Victoria 3 is now better than Victoria 2

[Ilhan]

I think this current influence system made vic3 way better than vic2. We have a very modern and extremely detailed economic simulator, and poor optimization is no longer an issue. The only thing I disliked about this game was how laggy it was, and now it is fixed. There is no reason for anyone to keep playing vic2 at this point. We just need better AI because Japanese and German AIs never play historically.

[Damedius]

They still haven't solved all the late game issues. Which is generally a lack of resources for large late game economies.

I feel like they added a lot with the new update but the fundamental problems that plagued the game, still remain.

[浅野のぶひろ]

Vic2 has a storage system, but Vic 3 don't.

[[Linux] Arczi]

Originally posted by ilhanmete:

Victoria 3 is now better than Victoria 2

hahahahahahah.... Are U serious?

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

I think vic 3 still has lots of buggy issues, i'd argue 1.5 to 1.7 have been improvements, but they're improvements that really should have been there at 1.0, and the game was really not ready at release.

1.7 is still good I'd argue but when picking up game with each update, I'm not really blown away by what there is because of how whacky and inconsistent the game still is half the time.

I think vic 3 still has a long way to go before it can be considered good, and I'd argue its also functionally too different than vic 2 to even bother comparing the two tbh. Think about how pissed people are about private construction right now, the normal means your economy was built by in vic 2, and meanwhile a feature like private construction and investment wasn't even present in 1.0, lol. It was one of my first red flags.

I really wish there was more to the economy than just queuing up buildings. I wish there was more to military than sending armies to fronts that still don't function reliably. I wish there were more depth to the title as a whole and I am kinda more worried about devs dropping it entirely than ever really finishing the game.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Damedius:

They still haven't solved all the late game issues. Which is generally a lack of resources for large late game economies.

I feel like they added a lot with the new update but the fundamental problems that plagued the game, still remain.

But they did?

The main issue was having a bunch of giant puppets sitting on their hands with giant iron veins under their soil while you could do nothing about it.

Now you can build up the whole world on your path for world conquest.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero:

I think vic 3 still has lots of buggy issues, i'd argue 1.5 to 1.7 have been improvements, but they're improvements that really should have been there at 1.0, and the game was really not ready at release.

1.7 is still good I'd argue but when picking up game with each update, I'm not really blown away by what there is because of how whacky and inconsistent the game still is half the time.

I think vic 3 still has a long way to go before it can be considered good, and I'd argue its also functionally too different than vic 2 to even bother comparing the two tbh. Think about how pissed people are about private construction right now, the normal means your economy was built by in vic 2, and meanwhile a feature like private construction and investment wasn't even present in 1.0, lol. It was one of my first red flags.

I really wish there was more to the economy than just queuing up buildings. I wish there was more to military than sending armies to fronts that still don't function reliably. I wish there were more depth to the title as a whole and I am kinda more worried about devs dropping it entirely than ever really finishing the game.

Yeah, 1.5 changed everything and ressurected the game, SoI also gave it a huge boost, first very well received DLC with good player spikes & retention.

But I'd argue 1.5 would have never been in 1.5 because the original team had a very misguided view of what a grand strategy game could even be about, 1.5 wasn't about missing features, it was a completely 180 as they walked back on their design decisions to fix the game, something the CK3 still refuses to do as every one of their DLCs flop and none of them have ever increased player numbers.

I agree the vic3 private construction is by far the best iteration of the mechanic between the 2 games, most people either forget, or intentionally fail to mention that this "missing feature" from vic2 was the most hated feature in vic2, every single thread on steam, paradox or reddit forums asking how to handle capitalists in vic2 would advice players to first build a single level of every single industry, on every single slot they wanted, and only then switch to LF to allow capitalists to upgrade buildings with their bonuses, never let them build anything as it had no AI at all, it would just pop completely random buildings, ignoring viability, materials, technology or even bonuses from local production chains, going bankrupt over and over again and closing down an infinite number of factories, it just didn't work, in vic3 there are some bugs, as expected from new updates, but at least the capitalists here make sense, look for profitable opportunities which leads them to meeting the demand within your own market.

