Is the economy more realistic than in vic II?

[Night]

The economy and the management of society? More immersive?
Thanks

[PocketWolf]

Nope, the economy is split between the money you get to fund token things like army, government buildings and upkeep. The society side of things is fixed being mostly affected by the Quality of Life rating rather than actual wealth. And immersion is debatable since the economy and the entire game is just pressing buttons and watching your GDP skyrocket unless you flop somewhere

[Urk_da_WAAAGH!]

The economy and society simulation is without a doubt infinitely superior to Vic2, anyone saying otherwise are the widows of the "move tiny men around" combat system that have nothing else to do other than coming to the forum and ♥♥♥♥ on the game

[Artillery BOI]

Yes that's one of the few things in the games that actually done really well.

[Kaiser Waffle]

They've done the economy very well, my only complaint is that foreign investment isn't in the game yet.

[LonelyCookie]

Yep it is a lot better, mainly because Vic2 barely makes an effort on economy, from markets to factories to provinces.

[TheGamingNot]

Originally posted by MrCommie:

The economy and society simulation is without a doubt infinitely superior to Vic2, anyone saying otherwise are the widows of the "move tiny men around" combat system that have nothing else to do other than coming to the forum and ♥♥♥♥ on the game

or people just like the more complex economy of vic 2, vic 3s society sim is better tho but its economy is crash compared to 2. also its war system tediousness is on par with 2 and the battles are janked out, like how can 100 dudes make 30k want to stop fighting in 1845. and trading is mostly useless unless you need opium the game runs worse then vic 2 by alot while not tracking the bank accounts of every pop just weekly balance. and its impossible to have a economic crash unless your just stupid. get a bunch of countries in the same sphere and be the industrial giant making over 60% of goods then delete all your factories. then watch as everyones gdp only drops by 10-20%

[Inquerion]

No, but it is a pretty good planned economy simulator.

[whatamidoing]

Yes, the economy is massively improved over Vic2.

[Ryke]

It is significantly better. Markets, prices, etc, work in pretty logical ways compared to Vic2. It's easier to spot what problems are and what you could do to fix them on the short or long term.

[Lucky]

Originally posted by MrCommie:

The economy and society simulation is without a doubt infinitely superior to Vic2, anyone saying otherwise are the widows of the "move tiny men around" combat system that have nothing else to do other than coming to the forum and ♥♥♥♥ on the game

the economy system isnt realistic AT ALL, at least vic 2 had a natural movement of goods, but vic 3 is just a cookie clicker. click button watch number go up.

[whatamidoing]

Originally posted by Lucky:

Originally posted by MrCommie:

The economy and society simulation is without a doubt infinitely superior to Vic2, anyone saying otherwise are the widows of the "move tiny men around" combat system that have nothing else to do other than coming to the forum and ♥♥♥♥ on the game

the economy system isnt realistic AT ALL, at least vic 2 had a natural movement of goods, but vic 3 is just a cookie clicker. click button watch number go up.

Vic2 absolutely did not have natural movement of goods. Were there regular global concrete shortages every time Britain or Germany or whatever figured out how to make a better fort or railroad? Did goods start magically disappearing and duplicating once a great power influenced them? How could Bhutan sell their wool to France?

[LonelyCookie]

Originally posted by whatamidoing:

Originally posted by Lucky:

the economy system isnt realistic AT ALL, at least vic 2 had a natural movement of goods, but vic 3 is just a cookie clicker. click button watch number go up.

Vic2 absolutely did not have natural movement of goods. Were there regular global concrete shortages every time Britain or Germany or whatever figured out how to make a better fort or railroad? Did goods start magically disappearing and duplicating once a great power influenced them? How could Bhutan sell their wool to France?

Dont forget the natural occurence of goods as only one resource per province, just as God intented.

[morganjah]

Absolutely not. You will actually know less about real world economics after playing this game. There is nothing in this game that provides any facsimile or insight into the most fascinating period of economic history. It really is an insult to economists and historians.

[taomastercu]

The Vic2 economy was a mess. Every person who defends it is betraying those who want criticism of Vic3's system to be taken seriously. Did it have some cool stuff that Vic3 lacks? Sure, a few things. But nothing that makes it superior to Vic3. Vic3 is bad, there's no doubt. Only people who know nothing about the period or economics can disagree. Some issues relate to performances tradeoffs, to be fair. But that doesn't excuse it in totality.

And the society sim is even worse. Again Vic2 had some superior stuff but it is probably worse overall. But Vic3 had vastly more dev time and financial capital, plus all the mistakes and adjustments made over the lifetime of Vic2 to look back on. And a far larger number of devs. So Vic3 should be head and shoulders above Vic 2 but it clearly isn't. Has a leg up at best. 3 steps forward, one step back. Not exactly a triumph.

I actually support the move away from army men on a map, as far as combat goes, but only in theory. As an ideal it is better for sure. The problem is that the Vic3 system was ♥♥♥♥, and it is still ♥♥♥♥, just maybe from a pooper who ate less asparagus and red meat. It is no good thinking about what could have been or what could be, or else we would just as well compare the "potential" of Vic3 to the "potential" of Grey Eminence or Gilded Destiny.

[Wilhelm]

vic 2 review scores:
vic 3 review scores: