Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Grand Strategy Victoria 3

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,226
Normally the AI isn't good enough at exploiting more complex production chains but CAN build basic RGOs. This is the British Market, half the world is occupied working for it. If wood stays at a premium it makes playing smaller nations almost impossible since there's only so many logging camps you can make.

Hardwood also never became a factor on the market, implying the AI isn't building weapons manufactories either.
 

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,226
The weird new hiring mechanic is making industry a chore and primitive nations can't even subsidize to give the system a kick.
If anything the game is now more broken than before.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,894
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
The changes to the military have lead to a really awkward UI experience.

Not that military UI was great before, but at least this was simple enough:
Build more barracks to have more units in your armies, a change that happened automatically.

Now:
You can't just build barracks.
Instead, you have to create an army, then you have to click on the correct button within the military UI to "select" the army to go its view.
Within that view, there are several (apparently identical in function, but competing for screen space?!) representations of unit types in the army.
These unit types have - and + buttons.
If you click on the + button, it takes you to the build view of the game where you'll now be building barracks (likewise for navies, just building shipyards instead).
So the barracks are somehow bound to the unit type you clicked the "+" button on.
But in the buildings view showing all of your barracks, there's still just one entry for all barracks and there isn't really any information about unit types.

If you don't do any of this (manually clicking the "+" buttons on unit types in a submenu), your armies will never increase in size.

This awkwardness actually made me laugh when I realized the hoops I now had to jump through for something that used to be mostly automatic and "fine".
What's the point of doing all of this compared to just building barracks thus increasing the size of your armies? :lol:
 

Joggerino

Arcane
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
4,467
The changes to the military have lead to a really awkward UI experience.

Not that military UI was great before, but at least this was simple enough:
Build more barracks to have more units in your armies, a change that happened automatically.

Now:
You can't just build barracks.
Instead, you have to create an army, then you have to click on the correct button within the military UI to "select" the army to go its view.
Within that view, there are several (apparently identical in function, but competing for screen space?!) representations of unit types in the army.
These unit types have - and + buttons.
If you click on the + button, it takes you to the build view of the game where you'll now be building barracks (likewise for navies, just building shipyards instead).
So the barracks are somehow bound to the unit type you clicked the "+" button on.
But in the buildings view showing all of your barracks, there's still just one entry for all barracks and there isn't really any information about unit types.

If you don't do any of this (manually clicking the "+" buttons on unit types in a submenu), your armies will never increase in size.

This awkwardness actually made me laugh when I realized the hoops I now had to jump through for something that used to be mostly automatic and "fine".
What's the point of doing all of this compared to just building barracks thus increasing the size of your armies? :lol:
So what you're saying is to definitely not try playing this piece of shit game again?
 

Just Locus

Educated
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
272
This awkwardness actually made me laugh when I realized the hoops I now had to jump through for something that used to be mostly automatic and "fine".
What's the point of doing all of this compared to just building barracks thus increasing the size of your armies?
HOI:4 has always been Paradox's stable war-oriented strategy game, and Vic3 has always been more about the intricacies of managing a nation, which I like for the most part (I enjoyed Victoria 2 for what it was) but Victoria 3 on launch was a genuine disappointment, Did they fix that glitch where a Japanese Shogun would sometimes show up naked yet? and did they fix the retarded AI? I still remember the time when I declared war against Mexico as the U.S., Canada for some unknown reason sided with them despite them having cooperative relations, Or how when I was playing Russia, and in a war with Persia, with their war goal being that I puppet them... A country that was defending itself from a country that it wanted to be puppeted by, which was my original war goal anyways.

I dropped Victoria 3 after a while of playing, too much headache-inducing design decisions for little fun in return.
 

thesheeep

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
9,894
Location
Tampere, Finland
Codex 2012 Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Codex USB, 2014 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag. Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
So what you're saying is to definitely not try playing this piece of shit game again?
I don't know, man.
Some of the recent changes I quite like, others like those I described are just ?????????.
2 steps forward, 2 steps back.

I definitely wouldn't recommend this at full price.
I'd say without mods, you can get 20-30 hours of fun out of it. With mods you can probably double that.
If you already spent that time and hoped for the game to be radically better: Nah, don't think that'll ever happen.

Some flaws are too deeply ingrained in this game to ever be resolved.
The biggest issue was already said quite a few times here: Lack of actual choices.

I mean, sure, theoretically you could do a ton of different stuff. But there's always a fairly clear best choice to do.
Grain is super expensive and people are rioting about it. What are you gonna do? Will you solve the issue for profit or will you make more steel instead which you don't even need right now?
There's almost always this "most glaring issue right now" you'll be chasing. Not doing so is just a terrible idea.

Theoretically, you want this piece of land. You could make a diplomatic move for it. But in practice, everyone around can just randomly get involved in the conflict directly. So in the end, unless you are a major power, diplomatic moves are pretty pointless.
Theoretically, you can "sway" other nations during diplomatic plays. Has anyone, in practice, ever seen a thumbs up in that swaying screen, unless you are a major power? I'm 20-30 hours in, never played a major power and have never seen the possibility to sway anyone my way, even if everyone in the region was at least "cordial" with me.
What the point of improving relationships with other factions is? Honestly, I don't know. I guess making them less likely to target you with diplomatic plays?

In other words, you do have some more freedom as a major power.
Outside of that, you really can't do shit, as chances are, other nations "around" or major powers with an interest in the region will get involved in minor disputes they shouldn't reasonably have any interest in.

Laws, likewise, have almost always the "best way" and anything that might sound interesting in theory (such as a "modern" but slave-based society) are just worse in every regard.
Turning the game into "how close can you get to Great Britain in laws & society". There isn't really a viable alternative.

Techs are pretty much the same thing. Most of them unlock automatically anyway due to spread, the rest is "which one of these historical re-enactments do I want to go for first".
There isn't really branching going on. You can't really do stuff like "focus on mil/social/production" only because there are fairly strong dependencies.

RTS games are the same, of course, with there almost always being a best course of action.
But in RTS games, you generally have to react to what the enemy is doing. Try to do some predicting, etc.
In Vicky 3, the enemy is just playing the same "follow UK society & tech, try to keep up", there are no "counter plays" here.

Once you figure out you should prepare for upgrades before actually clicking the "upgrade" buttons (for example, have enough access to iron before clicking the cannery upgrades for food industries, etc.) - which btw the game makes annoyingly hard to look up due to there not actually being goods or stockpiles, only buy/sell orders - you basically got your economy down, now you are only going "through the motions".

The only choices in my playing of three different nations, where I felt the choices were actually mine and not just the game giving me a "you would be dumb not to do this" were:
- Colonization, in that you can choose where you want to colonize. Not colonizing is possible, but you'd just be gimping yourself
- Some law/government choices didn't seem strictly better/worse at first glance
- Which major power to align with or if you wanted to stay mostly neutral

You know how EU4 or HoI4 have these mission trees that are tailored to the different nations (especially with mods)? Or Stellaris with its way to customize your faction over time via traditions & ascension perks? All of these games allow you to somehow make your faction "yours" to some degree.
I don't believe there's any such thing in Vicky 3.
The game is the same for every nation, always, with the only difference being where on the tech & access road to the goal you start and of course at what economy size you start. The only differences in playing come from you becoming better at the game and not repeating last run's mistakes.
 
Last edited:

Joggerino

Arcane
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
4,467
I'd say without mods, you can get 20-30 hours of fun out of it. With mods you can probably double that.
If you already spent that time and hoped for the game to be radically better: Nah, don't think that'll ever happen.
I got maybe 5-6 hours between 3 nations before giving up. Extremely tedious and unfun industry management, boring wars, boring diplomacy. Found some enjoyment in the institutions mechanic and handling parties in power but the economy kills it for me.
 

Space Satan

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,152
Location
Space Hell
Victoria 3 had, like, THE worst Ui designers of ALL Paradox games. It is unbelievable how incompetent they were and I suspect some sort of nepotism here, when lead hired some nephew, "who want to gamedev" and issued him\her\hir to make an UI. Because t is obvious people who designed Victoria 3 UI never played the game even once
game is beyond saving.
 

