>Buy grand strategy game >Wtf I have to micro the armies and actually have to play the game? Literally what are these people wanting out of the game exactly?
@@ellidominusser1138 >and fun The people who played and bought the games before you thought it was fun, the player base as a trend across all titles thinks it's fun. The only war sim is Hearts of Iron and even that has been dumbed down. You want to pay money for a game to play itself, you want the game to have less features and actual gameplay for everybody because you don't like it. The amount of game series' I've followed that have became watered down, boring messes are all because of company's pandering to people like you. You don't actually know what you want, you just take what you're given. What exactly is historically accurate about Vic 3? The diplomacy? The economy? The American Civl War? Austria forming super germany? How does having control over your armies actually affect that?
@@ellidominusser1138That "map painting" and "war simulating" is literally why it's called a grand strategy. You have to deal with everything from the economy to diplomacy to military maneuvers on a national level. The map painting is pretty much the result of that strategy. It shouldn't be too easy but it also shouldn't be punishing. It's the Victorian Era, where literally everyone has some imperialist vision and military tech and strategy was rapidly changing. At the same time, there's also a lot of alt history potential with the many ideas proposed that never got off the ground.
the only way game companies will ever change is when consumers say no to garbage, thank you for continuing the fight against mainstreamed trash games commander spud
@@Mkrause762I pray every day for a big crash, so much so game graphics have to refuse to evolve anymore and they have tighter budgets that get redirected on the cheaper and way more important parts
the worst part is all the graphical improvement doesn’t matter when the average game that comes out nowadays is less visually appealing than a game from the ps2 era
This was such a stupid argument, trying to make himself look like some hecking grown-up superior to all these manchildren. We're all grown men playing video games, just not a valid path to take in your argumentation
It’s crazy to me that the war system for Victoria three is still be defended when there was a middle option that worked. The system for imperator Rome, and Eu4 were you still have stacks like all other paradox games that you still have final control over, but can automate them. It’s the fact that paradox waste time creating systems we already have solutions for instead of refining aspects of the game that direly need it (like AI) makes me worried for the future of the company.
Exactly. They're doing a very low quality pump and dump style of games development. All the effort goes into marketing and social engineering, while the games are very simple and hollow, merely vessels for dlc.
The imperator system with an addition of “frontline” management would be most ideal imo. The cohort/legion management thing it’s got going on is pretty good.
19:30 The fact that he compares Vic3 critics to the Luddites in exactly the same ignorant memey way as they are portrayed in the latest DLC is just gold
I was kinda in favour of the changes to war before game release, found that the war in Vicky 3 was so frustrating that I just tended to avoid war. Actually made me go back and play Victoria 2 and appreciate the war system in it much more.
The war mechanic in Vic 3 can be the easiest thing ever or the most enraging thing in a video game. Also naval invasions are still way too OP. I don't know why they didn't just copy and paste HOI4 war mechanics and change it to suit the Victoria series.
They’ve been trying so hard to make a frontline system work with both HOI4 and Vic3, but the AI is atrociously bad for it making it both frustrating for the player when their AI screws up and also annoyingly easy when the opponent messes up. Plus the naval invasions of Vic3 are a total fucking joke and often result in cheesy war wins, especially when you get stupid stuff like China invading European countries in the 1840’s
Yeah. My problem hasn't been with the concept. The execution is hot garbage. Nothing wrong with a frontline system though. HoI4 does it well after all.
I still cannot comprehend how paradox managed to convince their overall grand strategy community that hasn't touched Vic2 to defend Vic3 and all of it's changes from pops to warfare. It's just so unorganic. Like, where did these people come from. Victoria 3 is very different from Victoria 2, so much so the 'Vic2 diehards' outright deny the existence of Vic3 or name it a massive failure. Victoria 3 is unlike ANY grand strategy, or hell, even strategy. Name a single strategy game that does not allow you direct control of your army/units/fleets/ships/planes/whatever related to warfare. Victoria 3 is even unlike any "civilization simulators" like rimworld, dwarf fortress or any isometric village/city/kingdom builders like anno or tropico just to name a few, because it either, again, doesn't allow direct orders to pops or is on a grander scale than "one settlement". But hey, this means that this game is unique, so it has an unique playerbase? Well, the charm is wearing off, especially after the DLC fiasco, affirming that these "new victorians" don't even like paradox for it's development policy, they just liked their "Vision". Please, can someone tell me who these fanboys are and where did they come from? They can't be the paradox fans that spammed "where vic 3 hehe" somewhere between 2017-2020.
I think it's this weird dichotomy that originates from the fact that Paradox used to have a very small dedicated community 10+ years ago. It was also rather hard to get into their games which created an illusion as if there's some sort of gatekeeping from the larger community for anyone that's new, which in truth was never the case. Because of this many newer 2016+ "paradox fans" think that if they show the same level of dedication to the company (not the community) they will be accepted and put on the same standing with the old guard (which Paradox did, since most of their newer games and DLCs pander to that new bigger audience). To them Paradox can do no wrong because Paradox is responsible for making them the part of this community not the "old gatekeepers". In no other game it is as apparent as with Victoria 2. These people unironically hate Victoria 2 now, because it was made in a different age and they simply do not understand this game, and let me explain you why. Unlike other mainstream Paradox games Victoria 2 was left behind and is still only enjoyed by ones that were playing it back in the days or people who had enough patience and dedication to actually learn it, something that evidently from his video Hammurabae doesn't have. Because Vic3 is objectively shit, many of these "Paradox fans" had become openly hostile towards Victoria 2 and its fans and it's very apparent in places like Reddit or RUclips. Most of these people had never played Vic2 because "it was too hard" or "it was too old" but they still wanted to be a part of the community. And then Paradox promised them a new Victoria game, better, easier to understand, new and shiny so that they can finally be part of that all so desired Victoria community that was only for the most dedicated players. And then what? Victoria 2 fans had utterly rejected Victoria 3 and now these same people had turned that rejection into anger at us, not Paradox for making the game shit. That's just my take on this situation, it is in fact very inorganic. It was already like that during the dev dairy cycle of Vic3 where a subset of people would just attack anyone who disliked what they had presented about Victoria 3. Some called them paid shills, but I very much doubt that Paradox has enough money for that. These people think that they will buy themselves the good will of the company if they fight anyone who disagrees with it.
I blame Reddit. Reddit is where many companies draw opinions from because the website is easy to navigate, has a massive casual gamer base, and is well-moderated. If there is any place to push ideas and get feedback from, it’s Reddit. Unfortunately, Redditors are all cut from the same cloth (they are fucking retarded).
I want to say its just identity politics driven liberal neckbeards, as much as its politics that should be left out of it. Some people will just support the current thing even if it goes against their own interests.
Calling Spudgun a Luddite who buried his head under the sand is kinda ironic since the Luddites didn't hate the future, but saw that their livelihoods were at risk and they'd become poor and starving because of it.
Ludditism is an inherently negative term it doesn't question if the cause for personal complaint is 'worthwhile', no one wants to lose their job, but it does imply that time will march on either way. Its like machine learning making some bookkeeping obsolete. This doesn't apply here at all if you ask me. Hammar-whatever is just a clown.
@@MeadowGaze if you study about the luddites not all of them really opposed to mechanization, it's just the new machines made these textile workers lose "control" of many aspects of their job to the whims of the new factory owners. they were even willing to negotiate a smoother transition, including a labour law to ensure fair compensation as the machines does drive down textile workers income, while simultaneously making them work long hours in dangerous conditions.
@@MeadowGaze Yeah haha "time" just "marches on", it's definitely not specific individuals and groups of people actively working to implement technologies and shape the laws and industry standards around them to ensure they end up in a position of greater wealth and power. Just let it happen bro no one can stop "time".
@@Bane_questionmark Honestly, yeah. Industry is literally a monolithic engine that progresses completely independently of even its supposed master like an out-of-control snowball. Note that i wasn't making an assertion over if that's a positive outcome since it doesn't really matter. Read Kaczynski. Not even the entrepreneurs and elites can control this train at this point.
@Nakiyame Yee I'm very sympathetic to their plight but I was speaking from the misunderstood perspective that Ludditism is damning some sort of disgust with technology as a concept. Maybe that's how the term is understood but that's not things played out in actuality.
"the really hardcore vic 2 fan base, which is just really, aggressively against vicky3" idk imo paradox has just been taking a more hardline stance over time and we're just seeing a reaction to that. During the Imperator dev diaries Johan specifically was rather agressive in asserting design decisions and utterly shutting down discussion around obvious questions like why there was 1 consul or why does a game called imperator have no plans to actually take place during the Roman EMPIRE(rather than the republic). Then we get to the end game of imperator just being shut down. So they take our money, shit on our opinion, and then give up when it turns out they might have fucked up(not to mention they already have 1 game in development at this time and vic3 either started during imperator or shortly afterwards, the entire studio just seems to have been obvious mismanaged and overextended to the point where they just cut off Imperator) Then we get ck3 with half of the content of ck2 and then they want you to pay for a dlc that is basically just the old gods but repackaged and ironically enough without even as much content. Now we have Vicky 3 where the only people that actually continued to play victoria over the years, the people that had the biggest impact on its resurgence are being completely ignored if not told to just fuck off and go play vic2. I was a fan of paradox but I'm actually paying attention to what they say and do and I can't see anything but arrogance and contempt.
Imperator was basically “johans game” in which his ideal imperator was a shallow eu4 clone (mana gross). The so called passion project took 2 years to salvage into what it should’ve been in the first place but by then the reputation was done. Had it had the amount of content and effort invested as it had in its end days it probably would’ve been still in dev.
I agree with you but i am responding to (no plans for a roman empire ) at the early roman empire you had basically all the map of imperator the only places would be germanic tribes , brittania and persia and that is it , imo that would be boring
@@__prometheus__ there is a reason why Johan was basically exiled from the company to Spain to work on EU4 dlcs I have a feeling that Johan's vic3 would probably be in a similar spot I:R was at launch, then salvaged but Paradox would already decide to cut their loses and dip.
@@Antonious_jeffer imo by that time in your play through, the internal dealings of your country should be so complicated that much of your time needs to be spent holding the Empire together, just like in real life. Of course that implies that the game needs to have mechanics that actually make that fun or interesting but the devs apparently never wanted to get to that point. Just paint the map red and fuck off I guess.
I didn't ask for the war system overhaul, but wasn't hostile to the whole thing: -less micro. -can be quite interesting if you get a number of options at the high command level. -Maybe free up resources for other areas. But none of that has happened so far. Economics and politics are no better now than in the second part. CK3 was a worthy successor in comparison.
Honestly, one of the things they could've done which would've alleviated Vic2's micro problems is give vic 3 a hoi4 style frontline system. Now it doesn't and shouldn't be 1:1 with hoi4's warfare system, but doing something like that would've allowed for players that like micro to still micro, but those that don't want too can focus more on other things such as the economy or their politics.
