Any good now?

[Gopher]

I played when it first released and it was a terrible experience. Just not fun.

[Alex]

It is still a beta, a work in progress. If you want to pick it up again, wait for the next major patch (1.9). The current version has several game-breaking issues, so it may not even run.

[kubluu]

Definitely, I am completely addicted.

[MooMooKaChoo]

I have been enjoying this game many times over. I don't know what it was like at launch, but I love watching my little backwater country grow into a powerhouse. Some favorites of mine that I have played so far: Spain, USA, Brazil, Prussia, China, and Mexico.

[Not Brian]

Once they fix insignificant secession movements holding your nation hostage and buff Interventionism, it'll go from a good game to a great game.

[151]

It's a lot better than it was first released. But still not exactly good. Warfare and diplomacy still suck. You still can't set a specific tariff percentage. Many nations still don't have unique events.

What I do is, I play a few times after each major update. Then I wait for the next update.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

I didn't really sit down and actually feel like the game was starting to feel like an actual game til 1.7 update. Mechanically it was functioning quite poorly until about 1.5ish and for even decent PC's lots of people had horrible performance issues with it. Get like half way through a game and it's too slow to finish, lol.

At launch the game and mechanics were literally not functioning, optimization was horrible, lots of the 'content' was literally place holder stuff and all sorts of common features from vic 2 weren't in game at all (i.e private investment/construction although AI is too dumb in this game to properly utilize it too, lol)

Games mil stuff wasn't functioning at release and at 1.7.3 armies would still teleport after a front closes and stuff. It's not very engaging, it's one thing in particular I think needs more player input and should be something that takes advantage of the truly staggering amounts of cells provinces in this game have, it's a shame we don't actually get to do any kind of maneuvering at all in game, double so for non interesting naval stuff

Game is still getting content added, hotfixed/polished, being optimized, and essentially being play tested by us, because it just wasn't there at all at 1.0 and 1.0 really shouldn't have been released. I legit think 1.7 is the barest minimum of content Vic 3 should have had at release :c

AI is also very inconsistent and random. I will say this, I think if you had dedicated PEOPLE playing some of the bigger nations etc in game, it actually would be a lot more interesting, but AI itself is just kinda dumb, gets involved in very random things in general it feels

If they don't just abandon it, maybe game will be 'good' by 2.0. Paradox knows literally everyone wishes there was more depth to mil and more depth to economy.

It feels like a build-queue simulator. But I do keep checking back with every update lol. Has it been improved? For sure, absolutely - is it worth it yet? Really, really hard to tell lol. I think it's one of Paradox's shallowest releases, and it makes me worried for direction they'll take EU 5 haha.

[AKUA]

If you just play the based game, the current content is only worth like around 100 hours at most. I am playing mods so I have 1700 hours. At this point, I will say this game is functioning unlike the 1.0 release. However, if you want to play like 1000 hours base game like you did the other titles, then you may need to wait another two major expansions.

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

I didn't really sit down and actually feel like the game was starting to feel like an actual game til 1.7 update. Mechanically it was functioning quite poorly until about 1.5ish and for even decent PC's lots of people had horrible performance issues with it. Get like half way through a game and it's too slow to finish, lol.

At launch the game and mechanics were literally not functioning, optimization was horrible, lots of the 'content' was literally place holder stuff and all sorts of common features from vic 2 weren't in game at all (i.e private investment/construction although AI is too dumb in this game to properly utilize it too, lol)

Games mil stuff wasn't functioning at release and at 1.7.3 armies would still teleport after a front closes and stuff. It's not very engaging, it's one thing in particular I think needs more player input and should be something that takes advantage of the truly staggering amounts of cells provinces in this game have, it's a shame we don't actually get to do any kind of maneuvering at all in game, double so for non interesting naval stuff

Game is still getting content added, hotfixed/polished, being optimized, and essentially being play tested by us, because it just wasn't there at all at 1.0 and 1.0 really shouldn't have been released. I legit think 1.7 is the barest minimum of content Vic 3 should have had at release :c

AI is also very inconsistent and random. I will say this, I think if you had dedicated PEOPLE playing some of the bigger nations etc in game, it actually would be a lot more interesting, but AI itself is just kinda dumb, gets involved in very random things in general it feels

If they don't just abandon it, maybe game will be 'good' by 2.0. Paradox knows literally everyone wishes there was more depth to mil and more depth to economy.

