Everyone's Personal Opinions of Vic 3 Thread

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I won't refund the game, but I won't play it either. At least not for a long while.
I don't get the logic here. You clearly don't like the game, why would you not refund the game? Do you like giving money to a company for a product you either regret buying or have no enjoyment/use/function for the product? Why not buy later on when you feel that you will enjoy the game or when the game is significantly improved?

Paradox doesn't care one bit about players who dislike the game but don't ask for refunds when they still have the chance to do so. That is not a negative or a complaint about Paradox, all companies act this way. Consumers can only vote with their dollars. Don't give a free pass for an inferior product.

(I am speaking as someone who does enjoy the game and will continue playing it. But I also believe that people should only buy what they need and want. If you don't need it and don't want it, don't buy it.)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
If you feel like answering @Wizzington, I’m wondering what the experience is like of working for years on something like V3 then reading a thread like this full of A. People enjoying the game, B. People politely critiquing the game and C. People rudely criticizing the game. Seems like it might be a bit frustrating!
 
  • 1
  • 1Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So far I'm actually really enjoying the game. I am seeing a few valid points from people; the biggest so far that I agree with is that the game doesn't do the best job of explaining stuff. Chiefly, I was struggling to figure out what goods I was in short supply of and what I had plenty of. I'll admit that I may have just been being a bit simple, but it took me too long to figure out that the goods 'balance' basically meant 'availability'.

Some things I still have yet to explore. I'm going to be going into warfare completely blind because I've not touched that yet. Hopefully it isn't as bad as everyone is saying it is.

But, all-in-all, I'm pleased with the purchase.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If you feel like answering @Wizzington, I’m wondering what the experience is like of working for years on something like V3 then reading a thread like this full of A. People enjoying the game, B. People politely critiquing the game and C. People rudely criticizing the game. Seems like it might be a bit frustrating!
I wouldn't really call it frustrating, at least not personally - while there are of course a mix of constructive and unhelpful, criticisms I agree with and criticisms I don't agree with, ultimately everyone is going to feel the way they do about Victoria 3 and we are not entitled to anyone's approval just because we put a lot of hard work into the game. Personally, I think we've put out a fun and good game but one that could use polishing and improvement in a few areas, and that's what we're focusing on now in the immediate aftermath of the release - as I said though, more details about that will be coming soon.
 
  • 66Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
  • 1
Reactions:
As for my opinion on the game, I have never been more mixed on a game in a long while.

The political society part of the game is actually really fun and interlinked with the economy in a way that is really intuitive and well-thought-out.

The economic aspects of the game are solid but kind of unbalanced, janky, and full of external AI issues.

Actually, with both of these parts of the game, this is the general rule where the mechanics are well-thought-out and solid at the core but balance issues and jank and MAJOR AI issues compromise the mechanics thoroughly. I think these are problems that will be fixed with time and effort from Paradox.

The diplomatic game is more concerning in that it also has balance issues and AI issues but it is also not linked with the political society part of the game at all. Warmongering should be affecting my interest groups but I don't see this as the case. A lack of wars against weak targets should be making my Armed Forces mad or anxious. And if this can not be realistically implemented as direct modifiers for the interest groups, it should be implemented as events and decisions.

A general complaint about the game is the extreme lack of flavor and events in every aspect. There is not enough unique content to distinguish nations from each other AND there is not enough generic content surrounding Diplomacy and the economy and even the war system. It makes otherwise interesting gameplay systems appear to be dull and static from game session to game session, nation to nation.

I think the move away from micro is still the right decision for the war system but there are a lot of AI problems here, as well as the usual smorgasbord of balance issues and jank. The UI panels for generals and mobilizing armies are extremely confusing as a specific example. The lack of multiple battles per frontline is very confusing and frustrating. Naval invasions are definitely an invention of the Devil created just to irritate the players.

Are these problems solvable? Yes, I do think so. I am more worried that the solutions will be packaged and sold as DLC instead of making sure the base game is up to par.
 
  • 7
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't get the logic here. You clearly don't like the game, why would you not refund the game? Do you like giving money to a company for a product you either regret buying or have no enjoyment/use/function for the product? Why not buy later on when you feel that you will enjoy the game or when the game is significantly improved?

Paradox doesn't care one bit about players who dislike the game but don't ask for refunds when they still have the chance to do so. That is not a negative or a complaint about Paradox, all companies act this way. Consumers can only vote with their dollars. Don't give a free pass for an inferior product.

