PC User Reviews

Incrível, o jogo base entrega mais o que se propõe em ser um jogo em foco principal em estratégia econômica e social, também entrega um ótimo sistema militar e logístico, e as DlC's apenas complementam o jogo deixando melhor ainda

While the base game looks very affordable, the game is not fun without the dlcs which seem to include features and fun game mechanics that were supposed to be included in the base game to unlock everything the game was supposed to offer, it costs an exorbitant $130 usd at least, not including future dlcs which are set to continue to release for a few years, not to mention the possibility of the game becoming completely unplayable after a **** update which is what happened recently after "the great wave" that made the game run like a ppt. As of writing, the state of the game is completely ridiculous, i like the game but it doesnt matter if i litterally cant physically play it, as of now all my money is just wasted bc of a stupid update that made the game unplayable, bro i want a refund

Para mim, Victoria 3 é um dos melhores jogos de simulação e estratégia da Paradox possuindo uma simulação econômica e social extremamente realista onde cada decisão tomada pelo jogador impacta de forma profunda no mundo do jogo, infelizmente, para ter uma experiência completa do jogo é necessário comprar diversos pacotes de expansão que custam o preço de um jogo inteiro. Apesar disso, Victoria 3 é um jogo muito bem feito, recomendo.

Jogo é incrível, inovação na parte de desenvolvimento econômico, mas infelizmente é muito precário no quesito multiplayer e sempre no "end game" tem problemas de desempenho. No entanto o restante é ótimo, muito conteúdo para fazer variedades de histórias alternativas, muito bom jogo!

Amazing game, this is the most detailed political and society simulator of all time. The game combines population, economy, and politics perfectly. Unlike other paradox games, this game has the realistic structure of a state that is based on an economy and a society. No other game comes close to delivering such an amazing geopolitical and society simulator.

Good game unfortunately it really needs the DLCs to feel like a complete Game.

Je n’ai pas réussi à accrocher. L’ensemble ne m’a pas convaincu malgré mes efforts.

There is nothing that works or makes this game fun to play at all if you're a history nerd, the mechanics, while fun on paper, and the economy especially, absolutely **** in game, because nothing is done right, or makes any sense whatsoever. This just looks and feels like a beta.

Victoria 3 es undigno susedor de Victoria 2. Si ignoramos su lanzamiento que fue un desastre, el juego estaba muy bugeado pero con las actualizaciones que tuvo ya esta a la par de Victoria 2. Esperemos que paradox arregle el sistema de combate pero el juego es totalmente disfustable. Para mi, ahora mismo es el mejor juego de gran estrategia hoy en día. Saludos Desde argentina. ¡¡Viva la libertad carajo!!

The people think that Victoria would be a Total War like game, but here the war is not the important. In Victoria 3 the chieft Is the diplomacy and you play the war only when the diplomacy Falls. Your country can be the Best, but a fatal error in this thing can make you fail like the worst player in World countries. If you want to play depth battles, play Total Wars. If you want diplomacy, economic administration, political intrigues, ... Play Victoria 3. I give a 9.5.

Awful game from a dropped off developer. Boring progress quest 'gameplay' with horrifying RNG mechanics and a terrible DLC business model. DLCs don't even improve the games core issues but instead just layer on pointless overpriced mechanics. Avoid this and really all Paradox products. Let Victoria 3 die. Let Paradox die.

game rất khó hiểu cho những người mới chơi tối ưu hóachưa tốt điểm cộng là về hệ thống chính trị quân sư rất tốt nhưng về kinh tế và lạm phát thì game làm sơ sài