CK3 is good though, it's not as in depth as CK2 yet but it is getting better over time. But fundamentally ck3's foundations are perfectly fine, Victoria 3 on the other hand is flawed from its foundations.
Unironically all Paradox had to do was just rip off Hoi4's war system and they would have: 1. Saved hundreds of hours Dev time pre and post launch 2. Allowed people who didn't want to micro in single player to just use the front line system 3. Allow hardcore/multiplayer players to use micro Not to mention they ripped the map straight from Hoi4 (The initial province count was the exact same as Hoi4s) so there was no reason they couldn't rip the war system either. Especially if they weren't going to go for something that actually simulates the evolving war tactics from Post-Napoleon to Interwar (which is what I heard as a something Redditors actually wanted before the OPB psyops. The current war system does this even worse than how Vic 2 simulated it.)
I can't belive how can anyone defend the love child of RISK and Cookie Clicker. The blind loyalty thowards AAA studios enrage me to no end, and not just in the case of Vic3. What makes people defend billion dollar corporations who lie to you and shit in your mouth, is beyond me. People always tend to forget that corporations are not your 100 wholsome chungus friendos. For me this isn't about the Vic franchise, it's more about Vic3 being an objectivly bad sloppy product, and paradrones still defending it. You should be critical to every service and product you purches even if you're enjoy it. If people would do that maybe we would be further away from the cyberpunk distopias of Coca-cola and Amazon death squads
I almost never see anyone defend Paradox lmao. They get shit on so much by their own player base and have almost every single DLC hated on. Basically all of their games are hated at launch and people both demand more DLCs and moan when they release them.
@@Linesweeper and yet the COONsomer tools still paying money for it, after saying paradox bad hurr. There is a difference between boycotting a company vs shittalking them. Paradox is a shit company tbh, and thier even shitter consumers enabling that they can get away with thier DLC policy among other things
@Productions4bakas The general community and individual players will barely ever defend paradox, but a huge amount of content creators will. They take sponsorships constantly. People should be aware of this disconnect
I had bought into the Vicky3 meme. I convinced myself it was going to be great, and a worthy successor. When the war system dev diary came along I convinced myself, simultaneously, that it would be fine and work out in the end and that PDX would realize the issue and change it. It was all cope because I desperately wanted to believe that the sequel to one of my favourite games, the game that got me into strategic games where you move toy soldiers around and paint maps, would be awesome and worthy. Yeah I was a little disappointed.
@@AlephOmega-zy5qs The problem with the leaked build is that it *was* an earlier build, so I was able to just brush it off with the same excuses as before, that it will get better or change by release.
I found your channel via people blaming you specifically for the steam reviews going to mixed. I'm glad because your videos are great, I'd never even heard of you before people accused you of somehow manifesting ten thousand negative reviews
I still think that the reason the war system is so bad is related to the setting of the game and Paradox being worried about getting bad press. My guess is that the creators of the game had top down concerns about making a "colonialism/scramble for Africa" game. To appease this they neutered the war system, and told their bosses that it was going to focus on diplomacy/politics. The Paradox team states that they spent a ton of time on the war system. My guess is that this is because of internal arguments between games designers focused on game mechanics vs PR/leadership concerned with bad press. I mean Spud, you beautiful disagreeable starchy boi. You can feel the conflict of interests when you play Vic3.
Not to say this with any hate to other creators, but many Victoria and Victoria-adjacent youtubers (most especially One Proud Bavarian) do seem to have their ability to form and share controversial opinions be compromised by a financial relationship with Paradox. It is hard to take an endorsement of Victoria 3 seriously when it is coming from someone who has a strong financial incentive to stay on Paradox's good side.
Could you imagine if WW1 happened in Victoria 3 compared to real life? -Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia, who has trench infantry so Austria-Hungary can't advance into Serbia. All good so far. -Russia attacks Austria-Hungary & Germany, losing terribly because the enemy's defense stats are so high Russia can't win even with 3x numerical superiority. Kind of historical but a little sketchy. It gets worse when neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary can push into Russia because trench infantry are nigh-unbeatable even in the lategame with maximum offensive technologies and aggressive generals. -Germany invades France through Belgium, violating Belgium's sovereignty and giving Great Britain the chance to join the war. Great Britain refuses because Germany has low infamy so they don't see a need. Italy forgot to put a declared interest in Belgium so they can't join the war either. Great Qing China, in a baffling move, decide to play world police by intervening in a war they have no business fighting. -France WOULD be secure against Germany...but due to Great Qing's early 1800's line infantry reducing the quality of troops on France's frontline, the Germans find it very easy to push forward, causing France to surrender by mid 1915 because the only wargoal against France was war reparations which is pitifully easy to obtain on almost any country. -Serbia eventually falls and separately capitulates, getting fully annexed by Austria-Hungary who later explodes into the 45th Austro-Hungarian Liberal Revolt of the game because Austria-Hungary refused to pass a law to restrict child labor. -Mexico declares a separate war against Italy and somehow manages to seizure part of northern Italy. Had to add this because I saw the AI do it once and my jaw dropped. -Russia and Germany can't invade each other on land because their defensive stats are too high. To remedy this, Germany does the age-old "naval invade Ingria" strategy, instantly seizing the Russian capital and winning the war. They liberated Dagestan in the peace deal (?!?!?). Austria-Hungary is defeated in the revolution, creating a new Austria-Hungary that is no longer allied to Germany but at least solved their legal issues by...turning their government into a communist council republic? They completely forgot about child labor, and so the next revolution begins shortly after. -The Great Qing surrender, having gained nothing and lost nothing what was supposed to be the 2nd deadliest conflict the world has ever seen. China will remember this... THE END
Man I love when Qing instead of dealing with its country is joining the decentralized nation that I am trying to colonize, so that now I have to invade them by sea or just wait 5 years for them to capitulate from nothing
Honestly the only complaint I think of for Victoria 2 is that the engine is outdated, geo-political diplomacy feels a little bare bones and I wish they have even more options. Then at times the micromanaging of troops just feels clunky and messy at times, but Idk if that has to do more with the outdated engine it's built off of or if it's bugs that never got patched. Personally I love to see a war system that would be very dynamic in the sense that whatever tech you end up researching will give you the option to organize your troops and generals in such a manner especially for the time. For example if you research options in Victoria 3 such as Line infinity, Squad infinity, or there's even Trench warfare tech in the game. So having a warfare system that I think slowly transitions over time or let's you choose out of the options based on tech research would be a better way to conduct the war-system.
Paradox went full lazymode with Vic3. The combat system in Victoria 2 is extremely lacking, since it effectively just uses a modified version of the combat from EU3. It totally fails to model how warfare evolved from the Napoleonic Era to WW1. So what did the Vic3 devs do? They just ripped everything out and put in a combat system that looks like a novice mobile game trying to do WW1 combat. There are monolithic fronts that only have one combat event at a time that always heavily favors the defender. It's emblematic of the whole game, as it's extremely bare bones.
@AlphaOmega-zy5qs You are right that Vic2 warfare was hastily copy/pasted from EU3 essentially. But I believe that it gets the transition from Napoleonic to WW1 right, by accident. I show how in my Victoria 3 War System video
@@SpudgunOfficial I mean there isn't any system in Vic2 where one can actually make army groups, and the battleplan mapper is useless, unlike in Hoi4 (which you would rather die hard than play it because of its cookie-cutter economy)
I had to google the sphere of influence dlc and I'm kinda gobsmacked tbh. The sheer audacity to charge for something that was in base vic 2 over a decade ago is insane to me. I think vic 3 will be the last pdx game I buy, it's burnt me too hard for me to trust them again
I’ve never played Victoria 3 (and never will), but I’m genuinely confused as to how Victoria could work without spheres of influence. They’re arguably the most important part of Victoria 2 diplomacy, and the game that’s supposed to be hyper-focused on diplomacy and internal affairs lacks it
If you don't like Victoria 3 then that is just your opinion (even though it is the wrong opinion) I love the war system in Victoria 3 why would I want to micro my troops when I can micro my economy. Before anyone calls me a reddit mod incel Vic 3 lover I will have you know my wife and her boyfriends really love Victoria 3 too.
Man, I have been on the internet for so long that I honestly cannot tell what is a joke and what is not a joke. I think I will just head outside and touch grass as the kids say.
I would rather just gather all my troops into a doomstack and send it onto enemy doomstack than continuously micromanage assigning each of the generals to each of constantly merging and dividing fronts. The problem with V3 warfare is that it promised less micro but only added more.
Hamourabi just sees something that is not there and imagines some magical future development cycle for vic3 where the developers take every right choice which would involve rebuilding systems from the ground up. This is something that just will not happen and with the first expansion and its own issues we saw that that the vic3 dev team has little to no idea what exactly they are doing or even trying to do.
>Plays Paradox games >New game >Hype >New game is bland and a step backwards compared to former title >Its ok, they'll fix it with a $20 DLC >Plays Paradox games
Vic2: Can build buildings in multiple provinces and even the same province at the same time Vic3: Can't build buildings in multiple provinces and even the same province at the same time I believe that this should be sufficient evidence on why Vic2 is the Superior Game.
I know I'm a bit late to the party on this video but 19:37 is something that is a bit of a pet peeve for me. Luddites weren't reactionary technology haters who fought angrily against the march of progress - they were skilled workers who were threatened with losing their livelihoods to machinery (and they inevitably did). It's comparable to the fear people have today of losing their jobs and careers to AI.
from what i remember about isp’s old vic 2 content is yeah he was laughing at its wackiness like you said but i also remember him talking a lot about how he loves the game a lot and he was also considering making a guide so he could get his hoi4 audience into playing it so i think it is fair to say he was/is kinda a diehard
I've never played Vic2, but was a pretty hardcore EU4 player. The warfare in vic3 puts me off so much. The problem isn't not being to control your armies, the problem is the lack of any interesting and meaningful choices to be made. As it currently is the entire game is simply a case of make number go bigger. If your army is bigger and more advanced you win, otherwise you lose. There is no better microing of units, there is no having a better strategy than the enemy, there is no managing your resources better. This makes for a game that feels soulless. In their vision Paradox seems to have forgotten something that is the most important, namely player agency. With that said I do really like one aspect of Vic3, the economy. I managed to get into a situation that actually mimicked real life events, and I ended up making similar choices to actual nations. I went to war with my suzerain, cutting off market access with them. As a result I quickly had to find new markets to get my resources from, but for some I simply couldn't due to being landlocked. I had to go back to simpler production methods to save on resources and keep my economy somewhat functional. I also had to find new markets to export to as well, but again I couldn't for all resources and certain industries had to be scaled back. My economy took a massive tumble, but I managed to stabilise the situation. I only realised after the fact that many of the choices I made are very similar to what Russia has done as a result of their "special operation". However unlike them I managed to finish the war quickly and avoid total collapse of my economy. Anyway, this situation was only possible due to the economy being a good system. An equally interesting situation cannot result from the current war system in Vic3, hence why it is bad. In EU4 due to the far simpler economic system I've never had any interesting situations arise out of it, but due to the war system and diplomacy being better I have had many more interesting and memorable situations arise there. The problem with Vic3 to me is how gimped and lacking so many systems are: pops, politics, war, diplomacy. None of these systems can give rise to interesting events and barely give the player any agency. Hence no matter how much "flavour" and how many events and decisions Paradox add to the game, the game will keep on being lacking.