Just Locus

Educated
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
272
Extremely tedious and unfun industry management, boring wars, boring diplomacy. [...] but the economy kills it for me
That's another thing, the game desperately needs some sort of mechanic that manages or automates the economy because micro-managing the individual markets and things of that nature was tedious at worse and mind-numbingly boring at best.

the most fun I had in Victoria 3 was stuff like managing and enacting policies and achieving world hegemony like trying to turn small nations into puppets, colonizing small places for resources, getting into skirmishes with other major nations over land etc. It's what made me want to stick around but the 10 minutes of fun is out-weighed with the 10 hours of boring, frustrating, and dull gameplay.
 

Just Locus

Educated
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
272
Victoria 3 had, like, THE worst Ui designers of ALL Paradox games. [...]
I thought the UI of Victoria 3 was alright at release, but assuming by what I've heard, it's gotten worse overtime.
I also think the reason the UI of Victoria 3 was okay when it released is because the game was so bare bones that the UI was easy to navigate as a consequence lol.
 

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,226
There's almost always this "most glaring issue right now" you'll be chasing. Not doing so is just a terrible idea.
I managed to keep the UCAS together and now all Im doing is endlessly building farms to feed people, leading to mostly farmers, leading to a political deadlock...

OH MY GOD THIS FUCKING HIRING BUG
I had a coal shortage because my mines ran at 5% efficiency because they refused to hire anyone, despite coal being turbo expensive

Also:
Clipboard02.jpg
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,028
It is genuinely astonishing how whoever the modern Paradox UI designer is doesn't understand the (accidental?) brilliance of their own UI in games like CK2 and EU4. "hey, this spammed popup is annoying me, I'm gonna to set it to just be silently post to the corner of the screen I don't look at". "hey, this minor popup is really important for what I'm doing, I want it to pause the game and notify me".
 

Space Satan

Arcane
Vatnik
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,152
Location
Space Hell
It is not like that - they stick to their nuUI and argued numerous times with audience about it. To the point where they got ~100 dislikes to a single post. They showed every single notification to a cingle circle. So for entrire game you had a circle with nuber like 15 or 20, meaning there were shitton of messages both important and not.
And devs were really angrythat everyone hated that.
heqE7WT.jpg

later on, when negative ratings slammed hard, they became MUCH more agreeable and said through their teeth they will "make it better" (Of course they didn't). At some point I suppose they were told that whether they will get playrs back or be fired\demoted and they dropped their haughty tone.
Still, latest patch showed that game death is inevitable as even free weekend and DLC failed to get back more than a coupe of hundred players - nothing compared to EUIV, Stellaris and HoIIV numbers.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,028
Yeah, that's another example of somehow not understanding why their old UI was better. "yes, I like not seeing notifications unless I click a button". I'd say these guys are retarded phone UI designers but my phone has notifications at the top of the screen with icons just like EU4 does, so I'm not sure where this new retardation is hailing from.
 

thesecret1

Arcane
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
5,488
Paradox is pretty talented at making everything shittier with each iteration. It's like they reinvent the wheel with each game, but somehow end up with worse and worse wheels. It's not just the dogshit UI or the map that seems to get uglier and uglier with each game, but also things like diplomacy – how the fuck do they keep remaking that same fucking system over and over and over again with every game, every time running on the exact same concepts, yet always come out with terrible dogshit that they need to iterate over, just to end with something that feels like a discount version of EUIV's? Is this some sort of an ego issue? "No way I'm copying stuff from past games, I will make everything myself, and better!"
 