(I am speaking as someone who does enjoy the game and will continue playing it. But I also believe that people should only buy what they need and want. If you don't need it and don't want it, don't buy it.)

Thank you for your response. I guess I would say that I respect Paradox as a company and have purchased multiple other franchises of theirs over the years, and spent many hours on them. I have not been disappointed until now (on the other hand I have no interest in Europa, Stellaris, Imperator, HoI4, CK3…so maybe their newer products are the disappointing ones?)

Mainly out of my respect for their company, the hope that Overhaul Mods/DLC can salvage the game, and the fact that Steam didn’t have anything else worth purchasing at the time, I have decided to keep my purchase.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thank you for your response. I guess I would say that I respect Paradox as a company and have purchased multiple other franchises of theirs over the years, and spent many hours on them. I have not been disappointed until now (on the other hand I have no interest in Europa, Stellaris, Imperator, CK3…so maybe that’s where the disappointment is?)

Mainly out of my respect for their company, the hope that Overhaul Mods/DLC can salvage the game, and the fact that Steam didn’t have anything else worth purchasing at the time, I have decided to keep my purchase.
Everyone will make the decisions that they feel are right so I can not state that you are wrong and I am right about this. I will just say that in your case, I would refund the game for now and actually see if the DLC and patches will fix the game to a state that is acceptable to me.

I try to not respect (or hate) companies for past actions because I have been burned too many times by sympathetic companies that end up changing their ways or by unsympathetic companies that became more positive due to market actions. This is nothing personal, just business, as Michael Corleone said.

In any case, I hope the game becomes more enjoyable over time for both your and my sake.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Everyone will make the decisions that they feel are right so I can not state that you are wrong and I am right about this. I will just say that in your case, I would refund the game for now and actually see if the DLC and patches will fix the game to a state that is acceptable to me.

I try to not respect (or hate) companies for past actions because I have been burned too many times by sympathetic companies that end up changing their ways or by unsympathetic companies that became more positive due to market actions. This is nothing personal, just business, as Michael Corleone said.

In any case, I hope the game becomes more enjoyable over time for both your and my sake.
Maybe I'm just easy to please, but I've never really not enjoyed a Paradox game. Perhaps Imperator at first, but I later had good fun with it once it had been worked on a bit. I think it helps a bit that I manage my expectations; I always expect that games are going to have a bumpy release - especially complex simulations such as that which Paradox produce.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Honestly, I think the depth and mechanical interplay going on is exactly what I've wanted from a Pdx GSG for a long long time.

Really love the market interplay and how pops react to lowering SOL etc.

Issues I have: The UI is trying, but theres quite a lot of areas where the more relevant info is hiding. Finding what pops are spending in relation to their needs for example is something I would consider very critical to decisions you're making, but it's found by hovering over a number inside a tooltip. This would be fine, but there's SO MANY things to hover over, it's definitely confusing and even outright missed by some players. Same goes for warfare. Combat width does come across as random to alot of players on first sight, when based on limited info it's about terrain and general decisions.

I actually think the warfare system is pretty great and reflects on more of an overview situation and I really enjoy equipping my military, prepping for war ( in big diplo plays cancelled building to save up money to bleed for coming battles) However, it needs to be more transparent and clear front and centre. Obviously long term, It would be nice to enhance the mechanic, as I do feel some agency in your generals or training, something, would benefit the system quite alot and at least go someway to placate peoples concerns regards warfare being too simplistic.

IG's and government switching is a bit too simple to deal with in my opinion at the moment, but i feel that will be easy enough to balance.

I absolutely love balancing the economy, it feels great to me but i can understand peoples issues, again the UI isnt always so clear and the auto expand may not be as useful in some cases as others.
I also love that the game is not railroaded. I like that things are emergent game to game. I hope they add flavourful events for sure, it could benefit hugely from this. I just think with some balance, the historical events people feel are missing will happen more often, but in a lot of posts ive seen complaining, I have had those exact things more or less pan out in one of my games. The US civil war however may have to be an exception, it may need some scripting at least for now as it does seem a bit lacklustre.

