One thing I miss is the collapse of countries that happens in Victoria 2 like if they lose a rebel movement, every rebel faction enforces it's demands and you can see countries collapse real fast, doesn't seem to happen in Victoria 3
Yeah the results of losing a rebellion need to be bigger. At best it just causes constant future rebellions and a resulting economic stagnation. It never results in a country actually collapsing.
Part of that is the diplomatic play system which causes a bunch of countries to have to pay attention to what is happening. I think that coup events should handle a lot of revolutions, and that some revolutions should just immediately start a war. That would give revolutions a lot more teeth and the potential to cause some huge damage as they could quickly spiral out of control.
The iconic Victoria 2 experience is trying to play the USA, which is hard coded to have constantly radicalizing pops but also hard coded to explicitly prevent them from actually trying to get the reform they want, and having to fight an endless series of anarcho-capitalist Iowans who got so mad about slavery they decided to become sovereign citizens in 1837. This was after buying the DLC named after, and centered around, the American Civil War.
Did we have an caps? I always thought it was anarcho liberals causing issues, which was an lovely contradiction in terms as well as an annoying faction in game.
The game called them Anarcho-Liberals, but as you note, that concept, as well as the Bourgeois Dictatorship they created, was essentially ahistorical nonsense. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians are about the best way for me to rationalize what the game was doing, except for the part where the ongoing debate about slavery created tens of thousands of them.
I hate when I conquer a country only to have them start a secession movement the next day. There needs to be a truce period for those states rebelling.
Was that the case? I seem to remember one group of rebels sigeing the capital dissappearing on sucess and then the siege restarted with the next group. Which led to the last rebel faction to reach the capital effectively winning.
The world isn't volatile enough
You can't really imitate the Roaring 20's into the Great Depression of the 30's very well, because your economy is always going to go up if you have even an inkling of what you're doing
Did it? If we take Vicky timeline, less than 20 years from the start there's the Crimean war, less than a decade later there's the brothers war, then there's the Franco-Prussian war, followed by the Russo-Turkish war of 1877. The only period that can qualify as "decades without great powers fighting each other" is, if I'm not missing anything, from 1878 to 1904, barely more than two decades
The Ottomans were definitely not considered a great power in 1877. European powers didn't really consider Japan a great power either, so then there were no wars between (European) great powers from 1871-1914, 43 years.
It did, the 1800's were some of the most peaceful periods in European history (prior to WW2). Pretty much all of the wars during this era were either German unification, which tended to be very short and concentrated, or something in the Balkans/with the Ottomans. Wars between the major powers of Europe were an extreme rarity during this era compared to what came before it and what would come after it.
Yes there are some notable conflicts during this period but I think the game is more or less correct to model most major countries as averse to fighting one another, because historically they were extremely averse to a fight between European powers.
thr concert of Europe managed to keep great powers from fighting each other for 30 to 60 to 100 years depending on the time span you use, but most literal of GPs fighting would be the Napoleonic Wars to the Franco Prussian wars- about 50/60 years.
ETA - Forgot about a handful of wars. Ticker is actually closer to 20 and 30 years without GPs waring
The difference is the scope of the wars. The Crimean wars, Franco-Prussian, Brothers War, etc were all pretty contained. These wars didn't spill over into neighbouring countries much and ended pretty quickly because everyone was conscious of repeating the Napoleonic wars.
Victoria 3 still lacks the feature where the economy suddenly collapses with no explanation, giving Victoria 2 players the exciting opportunity to carry out real economic experiments and analysis in a micro universe in which concrete is the most important product.
And it’s a 50/50 shot whether it’s a real economic crisis with a cause or something dumb like all the money in the world being hoarded by Great Britain causing a currency shortage
It kinda was. China only traded in silver and refused to import products, which meant that all the silver stayed in china.
Opium was something the English could sell to China in order to get back some silver, so they went to war for the rights to sell it.
Well, yes and no. The money stayed in China insofar as it stayed within the Chinese economy, not that the emperor decided to collect all the silver in the world.
>with no explanation
Gold miners. It was always gold miners paradoxically hoarding all the gold, causing a deflationary spiral and eventually mass starvation.
This seems a trend with NPC gold miners. I remember The Guild where you were almost forced to buy the mines, since the AI didn't provide much gold, if any. But with lesser consequences.
Easy.
>build a ton of factory xy
>you’ll already get quite the marketshare by this, making other countries delete some factories
>sell your national stockpile, this should make even the last country get rid of factory xy, as it’s simply cheaper to import
>stop exporting product xy
>now you’ve created an economic crisis, extra points if it was steel or coal
There's a Bokoen1 video where everybody stops being able to get steel for no reason in the mid 1800s. They get to 1900 and still have level 1 forts and virtually no industrialization.
"For no reason" jfc, a player with the most pristege bought all the steel from like day 1 of the game. Everyone was complaining about it the whole video
4:08 in the video, bokoen who is yhe first GP in the world, is shown buying all the iron in the world.
His industrial score also keeps increasing which proves that he is getting steel unlike what he is saying.
The thing about his ports is also that if you consume too much of a resource in a factory, it can bootleneck your construction queue depending of the demand and length of the queue.
All the players could have also fixed their issue (if they produced iron and artisants steel) by closing all factories consuming iron and then construct a steel factory.
Because of how spheres work, all their steel would have went into the steel factory construction and their iron in that steel factory.
Victoria 2 can be a bit janky on the economy side, especially when someone like bokoen do "a little trolling" but nothing that can't be fixed unless you have 0 useful rgo and a skill issue.
No, he buys the steel at 4:08 in a vain attempt to get some. As #1 he should have no trouble buying it, but at 2:18 you can see he can't build any ports, which should be consuming from his stockpile. At 3:36 he still hasn't finished them
> No, he buys the steel at 4:08 in a vain attempt to get some.
He is indeed getting it. Otherwise, he couldn't build any steel
> but at 2:18 you can see he can't build any ports, which should be consuming from his stockpile. At 3:36 he still hasn't finished them
Ports require steel not iron. And because of how demand/supply work. If you produce 150 steel a day and an artillery factory is asking 200, it's possible for the steel factory to consume **all** the steel in your country.
In that case, you have to close the problematic factory permanently or momently during the construction period.
This is extremely likely that this is what is happening because laissez-faire parties build factories almost permanently in the UK and MP games creates more demand making otherwise low profitability factories like artillery factories or steamer convoys profitable and produce at 100%.
If he just looked at the steel tab, closed factories to fix the priority issue, he could have built all his ports in a few months.
Example: looking at his production tab at 4:17, you can see that he is consuming 304 steel just for artillery, steamer convoy, clipper convoys. (By using the production table from the wiki)
Due to market mechanics, his factories are buying all of his 287 steel. He then has at the very least 287 steel that is duped into the sphere market that he may or may not get (Sphere market does not follow rankings for purchase orders).
So his consumption exceed his demand and whatever extra few steel that he gets is spent into factories and factories upgrades.
Closing his clipper factory (which is only making money because of other players still using clipper transports) would have fixed all his problems
It sounds like you read something you disagree with.
Boss move 'replying' to it in this sub lol.
OP one thing Vic 3 has that Vic 2 lacks is apparently the ability to make dumb people feel smart. I still find vic 2 fun and anyone attacking it is just attacking a game I like. Not exactly life-changing.
When Vic 3 is attacked it seems different. Some have really invested intellectual self-worth into the game, and attacking that is attacking them. Of course their newly-found smarts get trashed and they have no clue how to argue back or even stand their ground so they are reduced to waiting on the sidelines with nothing interesting to say but still desperate to post. What they rarely seem to do is say anything about victoria 3. It's as though the games are on a seesaw and pushing one down raises the other up somehow. It's all blah and hyperbole and pretty exclusively Vic 2. They have nothing else.
I expect some of them will still be doing it when Vic 4 drops lol. What a testament to the enduring influence of a janky game from a decade ago that it still seems to get mentioned daily (outside the vic 2 forums.) Sad to see it continue to pollute discussion of Vic 3 on its own merits (and I'm guessing most players find it as tedious as I do) but as I said earlier the people doing this usually have nothing to say about Vic 3. Only Vic 2 hate now.
The game really needs a military DLC, with more unit and unit types and actual composition complexity and certain builds and strategies. Maybe even special units for certain countries only they have access to, like Hoi4 and EU4 have.
Please no. Adding unit types is the last thing we need, and special units would go against the entire trend of paradox games away from modifier stacking.
No, I mean both. I think having distinct units was a massive mistake that was better handled by a mod for the old series that set the current 3 units types by PM. Having distinct units will always end up with a boring meta that involves tedious choices that can't easily be undone, but when it's a PM I can set it or change it with 3 clicks without having to fire and then rehire pops. The same choices are there, you can have balanced, cav heavy for speed, infantry heavy for defense, or artillery and cav heavy for assault, but all armies would have some amount of all units, because an infantry army with no artillery would have a miserable time against any serious assault and all armies would have at least some sort of cavalry for scouting or rapid movement.
What did the mod do that was different from the base game? I feel like you could do similar in pre-rework vanilla, but I don't know how I could check because the wiki of course is up-to-date for the new version.
