Person calling themselves expert on something while not even doing basic research on the topic can be criticized on that without the person criticizing needing to go through expert's whole production.
The previous vic3 discussion streams of this streamer/Youtuber included them labeling themselves "experts". And one of the group members shared very negative opinions on vic3 and some tinfoil hat conspiracies (paraphrasing the guy himself). the streamer changed the word "experts" with "idiots" invited a guy who has a more positive outlook on the project. and said the person sharing the negative opinions only represents his own opinions, not the entire group.
Glad you enjoyed it - yeah you are absolutely correct and it’s a bit heartbreaking
This and the point they brought up about Pops not being set to provincial level is something that is very worrying for me. Removing the abstraction of pops being provincial level and being only state level really is a step back in terms of the simulation of the game, especially when it comes to culture breakdown of territories. You only need to bring up the word 'Balkans' or Silesia and the issue of just splitting population and culture by a mathematical ratio already seems like a massive blunder. And if they weigh each territory already so you get x amount of pops or y amount of culture, then why not just go all the way? It's an abstraction that's gonna cause them more headache than if they just did Provincial pops anyway. The other issue is the whole problem that resources don't seem to be Provincial level either and instead it's just state wide. I was originally really excited for the ability to split up states, but how do they determine what resources you get from that split now? Is it also just a percentage split? Even if you only wish to try and take say, the coal and iron deposits in a state, you'll still only end up taking a mathematical chunk? Or will it be 'weighted' as well?
I’d assume there must be, or major parts of warfare in the era is going to be lost. Sherman’s March to the sea makes no sense if you can’t sever rail lines and burn plantations. At the same time, I hope you don’t have to do those things. If I’m trying to liberate East Poland from Russia as a Poland player, I don’t want to be starving my people just because Russia drags its feet on making peace.
At very least, if the buildings are on the map I think it is very safe to assume if the province the building is located is occupied, so will the building. Like, I am very curious about what happen to the employees of the building (do they become unemployed or do they work for the occupiers?) but I think assuming occupation will have no economical impact, despite this being a thing in every Paradox game, is just baseless pessimism.
Heavens -- give them a chance, I say. We have barely seen how the game will look in its final form, and nothing revealed so far should make us think that it will be either dumbed down or uninteresting. I too have made my share of criticisms of Paradox over the years, but this is really kind of overboard.
Yes, taking the safe road and delivering a good result is always a better option than the alternative.
So you also think Paradox has been on the whole making good decisions with the direction of Victoria 3 so far?
I mean, the two lead designers of Victoria 2 are the ones who made Imperator:Rome, which was heavily critiqued at launch for being far too conservative in its design. I don’t think this sentiment is really fair.
