Victoria 3

I made my nation the number one economy by building art centers and basically selling NFTs

Exploiting the masses

Favourite stocks simulator with some map attached to it

The game can be boring at first sight but in reality it's a very good game.
I recommend at first to play a big power in order to have more fun and understand all mechanics :)

Another paradox game, just don't buy if your pc is a potato as it will reenact Hiroshima

my playtime is from 2 >12 hour sessions, so it's not unengaging. the sessions were also more than a year apart, so i was basically going in without any knowledge about the systems, which meant a lot of the playtime was spent idling or waiting on very slow change. Didn't help that i picked a different small isolationist monarchy both times... It's hard to grasp what things are going on at times, but i suppose that is just a lack of experience with the game.

TLDR: Honestly not worth anyone's time.

The game has it's ups. First time through the game can be a blast, I reckon. The first time you manage to get the economy rolling and see the green line go up, and up, and up as you build more things, you feel so powerful; especially when you add the enormous amounts of military and naval buildings to the mix, and just general conquest.

The first time playing as any historical nation from the time, you also quickly find yourself being sucked into the power fantasy of being that nation during this historical period.

However all that comes to a screeching halt, when you realise, that you are playing the same nation over and over again, just with a different name and coat of paint. The game is just extremely poorly diversified, that playing one nation doesn't distinguish it from playing any other, apart from some geographical changes, which are negligible at best.

Combat can also be extremely tedious and non-engaging. I get that the point is making sure the frontlines have a proper supplyline, but generally it doesn't feel very impactful. Another thing they've never quite managed to fix is armies teleporting all the way across the world, just because their frontline disappeared, and they then end up going back to their barracks.

Overall the game is just very poorly executed. The game just feels like a chore at some point. Sure seeing your economy growing is fun, but having to build another building sector followed by another wood-/iron-/steelmill, just to continue the cycle endlessly to meet demands just becomes a drag after 40-80 years of doing that.

Adding that it feels like there's only one specific way to play with regards to economy and politics just adds to the repetitive nature of the game.

I'd say skip this game, and just play any other of Paradoxs' grand strategy titles.

I fail to understand the purpose of reworking the combat/war mechanics. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not feel like it was a common complaint among grand strategy players that the combat mechanics were "too complicated". In spite of this, Paradox deemed it fit to simplify war and combat in the most dramatic (derogatory) way possible. Now, instead of actually controlling armies and their movement, you can just fiddle around with "fronts"---the boarders of which, I might add, seem to be arbitrarily decided. In one war, my army teleported instantaneously form West Africa to the USA, and in doing so broke the momentum that I was building at that moment. This is just one example of the completely unusable army mechanics. Gone are the days of winning wars in spite of your strategic advantage. Furthermore, the way that armies are assigned to generals makes no intuitive sense; there will be one battle under one general containing 10 of (lets says 100 units in the army total) and another that contains 80. I could go on and on about the terrible nature of combat, but honestly, I just cannot bring myself to put such effort into such a thing. Economy building is hard, and largely unrewarding, but I admit that this is probably due to my own inabilities. Please paradox when you make EU5 don't include this dumb combat system, do something normal. Make it complicated, but make it learnable. Don't make it what we have here, which is simple, so simple in fact that it is *unlearnable* by virtue of having been dumbed down so much that it doesn't have any tangible and learnable nature left in it. This has become a bit of a rant hasn't it. Anyway, meh game 5/10.

Play as France to rival England.
Shoot up Gdp
Shoot up population
Slowly grow states
Learn about power blocs
try to form a power bloc
can only be a trade alliance because i didnt pay 60 more dollars for the dlc.
Frances dreams crushed forever
10/10

economy sim with minor diplomacy features

Insanely disappointed wish it was better.

Just the worst sort of economic/social simulator. I don't imagine the developers new what they were making. They really pulled the woke rug from right under you. The combat system is a joke, the tech tree feels incomplete, and there is no real freedom of liberty in the players desired end-goal. Aside from all that, the UI is cluttered and tedious to access.

Like the game but I would say it needs more states and journals for it to be better.

I suggest the Japanese Shogunate for new players. Fantastic game!

Incredibly passive experience that practically plays itself. The minimal choices you have will all railroad you down taking the only viable option for the game at scale, which is "Hyper-Liberalize, Hyper-Industrialize, bully Qing for War Rep $$$". Unlike Vic2 which offers much more depth (and a proper combat system), you can just let the game autoplay till the very end and unless you're an African or Polynesian tribe, you will survive just because the AI refuses to make any plays.
Good for the autoclicker/playing at work crowd, but if you want real depth or any kind of micro, you are much better off looking towards Vic2 or a different Paradox offering.