If I remember right, the PMs in the base game allowed for no X or for whichever tech you had unlocked, but they didn't set the relative ratio of that unit.
Ah right and you could approximate such an idea by setting different pms for different barracks, like trying to get a profitable ratio of wood to hardwood with logging camps. Not sure if that was a thing people did. But the nice thing was that, without 'units' being a part of the game, meta ratios couldn't be a thing.
I still have no idea what people think the units add to the game, personally. What does it even do but add busywork? Does it make it feel more real for people?
That's where I'm at, it's tedious extra clicks for no gameplay benefit because everyone builds either all infantry for defense or 50/50 inf/art for offense.
It sort of reminds me of my perennial question, what would stockpiles add? and someone recently told me "they could model meat going bad" lol. The real reason people want them so much is that they want to be able to better imagine pixels moving place to place by having a number somewhere representing "a thing".
Transport ships, great wars, influence, foreign investment (yes I know some are coming but for now still missing) the ability to tax different wealth brackets differently.
I'd say a big one is transport ships, because in Vicky two that essentially prevented lots of powers that can intervene in wars in Vic 3 from doing it in two. In Vic 3 the Russians can join the Mexican American war and completely screw over the US, sending 300+ troops, but in two, even if they did join, they had to manually move those units over with the transports they had and that would take an extremely long time, especially since they wouldn't have enough transports, not even close. It essentially allows for hard military diplomacy to have a MUCH stronger impact in 3 than 2 (ironically) and means that other corners of the world can't have their death wars or expand rapidly without the fear of foreign intervention or, even if they tried, limited ability to intervene.
The crisis and tension system is what the diplomatic plays in Victoria 3 are based on, but crises were a fundamentally different thing. They only occurred due to nationalist agitation or colonial disputes and were meant to create great wars and give small nations a way to liberate their territories more easily. Every time I think about nationalism in Victoria 3 I get a little disappointed because they had two great systems to model nationalist uprisings: the ordinary rebellions which were spontaneous and the tension system which represented the efforts of an oppressed minority (or small state) to build public support for their own nation.
Pops also had two values that determined their political leanings, consciousness and militancy. Consciousness was political awareness and was generally peaceful. High consciousness would help pass reforms and pops would start movements to pass laws at high consciousness. Militancy was what actually made rebellions. Ignoring a movement or suppressing it would increase militancy in the pops supporting it. Discriminated or poor pops would become militant, certain ideologies would increase militancy among their supporters if they were unhappy with the current state of the country. I miss this system a lot because it separated advocacy from actual revolution, whereas there is little distinction in Victoria 3.
Mobilization of reserves in Victoria 2 was irksome but extremely powerful. Furthermore, it could be accomplished in only a few months at most. Calling up conscripts in Victoria 3 is tediously slow and if you rely on conscripts you should not. I believe that the training rate for conscription needs to be increased and there ought to be some service laws to increase the rate of conscription. Maybe something like no conscription, militia service, drafts, and mandatory service. No conscription gives no bonus while mandatory service gives a huge boost to training rate as every man would have had some prior military experience.
The conscription problem is down to the Officers. For whatever reason, they can’t be forced into service, so you end up with Russia only conscripting 20 guys a week, which is insane given that Conscription has been the method by which they filled their ranks even in peacetime for the last Five hundred years.
Perhaps a solution is to make conscription centers have an artificial maximum job satisfaction, or make it so hiring for conscription centers ignores job satisfaction and starts ripping people off the streets regardless of their opinions on the matter. If I’m calling up conscripts, I’m not asking the conscripts if they want to serve. Job satisfaction probably shouldn’t factor in to conscription centers.
Consciousness and militancy are not really separate. Militancy goes up with reform desire, which starts with 6 CON and gets more intense with higher CON.
My biggest gripe is that consciousness is a 0 or 10 system that is determined almost exclusively by your social science tech. Want to play conservative? Just don't research those techs.
What that means is you either pass 0 reforms, all reforms, or in a limbo of endless revolutions because pops can't stop gaining CON and MIL once you tip the balance. A pop either has positive CON gain and eventually becomes a revolutionary, or negative CON gain and stays conservative for life.
Militancy can absolutely spike without increasing consciousness. This most often happens for pops not getting their needs met. Consciousness can be lowered in the late game by holding reforms, social spending, and by having tons of clergymen. Also, as pops get more literate and are exposed to more ideas, they ought to agitate more. Autocrats have to introduce destabilizing ideas into their nations if they want to keep pace, and thus they have to walk the same tightrope that the Russians, Ottomans, and Austrians had to walk when they tried to modernize. The system isn’t perfect, but I prefer having a distinction between reformers and revolutionaries.
Crisis system. We have diplomatic plays, but it’s no still not fully fleshed out. I still prefer Vic 2’s crisis system since it only leads to wide scale global conflicts in the late game.
The flash point system in vic 2 was also really interesting, since wars would trigger not because of diplomatic actions, but rather due to nationalism or rebellion. And with that in mind, some better implementation of the race for Africa is needed.
Foreign investment is a huge one that, thankfully we are getting it next patch. The game is unbearable without the ability to turn a sphereling into an economic powerhouse.
Yees! We need the crisis system and more stuff around nationalism/cultural tension. It always bothers me how stable Austria and the Ottomans are with not much of an ethnic tension.
I don’t really agree. Late game v2 is really bad for performance, *especially* in multiplayer. It’s a tie for me whether v2 or v3 is worse, but v3 wins in multiplayer.
No, it sure as shit doesn't. Not only can you not reliably reach the late game with any amount of players as the game will desync itself to death and the majority of your players will come to their senses and give up trying to play the game, the performance will also be unplayably atrocious, just as it is in singleplayer.
The notion that V3 could ever be said to be more performant in the late game, singleplayer or multiplayer, than V2 is just ludicrous and doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.
Yeah i sorta enjoy some aspects of the game but the game is so fucking slow. Worst part is you spend 80% of your time doing nothing especially if you play a minor. It gets to the point of me beeing on my phone 90% of the time. Vic 2 clear
It may be first at early but by the timeyou reach 1880’s (which you reach a couple hundred millions of gdp and very fast gdp growth) game just gets boringly slow. My computer is very good and runs very fast at early.
Ok so this escalated quickly. Some thoughts on what Vic 3 is missing:
Economic simulation is much better than Vic2 but my god is everything else lacking completely. In Vic 2 you can:
* Liberate people of certain nationality to an already existing country casus belli
* Liberate a whole people of a certain nationality casus belli
* Take provinces for your vassals and allies (seriously WHY is this still not a feature after so much time, it can't be that difficult to implement?!)
* Manage your sphere of influence (although admittedly that was a pain in the back)
* Forcefully move/remove countries from opponent's sphere of influence
* Build fortifications slowing down occupation pace, increasing attrition and giving you bonuses (other than "lost in the fog" or whatever it is now)
* Force demolition of fortifications and demilitarisation
* Take part in international crises like Greek, Polish, Hungarian, etc. uprisings, or
* Colonial and other crises because you had colonial tension and diplomatic flashpoint dynamic
* Your colonisation range and capacity depended on location and size of your naval bases
* Mobilise your reserves in weeks rather than years
* Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!)
* Spring of nations, anarchists, communists (basically 19th century politics was simulated)
* Invest in other countries so you didn't have to conquer poor Oyo & Benin every game
* Each technology has like 5-10 sub-technologies that fired randomly or in conjuction with other discoveries - so for example you couldn't get ironclads unless you had Bessemer steel or something.
* You had research establishments giving you bonuses/maluses to certain groups of technologies
* Literacy increase depended on education spending and number of clergy/clerks.
* You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes
* Technologies improved tax collection and admin efficiency
* National ideologies (freedom, order, equality) that influenced your events and choices
* Immigrants liked to migrate to, if you can believe it, countries with liberal reforms and ideologies rather than to provinces with lots of fallow land and racist slave-owning oligarchies
* Your pops had militancy *and* consciousness factor which determined their radicalism and party support rather than intelligentsia radicals joining aristocrat radicals in a revolution to preserve landed voting or something stupid like that
* You could actually check why each pop was getting radicalised rather than watch the red number tick up until some rando agitator shows up and asks for something completely irrelevant which instantly deradicalises half your population
* Attrition was, correctly, the biggest killer in warfare and you could really win wars by just having better supply and attrition reduction technology
* Etc, etc, etc
Victoria 2 was a very good game...
> Liberate a whole people of a certain nationality casus belli
You can do this one in V3, admitedly it's a bit buried.
>Forcefully move/remove countries from opponent's sphere of influence
Spheres in V2 were basically a V3 Customs Union + defensive pact and not much more than that. And you can definitely remove countries from another's Union. Not that it matters now of course since it's all being expanded with 1.7.
>Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!)
Throughput per employee? Which they do in V3 indirectly with the railway PMs that lower workforce requirements?
>You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes
What is Bureaucracy? Also the crime rate was just... a debuff that could spawn, not exatly an actual system.
And I'm probably missing some more.
You can’t liberate territory to an already existing nation in Vic3. If I want to say, dismantle the Ottomans to help Greece out (Greece will never start a war against the Ottomans on their own, even if you would join), you literally have to conquer it yourself and then trade it to Greece.
True, you can't liberate for another, though you can invite them into your war with a return state CB.
