Why I don't like 1.02:
1. Although I prefer the challenge, I feel as though it is challenging for the wrong reasons. Not because the AI is more challenging, but because I am more limited in what I can do.
2. I don't like the concept of having to drastically slash a country's economy and raise taxes to absurd levels to get it going. Its not just that it is not historic, but it seems like a band-aid, not a real solution. Just as much as not having economic troubles in the late game would be.
If one argues that 'well governments frequently ran a deficits,' one also has to acknowledge that type of debt is not simulated in the game, and that this did not radically destroy a nation as it does in Victoria. My game style has been to up taxes and tariffs, drop all spending except education (since this is more an investment, even short term...). And if one argues that this is for the sake of gameplay, well then I just plain don't like it. To me this is the only way you can play the early game, and thus it leaves out strategy for me. Except strategy of the most minute kind, which brings me to number 2:
3. I feel as though there is now an increase in micromanagement, just to try and keep my economy in the black. And I don't particularly like micromanagement, at least past a certain point. I bought this game since EUII was the only game I have enjoyed in a long while, and is in fact now one of only two games I own (Victoria being the other). I did know somewhat that this was not to be same type of game, so I won't whine too much on this point, but managing pops every few days, and concerning myself with ratios so I can eke out an extra $0.50 from my clipper factory, or opening/closing/opening my clipper factory to fall in line with my fabric production is not my idea of fun.
4. I can make money still, and get in on the colonization race (which itself is a problem, but does not bother me as much as other points), but this is usually by cheezy exploits. In order to industrialize, I found my self trading my technology to Russia, or experimenting with good ol' colonial war/grab claim/sell claim tactics. To me this is not successfully managing an economy, it was cheating to get around it. Because of this my diplomats are now also used up - I need those thousand dollars from selling my techs, so the political game is now closed off.
5. Although what I enjoyed most when I first played Victoria was my Scheisweg war as Denmark, simply because my economy began losing hundreds of dollars a day, and spiralled into debt, due to my military agenda (which I found to be fun due to its realism), now I feel as though that is not even an option (I did play with house options to remove the exploits of luxury goods - surprisingly though, I'd play a 1.02esque game, where I would make my own stuff from the ground up, and it worked much better in 1.01). I can't get into a real war at all anymore, and since my first few games have been as Denmark (a nation that should be playable, if any should), I look to that oncoming financial burden with disdain rather than glee. So I feel the military option is also out in the first 1/3 of the game.
That leaves me to pursue my economy and cheesy colonization in the first part of the game, because thats all you can do. And I don't get to the second part, because I am frustrated and bored, which absolutely never happened with EUII. The game was simply made less dynamic by aiming at handicapping players who are probably quite good at playing the game, and possibly who were quite good at exploiting it. I definitely had more fun in my house rules 1.01 though, but since part of that fun was imagining that 1.02 would be even better, I am going to shelve Victoria for a while.
And for what its worth, I'm not a regular complainer. First time I haven't liked a patch (including EUI and EUII). Trying to figure out the numbers on that isn't going to work on either side. But I do think people are turning a blind eye if they don't admit more are unhappy with this patch than others...
