Victoria 3

Victoria 3
83
Metacritic
66
Steam
82.015
xDR
Our rating is calculated based on the reviews and popularity of the game.
Release date
25 October 2022
Publishers
Steam reviews score
Total
66 (18 534 votes)
Recent
67 (1 301 votes)

Paradox Development Studio invites you to build your ideal society in the tumult of the exciting and transformative 19th century. Balance the competing interests in your society and earn your place in the sun in Victoria 3, one of the most anticipated games in Paradox’s history.

Show detailed description

Victoria 3 system requirements

Minimum:

 

  • OS: TBC
  • Processor: TBC
  • Graphics: TBC
  • Sound Card: TBC

 

Popularity
Similar games
Show more similar games
Reviews
Write a new review
Sopina
Sopina

France and Prussia had a devastating war that destroyed all of the Rhineland means of production, resulting in a great recession across all of Europe that whipped away my carefully planned export economy and all of my gold reserves. A year later the crisis hit the striving Brazilian economy, causing a civil war there and sending its entire population back to the middle ages.

10/10 would force children into the mines to get out of those dark times again.

Big Brow Gaming
Big Brow Gaming

The ideas are great and I have faith that it will become great with time. The foundation is good enough for now to be last me 20-30 hours. But man...that UI is atrocious. It should not be this hard to cancel a trade route lol. Clocking in at a 6 for me right now because I am having legitimate fun but when the UI failings hit they are extremely annoying. I do feel that it deserves a recommend, but barely. If you're not a paradox stan, don't bother until major updates are made

jack (simple man)
jack (simple man)

Long ago, life was clean
Sex was bad, called obscene
And the rich were so mean
Stately homes for the Lords
Croquet lawns, village greens
Victoria was my queen

MasterDerrick
MasterDerrick

I've found Victoria 3 to be really enjoyable. It has a different core gameplay loop than Vicky 2 so it is understandable that some people are upset about it. Some pros and cons I've experienced:

Pros:
- Good modelling of opportunity cost (if you choose to do action A you won't have the resources to do action B)
- Migration system is fixed from Vicky 2. In Vicky 2 pops were hard coded to want to go to North America (read America) and it didn't matter if life was great in a European country beside them
- You now actively develop base resources. This makes many countries more interesting to play and you can focus on those strengths to build wealth for your pops
- National Markets force you to choose between producing a broad range of goods or specialising to produce goods more efficiently and trading. Many people are complaining that they just produce whatever is most expensive in their market and rinse and repeat. That's an inefficient way to play. Every country has pros and cons and exploiting those might take additional thought. For example, when starting as one of the Canadas the most expensive good in the British Market is groceries, but building a food industry is a bad idea. Why? Because it costs 450 construction to build and takes more infrastructure. In the same time you can build 3 logging camps, employing more people and using less infrastructure per job. The AI appears to just build the most expensive good. Are people smarter than the AI? Maybe.
- The cap on economic growth from Vicky 2 is removed. In Vicky 2 you could only have 8 factories per state and if all of them are expanding you are at the limit of growth. Fast growth needed more states which needed warfare which is why people talk about warfare so much when comparing the two. In Victoria 3 truly exponential growth is possible and is very satisfying when it does.

Cons:
- I'm open to the new warfare system but it is too opaque to be interesting. Why did my troops lose a battle against a weaker foe? Why did my General choose to use 10 troops instead of 15? How important is 45 defence vs 50 defence? Nobody knows.
- It is hard to find stuff in the menus. Undoubtedly I'll get better at finding info but some stuff is hard to find. For example, seeing how many convoys you have to trade with when being a junior in a market. Right now the only way I've found is setting up a new trade route which is annoying. I should be able to open the market tab and boom, you have this many convoys.

Altogether a good game that I've really enjoyed so far. Will update the review if things change.

BGSwor
BGSwor

This game is not for the faint of heart, an amazingly complex simulation with many interconnected parts, that is significantly deeper than meets the eye.
expect to be challenged in understanding what you should be doing initially, but don't give up, once you understand what exists beyond the learning cliff, you will enjoy a very deep game

while the combat looks simple, it is in fact also quite complex, with the battle usually won or lost before you enter the war in the early game, the later game challenges with trench warfare meaning you need to conserve strength before pushing again or your troops will crumble

it needs a few patches to fix some bugs, and to sort out some crashes / issues that others have had, it has so far run fantastic for me and hasn't crashed yet

Gad
Gad

I will not remove this negative review unless Paradox:

1. Block primitive nations from being able to research modern techs unless they go through a slow process of modernization first, similar to Victoria 2. Tribal nations aren't supposed to be able to research steam engines at ~66% the rate as developed nations do.

2. Fix trade so that populations capitalists can import/export goods on their own, without the player having to manually intervene trade (which is the whole point of laissez-faire).

3. Fix wars. Introduce more nation-specific events/units. The military mechanism at this moment focuses solely on technology and supplies with zero emphasis on training/doctrine. A British Skirmish Infantry battalion has the same fighting power as a Skirmish Infantry battalion from a third world country, which does not make sense.

RustySteel
RustySteel

The game looks like an absolute blast to play, but I'll never get to play it since the launcher keeps breaking and needs to be manually reinstalled to even access every time it gets closed, and then when THAT's done it just gives an error when trying to boot the game up through it anyway. Hope your shitty launcher was worth whatever user data your marketing team siphoned, Paradox, because that's the last game I ever buy from you jackasses. Shame, I was really looking forward to this one.

Laereom
Laereom

I absolutely loved this game. For me, as someone who likes playing a geopolitical economy sim over a war simulator, it's AMAZING. The war system has just enough depth (ie it's not much of a distraction from the main goal of managing the logistics and politics of your country), and the economy is amazingly dynamic. It does, however, take a loooong time to really master -- which I love.

possibilitas
possibilitas

Victoria 3 is a crude economic simulator with an attractive GUI and good music. You will spend your time excessively micromanaging that economy as this is the chief aspect of the game, only to discover your actions are relatively meaningless.

The world is a soulless, hollow, big empty thing—once you brush the dust off the wall you discover it an empty white board with little going on underneath. To take one example: the eponymous title of the game Victoria 3, and the nation she ruled over—Great Britain—is insufficiently fleshed out with numerous historical inaccuracies and flagrant oversimplification of British society for the time; ignoring the conflagrations going on from being a multilingual/multiethnic society facing yet more newcomers coming in, and the shock of technology upending the modes of being of their society. Rather than creating a dynamic and convincing set of nations Paradox instead chose to provide the entire world for play but only surface-deep: brush off the dust, and see how blank it is. They could have opted to only allow particular playable nations at start and really flesh them out providing a dynamic and intriguing play experience for the player to come and sandbox into a new world, yet chose not to. Worse, your actions really have no satisfying impact on the world. Granted this is not a map-painter game, but even massive societal shifts do not dramtically change gameplay, alter the flavor of the GUI or music, or anything else to emphasize that the player's guidance of the nation has modified the game world in a consequential way.

If you seek to futz with spreadsheets beautified with a nice GUI doing superfluous micromanaging only to find the world's dull and soulless Victoria 3 is the game for you. Otherwise, I recommend a pass on this game for most everyone.

As a veteran of Paradox Interactive games I rate Victoria 3 a: 4 out of 10.

The above rating does not reflect the expectation of DLC content, but rather how previous titles shipped and the shallowness of the primary nations of the time period combined with the fact the degree of micromanagement kills the fun-factor of the game.

Soleo
Soleo

A lot of the negative reviews are from people who had already decided they hated them game before they purchased it. The dev diaries and streams did a solid job making sure everyone had a clear idea of what the game was going to be like on launch. It is not a perfect game, but it is one of the more solid Paradox launches in the past 10 years. I highly recommend reading the dev diaries instead of reviews when deciding if you will buy the game because people who decided to spend money on something they knew they weren't going to enjoy have flooded the reviews.

TL:DR
- Game is okay in its current state with plenty of room for improvement but devs were very clear and open with the state of the game at all stages
-Read dev diaries to get a good idea of the game before you buy it
-A large portion of negative reviews are people who chose to purchase the game knowing full well that they weren't going to enjoy it and are now review bombing

icon41gimp
icon41gimp

Lack of direction, information is too hard to find, and determining what effects your actions are having on the game is incredibly obfuscated.

Stay away.

Player
Player

A great reminder of why you should stay away from Paradox. Nothing is intuitive or works properly. I regret this purchase.

Haru
Haru

Victoria 2 and Victoria 3 differ greatly in terms of economic and political management.

In Victoria 2, resources are fixed by geographic region and this gives an reason for a player to go out in the world and commit war crimes and imperialism. The various political ideologies of the era conferred different economic management styles. I myself prefer playing a social liberal game. So I will always run a free trade, laissez-faire economy with wide and progressive social policies. Yes I can't micro factories like a state capitalist or communist, but at least I the government do not spend my own money to build a factory while getting a nice juicy bonus to output. I, the government, have an incentive to cut taxes to ensure my capitalists have money of their own to spare to build their factories while also stimulating demand for all goods in the economy. This GROWS the economy by making my people more well-off and increases population growth.

Virtuous circle and all that.

In Victoria 2, I am politically incentivized to move towards more democratic governments as people become more educated. Otherwise, I get waves of militant socialists or Jacobins. I have seen people maintain an absolutist state, but generally I find that defending a reactionary country often involves extensive politicking such as deliberately keeping the Russian peasants illiterate and poor until inevitably the militant socialists shoot Mr. Romanov and his entire family.

In Victoria 3, all the flavor......is simply gone. Gone are the differing systems of government that hamstring a player's choices by the ideology of the political group in power. Gone are the differing economic systems which provide the rawest difference between capitalism, communism, fascism, and agrarianism. Instead everything has become a series of modifiers. Things like democracy are now merely a suggestion. The election of the Liberals composed of the Industrialists can simply be ignored since you can just keep whatever faction you in "Government". Laissez-faire capitalism has become a modifier, and factory building has basically all become planned economy and state capitalism.

Perhaps this a boon for all those people who bemoaned the V2 capitalist AI building unwanted factories in unwanted locations, but in V2 I chalked it up to those players hating on the free market and economic freedom. I've certainly seen my fair share of hair-brained entrepreneurs, in person and in media.

But these two changes alone are immersion breaking. There is no difference in playing the United States and, say, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union when you are the one directing where the money goes and who gets to live or die in your country. Yeah, there will always be a certain level of larping (heh) going around, but the basic substance is gone. Never mind that yeah the Investment Pool of V3 does the job of what the Central Bank in V2 did. You spend the capitalist's money FOR them.

Do I like Victoria 3? Yes. I like the fact that monarchy finally counts for something in terms of gameplay relevance rather than pure flavor. I like more goods. I like more laws and policies. I like learning how the economic system works and trying to make green line go up. I like larping an Asian NATO with Japan at its head. I like being able to choose who I trade with and it actually counting for something. I like smacking every slave-owning country with the Light of Democracy (and open markets). I like how Interest Groups work, how people change when certain laws are passed. It makes politics much more engaging rather than simply spamming Hold Elections everytime the protectionist, interventionist Democratic Party wins an election and tanks my economy. Or switching the government of Shogunate Japan to liberals using the power of absolute monarchy so my factories can run better.

So I'll recommend this game. Yeah I'm gonna be low-key annoyed that the DLC for adding functioning capitalists or immersive democracy will probably be as expensive as the base game, but developers are still humans who have bills to pay and I wanna play a game with friends that doesn't end just because Hamachi decides to be mean for a couple hours. Is the game "arcade-y"? You bet. My girlfriend got Lanfang to 22 SoL and started the greatest immigration that Indonesia has ever seen. 100k people living in the frozen wastes of Nunavut? Alright then. I've seen more hilarious stuff in V2 anyway.

So if the developers are reading this, for the love of God give the capitalists an independent role again and ignore the haters who think every capitalist is gonna be Jack Ma and conveniently create a winning factory that meets the exact wishes of the player-government.

Sniper Mjaunke
Sniper Mjaunke

This game is half baked and every system is empty from the diplomacy, colonization, AI, economy, UI (this one is especially terrible), ease of use, diplomatic plays, tool-tips, ease of access to information, the military, battles, wars, leaders, and even the heavily anticipated politics system. Oh yeah and passing laws is shit because it's all chance, just save scum on a 1% chance the day before a law passes and your abolishing slavery in America in 1937
Oh and theres a mod that keeps the colours when you zoom in on the map. 10/10

Garfield L'Zanya
Garfield L'Zanya

As a veteran victoria 2 player, this game is a little bit of a let down. It is fun, but right now it lacks enough flavor for it to really stand out. I get they want to move away from being a war focused game, but there isn't enough interesting things that go on to make it feel immersive. It reminds me of when EU4 came out and it felt lacking in comparison to EU3.

If I could rank it meh, I would. But for now I would suggest waiting a year or two until they improve the game's flavor and immersion.

MatadorB1
MatadorB1

Buying Victoria 3 is a no-brainer if you enjoy strategy games or other Paradox games. There are some areas of improvement, as plenty of people have pointed out, but these don't come a mile close to not recommending the game. I want to stress this, so you or developers do not simply hear complaints and bad news. The economic and societal aspects of the game are unquestionably impressive and Vicky 3 has a foundation to expand on for years to come. So if you are in PDX reading this, don't even think about comparing it to Imperator - thank you, keep your head high, and build on it.

bend0
bend0

>Essentially a Politics/Economy/Diplomacy Sim, not a war game.
>Feels better designed than HOI4 (excepting combat), EU4 and CK3 imo
>more flavour would be nice, but the games development feels organic

p0g game: i could see it being better than EU4 with good updates and dlc.

raggg
raggg

Honestly, the foundations are there for a great game. But much like past Paradox titles, it's going to be some time before it becomes worth your time. You should likely wait a few months for some new DLC and updates to come to see whether investing time and money is really worth it.

DondarfSnowbonk
DondarfSnowbonk

Excellent game. Victoria 3 takes the bones of its predecessor and uses them to build a much more fun game and robust historical sim. There are a few teething problems with the game on release: minor interface and gameplay bugs, tooltips that aren't nearly as informative as you'd like them to be, and some frankly baffling design decisions I'll detail below, but generally this is a solid, fun release and is only going to get better as the DLCs release and expand on it.

Weird design decisions:
- Tooltips: Paradox have taken the same approach to tooltips here that they did with CK3. However, many of the explanatory tooltips themselves are pretty shallow and frequently don't have the information I'm looking for. For example, the tooltip for unrest (I can't currently remember Vicky's term for it, but that's what it is) doesn't explain what's causing it or what effect it might currently be having on your country, just explaining in a general sense what it is and that it creates radicalism.

- Informational Display: There is a lot of information thrown at you about your country in Vicky 3, and much of it is not organized in ways that make it easy to access. There is no compact, easy-to-browse Ledger in this game as in most Paradox releases. Instead information like the demographic breakdown of your country is scattered across several menus, some of which are formatted for easy reading but with a limited subset of the data (the infamous charts and graphs) and some of which have the more complete data in a positively useless list format that's impossible to take in at a glance. This sort of form-over-function design occurs in many of the game's menus — my biggest personal bugbear is with the trade route screen, which has fold-out menus (this game loves its fold-out menus, which is frustrating because they neither auto-close when you leave the window nor remember where in the window you were) of each *trade good* that list its active trade routes in your market, and there is no way to simply see an overview of what trade routes you're currently running.

- Map Modes: If you've seen my CK3 review you know I've groused about that game's relative dearth of useful map modes compared to Paradox's other games. Thankfully, Victoria 3 has a wealth of useful map modes (some of which are "lenses" which act as the quick-action menu their other games have) which are easily accessible in a variety of ways. My main complaint here, however, is one of my complaints with CK3 as well: the automatic switch at a certain zoom level from the paper map with solidly-colored countries to the (absolutely beautiful) geographical map with more subtle markings. I understand the developers' desire to show off their gorgeous maps, and this is actually something of an improvement from Victoria 2, which did something similar but which was, frankly, ugly and unreadable. But not being able to have the political map up close can often be frustrating when you're trying to examine small details not plainly visible from a distance. The ability to toggle the paper map mode on at closer zooms would be much appreciated. There's also a zoom level that adds clouds in the sky over the landscape — they look gorgeous, but they also get in the way of seeing the map, which is, as you might expect, counterproductive in a game that uses the map to communicate important information to you. Thankfully there's already a mod to remove this clouds, which also improved game performance for me. This should have been a settings toggle, and hopefully that will be rectified in the future.

- Combat System: I'll be frank: I like the combat system. I always thought Vicky 2's EU-style fights were one of its biggest weaknesses, because they didn't accurately reflect warfare in the 19th century and also just were too damn fiddly. I could accept an argument that Vicky 3's is somewhat too abstracted, because it's somewhat hard to understand what's happening half the time — there's four armies on this front, why is only one of them in this battle? Are the others elsewhere? If so, where? And why aren't they also getting into battles? Why can't I reassign units between my generals? Why can't I outline a general plan of attack instead of just telling them to attack and hope for the best? — but overall I think it's a very solid foundation that, with a bit of work, could be an excellent evolution of one of the core pillars of Paradox games.

- Automation: Automation in the game is probably its weakest point. There is very little of it, and what there is — the only significant one I can call to mind at the moment is the ability to automate expansion of your buildings — does not engage in anything resembling good gameplay and will probably crash your economy if you use it. Just ignore it. The main gameplay loop is managing your economy anyway.

- Notifications: Possibly actually the only thing worse than the automation in the game is the notification system. It's an improvement on Vicky 2, which isn't a high bar, but a step back from the flexibility of EU4 and the elegance of CK3. There is no way I could find to permanently disable certain notifications or select what you're getting notifications about, so you're constantly being inundated with information you don't care about and trying not to lose actually useful data in the flood. And this is happening across three separate systems: the pop-ups in the lower right, the "current situation" menu at the top, and the emergency notifications that appear to the right of that and cannot be dismissed. Yes, I'm aware I have a free government reform available to me, but the electorate voted the same way as they did last time and I don't need to change anything, please go away. Yes, I know that that trade route isn't profitable, but if I cancel it my economy will collapse because of input shortages, please let me permanently dismiss you. I cannot tell how how much I do not care that my ally is reassigning their general to a new front now that we've gotten rid of this one.

Anyway, I think these are somewhat minor problems, all things considered. The basic structure here is a really fun game (if maybe a touch on the easy side, which is fine by me) that will appeal to anyone who enjoys a fiddly historical economy simulator, and I'm looking forward to seeing where Paradox takes it in the future. I fully expect that, like most Paradox games, I will end up playing more than an hour for every dollar I spend on it.

spOts
spOts

To call this Victoria 3 is an insult to Victoria 2! Paradox has become a crap company, reputation earned taken credit on. If DLC's are structured as i expect, then you are thieves. Great job ruining who we though you were, and no thanks till you change.

shmishtopher
shmishtopher

A beautiful historical sandbox with engaging diplomacy, market mechanics, and conflicts. If you're looking for a truly grand strategy, this title is exceptional.

TheLoyalAcorn
TheLoyalAcorn

I got the chance to play as Prussia (1836-1930) and Sweden (1836-1850ish) so far. The things I like are the nation building the flood of information and slowly simplifying and stream lining your economy to success with real consequences of "winning" during certain eras eg. early coal rush, mid oil rush, or double downing on a staple resource like steel.

The biggest problem is the war system. I have surrounded enemy divisions and destroy them only for them to reappear in the Balkans at full strength as if I didn't spend 2 months crushing them in England. Its reduced down to a brute force mechanic in my opinion. I rushed military tech which allowed my smaller military to win against larger foes, but the late game where everyone is more or less rocking the same tech. It boils down to generals and their traits. Which is fair enough they did advertise it pretty strongly in the work up to release.

The game is most enjoyable during the early game (first 20 years) as the market feels like a living behemoth easily influenced by technology, policy, and wars exactly what they advertised. I would say hold off on buying for the next 2 years since a lot of the mechanics lay great ground work, but they feel like they need a rework or a deeper dive into. Like many early paradox reviews, I'll be eating my words after a few DLC and FLC drop but for now hold off.

nomstar
nomstar

I never really got around to playing V2, but I am enjoying my time with V3 so far. Be skeptical of the negative reviews... given the hype for this, I doubt the developers would have ever lived up to the expectations of their hardcore fans, regardless of what they actually delivered.

Outside of the usual bugs you always see with a Paradox launch, this is a solid game that largely matches what was portrayed in the dev diaries and gameplay demos.

Dale Earnhardt Sr.
Dale Earnhardt Sr.

As a longtime lover of Victoria 2, I thought it was necessary to post my thoughts on here and give an unbiased opinion on this game.

This game is not good in its current state. It's ambitious yet currently very shallow and broken compared to Victoria 2. I wanted to enjoy this game, despite my disappointment with the war system, but it's just not fleshed out enough yet.

Features from Victoria 2 currently missing from this game:

- Westernization (Many African minors like Oyo start with higher literacy and standards of living than Europeans, rationalism and manufacturing researched.. like why?) but more importantly, almost every nation in the game is the same, there is no flavor. You use the same units and do the exact same things whether you are Oyo, Dai Nam, the US, or Montenegro..

- Railroading/events, in the game's current state the AI contributes to a ton of border gore and historical events just don't work properly. The confederacy spawning in the northern US, the US not taking random states from Mexico, the AI immediately demanding far away regions that would be isolated from their territory in diplomatic plays. The game just often devolves into nonsense, this isn't a dealbreaker as it's kind of silly, but not ideal.

- AI behaviour in diplomatic plays, as an example I just played a game as Sweden which was immediately ended because I started a diplomatic play against Denmark. The game told me that none of the great powers were likely to get involved, however France immediately sided with Denmark and demanded my subjugation and all my money. They fully mobilized and end up sending hundreds of thousands of their own men to die, over a territory conflict between two smaller scandinavian nations, like why?? It's just not balanced and frankly silly, the AI great powers will join diplo plays seemingly completely randomly and always demand your total annihilation. Then you have no choice but to fight or you have to give in to their ridiculous demands. Another example of this, my friend and I declared war on Dai Nam for a treaty port as the Netherlands and Denmark. The East India Company randomly jumped in on Dai Nam's side on the end, did absolutely nothing in the war, and then capitulated having never sent a single unit. This is just ridiculous, why would a British company administering India just jump into a major conflict against two European nations without the UK? I've even seen the East India Company side AGAINST the UK in diplo plays.

