when playing is that the game now plays itself with the automatic building queue.
And Corn Laws still trivializes the political aspect.

 

[FreeKaner]

This is basically just shit factorio or idle industrial sim or something.

Its shit Factorio, if you play isolationist. Or more like shit Anno 1404.
The point of the game is two systems: the spheres of influence + separate markets, and the domestic population standard of living + political demands. Both are unique for the game, so it has merit.
Issue is, a lot of the stuff you do isn't really decisions. You know that you HAVE to get textiles and clothes production, you HAVE to get wood and tools, you HAVE to get wood and furniture, you HAVE to make food cheap, you HAVE to tax vices like drink and luxury, you HAVE to invest all spare money into the construction sector, etc.
Its the kind of game where what the player does a lot of the time could be taken over by a a 500 line Lua script. For almost any situation you find yourself in, there is a correct way to act, and its obvious.

The "all nations play the same" thing is true, and the lack of flavor hurts, but honestly this was always true in all such games and people are fetishizing the tiny differences in playing this or that nation in Europa Universalis. Woooo you press the protestant mana button instead of the catholic mana button woooow! This is an old issue, that people have gotten used to. The actual issue is the game gets dull, because at any point in time there's a correct thing to do, and its the same thing you did last game. It plays itself.

You guys never played Victoria 2 or what? It might not just be your game if you are into EU4 primarily.

Victoria 2 was also a by and large a game about building factories with all nations having basically the same tech path.

 

[whydoibother]

You guys never played Victoria 2 or what?

I've played V2, and its actually more involved due to the AI doing more things on its own, and the player having to correct for them. So in a weird sense, because the game literally plays itself more, the player is more involved and can't just go through the same motions.
V3, where the player can just fulfill his cookie cutter same plan, feels more automated, due to it being less automated, and you not having to fix the shit the AI does.
Also, though I might be misremembering, it seems like the difference between an Ethiopia start and a France start in V2 was bigger than in V3. Ultimately the goal is always the same, to become like Britain and play as if you were playing Britain, but there's more work to do in V2 in order to get there?

Posting feels at this point, I haven't played V2 much, and not in a long time. Much like Dwarf Fortress before its "premium" release recently, the clunkiness got in the way of me enjoying it.

 

[FreeKaner]

You guys never played Victoria 2 or what?

I've played V2, and its actually more involved due to the AI doing more things on its own, and the player having to correct for them. So in a weird sense, because the game literally plays itself more, the player is more involved and can't just go through the same motions.
V3, where the player can just fulfill his cookie cutter same plan, feels more automated, due to it being less automated, and you not having to fix the shit the AI does.
Also, though I might be misremembering, it seems like the difference between an Ethiopia start and a France start in V2 was bigger than in V3. Ultimately the goal is always the same, to become like Britain and play as if you were playing Britain, but there's more work to do in V2 in order to get there?

Posting feels at this point, I haven't played V2 much, and not in a long time. Much like Dwarf Fortress before its "premium" release recently, the clunkiness got in the way of me enjoying it.

There are two factors, one is politics and other is economy, both related to demographics. In Victoria 2 politics are more limited and binary, it is basically a question of "can you reform?", which depends entirely on your society's militancy which is mostly out of your control unless you want to hike it up yourself. Victoria 3 is definitely more involved in politics, it is less binary and there are more factors on how to pass laws and all else. It still depends mostly on your demography, which shifts over the course of game for both games as who owns most wealth changes, population gets more literate and all that.

Now for economy, I agree that as it stands now Victoria 2's economy you had to manipulate it more because player had less direct control and there were more factors that you couldn't influence such as available resources and RGOs, while in Victoria 3 you build mines and plantations to get the RGOs yourself. Last patch to Victoria 3 added autonomous buildings though, and the pops now do actually build things on their own based on their profits (so if you have more landowners they will build more ranches and plantations for example). There is still bit of a difference because of RGOs but economic system & construction system (and its split based on your economic laws) made it a lot more autonomous. So before 1.2 I would agree but thankfully they remedied that mistake and added autonomy to pops again. I think it still has some ways that it can feel more organic but overall you make basically same things, set up the industrial base with iron and coal, get the base necessities for making factories then get technology that makes them more efficient.