All in all, still having a blast, just needs some rebalancing primarily and long-term some kind of expanding on warfare, and maybe some expanding/ easing of access to certain diplo plays.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
So far I have played with Belgium about 30 years into the game (and a few years with Sweden). I have managed to abolish the monarchy, separate state and church and pass several other laws without upsetting people too much. I am making money and slowly raising my prestige. Still I feel like something more should have happened in my game. For example, I do not have the feeling that the changes in my society reflects my relationship with other countries. Maybe it does? But I am pretty much in my little Belgium bubble and it seems like I am free to stay that way. Perhaps I miss something like France as a Great Power would come and say "Hey, you really should not have seperated State and Church, we like you less now, and here are the consequences." And then they kick me out of their market and place a trade ban on me, which would force me to actively seek out other markets instead. I do enjoy my game, it's just that don't feel that the major changes I have done have had any major consequences (except for the obvious changes to pops and who's in power, but as long as the radicals are kept in check, it does not feel like much else will happen). I enjoy the game, but I need a bit more to happen if I am going to do more than one playthrough. Or else I am afraid that they will be too similar.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
If they added some form of dumb capitalists that built some basic factories on their own, with a simple check of "build random factory with a good that is in demand in this province" I think that would solve most issues people have.

It's too hands on to do anything productive without it feeling tedious.
That's exactly what I loved about Vicky 2. You were only guiding an economy that otherwise mostly ran itself. I hate the idea of directly controlling everything that's going on, far less satisfying.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
That's exactly what I loved about Vicky 2. You were only guiding an economy that otherwise mostly ran itself. I hate the idea of directly controlling everything that's going on, far less satisfying.

Yep. I gave it a good go but it was so frustrating and boring that I've uninstalled the game now. Its not a simulation at all if the player has to do everything themselves. Manual building/buying should be possible if you switch to some kind of planned economy, and possible in limited sectors for interventionism, but by and large the default ingame should be that capitalists build stuff and you can only give them nudges and incentives to do what you want. Likewise you should have limited controls on imports/exports given that trying to cut down on foreign competition is the main reason for protectionism - being able to totally block that defeats its purpose completely.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So far I have played with Belgium about 30 years into the game (and a few years with Sweden). I have managed to abolish the monarchy, separate state and church and pass several other laws without upsetting people too much. I am making money and slowly raising my prestige. Still I feel like something more should have happened in my game. For example, I do not have the feeling that the changes in my society reflects my relationship with other countries. Maybe it does? But I am pretty much in my little Belgium bubble and it seems like I am free to stay that way. Perhaps I miss something like France as a Great Power would come and say "Hey, you really should not have seperated State and Church, we like you less now, and here are the consequences." And then they kick me out of their market and place a trade ban on me, which would force me to actively seek out other markets instead. I do enjoy my game, it's just that don't feel that the major changes I have done have had any major consequences (except for the obvious changes to pops and who's in power, but as long as the radicals are kept in check, it does not feel like much else will happen). I enjoy the game, but I need a bit more to happen if I am going to do more than one playthrough. Or else I am afraid that they will be too similar.

What options are you playing the game on? Has the AI been set to 'lenient'? If so, it might be worth trying harder settings and seeing what happens. It might not have an impact, but you never know.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm personally suprised negatively at lack of polish more than at certain mechanics. Especially comparing release to near perfect state of ck3 at release.

Because of lack of polish bad decision about certain mechanics become more glaring. I am having fun personally but not enough to recomend it to someone entering genre or withous interest in particular game mechanics.

I thought that since ck3 we entered into era when PDX started releasing polished games if not feature complete. Sometimes I think PDX forgets that they are not indie company anymore and people are less forgiving about buggy releases and dubious mechanics when price is near AAA games.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
-The naval issue is not explained, it has taken god and hours for there to be a consensus based on evidence that you need at least one ship per division.

-You cannot exchange provinces, not even give provinces to your vassals.

-The idea of markets is very good, but poorly implemented. Being in a market being the small power is boring because the owner of the market does everything and you don't know exactly what the needs of your country are, only your market. This is serious when you play with a vassal country, that until you become independent you don't know the real needs.

-What is the use of sinking convoys if when you do it your fleets stop looking for convoys? It's very easy/quick to rebuild those destroyed convoys and before you know it the enemy has re-stocked. As long as the enemy has the resources and the buildings full of employees, the convoys will not be a problem to have them again.

-Protecting the coast is of little use, the enemy disembarks as he wants.

-I cannot isolate neighborhoods from metropolises because intra-market transport is automatic and omnipresent. The Philippines will always be connected to Spain as long as they are in the same market.