- Adding war goals mid war, joining wars mid war... many vital diplomatic actions. Once a war starts it's currently locked in place, which I guess is why the AI goes absolutely mad and claims your entire country and tries to ruin your game as soon as they take a side in a diplo play.

- Capitalist pops, while they exist in Victoria 3 they do not actively build anything or do ANYTHING on their own as they did in Victoria 2. I know the typical response to this: "buhh capitalists were awful in Victoria 2", it's a moot point. I don't care that they were inefficient and dumb, it just contributes to the overall lack of flavor in this game. You do the same complete management no matter what country or economic system you have, the only difference between command economy and laissez faire is some modifiers. I

-Desync and crashing in multiplayer, as the game is currently I have had multiple MP games where the host randomly crashes and the save is permanently corrupted. Really frustrating, there seems to be no way to fix this, once the crash happens the saves for that playthrough are effectively useless and gone.

Honestly the list goes on, but I enjoy the economic aspects of the game, the control you can exert on your laws and such through the interest groups. This game DOES have promise, but unfortunately it's going to take a few years and hundreds of dollars of DLC to become a good game, as is typical with Paradox's strategy/model.

See you in a few years Victoria 3.

Teddy Roosevelt Gaming
Teddy Roosevel…

Having a great time with it, but it has some issues to work through.

Economy is way better than vic 2. It's not even close. I can actually do shit and state capitalism is no longer mandatory to ensure your capitalists don't build a fish cannery in the saharan desert. Presumably communism is no longer the undeniably OP way to play the game. The relationships between all the goods is far more complex and each independent country has its own market connected to others via trade routes, meaning each good has a unique value in each market but can still be affected by others.

Diplomatic plays are an improvement over the old crisis system. Peer to peer diplomacy has kinda let me down so far, but i haven't played with it too much.

War needs tweaks. Probably a lot. I still prefer it over vic 2's micromanagement hell, but some parts of it blatantly don't work or are frustrating.

Government management also feels much better than vic 2, letting you make sweeping changes more quickly (and face the backlash appropriately). The law passage system is frustrating RNG like EU4 sieges, but overall I like what they're doing. I'd just make the votes happen occur a lot more often and I bet there are already mods to change that.

The game is way less historically railroaded than vic 2, which I absolutely welcome. I was able to basically create a Singapore out of Finland by using the Russian market's cheap raw goods to massively industrialize and attract TONS of immigrants, becoming the #15th most populous country with no territorial expansion. #4 GDP and #1 in both GDP per capita and standard of living. I had to carefully manage imports of resources the Russian market did not have and was well-rewarded for my efforts.

I'll probably update once I've got a couple hundred hours. Compared to vic 2, the economy, politics, and sandbox are way better, though diplomacy seems kinda meh and war is kinda icky. Overall, I'd say it's an improvement for nailing the core focus of the game, the economy, so well.

LeftistVet
LeftistVet

As a fairly new Paradox grand strategy player (Crusader Kings 3 being my first venture into the genre) I have to say this game is INTENSE. There is a lot and I mean A LOT going on and it can seem quite overwhelming for a first time player. I will say, the tutorial was quite refreshing. It doesn't hold your hand but rather it gives you tasks to complete and if you need help there is a "Tell me how" button that can walk you through the steps. Now, what I really love about the tutorial is the "Tell me why" button. It breaks down exactly why you are doing the certain tasks and to me it explains things even further than the "Tell me how" option.

I will say, as a new Vicky franchise player, this game is beautiful and the music is great, but man is the learning curve HUGE. I want to learn this game and have fun with it like I do with CK3, I just hope there comes a time for some actual RP elements like in CK3.

Overall I'd give this game a 8/10. Only because of the STEEP learning curve for newer, hell even returning players. If its anything like other Paradox titles, I'm sure there will be amazing expansions, add-ons down the line to really log a ton of hours into the game.

BrewMeister
BrewMeister

I think this is my first review ever.

A coupole things I didn't like.

There is no difference between playing countries. Seems the same problem Imperator had. No flavor. Different part of the map, different color, and different tech level starts. That seams to be about it. Westernization was one of the most fun aspects for me about the older games. Now you just start at a slightly lower spot on the tech tree. Maybe a couple paths would be better "Industrialize" path with own tech, or westernize for cheaper? Not sure.

War, not feeling the mechanic. I like moving the troops around, and using tactics in my games to trick and overcoming the other countries. Also, not a fan of the pill boxes shooting at each other. See art later.

No capitalists?!? that was a pretty major aspect of that era. At least here in the US. you can't just spend money on something. coaxing pops into something was part of the challenge of managing the country. Seems everythings more command economy driven now.

Also, I'm not a fan of the bubbly art of characters. It feels like I'm playing Sid Meyers Pirates game. While a great game that I spent many hours in. Not a fan of that are with this type of game. Get rid of the characters, or have them drawn Paradox is amazing with the drawn art that they produce. Always gourgious to look at. I know it's the same as Crusader Kings 3, but not a fan of it in these style games.

There is more to talk about, but this review is just my opinion, and feels long already. More I can talk about, but the game just feels empty in the way Imperator did. Nice looking cover, but whats underneath. Hope it gets better/more in-depth, and mode to change art.

^|Tn|^ Meepy
^|Tn|^ Meepy

I love this game, but it's not necessarily for everyone!

This game is honestly pretty good for a Paradox grand strategy game on release. If you like factory games and GSG/4x, or if you are a big fan of the franchise this is worth a purchase. If you're new to the genre or have a low tolerance for janky balance and UI weirdness, I would wait a few months and purchase after a few patches.

MARS
MARS

It's an insult. The combat is unsatisfying, the tutorial is broken, none of the values are explained so yr just kinda guessing at shit, it's the illusion of a game.
They're good ideas here, but my god is it poorly designed. Pick it up in like 3 years from now maybe.

Volksgrenadier
Volksgrenadier

I LOVED Victoria & Victoria 2 and all the DLC. I also loved HoI, 2 & 3. I made a mistake by blindly buying Victoria 3 without doing any research. I have played Vic 2 (the most played paradox game for me), so I can say I really know how it works.

I was expecting major changes after I followed the development from the public diaries.

They made combat feel so hands off, and irrelevant I am so disappointed. I wish I could return this game, but it's past Steam's threshold.

This has turned into a government and economic simulator ONLY. With a HINT of warfare. Gone are the days of conquering south east asia and making a huge empire. This game is incomplete, and no longer a "Victoria" title. Shame

MontaniSemperLiberi
MontaniSemperLiberi

I have played this game for about 7 hours, and I have enjoyed my time so far. I played as Prussia, and successfully united the North German Federation and then Germany. I am working now on trying to colonize Africa. I actually do not mind the war system, as i never really cared for the micromanagement of the armies in all of the provinces (when I play HOI4, I usually use the planning tool to issue overall commands, and I do not micromanage divisions). I enjoy the political aspect of the game, and also seeing the evolution of the national politics depending on your choices.

The only real complaint I have is performance and optimization. I have a 3070 but I still find that the FPS goes way down when in a medium zoomed out position. If i zoom in, it is fine; hence why I think it may have to do with optimization.

Overall I would recommend the game, if you are into the geopolitical and historical aspects; I would not buy the game if you are into the war stuff... for that just go with HOI4.

Novemberisms
Novemberisms

It's the deepest and most realistic simulation of economics in a game I've ever played. Unlike other strategy games, I have so much more fun during peacetime than during wartime. This is because there's always something to do with your internal politics and economics.

Fronch
Fronch

economic gameplay loop is awesome, i actually enjoy playing minor powers now whereas in vic2 it was super boring for me. war is pretty bad, even as someone who likes the theory of what they were going for. it needs a bit more player interaction imo, maybe some sort of simplified order of battle system. overall the game is still fun though, 7.5/10

Raekwaanza
Raekwaanza

Let me start by stating that I do generally enjoy this game. However, this is definitely released a foundation to be built upon with DLC.

Pros
-The look of the game is nice
-New political interest group system is interesting, though it definitely needs more depth
-Diplomatic plays are a great idea that need work

Cons
-The politics system needs much more meat. In Vic2 each democratic country had legislatures and some had upper and lower houses depending on the type of democracy. Now they are all the same. Also elections only ever happen every 4 years since there are no legislatures. The interest groups system would be much more fleshed out if you were able to see your populace reacting to your policies during every mid-term election as a presidential republic. I would also like the return of specific laws from Vic 2 such as being able to customize how your democracy works. Currently I can't really tell the difference between being a Autocracy and a Democracy with universal suffrage other than some small changes to the modifiers. As an absolutist power you still have to wait for laws to pass via debate. Obviously, some not every bit of detail can be included but having a Tsar who supports abolishing serfdom being unable to do it seems backwards to me. At the very least it should be the government types like this are able to enact any law they have access to, but if it is unpopular with a powerful interest group then it should have a longer enacting period as they try to convince you otherwise with a possibility of rebellion based on their radicalism.

-Diplomacy is a bit weird in this game. I may just need some more time here but there is something that isn't clicking. Declaring an interest makes sense and works, but actual diplomacy seems to be hollow. Where are the treaties demarcating territories (i.e. granting claims)? Why is having a multiple alliance a late game tech when European (as accurately represented in EUIV) have had multilateral alliances since the 16th century if not earlier. Given that the Victorian era was another age of ever shifting alliances I don't understand why this is gated off. Maybe countries alliances with a great power should just be more expensive with an extra penalty for having a more members. I haven't played one yet but I would bet this makes it nearly impossible (or unenjoyable) to play a minor nation in Europe at the very least.

-War is just not fun in this game. In working on the economic aspect of this game (which is fun but needs work) PDX seems to have forgotten that warfare and tactics were a very large part of this era. I think Vic2's system was bad due to an unrefined system (no movement lock iirc) but this is somehow worse and insanely bland. There's not really even any representation of whats going on visually on the map. In every other pdx game you at least had little dudes smacking each other. In this you might be lucky if you see the blip of an explosion. If it's going to be handsoff give me something to look at. Have the troops represented and change them as your tech increases. Show zeppelins, gas, mini troops charging a trench, and them being mowed down by the first machine guns. You don't even see your troops being transported by convoy ffs. The mechanics of how what little war there is also are strange. Your troops finish a front and just teleport somewhere else randomly without your input. Sometimes you'll have 1000 troops and the enemy will have 3 and you'll just be stuck with no way to advance even though the front is shaped in such a way that they could easily be flanked with such numbers.

-I get wanting to reduce warfare management to an extant, but in all honesty the economy should be a less hands-on especially when you have capitalists (like in vic2 and the real world). There were subsidies but no true command economies under most systems in the Victorian era. In Vic 2, the US ACCURATELY can not just build factories unless they politically change to interventionism. You're constantly searching plugs to fill the holes in your economy in this game. Why do I need to setup a trade route with a country that I don't embargo? Shouldn't the merchants just set them up as necessary? If you want the goods to be cheaper then you can do a trade deal, or invite to a customs, union etc. but setting up individual routes should not be the standard for every country in this game. Vic2 had a better system in regards to stockpiles, which I believe makes more sense.

In conclusion, this game is not bad it's just a vehicle for DLC. Unfortunately, this didn't come with 4 wheels or a transmission so its going to be a while before this gets going.

Tl;Dr medium bones DLC Foundation with some eyebrow raising decisions; has more meat than Imperator at launch, but Less than CK3 at launch.

The-Reverend
The-Reverend

I’m going to give this a thumbs up. It’s by no means perfect, it needs more work! I have a list of things I would want… more complexity overall (many articles say the game is complex with a high learning curve, and compared to HI4 & CK3 that doesn’t seem true), more religious dynamics, Mormonism, global political councils, it should be possible to call people into wars once they have begun. Just more… it feels like a foundation upon which a lot more needs to be and hopefully will be built. There’s solid potential here. Let’s hope and watch as it unfolds over the coming months.

asiankitty420
asiankitty420

I really like the game! It was a ton of fun building super small nation of Krakow, more like a single city, Into a bustling metropolis where even the simple lower class workers were very well off and having the highest GDP per capita in the world, to suddenly hitting a massive depression and losing everything. Maybe I should have seen just how unsustainable my economy was when the workers were richer than other nations upperclassmen, or how susceptible such a insanely manufacturing focused economy that was so small was to the whims of my overlord's market. Oh well, a lesson for next game.

Though, I do warn you this game has a lot of numbers a pretty fun Economy simulation, but not a very war focused one so if you expect a war focused game you should probably play HOI4, if you just want to build a ever greater economy and push your markets to the top of the world perhaps without ever firing a single gun if your particularly skilled and lucky, then this game is pretty fun. (May be Biased as war scares me because its so expensive so I play rather peacefully)

Also, in my opinion smaller nations are way more fun than larger ones, bigger ones are require a bit more micro since you are the invisible hand of the economy deciding what gets built and how things are done.

Sure its not perfect, (Not much flavor yet) but it seems like a great base, though I cant wait for more mods with their own seperate flavors

Soxasix
Soxasix

Boring. Extremely micro-heavy, the warfare system is absolutely awful, and you'll eventually have to buy hundreds of $ of DLC to fix it all.

Times New Logan
Times New Logan

Don't buy it yet, it clearly isn't finished. I'm not changing my review until it's no longer possible for Lincoln to become president in 1836.

MapleResolve
MapleResolve

Undoubtedly the most beautiful and best-running game in the Paradox catalogue. Very impressed with the map and the UI. Unfortunately, the game is incredibly overwhelming, even for Paradox veterans. Everything must be micromanaged with little to no payoff.

Blomakranz
Blomakranz

big fun. five pizzas out of six hotdogs. would recommend to anyone who is into economic or dyplomatic simulations. horrendous learning curve tho

dmpe4400
dmpe4400

it crashes a lot for me. pops are hard to manage. you have to go form tab to tab just to find something basic. its supper immersive but at the same time doesn't give you all the information you need for its immersive game play. it seems like every game that comes out now days are only half finished. imagine if when CIV, age of empires, empire earth, all the classics came out half finish. why are the old games so mush more refined and polished then the new games that come out. i think they try to hard and in the end you get a game that is not fun. i love this game put i also hate it too... ill be playing it tomorrow though. cant recommend though.

wtj143
wtj143

Every time I play VIcky 3 I lose my will to live. My brain feels like it is a cheap graphics card being overclocked to perform like a 4080.

However like a drug fueled tweaker, no matter how this game squeezes every ounce of my brain cells left, I keep coming back for more.

Again and again and again and again

NoCollab
NoCollab

It's an ok game. There's a lot of issues with it but it just came out so I guess you could cut it some slack there. It's still a fun game despite the bugs, and even though the war system is VERY different from other paradox games, it's not that bad. 7/10

Amon Amarth
Amon Amarth

im going to try out a few more things and probably give up on the game. i REALLY hate the war system a lot. there needs to be better levels of managemnt. having an army with 500 divisions against one with 75 should be an epic but fast war. SO WHY DO THEY SEND IN 1-8 DIVISIONS AT A TIME...... its frustrating as hell, but im gonna keep trying to figure it out.

BuffaloPhil
BuffaloPhil

Huge fan of paradox games. CK2 and 3, EU4, Hoi 4. I even enjoyed Imperator. (I'll never understand why they abandoned it) But Victoria 3 falls flat. Don't get me wrong. The economy building and internal politics are great (internal politics might need some tweaks). I do love building economies in the other games but maybe I've found out I enjoy building the economies in previous titles to ensure I win the wars and it's actually the wars I enjoy. And the wars on Victoria 3 are dull and anti climactic. Hopefully it's better in a year and they don't "Imperator: Rome" it...

yungsalieri
yungsalieri

I created Mexican NAFTA and suffered the consequences:

For my first game I decided to do a Mexico run and clean up on the US. After wearing down the US in a number of wars with Britain and Canada's help, I embarked up on a utopian project, Tortillas and Roses. My burgeoning industry was powered by the sulfur and gold miners of California, the Iron Miners of Oaxaca, and the Dye growers of Mexico City. As the economy expanded, Mexico pioneered a number of industries - it manufactured the first automobile, radio, telephone, and tank. It had grown to the point that Mexico was the richest country on earth, surpassing the pitiful Yanks 5 times over using the might of Californian and Texan oil.
"With a glorious success like this, I should share it with the world!" I thought. I began assembling the largest customs union in the world bar Britain's - I brought in all of Central America, Brazil, Venezuela, Gran Colombia, Russia, and free Africa. In short years their economies exploded, with Brazil's growing 5 times over in 10 years. And yet the Mexican economy was still growing, supplying these countries with manufactured goods for days.
That's when the problems started. These countries took all their newfound paper and plowed it into building more farms and resource facilities. Production of most basic resources doubled or tripled in a short span of time. The Mexicans had grown greedy, with even a lowly farmer or miner expecting a 30 pound plus weekly wage (most people at the bottom were even able to afford cars and opium. yes, *even opium*.), and they were not ready to complete with the hungry masses that they had just welcomed into their trade sphere. They got ripped apart - structural unemployment exploded, and while already a significant problem in the highly mechanized Mexican economy, it ended up with 30% of Mexican workers out of a job. Since the Mexican people were by far the largest consumer of manufactured goods in the world, manufacturer's profits fell massively, causing more unemployment. The trade houses, however, were producing 100-200 pounds of profit per worker per week. They were making a killing ripping apart the Mexican economy and shipping it off to Venezuela. That's when I realized - I did a Mexican NAFTA and Donaldo Trompez'd the Mexican economy to shambles. We were still number one though, and that's what this game is all about.

10/10 estrellas, would Alamo Texas again for that sweet sweet oil.

Andy Liberty
Andy Liberty

Have no idea how to play yet I can't stop playing. Game has no curve, its a hill but a fun hill to learn. My most major nitpick is that I want to see my line infantry fight as tiny sprites like ships and artillery. Once they refine great power interventions and warfare, it can truly be a great game.

slimwhit98
slimwhit98

Its a fun game but there's quit a few bugs that need to be ironed out. My game right now is broken somehow every time i try and play any scenario or sandbox the camera pans of the map and i cant move it back.4/10 10/10 if they fix the bugs !!

proleosophy
proleosophy

Wouldn't suggest it until major changes are patched in. Patched in. Not as DLC. These changes are unlikely to happen, I think.

I've played Victoria 2 and 1. Extensively. I'd like to think I'm pretty generous on Paradox development snafus and issues over the years, but I think this is the last straw for me. This is probably the least complete and jank release I've ever seen in the series and indicative of the development trajectory and motives of Paradox at this point. It is well and truly not very good, and has taken several steps back in gameplay and mechanical features by simplification; I think the primary focus of this release is some sort of complex economic simulator but there's no game there, really. Even previously baked in features are simply gone from the release. While I can understand the reasoning for these decisions, some of the results don't make very much sense, such as European troops supporting their interest-based allies without having any meaningful navy to speak of. This sort of indicative of many face-palm design decisions.

There are other problems, or what I interpret as problems. Most of the game seems to cater to balancing three or four groups of numbers, possibly four or more on certain occasions. With other features culled or removed, the game becomes a game of watching a combination of numbers with a diplomatic system that seems underdeveloped. While I understand these are map-painter games mostly about numbers, the truth is that I find the existing systems to be a step backward -- I liked the flashpoint system of Vic2, the world wars, and westernization. I also liked the focus system. I liked many systems, even if they were somewhat rough.

What I'm trying to say is that the game seems to be several questionable steps backward for the series. The music is solid as always, the art and interface seem agreeable. The politics and political adjustments -- particularly laws and government -- seem good. It's just frustrating to see the game basically set loose on the public as diminished version of Victoria 2. But when I say that the best possible revision to the game is the interface compared to Vic2, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to feel?

Anonymous
Anonymous

This is a great game. Pretty high learning curve (and I've done Paradox games before) and some frustrating minor things but a 100% first class, complex model of a really interesting period. I buy a lot of other games that I play for a week or two then move on, but I think this game will be with me for years, as there are a lot of mods and stuff coming out for a long time. Considered waiting 'till it gets fleshed out and initial bugs tweeked but, realistically I knew I'd definitely buy it eventually so why not now. Glad I did - likely got the foundation to become the best PI game yet.

BeefCrotch
BeefCrotch

Played thousands of hours of paradox games and can honestly say this is one of their better releases so far. Not too many crazy ass bugs so far and actually rather engaging for a paradox base game with no DLC. It's not EU4 though so for all of those going into this expecting that, you will be disappointed.

Econ & Diplo are the bread and butter of this one as of right now, with Econ being the focus. While that may change a tad bit as they release more content (which if i know paradox... they will) i dont see it changing much; so if you're thinking of buying this for the war games like you'd see in EU4, id say wait on it. But if you don't mind a change of pace in what I consider a very interesting time period... Go for it!

ElectricSoap
ElectricSoap

It's just not very good, pretty bland, and most of the systems even the ones that were supposed to be really in depth are lacking

TRUJohn
TRUJohn

OK this is my opinion there is no need to bite my head of for it:
1) the combat system is tragic, yes i know its not a military game but there is combat involved

2) There is not enough diversity between the civilisations. If you play Walachia, Austria, USA, Japan, Everything is almost identical

3) there are aren't enough personalised events for each individual civilisation.

4) the game crashes and when you try and report the game crash the crash reporting tool also crashes.

5)AI its useless, it does some very strange things for example i started a war with the ottomans and the button where you press to see who will join the war was palced in RUssia .

Dracolithfiend
Dracolithfiend

Alright I have put some hours in and I am now ready to give it an honest review. The game as it currently sits feels like a beta. Tooltips are unhelpful often, mechanics go unexplained, the core mechanics are obscured seemingly intentionally. Some examples include not being able to colonize because you cannot label your home region a core interest because your home region is always a core interest. Fighting a war with your army defending yet still somehow gaining ground when you lose battles. Repeatedly losing battles against a numerically and technologically inferior opponent (70k vs 6k and my 70k has 4X their offensive/defensive stats). No tooltips for why there are diplomatic penalties so you are forced to just accept you have -100 towards any and all actions with your ally which you cannot improve.

The GUI is needlessly hiding things. If I want to select a country to look at its diplomacy I can either select a tiny flag on their capital when I zoom in on it, or if for unknown reasons (I legit can't figure out why it does this) the flag is not there sometimes you may select their country, switch to another tab to find the flag, hover over it for 3~ seconds then, holding your breath that the cursor doesn't glitch outside the tooltip, select the flag from there before selecting the diplomacy tab. Want to find out what most people want? Too bad! Want to improve their standard of living? Well they have full employment, taxes are low as they can go, government/military jobs are highest possible pay, and everyone is living like peasants in the middle ages with 9 prosperity despite your nation providing literally every good imaginable. It's no wonder after all with a population of 10 million people capable of only holding down 500,000 jobs despite women and children being pushed into the workforce.

They got politics right at least with 10 million people leaving you with 50,000 supporters and 5 million radicals because you dared to suggest their kids might not need to be losing limbs in a dye shop.... oh and I only tried passing that law because several hundred thousand people became radicalized when I didn't have that law already. So you end up in a civil war which you easily win and as a punishment they rebels went through all your farms, resources, and factories and changed all your settings. So now you have to fix it all and pray to rngesus that the trade dynamics aren't permanently disrupted.

Despite all of this my favorite part is undoubtedly how almost nothing happens for a year or more so you bump the speed up to 5. However the game doesn't offer an autopause feature so every time you complete research you are punished for playing too fast, events end without input, and your neighbors wage wars without you having a chance to intervene or declare neutrality.

Look.... the game has potential. It might be worth my time in a year or two. It just needs a few more basic features brought back from previous games and some more tool tips. Now I know many of you who read this will look at my hours and say "LOL didn't play enough so opinion isn't informed!" the other half of you will say "LOL played game too much and says doesn't like it!" it's a catch 22. I have vented some frustration and given an opinion. I will probably boot this game up in the future and give it some more time but for now I think I will put it down and just hope it doesn't go the way of Imperator Rome.

TLDR: Needs better tool tips, more diplomatic options, auto pause function for events, and less micromanagement of the economy. Wait for a few DLC's to buy.

Arehandoro1986
Arehandoro1986

Love the game! It has issues that I understand can cause problems to some but I feel the game is overall a success with creating a good foundation from which build upon.

Cons:
- I can agree that the political system can get a bit of work and the military system is probably the worst part of the game. Also there were many performance issues with a couple crashes. But I do feel that most of the systems works, and that it can be solved with some changes and balances. Also many quality of life improvements to menues, or how some institutions or laws require certaing things that the game could tell you about "This needs X law" "This needs Y Tech". Maybe do that to some other weird and obscure concepts of the game and we are golden.

Pros:
- The law passing and institution system is really fun, and the building economy and playing with the imperialism and colonization is more open than before. Supercharging your economy and building is amazing, and even if the early game can be simple, as more things develop more complex it becomes. Changing production methods to electric or having to invest in importing machinery or building your own can be really fun! I feel the game only gets better as time goes on, which is something I can't say from EU4 for example. (which I do love but gotta admit gets tedious as the late late game starts to settle in)

Conclusion:
I think the game is pretty good and fun. I've seen people claiming playing some campaings and trying lots of things and have like 10 hours or less in. Like, isn't a camaping like 20-30+? So I do feel people are judging the game without giving a fair chance or looking at how much effort was put into making the game fun all the way. My advice, if you are interested in the gameplay, don't abandon it just at the start, give it an honest go with a nation and see how the systems develop and the world starts changing around.

HamburgerTrain
HamburgerTrain

This game scratches my economics itch like no other, the market works much better than Vic2 and is much better tied to other systems. The interest group system and politics are amazingly tied they are to relations to economic production.

I am also glad they took much of the micro out of combat, it makes it easier to play large globe sprawling empires without focusing too much on one front and not realizing you've been invaded elsewhere or having massive attrition and not realizing it.

That said, I wish there was a bit more options in the war mechanics, even a more limited system from Hearts of Iron 4. I also wish there were more options to automate more aspects of trade and development.

As it stands at release there are also a lot of annoying things in the game regarding user interface, there's tonnes of information but its often difficult to find the exact info you need because its nested 2 layers down in tool tips.

There are other issues with how war and diplomacy play out too that I expect will be fixed relatively soon. One such example being too low default combat width makes a lot of the automated battles infuriating to experience when your 4:1 troop count battle loses quite often when most other things are equal.

There are also surprisingly basic map inacuracies that add to the annoyance of what should be a very good game, and beautiful game.

I'd rate 7.5/10 with potential to be 9+ just based on the interplay of war economy and politics and how it plays so different

Condemned_
Condemned_

Great game in terms of economic build up and management of supply chains, however, the warfare is nothing compared to hoi4 or even victoria 2, and the diplomacy is a bit lacking. Overall, a good base game for economic development and it has a ton of potential to become a great game, albeit you will probably have to pay for the things that will make it great.

Carolus_Magnus
Carolus_Magnus

I can't recomend this game right now. It will be a great game later down the line. If you are one of the players who know you want this game then great however if you dont know if you would like it, stay away for a while.

The UI is messy and takes up to much real estate ( atleast for 1920x1080 and 1920x1200, most things in the ui seems to big so it could be related to ui scaling which there is no option for). The outliner and the messages over lap and anytime there is a new message the outliner resets to the top entry which means that you will pause whenever you want to access things further down the outliner.

Somethings are so hard to find that even after finding it once and you come back the next day you still have to scavange to find it again. The tooltips help a bit but its really hit or miss weather you can interact with the tooltip to get to where you need to go.

There are no quick map modes (not entirely true but ill get to that) which means other then clicking each state or nation and navigatating through window tabs for that state and nation.

War is lacking cause unless you abuse instant transportation of generals you have very little control over the war as if there are diffrent front lines in neighboring states and provinces i can never tell where the generals end up. If you make a naval invasion and meet only token resistance it feels random as to weather the frontline is advanced somewhat evenly or just spear heading into enemy land. Both could be viable a strategies but there is no control over what the generals trys to do. They either tryo to defend a line or advance a line and i cant even tell where a province within a state starts or ends so cant even predict at what point a spearhead could be cut off from reinforcements or how far the line might move.

The "quick map modes" that do exist are meh and arent even map modes as you would expect. It is baked together with decrees and actions such as "establish colony", "road maintinence".

I love the game and hate that i have to fight the ui and interactions everytime i play.

VascularPlant
VascularPlant

This is a unique, complex, and even valuable game.

A lot of the negative reviewers want this game to be more like another paradox game. Why would that be fun or interesting?

Victoria 3 paves the way for more complex human development simulations. Young people will be inspired to contribute to economic development, community development, social and scientific development in the real world because they played games like this. It makes you think about specific segments of people in the human population and how to support their growth. That is, at its core, a very important example of skilled empathy.

Crusader Kings 3 is teaching how feudalism formed and developed. Victoria 3 teaches how imperialist capitalism and colonialist violence shaped the world.

Military micro-management takes a back seat in favor of economic development taking the center of your attention. Awesome, love it, very refreshing for a grand strategy game.

Thanks for the folks at Paradox who took big risks with this one. Keep on developing, don't let the haters screw with you.

Zapp Brannigan
Zapp Brannigan

Victoria 3 is addictive and can at times be fun. I really like how much depth was put into diplomacy and the pop system. A lot of the time I'm frustrated by how much I have to micro-manage the economy. I hate asking for developers to simplify their games but I feel it's necessary in this case. The economy portion of the game just isn't fun. Probably the biggest complaint I've seen others make is about the military system which does need to be reworked. Right now It's clunky and doesn't involve the player all that much. I don't think it's a terrible system but it needs to be reworked.
At this point I cant recommend anyone to purchase the game for $50. Personally if I hadn't already bought the game, I would wait for it to drop to around $30.

