Is there anyone who still doesn't realize that victoria3 has failed?

[condythug]

of course Vic 3 is a failure. anyone can see it apart from the fanboys who can't see the flaws of the game. it is expensive, incomplete after more than 2 years and reeks of desperation with the selling of minor addons.

Paradox should learn from CD Red and make 1 or 2 GREAT games and expand from those instead of making multiple trash games hoping that some shit will stick.

 

[Nnorm]

Maybe I can be hopefully sort of impartial on this, since I went from a loving, then critic and then fan of this game lol.

Victoria 3 I think everyone can agree was released too early and suffered as a result, it wasn’t a good game and u could make a case that it failed. But it has definitely improved in leaps and bounds in that time that it is definitely a good game, and certainly not a “failed” one. I am approaching my 1000th hour with it, and adding mods like the Better Politics mod which adds Parliaments etc, it’s an amazing game.

However, Im worried that the time it will take to get Vic 3 fully fleshed out tho is going to be really long. This year we are only going to get one big mechanics pack when it needs 2 or even 3. I don’t like Paradox’s immersion packs, which is just basic journal entries which modders can better do. More mechanics packs rather than immersion packs that add little other than journal entries are desperately needed, and more of them too.

TLDR: Vic 3 is a good, even a great game adding mods, but it needs more mechanics to come to keep it a good/great game.

Even if it was in development for another 3 years it would flop anyway, because trade, economy, warfare and diplomacy designs were bad at the fundamental levels. Thanks to constant bragging of our "haters" things very very slowly change, and they have to redesign almost all of the game but it is still to little and to late.

of course Vic 3 is a failure. anyone can see it apart from the fanboys who can't see the flaws of the game. it is expensive, incomplete after more than 2 years and reeks of desperation with the selling of minor addons.

Paradox should learn from CD Red and make 1 or 2 GREAT games and expand from those instead of making multiple trash games hoping that some shit will stick.

PDX absolutely burn trought their reputation with stunts like these with half-baked, expensive DLCs and slow and very often buggy, poorly tought-out updates.

PS Just recently we've got a massive, free update to Worldbox, super super niche indie game and it brought 10k people to play it. Let this give someone something to think about.

 

[tobbe628]

I do think Paradox have focused too much on limiting Mechanics in Victoria 3.

The Research, it is impossible to catch up as a illiterate nation.
Conquest, No matter where you expand into, GB is gonna side with the other nation to fuck you up.
Military, Heavily tied to Research where you cannot skill your way from a losing position to a winning one.
This just makes the player feel limited and limitations are rarely fun.

 

[filip133]

I haven't bought any DLC for this game. I just have apathy. This isn't a sequel to Victoria 2. It's Anno 1800 with more steps. Gilded Destiny is my ideal replacement.

In Anno you don't have to constantly check if your people will start getting hired or if the new building will be empty for few months xD

 

[Hopciu]

I do think Paradox have focused too much on limiting Mechanics in Victoria 3.

The Research, it is impossible to catch up as a illiterate nation.
Conquest, No matter where you expand into, GB is gonna side with the other nation to fuck you up.
Military, Heavily tied to Research where you cannot skill your way from a losing position to a winning one.
This just makes the player feel limited and limitations are rarely fun.

Funny thing - for me all of these you mentioned are things, that make Vic3 more fun, and more challenging. It's good, that there are limitations, and that player can't dominate the entire game through skill (or rateher AI's lack of skill) alone. It's nice and refreshing, compared to other PDX GSGs, like CK3, where going from Count/Landless to Emperor in one generation is no big deal.

Illiterate nations SHOULD be almost impossible to catch up in Research. Look at the most famous example of "catching up" in the timeframe - Meiji Restoration. It required total reform of contemporary feudal social order, immense education ivestment, obtaining lot of foreign technology (through sending own students to study abroad, or inviting foreign scholars), while also being strong enough to not let GPs abuse them. Not an easy task. And we're talking about relatively literate Japan, with strong demographic powerbase, and good defensive position.

Conquest, for me, still isn't limited enough. GB is going to side with another nation, just because they can. Because why would they want some other country to grow in power, to potentially threaten their domination in the future? GPs should generally want to keep power balance across the world, and that's what they historically did, as it assured their dominance. Keeping player's emerging power from growing is what XIX century powers would rationally do, and what you, as a player, would probably do, too. There's no reason, why should AI GPs take it easy on you.

Your last point was about military. Not letting you "skill your way from a losing position to a winning one" is one of the best decisions Devs made about warfare, as "skilling your way from losing position to winning one" in other PDX GSGs means abusing dumb AI's lack of knowledge of army composition meta, or tricking it into attacking you in mountains. Unfortunately, Devs still failed with their implementation of strategic-level war, and we're left with current micromanagemt hell in place of proper warfare.

 

[Amina144]

Funny thing - for me all of these you mentioned are things, that make Vic3 more fun, and more challenging. It's good, that there are limitations, and that player can't dominate the entire game through skill (or rateher AI's lack of skill) alone. It's nice and refreshing, compared to other PDX GSGs, like CK3, where going from Count/Landless to Emperor in one generation is no big deal.