It feels like a build-queue simulator. But I do keep checking back with every update lol. Has it been improved? For sure, absolutely - is it worth it yet? Really, really hard to tell lol. I think it's one of Paradox's shallowest releases, and it makes me worried for direction they'll take EU 5 haha.

I bought CIV 7 and played it a while. I am now saddened by the recent trend of bad big game releases... And now I become a more concerned with the release of EU5 after seeing what happened to CIV 7. For EU5, not only will the spec requirements be way more demanding this time (I believe it will be much higher than V3), but also older people may not like the new design as much as it was hyped to be, especailly EU4 is so popular.

I just reviewed the Tino talks and looks like the most promising time of release is actually next year if they want time to debug themselves. Hopefully, the release of EU5 will not be as bad as that of V3.

[Ole "Slim Jolo" the Hobo Hero]

Originally posted by AKUA:

I bought CIV 7 and played it a while. I am now saddened by the recent trend of bad big game releases... And now I become a more concerned with the release of EU5 after seeing what happened to CIV 7. For EU5, not only will the spec requirements be way more demanding this time (I believe it will be much higher than V3), but also older people may not like the new design as much as it was hyped to be, especailly EU4 is so popular.

I just reviewed the Tino talks and looks like the most promising time of release is actually next year if they want time to debug themselves. Hopefully, the release of EU5 will not be as bad as that of V3.

Yea I'm worried.

At same time I guess one glimmer of hope is, if I recall, the Vic 3 development team I don't think is the EU team, not that theres not cross over and stuff (but I could also be wrong, I just feel like I remember hearing something along those lines)

The tinto talks have been super interesting, and I feel like it's inevitable that I'll get the game anyways, but I really hope they take the launch of Vic 3 and our reactions to it seriously and don't give us a game that hasn't been play tested / missing content outright etc. It's such a shame the decisions they made with Vic 3, because it truly does feel like they'd given us an unfinished game :(

[Gopher]

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

Originally posted by AKUA:

I bought CIV 7 and played it a while. I am now saddened by the recent trend of bad big game releases... And now I become a more concerned with the release of EU5 after seeing what happened to CIV 7. For EU5, not only will the spec requirements be way more demanding this time (I believe it will be much higher than V3), but also older people may not like the new design as much as it was hyped to be, especailly EU4 is so popular.

I just reviewed the Tino talks and looks like the most promising time of release is actually next year if they want time to debug themselves. Hopefully, the release of EU5 will not be as bad as that of V3.

Yea I'm worried.

At same time I guess one glimmer of hope is, if I recall, the Vic 3 development team I don't think is the EU team, not that theres not cross over and stuff (but I could also be wrong, I just feel like I remember hearing something along those lines)

The tinto talks have been super interesting, and I feel like it's inevitable that I'll get the game anyways, but I really hope they take the launch of Vic 3 and our reactions to it seriously and don't give us a game that hasn't been play tested / missing content outright etc. It's such a shame the decisions they made with Vic 3, because it truly does feel like they'd given us an unfinished game :(

A few years back paradox switched to outsourcing to Indian contractors and it all went to hell from there. Burn and churn, cheap labor

[nikoxentium]

it's ok, but they need to add more stuff

[SoddenStar]

No.

[QLIQ]

I really wonder how many people work on CK3 or VIC/ Stellaris. Sure they add cool things each year, but development is slow that I doubt it is more than 20 people for each game.

But thinking about it, 20 devs would cost 2 million each year, so it is probably a lot less.

[6ap6apblckaAa]

Definitely not 20.
My bet is 6 people (+50 useless officers of course).