I really enjoyed your takes on vic3 on both this video and the one you made a few months ago. If i can say one thing to prove just how insanely wrong hammurabae is, then its this: I am a huge hoi4 lover and a bit of an eu4 one. My favorite time period is ww2 followed by the victorian age tho. I started my first pdx game with hoi4 in 2019 (late to the party hahaha) and then got eu4, then ck3, then ck2. I felt vic2 was too dated for me to enjoy. And right after no step back was announced for hoi4, victoria 3 was announced and i was hyped beyond belief, to the point i would keep a week count to vic3's release. A few months passed and then the game was leaked, i feel bad doing it but i quickly found a link and tried it. Played a few hours and was amazed and what could have been, but it was way too incomplete, of course this only made me more hyped because i understood that this version wasnt intended to be public anf that most the issues would be fixed. Fast forward again and the game launches..... and had a nice 30 - 40 years campaign as the Sweden, until i realised something, the game is dead... ai is nowhere to be seen, deathwarring for the defense of sokoto or killing itself with revolutions. Then the combat system which i had convinced myself to understand that "this is an economic game and not a war game" started to show that its even more micro intensive than hoi4 due to being needlessly UN-userfriendly. In other words annoying with no depth. I personally enjoyed the way the economy gameplay was in the game even if it was reppetitive ( always liked economics). But then again i realised something, whats the point..... there are no reprecussions for just building iron coal steel and wood and then just building infinite barracks to make a giant army out of thin air, with no upkeep or equipment needs whatsover and then just say F you to the infamy limit and conquer everything. So basically making this "economy game" into a war game with the combat depth of a mobile game . Well at least the whole diplomatic incident is a nice touch... ohh.... you cant ask for a war goal but only be invited? What ..... the f. So basically war is done by ai, diplomacy is done by ai , there are no need to go in depth in the economy and politics (at least in the release) was too easy for the player to manage (yet the ai suffered) to the point its trivial. So basically its a half game with that half being too easy for it to be interesting while the other half is out of your control.......... how can anyone defend this. After i said i have enough with the game, i tried vic2... it took some time to learn and after downloading some mods, its a much better experience than vic3. So.... i ve played vic3 first and i still think vic2 > vic 3
The fact anti other pdx games vic 3 players by dismissing it as toy soldiers tells me more about them than their points. Its silly and disrespectfull from the start.
Hammurabi said all he needed to, "What I dont want is for people that dont like this vision to weaponize the current state of the game to protest for a vision of the game they want-" Screw off! Thats exactly what EVERYONE OUGHT TO DO, you want people who disagree with you to just be quiet, if the situation was reversed you wouldnt want to be told to be quiet, if the population of interested parties is this loud and this persistent, then maybe it shows something could happen and they could change it! We wont know unless we complain in the first place!
The vision was so poorly thought-out, badly implemented, badly justified that they have no leg to stand on to argue for letting them try to realise it properly. The state of the game on release should be considered the failure of it, that's it. But Paradox have such low standards that we're supposed to give them years to fix it
Even before Victoria 3 was announced, I always thought a possible Victoria 3 needed a good middle ground between individual unit management and frontlines, seeing as the game starts with Napoleonic warfare still alive and well and ends on the eve of WWII. I just think Victoria 3 decided to really lean in towards the later Victorian era and the World Wars too much, where obviously rigid frontlines are a lot more important.
I dont really think either Vic 2 or 3 is better or worse than one another. Rather, I dont even think they're comparable. The two games are so radically different from one another that the only thing they truly share is a name and timespan.
"moving toy soldiers on a map" Do people forget that Chess is one of the most played board games in history? Yes, you have units (or toy soldiers if that's what you like) that do special things that you move on a board and defeat your enemy with strategy, people like that
Wait so this dude Poison the Well by saying Victoria to fans are cultists, immediately begins insulting people, and is somehow surprised that people are calling him an asshole? What did you expect?
The reason why I like Victoria 2 is that I can move soldiers on a map like kid me could in Halo Wars. Also, never ask a Vic 2 diehard how the economic system works (not even Paradox knows)
Victoria two was not only my first paradox strategy game but literally I think the second or third game I bought on Steam after terraria. I’m very invested in the future of the game in the series, so seeing the way everything went down is extremely upsetting. When you make a sequel you’re supposed to appeal to the people who bought the game in the first place, but we always end up getting sold down the river for mass appeal. Old guard players are resources to be burned once the series gets big enough, nothing more.
Hey Spud, legit one of your best videos. Great edditing, pacing and the build of the arguments both hilarious and brilliant. I've seen too many videos analysing Viccy 3 compared to Vic2 in an open pannel and discussing live. I'm actually getting exited about trying Vic2 multiplayer watching this. Keep up this edditing style & the good work! *also quietly impatious anout Bavaria series, but that just in my head*
I dropped vic3 (pirated) after 1 day. I also hate(d) HOI4 as someone who learned and loved HOI3. The difference is I've given HOI4 a few more tries as they've added content, the core changes to the engine and gameplay still ruin it, but it was fun in it's own way. I don't see VIC3 ever being appealing to someone who doesn't have plebeian taste.
Its almost like sometimes, things change. Witcher 1 and Witcher 3? Vastly different. The Elder Scrolls series? Barely recognizable between Arena and Skyrim. Expecting them to just remake an old game was just not realistic or smart on their part.
things change, but some things also stay the same in game trilogies, like something would be the same from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 and from Witcher 2 to 3. That was not the case with the Hoi trilogy after hoi4. Hoi3 do change stuff from Darkest Hour but keeps an old thing like IC, and a combat system, but adds new stuff like chain of command and a better engine. Hoi4 say shrew it and took hoi3 and dumb/simple it down so much, It only is a successor by name
A simple solution is this. All they had to do was take victoria 2, make it again but with additional features and perhaps better UI, but they didn't they couldn't and therefore victoria 3 is a failure as a sequel with less content a fake economy and consolification.
Nice video. I really appreciate your use of language; your consistent readiness to acknowledge other viewpoints is commendable. However, I think you should have watched the 3 hr response, regardless of its length, it may have contained insightful information about his perspective/narrative, or (though probably not) a revalation about why Victoria 3 is good. Probs not tho. Still should have watched it i think. Edit: Going through this again, I have to say, I really do appreciate your use of evidence and respect towards others.
If you have to make an evidence-based argument in favor of why a particular piece of media is good, chances are you’re coping. Media is mainly meant to be experienced, not just analyzed. Whether that be a game, a painting, a sculpture, a movie, etc. if the experience is not positive or at the very least impactful, it’s not good.
Yeah... I'll accept any criticism of me not watching the 3hr response. If I wanted to be thorough and really capture the whole argument I should've. But I was busy, there was plenty of content and things to talk about without it, and my focus is the Bavaria Series. So take it or leave it :)
@@bruhbruh-us6gl Well... in trying to tell me that what you like is good because it made you feel a certain way, you're providing evidence. Really bad evidence, because anyone can disagree with you and say they felt something different. I'm not really sure if you're trolling tbh.
@@immenseangloid4168 My point is that taking this exclusively rationalistic approach to the question “what makes media good” is not the right approach, in the same way It’s the wrong approach to look at a painting, look only at the quality of the techniques the painter employed to make the painting, and grade it based on that. Victoria 3 probably works on a technical level (aside from the bugs) but fails in regards to the experience it provides the player. Aka, the mechanics work but they’re boring, repetitive, frustrating, etc. What I’m getting at is that the mechanics of the game are fundamentally flawed.
It’s a shame that Vic 3 flopped so badly. The economic system of Vic 3 is quite unique and felt like a breath of fresh air compared to other grand strategy games.
I've generally liked Victoria 3, but the war system is absolutely atrocious. I tried giving that element a chance and tried to appreciate it, but at its core its a system where the central goal is to remove micro yet generals will encircle and create random fronts on a regular basis, this means you have to pay close attention and micro every front to make sure no 0 fronts go unattended. Micro feels absolutely unrewarding in Victoria 3, it wont lead to you winning a war but it sure as hell will lead to you losing if you don't babysit the unresponsive generals. This system is also absurdly stupid for a game with massive colonial powers across the world, France or any other major power will send their entire army across the sea to fight in any dumbfuck conflict yet face no real punishment for doing so as logistics are negilible (unlike Victoria 2's micro system which accidentally makes logistics a huge focus as seen from your wars when you consider the time it'll take to bring your armies from one place to another, the ships required to do so, and the shape having real influence on wars and how an alliance can exert its power) and if another European power decides to move in on France to take advantage of the army being gone France can teleport them back to France with no real cost and they'll be back well before the diplomatic play becomes a war. The Victoria 3 war system feels like Paradox conceptually wanted to try a radically new approach to war in one of their games, but didn't actually think through or plan out what that'd look like, just throwing stuff based just on a concept until they decided to just ship out what they ended up with.
Victoria 3 advocates being like "go play Hearts of Iron 4 if you don't like it" is kind of like Vic 2 players coming home after a long holiday only to find someone is squatting in their house and has changed the locks so the keys don't work. People who liked Vic 2, the original audience for this series have waited over a decade for a new entry and once it happens it just gets usurped from them.
As a Vic 2 "hardliner" and a 3 hoper, I strongly agree! They announced changing war system into the good direction Spud! Check it out, the latest diary, brings some hope to a hoper like me.
Pre-ordering games is just ez money for game companies. It rewards marketing and not making a good game. Once the game is sold you just patch it sell some relatively lower cost dlc and money is made.
I liked the Vic3 war system conzeptually originally, but then I figured out just how broken it is. I was playing central america and attacked mexico. The AI just breaks in a ewar against 2 nations and the mexicans went to war with the US. Bot the US and mexico AI broke and literally did nothing and all of Mexico was occupied by the Indian Territory once a mexican colony expanded to border it. What I appreciate about Vic3 is that it's a departure from the same war system paradox keeps reusing from Europa Universalis 2 all the way to Stellaris. I do think they need to get a bit more experimental and the thing with experiments is they sometimes fail. Better than always the same though I guess. 12:06 I mean yeah, but I think it's a good thing they tried something new for once 21:03 I have mixed feelings on CK2 v CK3. On one hand they completely fucked up CK2 by making it a magic fantasy setting detached from history. On the other Ck3 nation management is way more shallow they went hard into expanding the roleplay and left everything else behind... lastly I think it was a mistake to change how 'CK mana' worked. Ck2 had this very interesting interplay of resources both giving passive bonuses from a high stockpile and giving reasons to spend them. In CK3 they made the system way more shallow by keeping track separately of 'lifetime generated' mana for the passive effects completely deleting that layer of very organic deapth. Also some bizzare decissions. Like creating a system or religions breaking apart into new religions, but still deciding to have great Schism not happen and Greekocatholicism existing before it. Or creating a whole ass system of 'court languages' but then not having Latin or religion or the church play any role. They created a system designed to simulate a historical reality, but then decided to not implement it or integrate it. Wasted opportunities all around.