Fedora Master

Arcane
Patron
Edgy
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
27,226
I like how after the free weekend people were posting "That's it??", "wow this is boring" and "Where's the gameplay?" threads
 
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
1,779
Paradox is pretty talented at making everything shittier with each iteration. It's like they reinvent the wheel with each game, but somehow end up with worse and worse wheels. It's not just the dogshit UI or the map that seems to get uglier and uglier with each game, but also things like diplomacy – how the fuck do they keep remaking that same fucking system over and over and over again with every game, every time running on the exact same concepts, yet always come out with terrible dogshit that they need to iterate over, just to end with something that feels like a discount version of EUIV's? Is this some sort of an ego issue? "No way I'm copying stuff from past games, I will make everything myself, and better!"
It's because they have separate teams working on each game, rather than the whole studio working on one game at a time. There's probably some amount of crossover, but for the most part it's just one group of people working on HoI, and a different group of people working on CK, etc. This is partly why their engine was so fragmented and non-standardized prior to the Jomini subsystem (and to a degree, still is), and it's also why many of the games have wide variations in performance. This also likely means that most of the game design is separate for each game, and it's probably why every game has one thing it really focuses on and develops that the others all neglect (characters for CK, pops for Vicky, warfare for HoI... not sure what EU's focus is, diplomacy maybe? it feels like the most "generalist" game). Like in theory if you come up with a system for characters and internal sub-national governments in CK2 then you should be able to have that SAME system in Victoria 2 or 3. The reason they don't isn't that it would be too complicated, it's that it's a different team working on the system and they're on different versions of the engine and stuff can't be ported without a lot of effort even if they did want to collaborate to that extent, which they likely don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rTceqNiNg

This is mostly a talk about how they implemented multi-threading, but there's some bits here and there that reveal the fragmented nature of the studio.
 

Trithne

Erudite
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,182
They made the amazing decision to have a free weekend right after pushing out an update that they knew had crippling bugs like:

  • Peasants refuse to leave the subsistence farms to work at better jobs.
  • Navies instantly repair and can start another mission the moment they return to port.
  • Businesses working at a tiny fraction of their employment capacity are considered peak productivity and refuse to hire anyone.
  • Private construction queue locks itself up because there's no infrastructure.
  • Numerous army bugs that I can't be arsed to list.

They pushed this out, knowing this was the case, and had a free fucking weekend where this is what people trying the game out got to play.

Paradox deserves the reviews.
 

thesecret1

Arcane
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
5,488
Paradox is pretty talented at making everything shittier with each iteration. It's like they reinvent the wheel with each game, but somehow end up with worse and worse wheels. It's not just the dogshit UI or the map that seems to get uglier and uglier with each game, but also things like diplomacy – how the fuck do they keep remaking that same fucking system over and over and over again with every game, every time running on the exact same concepts, yet always come out with terrible dogshit that they need to iterate over, just to end with something that feels like a discount version of EUIV's? Is this some sort of an ego issue? "No way I'm copying stuff from past games, I will make everything myself, and better!"
It's because they have separate teams working on each game, rather than the whole studio working on one game at a time. There's probably some amount of crossover, but for the most part it's just one group of people working on HoI, and a different group of people working on CK, etc. This is partly why their engine was so fragmented and non-standardized prior to the Jomini subsystem (and to a degree, still is), and it's also why many of the games have wide variations in performance. This also likely means that most of the game design is separate for each game, and it's probably why every game has one thing it really focuses on and develops that the others all neglect (characters for CK, pops for Vicky, warfare for HoI... not sure what EU's focus is, diplomacy maybe? it feels like the most "generalist" game). Like in theory if you come up with a system for characters and internal sub-national governments in CK2 then you should be able to have that SAME system in Victoria 2 or 3. The reason they don't isn't that it would be too complicated, it's that it's a different team working on the system and they're on different versions of the engine and stuff can't be ported without a lot of effort even if they did want to collaborate to that extent, which they likely don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6rTceqNiNg

This is mostly a talk about how they implemented multi-threading, but there's some bits here and there that reveal the fragmented nature of the studio.
Even with separate teams it's staggering, like they refuse to even look at the other games. Consider Stellaris, for example - a warscore system that is needed to do the exact same shit as in EUIV or CK2... except perpetually broken. How? Why? It's not like they'd need to port stuff from those games directly, just look at how they do it! Then they come up with stupid shit like the whole "attrition" mechanic instead of the standard ticking warscore, and you get ridiculous outcomes.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom