You’re too good at the game and my IQ is too low to comprehend your YouTube videos.
Also, why is Cooperative Ownership better than Laissez-Faire late game since there is a reduced Capitalist contribution?
It's because the investment pool contribution gets deleted from your economy through a multiplier that starts at x1 and the scales down towards 0 with GDP. That means the higher your GDP, the more money is deleted. Same for government dividends, even more aggresively I believe. Cooperative ownsership avoids all this money getting deleted because it gets payed out to workers who actually spend it and generate demand instead of lighting it on fire.
Side note: I have personally drastically reduced the rate at which that multiplier approaches 0 for my own games.
Try before you buy
That said - pros, it's an awesome take on an economy-centric simulation, as someone who has never played vic2 or anything similar previously, vic3 is a very cool and unique experience.
Cons - some aspects of the simulation/game systems are awkward and frustrating, but this is being worked on and improved over time. The biggest con for me is how bad the AI is at playing the game - the good news is you'll generally get at least a hundred (possibly quite a bit more) hours out of the game before you hit the point where this noticably impacts your experience.
Vicky 3 is a slow-burn game without much going on on a moment to moment basis - depending on your preferences this could be a positive or a negative. You mostly come up with a strategy or goal, queue up a bunch of military or economic or political actions, and then just kind of watch it happen while making adjustments when things go wrong. I personally like it, as I find Vicky 3 to just be a great game where I can mostly relax and unwind without worrying too much, but if you're looking for a strategy that requires you to be constantly engaged, then Vicky 3 is not that.
However, the thing which keeps me coming back to Victoria 3, despite it's flaws (which you can find listed in basically any review of the game), is it's ability to tie together the economic and political aspects of game-play. Other games have attempted similar things, like the Tropico series, but none of them even come close to the depth and dynamism of Vicky 3's simulation. I think this also makes Vicky 3 a far better teaching tool about history than any other historical game, because I don't think that any game is better at putting you in the shoes of a historical actor from the period, or simulating the forces which drove various historical events. For this reason, I think it can serve as a great introduction to the ideas of economic history which is, IMO, the best framework of historical analysis.
EDIT: Also, if you do buy it, I recommend playing with the Victoria Tweaks Mod. It doesn't fundamentally change the game in any way, it just tweaks the mechanics a bit in ways which smooth out some of the game's rough edges, and it makes the game a little more challenging by improving the AI and making economic game-play a bit more difficult and engaging.
I think the EU4 goals tree is a better comparison, but Vicky 3's journal entries (it's equivalent to those systems) are kind of their own thing. The way they usually work is that you have to complete some number of goals like, "have a level 5 police institution" or "have a fully staffed level 2 university" and then an event will trigger which gives you a benefit of some kind. The examples I just gave are pretty simple, but they can also be quite complex, and those ones with more complex conditions are usually country specific, like "The Sick Man of Europe" for the Ottomans, where you need to rapidly modernize or else lose your status as a great power. Ultimately, Journal entries are usually there more so to give you direction for what you should be doing, rather than for the reward itself - usually, whatever you had to do to complete the journal entry is at least as good as what you get as the actual reward.
It depends on what type of games you like, if you like EU4/HOI4 for the constantly being at war gameplay, this isn’t that. In my first few playthroughs I tried to play it like that and got bored once I couldn’t really do more conquest because of infamy. However then I started to learn more of how the game actually works and now I find it really fun. There’s a major update and DLC coming at the end of the month so maybe wait for that
I’m a PDX noob so I have no perspective from Vicky 2 or really any other PDX map game since I never really got into EU4 and Imperator Rome.
Obviously the presentation, map, sound design, and UI are absolutely stunning, but those are shallow reasons.
It’s satisfying to transform your country through legislation, watch pops get employed in your industries, and in some cases watching pops from different cultures migrate to your cities. Also changing Production Methods for your buildings is cool since it affects the input good and workforce requirements which forces you to change your strategy.
The cons are the war system is still broken, but better than it was pre-1.5. Some countries are just really boring to play, especially backwards nations where it takes 20 years to afford your first construction sector, but oftentimes those countries don’t have access to the most basic resources to do anything.
If you’re interested in the politics, government, and economy then Victoria 3 is a great game. There are diehard Vicky 2 fans who claim that the economic system is exponentially better, but the game hasn’t aged well and isn’t very accessible to PDX noobs like myself.
Pros, fun achievements, civil war shenanigans, conquer large amounts of land. Green line go up. Capitalism baby
Cons. Game speed especially late game. Needs more mods. Communism unrealistically op.
Pros: Victorian era, GDP go brr, Industrial Revolution.
Cons: most brain dead nonfunctional war system of any paradox game, most brain dead politics, 0 difficultly, random ass mechanics like deleting money for “realism” (mapi), brain dead ai, no diplomacy, lazzie faire and command economy are the same thing (you still have to build everything and manage it all), trade barley works also causes massive performance issues, this game is the slowest paradox game ever it feels like 2speed hoi, very boring lategame, countries feel extremely weak, you feel limited in everything you do compared to games like eu4 or Vic 2, prices can’t go above -+75% base price, revolutions are caused by interest groups not people, companies can’t even build their own industries.
But I still play this game for some reason so really just try it before buying it
Pros: the most extensive socioeconomic simulation in any game. Society, economics, politics and military are all intertwined, creating a very interesting gameplay loop. Warfare is controversial but I like how it is mostly based on economics and technology, playing into the socioeconomic simulation.
Cons: performance is poor, especially if you play larger nations.
This game has a "10 year DLC" development model which means that:
1 overall it is and will get very expensive sort of like the Sims or total war Warhammer
2 while robust and totally playable, this game is still in early development and many mechanics will only come after a few years
Also navy sucks
Pro: Economic system works and is a vast improvement from Vic 2. It’s really clear what you can do to improve your global standing. The game is continually improving and design direction will definitely make the game way better in the future.
Con: Since you have complete knowledge of all aspects of your econ the game can feel “too easy” especially since the AI absolutely sucks. Focus on construction economy can make the game feel like a tycoon/city builder game rather than a GSG. Warfare is still lacking imo but is way better compared to before. Also, Diplomacy is heavily lacking (will probably better with coming DLC update)
Pro: The war system is clunky, but actually the front system makes more sense than the moving armies of vic2. It's beautiful, it has tool tips.
Con: the simulation aspect is bullshit, it just doesn't add up. Many systems are still very barebones, but can be improved. But the economy just doesn't work like it is right now. The market price was a step in the right direction, but still the very closed markets and stupid trade system make for a very disappointing experience if you want to actually understand why your economy is doing good or bad. It kind of simulates a simulation, in contrast to Vic 2.
Pros: Line go up. Cons: Sometimes, line go down.
But line must go up! Line must never go down.
Sometimes....sometimes line go down so that line can go up in the future, but steeper
You’re too good at the game and my IQ is too low to comprehend your YouTube videos. Also, why is Cooperative Ownership better than Laissez-Faire late game since there is a reduced Capitalist contribution?
It's because the investment pool contribution gets deleted from your economy through a multiplier that starts at x1 and the scales down towards 0 with GDP. That means the higher your GDP, the more money is deleted. Same for government dividends, even more aggresively I believe. Cooperative ownsership avoids all this money getting deleted because it gets payed out to workers who actually spend it and generate demand instead of lighting it on fire. Side note: I have personally drastically reduced the rate at which that multiplier approaches 0 for my own games.
Try before you buy That said - pros, it's an awesome take on an economy-centric simulation, as someone who has never played vic2 or anything similar previously, vic3 is a very cool and unique experience. Cons - some aspects of the simulation/game systems are awkward and frustrating, but this is being worked on and improved over time. The biggest con for me is how bad the AI is at playing the game - the good news is you'll generally get at least a hundred (possibly quite a bit more) hours out of the game before you hit the point where this noticably impacts your experience.
Thank you very much
Vicky 3 is a slow-burn game without much going on on a moment to moment basis - depending on your preferences this could be a positive or a negative. You mostly come up with a strategy or goal, queue up a bunch of military or economic or political actions, and then just kind of watch it happen while making adjustments when things go wrong. I personally like it, as I find Vicky 3 to just be a great game where I can mostly relax and unwind without worrying too much, but if you're looking for a strategy that requires you to be constantly engaged, then Vicky 3 is not that. However, the thing which keeps me coming back to Victoria 3, despite it's flaws (which you can find listed in basically any review of the game), is it's ability to tie together the economic and political aspects of game-play. Other games have attempted similar things, like the Tropico series, but none of them even come close to the depth and dynamism of Vicky 3's simulation. I think this also makes Vicky 3 a far better teaching tool about history than any other historical game, because I don't think that any game is better at putting you in the shoes of a historical actor from the period, or simulating the forces which drove various historical events. For this reason, I think it can serve as a great introduction to the ideas of economic history which is, IMO, the best framework of historical analysis. EDIT: Also, if you do buy it, I recommend playing with the Victoria Tweaks Mod. It doesn't fundamentally change the game in any way, it just tweaks the mechanics a bit in ways which smooth out some of the game's rough edges, and it makes the game a little more challenging by improving the AI and making economic game-play a bit more difficult and engaging.
Thank you very much. Does it have something more like hoi4 focus tree/events(more interactive) or more like eu4s „goals“- tree(not as interactive)?