I just finished a Vic3 USA run on 1.3 before writing this rant. I don’t remember armies all teleporting to one front one the other side of the country and waiting in line patiently to fight one at a time in the Victorian era. How dare I expect to direct my toy soldiers like a world leader strategically. I would like my generals to actually stay on the frontline I put them on. And why can I only choose from 2 or 3 to be my general who are all from the same political group and are all communists, vanguards, or anarchists? Do any of the traits really matter in a battle that I can’t see or have any feedback on what is happening other than loading bar win/lose? Oh cool, the map builds as I build. Wait, I play zoomed out 95% of the time anyway and never see any of that work until I want to see my toy soldiers fight. Which I don’t get to see. Any time I click on something in a menu, it jumps back to the top. Really, 2023 coding can’t put me back or keep me where I scrolled before. Chat: “You’re using the wrong menu. The one on the other side of the screen works better.” What?! Really? So you saved me from micromanaging military, but I have to micro each states buildings to make sure how they work matches what is in the state through 3 menus. I need a literal notepad next to my keyboard to keep up with what state has a power plant to make sure not to tank its economy. Brilliant! Can’t actually give me the info on the screen needed to make the decision. Or a setting for best possible setup for buildings. That is what is even more frustrating to me. And I totally dislike the whole journal system. It doesn’t really tell you anything. Just a bunch of check lists. Why do I want to do this? Will this help me in anyway? What will result in completing this? How do I end Reconstruction? How do I ditch the Dixie’s and accept the Afro-Americans? No. You don’t want to ruin the surprise by telling me anywhere? Vic3 for me is the game with no or hidden feedback that is not visually interesting. That makes it hard to stream at times. It turn into a map painter through lack of feedback. The devs said they didn’t want a map painter by giving us one. It is getting better, but it was really bare bones and broken at the start. At the end of it all, a game should be fun at some level because it is a toy after all. Plus the vision of the devs was flawed. They made that clear by the changes in the roadmap. Sphere of Influence was such an awesome concept of Vic2 that enhanced the “not always war” gameplay that Vic3 idealizes. That paired with HOI4 puppet to annex or independence peacefully system would be awesome non “toy soldier” gameplay. Anyway, I’m done ranting now.
Shills will say fans are contrarian when devs shi-- i mean subvert the expectations of long time fans. If they're so opposed to refining the original formula why didn't they ditch the brand's name for that particular project and sell it under another name if they're so sure it can stand on it's own merit?
I think one of the biggest things that has bugged me about Victoria 3 is the idea that the main critics are Vic 2 fans as harambe and even Montu have pushed. I got into Paradox games (without realizing it) through Sword of the Stars (and the less said about its sequel the better!), and didn't really touch any others for YEARS until some friends got me into stellaris and CK2 mainly. I tried Eu4 and really didn't like how unable to affect anything directly in it (years of RTS right there.). I had NEVER touched Vic2 and really hadn't heard of it until after I had tried 3...and I CANNOT STAND VIC3! I hate the ripped off build que they outright plagiarized from Hoi4 but made somehow WORSE by making the only time you need to have your construction sectors on being the tick between saturday night and sunday morning. I hated the RNG heavy 'law making' with incredibly simplistic and agenda showing 'laws' that showed no awareness of how the laws were made or enforced in the various nations. I hated the war system with not only the bugs but the lack of agency the player has in all but the most limited ways. I hated the hamfisted and halfassed 'diplomacy' system. I hated the IMMENSELY simplistic options for trade goods that showed only a shallow understanding of how intricate the economics of that time period were. I even hated the bland, generic 'classical' music and that's as a lover of classical music since I was a kid because it was just...so...monotonous. This was the take from someone that had never played vic2, just someone that was outright insulted by the way that WIzzengton and his crowd seemed to think that the player's job was to just be a spectator to their game. This wasn't just 'limited agency' as was the case with EU4 where the main goal is you are running a NATION and having to balance a lot of things so the fine control is not as much (still can't get into it but I get it now), this was active anti-play agency, they wanted to curtail and limit and remove as much player agency as possible.
I remember ranting in comments of some video that showed how VIC3 looked. I've already was highly concerned about how unstylish and off-putting the visuals (both graphics and UI) looked compared to VIC2 (vanilla looks way better and Throne of Lloraine mod for example visually looks just stunning map graphics wise). I've also was and am disappointed that paradox didn't make a proper Globe (Spherical) Map Projection, because I've actually loved Imperator for its map projection and wanted a full globe map. I hope the openvic2 will implement spherical map as I've seen you show in one of your videos. Don't even want to comment about lobotomized economic simulation and war management. P.S. I am not even a diehard VIC2 fan, I've never even played multiplayer due to skill issues (but mostly due to time constrains, life for the University student in Ukraine is hard these days..) and I usually roleplay in singleplayer and for some weird reason (maybe for not being an idiot) I see VIC3 for the extremely flawed disappointment it is =(
One thing you've gotten wrong is pdx has announced in a recent dev diary on war that they are planning on adding multiple battles per front in some form
RUclips is so ridiculous and inconsistent: they will completely understand that those flags are merely representing history and a game, but if you say the word fuck it's over
Tbh I think the war system had great potential with you had little direct control over your army with more ability to choose tactics as you get more techs until you have almost complete control over your units by the 30s, this would simulate the separation between the state and army enabling things like rogue military’s which did happen a lot during the period
Even people that tried to enjoy Victoria 3 have mostly acknowledged the war system is garbage. Even if it ran well (which it doesn’t) it takes to much advocacy away from the player.
Thanks for this video, and honestly good timing. We had a week to roast with Lambert, and now we can sit back a bit more respectfully and critically talk about what was said. I'd rather the Victoria (2 & 3) community didn't spend the next 7 years bickering until the next game in the series comes out. Hopefully in the upcoming discussions, DLC's, etc. we can come to somewhat of a consensus as Victoria 3's honeymoon phase ends. It is NOT a perfect game, and neither is Victoria 2. I wish these community members would prioritize criticizing PARADOX for putting out subpar materials even though they continue to charge more and more.
I think that Victoria 3 would have succeeded if it wasn't marketed as a victoria game. If V3 was released as a different game not under the banner of Vicky, it might have done well
“Vic 3 blew up?” No Mr. Oppenheimer... I’m afraid it bombed.”
if i could send that fire writing gif in youtube replies i would
✍️🔥🔥🔥🔥
My le game... Fucking sucks?...
@@TheOfficialJeff1 My toy soldiers... are gone?
@@pelace I cant do...Naval encirclements?
>Buy grand strategy game
>Wtf I have to micro the armies and actually have to play the game?
Literally what are these people wanting out of the game exactly?
Historical accuracy and fun, not a war sim or map painter I hope
@@ellidominusser1138 historical accuracy? Have you seen the American Revolution and how Germany and Italy are always formed around 1860
@@ellidominusser1138 >and fun
The people who played and bought the games before you thought it was fun, the player base as a trend across all titles thinks it's fun. The only war sim is Hearts of Iron and even that has been dumbed down. You want to pay money for a game to play itself, you want the game to have less features and actual gameplay for everybody because you don't like it. The amount of game series' I've followed that have became watered down, boring messes are all because of company's pandering to people like you. You don't actually know what you want, you just take what you're given. What exactly is historically accurate about Vic 3? The diplomacy? The economy? The American Civl War? Austria forming super germany? How does having control over your armies actually affect that?
@@ellidominusser1138That "map painting" and "war simulating" is literally why it's called a grand strategy. You have to deal with everything from the economy to diplomacy to military maneuvers on a national level. The map painting is pretty much the result of that strategy. It shouldn't be too easy but it also shouldn't be punishing.
It's the Victorian Era, where literally everyone has some imperialist vision and military tech and strategy was rapidly changing. At the same time, there's also a lot of alt history potential with the many ideas proposed that never got off the ground.
An upscaled version of Risk by the looks of it
What if I told you the Finno-Korean Hyperwar was real?
I was there as a third party
Korea must perish. Finish Holy Roman Khaganate will rise again.
@@RunicRhino22 bro the third party was Lemuria but it was disastrous for them because they dissappeared
little dark age:
people how the hell is this the most liked comment?
He was not a 5 defense general
he did not go to Heirs to Aquitania lore school 😔
Accidentally appointed a -3 defense general thinking it was a +3
Italy player used him to attack mountains over a river.
"Oh you just wanted to move toy soldiers around on the map"
My brother in christ this is THE moving toy soldiers on a map company
the only way game companies will ever change is when consumers say no to garbage, thank you for continuing the fight against mainstreamed trash games commander spud
I'm afraid the problem is far out of consumers' reach. People just have too much spare money nowadays and even complete carbage makes profit
Lol no. Boycotts don't work and are not a solution.
I think the entire gaming industry needs to crash again that’s the only way to fix the problem
@@Mkrause762I pray every day for a big crash, so much so game graphics have to refuse to evolve anymore and they have tighter budgets that get redirected on the cheaper and way more important parts
the worst part is all the graphical improvement doesn’t matter when the average game that comes out nowadays is less visually appealing than a game from the ps2 era
"Shut up and work on the Bavaria Series."
You're right. I was so hopeful for Vic 3 at first. It is such a let down.
"move toy soldiers"
yes that's the point i want to act like a general and move stacks around
A general-in-chief… assuming wishes from the commander(s)-in-chief(s)
You want fun in your game? What are you some sort of fucking loser?
Real gamers are absolutely miserable when playing games. (/s)
the thing is, when you have actual control of the stacks, you can use actual strategy instead of watch the ai constantly attak with 3 dudes.
"why do people like chess? You just move toy soldiers on a board!"
"Why can't I move my toy soldiers on the map" this but unironically
Lmao that is why I play the game. To fight wars and win because of troop comp
This was such a stupid argument, trying to make himself look like some hecking grown-up superior to all these manchildren. We're all grown men playing video games, just not a valid path to take in your argumentation
Critiquing the Vic2 camp for "wanting to move toy soldiers around the map" is incredible when Vic3 feels like a cartoon version of the 19th century
It’s crazy to me that the war system for Victoria three is still be defended when there was a middle option that worked. The system for imperator Rome, and Eu4 were you still have stacks like all other paradox games that you still have final control over, but can automate them. It’s the fact that paradox waste time creating systems we already have solutions for instead of refining aspects of the game that direly need it (like AI) makes me worried for the future of the company.
Just using the HoI4 system would be the best. Less tedium, more control.