-The political system is very simple and irrelevant, its problem is that you can ignore it without consequences.

-Buildings can use rail even if you haven't built it in the province. A Galician mine will use the train even if it has only been built in the Balearic Islands or Puerto Rico (perhaps even Cuba, which is a colony).

-Playing with all countries is the same. I have played with Chile and it is little different from playing with the Philippines, Spain or Russia.

-It is super easy to have a healthy economy, beyond the quality of life or less efficency of the pops there is no repercussion that you lack materials.

-Colonization is a joke. UK taking in 1837 Western Sahara, Russia New Zealand, USA Patagonia or two powers colonizing the same place without any type of tension, they are only two powers colonizing as far as the other will allow them.

-Pops are assimilated/converted very quickly.

-A lot of information about the economy in the game is missing. Being able to see the production of your country (not market), or at a glance more factories.

-There are few events and therefore they are repeated a lot. Countries do not feel unique for it. There are also no decisions by country with a few exceptions.

-The unifications are practically automatic.

-Rebels? Is that eaten?

-Micronations in infinite civil war because they have no divisions.

-Do not expect to feel the world alive because they tell you that one power has declared war on another or the war has ended with the result. It doesn't matter if you have an interest in the area, you won't know what's going on if you don't see it yourself with the camera. Europe could burn and you may have lost the war and not know the result because you were trying to build a banana tree in the Canary Islands.

-Most of the important things such as a route no longer being profitable or your country dying from not having paper are not communicated to you if you do not hit the notification ball and then the missing supplies submenu. Every so often you have to check the notifications if you want to maximize everything.

-The tutorial is a good idea badly implemented again. It doesn't tell you long-term goals (although in a normal game you do have that option). One goal is to sink convoys but there are people who have never jumped on it and stay on "keep playing and new missions will appear" without telling you what you have to do to get them out. Others have improved relations with X nation and the tutorial now tells them to increase them back to 50+, so you can't use what the tutorial itself tells you to improve relations.

-The approval of laws is a great RNG in which you barely have any decision-making power and cannot do anything to get it approved.

-The interest groups can range from trade unionists running for the patriotic party to aristocrats for the socialist.

-The elections are a joke, you can practically form the government that you want.

-Austria, Russia, Ottoman... very stable countries in which it doesn't matter if each one has a language or culture. And we return to the point from before: it doesn't matter who you play with, everyone plays and feels the same because there is not even the slightest flavor.

- Migration makes no sense. There may be a time when more people migrate to deep Siberia than to Colorado, Kansas, or Argentina.

-Diplomacy is very difficult because everything is based on -100 and beyond trade agreements and improving relations it is difficult to do anything else.

-New journal entries/available decisions are not notified. I didn't know I could do an expedition to the Nile until I decided to build the Panama Canal and accessed that tab.

-There is no military access.

-The generals change front like the one who changes his shirt.

-When a front collapses and is divided, the army is not divided, leaving one of the fronts at the mercy of the other if it has more generals.

-There is only one battle per front that is very good to fight for an island, but that doesn't make sense on big fronts like the European one.

-The abstraction of the ownership of the means of production is absurd. I can make a factory publicly owned for free, give it to the capitalists for free, make it publicly owned again for free, and then put it into stock and it will all be without exchange of money. No bourgeois complains that the factory is taken from him or rejoices that he gives it away.

-The infamy system has little effect on the game. The AI is quite passive even at high levels.

-Two countries at war and that have no border between them will never stop being at war because there is no military access or a counter.

-The diplomatic options are scarce, less than in other games and that is a game of diplomacy (and economy, I know).

-Commercial ports (teatry ports) are useless, maybe it's a bug.

-Westernization does not exist, and although the recognition system is well thought out, being recognized has no weight or consequence.

-You can transport hundreds of thousands of men in a month from one end of the world to another without problem or consequence.

-AI production decisions leave a lot to be desired.

-FPS drop after a certain date when zooming in and out.
 
  • 19
  • 4Like
  • 3
Reactions:
and here is the reason why they removed it. If i remember there is even a DevDiary about it.
its just impossible to make a AI good enough to build/delete buildings based on a dynamic economy.
it will either be too perfect and people are gonna hate it for being too perfect.
that is a bad reason since you will always need to deal with the economic AI in this game, especially if you are in a customs union