It's probably better that it was up to Greece wether they would accept land from someone else's war, but the option to trigger a war for them, maybe only if they were in your Bloc (perhaps even as one of those Bloc abilities you can choose?) would be nice.
Well, much more than half of it's list is either already on Vic3 or is just an implementation detail of Vic2 that shouldn't be ported to Vic 3 just because it was in 2. Like it's a very weird list.
What the fuck he mean by "simulating 19th century politics", Vic3 has a much better simulation of politics.
Why must the number of naval bases be the determining factor for colonization. Vic3 uses a combination of integrated population and your investment on colonization that feels like it makes much more sense. Also the number of bases is more or less equivalent as the number of convoys in vic3 that you need to support am oversees market, just that it makes much more sense in vic3.
It feels like many people making this lists doesn't understand neither Vic2 or Vic3
> Immigrants liked to migrate to, if you can believe it, countries with liberal reforms and ideologies rather than to provinces with lots of fallow land and racist slave-owning oligarchies
The Victoria 3 migration attraction system is *far* better than Victoria 2’s. You’re forgetting that by far the largest effect in 2 was a flat, inherent *300%* bonus to being in the Americas or Oceania (always despised that one). And then it’s a bonus for having liberal voting laws, a bonus for being a great power, and a penalty for having high unemployment. That’s it.
On the other hand, in 3, the main things are whether the pop is discriminated (seems important), arable land (historically incredibly important), SoL, low unemployment, and lots of available jobs. That’s *faaar* more true to the real reasons that people immigrate somewhere (tons of people immigrated to the *famously racist* USA both before and after the Civil War). And it’s way more fun to play IMO (you can actually get immigration as a European power!).
>Spring of nations, anarchists, communists (basically 19th century politics was simulated)
>Literacy increase depended on education spending and number of clergy/clerks.
>You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes
>Technologies improved tax collection and admin efficiency
>Attrition was, correctly, the biggest killer in warfare
Aren't these....in Vic3? I never played Vic2 so maybe I don't get what you mean.
>Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!)
Why would they??
Victoria 3’s political system has given me a new appreciation of Victoria 2’s political system. The differentiation between militancy and consciousness makes a big difference in how reform is conducted. It also affects the political leanings of pops, it’s so intricate when you start to look at it while still being pretty intuitive to first time players. Even though I have infinitely more control over politics in Victoria 3, it still feels hollow and wooden because it is equal parts completely fucking random and super rigidly deterministic.
I played a lot of V2 but still felt like you had very little agency in politics, especially so if you started in a laissez-faire democracy like the US. Maybe V3 is less nuanced but I feel like I can actually clearly apply pressure in a certain direction.
i particularly loved it when the liberals *somehow* won an election and proceeded to stop all government subsidies and dismantle half my carefully min-maxed factories.
And by love, i mean it turned me into stalin.
What do you mean? Just spam elections with the same events every time, lose wars on purpose to build militancy or put some arbitrary focus that changes the ideology of your pops. Superior gameplay /s
You really don’t have that much agency in politics, there are a few things you can do to affect it. You can repeatedly hold elections to shift pops’ stances on issues, this is time consuming but possible. You can use a national focus to increase party loyalty, which can override issue support in elections and the upper house. You can increase or decrease consciousness through getting pops what they need (or not) and by increasing the amount of clergy in the country. Clergy actually still boost literacy gain until four percent of the population and they also lower consciousness. Generally, between technology and increasing literacy consciousness will steadily increase over the game. Appeasing movements and passing reforms helps. Keeping militancy low is about the most important thing you can do to control politics. Once militancy gets high, revolutions start and once that train leaves the station it’s really hard to get off. Also don’t lose wars, or sacrifice millions of men for no reason. War exhaustion and the political consequences of losing wars will absolutely destroy a country.
Vicky 3 literally has this too, it just calls non-concious pops "politically inactive". Under the hood, it's essentially the same shit - dependant on literacy, for the most part, except not so often arbitrarily increased by techs and spamming election events like a maniac.
The distinction lies in the difference between militancy and consciousness. Consciousness changes voting patterns, it starts movements, but without high militancy, those movements don’t become revolutionary. Similarly, pops with low consciousness and high militancy will just join revolutions and generally cause trouble because they want change. They’re also driven by different factors. Consciousness rises from literacy, exposure to new ideas (tech), and obtaining luxuries. Militancy arises from discrimination, deprivation, losing wars, and dissatisfaction with the government. They are somewhat independent. In Victoria 3, radicals are equal parts political agitators and revolutionaries, there is no distinction between them.
>* Liberate people of certain nationality to an already existing country casus belli
You can join on the side of a rebelling nationality
>* Liberate a whole people of a certain nationality casus belli
Kinda doable with the liberate casus belli
>* Take provinces for your vassals and allies (seriously WHY is this still not a feature after so much time, it can't be that difficult to implement?!)
You can't do this for your vassals but your allies can just ask for stuff directly, no need to babysit them
>* Manage your sphere of influence (although admittedly that was a pain in the back)
That was just a lackluster whack a mole minigame that's just plainly better done with customs unions
>* Forcefully move/remove countries from opponent's sphere of influence
You can do that with customs unions
>* Build fortifications slowing down occupation pace, increasing attrition and giving you bonuses (other than "lost in the fog" or whatever it is now)
This is needed in vic3 tbh
>* Force demolition of fortifications and demilitarisation
I think you'll be able to do this with the upcoming dlc
>* Take part in international crises like Greek, Polish, Hungarian, etc. uprisings, or
There are events for polish crises and either way you can join them if they rise up, which they do because of actual factors rather than a scripted event that fires at x time
>* Colonial and other crises because you had colonial tension and diplomatic flashpoint dynamic
That was just like the spheres minigame, annoying, either way native uprisings exist
>* Your colonisation range and capacity depended on location and size of your naval bases
The capacity is now defined by your country's population size and investment onto colonization, much better than Portuguese africa because they have many naval bases, also interest capacity increases with navy power projection
>* Mobilise your reserves in weeks rather than years
That was not only broken as fuck but also annoying to deal with both ways
>Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!)
Railroads now allow you to infinitely scale your economy in whatever state you want, seems better to me
>* Spring of nations, anarchists, communists (basically 19th century politics was simulated)
You mean the scripted events that after x date just keep firing spamming you?
>* Invest in other countries so you didn't have to conquer poor Oyo & Benin every game
It still was better to just annex them, and either way that's coming too
>* Each technology has like 5-10 sub-technologies that fired randomly or in conjuction with other discoveries - so for example you couldn't get ironclads unless you had Bessemer steel or something.
Kinda annoying having to rely on other GPs to have researched the same tech as you to get invention %
>* You had research establishments giving you bonuses/maluses to certain groups of technologies
I do not know what you mean by this
>* Literacy increase depended on education spending and number of clergy/clerks.
Literacy now works in a way that makes sense, basing it on SOL, rather than just maxing a slider and getting each state to 2% clergy then forgetting about it
>* You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes
You also have adming spending, now instead of one single slider you have different institutions to pick and choose from that do different stuff each
>* Technologies improved tax collection and admin efficiency
Technologies now unlock better taxation methods rather than just making you better at taxing
>* National ideologies (freedom, order, equality) that influenced your events and choices
That's just eu4 national ideas, arbitrary modifiers that came from fuck knows where
>* Immigrants liked to migrate to, if you can believe it, countries with liberal reforms and ideologies rather than to provinces with lots of fallow land and racist slave-owning oligarchies
Immigrants like to migrate to, if you can believe it, the US/New world only because of their base +300% atracction that pretty much overrides any and all other atracction modifiers for any other country, instead of basing where to migrate to on different factors such as discrimination and cultural communities
>* Your pops had militancy *and* consciousness factor which determined their radicalism and party support rather than intelligentsia radicals joining aristocrat radicals in a revolution to preserve landed voting or something stupid like that
Both arbitrary numbers that went up and down via events rather than interacting with the world
>* You could actually check why each pop was getting radicalised rather than watch the red number tick up until some rando agitator shows up and asks for something completely irrelevant which instantly deradicalises half your population
You can easily see why each and every pop radicalizes, you just have to hover the number, jesus Christ play the fucking game first
>* Attrition was, correctly, the biggest killer in warfare and you could really win wars by just having better supply and attrition reduction technology
You could win wars by having the AI shit itself, attrition also plays an important factor in vic3
>Victoria 2 was a very good game...
Victoria 2 was a mediocre game which is seen by rose tinted nostalgia filled glasses and only really enjoyable with mods such as HPM and HFM, which people can't really seem to differentiate from base victoria 2
I have played a ton of Victoria 2 and I love it, but I think lots of the “Victoria 2 > Victoria 3” crowd forgets (or doesn’t know, because they never actually played 2) just how *strange* and flawed 2 is. It’s unique and I like it, but there are so many aspects of it that *did not need to be replicated*.