An incredible game!!! It is amazing how much can be done even when playing with very small nations like Belgium. Between managing industries, trade, the domestic economy and prices, introducing technological innovations, the nation's political landscape, and diplomacy, there is so much to do without ever having to start a war!

Its fun, challenging and delivers on all the tell tale aspects of a Paradox game. Enjoy!

A bit rough to get in, but when you get it the game becomes very fun! The late game is a bit slow in the games I played, but still enjoyable.

WARFARE RANT:
I am someone who has played a couple hundred hours from Victoria II, i have always been somewhat negative from the warfare aspect from Victoria 3, and playing it definitely didn't changed it.

The universal aspect from all historical Paradox Interactive games of being able to control your units individually doesn't really exist. I don't think that it is an absolute positive (look at games such as Hearts Of Iron III, that game is a bastard of unnecessary micro or letting it to the faith of the AI), but on Victoria II it played as a crucial part on the momentum and the drastic changes of warfares that the game period covers. From the various skirmishes in places such as the Chaco, to fast and mobile warfare such as during the Franco-Prussian war to the bogged down trench warfare during the Great War. The amount of units that your nation grew up to, the technologies that changes the entirety of style of combat, and combined with really simple but interesting combat mechanics made for some really cool warfare experiences (specially in Multiplayer Lobbies), but in Victoria 3 you have...

A front line system that you can choose to your general a set of orders on how they interact with the front line. That reduces all that variability, mobility and specially player input, to become a front line trench warfare alike of combat, which is drastically different from Victoria II and historical Paradox Interactive.

The idea of simplifying and removing possibly unnecessary microing (specially as the game has a more complex and time demanding economy to track and follow) is an welcoming one. But removing almost all type of control, and so you would need to pray to the RNG gods that your defensive battles goes into a good defensive terrain instead of being in barren plains, and that somehow your battle stats roll good enough so your army has a fighting chance, or doesn't get demolished by an inferior, and all that being something out of your reach, is really frustrating. It boils down combat to simply whoever has the better stats and units to throw into the frontline, removing most underdog experiences that you have in Victoria II. Because having information of your enemy units doesn't matter that much, which isn't fun.

It is completely fine and acceptable to have the focus of the game more on diplomacy and economy then war and combat (as the devs had stated on the dev diaries), but the compromise that they arrived to made so disadvantages become absolutes. It isn't necessarily a "betrayal" of the fans ,but it wasn't a good choice either, specially when coming from a background of playing games such as Europa Universalis IV or the predecessor Victoria II.

EVERYTHING ELSE:
Removing the abysmal warfare changes, I liked the rest of the changes in general. Income is actually something to worry about and not simply putting tarrifs on 100 if you want to have money, wars causes a lot more of impact to economies as income isn't just a ledger anymore. Victoria 3 dives much more into the politics and how you do them, which is definitely an improvement from getting unrest so you could have reform from Victoria II.

Although diplomacy plays can be too much in some situations, but they added a lot more of life to the world, albeit it doesn't escape situations such as the entire french army getting into Colombia, but its an interesting change nevertheles and in my opinion a better approach then infamy was.

Bureaucracy actually existing and not being an incentive that you give for 2 years and you can pretty much forget about it for the rest of your game, and in actually existing it affects your nation into makes annexing not the most viable way of expanding your influence 10 out of 10 times like in Victoria II.

Being completely honest i don't have that big of a grasp into the economy, but trade seems a lot more real and interesting. It isn't perfect but Victoria II's economy wasn't that deep or incredible either.

CONCLUSION:
I feel like it could be more tolerable if i didn't played Victoria II and was a new Paradox player, the DLC monetization practice isn't great at all (it isn't *as bad* as other games, but we really shouldn't be comparing evils to justify one over another), but it really isn't fun having one of the main ways of interacting with the world be more dependent on your pre-estabilished state and the dices of our almighty lord then your direct interaction as the controller of the nation itself. It isn't the worst game ever and i don't think that the simplifying of warfare was inherently bad, but this approach wasn't great at all, which for me as a player of other Paradox games substantially ruins the other attempts made when compared to Victoria II.