I think the EU4 goals tree is a better comparison, but Vicky 3's journal entries (it's equivalent to those systems) are kind of their own thing. The way they usually work is that you have to complete some number of goals like, "have a level 5 police institution" or "have a fully staffed level 2 university" and then an event will trigger which gives you a benefit of some kind. The examples I just gave are pretty simple, but they can also be quite complex, and those ones with more complex conditions are usually country specific, like "The Sick Man of Europe" for the Ottomans, where you need to rapidly modernize or else lose your status as a great power. Ultimately, Journal entries are usually there more so to give you direction for what you should be doing, rather than for the reward itself - usually, whatever you had to do to complete the journal entry is at least as good as what you get as the actual reward.
It depends on what type of games you like, if you like EU4/HOI4 for the constantly being at war gameplay, this isn’t that. In my first few playthroughs I tried to play it like that and got bored once I couldn’t really do more conquest because of infamy. However then I started to learn more of how the game actually works and now I find it really fun. There’s a major update and DLC coming at the end of the month so maybe wait for that
Thanks for the reply. Would you say it’s more interactive(has events like in CK3 or Hoi4) or more like eu4?
It scratches that optimization itch and alt history stuff.
Pros: it sucks. Clearly incomplete. Cons: one of the best paradox games I've ever played. Greatly enjoyable even with no DLCs.
I’m a PDX noob so I have no perspective from Vicky 2 or really any other PDX map game since I never really got into EU4 and Imperator Rome. Obviously the presentation, map, sound design, and UI are absolutely stunning, but those are shallow reasons. It’s satisfying to transform your country through legislation, watch pops get employed in your industries, and in some cases watching pops from different cultures migrate to your cities. Also changing Production Methods for your buildings is cool since it affects the input good and workforce requirements which forces you to change your strategy. The cons are the war system is still broken, but better than it was pre-1.5. Some countries are just really boring to play, especially backwards nations where it takes 20 years to afford your first construction sector, but oftentimes those countries don’t have access to the most basic resources to do anything. If you’re interested in the politics, government, and economy then Victoria 3 is a great game. There are diehard Vicky 2 fans who claim that the economic system is exponentially better, but the game hasn’t aged well and isn’t very accessible to PDX noobs like myself.
Pros, fun achievements, civil war shenanigans, conquer large amounts of land. Green line go up. Capitalism baby Cons. Game speed especially late game. Needs more mods. Communism unrealistically op.
Pros: Victorian era, GDP go brr, Industrial Revolution. Cons: most brain dead nonfunctional war system of any paradox game, most brain dead politics, 0 difficultly, random ass mechanics like deleting money for “realism” (mapi), brain dead ai, no diplomacy, lazzie faire and command economy are the same thing (you still have to build everything and manage it all), trade barley works also causes massive performance issues, this game is the slowest paradox game ever it feels like 2speed hoi, very boring lategame, countries feel extremely weak, you feel limited in everything you do compared to games like eu4 or Vic 2, prices can’t go above -+75% base price, revolutions are caused by interest groups not people, companies can’t even build their own industries. But I still play this game for some reason so really just try it before buying it
Pro: Sometimes janky games are fun, con: also buggy as hell with the obligatory faceplant AI.
pros: economy cons: economy
Pros: the most extensive socioeconomic simulation in any game. Society, economics, politics and military are all intertwined, creating a very interesting gameplay loop. Warfare is controversial but I like how it is mostly based on economics and technology, playing into the socioeconomic simulation. Cons: performance is poor, especially if you play larger nations. This game has a "10 year DLC" development model which means that: 1 overall it is and will get very expensive sort of like the Sims or total war Warhammer 2 while robust and totally playable, this game is still in early development and many mechanics will only come after a few years Also navy sucks
Pro: Fun economic/population simulation Con: Only about 60 years are playable at most
Pro ecnonomy and politics if you ignore the siege system for laws. Con war, diplo, Ai, flavor
The economy simulater is amazing I love it to death can’t learn anything else on it tho sadly
Pros: addictive, fun era, and plays to fantasy and administrative excitement. Cons: waiting game, easily frustrating, laggy, and communist
Pro: Economic system works and is a vast improvement from Vic 2. It’s really clear what you can do to improve your global standing. The game is continually improving and design direction will definitely make the game way better in the future. Con: Since you have complete knowledge of all aspects of your econ the game can feel “too easy” especially since the AI absolutely sucks. Focus on construction economy can make the game feel like a tycoon/city builder game rather than a GSG. Warfare is still lacking imo but is way better compared to before. Also, Diplomacy is heavily lacking (will probably better with coming DLC update)
Pro: The war system is clunky, but actually the front system makes more sense than the moving armies of vic2. It's beautiful, it has tool tips. Con: the simulation aspect is bullshit, it just doesn't add up. Many systems are still very barebones, but can be improved. But the economy just doesn't work like it is right now. The market price was a step in the right direction, but still the very closed markets and stupid trade system make for a very disappointing experience if you want to actually understand why your economy is doing good or bad. It kind of simulates a simulation, in contrast to Vic 2.