"Unbearable and unplayable garbage." Economy? What economy. As of the latest patch you can't even stop the game autobuilding just about everything for you. You get to watch though. Diplomacy? God, what a joke. "Isolationist Japan and Ming China have intervened on the side of Swiss **** (actual name in game) opposite Benin and Austro-Hungary. Imperial USA is still on the fence and the German Empire is colonizing Alaska. The date is 1893." Espionage? Yeah, not a thing. Wait for 5 more years worth of dlc. Pop or culture management? Not really a thing either. They exist, they eventually kill your FPS and you can't really do anything with them. Gameplay? Well, I bloody hope you like constantly double checking your production modes on every building because that's about 90% of the gameplay loop. I'm not even going to touch on the worst imaginable UI ever designed to look fancy but being dysfunctional like nothing else, the afterthought of a military aspect which is more submenu digging and watching the game play itself or the pointless thing that is trade in this game. Just a goddamn awful "game."

I like the economic strategy in this game , but still unclear about domination play.

Significantly better now than at its launch but still not without its faults. Many countries lack depth and a lot of the key elements and actions from the age are lackluster or absent. Exploration should have more beneficial or potentially dangerous outcomes and should be more important in the game than it is. Also it’s odd to see such a lack of major crimes and genocides considering the actions taken by certain countries at the time.

Bit Disappointing at launch but updates have mostly fixed this game. Warfare is still a major issue but the new system is better. The economy system at launch was solid but now is more realistic. I just wish they released this game in a better state.

fun but not as good as vicky 2

====================IIIIIIIIII GAME SCORE : 71 IIIIIIIIII====================

Paradox games have always been enjoyable but always complicated. They will be aware of this in their new games, so they started to prefer interfaces that make games easier in order to fix this complexity in their games. I think they achieved this in Crusader Kings 3, but I can't say the same for Victoria 3. The learning process of the game seemed extremely difficult and boring. You probably need to play 50-100 hours to start enjoying this game, but I don't have that patience. Maybe I will try again in the future.

This is honestly a very decent game. However, there is potential. I am speaking from bias, loving the vicky series. It does need significant improvements, but by following the market trend of imperator Rome we will likely see a positive version of the game in the years to come.

There is a good game in here somewhere its just hidden behind terrible performance, underbaked features, bugs galore, balance issues, and an overall simplification of the formula of its predecessors. It strikes me that Paradox spent way too much time developing the graphics when you barely ever look at that level of resolution. Ive spent a decent amount of time playing but wouldn't recommend without some major updates/changes.

The best and perfect strategy game until now. Everything is real! The economic and....

It's a good game. The economic system is excellent. It is also very detailed. It's a 9/10 because sometimes the war feels a little lacking.

Horribly overloaded, over baked, underwhelming game. Tedious and boring, countries have barely any uniqueness, the systems that are in-depth, you wish weren't, and the war mechanics are just line vs line. Almost an insult to fun, worsened only by how much love and effort was put into this overall mismanaged game by the art team. Now wait for 10 dlc's to come out and I'm sure it'll be a little better... Oh, and you can't rename anything, what's the point of alternate history if you can't change anything?? Very little meaningful choice, and tons of restrictions.

Before you play: This is a society-builder game, not a wargame. That is why Victoria 3 is unique. Please, consider feeding your pops and do not act quickly to wage war. It is bad in long term. Because, just like in real life, war is bad, and war shouldn't be an option at all. War is just a result of bad diplomacy. Successful diplomacy and economy is the most important factor for a prosperous nation. The rest? Well, you know what to do...

the most random strategy game I've ever seen. You want to sign a law? you will, but only with 40% chance. You want to start an offence? Only if more than 10 soldiers want too!

The community was opposed to radical changes made to economy and especially warfare system even before game made it to it's release day, but the real problem is that Victoria 3 is really shallow in terms of content, and, unlike it's predecessor (Victoria II), can't offer enough replayability for you to come back to the game. It may be wide as the ocean - but the truth is that it's deep as a puddle. Also, Vicky 3 is very unoptimized in late game (close to 1900's) because the game has to render each individual PNG for every building in construction queue, and a construction progress bar for each one - this slows down the game dramatically, no matter how powerful your PC is. And AI is a complete joke, offering absolutely no challenge, because they're programmed in such a horrible way that they bankrupt themselves by building too many ports. As of now, Paradox has yet to fix all issues, not even talking about the problems at the core of game itself, so I do not recommend this game right now.

Victoria 3 is a hard game to rate. The term 'wide as an ocean' rarely applies better, this is truly a monstrously ambitious and grand game, but at the same time, many of that width feels barebone and leaves the player feeling more like they're playing a game of Chess than an excellent RPG experience. It's unfortunate, but this is just Paradox's standard. I do believe that in a few years this could be a real 9/10, but it isn't there yet. Still, this is just putting it up to the very high standard that Grand Strategy gamers have for replayability and complex simulation. It's not as if Victoria 3 is a poor game in any way, it just attempts and advertises far more than it current achieves.

Ще не вмерла Україна І слава, і воля! Ще нам, браття-молодці, Усміхнеться доля! Згинуть наші вороги, Як роса на сонці; Запануєм, браття й ми У своїй сторонці. Приспів: Душу, тіло ми положим За свою свободу І покажем, що ми браття Козацького роду. Гей-гей, браття миле, нумо Братися за діло! Гей-гей пора встати, пора Волю добувати! Наливайко, Залізняк І Тарас Трясило Кличуть нас із-за могил На святеє діло. Ізгадаймо славну смерть Лицарства-козацтва, Щоб не втратить марне нам Своєго юнацтва. Приспів. Ой, Богдане, Богдане, Славний наш гетьмане! Нащо оддав Україну Москалям поганим?! Щоб вернути її честь, Ляжем головами, Назовемся України Вірними синами! Приспів. Наші браття слов’яни Вже за зброю взялись; Не діжде ніхто, щоб ми Позаду зостались. Поєднаймось разом всі, Братчики-славяне: Нехай гинуть вороги, Хай воля настане!

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

One of the best strategy games ever made, very enjoyable and interesting to play, it could have more options, and it lacks in optimization asking for high minimum requirements for your PC, but it's really worth it.

I'll just describe my experience in this game. Economics in this game made very well. Here is just one simple example: I chose Belgium, I annexed all of Benelux and built a socialistic country. Pop is 12M, GDP is 120M. The Balance is +20K. Everything looks good. I am North German Federation protectorate which means I am integrated in the North German market. But then happened such a terrible thing. My balance dropped. Dropped not to -7K nor -20K, not even -60K. My balance dropped to -700K per week. I was confused like "wtf is happening rn?". About 600K per week were spending as a subsidies to my urban buildings, resources, agricultures and developments, the GDP was 60M. The fabrics produced sth, the workers worked, but no one buys my products. I scrolled out then. There was a civil war in Germany and bc of that no one could buy my products bc they were too expensive for them.

Best "Economy Simulator". Many people's thinks this is a war game and send bad reviews, but this game isn't a wargame.

I was very excited for Victoria 3. Sadly, Paradox seems to have lost its touch. This makes two out of its last three releases that have been rushed out the back door in a flagrantly unfinished state, with clear evidence of a thoughtless, slapdash, half-baked approach. You'd think they would have learned after Imperator: Rome. Apparently not, however. Many design decisions are inexplicable. But even without getting into the weeds, the biggest problem is that at no point in development do any of the developers appear to have asked the simplest of questions: "What is the player going to do?" They sold the removal of armies that players directly interact with as a feature that would "reduce micromanagement", and that's fine... but now what is the primary gameplay loop? What is it that we are meant to be doing? Apparently, a lot of clicking and waiting. That is the "gameplay" of Victoria 3, such as it is. You begin in 1836, build buildings, wait for them to complete, then build more buildings to rebalance your economy due to the impact of the last set of buildings you built. Rinse and repeat, over and over and over. And suddenly is 1900, the game is 3/4 over, and you've been doing essentially nothing for most of it. At no point does the "setup" phase end and allow the player to actually immerse themselves in the setting. Not that there's anything to do even if that weren't the case. The user interface is a dumpster fire. This game requires the player to absorb and process vast amounts of information. What buildings to build in what order, how many to build, where to build them, what production methods to use, which things to manufacture versus trade for... all these require detailed understanding of a wide variety of factors. However, the information you need is fragmented, spread across many screens and tabs, sometimes hidden deep in nested tooltips--and at no point does the player ever have all the information they need readily at hand. You need a notebook to write things down in, and a calculator, and a whole lot of patience, to make optimal decisions. And I don't mean just "min-max" type decision. I mean lay-player level. There are mods that improve the UI, but not by much, and the glaring inadequacies don't go away. On to trade. For starters, you cannot stop other countries essentially stealing your goods. Any country that wants to can just start shipping away your goods, and you have no say in the matter, unless you want to embargo that nation entirely. Little is more frustrating than seeing a nation start a trade route for a good you are already short of or that is critical to one of your industries or pops. Starting and managing trade routes is a chore, and it's not clear how many units **** you'll get or send, or what the impact on your industries or economy will be. For a game where entire production chains can collapse unless balanced on the head of a pin, this is a real problem. The less said about warfare, the better. Wars in this game can be largely ignored. You send your generals to the front, and then you go back to building factories and farms in an endless loop. Armies and generals are tied to regions. You can send them to overseas fronts but cannot transfer them to another HQ. This results in asinine situations like being unable to do a naval invasion because your fleet wasn't built in the same region you built your army's barracks in. There are a heap of other problems with the military mechanics, but I'd need one or more entire reviews to get into them all. Suffice it to say that this is the worst part of Victoria 3. Diplomacy is similarly inadequate. Everything happens via "diplomatic plays". War? Diplomatic play. Annex a vassal? Diplomatic play. Rebellion? Diplomatic play. All diplomatic plays result in war, unless one side "backs down". And even backing down is broken--if your opponent backs down, you only get your first war goal. You have no choice. You can't reject a backdown, and it results in a five-year truce. Essentially, your target can say "no thanks, take this but not these and buzz off". Also, other nations can join any diplomatic play... resulting in 19th century world wars over something as simple as Belgium attacking an African tribe. And, since war goals can't be added once a war starts (there's no post-war treaty system), something like World War I would only result in Serbia and Austria getting anything. There's so much more wrong, but essentially the problem is that Victoria 3 is an early-access game being marketed as a finished product. It is not. It has all the polish of a 99-cent iPhone game, the width of an ocean and depth of a puddle. It is "Boom Beach" meets "Adventure Capitalist" meets "Plague Inc." -- for $50. Patches are coming, but I'm not optimistic they'll be nearly enough to save this mess. If you insist on buying this, wait for a sale. But I can't in good conscience recommend it.

I think this game is solid but it is missing a few key things that would make the game for me alot better, 1. Is the Politcal system PDX games helped me learn alot about economics and politics and though after actually learning about how different government systems work, I just think Victoria 3 does not have accurate rempresentations for political systems, however I think It has a lot of potential in this department, for example In Victoria 3 for laissez faire and capitalistic systems of government they use the fact that you the player decide what buildings are built in different states and have a "capital investment pool" to rempresent the fact that you the player "aka the government" are not spending the money. Also these buildings are businesses and are represented as such by the fact that they have cash reserves and these have a limit but in real life the robber barons had like infinite money and they humanize the element that these are businesses and they can become chains. and they only judge of if they are dong well if people are employeed which is not the only metric of indicating if a buisness doing well, in other words PDX should be giving artificial caps to businesses only based on its "building level" I think that they political systems do not follow government types based on real life for example the US or other non parliamentary democracies are not represented well in game because they still follow the idea of "building a government" which is not apart of those systems. Particularly the United States often and though this may differ based on the progression of any save is that their are two main parties and all others do not have significant power. Also for politics they ability to pass laws is WAY TO OP. like they are not based on what political party holds the most power or not if the prime minister might be ousted. I feel like in all of the Victoria 3 and alot of PDX their is no Political pressure other than revolts and in Victoria 3 radicals. I think changing by adding a more sophisticated political system would help the game immensely in its depth and immersion. Another things is taxes and government wages and administration, it is wayyy to simple in this game its just the click of a button and the only effect government has is how much it taxes people which though is important this is not the only jobs in govenerment besides legislators/rulers have so paying low government wages is only consequence being basically not making an interest groups happiness decrease is not a good understanding of what government does it not accurate at all Also everyone says the war system needs to be fixed please It is super broken. I think their is a lot good things about Victoria 3, I feel like diplomacy and international relations are a lot better than in Victoria 2 I think it was way to easy to take advantage of just meme-ing certain strategies and gaining leverage over certain resources in Africa was the main way to win. Where as in this game I think their is a much more diverse way of being good and effectively doing things right in Victoria 3. Also I think Victoria 3 allows much more understanding of the importance of the market to the player in this particular game especially the import and export of goods, usually in Victoria 2 you would usually let the AI do the trade stuff for you because of the way trade worked in that game, where as in this game it is made to be understood by the player and not only between the AI themselves, basing it on price and understanding why those prices are important. I also like feature of Standard of living which was not a feature in Vicky II it helps me understand what my economic policies are doing to my pops where as in Victoria II the only focus just green line go up or down. and if another party or different people are swung in control. I also like that your punished alot more for war in this game because of how the market works for small arms and the way production of these things was changed. I also think surprise to many the pop system is way better in this game because migration makes way more sense though I think still can be much improved and before you just knew what your pops were now you know what they need to increase standard of living. AMAZING CHANGE, I thought It was super helpful and I also think the tech system has alot of benefits and I think clearly Paradox went out of their way to understand they way Tech changes the economy. that I will tip my cap Overall I think this game is a 7/10 and if they tweak and fix the politics and war system and how the politics and government works in this game works based alot of presumptions and over simplifications the war system is not fun, and the economy is decent but just not what I want it to be I think this game is tetering on greatness but I give it slack because what I want is not accesible to any player at all so for accesibilities sake it is like this

As a paradox fan who spent 1k hours on hoi4 and at least 300 on all other paradox games, I say the current state of this game is basically an unpolished mess and painful to play with. First of all, the warfare mechanic is horrible. To be honest, I do like the auto-combat system, but the confusing mechanic, stupid AI, and lacking explanation made warfare in V3 the most painful warfare among all other strategy games. Combat width, supply, battle strategy preference, and many other major mechanics are unexplained in the game; and those that are explained such as army buffs, debuffs, remaining manpower, and types of equipment are hidden behind layers and layers of secondary windows. This makes the combat system basically a dice game, but you do not know what number you are rolling for, how many dice you're rolling, and what have you rolled. As a strategy game based on the historical Victoria era, there are almost no historical events in the game except the game starts on 1836 and the opium war. The black ship, Meji restoration, world expo, South Pole expedition, the Franco-Prussian war, US land purchases and civil war, and the annexation of Manchuria by Russia either don't exist or only happen rarely for AI-controlled nations. And the ironic thing is, all of the historical events mentioned above do exist correctly in Victoria 2 and are present in Victoria 3 loading screen. And there is a ton of major game balance problem to mention Also, the game is guaranteed to lag and crash on some older pc. If you are using one, good luck

I am into Anno 1800 with thousands of hours, but I also did some 120h in Victoria 3. A few points: I've been wondering why nobody points out how the art style of Anno 1800 was stolen here, to the worse. Understandably, projects influence each other, but in this case, the UI style, the illustration style, even the color set and the music, and many small details are a rip-off of Anno 1800. This is not okay for a publicly traded AAA company like Paradox, like a lack of talent. The warfare system is not worth mentioning. But the team behind it is still defending it, which would be funny if it would not indicate some talent issues among the directors. The diplomatic system is also not worth mentioning compared to Stellaris, CK2/3, or Victoria 2. There is a great Steam comment where someone illustrates how hillarious the system is. However, the economic gameplay could have been a lifesaver here. After all, there is quite some depth in the background. But the actual gameplay is rather lackluster and badly designed. I see the Anno 1800 influence here, compared to Victoria 2. But the micro hell of the building configurations... Did they test it? No one complained about how annoying it is, how often you check on it, like very 1-2 minutes? Not only is Anno 1800 but there are better economic games out there which solved all these issues already and are better at it. I will return to Victoria 3 after 1-2 years of patches, but for now, it is too badly designed for me. It has neither the gameplay excitement of EU4/CK3, nor the economic gameplay depth of Victoria 3, nor the warfare and conquest fun of, say, Victoria 2, HOI4, or Stellaris. It is, therefore, kind of nothing to me -- maybe because it tried to compete with Anno 1800 too hard.

I am surprised how many fanboys are defending the malpractice of this particular AAA studio, Paradox Interactive, which is why I decided to create an account and write a review. We know that the same people would not defend EA, Ubisoft, or Epic Games like that. Yet, somehow, they are fine with Paradox because what? It was once smaller? Paradox is a publicly traded company with a team size of approx. 1,000. Paradox should do better than 5/10. So, what's the fuzz about Victoria 3, then? Well, if you've played Victoria 2 before, you will likely be quite or perhaps a bit more disappointed. If you are optimistic, you'll say that you hope it will get better over time once they get rid of the inexperienced game director and that it hopefully does not end like Imperator (or all the other Paradox games that got canceled or aborted eventually). I'd say Victoria 3 is not that bad... it is just not a good game. UI issues. Serious gameplay issues, not just in terms of warfare but also the actual economic gameplay, as many pointed out (there are so many good economic games out there, and Victoria 3 is not as fun to play as the others, economically speaking, despite all the fancy and deep economy system in the background). And once you've figured out how to exploit the economy model, you'll win every time but also notice how every nation, every culture, every government, and economy type plays the same -- and this is a game design issue. Victoria 2, HOI4, EU4 and Stellaris are better designed in this regard. The latter is, in my opinion, the actual issue everyone is either meh or not okay with, making them go mad or defend the company. The game is not well designed. It suffers from a bad game direction and an inexperienced game designer. Maybe it is just a lack of talent. We know from EA and Ubisoft that they struggle with talent in game design and game direction in particular, right? So, why would we assume that Paradox would not suffer the same (after multiple years of average to below-average game releases and a large team of approx. 1,000)? I mean, guys, please. We are all adults. We know that this game could be remembered as a turning point of Paradox -- to the better (hopefully), or the worse (if you take the past years into account and if Paradox does not release something truly magical and great soon).

For 5 years the community has screamed at Paradox to make Victoria 3, to the point it was a running joke. The community screamed for the game to be modernized, and more accessible. They asked that economy and diplomacy, not brute warfare be the example of the time period. Paradox Delivered. The community is now roasting Paradox for actually listening. Paradox now has to either stick to it's guns and core game systems for V3 or try to revert these systems back to the very difficult V2 system. For everything that was asked for, you have. The game runs solid, ESPECIALLY for a Paradox Plaza release. This is the game you asked for, enjoy it. If you want Victoria II, it will probably be on sale shortly for 10 bucks.

I'm a Paradox veteran. I have played their games for around 6350 hours putting together CK2 and 3, Sengoku, Imperator, Hoi3 and 4, Victoria 2 and Stellaris. I'd rate all of these games (maybe except Imperator) with at least 8/10. Victoria 3 is just horrible. It's beyond boring - it's pointless. The game is far too easy if you go the only cultural build that the devs deem "correct". There are very few actual choices, and the pretext that every country is different is false. After five or six games, the replayability value sinks like a rock. Graphics are below mediocre - the map is passable, but character models are nausea-inducing. 2D art is simplistic, bland and derivative. Nothing is eye-catching, exciting or charming. Soundtrack is a an all-time low comparing to other Paradox Games - uninspired and repetitive. Historical accuracy is dreadful. Alternate history is supposed to happen AFTER the game begins, not before, Paradox. Otherwise label it as "Victoria 3: The Alternate Reality We Think Is Better". The economic system does not deliver. Micromanaging becomes ridiculous and laughable when you have the power to declare wars on other nations, and also have to decide if one single farm in Kentucky is going to plant a few peach trees alongside the corn fields. Trading isn't exciting - you never have the feeling of well planned trade route bringing back money. The system is just so very dull. I won't even touch the war system. There are already enough reviews talking about how hideous it is. Also, to the people saying "wait for DLC and the game will be good" - are you mad? The game is supposed to be entertaining out of the box, not four years later and costing 400 dollars.

Dumbed-down version of Vic 2, optimized for selling dlc and respecting progressive sensibilities. Save your money and play Vic 2 with mods.

It is a 4/10 because it is not what a AAA company like PDX should be okay with. After all, 700 employees, not counting the freelancers. There is a high chance that this marks the end of PDX. Here's the problem (after 60 h), as many pointed out on Steam: Shallow economic gameplay. The economy system behind the gameplay is cool but the actual player experience is repetitive, boring, and micro hell. This is what you do most: Watching your building queue, and then check your building type config every 3 min. Just urgs. Horrible wargame mechanics. It is likely the worst wargame of all time. No tactics. Almost no strategy. All that matters is best equipment and the biggest army. Naval warfare is likely the upmost horrible I've ever seen. You do not sink ships anymore. You weaken their morale? You've built the newest navy in the world, to compete with UK? No problem. UK can switch its ship tech within a few weeks. And, if you manage to win all naval engagements... well, UK still has 100+ ships but this times the morale is 5 %? It will become a meme soon, I guess. Army and navy teleporting. So, warfare is all about teleporting. Within a few weeks to the other side of the world? No problem. In reality, in that time, a ship travel across from NY to SF (without Panama Canal) took 200 days. In this game, barely a few weeks. No real anti-blob mechanics. In this game, you can blob the world after a decades. Your allies will not anything about it, and your enemies do not care. Laws and government are, on the one hand, more interesting. On the other hand, it has never been easier to abolish slavery, serfdom, or to establish women's rights. You can abolish slavery as the US in 2 years. It destroys the last remaining national and cultural differences and challenges quite early on. Eventually, all govs and nations look and feel the same. Flavour and nations. They all play the same. All economies play the same. All governments too. So, if PDX was a small indie studio with inexperienced directors and designers, it'll be fine. But PDX is bigger, and more experienced. Granted, the folks in charge of this game seem to lack experience or talent. Maybe some folks who never were in charge before, who were newly promoted after being for years in the second row. Because how else did they come up with this mess? This game was clearly not designed nor managed by a talented management team. But even if we neglect that, this is by no means okay for a 700 or so employee company. Even Epic Games has 2,200 employees, works on much bigger and more complex titles, and yet manages them better than PDX. It means, PDX seems to be in deep internal trouble.

A great game as long as you know what you're getting in to. This is not HOI4, EU4 or CK3. (And it's not a remake of Victoria 2) It's a different kind of strategy game. It focus on resources management and economics. It's a nice change from the other paradox games and I will definitely ceep play it alongside the other paradox games. I see a lot of people complaining about the simplified war mechanics and complex economics. War is not the focus. So if you want more in depth war mechanics play HOI instead. If you want simpler trade/economic mechanics and more focus on warfare play EU4 or CK3 (or CK2 if you prefer it instead). And if you don't understand the game. DO THE TUTORIAL! Don't complain because the game isn't a copy of others paradox games and because you don't understand the game mechanics. And if you want to live in nostalgia land you can still play Victoria 2. They didn't delete the game just because they released a sequel.