Speaking of market, since 1.5 the economy did become far more interesting than queuing up factories as local prices are not the same as market prices, so building the correct industry in the correct states make a big difference, again, there are still balance issues, but every single thing people have been complaining about has been addressed to varying degrees. They listened.

[Ilhan]

Originally posted by Damedius:

They still haven't solved all the late game issues. Which is generally a lack of resources for large late game economies.

I feel like they added a lot with the new update but the fundamental problems that plagued the game, still remain.

I am in mid 1870s and it is faster than ever.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Speaking of market, since 1.5 the economy did become far more interesting than queuing up factories as local prices are not the same as market prices, so building the correct industry in the correct states make a big difference, again, there are still balance issues, but every single thing people have been complaining about has been addressed to varying degrees. They listened.

My biggest realisation seeing people complaining about debt mechanics as well as construction/private construction mechanics is that if you even just have 1 of whatever available resources (wood, iron, fabric steel, tools) etc in every province where you can get 'em and tools / steels to meet those needs, the most expensive part of the game like construction costs almost evaporate.

I'm not sure if they actually changed much but I feel like cost wise I noticed I got into spiralling debt from over extending my construction and economy super easy, but then also escaped it super fast when I realised how much money was going to construction, and that it was expensive cuz my market sucked and remedied it pretty fast because I think it really changes local price when construction goods can be sourced from in-state or just one state over - to the point that like, all my other standard of living issues are more or less still the same, but I still made insane money even while using full construction capacity simply by making construction goods turbo cheap.

[Quillithe]

Originally posted by ilhanmete:

Originally posted by Damedius:

They still haven't solved all the late game issues. Which is generally a lack of resources for large late game economies.

I feel like they added a lot with the new update but the fundamental problems that plagued the game, still remain.

I am in mid 1870s and it is faster than ever.

Also didn't Vic 2 basically suffer economic collapse lategame? I never played it that far but I heard stories

[Strifeboy]

I'd say rework the market as mid to late game its impossible to use.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

Also Vic 2: endless Jacobites

[Gopher]

Originally posted by 浅野のぶひろ:

Vic2 has a storage system, but Vic 3 don't.

This was my biggest turn off to victoria 3. I want to be able to over produce and stockpile goods. Unfortunately the game did not let me do that when it first came out, does it still not allow this?

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Quillithe:

Originally posted by ilhanmete:

I am in mid 1870s and it is faster than ever.

Also didn't Vic 2 basically suffer economic collapse lategame? I never played it that far but I heard stories

Yes, political too.

You could keep rebels in check for most of the game by just passing a law whenever they got too agitated.

But in the end there would be no more possible reforms, you've already passed everything, and they still complain, so there's a point where you're stuck fighting your wars and cyclical, perpetual rebellions, and not the small kind either, I remember taking over china and every single chinese province would keep spawning a big army stack, each, from time to time.

It's not that it's impossible to beat them, it's quite easy actually, but it's a major nuisance, specially when you're trying to fight wars on the other side of the globe, there were no frontlines, and you had to pause every 2 ticks to issue new orders to dozens of little armies all over the world manually.

Just like EU4 world conquests.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Kind of agree with the original post.

There are still areas that are problematic in Vic 3... still some qualms about how war works, for me, as well as a few issues with econ yet (I, too, miss stockpiles). But it's at least not the 'endless Ludite/Jacobite' simulator it once was in Vic 2.

There are genuine improvements, and if you really want war, there's HoI4 which does it fairly well (though with some inept AI at times).

But it does look like Vic 3 is on a better track than it had been... at launch, the UI was horrendous (it still is in a few places, but is better), and pops were handled badly and IGs were a farce (could put in every single one into a giant government coalition each time). It's come some ways since then.

[Dave Reckoning]

Originally posted by Strifeboy:

I'd say rework the market as mid to late game its impossible to use.

Please can you clarify the problem(s) you're having with it?