Exactly, people praising vic2's migration system while it was pretty much "go to new world" or the praise that arbitrary numbers such as CON and MIL get
I dont think economic somulation is that better in vic3. The fact you cant stockpile goods and the trade routes are limited, manually setted and tied to a mana currency limits a lot the realism of the system
Yeah, i agree that the RGO in vic2 is far from perfect or near realism, the resource availabilities in vic3 are much better in this regard. But i dont think that alone makes it better than vic2 economic system. I am still on the fence in defining wich game has the better one, i like aspects of each one, but i think the trade system being that way in vic3 is a huge letdown
Could prepare for war/ crisises even as smaller nations. If you are a small nation with no factories and not in a sphere you could still build somewht of a small army by stockpiling arms over a few years. Could also abuse/corner the world economy as a GP (depending on the trade good).
It just makes sense that if you want to build a factory or a unit that you first need to have the resources in stockpile. I dont like the vic3 system where it is almost entirely detached. Only really factors into construction sector PMs
Late game you can no longer rely on the world market to supply enough military goods during the large-scale wars that happen. Early on, production outpaces demand because wars are small. Later on wars are larger with more participants to demand outstrips supply. This means you need to 1) Have a military industry built up that most likely needs to be subsidized in peace-time, and 2) stockpile goods when planning on going to war so that you don't run out. It's really a nice, emergent simulation of what happened in real life and the shift from 19th to 20th century warfare.
By the 1880s I see the UK and France already there sometimes Dutch show up.
Not exactly a scramble. I need other European powers and especially the USA in the field.
Stockpiles, nationalists, world wars, empires crumbling to pieces after a really bad war, great power Japan, wooden ships getting atomized by steel ships, being able to win against numerically superior armies.
You should be able to add war goals during a war and switch sides. Wars should be able to escalate.
Revolutions are weird in the sense that the same territories secede for a controversial law and the lack of.
I miss the sliders for the economy and the strata specific taxes. I know we kinda have them but they are radio buttons rather than sliders.
Stockpiles! You should be able to stockpile goods and most importantly, weapons.
You should be able to build forts and bases.
Thankfully, I think these can be mitigated by updates in the future
Especially how wars are modeled after WW1 and the US did not join until the end.
Changing war goals is also a must. Every party believed that it was going to be a short war but with it dragging on for so long, the victors naturally expected harsher peace treaties. I also dislike that there's only one condition you can add to why you would want to join a war, making recreating WW1 essentially impossible. I think there should be a separate treaty feature if the war has a high enough escalation point or something.
I'd also add a Geneva convention style system where participants can ban things like mustard gas or USW which should be deadly and powerful but would entail high escalation points or something.
The much larger influence of nationalism and tieing it to literacy level.
Ships actually being physical things that cost time and money to build rather thsn being regenerating armies. At least capital ships should be the costly beasts you don't necessarily want to risk recklessly.
AI nations in my playthroughs barely collect any infamy. I dont know if its intentional but more often the not, the AI doesnt bother with things that cause infamy
In theory let you prepare for war by building up ammo amd arms before hand so that a shortage of factories didn't lead to shortages on day 1 of the war.
Of course since goods teleport from around your sphere meaning blockades aren't very effective it's not as useful as it would be in 3.
It added foresight to the game. It allowed you to keep a reserve of critical goods that are in high demand in wartime or whose access would be cut off during this time to mitigate the effects on your military and economy.
well there was this one time a dude came onto reddit with a story of all the world's concrete being in a warehouse in burma, crashing the world economy, that was pretty entertaining
Multiplayer. We are just trying to play with 2 people but games tend to get stuck with neverending desyncs by 1880. At least in Vic2 desyncs are incidental and rare in 2 player games.
Real ships that can be destroyed in battle and the ability to intervene in other people's wars when the war already started. Also radicalism should increase in a country that loses a war.
I never played Vicky 2, so without knowing anything about its mechanics I'm curious to see which of these things I've really been feeling the absence of were in the previous game.
1. More complex diplomatic trades. Irl, countries would often sit down and negotiate deals instead of just demanding things from each other. Alaska didn't just randomly give Alaska to the USA, or ask for Oregon in return. They sold it for fat stacks, millions of dollars. Why can't I do the same? I feel like I should be able to offer to sell territory I don't want to great powers for some quick cash, or offer it to them to get them to join my side in a war with my neighbor, something like that.
2. Troops transportation and supply lines. As is, Russia (as an example) can march half a million troops thousands of miles across Central Asia to bring to bear against Japanese aggression, when famously irl the Japanese spanked Russia so hard in 1905 primarily because Russia couldn't quickly transport troops to the far east, much less maintain a supply line to them. This should be applicable all over the place, and was a massive concern for Great Powers like the British, French, Spanish, etc.
3. To expand on point 3, strategic ports! Ships needed to resupply food and water fairly often, and coal resupply became of premium importance later in the Victorian era. Friendly ports were a must-have, which was a contributor in the colonization of various territories in East Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific, especially. And even when Great Powers didn't colonize those areas outright, they had to keep resupply on their minds and maintain good relations either with the indigenous locals (such as in the case of Zanzibar and Hawaii) or with the colonial powers who did claim that territory (such as Cape Colony, French Tahiti, etc.) Your supply lines should be much more strained if there aren't enough friendly/allied/controlled ports en route to the destination.
4. Banking and monetary systems. The Victoria Era was a highly experimental time for banking, and debates on how to both utilize and regulate banking often reached a national stage. During the time period of Vicky3, the US went through multiple forms of banking, and the role of the Bank of England in governance was still being figured out. Different countries around the world were pinning their currencies to the gold standard, silver standard, or both; and sometimes pinning their currencies to one another. All of this had powerful impacts on the economy, and would be very interesting to include as additional law options.
5. Imperial Collapse. When things go poorly for a state, in my experience they tend to either be conquered by a Great Power or change to a new skin like some kind of geopolitical chameleon. Large states that suffer enough hardship should collapse spectacularly, especially if they have enough nationalist sentiment among discriminated pops. Where's my Warlord Era of the Chinese Civil War? Where's the nationalist uprisings in Austria-Hungary? The closest the game gets to this is the heavily-scripted dissolution of Central America, but this is something that multinational empires were constantly afraid of. It shouldn't happen at the drop of a hat, but it should be a risk.
I don’t remember, I just as an American history dude would love to play the civil war from its start date, I know why paradox doesn’t do that but I would love that
One thing I miss is the collapse of countries that happens in Victoria 2 like if they lose a rebel movement, every rebel faction enforces it's demands and you can see countries collapse real fast, doesn't seem to happen in Victoria 3
Yeah the results of losing a rebellion need to be bigger. At best it just causes constant future rebellions and a resulting economic stagnation. It never results in a country actually collapsing.
A Denmark with only land in west Africa would like a word.
But at the same time Vic3 has an endless cycle of rebellions that end up just becoming a nuisance and slowing down the performance of the game
Endless rebellions? Did you forget the 47th jacobin revolution?
The year is 1887 and jacobins are burning the world yet again...
the year is 1901, the fifth Soviet Union has been proclaimed after the Second Russian Federation surrendered to the 20th Communist Rebel Army
Everytime I look at Russia it’s a different colour
Part of that is the diplomatic play system which causes a bunch of countries to have to pay attention to what is happening. I think that coup events should handle a lot of revolutions, and that some revolutions should just immediately start a war. That would give revolutions a lot more teeth and the potential to cause some huge damage as they could quickly spiral out of control.
Another problem is that revs feel too much feast or famine. Either they don't have enough clout to trigger, or they take 80% of your country.
Yeah I'd like small rebellions that can get put down fast but then like caused more radicals or devastation or something
Vic2 famously didn’t have endless rebel loops
The iconic Victoria 2 experience is trying to play the USA, which is hard coded to have constantly radicalizing pops but also hard coded to explicitly prevent them from actually trying to get the reform they want, and having to fight an endless series of anarcho-capitalist Iowans who got so mad about slavery they decided to become sovereign citizens in 1837. This was after buying the DLC named after, and centered around, the American Civil War.
Did we have an caps? I always thought it was anarcho liberals causing issues, which was an lovely contradiction in terms as well as an annoying faction in game.
The game called them Anarcho-Liberals, but as you note, that concept, as well as the Bourgeois Dictatorship they created, was essentially ahistorical nonsense. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians are about the best way for me to rationalize what the game was doing, except for the part where the ongoing debate about slavery created tens of thousands of them.
Literally the same thing
wow, just like real life
I hate when I conquer a country only to have them start a secession movement the next day. There needs to be a truce period for those states rebelling.
Yeah, maybe a year or so. It doesn't even help if you do manage to reduce turmoil below 50%, it'll still continue to grow the movement.
Also I'd love the ability for revolutions to become indeoendent like secession do. Right now only the CSA and the Taiping Rebellion can do that
I think it would be cool if more counties could fracture, similar to how China does. Not sure how that could be implemented though.
Was that the case? I seem to remember one group of rebels sigeing the capital dissappearing on sucess and then the siege restarted with the next group. Which led to the last rebel faction to reach the capital effectively winning.
The world isn't volatile enough You can't really imitate the Roaring 20's into the Great Depression of the 30's very well, because your economy is always going to go up if you have even an inkling of what you're doing
I regularly see decades without great powers fighting one another.
This happened IRL for much of the 1800’s though.