Still, Victoria 2 and 3 are both essentially games like Anno, if you want a war game primarily you would play HoI4. Criticizing the game and saying "you just build factories" misses the point a bit.

 

[Axioms]

This is basically just shit factorio or idle industrial sim or something.

Its shit Factorio, if you play isolationist. Or more like shit Anno 1404.
The point of the game is two systems: the spheres of influence + separate markets, and the domestic population standard of living + political demands. Both are unique for the game, so it has merit.
Issue is, a lot of the stuff you do isn't really decisions. You know that you HAVE to get textiles and clothes production, you HAVE to get wood and tools, you HAVE to get wood and furniture, you HAVE to make food cheap, you HAVE to tax vices like drink and luxury, you HAVE to invest all spare money into the construction sector, etc.
Its the kind of game where what the player does a lot of the time could be taken over by a a 500 line Lua script. For almost any situation you find yourself in, there is a correct way to act, and its obvious.

The "all nations play the same" thing is true, and the lack of flavor hurts, but honestly this was always true in all such games and people are fetishizing the tiny differences in playing this or that nation in Europa Universalis. Woooo you press the protestant mana button instead of the catholic mana button woooow! This is an old issue, that people have gotten used to. The actual issue is the game gets dull, because at any point in time there's a correct thing to do, and its the same thing you did last game. It plays itself.

You guys never played Victoria 2 or what? It might not just be your game if you are into EU4 primarily.

Victoria 2 was also a by and large a game about building factories with all nations having basically the same tech path.

I played a couple hundred hours of V2, but not close to 1000. The thing is that Vicky2 was released like 14 fucking years ago so my expectations were much lower.

 

[Axioms]

You guys never played Victoria 2 or what?

I've played V2, and its actually more involved due to the AI doing more things on its own, and the player having to correct for them. So in a weird sense, because the game literally plays itself more, the player is more involved and can't just go through the same motions.
V3, where the player can just fulfill his cookie cutter same plan, feels more automated, due to it being less automated, and you not having to fix the shit the AI does.
Also, though I might be misremembering, it seems like the difference between an Ethiopia start and a France start in V2 was bigger than in V3. Ultimately the goal is always the same, to become like Britain and play as if you were playing Britain, but there's more work to do in V2 in order to get there?

Posting feels at this point, I haven't played V2 much, and not in a long time. Much like Dwarf Fortress before its "premium" release recently, the clunkiness got in the way of me enjoying it.

There are two factors, one is politics and other is economy, both related to demographics. In Victoria 2 politics are more limited and binary, it is basically a question of "can you reform?", which depends entirely on your society's militancy which is mostly out of your control unless you want to hike it up yourself. Victoria 3 is definitely more involved in politics, it is less binary and there are more factors on how to pass laws and all else. It still depends mostly on your demography, which shifts over the course of game for both games as who owns most wealth changes, population gets more literate and all that.

Now for economy, I agree that as it stands now Victoria 2's economy you had to manipulate it more because player had less direct control and there were more factors that you couldn't influence such as available resources and RGOs, while in Victoria 3 you build mines and plantations to get the RGOs yourself. Last patch to Victoria 3 added autonomous buildings though, and the pops now do actually build things on their own based on their profits (so if you have more landowners they will build more ranches and plantations for example). There is still bit of a difference because of RGOs but economic system & construction system (and its split based on your economic laws) made it a lot more autonomous. So before 1.2 I would agree but thankfully they remedied that mistake and added autonomy to pops again. I think it still has some ways that it can feel more organic but overall you make basically same things, set up the industrial base with iron and coal, get the base necessities for making factories then get technology that makes them more efficient.

Still, Victoria 2 and 3 are both essentially games like Anno, if you want a war game primarily you would play HoI4. Criticizing the game and saying "you just build factories" misses the point a bit.

What I want, in theory, since I didn't buy Vic 3, or CK3, because I saw the way Paradox was going and I was pissed about them cancelling Imperator right after the half decent 2.0 update, is a game with strong diplomacy and interesting war and economics that is period appropriate. Of course we got paperclip manufacturer instead. At least when EU4 is like an idle game it accepts the true nature of the game and has some cool stabby stuff.