Illiterate nations SHOULD be almost impossible to catch up in Research. Look at the most famous example of "catching up" in the timeframe - Meiji Restoration. It required total reform of contemporary feudal social order, immense education ivestment, obtaining lot of foreign technology (through sending own students to study abroad, or inviting foreign scholars), while also being strong enough to not let GPs abuse them. Not an easy task. And we're talking about relatively literate Japan, with strong demographic powerbase, and good defensive position.

Conquest, for me, still isn't limited enough. GB is going to side with another nation, just because they can. Because why would they want some other country to grow in power, to potentially threaten their domination in the future? GPs should generally want to keep power balance across the world, and that's what they historically did, as it assured their dominance. Keeping player's emerging power from growing is what XIX century powers would rationally do, and what you, as a player, would probably do, too. There's no reason, why should AI GPs take it easy on you.

Your last point was about military. Not letting you "skill your way from a losing position to a winning one" is one of the best decisions Devs made about warfare, as "skilling your way from losing position to winning one" in other PDX GSGs means abusing dumb AI's lack of knowledge of army composition meta, or tricking it into attacking you in mountains. Unfortunately, Devs still failed with their implementation of strategic-level war, and we're left with current micromanagemt hell in place of proper warfare.

Yet devs still implemented the unit composition system that created issues in other PDX games. And now we have to deal with unfun finicky system on managing and expanding your military. While AI makes most questionable army stack compositions. This why some players are not really confident with the updates.

 

[Hopciu]

Yet devs still implemented the unit composition system that created issues in other PDX games. And now we have to deal with unfun finicky system on managing and expanding your military. While AI makes most questionable army stack compositions. This why some players are not really confident with the updates.

Exactly. To me, it's one of two worst, most unnecessary updates the Devs made (other one being Power Blocs), that make me question their decisionmaking. The unit types came along warfare patch, that generally fixed numerous bugs and was well received, but fragmenting basic Division into 3 different subtypes was definitely wrong. I can't really comprehend, how could Devs assume it's a good idea. The only thing that comes to my mind, is that they wanted to monetize it, with various "unique" unit types being parts of paid DLCs. Like, making "special" Needle Gunner Infantry, with better Attack stat than normal Skirmish Infantry, available only for owners of Prussia-focused DLC, or Cossacks as better Lancers, that come with Russia-focused DLC, or some Camel Cavalry with bonus in deserts available for North African Tags with DLC that focuses on the region, etc.

I do hope, that no such thing will ever be implemented, and that the Devs will refrain from their mistake, and bring back plain, old, basic Division, with Cavalry and Artillery represented with PMs/Mobilization Options.

 

[Secret Master]

Conquest, No matter where you expand into, GB is gonna side with the other nation to fuck you up.

Not even remotely true. I spend plenty of time expanding without the British interfering. You just have to pick your times and places carefully.

Bonus points:

The British can't side against you if you are their friend and you make them an offer to join your side instead.
That's more or less the cornerstone of my Chinese foreign policy. Make nice with Britain, never ban opium, and then ask Britain if they'd like to do things such as attack Russia. You'd be amazed at how often they will say yes.

 

[Delterius]

and then ask Britain if they'd like to do things such as attack Russia. You'd be amazed at how often they will say yes.

This could be a quote from some diplomat at the time.

 

[Secret Master]

This could be a quote from some diplomat at the time.

Even works with political cartoons of the time with only minor changes.

 

[47pik]

Not even remotely true. I spend plenty of time expanding without the British interfering. You just have to pick your times and places carefully.

Bonus points:

The British can't side against you if you are their friend and you make them an offer to join your side instead.
That's more or less the cornerstone of my Chinese foreign policy. Make nice with Britain, never ban opium, and then ask Britain if they'd like to do things such as attack Russia. You'd be amazed at how often they will say yes.

Big agree with everything here. I think a lot of players who say stuff like that simply don’t want to engage with the game or great power politics. I’m not sure what it is that they do want when I hear this complaint - probably just some nonsense blobbing game.

Here’s to hoping GB continues to be a real threat to smaller nations.

 

[Bisonmask]

Starting to view these threads like those "China is Collapsing !!!!" youtube videos. The game keeps getting better and the narrative never changes

 

[Sietrin]

Starting to view these threads like those "China is Collapsing !!!!" youtube videos. The game keeps getting better and the narrative never changes

If we werent here whining about how atrocious the state of the game is we wouldnt even have autonomous trade by now because it wasnt even planned to make it

 

[Armillus Dynat]

If we werent here whining about how atrocious the state of the game is we wouldnt even have autonomous trade by now because it wasnt even planned to make it

Respectfully I think there is a difference between being eager to see new features added and seemingly wanting the game to fail. It seems like a lot of people have a lot of really good ideas for the game and are very passionate to see it expand. However obviously not everything can happen at once and people calling the game a failure doesn't seem justified.