Exactly. They're doing a very low quality pump and dump style of games development. All the effort goes into marketing and social engineering, while the games are very simple and hollow, merely vessels for dlc.
The imperator system with an addition of “frontline” management would be most ideal imo. The cohort/legion management thing it’s got going on is pretty good.
I'm still don't get why they didn't use Hoi4 nor EU4 war system, both work well and the player base is already familiarized with both.
@Boon2000 Retard detected deploying ironic emoticon.
💀
19:30 The fact that he compares Vic3 critics to the Luddites in exactly the same ignorant memey way as they are portrayed in the latest DLC is just gold
I was kinda in favour of the changes to war before game release, found that the war in Vicky 3 was so frustrating that I just tended to avoid war. Actually made me go back and play Victoria 2 and appreciate the war system in it much more.
I agree with this lmao.
The worst part is that Vic2 war isn't that amazing neither. They had the opportunity of solving their problems but ended throwing that away.
The war mechanic in Vic 3 can be the easiest thing ever or the most enraging thing in a video game. Also naval invasions are still way too OP. I don't know why they didn't just copy and paste HOI4 war mechanics and change it to suit the Victoria series.
They’ve been trying so hard to make a frontline system work with both HOI4 and Vic3, but the AI is atrociously bad for it making it both frustrating for the player when their AI screws up and also annoyingly easy when the opponent messes up.
Plus the naval invasions of Vic3 are a total fucking joke and often result in cheesy war wins, especially when you get stupid stuff like China invading European countries in the 1840’s
Yeah. My problem hasn't been with the concept. The execution is hot garbage. Nothing wrong with a frontline system though. HoI4 does it well after all.
I still cannot comprehend how paradox managed to convince their overall grand strategy community that hasn't touched Vic2 to defend Vic3 and all of it's changes from pops to warfare.
It's just so unorganic. Like, where did these people come from. Victoria 3 is very different from Victoria 2, so much so the 'Vic2 diehards' outright deny the existence of Vic3 or name it a massive failure. Victoria 3 is unlike ANY grand strategy, or hell, even strategy. Name a single strategy game that does not allow you direct control of your army/units/fleets/ships/planes/whatever related to warfare. Victoria 3 is even unlike any "civilization simulators" like rimworld, dwarf fortress or any isometric village/city/kingdom builders like anno or tropico just to name a few, because it either, again, doesn't allow direct orders to pops or is on a grander scale than "one settlement". But hey, this means that this game is unique, so it has an unique playerbase? Well, the charm is wearing off, especially after the DLC fiasco, affirming that these "new victorians" don't even like paradox for it's development policy, they just liked their "Vision".
Please, can someone tell me who these fanboys are and where did they come from? They can't be the paradox fans that spammed "where vic 3 hehe" somewhere between 2017-2020.
I think it's this weird dichotomy that originates from the fact that Paradox used to have a very small dedicated community 10+ years ago. It was also rather hard to get into their games which created an illusion as if there's some sort of gatekeeping from the larger community for anyone that's new, which in truth was never the case.
Because of this many newer 2016+ "paradox fans" think that if they show the same level of dedication to the company (not the community) they will be accepted and put on the same standing with the old guard (which Paradox did, since most of their newer games and DLCs pander to that new bigger audience).
To them Paradox can do no wrong because Paradox is responsible for making them the part of this community not the "old gatekeepers".
In no other game it is as apparent as with Victoria 2. These people unironically hate Victoria 2 now, because it was made in a different age and they simply do not understand this game, and let me explain you why.
Unlike other mainstream Paradox games Victoria 2 was left behind and is still only enjoyed by ones that were playing it back in the days or people who had enough patience and dedication to actually learn it, something that evidently from his video Hammurabae doesn't have.
Because Vic3 is objectively shit, many of these "Paradox fans" had become openly hostile towards Victoria 2 and its fans and it's very apparent in places like Reddit or RUclips.
Most of these people had never played Vic2 because "it was too hard" or "it was too old" but they still wanted to be a part of the community. And then Paradox promised them a new Victoria game, better, easier to understand, new and shiny so that they can finally be part of that all so desired Victoria community that was only for the most dedicated players.
And then what? Victoria 2 fans had utterly rejected Victoria 3 and now these same people had turned that rejection into anger at us, not Paradox for making the game shit.
That's just my take on this situation, it is in fact very inorganic. It was already like that during the dev dairy cycle of Vic3 where a subset of people would just attack anyone who disliked what they had presented about Victoria 3. Some called them paid shills, but I very much doubt that Paradox has enough money for that. These people think that they will buy themselves the good will of the company if they fight anyone who disagrees with it.
I blame Reddit. Reddit is where many companies draw opinions from because the website is easy to navigate, has a massive casual gamer base, and is well-moderated. If there is any place to push ideas and get feedback from, it’s Reddit. Unfortunately, Redditors are all cut from the same cloth (they are fucking retarded).
Reddit echo-chambers is where they came from.
I want to say its just identity politics driven liberal neckbeards, as much as its politics that should be left out of it. Some people will just support the current thing even if it goes against their own interests.
@@tiredidealist so, leftists?
Calling Spudgun a Luddite who buried his head under the sand is kinda ironic since the Luddites didn't hate the future, but saw that their livelihoods were at risk and they'd become poor and starving because of it.
Ludditism is an inherently negative term it doesn't question if the cause for personal complaint is 'worthwhile', no one wants to lose their job, but it does imply that time will march on either way.
Its like machine learning making some bookkeeping obsolete.
This doesn't apply here at all if you ask me. Hammar-whatever is just a clown.
@@MeadowGaze if you study about the luddites not all of them really opposed to mechanization, it's just the new machines made these textile workers lose "control" of many aspects of their job to the whims of the new factory owners. they were even willing to negotiate a smoother transition, including a labour law to ensure fair compensation as the machines does drive down textile workers income, while simultaneously making them work long hours in dangerous conditions.
@@MeadowGaze Yeah haha "time" just "marches on", it's definitely not specific individuals and groups of people actively working to implement technologies and shape the laws and industry standards around them to ensure they end up in a position of greater wealth and power. Just let it happen bro no one can stop "time".
@@Bane_questionmark Honestly, yeah. Industry is literally a monolithic engine that progresses completely independently of even its supposed master like an out-of-control snowball.
Note that i wasn't making an assertion over if that's a positive outcome since it doesn't really matter.
Read Kaczynski. Not even the entrepreneurs and elites can control this train at this point.
@Nakiyame Yee I'm very sympathetic to their plight but I was speaking from the misunderstood perspective that Ludditism is damning some sort of disgust with technology as a concept.
Maybe that's how the term is understood but that's not things played out in actuality.
"the really hardcore vic 2 fan base, which is just really, aggressively against vicky3"
idk imo paradox has just been taking a more hardline stance over time and we're just seeing a reaction to that. During the Imperator dev diaries Johan specifically was rather agressive in asserting design decisions and utterly shutting down discussion around obvious questions like why there was 1 consul or why does a game called imperator have no plans to actually take place during the Roman EMPIRE(rather than the republic). Then we get to the end game of imperator just being shut down. So they take our money, shit on our opinion, and then give up when it turns out they might have fucked up(not to mention they already have 1 game in development at this time and vic3 either started during imperator or shortly afterwards, the entire studio just seems to have been obvious mismanaged and overextended to the point where they just cut off Imperator) Then we get ck3 with half of the content of ck2 and then they want you to pay for a dlc that is basically just the old gods but repackaged and ironically enough without even as much content. Now we have Vicky 3 where the only people that actually continued to play victoria over the years, the people that had the biggest impact on its resurgence are being completely ignored if not told to just fuck off and go play vic2. I was a fan of paradox but I'm actually paying attention to what they say and do and I can't see anything but arrogance and contempt.
Vic3 began development before Imperator did.
Imperator was basically “johans game” in which his ideal imperator was a shallow eu4 clone (mana gross). The so called passion project took 2 years to salvage into what it should’ve been in the first place but by then the reputation was done.
Had it had the amount of content and effort invested as it had in its end days it probably would’ve been still in dev.
I agree with you but i am responding to (no plans for a roman empire ) at the early roman empire you had basically all the map of imperator the only places would be germanic tribes , brittania and persia and that is it , imo that would be boring
@@__prometheus__ there is a reason why Johan was basically exiled from the company to Spain to work on EU4 dlcs
I have a feeling that Johan's vic3 would probably be in a similar spot I:R was at launch, then salvaged but Paradox would already decide to cut their loses and dip.
@@Antonious_jeffer imo by that time in your play through, the internal dealings of your country should be so complicated that much of your time needs to be spent holding the Empire together, just like in real life. Of course that implies that the game needs to have mechanics that actually make that fun or interesting but the devs apparently never wanted to get to that point. Just paint the map red and fuck off I guess.
I didn't ask for the war system overhaul, but wasn't hostile to the whole thing:
-less micro.
-can be quite interesting if you get a number of options at the high command level.
-Maybe free up resources for other areas.
But none of that has happened so far. Economics and politics are no better now than in the second part.
CK3 was a worthy successor in comparison.
Honestly, one of the things they could've done which would've alleviated Vic2's micro problems is give vic 3 a hoi4 style frontline system. Now it doesn't and shouldn't be 1:1 with hoi4's warfare system, but doing something like that would've allowed for players that like micro to still micro, but those that don't want too can focus more on other things such as the economy or their politics.
@@ianraymo350pretty sure that is what they were trying to do while also removing the option to micro.
@@ianraymo350 that is also all people wanted
eu4 style army templates and a frontline system to automate armies.
Ck3 is fine. It lacks content they promised it would have though it is slowly getting it. But it was never a flawed game. Not like Vic3.
CK3 is good though, it's not as in depth as CK2 yet but it is getting better over time. But fundamentally ck3's foundations are perfectly fine, Victoria 3 on the other hand is flawed from its foundations.
Unironically all Paradox had to do was just rip off Hoi4's war system and they would have:
1. Saved hundreds of hours Dev time pre and post launch
2. Allowed people who didn't want to micro in single player to just use the front line system
3. Allow hardcore/multiplayer players to use micro
Not to mention they ripped the map straight from Hoi4 (The initial province count was the exact same as Hoi4s) so there was no reason they couldn't rip the war system either. Especially if they weren't going to go for something that actually simulates the evolving war tactics from Post-Napoleon to Interwar (which is what I heard as a something Redditors actually wanted before the OPB psyops. The current war system does this even worse than how Vic 2 simulated it.)
Did he really just call Spudgun a...scam artist?
Exactly what has Spudgun been scamming people with??? lmao
Con artist, but yes
@@Lord_Lambert I know I’ll lose brain cells for asking, but what’s the scam or con? He realizes Spud hasn’t taken donations for OpenVic, right?
