Is anyone else really disappointed with the way Vic3 is being developed?

[Secret Master]

Yet they focus their Expansions on Iberia and the Balkans... Why?

Why would a game set in this time frame want more stuff for the Balkans?

To be fair the Balkans & Austria really do need more focus

Yep.

There's a lot of weirdness in the Balkans when playing as Russia or Austria.

1) While discrimination is an issue for Austria, Italian possessions are more of a problem than the Balkans. We might fight off Italian rebels 50 times in a game, but meanwhile in the Balkans:

2) The current system for inviting GPs into plays on your side can be abused in the Balkans by either Austria or Russia due to how the AI prioritizes goals. For example, in my last four games as Austria, I kept slicing off parts of the Ottomans. As Austria, I usually ended up with Bosnia, Albania, and Montenegro directly annexed to the empire while Serbia, Wallachia, Moldavia (or Romania), and Bulgaria are all subjects. And what did Russia have to say about this? Nothing, because I kept inviting them in for war goals. They sometimes ask for Kars, but most of the time I can get them in for humiliate (before they fail the journal entry), reparations, or regime change. Yes, Russia is technically getting something every time we join together like a hideous Germano-Slavic Voltron to fight the Ottomans, but are they really getting anything worthwhile? No, and they are more than happy with the table scraps I give them.

3) Sometimes Greece and Serbia simply don't want their Ottoman cores. So, the Russians will fight a war on the scale of the Crimean War to get lousy Ottoman War reparations, but Greece is like "Nah, we're good. Who needs cores anyway?"

I will say this: the British do often want to support the Ottomans to oppose Russian and Austrian activities. I've had some lovely wars that really give that 1850s "attritional struggle in the Black Sea region" feel I want from the game at times. Although Britain prefers invading Narva, Karelia, or Venice, not Sevastapol. But that's what I would do if I were Britain, so I ain't even mad.

 

[RELee]

 

[Bisonmask]

This is a funny time for a post like this given how excited the community generally is for the changes coming in the immediate future

I definitely was disappointed with how the game was developed at launch and maybe for a year after but they've consistently stuck to improving core features for free and the dlc we've gotten (barring how gamey spheres are) has been pretty good

I don't think people should stop voicing disagreement with the trajectory of the game but I personally think things are going great right now

 

[Kabian]

I will just say, gatelocking Carlism (which was The Defining situation for the Spanish empire and it lasted for 100 years) behind a paid DLC is extremely worrying.

To me, its the same as if they gatelocked other extremely importants like: "Queen Victoria", "World war 2", "the Brother wars" or the "American civil war" behind a paid dlc.

Oh you havent paid the dlc? well then the historial simulation game you have bought at full price wont have the american revolution because ???

 

[Danny5072]

I'd have agreed a few years back, Vic3 seemed like another half-baked flop release and everyone anticipated it to be another Imperator (in the sense, it just dies early), and my personal anticipation was that EU5 is then developed as an all-encompassing grand strategy easily extendable into different historical eras, making a standalone Victoria title obsolete.

But the devs are clearly hanging onto Vic3. (Even though I'm not sure it's even sensible commercially.) Unlike CK3 and HOI4 it is still getting updates and reworks on its major mechanics. In my opinion Vic3, among all currently active Paradox titles, is the best developed on following accounts:
1) the presence of sound underlying mechanics (even if they are flawed occasionally) and overall simulational approach where nation-specific content is secondary and actually ignorable in a playthrough - as opposed to 'national flavor' based development approach which bandaids underdeveloped aspects of games
2) DLCs actually work as DLCs, in the sense that they give mechanical extensions to the game that are in fact optional. Vic3 DLCs don't gatekeep basic functionalities of the game and also don't consist of 'focus trees' or some other bullshit; Vic3 right now is the only truly playable base game. There is even a case for deliberately turning off Sphere of Influence.

As a Vic3 hater I'm impressed and some of my negative opinions have turned around over time. Vic3 development is NOT perfect by any means but (alongside Stellaris) it should be considered a better of the bunch (even if Vic3 as a game is still rough in some particular areas). Just compare that to HOI4, it hasn't received a notable mechanical rework since NSB (so, in 4 years) and I can't remember a single instance during HOI4's development where community feedback would be collected in a way that's remotely similar to what Vic3 had just recently.

 

[Nitros14]

This game is economy focused like HOI4 is World War 2 focused. Of course it's always going to get the lion's share of development time.

 

[Goodfortune99]

I'd have agreed a few years back, Vic3 seemed like another half-baked flop release and everyone anticipated it to be another Imperator (in the sense, it just dies early), and my personal anticipation was that EU5 is then developed as an all-encompassing grand strategy easily extendable into different historical eras, making a standalone Victoria title obsolete.

But the devs are clearly hanging onto Vic3. (Even though I'm not sure it's even sensible commercially.) Unlike CK3 and HOI4 it is still getting updates and reworks on its major mechanics. In my opinion Vic3, among all currently active Paradox titles, is the best developed on following accounts:
1) the presence of sound underlying mechanics (even if they are flawed occasionally) and overall simulational approach where nation-specific content is secondary and actually ignorable in a playthrough - as opposed to 'national flavor' based development approach which bandaids underdeveloped aspects of games
2) DLCs actually work as DLCs, in the sense that they give mechanical extensions to the game that are in fact optional. Vic3 DLCs don't gatekeep basic functionalities of the game and also don't consist of 'focus trees' or some other bullshit; Vic3 right now is the only truly playable base game. There is even a case for deliberately turning off Sphere of Influence.

