Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
There, fixed your helpful comment.
It also uses a province/tile system for warfare, so you'd have to move your units tile by tile, individually, to take over lands and push back the enemy.
Vic3 seems to have a more realistic economy where goods don't just pop into existence, you can actually get resources even if you're not the #1 nation worldwide, or in their SoI. The economy is also more robust with several production modes for each building specializing in one type of good over another, or simply increasing efficiency at the cost of more complex raw materias that may require a big production chain from other industries, the warfare is not automated, but it's close, you just decide which frontlines each general with a certain number of troops should fight at, so it takes a lot of decisions from the player on that front.
I also quite like the political system as every route seems to have a + and a - so it's not all black & white, IE: If you set up an extremely authoritarian ethnostate you'll have to deal with unrest and lower migration (big issue for colonial nations) but you'll have more authority to use some strong bonuses to your states, pay lower wages to every other culture and race in your nation and set up taxes for specific goods, meanwhile the other extreme won't let you have direct control like that, but people are going to be happier and receive higher wages lets them increase their living standards further increasing migration draw.
This game is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ trash. Not nearly as good Vic2. Keep trying to convince yourself though.
That's not for you to decide in this conversation, my friend. You've made your personal decision and I won't begrudge you for it, but OP doesn't care if we think it's good. He wants to know differences. Once he knows them, he can decide.
And I answered his question one is trash and the other is good
No you really didnt fix anything, Vic 3 is just not good unless you like boring economy building.
The other (Vicky 3) caters only to people with an interest in the diplomacy/economics angle by significantly expanding those subsets via an intensive, in-depth built economy. Having played Vicky 2, warfare is a pathetic ghost of what it once was. In the literal sense. It's a ghost. No province hopping, unique plans of attack, etc; it's handled by RNG mystery. Sure you can look into the game files to unravel that mystery, but I personally haven't decided whether or not to 'put up with it.'
If you've got the hots for peacetime, and can't stand war in games, obviously Vicky 3 is the better choice. If you want to have a decent economy and decent warfare, Vicky 2 plus mods. It's cheaper anyway. Not that it matters.
Honestly, I would've preferred a battle line system like in HoI4 but with better AI, but this combat isn't terrible, albeit a tad underbaked - I would've liked to actually build my armies like in Imperator or Vicky 2, but it's a dense game already, and I'm alright with the change and the focus instead on economics/politics.
Two different games with different focuses. I'll be playing both for different reasons - it's not a Vicky 2 killer by any means, but it's a nice breath of fresh air from Paradox and for the genre. Definitely not for folks who don't want an 1800s economic/political sim and are looking for blood n guts and glory - this game ain't that. Although... In Vicky 3, bullying the German states as Prussia and subjugating them by conquest without the entire global community kicking you in the teeth (due to high infamy) was pretty satisfying. I had Austria join against me in my war for Bavaria, and it was pleasant not having to fight Austria, Russia, Sweden, USA, Romania, France, China, Botswana, the Maldives, and Queen Victoria in power armor (Vicky 2 high infamy woes) for control of Munich.
Some changes to the economy which seem interesting and good such as the ability to have more control over raw material production. In Vic 2 there was only the ability to micro factories however there was an element of realism with that in that a only reactionary and communist governments could go full command economy and have the ability to have the central gov build factories.
Biggest change is the war system where there is no ability to micro smaller units like vic 2 that are brigade sized and there is a system of board front line in which the player cannot directly order encirclements or any movements to small areas such as provinces.
If you enjoyed the ability exercise control over units like in almost any other grand strategy title you might as well wait 6 months or a year when someone mods the game or paradox re vamps the system to purchase and play the game.
Well I suppose that's literally an answer, although I'm fairy sure he was asking for mechanical differences.
I mean, how much worse can the Vicky 3 war system really be(for me)? As long as it's less of a micro-hassle I don't really care, the economy and internal politics(and I guess external diplomacy) are what count, and those were largely great in 1 and 2 already. If they're better in 3? Superb, but again, I can't imagine how they could really be any better given how well they were done previously.
I'll probably wait for a week to see how the dust settles, but I guess it's sounding much better than I feared.