I'm pushing a free product
He conned me into having fun 😢
I can't belive how can anyone defend the love child of RISK and Cookie Clicker. The blind loyalty thowards AAA studios enrage me to no end, and not just in the case of Vic3. What makes people defend billion dollar corporations who lie to you and shit in your mouth, is beyond me. People always tend to forget that corporations are not your 100 wholsome chungus friendos. For me this isn't about the Vic franchise, it's more about Vic3 being an objectivly bad sloppy product, and paradrones still defending it. You should be critical to every service and product you purches even if you're enjoy it. If people would do that maybe we would be further away from the cyberpunk distopias of Coca-cola and Amazon death squads
I hard disagree with all of his points but he didn't make any of those points you listed
I almost never see anyone defend Paradox lmao. They get shit on so much by their own player base and have almost every single DLC hated on. Basically all of their games are hated at launch and people both demand more DLCs and moan when they release them.
@@lastresort1plays that's my opinion on why Vic3 and generaly AAA games are bad.
@@Linesweeper and yet the COONsomer tools still paying money for it, after saying paradox bad hurr. There is a difference between boycotting a company vs shittalking them. Paradox is a shit company tbh, and thier even shitter consumers enabling that they can get away with thier DLC policy among other things
@Productions4bakas The general community and individual players will barely ever defend paradox, but a huge amount of content creators will. They take sponsorships constantly. People should be aware of this disconnect
How blessed we are to recieve another Vic 3 video from Spudgun. Lovely.
On Hammurabe (Apologies if misspelled) I'm glad he can enjoy vic 3
Moving toy soldiers on the mappies is the only way to interface with a paradox game that isn't just clicking a button on a poorly laid out UI.
6:50 I am honoured to be likened to his lord and grace, Saint Shaggy Rogers
I had bought into the Vicky3 meme. I convinced myself it was going to be great, and a worthy successor. When the war system dev diary came along I convinced myself, simultaneously, that it would be fine and work out in the end and that PDX would realize the issue and change it. It was all cope because I desperately wanted to believe that the sequel to one of my favourite games, the game that got me into strategic games where you move toy soldiers around and paint maps, would be awesome and worthy.
Yeah I was a little disappointed.
Victoria 3 was a lot better as an idea than an actual product
Did your hype collapse with the leaked build like mine did?
@@AlephOmega-zy5qs The problem with the leaked build is that it *was* an earlier build, so I was able to just brush it off with the same excuses as before, that it will get better or change by release.
I found your channel via people blaming you specifically for the steam reviews going to mixed. I'm glad because your videos are great, I'd never even heard of you before people accused you of somehow manifesting ten thousand negative reviews
Those reviews got to mixed specifically because people didn't listen to me, got the game, and were then surprised that I was right about it
The fact that he responds to a guy who shittalks him instead of OBP is perfection.
RUclips beef equals more views for everyone.
everyone is having fun and mutually benefitting, it's a win-win
4:45 RIP Harambe
Dicks out for guerrilla monke
A hero laid to rest. Never forget...
I still think that the reason the war system is so bad is related to the setting of the game and Paradox being worried about getting bad press. My guess is that the creators of the game had top down concerns about making a "colonialism/scramble for Africa" game. To appease this they neutered the war system, and told their bosses that it was going to focus on diplomacy/politics.
The Paradox team states that they spent a ton of time on the war system. My guess is that this is because of internal arguments between games designers focused on game mechanics vs PR/leadership concerned with bad press.
I mean Spud, you beautiful disagreeable starchy boi. You can feel the conflict of interests when you play Vic3.
And yet, the diplomacy/politics in the game sucks ass in Victoria 3
Bruh no. They just wanted a game they could try to get to work on mobile. Stacks dont work on a mobile device. Change my mind
@@mememachine6022 who is vik3 on mobile though?
@@d4s0n282 not yet
@@mememachine6022 Paradox doesn't have the capacity to make Vic 3 light enough to rum on PC
Not to say this with any hate to other creators, but many Victoria and Victoria-adjacent youtubers (most especially One Proud Bavarian) do seem to have their ability to form and share controversial opinions be compromised by a financial relationship with Paradox. It is hard to take an endorsement of Victoria 3 seriously when it is coming from someone who has a strong financial incentive to stay on Paradox's good side.
Could you imagine if WW1 happened in Victoria 3 compared to real life?
-Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia, who has trench infantry so Austria-Hungary can't advance into Serbia. All good so far.
-Russia attacks Austria-Hungary & Germany, losing terribly because the enemy's defense stats are so high Russia can't win even with 3x numerical superiority. Kind of historical but a little sketchy. It gets worse when neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary can push into Russia because trench infantry are nigh-unbeatable even in the lategame with maximum offensive technologies and aggressive generals.
-Germany invades France through Belgium, violating Belgium's sovereignty and giving Great Britain the chance to join the war. Great Britain refuses because Germany has low infamy so they don't see a need. Italy forgot to put a declared interest in Belgium so they can't join the war either. Great Qing China, in a baffling move, decide to play world police by intervening in a war they have no business fighting.
-France WOULD be secure against Germany...but due to Great Qing's early 1800's line infantry reducing the quality of troops on France's frontline, the Germans find it very easy to push forward, causing France to surrender by mid 1915 because the only wargoal against France was war reparations which is pitifully easy to obtain on almost any country.
-Serbia eventually falls and separately capitulates, getting fully annexed by Austria-Hungary who later explodes into the 45th Austro-Hungarian Liberal Revolt of the game because Austria-Hungary refused to pass a law to restrict child labor.
-Mexico declares a separate war against Italy and somehow manages to seizure part of northern Italy. Had to add this because I saw the AI do it once and my jaw dropped.
-Russia and Germany can't invade each other on land because their defensive stats are too high. To remedy this, Germany does the age-old "naval invade Ingria" strategy, instantly seizing the Russian capital and winning the war. They liberated Dagestan in the peace deal (?!?!?). Austria-Hungary is defeated in the revolution, creating a new Austria-Hungary that is no longer allied to Germany but at least solved their legal issues by...turning their government into a communist council republic? They completely forgot about child labor, and so the next revolution begins shortly after.
-The Great Qing surrender, having gained nothing and lost nothing what was supposed to be the 2nd deadliest conflict the world has ever seen. China will remember this...
THE END
Man I love when Qing instead of dealing with its country is joining the decentralized nation that I am trying to colonize, so that now I have to invade them by sea or just wait 5 years for them to capitulate from nothing
@@su1t0n11
The truth
The pain
0/10, nobody took treaty ports
Honestly the only complaint I think of for Victoria 2 is that the engine is outdated, geo-political diplomacy feels a little bare bones and I wish they have even more options. Then at times the micromanaging of troops just feels clunky and messy at times, but Idk if that has to do more with the outdated engine it's built off of or if it's bugs that never got patched.
Personally I love to see a war system that would be very dynamic in the sense that whatever tech you end up researching will give you the option to organize your troops and generals in such a manner especially for the time. For example if you research options in Victoria 3 such as Line infinity, Squad infinity, or there's even Trench warfare tech in the game. So having a warfare system that I think slowly transitions over time or let's you choose out of the options based on tech research would be a better way to conduct the war-system.
Isn't "Squad Infantry" Skirmisher Infantry?
Paradox went full lazymode with Vic3. The combat system in Victoria 2 is extremely lacking, since it effectively just uses a modified version of the combat from EU3. It totally fails to model how warfare evolved from the Napoleonic Era to WW1. So what did the Vic3 devs do? They just ripped everything out and put in a combat system that looks like a novice mobile game trying to do WW1 combat. There are monolithic fronts that only have one combat event at a time that always heavily favors the defender. It's emblematic of the whole game, as it's extremely bare bones.
@AlphaOmega-zy5qs You are right that Vic2 warfare was hastily copy/pasted from EU3 essentially. But I believe that it gets the transition from Napoleonic to WW1 right, by accident. I show how in my Victoria 3 War System video
@@SpudgunOfficial I mean there isn't any system in Vic2 where one can actually make army groups, and the battleplan mapper is useless, unlike in Hoi4 (which you would rather die hard than play it because of its cookie-cutter economy)
vic 2 runs like dogshit too
I had to google the sphere of influence dlc and I'm kinda gobsmacked tbh. The sheer audacity to charge for something that was in base vic 2 over a decade ago is insane to me. I think vic 3 will be the last pdx game I buy, it's burnt me too hard for me to trust them again
I’ve never played Victoria 3 (and never will), but I’m genuinely confused as to how Victoria could work without spheres of influence. They’re arguably the most important part of Victoria 2 diplomacy, and the game that’s supposed to be hyper-focused on diplomacy and internal affairs lacks it
Victoria 3 has different mechanics which do the equivalent of what Vic2 spheres did. It's in the common markets mainly
If you don't like Victoria 3 then that is just your opinion (even though it is the wrong opinion) I love the war system in Victoria 3 why would I want to micro my troops when I can micro my economy. Before anyone calls me a reddit mod incel Vic 3 lover I will have you know my wife and her boyfriends really love Victoria 3 too.
Man, I have been on the internet for so long that I honestly cannot tell what is a joke and what is not a joke. I think I will just head outside and touch grass as the kids say.
I would rather just gather all my troops into a doomstack and send it onto enemy doomstack than continuously micromanage assigning each of the generals to each of constantly merging and dividing fronts. The problem with V3 warfare is that it promised less micro but only added more.
You had us in the first half
Major nostalgia trip mentioning Quil18's Vic2 videos, I discovered paradox games through his Japan playthrough.
Hamourabi just sees something that is not there and imagines some magical future development cycle for vic3 where the developers take every right choice which would involve rebuilding systems from the ground up. This is something that just will not happen and with the first expansion and its own issues we saw that that the vic3 dev team has little to no idea what exactly they are doing or even trying to do.
>Plays Paradox games
>New game
>Hype
>New game is bland and a step backwards compared to former title
>Its ok, they'll fix it with a $20 DLC
>Plays Paradox games
@@crusaderkaiser2000 captive audience
Vic2: Can build buildings in multiple provinces and even the same province at the same time
Vic3: Can't build buildings in multiple provinces and even the same province at the same time
I believe that this should be sufficient evidence on why Vic2 is the Superior Game.
Unique system for the Victoria franchise, or HOI4 construction queue copied and pasted
I know I'm a bit late to the party on this video but 19:37 is something that is a bit of a pet peeve for me. Luddites weren't reactionary technology haters who fought angrily against the march of progress - they were skilled workers who were threatened with losing their livelihoods to machinery (and they inevitably did). It's comparable to the fear people have today of losing their jobs and careers to AI.
from what i remember about isp’s old vic 2 content is yeah he was laughing at its wackiness like you said but i also remember him talking a lot about how he loves the game a lot and he was also considering making a guide so he could get his hoi4 audience into playing it so i think it is fair to say he was/is kinda a diehard
I've never played Vic2, but was a pretty hardcore EU4 player. The warfare in vic3 puts me off so much. The problem isn't not being to control your armies, the problem is the lack of any interesting and meaningful choices to be made. As it currently is the entire game is simply a case of make number go bigger. If your army is bigger and more advanced you win, otherwise you lose. There is no better microing of units, there is no having a better strategy than the enemy, there is no managing your resources better. This makes for a game that feels soulless. In their vision Paradox seems to have forgotten something that is the most important, namely player agency.