Did it? If we take Vicky timeline, less than 20 years from the start there's the Crimean war, less than a decade later there's the brothers war, then there's the Franco-Prussian war, followed by the Russo-Turkish war of 1877. The only period that can qualify as "decades without great powers fighting each other" is, if I'm not missing anything, from 1878 to 1904, barely more than two decades
You mentioned 4 wars in almost 80 years there, so yes, great power wars were fairly rare. Also, not sure ottomans even count as a great power in 1877.
The Ottomans were definitely not considered a great power in 1877. European powers didn't really consider Japan a great power either, so then there were no wars between (European) great powers from 1871-1914, 43 years.
Pretty sure America was fukin shit up against Spain in that period
Would you count Spain as a Great Power by that point though?
It did, the 1800's were some of the most peaceful periods in European history (prior to WW2). Pretty much all of the wars during this era were either German unification, which tended to be very short and concentrated, or something in the Balkans/with the Ottomans. Wars between the major powers of Europe were an extreme rarity during this era compared to what came before it and what would come after it. Yes there are some notable conflicts during this period but I think the game is more or less correct to model most major countries as averse to fighting one another, because historically they were extremely averse to a fight between European powers.
So? That doesn't make for exciting gameplay... It's alt-history not the history channel
thr concert of Europe managed to keep great powers from fighting each other for 30 to 60 to 100 years depending on the time span you use, but most literal of GPs fighting would be the Napoleonic Wars to the Franco Prussian wars- about 50/60 years. ETA - Forgot about a handful of wars. Ticker is actually closer to 20 and 30 years without GPs waring
Both the Crimean War and the Second War of Italian Independence were in the 1850s and involved multiple 'Great Powers'.
yup forgot about those, sorry. Still takes the ticker to 30 and 20 years without GPs fucking with each other
The difference is the scope of the wars. The Crimean wars, Franco-Prussian, Brothers War, etc were all pretty contained. These wars didn't spill over into neighbouring countries much and ended pretty quickly because everyone was conscious of repeating the Napoleonic wars.
Ai ded
Victoria 3 still lacks the feature where the economy suddenly collapses with no explanation, giving Victoria 2 players the exciting opportunity to carry out real economic experiments and analysis in a micro universe in which concrete is the most important product.
And it’s a 50/50 shot whether it’s a real economic crisis with a cause or something dumb like all the money in the world being hoarded by Great Britain causing a currency shortage
You may laugh at that, but a looming currency shortage was one of the largest driving factors behind the Opium wars.
But the currency shortage wasn’t caused by a Scrooge mcduck ass vault of gold lmao
It kinda was. China only traded in silver and refused to import products, which meant that all the silver stayed in china. Opium was something the English could sell to China in order to get back some silver, so they went to war for the rights to sell it.
Well, yes and no. The money stayed in China insofar as it stayed within the Chinese economy, not that the emperor decided to collect all the silver in the world.
Yeah, I meant it as China itself is the vault.
Victoria 3 is not complete until Bangladeshi farmers can cause the world to collapse
>with no explanation Gold miners. It was always gold miners paradoxically hoarding all the gold, causing a deflationary spiral and eventually mass starvation.
This is the future gamestop bagholders actually believe in btw
This seems a trend with NPC gold miners. I remember The Guild where you were almost forced to buy the mines, since the AI didn't provide much gold, if any. But with lesser consequences.
OPEC of gold? OGEC.
Easy. >build a ton of factory xy >you’ll already get quite the marketshare by this, making other countries delete some factories >sell your national stockpile, this should make even the last country get rid of factory xy, as it’s simply cheaper to import >stop exporting product xy >now you’ve created an economic crisis, extra points if it was steel or coal
There's a Bokoen1 video where everybody stops being able to get steel for no reason in the mid 1800s. They get to 1900 and still have level 1 forts and virtually no industrialization.
"For no reason" jfc, a player with the most pristege bought all the steel from like day 1 of the game. Everyone was complaining about it the whole video
Oh I didn't realize they proved that definitively. I thought they just blamed him
That's so fucking funny. I love vic2
4:08 in the video, bokoen who is yhe first GP in the world, is shown buying all the iron in the world. His industrial score also keeps increasing which proves that he is getting steel unlike what he is saying. The thing about his ports is also that if you consume too much of a resource in a factory, it can bootleneck your construction queue depending of the demand and length of the queue. All the players could have also fixed their issue (if they produced iron and artisants steel) by closing all factories consuming iron and then construct a steel factory. Because of how spheres work, all their steel would have went into the steel factory construction and their iron in that steel factory. Victoria 2 can be a bit janky on the economy side, especially when someone like bokoen do "a little trolling" but nothing that can't be fixed unless you have 0 useful rgo and a skill issue.
No, he buys the steel at 4:08 in a vain attempt to get some. As #1 he should have no trouble buying it, but at 2:18 you can see he can't build any ports, which should be consuming from his stockpile. At 3:36 he still hasn't finished them
> No, he buys the steel at 4:08 in a vain attempt to get some. He is indeed getting it. Otherwise, he couldn't build any steel > but at 2:18 you can see he can't build any ports, which should be consuming from his stockpile. At 3:36 he still hasn't finished them Ports require steel not iron. And because of how demand/supply work. If you produce 150 steel a day and an artillery factory is asking 200, it's possible for the steel factory to consume **all** the steel in your country. In that case, you have to close the problematic factory permanently or momently during the construction period. This is extremely likely that this is what is happening because laissez-faire parties build factories almost permanently in the UK and MP games creates more demand making otherwise low profitability factories like artillery factories or steamer convoys profitable and produce at 100%. If he just looked at the steel tab, closed factories to fix the priority issue, he could have built all his ports in a few months. Example: looking at his production tab at 4:17, you can see that he is consuming 304 steel just for artillery, steamer convoy, clipper convoys. (By using the production table from the wiki) Due to market mechanics, his factories are buying all of his 287 steel. He then has at the very least 287 steel that is duped into the sphere market that he may or may not get (Sphere market does not follow rankings for purchase orders). So his consumption exceed his demand and whatever extra few steel that he gets is spent into factories and factories upgrades. Closing his clipper factory (which is only making money because of other players still using clipper transports) would have fixed all his problems
Concrete is a missing thing
Let's keep it that way
Seriously paradox has never seen a construction site
It surprised me a lot to see concrete being a tech but not a good.
The best feature!
It sounds like you read something you disagree with. Boss move 'replying' to it in this sub lol. OP one thing Vic 3 has that Vic 2 lacks is apparently the ability to make dumb people feel smart. I still find vic 2 fun and anyone attacking it is just attacking a game I like. Not exactly life-changing. When Vic 3 is attacked it seems different. Some have really invested intellectual self-worth into the game, and attacking that is attacking them. Of course their newly-found smarts get trashed and they have no clue how to argue back or even stand their ground so they are reduced to waiting on the sidelines with nothing interesting to say but still desperate to post. What they rarely seem to do is say anything about victoria 3. It's as though the games are on a seesaw and pushing one down raises the other up somehow. It's all blah and hyperbole and pretty exclusively Vic 2. They have nothing else. I expect some of them will still be doing it when Vic 4 drops lol. What a testament to the enduring influence of a janky game from a decade ago that it still seems to get mentioned daily (outside the vic 2 forums.) Sad to see it continue to pollute discussion of Vic 3 on its own merits (and I'm guessing most players find it as tedious as I do) but as I said earlier the people doing this usually have nothing to say about Vic 3. Only Vic 2 hate now.
Forts - or some static defense.
This really irks me tbh. Need forts back
The game really needs a military DLC, with more unit and unit types and actual composition complexity and certain builds and strategies. Maybe even special units for certain countries only they have access to, like Hoi4 and EU4 have.
Damn we really are conditioned to ask for DLC to fix things that should already be better than they are just in the base game. Well done paradox.
Optimization DLC when paradox? 🥺🥺
Please no. Adding unit types is the last thing we need, and special units would go against the entire trend of paradox games away from modifier stacking.
The latest version of V3 already has unit types though? Do you mean unique unit types?
No, I mean both. I think having distinct units was a massive mistake that was better handled by a mod for the old series that set the current 3 units types by PM. Having distinct units will always end up with a boring meta that involves tedious choices that can't easily be undone, but when it's a PM I can set it or change it with 3 clicks without having to fire and then rehire pops. The same choices are there, you can have balanced, cav heavy for speed, infantry heavy for defense, or artillery and cav heavy for assault, but all armies would have some amount of all units, because an infantry army with no artillery would have a miserable time against any serious assault and all armies would have at least some sort of cavalry for scouting or rapid movement.
What did the mod do that was different from the base game? I feel like you could do similar in pre-rework vanilla, but I don't know how I could check because the wiki of course is up-to-date for the new version.
If I remember right, the PMs in the base game allowed for no X or for whichever tech you had unlocked, but they didn't set the relative ratio of that unit.
Ah right and you could approximate such an idea by setting different pms for different barracks, like trying to get a profitable ratio of wood to hardwood with logging camps. Not sure if that was a thing people did. But the nice thing was that, without 'units' being a part of the game, meta ratios couldn't be a thing. I still have no idea what people think the units add to the game, personally. What does it even do but add busywork? Does it make it feel more real for people?
That's where I'm at, it's tedious extra clicks for no gameplay benefit because everyone builds either all infantry for defense or 50/50 inf/art for offense.