As a Vic3 hater I'm impressed and some of my negative opinions have turned around over time. Vic3 development is NOT perfect by any means but (alongside Stellaris) it should be considered a better of the bunch (even if Vic3 as a game is still rough in some particular areas). Just compare that to HOI4, it hasn't received a notable mechanical rework since NSB (so, in 4 years) and I can't remember a single instance during HOI4's development where community feedback would be collected in a way that's remotely similar to what Vic3 had just recently.

I mostly agree with you. I do think that the development of the base game has been exemplary. Redoing and fixing major systems is what the game needs and the devs deliver. They've listened to feedback and delivered, among other things, the autonomous investment system, a much improved discrimination system, and much more. I love these changes and I'm really keen to see the changes to trade, because I hate micromanaging trade routes. Focus on the gist of the game, the politics and the industries.

I do think that the narrative DLC content has largely missed its mark, though. Some DLC content is great, like the power blocs, don't get me wrong, but the flavor content is a little meh. It covers a very small chunk of the Vicky world and by next year, will still not have covered much of the world. Its scope is also quite limited and linear, which is at odds with how much freedom the game gives you to reshape your nation. This content doesn't adapt well to it. There's also a lack of general flavor across all of the nations: we need more content like that.

 

[Troyen]

Old paradox from ck2 and early eu4 would be releasing at least quarterly patches to fix and adjust things like this, between major releases. I have no idea why they’ve stopped doing this.
It’s by far the most likely reason I stop buying paradox games in the future. If I can’t trust the releases to be worked on in a timely manner, why would I ever buy new?

Most of the teams have been doing quarterly releases for a few years now. It became an issue in 2024 with both Vic 3 and Stellaris having either the Q1 or Q3 patches get rushed, partly because the calendar year squeezes those quarters out (winter holidays in Dec-Jan and summer in July-August). Both teams opted to forgo the Q1 release this year in an attempt to make a bigger Q2 release, and we'll see how that goes.

No idea why they didn't do a 1.8.7 though. Having your new DLC content be broken for several months is kind of embarrassing, especially since it seems like a minor scripting fix.

 

[Kyoumen]

I will just say, gatelocking Carlism (which was The Defining situation for the Spanish empire and it lasted for 100 years) behind a paid DLC is extremely worrying.

To me, its the same as if they gatelocked other extremely importants like: "Queen Victoria", "World war 2", "the Brother wars" or the "American civil war" behind a paid dlc.

Oh you havent paid the dlc? well then the historial simulation game you have bought at full price wont have the american revolution because ???

Almost 100% certainly the Carlist Wars will be in the game whether you have the DLC or not.

What will be in the DLC is bespoke mechanics and situations for deeper interacton with them, and a way to get more fleshed-out outcomes and bonuses, along with more historical figures.

 

[praftd]

I would prefer
1) a faster pace in development
2) better QA results
3) a significantly more simulatorist approach to game design

I disagree with the devs on priorities, clearly and heavily.

I wouldn’t word it as being “really disappointed” though.

Literally all of those conflict with eachother. Better QA? Okay, development will be slower and the more complex the simulation, the slower the development.

 

[Amina144]

Most of the teams have been doing quarterly releases for a few years now. It became an issue in 2024 with both Vic 3 and Stellaris having either the Q1 or Q3 patches get rushed, partly because the calendar year squeezes those quarters out (winter holidays in Dec-Jan and summer in July-August). Both teams opted to forgo the Q1 release this year in an attempt to make a bigger Q2 release, and we'll see how that goes.

No idea why they didn't do a 1.8.7 though. Having your new DLC content be broken for several months is kind of embarrassing, especially since it seems like a minor scripting fix.

What I couldn't stand is how Companies barely functioned for almost a year. Too many instances where the company just wouldn't buy building slots no matter what you did. It either doesn't buy em, or buys out entire sector immediately.

 

[yurcick]

Literally all of those conflict with eachother. Better QA? Okay, development will be slower and the more complex the simulation, the slower the development.

Not "literally all of them". A clear argument can be made that faster development and better QA contradict each other, and we've had this argument instantly in this thread.
tl;dr my position is that while this is true under fixed total resources and fixed efficiency of their usage, none of that is a given

The third point is not something directly competing with the speed or QA quality though.
When I'm talking about "simulatorist approach", I'm not necessarily talking about simulation complexity.
Rather that some things actually introduced to the game were
a) too arcadey, conjuring massive bonuses out of thin air, unfitting V3
b) or that some allow the player to do too much of what shouldn't be in control of a nation actor, destroying what is or should be an underlying mechanism or making it irrelevant

Examples of the former are

• power blocs (where of all they do I'd only leave the leverage mechanics and a couple of actually fitting things like common market or joint tariff policy; everything else needs to be reworked from scratch, and the guy who thought that local infra increase is a good bloc effect should be reprimanded)
• companies, especially the way they were pre-1.8 (but I'm still in no way happy with where they are)

Examples of the latter are

• activist promotion
• custom "increase west coast immigration attraction" buttons
• enforced radicalisation of Austrian Italians

Yes, alternative approach would be to create this "underlying mechanism" where it doesn't exist yet, which again makes this a resource problem, competing with better QA and faster development. But sometimes the mechanism does exist and I merely wish it to not be supplanted with local flavour, and anyway this is a point on priorities and whether something this unfinished should be prioritised. I would rather not have something in 2024 than have it done the way that harms the game (in my vision on what's harmful, of course).