With that said I do really like one aspect of Vic3, the economy. I managed to get into a situation that actually mimicked real life events, and I ended up making similar choices to actual nations. I went to war with my suzerain, cutting off market access with them. As a result I quickly had to find new markets to get my resources from, but for some I simply couldn't due to being landlocked. I had to go back to simpler production methods to save on resources and keep my economy somewhat functional. I also had to find new markets to export to as well, but again I couldn't for all resources and certain industries had to be scaled back. My economy took a massive tumble, but I managed to stabilise the situation. I only realised after the fact that many of the choices I made are very similar to what Russia has done as a result of their "special operation". However unlike them I managed to finish the war quickly and avoid total collapse of my economy.
Anyway, this situation was only possible due to the economy being a good system. An equally interesting situation cannot result from the current war system in Vic3, hence why it is bad. In EU4 due to the far simpler economic system I've never had any interesting situations arise out of it, but due to the war system and diplomacy being better I have had many more interesting and memorable situations arise there.
The problem with Vic3 to me is how gimped and lacking so many systems are: pops, politics, war, diplomacy. None of these systems can give rise to interesting events and barely give the player any agency. Hence no matter how much "flavour" and how many events and decisions Paradox add to the game, the game will keep on being lacking.
I doubt they will make the warfare deeper since they don't want it to be a focus of the game
@@anyoneatall3488 Not unless they can slap a nice price tag onto it. Otherwise its bust.
I guess i was wrong
I do wonder if Spudgun will revisit Imperator Rome, especially with the Invictus mod
I really enjoyed your takes on vic3 on both this video and the one you made a few months ago.
If i can say one thing to prove just how insanely wrong hammurabae is, then its this:
I am a huge hoi4 lover and a bit of an eu4 one. My favorite time period is ww2 followed by the victorian age tho. I started my first pdx game with hoi4 in 2019 (late to the party hahaha) and then got eu4, then ck3, then ck2. I felt vic2 was too dated for me to enjoy. And right after no step back was announced for hoi4, victoria 3 was announced and i was hyped beyond belief, to the point i would keep a week count to vic3's release. A few months passed and then the game was leaked, i feel bad doing it but i quickly found a link and tried it. Played a few hours and was amazed and what could have been, but it was way too incomplete, of course this only made me more hyped because i understood that this version wasnt intended to be public anf that most the issues would be fixed. Fast forward again and the game launches..... and had a nice 30 - 40 years campaign as the Sweden, until i realised something, the game is dead... ai is nowhere to be seen, deathwarring for the defense of sokoto or killing itself with revolutions. Then the combat system which i had convinced myself to understand that "this is an economic game and not a war game" started to show that its even more micro intensive than hoi4 due to being needlessly UN-userfriendly. In other words annoying with no depth. I personally enjoyed the way the economy gameplay was in the game even if it was reppetitive ( always liked economics). But then again i realised something, whats the point..... there are no reprecussions for just building iron coal steel and wood and then just building infinite barracks to make a giant army out of thin air, with no upkeep or equipment needs whatsover and then just say F you to the infamy limit and conquer everything. So basically making this "economy game" into a war game with the combat depth of a mobile game . Well at least the whole diplomatic incident is a nice touch... ohh.... you cant ask for a war goal but only be invited? What ..... the f. So basically war is done by ai, diplomacy is done by ai , there are no need to go in depth in the economy and politics (at least in the release) was too easy for the player to manage (yet the ai suffered) to the point its trivial. So basically its a half game with that half being too easy for it to be interesting while the other half is out of your control.......... how can anyone defend this.
After i said i have enough with the game, i tried vic2... it took some time to learn and after downloading some mods, its a much better experience than vic3. So.... i ve played vic3 first and i still think vic2 > vic 3
Many such cases my friend, thanks for the comment
The fact anti other pdx games vic 3 players by dismissing it as toy soldiers tells me more about them than their points. Its silly and disrespectfull from the start.
Hammurabi said all he needed to, "What I dont want is for people that dont like this vision to weaponize the current state of the game to protest for a vision of the game they want-" Screw off! Thats exactly what EVERYONE OUGHT TO DO, you want people who disagree with you to just be quiet, if the situation was reversed you wouldnt want to be told to be quiet, if the population of interested parties is this loud and this persistent, then maybe it shows something could happen and they could change it! We wont know unless we complain in the first place!
The vision was so poorly thought-out, badly implemented, badly justified that they have no leg to stand on to argue for letting them try to realise it properly. The state of the game on release should be considered the failure of it, that's it. But Paradox have such low standards that we're supposed to give them years to fix it
A hero to all Victoria 3 patriots
Patriots, more like weaklings who play politically correct games full of leftists bs and wet dreams.
Even before Victoria 3 was announced, I always thought a possible Victoria 3 needed a good middle ground between individual unit management and frontlines, seeing as the game starts with Napoleonic warfare still alive and well and ends on the eve of WWII.
I just think Victoria 3 decided to really lean in towards the later Victorian era and the World Wars too much, where obviously rigid frontlines are a lot more important.
Him calling you a conartist actually pissed me off
Huge map game drama
Hi honk
Hey Honk
I dont really think either Vic 2 or 3 is better or worse than one another. Rather, I dont even think they're comparable. The two games are so radically different from one another that the only thing they truly share is a name and timespan.
Yes I should have said this
"moving toy soldiers on a map"
Do people forget that Chess is one of the most played board games in history? Yes, you have units (or toy soldiers if that's what you like) that do special things that you move on a board and defeat your enemy with strategy, people like that
Wait so this dude Poison the Well by saying Victoria to fans are cultists, immediately begins insulting people, and is somehow surprised that people are calling him an asshole? What did you expect?
The reason why I like Victoria 2 is that I can move soldiers on a map like kid me could in Halo Wars. Also, never ask a Vic 2 diehard how the economic system works (not even Paradox knows)
Victoria two was not only my first paradox strategy game but literally I think the second or third game I bought on Steam after terraria. I’m very invested in the future of the game in the series, so seeing the way everything went down is extremely upsetting. When you make a sequel you’re supposed to appeal to the people who bought the game in the first place, but we always end up getting sold down the river for mass appeal. Old guard players are resources to be burned once the series gets big enough, nothing more.
Hey Spud, legit one of your best videos. Great edditing, pacing and the build of the arguments both hilarious and brilliant. I've seen too many videos analysing Viccy 3 compared to Vic2 in an open pannel and discussing live. I'm actually getting exited about trying Vic2 multiplayer watching this. Keep up this edditing style & the good work!
*also quietly impatious anout Bavaria series, but that just in my head*
Why thank you!
I dropped vic3 (pirated) after 1 day. I also hate(d) HOI4 as someone who learned and loved HOI3. The difference is I've given HOI4 a few more tries as they've added content, the core changes to the engine and gameplay still ruin it, but it was fun in it's own way. I don't see VIC3 ever being appealing to someone who doesn't have plebeian taste.
I think the war system was so focused upon, was because it was such a big obvious problem you can easily point to.
I’m so glad you and the other team members are making openvic, because the vic3 war systems pains me mentally and physically.
‘Harambe is coping’ 😂 excellent stuff.
Paradox just went with the Hoi style, making a new game that is so "new" It can't be call a successor to the old game like with hoi4
Its almost like sometimes, things change. Witcher 1 and Witcher 3? Vastly different. The Elder Scrolls series? Barely recognizable between Arena and Skyrim. Expecting them to just remake an old game was just not realistic or smart on their part.
things change, but some things also stay the same in game trilogies, like something would be the same from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 and from Witcher 2 to 3.
That was not the case with the Hoi trilogy after hoi4. Hoi3 do change stuff from Darkest Hour but keeps an old thing like IC, and a combat system, but adds new stuff like chain of command and a better engine. Hoi4 say shrew it and took hoi3 and dumb/simple it down so much, It only is a successor by name
all i’m going to say is that if Harambae keeps pulling the antics he’ll end up like his name sake…
12:50
imagine vic3 from johan... What would mana be used for?
A simple solution is this. All they had to do was take victoria 2, make it again but with additional features and perhaps better UI, but they didn't they couldn't and therefore victoria 3 is a failure as a sequel with less content a fake economy and consolification.
"It's an air zone"
Well that was a generous stretch. Air zones even in vanilla Hoi4 give much more nuance and gameplay than whatever that was.
Nice video. I really appreciate your use of language; your consistent readiness to acknowledge other viewpoints is commendable.
However, I think you should have watched the 3 hr response, regardless of its length, it may have contained insightful information about his perspective/narrative, or (though probably not) a revalation about why Victoria 3 is good. Probs not tho. Still should have watched it i think.
Edit: Going through this again, I have to say, I really do appreciate your use of evidence and respect towards others.
If you have to make an evidence-based argument in favor of why a particular piece of media is good, chances are you’re coping. Media is mainly meant to be experienced, not just analyzed. Whether that be a game, a painting, a sculpture, a movie, etc. if the experience is not positive or at the very least impactful, it’s not good.
Yeah... I'll accept any criticism of me not watching the 3hr response. If I wanted to be thorough and really capture the whole argument I should've. But I was busy, there was plenty of content and things to talk about without it, and my focus is the Bavaria Series. So take it or leave it :)
@@SpudgunOfficial Fair enough. You didn't mis-represent the guy or strawman him, so it isn't really a big deal.
@@bruhbruh-us6gl Well... in trying to tell me that what you like is good because it made you feel a certain way, you're providing evidence. Really bad evidence, because anyone can disagree with you and say they felt something different. I'm not really sure if you're trolling tbh.
@@immenseangloid4168
My point is that taking this exclusively rationalistic approach to the question “what makes media good” is not the right approach, in the same way It’s the wrong approach to look at a painting, look only at the quality of the techniques the painter employed to make the painting, and grade it based on that. Victoria 3 probably works on a technical level (aside from the bugs) but fails in regards to the experience it provides the player. Aka, the mechanics work but they’re boring, repetitive, frustrating, etc. What I’m getting at is that the mechanics of the game are fundamentally flawed.
It’s a shame that Vic 3 flopped so badly. The economic system of Vic 3 is quite unique and felt like a breath of fresh air compared to other grand strategy games.
quill18 was actually the guy i found on YT that spotlighted the Grand Stratagy game to me and why i know paradox exists
Where is the minecraft civilizations video?