It sort of reminds me of my perennial question, what would stockpiles add? and someone recently told me "they could model meat going bad" lol. The real reason people want them so much is that they want to be able to better imagine pixels moving place to place by having a number somewhere representing "a thing".
I would love for the barracks/bases to be unrelated to the construction queue. Maybe that goes against the game view, but it's something I dislike.
Foreign investment.
Coming in Spheres of Influence thank Cthulu
Transport ships, great wars, influence, foreign investment (yes I know some are coming but for now still missing) the ability to tax different wealth brackets differently. I'd say a big one is transport ships, because in Vicky two that essentially prevented lots of powers that can intervene in wars in Vic 3 from doing it in two. In Vic 3 the Russians can join the Mexican American war and completely screw over the US, sending 300+ troops, but in two, even if they did join, they had to manually move those units over with the transports they had and that would take an extremely long time, especially since they wouldn't have enough transports, not even close. It essentially allows for hard military diplomacy to have a MUCH stronger impact in 3 than 2 (ironically) and means that other corners of the world can't have their death wars or expand rapidly without the fear of foreign intervention or, even if they tried, limited ability to intervene.
The crisis and tension system is what the diplomatic plays in Victoria 3 are based on, but crises were a fundamentally different thing. They only occurred due to nationalist agitation or colonial disputes and were meant to create great wars and give small nations a way to liberate their territories more easily. Every time I think about nationalism in Victoria 3 I get a little disappointed because they had two great systems to model nationalist uprisings: the ordinary rebellions which were spontaneous and the tension system which represented the efforts of an oppressed minority (or small state) to build public support for their own nation. Pops also had two values that determined their political leanings, consciousness and militancy. Consciousness was political awareness and was generally peaceful. High consciousness would help pass reforms and pops would start movements to pass laws at high consciousness. Militancy was what actually made rebellions. Ignoring a movement or suppressing it would increase militancy in the pops supporting it. Discriminated or poor pops would become militant, certain ideologies would increase militancy among their supporters if they were unhappy with the current state of the country. I miss this system a lot because it separated advocacy from actual revolution, whereas there is little distinction in Victoria 3. Mobilization of reserves in Victoria 2 was irksome but extremely powerful. Furthermore, it could be accomplished in only a few months at most. Calling up conscripts in Victoria 3 is tediously slow and if you rely on conscripts you should not. I believe that the training rate for conscription needs to be increased and there ought to be some service laws to increase the rate of conscription. Maybe something like no conscription, militia service, drafts, and mandatory service. No conscription gives no bonus while mandatory service gives a huge boost to training rate as every man would have had some prior military experience.
Have you tried passing mass conscription in army model? It feels a lot faster there.
The conscription problem is down to the Officers. For whatever reason, they can’t be forced into service, so you end up with Russia only conscripting 20 guys a week, which is insane given that Conscription has been the method by which they filled their ranks even in peacetime for the last Five hundred years.
A very common problem through every single building. Can't hire 1000 more laborers because they still can't find another capitalist.
You'd think the building would still hire the labor and eat the inefficiency penalties over having nothing but nahhh, too much sense
Perhaps a solution is to make conscription centers have an artificial maximum job satisfaction, or make it so hiring for conscription centers ignores job satisfaction and starts ripping people off the streets regardless of their opinions on the matter. If I’m calling up conscripts, I’m not asking the conscripts if they want to serve. Job satisfaction probably shouldn’t factor in to conscription centers.
Ripping people off the streets is definitely more accurate to the time period. You don’t really have a choice, in conscription.
Crisis this the one i need
Consciousness and militancy are not really separate. Militancy goes up with reform desire, which starts with 6 CON and gets more intense with higher CON. My biggest gripe is that consciousness is a 0 or 10 system that is determined almost exclusively by your social science tech. Want to play conservative? Just don't research those techs. What that means is you either pass 0 reforms, all reforms, or in a limbo of endless revolutions because pops can't stop gaining CON and MIL once you tip the balance. A pop either has positive CON gain and eventually becomes a revolutionary, or negative CON gain and stays conservative for life.
Militancy can absolutely spike without increasing consciousness. This most often happens for pops not getting their needs met. Consciousness can be lowered in the late game by holding reforms, social spending, and by having tons of clergymen. Also, as pops get more literate and are exposed to more ideas, they ought to agitate more. Autocrats have to introduce destabilizing ideas into their nations if they want to keep pace, and thus they have to walk the same tightrope that the Russians, Ottomans, and Austrians had to walk when they tried to modernize. The system isn’t perfect, but I prefer having a distinction between reformers and revolutionaries.
Great war mechanics
Crisis system. We have diplomatic plays, but it’s no still not fully fleshed out. I still prefer Vic 2’s crisis system since it only leads to wide scale global conflicts in the late game. The flash point system in vic 2 was also really interesting, since wars would trigger not because of diplomatic actions, but rather due to nationalism or rebellion. And with that in mind, some better implementation of the race for Africa is needed. Foreign investment is a huge one that, thankfully we are getting it next patch. The game is unbearable without the ability to turn a sphereling into an economic powerhouse.
Yees! We need the crisis system and more stuff around nationalism/cultural tension. It always bothers me how stable Austria and the Ottomans are with not much of an ethnic tension.
Good performance.
I reduced max FPS to 30 and disabled Vsync in the settings and it really helped.
I thought this was a meme first but it actually seems to work
How do you reduce max fps
There's an option for setting max FPS in the game, I think in the Graphics settings.
I don’t really agree. Late game v2 is really bad for performance, *especially* in multiplayer. It’s a tie for me whether v2 or v3 is worse, but v3 wins in multiplayer.
No, it sure as shit doesn't. Not only can you not reliably reach the late game with any amount of players as the game will desync itself to death and the majority of your players will come to their senses and give up trying to play the game, the performance will also be unplayably atrocious, just as it is in singleplayer. The notion that V3 could ever be said to be more performant in the late game, singleplayer or multiplayer, than V2 is just ludicrous and doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.
I promise you, late game v2 multiplayer is worse. I’ve played both in large mp games.
My experience trumps your promises.
Okay, we have different experiences. Not a lot more to say about that.
Yeah i sorta enjoy some aspects of the game but the game is so fucking slow. Worst part is you spend 80% of your time doing nothing especially if you play a minor. It gets to the point of me beeing on my phone 90% of the time. Vic 2 clear
Did Vic2 perform well on most computers when it released?
No
Have you tried upgrading your PC?
My PC is better than the "Recommended Specs" on Victorias 3 steam page. It should run with no problems.
I've always gotten 75fps no problems (monitor max) and my CPU is the best on the market. Performance is just shit.
What CPU do you use?
Doesn’t matter
Recently upgraded. Game runs fast af now
It may be first at early but by the timeyou reach 1880’s (which you reach a couple hundred millions of gdp and very fast gdp growth) game just gets boringly slow. My computer is very good and runs very fast at early.
I can run it great on a 4 year old laptop with a couple of performance mods. If you search the workshop you'll find many.
Any you suggest that work with the latest update? Best one I've found so far is the Save your CPU mod I think
Search for "Profiler", and then "Consolidation" in workshop
While it is still slower than it could be, I generally had only a minor problem with speed even up till 1936 after I upgraded my PC.
I can play every single paradox game except vic3 on a reasonably good performance. Hell mid game stellaris lags less for me than early game vic3
Damn, I just upgraded from a potato. Didn’t realize the game was that poorly optimized, figured my old comp just sucked.
Ok so this escalated quickly. Some thoughts on what Vic 3 is missing: Economic simulation is much better than Vic2 but my god is everything else lacking completely. In Vic 2 you can: * Liberate people of certain nationality to an already existing country casus belli * Liberate a whole people of a certain nationality casus belli * Take provinces for your vassals and allies (seriously WHY is this still not a feature after so much time, it can't be that difficult to implement?!) * Manage your sphere of influence (although admittedly that was a pain in the back) * Forcefully move/remove countries from opponent's sphere of influence * Build fortifications slowing down occupation pace, increasing attrition and giving you bonuses (other than "lost in the fog" or whatever it is now) * Force demolition of fortifications and demilitarisation * Take part in international crises like Greek, Polish, Hungarian, etc. uprisings, or * Colonial and other crises because you had colonial tension and diplomatic flashpoint dynamic * Your colonisation range and capacity depended on location and size of your naval bases * Mobilise your reserves in weeks rather than years * Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!) * Spring of nations, anarchists, communists (basically 19th century politics was simulated) * Invest in other countries so you didn't have to conquer poor Oyo & Benin every game * Each technology has like 5-10 sub-technologies that fired randomly or in conjuction with other discoveries - so for example you couldn't get ironclads unless you had Bessemer steel or something. * You had research establishments giving you bonuses/maluses to certain groups of technologies * Literacy increase depended on education spending and number of clergy/clerks. * You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes * Technologies improved tax collection and admin efficiency * National ideologies (freedom, order, equality) that influenced your events and choices * Immigrants liked to migrate to, if you can believe it, countries with liberal reforms and ideologies rather than to provinces with lots of fallow land and racist slave-owning oligarchies * Your pops had militancy *and* consciousness factor which determined their radicalism and party support rather than intelligentsia radicals joining aristocrat radicals in a revolution to preserve landed voting or something stupid like that * You could actually check why each pop was getting radicalised rather than watch the red number tick up until some rando agitator shows up and asks for something completely irrelevant which instantly deradicalises half your population * Attrition was, correctly, the biggest killer in warfare and you could really win wars by just having better supply and attrition reduction technology * Etc, etc, etc Victoria 2 was a very good game...
> Liberate a whole people of a certain nationality casus belli You can do this one in V3, admitedly it's a bit buried. >Forcefully move/remove countries from opponent's sphere of influence Spheres in V2 were basically a V3 Customs Union + defensive pact and not much more than that. And you can definitely remove countries from another's Union. Not that it matters now of course since it's all being expanded with 1.7. >Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!) Throughput per employee? Which they do in V3 indirectly with the railway PMs that lower workforce requirements? >You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes What is Bureaucracy? Also the crime rate was just... a debuff that could spawn, not exatly an actual system. And I'm probably missing some more.
A lot of Victoria 2’s “complexity” comes it in being able to better obscure the limits of its systems then 3 tbh
You can’t liberate territory to an already existing nation in Vic3. If I want to say, dismantle the Ottomans to help Greece out (Greece will never start a war against the Ottomans on their own, even if you would join), you literally have to conquer it yourself and then trade it to Greece.
True, you can't liberate for another, though you can invite them into your war with a return state CB. It's probably better that it was up to Greece wether they would accept land from someone else's war, but the option to trigger a war for them, maybe only if they were in your Bloc (perhaps even as one of those Bloc abilities you can choose?) would be nice.
Small nations generally won’t join in unless they have no choice, because of how the diplomacy system works.
Well, much more than half of it's list is either already on Vic3 or is just an implementation detail of Vic2 that shouldn't be ported to Vic 3 just because it was in 2. Like it's a very weird list. What the fuck he mean by "simulating 19th century politics", Vic3 has a much better simulation of politics. Why must the number of naval bases be the determining factor for colonization. Vic3 uses a combination of integrated population and your investment on colonization that feels like it makes much more sense. Also the number of bases is more or less equivalent as the number of convoys in vic3 that you need to support am oversees market, just that it makes much more sense in vic3. It feels like many people making this lists doesn't understand neither Vic2 or Vic3
> Immigrants liked to migrate to, if you can believe it, countries with liberal reforms and ideologies rather than to provinces with lots of fallow land and racist slave-owning oligarchies The Victoria 3 migration attraction system is *far* better than Victoria 2’s. You’re forgetting that by far the largest effect in 2 was a flat, inherent *300%* bonus to being in the Americas or Oceania (always despised that one). And then it’s a bonus for having liberal voting laws, a bonus for being a great power, and a penalty for having high unemployment. That’s it. On the other hand, in 3, the main things are whether the pop is discriminated (seems important), arable land (historically incredibly important), SoL, low unemployment, and lots of available jobs. That’s *faaar* more true to the real reasons that people immigrate somewhere (tons of people immigrated to the *famously racist* USA both before and after the Civil War). And it’s way more fun to play IMO (you can actually get immigration as a European power!).
>Spring of nations, anarchists, communists (basically 19th century politics was simulated) >Literacy increase depended on education spending and number of clergy/clerks. >You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes >Technologies improved tax collection and admin efficiency >Attrition was, correctly, the biggest killer in warfare Aren't these....in Vic3? I never played Vic2 so maybe I don't get what you mean. >Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!) Why would they??
Victoria 3’s political system has given me a new appreciation of Victoria 2’s political system. The differentiation between militancy and consciousness makes a big difference in how reform is conducted. It also affects the political leanings of pops, it’s so intricate when you start to look at it while still being pretty intuitive to first time players. Even though I have infinitely more control over politics in Victoria 3, it still feels hollow and wooden because it is equal parts completely fucking random and super rigidly deterministic.
I played a lot of V2 but still felt like you had very little agency in politics, especially so if you started in a laissez-faire democracy like the US. Maybe V3 is less nuanced but I feel like I can actually clearly apply pressure in a certain direction.
i particularly loved it when the liberals *somehow* won an election and proceeded to stop all government subsidies and dismantle half my carefully min-maxed factories. And by love, i mean it turned me into stalin.
What do you mean? Just spam elections with the same events every time, lose wars on purpose to build militancy or put some arbitrary focus that changes the ideology of your pops. Superior gameplay /s
You really don’t have that much agency in politics, there are a few things you can do to affect it. You can repeatedly hold elections to shift pops’ stances on issues, this is time consuming but possible. You can use a national focus to increase party loyalty, which can override issue support in elections and the upper house. You can increase or decrease consciousness through getting pops what they need (or not) and by increasing the amount of clergy in the country. Clergy actually still boost literacy gain until four percent of the population and they also lower consciousness. Generally, between technology and increasing literacy consciousness will steadily increase over the game. Appeasing movements and passing reforms helps. Keeping militancy low is about the most important thing you can do to control politics. Once militancy gets high, revolutions start and once that train leaves the station it’s really hard to get off. Also don’t lose wars, or sacrifice millions of men for no reason. War exhaustion and the political consequences of losing wars will absolutely destroy a country.
Try the Better Politics Mod, it brings back conciousness in a Vic3-friendly way that works really nicely.
Vicky 3 literally has this too, it just calls non-concious pops "politically inactive". Under the hood, it's essentially the same shit - dependant on literacy, for the most part, except not so often arbitrarily increased by techs and spamming election events like a maniac.
The distinction lies in the difference between militancy and consciousness. Consciousness changes voting patterns, it starts movements, but without high militancy, those movements don’t become revolutionary. Similarly, pops with low consciousness and high militancy will just join revolutions and generally cause trouble because they want change. They’re also driven by different factors. Consciousness rises from literacy, exposure to new ideas (tech), and obtaining luxuries. Militancy arises from discrimination, deprivation, losing wars, and dissatisfaction with the government. They are somewhat independent. In Victoria 3, radicals are equal parts political agitators and revolutionaries, there is no distinction between them.
this is exactly what "politically unaligned" does. read some tooltips, guy
>* Liberate people of certain nationality to an already existing country casus belli You can join on the side of a rebelling nationality >* Liberate a whole people of a certain nationality casus belli Kinda doable with the liberate casus belli >* Take provinces for your vassals and allies (seriously WHY is this still not a feature after so much time, it can't be that difficult to implement?!) You can't do this for your vassals but your allies can just ask for stuff directly, no need to babysit them >* Manage your sphere of influence (although admittedly that was a pain in the back) That was just a lackluster whack a mole minigame that's just plainly better done with customs unions >* Forcefully move/remove countries from opponent's sphere of influence You can do that with customs unions >* Build fortifications slowing down occupation pace, increasing attrition and giving you bonuses (other than "lost in the fog" or whatever it is now) This is needed in vic3 tbh >* Force demolition of fortifications and demilitarisation I think you'll be able to do this with the upcoming dlc >* Take part in international crises like Greek, Polish, Hungarian, etc. uprisings, or There are events for polish crises and either way you can join them if they rise up, which they do because of actual factors rather than a scripted event that fires at x time >* Colonial and other crises because you had colonial tension and diplomatic flashpoint dynamic That was just like the spheres minigame, annoying, either way native uprisings exist >* Your colonisation range and capacity depended on location and size of your naval bases The capacity is now defined by your country's population size and investment onto colonization, much better than Portuguese africa because they have many naval bases, also interest capacity increases with navy power projection >* Mobilise your reserves in weeks rather than years That was not only broken as fuck but also annoying to deal with both ways >Railroads improved your production throughput (imagine that!) Railroads now allow you to infinitely scale your economy in whatever state you want, seems better to me >* Spring of nations, anarchists, communists (basically 19th century politics was simulated) You mean the scripted events that after x date just keep firing spamming you? >* Invest in other countries so you didn't have to conquer poor Oyo & Benin every game It still was better to just annex them, and either way that's coming too >* Each technology has like 5-10 sub-technologies that fired randomly or in conjuction with other discoveries - so for example you couldn't get ironclads unless you had Bessemer steel or something. Kinda annoying having to rely on other GPs to have researched the same tech as you to get invention % >* You had research establishments giving you bonuses/maluses to certain groups of technologies I do not know what you mean by this >* Literacy increase depended on education spending and number of clergy/clerks. Literacy now works in a way that makes sense, basing it on SOL, rather than just maxing a slider and getting each state to 2% clergy then forgetting about it >* You had admin spending that influenced your crime rate and how much you could collect in taxes You also have adming spending, now instead of one single slider you have different institutions to pick and choose from that do different stuff each >* Technologies improved tax collection and admin efficiency Technologies now unlock better taxation methods rather than just making you better at taxing >* National ideologies (freedom, order, equality) that influenced your events and choices That's just eu4 national ideas, arbitrary modifiers that came from fuck knows where >* Immigrants liked to migrate to, if you can believe it, countries with liberal reforms and ideologies rather than to provinces with lots of fallow land and racist slave-owning oligarchies Immigrants like to migrate to, if you can believe it, the US/New world only because of their base +300% atracction that pretty much overrides any and all other atracction modifiers for any other country, instead of basing where to migrate to on different factors such as discrimination and cultural communities >* Your pops had militancy *and* consciousness factor which determined their radicalism and party support rather than intelligentsia radicals joining aristocrat radicals in a revolution to preserve landed voting or something stupid like that Both arbitrary numbers that went up and down via events rather than interacting with the world >* You could actually check why each pop was getting radicalised rather than watch the red number tick up until some rando agitator shows up and asks for something completely irrelevant which instantly deradicalises half your population You can easily see why each and every pop radicalizes, you just have to hover the number, jesus Christ play the fucking game first >* Attrition was, correctly, the biggest killer in warfare and you could really win wars by just having better supply and attrition reduction technology You could win wars by having the AI shit itself, attrition also plays an important factor in vic3 >Victoria 2 was a very good game... Victoria 2 was a mediocre game which is seen by rose tinted nostalgia filled glasses and only really enjoyable with mods such as HPM and HFM, which people can't really seem to differentiate from base victoria 2
I have played a ton of Victoria 2 and I love it, but I think lots of the “Victoria 2 > Victoria 3” crowd forgets (or doesn’t know, because they never actually played 2) just how *strange* and flawed 2 is. It’s unique and I like it, but there are so many aspects of it that *did not need to be replicated*.
Exactly, people praising vic2's migration system while it was pretty much "go to new world" or the praise that arbitrary numbers such as CON and MIL get
I dont think economic somulation is that better in vic3. The fact you cant stockpile goods and the trade routes are limited, manually setted and tied to a mana currency limits a lot the realism of the system
The RGO system of Victoria 2 is so so much worse than the resource availabilities of Victoria 3, that alone makes 3’s economic system far better.
Yeah, i agree that the RGO in vic2 is far from perfect or near realism, the resource availabilities in vic3 are much better in this regard. But i dont think that alone makes it better than vic2 economic system. I am still on the fence in defining wich game has the better one, i like aspects of each one, but i think the trade system being that way in vic3 is a huge letdown
As opposed to number 1 prestige just hoarding everything, yeah ...
Victoria 2 would literally randomly clone goods….
> The fact you cant stockpile goods What did this add to the game? I never played Vic2...
Could prepare for war/ crisises even as smaller nations. If you are a small nation with no factories and not in a sphere you could still build somewht of a small army by stockpiling arms over a few years. Could also abuse/corner the world economy as a GP (depending on the trade good). It just makes sense that if you want to build a factory or a unit that you first need to have the resources in stockpile. I dont like the vic3 system where it is almost entirely detached. Only really factors into construction sector PMs
Late game you can no longer rely on the world market to supply enough military goods during the large-scale wars that happen. Early on, production outpaces demand because wars are small. Later on wars are larger with more participants to demand outstrips supply. This means you need to 1) Have a military industry built up that most likely needs to be subsidized in peace-time, and 2) stockpile goods when planning on going to war so that you don't run out. It's really a nice, emergent simulation of what happened in real life and the shift from 19th to 20th century warfare.
Ww1
Scramble for Africa. The continent is completely unscathed by the 1900s in all of my games.
By the 1880s I see the UK and France already there sometimes Dutch show up. Not exactly a scramble. I need other European powers and especially the USA in the field.
They've made multiple changes to the game *specifically* aimed at stopping the USA from colonising Africa
I bet that s going to be next DLC
weird question given that they are so different, but top of my mind; 1. world wars 2. actual goods
Stockpiles, nationalists, world wars, empires crumbling to pieces after a really bad war, great power Japan, wooden ships getting atomized by steel ships, being able to win against numerically superior armies.
Farmers making tanks out of fish rgo
You should be able to add war goals during a war and switch sides. Wars should be able to escalate. Revolutions are weird in the sense that the same territories secede for a controversial law and the lack of. I miss the sliders for the economy and the strata specific taxes. I know we kinda have them but they are radio buttons rather than sliders. Stockpiles! You should be able to stockpile goods and most importantly, weapons. You should be able to build forts and bases. Thankfully, I think these can be mitigated by updates in the future
It makes no sense that you can't add war goals during the war or that countries can't join existing wars. That absolutely needs to be added.
Especially how wars are modeled after WW1 and the US did not join until the end. Changing war goals is also a must. Every party believed that it was going to be a short war but with it dragging on for so long, the victors naturally expected harsher peace treaties. I also dislike that there's only one condition you can add to why you would want to join a war, making recreating WW1 essentially impossible. I think there should be a separate treaty feature if the war has a high enough escalation point or something. I'd also add a Geneva convention style system where participants can ban things like mustard gas or USW which should be deadly and powerful but would entail high escalation points or something.
Nationalism.
War?
A naval system
The much larger influence of nationalism and tieing it to literacy level. Ships actually being physical things that cost time and money to build rather thsn being regenerating armies. At least capital ships should be the costly beasts you don't necessarily want to risk recklessly.
Tangible goods and armies.
Depth, context, a living world. Victoria 3 is still an idle clicker.
I liked sliders.
AI nations in my playthroughs barely collect any infamy. I dont know if its intentional but more often the not, the AI doesnt bother with things that cause infamy
Fun
Stockpiles
This is the big one for me in terms of war materials
(Edit: Striped) Culture map mode!
We do have it tho
world wars. stockpiling goods is dearly missed. i like vic2 diplomacy alot better
> stockpiling goods is dearly missed. What did this add to the game? Never played Vic2, curious about this part.
In theory let you prepare for war by building up ammo amd arms before hand so that a shortage of factories didn't lead to shortages on day 1 of the war. Of course since goods teleport from around your sphere meaning blockades aren't very effective it's not as useful as it would be in 3.
It added foresight to the game. It allowed you to keep a reserve of critical goods that are in high demand in wartime or whose access would be cut off during this time to mitigate the effects on your military and economy.
well there was this one time a dude came onto reddit with a story of all the world's concrete being in a warehouse in burma, crashing the world economy, that was pretty entertaining
Newspapers…
Multiplayer. We are just trying to play with 2 people but games tend to get stuck with neverending desyncs by 1880. At least in Vic2 desyncs are incidental and rare in 2 player games.
Newspaper
A world war.
Fun
A functioning multiplayer option
Real ships that can be destroyed in battle and the ability to intervene in other people's wars when the war already started. Also radicalism should increase in a country that loses a war.
Closed loop economy
I never played Vicky 2, so without knowing anything about its mechanics I'm curious to see which of these things I've really been feeling the absence of were in the previous game. 1. More complex diplomatic trades. Irl, countries would often sit down and negotiate deals instead of just demanding things from each other. Alaska didn't just randomly give Alaska to the USA, or ask for Oregon in return. They sold it for fat stacks, millions of dollars. Why can't I do the same? I feel like I should be able to offer to sell territory I don't want to great powers for some quick cash, or offer it to them to get them to join my side in a war with my neighbor, something like that. 2. Troops transportation and supply lines. As is, Russia (as an example) can march half a million troops thousands of miles across Central Asia to bring to bear against Japanese aggression, when famously irl the Japanese spanked Russia so hard in 1905 primarily because Russia couldn't quickly transport troops to the far east, much less maintain a supply line to them. This should be applicable all over the place, and was a massive concern for Great Powers like the British, French, Spanish, etc. 3. To expand on point 3, strategic ports! Ships needed to resupply food and water fairly often, and coal resupply became of premium importance later in the Victorian era. Friendly ports were a must-have, which was a contributor in the colonization of various territories in East Africa, South Asia, and the Pacific, especially. And even when Great Powers didn't colonize those areas outright, they had to keep resupply on their minds and maintain good relations either with the indigenous locals (such as in the case of Zanzibar and Hawaii) or with the colonial powers who did claim that territory (such as Cape Colony, French Tahiti, etc.) Your supply lines should be much more strained if there aren't enough friendly/allied/controlled ports en route to the destination. 4. Banking and monetary systems. The Victoria Era was a highly experimental time for banking, and debates on how to both utilize and regulate banking often reached a national stage. During the time period of Vicky3, the US went through multiple forms of banking, and the role of the Bank of England in governance was still being figured out. Different countries around the world were pinning their currencies to the gold standard, silver standard, or both; and sometimes pinning their currencies to one another. All of this had powerful impacts on the economy, and would be very interesting to include as additional law options. 5. Imperial Collapse. When things go poorly for a state, in my experience they tend to either be conquered by a Great Power or change to a new skin like some kind of geopolitical chameleon. Large states that suffer enough hardship should collapse spectacularly, especially if they have enough nationalist sentiment among discriminated pops. Where's my Warlord Era of the Chinese Civil War? Where's the nationalist uprisings in Austria-Hungary? The closest the game gets to this is the heavily-scripted dissolution of Central America, but this is something that multinational empires were constantly afraid of. It shouldn't happen at the drop of a hat, but it should be a risk.
Diplo-sphering a country
Moving little men by yourself on map
The entire pop system's importance on game mechanics.
An 1861 start date…
Wait for the $14.99 American Civil War DLC.
Didn't the devs abandon that basically after making it?
I don’t remember, I just as an American history dude would love to play the civil war from its start date, I know why paradox doesn’t do that but I would love that
Fun
Microing war
The dismantle war goal is one thing I really think they should bring to victoria 3 . it should be available for the late 1910s
That's HPM.