Paradox has a good track record of supporting its games for years. There are some exceptions, Imperator being first among them, however I trust paradox and the devs to continue to expand on what they've created, and I'll happily continue to support the game while it grows. There is a lot I'd like to see brought to the game, but it is still a very unique game as it stands that does things that not many other games do. I don't think its a failure.

 

[47pik]

If we werent here whining about how atrocious the state of the game is we wouldnt even have autonomous trade by now because it wasnt even planned to make it

There’s a difference between providing meaningful analysis and criticism of the game providing feedback on its systems and mechanics versus “dis gaem iz FAILURE cause y I no move shoot men on da map!!!?1” topics.

It’s not whining when the criticism is meaningful, structured, and thought out. I and plenty of others who love the game have written such topics. In particular, I have previously written a rather extensive (and scathing) one on my issues with the colonization mechanics that the devs responded to, and went on to meaningfully address in subsequent patches, and while some of my criticism is still valid, some of it really is solved now.

There’s a lot of people who don’t seem interested in actually delving into how, why and where the game is flawed though - they just want to say it sucks and is failing because of some superficial reason or another. These topics aren’t productive, they’re just reactionary whining that bring nothing new to the table and don’t open up any interesting discussion.

 

[Troyen]

I meant preventive in the sense of not waiting for the game to turn into a complete mess. 1-2 years of development like that and I expect HoI4 to start falling apart with all the bugs and lots of disunited systems

The custodians weren't exactly preventative. Yeah, they've done some great work since their introduction, but that was well after years on the entire 2.X patch cycle where the game was a broken mess and the AI barely non-functional. Stellaris's reputation was not very good in early 2021, with the negativity peaking around Nemesis's release before the initiative was announced.

 

[Ranamar]

Not even remotely true. I spend plenty of time expanding without the British interfering. You just have to pick your times and places carefully.

Bonus points:

The British can't side against you if you are their friend and you make them an offer to join your side instead.
That's more or less the cornerstone of my Chinese foreign policy. Make nice with Britain, never ban opium, and then ask Britain if they'd like to do things such as attack Russia. You'd be amazed at how often they will say yes.

Similarly, albeit with different parties playing, there's the time I achieved Manifest Mexico because I befriended Russia, they somehow decided to guarantee my independence, and then I, well, borrowed the Russian army to fight the American one something like three times in a row.

And playing as Persia is 100% the art of finding ways to maneuver GB and Russia into sticky situations, my favorite of which was when I baited a GB vassal into supporting a war, which meant I could claim a needed territory off it without having to fight GB, who I actually had an alliance with at the time. (Admittedly, that one came just as much as a surprise to me as the Mexico guarantee independence treaty.) Sadly, I just barely missed the Persia-specific achievement because I was a little short in the literacy department.

 

[Sietrin]

Respectfully I think there is a difference between being eager to see new features added and seemingly wanting the game to fail. It seems like a lot of people have a lot of really good ideas for the game and are very passionate to see it expand. However obviously not everything can happen at once and people calling the game a failure doesn't seem justified.

Paradox has a good track record of supporting its games for years. There are some exceptions, Imperator being first among them, however I trust paradox and the devs to continue to expand on what they've created, and I'll happily continue to support the game while it grows. There is a lot I'd like to see brought to the game, but it is still a very unique game as it stands that does things that not many other games do. I don't think its a failure.

As I pointed out earlier, the design paradigm for Victroia 3 has changed, the PDX were going to make a completly different game and changed their plans only because of our endless criticism. We weren't going to have autonomous investments, the game wasnt supposed to be a simulation but a kind of country builder

 

[inVit]

There’s a difference between providing meaningful analysis and criticism of the game providing feedback on its systems and mechanics versus “dis gaem iz FAILURE cause y I no move shoot men on da map!!!?1” topics.

It’s not whining when the criticism is meaningful, structured, and thought out. I and plenty of others who love the game have written such topics. In particular, I have previously written a rather extensive (and scathing) one on my issues with the colonization mechanics that the devs responded to, and went on to meaningfully address in subsequent patches, and while some of my criticism is still valid, some of it really is solved now.

There’s a lot of people who don’t seem interested in actually delving into how, why and where the game is flawed though - they just want to say it sucks and is failing because of some superficial reason or another. These topics aren’t productive, they’re just reactionary whining that bring nothing new to the table and don’t open up any interesting discussion.

Exactly! Many people enter and read the forum out of concern. Just look at the calendar and the amount of improvements to notice that PDX reduces support for V3. I would like PDX to put more effort into repairing V3. I do not think that nice words and praise made it to happen.
Only an expression of customer dissatisfaction can do this.

 

[Superdark33]

Every other week theres a thread popping up with too much text that boils down to either "i lost and i took it extremely personally", "my power fantasy isnt catered to therefore no one else enjoys this game" or "my favoueite country didnt get a flavor pack yet and im gonna be sour grapes about it."

Even at its worst, this game has been incredibly good and im glad that paradox keeps development on it going contrary tp the wishes of the weirdly persostant group that keeps trying to relitigate the same laundered arguements and player retention graphs.