I've generally liked Victoria 3, but the war system is absolutely atrocious. I tried giving that element a chance and tried to appreciate it, but at its core its a system where the central goal is to remove micro yet generals will encircle and create random fronts on a regular basis, this means you have to pay close attention and micro every front to make sure no 0 fronts go unattended. Micro feels absolutely unrewarding in Victoria 3, it wont lead to you winning a war but it sure as hell will lead to you losing if you don't babysit the unresponsive generals. This system is also absurdly stupid for a game with massive colonial powers across the world, France or any other major power will send their entire army across the sea to fight in any dumbfuck conflict yet face no real punishment for doing so as logistics are negilible (unlike Victoria 2's micro system which accidentally makes logistics a huge focus as seen from your wars when you consider the time it'll take to bring your armies from one place to another, the ships required to do so, and the shape having real influence on wars and how an alliance can exert its power) and if another European power decides to move in on France to take advantage of the army being gone France can teleport them back to France with no real cost and they'll be back well before the diplomatic play becomes a war.
The Victoria 3 war system feels like Paradox conceptually wanted to try a radically new approach to war in one of their games, but didn't actually think through or plan out what that'd look like, just throwing stuff based just on a concept until they decided to just ship out what they ended up with.
RUclips brought up the community guidelines when I was posting this comment lol wtf
Victoria 3 advocates being like "go play Hearts of Iron 4 if you don't like it" is kind of like Vic 2 players coming home after a long holiday only to find someone is squatting in their house and has changed the locks so the keys don't work. People who liked Vic 2, the original audience for this series have waited over a decade for a new entry and once it happens it just gets usurped from them.
what did you expect from the person with the L*tin pillager's flag in his background....
Your description's well organised and the sources are documented in a clear and pleasing way, well done.
Dude you just gave me a blast from the past... Quill18, Victoria 2. I totally forgot. I was a baby boy then.
9:42 When horror movie franchises make their iconic antagonists go to space…
Holy shit it's the video I showed him like a week back, nice to see a response
damn can’t believe you did this spudcum
PERKMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi perkman
As a Vic 2 "hardliner" and a 3 hoper, I strongly agree! They announced changing war system into the good direction Spud! Check it out, the latest diary, brings some hope to a hoper like me.
"i'm HOOOOOPIN"
Pre-ordering games is just ez money for game companies. It rewards marketing and not making a good game. Once the game is sold you just patch it sell some relatively lower cost dlc and money is made.
I liked the Vic3 war system conzeptually originally, but then I figured out just how broken it is. I was playing central america and attacked mexico. The AI just breaks in a ewar against 2 nations and the mexicans went to war with the US. Bot the US and mexico AI broke and literally did nothing and all of Mexico was occupied by the Indian Territory once a mexican colony expanded to border it.
What I appreciate about Vic3 is that it's a departure from the same war system paradox keeps reusing from Europa Universalis 2 all the way to Stellaris. I do think they need to get a bit more experimental and the thing with experiments is they sometimes fail. Better than always the same though I guess.
12:06 I mean yeah, but I think it's a good thing they tried something new for once
21:03 I have mixed feelings on CK2 v CK3. On one hand they completely fucked up CK2 by making it a magic fantasy setting detached from history. On the other Ck3 nation management is way more shallow they went hard into expanding the roleplay and left everything else behind... lastly I think it was a mistake to change how 'CK mana' worked.
Ck2 had this very interesting interplay of resources both giving passive bonuses from a high stockpile and giving reasons to spend them. In CK3 they made the system way more shallow by keeping track separately of 'lifetime generated' mana for the passive effects completely deleting that layer of very organic deapth.
Also some bizzare decissions. Like creating a system or religions breaking apart into new religions, but still deciding to have great Schism not happen and Greekocatholicism existing before it.
Or creating a whole ass system of 'court languages' but then not having Latin or religion or the church play any role. They created a system designed to simulate a historical reality, but then decided to not implement it or integrate it. Wasted opportunities all around.
I’m shocked you actually brought up Crilly team, he’s the guy I watched play Victoria two. His Japan series got me into it.
God's strongest soldier fighting his toughest battles: defending vicky 3
I just finished a Vic3 USA run on 1.3 before writing this rant.
I don’t remember armies all teleporting to one front one the other side of the country and waiting in line patiently to fight one at a time in the Victorian era.
How dare I expect to direct my toy soldiers like a world leader strategically. I would like my generals to actually stay on the frontline I put them on. And why can I only choose from 2 or 3 to be my general who are all from the same political group and are all communists, vanguards, or anarchists? Do any of the traits really matter in a battle that I can’t see or have any feedback on what is happening other than loading bar win/lose?
Oh cool, the map builds as I build. Wait, I play zoomed out 95% of the time anyway and never see any of that work until I want to see my toy soldiers fight. Which I don’t get to see.
Any time I click on something in a menu, it jumps back to the top. Really, 2023 coding can’t put me back or keep me where I scrolled before. Chat: “You’re using the wrong menu. The one on the other side of the screen works better.” What?! Really?
So you saved me from micromanaging military, but I have to micro each states buildings to make sure how they work matches what is in the state through 3 menus. I need a literal notepad next to my keyboard to keep up with what state has a power plant to make sure not to tank its economy. Brilliant! Can’t actually give me the info on the screen needed to make the decision. Or a setting for best possible setup for buildings. That is what is even more frustrating to me.
And I totally dislike the whole journal system. It doesn’t really tell you anything. Just a bunch of check lists. Why do I want to do this? Will this help me in anyway? What will result in completing this? How do I end Reconstruction? How do I ditch the Dixie’s and accept the Afro-Americans? No. You don’t want to ruin the surprise by telling me anywhere?
Vic3 for me is the game with no or hidden feedback that is not visually interesting. That makes it hard to stream at times. It turn into a map painter through lack of feedback. The devs said they didn’t want a map painter by giving us one.
It is getting better, but it was really bare bones and broken at the start. At the end of it all, a game should be fun at some level because it is a toy after all. Plus the vision of the devs was flawed. They made that clear by the changes in the roadmap. Sphere of Influence was such an awesome concept of Vic2 that enhanced the “not always war” gameplay that Vic3 idealizes. That paired with HOI4 puppet to annex or independence peacefully system would be awesome non “toy soldier” gameplay.
Anyway, I’m done ranting now.
Barbie gang is massively disappointed in your movie choice, Spud
Saw the trailer for Barbie and it looks crap and really unfunny
@@SpudgunOfficial This is truly our darkest hour of all time
@@KnownNiche1999 this is truly our Darkest Hour: A Hearts of Iron Game
Shills will say fans are contrarian when devs shi-- i mean subvert the expectations of long time fans. If they're so opposed to refining the original formula why didn't they ditch the brand's name for that particular project and sell it under another name if they're so sure it can stand on it's own merit?
I think one of the biggest things that has bugged me about Victoria 3 is the idea that the main critics are Vic 2 fans as harambe and even Montu have pushed.
I got into Paradox games (without realizing it) through Sword of the Stars (and the less said about its sequel the better!), and didn't really touch any others for YEARS until some friends got me into stellaris and CK2 mainly. I tried Eu4 and really didn't like how unable to affect anything directly in it (years of RTS right there.).
I had NEVER touched Vic2 and really hadn't heard of it until after I had tried 3...and I CANNOT STAND VIC3!
I hate the ripped off build que they outright plagiarized from Hoi4 but made somehow WORSE by making the only time you need to have your construction sectors on being the tick between saturday night and sunday morning.
I hated the RNG heavy 'law making' with incredibly simplistic and agenda showing 'laws' that showed no awareness of how the laws were made or enforced in the various nations.
I hated the war system with not only the bugs but the lack of agency the player has in all but the most limited ways.
I hated the hamfisted and halfassed 'diplomacy' system.
I hated the IMMENSELY simplistic options for trade goods that showed only a shallow understanding of how intricate the economics of that time period were.
I even hated the bland, generic 'classical' music and that's as a lover of classical music since I was a kid because it was just...so...monotonous.
This was the take from someone that had never played vic2, just someone that was outright insulted by the way that WIzzengton and his crowd seemed to think that the player's job was to just be a spectator to their game. This wasn't just 'limited agency' as was the case with EU4 where the main goal is you are running a NATION and having to balance a lot of things so the fine control is not as much (still can't get into it but I get it now), this was active anti-play agency, they wanted to curtail and limit and remove as much player agency as possible.
25:40 btw paradox has already stated that they will "add soldiers model". So... They get their "toy soldiers" i guess
Toy soldiers implies you can actually play with them. You're watching someone else play with them, it's cuckold toy soldiers or something
I remember ranting in comments of some video that showed how VIC3 looked. I've already was highly concerned about how unstylish and off-putting the visuals (both graphics and UI) looked compared to VIC2 (vanilla looks way better and Throne of Lloraine mod for example visually looks just stunning map graphics wise). I've also was and am disappointed that paradox didn't make a proper Globe (Spherical) Map Projection, because I've actually loved Imperator for its map projection and wanted a full globe map. I hope the openvic2 will implement spherical map as I've seen you show in one of your videos. Don't even want to comment about lobotomized economic simulation and war management.
P.S. I am not even a diehard VIC2 fan, I've never even played multiplayer due to skill issues (but mostly due to time constrains, life for the University student in Ukraine is hard these days..) and I usually roleplay in singleplayer and for some weird reason (maybe for not being an idiot) I see VIC3 for the extremely flawed disappointment it is
=(
Another banger from my favorite luddite con artist
One thing you've gotten wrong is pdx has announced in a recent dev diary on war that they are planning on adding multiple battles per front in some form
I love your videos Spud, keep it up.
I cannot wait for the next Bavaria campaign episode.
Paradox now bans you for saying "fuck" on their forums and I'm just so tired of their games.
22:07 RUclips might not like the flags shown in the video
RUclips is so ridiculous and inconsistent: they will completely understand that those flags are merely representing history and a game, but if you say the word fuck it's over
Man I would love to hear a discussion between Spudgun and Hammu
Wake up honey, new Spudgun video just dropped
Tbh I think the war system had great potential with you had little direct control over your army with more ability to choose tactics as you get more techs until you have almost complete control over your units by the 30s, this would simulate the separation between the state and army enabling things like rogue military’s which did happen a lot during the period
Gotta love how he mocks people who want to ‘play with their little toy soldiers in their mappies game’ but like yeah, of course we do
Even people that tried to enjoy Victoria 3 have mostly acknowledged the war system is garbage. Even if it ran well (which it doesn’t) it takes to much advocacy away from the player.
Long live OpenVic.
I've never even played Vic II and I still hate Vic III.
Thanks for this video, and honestly good timing. We had a week to roast with Lambert, and now we can sit back a bit more respectfully and critically talk about what was said. I'd rather the Victoria (2 & 3) community didn't spend the next 7 years bickering until the next game in the series comes out. Hopefully in the upcoming discussions, DLC's, etc. we can come to somewhat of a consensus as Victoria 3's honeymoon phase ends. It is NOT a perfect game, and neither is Victoria 2. I wish these community members would prioritize criticizing PARADOX for putting out subpar materials even though they continue to charge more and more.
I think that Victoria 3 would have succeeded if it wasn't marketed as a victoria game. If V3 was released as a different game not under the banner of Vicky, it might have done well
Reminder that it did success financially, but failed morally & with playercount/reviews after release