When I read that the IGN reviewer, who gave Imperator once 8/10, gave Vic3 the same rating, I knew we were in trouble. After 100+ h into Vic3 I feel confident to say this: It is not bad at the surface, but beneath... it is just not good enough. It may end up like Imperator. Warfare is teleporting armies and fleets across the world. You've won a front? No problem. Your armies teleport back to your capital and idle there for no reason? And from there you move back again to the same front again, in case it reopened. Or you decide to move to the other side of the world, in no time. Vic3 warfare is like made by an underfunded indie strategy game dev with a lack of talent. I've never seen anything as bad as this one here. On the other hand, trade, resource balance, and buildings are micro hell: and it gets worse the bigger your nation is. Literally, every time you conquer a new province, or you annex someone, or you do production research, you do this: again and again and again, you go through every single building type and config it (because it shows that building type with default "mixed" config which means it could be anything, so you better quickly config it to what it was a minute before; and do that every 10 min or so). Diplomacy is pretty shallow too. So, the economic system behind the gameplay, which everyone is excited about, is quite cool, even though it can be extremely easy exploited (like those videos about single-island mega nations after a few decades). But the actual economic gameplay (open trade tab > check balance > queue new buildings) cannot compete with many other economy-building games, imo. And I think that this is Vic3's biggest trouble: it is probably one of the worst wargames ever made; but at the same time, it is a below-average economy game (even though we know that the economic system behind is deep); and the diplomacy system is not even worth mentioning compared to EU4, CK2, Stellaris, or Vic2. All is left is hope, I guess, that Vic3 will not end up like Imperator. So, if you are into PDX games in general, wait for sale. Not worth it. And yes, I tried to love it but it is too broken, too badly designed, with so many bugs and issues. I will give it a try after 1 year again though.

A total trash and a pure garbage, wait for 1843958349859438 DLC's to fix everything

My first game in this series was original Victoria, even not Victoria Revolution. But I don't want to complain how this game is different from previous games. That is actually a good thing, as they feel dated. The issue is that this game is basically a "Cookie clicker". You click to build more factories, wait a bit, click once more, wait a bit, click once more... There is nothing of interest in this game. No significant difference between countries, no specific events. Lots of crashes, different bugs (especially with war ai and colonization). Victoria 3 is bad as third game in franchise. But even if it was a first game, still I would give it low score. Just another weak game from Paradox. I don't know how many DLCs should they create and how much $$$ should I spend to make it a fun game.

Game is far from being fully fleshed out, but regardless it is an amazing game. Doesn't even feel like paradox game, it feels like something entirely new, where you don't just mindlessly stare into map for 1 hour just for something to actually happen like in hoi4.

Its Victoria 2 mixed with CK3 and HoI4 but dumbed down. The game feels lackluster, and is missing a lot of flavor. The War system while it could've worked just doesn't work very well. I enjoyed the niche of moving my troops where every I wished as well as moving my navies through the ocean. Now I only get to assign them to frontlines and hope that rngesus assigns more troops to a battle than the enemy. Economy is alright but is a bit confusing, which is something Victoria 2 has also had an issue with which just requires the player to learn more. The political system seems a bit lackluster as well, while the diplomacy is interesting and you can get land without going to war in a way similar to crises, except its ignited by you the player or the AI. This is fine, but the fact you can only receive the first cb if they back down, just ****. I feel the war system needs a rework, diplomacy needs more options, etc. Which will likely happen, but till then ill have to give it 3/10.

Dont listen to the kiddy hater croud. Most of them didnt played the game. Paradox has a wide audiance today and os many kids come here.

Game is great, music and graphic is great, but for now, it is unpolished, and a bit monotonous. Give it a year or two it would be amazing.