Janky Boi
Janky Boi

Many of the fundamental systems are broken or feel incomplete e.g. war, diplomacy, ai, migration, and to an extent, the economy. I've also experienced slow-downs and a crash after 1890. It honestly just doesn't feel quite finished.

I think the economic gameplay is quite fun, but the AI doesn't really understand how to properly build their economies. I don't expect the AI to be as good as a player, but it seems largely incapable of utilizing their population and resources. For example, I played Texas and by 1880 I have surpassed the American economy. I don't think this should be so easy to achieve. The US economy has only doubled in the time that mine has grown 500x from the start of the game.

Part of the reason that was possible is because migration is largely broken. The basic mechanic for most migration is movement within a market from low attraction states to high attraction states. The US does not have access to this as they are the leader of their own market. The only reason why I was able to grow texas to around 10M from 70k is because I joined the french market. The other method for migration is driven by turmoil wherein disgrunted pops leave a location en mass and target a particular state. As Texas, I was able quite a few of these migration events, but the sources were strange. Most of them were from Africa which just didn't feel realistic at all. Very few migration events originating in Europe occurred and when they did, their targets were strange as well.

Diplomatic maneuvers are easy to game as well. I was able to offer obligations to the US and the UK in order to have them back me in conflicts with Mexico, but neither utilized those obligations at any point. They expired worthless (the game doesn't even tell you they expire btw). If they weren't able to use them because I was a protectorate of France, then why would they accept them in the first place?

War feels incomplete and isn't very engaging. Many of the mechanisms are opaque and battles are strangely small.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that it felt like nothing really happened. Major events just did not occur. The only agent for change is the player. The AI didn't seem to do anything of interest except for constant diplomatic plays against African minors. The ACW never fired, Prussia never formed the NGF and therefore Germany, Austria never broke apart, nothing happened in Russia, the US didn't take territory from Mexico: everything was static. Quite frankly, the world was boring.

Another issue is the UI. It takes a long time to find information that you want to see quickly. Things are hidden behind multiple levels of menus. Other things you may want to see are hidden behind layers of tool tips which is annoying. The UI makes it annoying to micro your economy as it takes multiple clicks to get to where you want to go to do what you need to do. The building tab doesn't really help this issue at all.

There are countless other issues, but I really do think they are all fixable. I just don't want to have to buy hundreds of dollars of dlc to play a complete game. I can't recommend the game in it's current state. It needs significant work.

can i get a uhhhhhhh
can i get a uhhhhhhh

Extremely in-depth economic simulator w/ historical materialism as a gameplay mechanic. I'm already over a dozen hours in, but I can tell there's still so much more to learn about how these systems work together, which absolutely slaps.

Most of the negative reviews seem to be from Paradox oldheads who are disappointed that this isn't like Victoria 2. I'll admit that the warfare mechanic didn't exactly pop for me, but as a newcomer to the Victoria series, this game is still extremely engaging and I'd absolutely recommend it to anyone looking for a really neat sociopolitical sim game.

Test when
Test when

Most Expensive beta I've played.
But seriously, the game seems unfinished, not in the buggy department (that's actually fine for me as of writing) but as in stuff just doesn't exist. War, a crucial system in Vicky 2, is dumbed down and de-emphasized to the point that it's not a major focus. This would be fine... if it was the 2000s, but it's not, it's the Victorian Age and early 1900s. This was a bloody period as any person with even minor knowledge of this period would know. The economy is also somehow less understandable but it'd take me to be an actual economist for me to say if its worse or not then Vicky 2's economy system. Countries seem generic and samey, though as of writing I have only played one country long term (Mexico) so I can't truly say if this is the case.

Despite this, I am glad we're getting a newer game in this era but I am extremely disappointed with the results. We all know what's going to happen, if it gets disliked more... then it might not get updated much... or even left to die like Imperator: Rome. If it does get updated, then that means dlc, and if you noticed the sheer amount of turkic art in European events or vice versa then I think we might get some "flavor" packs. If it's anything like Stellaris it might just be exclusive to dlcs.

Hopefully it gets better, without dlc. I may be young but I still remember the age where stuff was added to a game either freely or for a good price for what it gave us. We can only hope. For now, if you have it, wait for mods and hope for cheap dlc. If you don't have it, wait for a sale, the game is not worth $50. If you've never played Vicky 2 before but is interested in the genre, then you'll likely like this, but still wait for a sale. if you do have Vicky 2... well we all know you bought it on release, and whether it was good or not is up to you. If you resisted the urge and waited for us to tell you, you're better then me.

Also I wish for a meh recommendation, because this game is generally meh, not really bad or really good... just meh.

TheLyokha
TheLyokha

I am refunding it. I am a big fan of paradox games. The only one that disappointed me was literally Imperator. Now it is accompanied with Vic 3. Market simulation is somewhat interesting, but it feels more like ANNO, rather than Victoria. I'll stick to Vic 2 for now. I don't think Vic 3 will be interesting anytime soon, it is too far from being a "grand strategy" and the AI is dead too.

Nak
Nak

The game was simplified extensively with wars being automated. Which means significantly less micromanaging for the military. Conflicts are won or lost based on skills of the general and your units as well as supply. It’s a much less complex game than it’s predecessor, that’s not to say it isn’t fun but it is a hard turn from more in depth paradox properties like hearts of iron or EU4. (Most of the bad reviews are in reference to this fact)

It is a very shinny and atmospheric game though, more similar to the civilization series.

In my 7 hours Iv not had a single crash or noticeable bug, it’s early and I’m sure more content will come but as of now I’m just glad I’m not getting flooded with 10+ “wars of containment” every decade like in Victoria 2

There are broken elements and easily identifiable exploits but that’s true of all paradox games, especially at launch.

In short it’s a simpler game with a learning curve much more palpable to the general gaming market. It’s not a shinny updated Victoria 2 and seems to be where most of the complaints are.

80/100

Hopefully it last longer than Imperator Rome

Compiz
Compiz

It is exactly what was expected considering I read all the dev diaries and watched all official pre-release streams. I agree with people that the war system is weird and lackluster coming from a lot of CK2/CK3/EU4/Stellaris. No other big qualms with me about the game just little things here and there like being able to access some information easier, UI redesigns, etc. I give this a positive review because it seems that this has been the most clear paradox have been about what the game is and intends to be and it being just that and relatively polished on release.

These are my opinions of course. This also comes from someone who has never played V2 or really watched much of it at all on the internet.

thanks for coming to my ted talk

PontusMeister
PontusMeister

I love paradox and I'm a huge fan of most of their games (especially HOI4 and EU4), but I can't bring myself to give this game a positive review. Now don't get me wrong, I low key kinda like the game, and it has the potential to be a very good game, but as of right now it is very bare bones. It's unfinished and shouldn't have been released at it's current state, as all paradox games are at launch.

I think you should wait and see how the game looks after a year or more, since it will be much better by then. Paradox games have always had a tendency to be empty at launch and then get better as more updates and DLC come out after a couple of years. It's sad that the game isn't finished at released (which it should be), but I'm not surprised. But this game is a good foundation for a game that will be a very good game in 2 years.

And I do send my love to the developers who've worked very hard on this. The game is beautiful, and I can see this game being really really good in the future.

More interesting reviews