Was good. No longer works, keeps on "Not Responding"

Victoria 3 is an ambitious and rewarding strategy game, particularly for players who enjoy managing complex systems and making long-term plans also victorian era lover. Its historical context, deep mechanics, and focus on economic and social issues make it unique in the Paradox Interactive lineup. If you're a fan of grand strategy and enjoy detailed simulations, Victoria 3 is a game worth diving into.

Key Features:
Economic and Social Management: The game stands out for its deep economic and social systems. Players manage production, trade, and the flow of goods, while also dealing with the intricacies of population needs, class struggles, and ideologies. Balancing the interests of different social groups, such as capitalists, aristocrats, and laborers, adds a layer of complexity.

Political System: The political mechanics are another highlight. Players must navigate the ever-evolving political landscape, from elections to revolutions. Crafting policies, influencing ideologies, and managing relationships with other countries require strategic thinking.

Technology and Industry: The technological advancements and industrial growth system are a central aspect. As you progress, you unlock new technologies that improve production, military, and social systems. The industrialization of your country impacts both domestic and foreign affairs.

Diplomacy and Warfare: Victoria 3 offers a robust diplomacy system, where you interact with other nations, build alliances, and manage tensions. While warfare is not the central focus, it remains important. Managing your military and using it effectively is necessary for defending your interests and ur own country.

Glorified alpha-test with so many underdeveloped mechanics. Military action is a complete joke, international trade does not exist for a half of a game session, big chunk of gameplay is just waiting for some research to complete. Yet my biggest gripe with the game is that often times major events happen out of the blue: no saying on the matter, no chance to intervene, not even a pop-up or notification. And by "major events" I mean not stuff like "country X started investment project in country Y, who is by the way your rival", nooooooooo-o-o-o-o-o. By this I mean "snaps fingers oops, your Washington province belongs to US now, get f-ed, moron, should've assembled Canada faster".

Considering ever increasing graphic and simulation fidelity of more recent Paradox releases, this game will be in this sorry state for several more years. By this point it will have a plethora of feature-adding DLCs costing ten times the base game. But then there will be no point of buying because the financial commitment is too high, and without DLC packs base game is a barren wasteland of subpar gameplay and basic versions of what should be game-changing features. Did I mention that every story-focused DLC will be outclassed by a free mod, but you'll HAVE to buy it because something something advanced trains or powerblocks or some other game mechanic that's castrated in the base game?

This review is no longer about Victoria 3 specifically at this point. Stellaris, Hearts Of Iron 4, now this. New game installment of Europa Universalis is on the horizon. I kept spending money on disappointments. No more.

Don't bother unless you have a few hundred bucks you will not regret throwing in the digital shredder.

Great game a lot simpler than Victoria 2 and “lets you choose your path” but other than a guided story it’s really fun

Yeah sure it's good. Not that it doesn't have it's kinks to work out. Revolutions for instance are an abomination right now so if you want to do a lot of conquering plan on endless hanging revolutions that don't let you properly organize your army or your buildings and also tons of event spam you couldn't care less about. I just wish there was a murder all these people in their sleep button. The whole war system is buggy with armies teleporting across the globe away from your frontlines kinda thing. The game is still fun despite all this. Worthy successor to a great game with hopefully much more to come.

Overall in a good shape now. Warfare system still need fixing

I strongly suggest that you don't buy this game.

There's an interesting game buried here, but it's very inaccessible. The achievements show how few people who start playing it get very far.

It doesn't teach you how to play and the forum on Steam is too dead to be much help. There is a Paradox forum, that rejected my account without saying why, which given that I'm a paying customer, is disgusting and tantamount to theft.

I feel ripped off by Paradox Games. I'll certainly think twice before purchasing from them again.

there is much to improve in this game but overall solid game, one I personally love, my one recommendation is if you dont like spending money don't buy a paradox interactive game because there will be a LOT of dlcs as time goes on. (oh and dont be disappointed that war sucks it'll get fixed one day) (also diplomacy could be a bit more intricate but it works fine as is)

I will refrain from the topic of war because it is obviously one that will always be of great controversy - all I will say is that PDX had an opportunity to remove the inherent imbalance of player vs AI in conflict when you directly control armies, and they somehow failed at that.

Victoria 3 is not the amazing economic simulation that proponents of this game claim it to be. The game's economy essentially boils down to "have deficit -> build building" Can't build building? Click trade route! Great success! Line go up. Making more money -> build more construction -> build more buildings. Repeat. That's most of the game, especially in vanilla.

Politics are uninteresting and do not reflect the entire 100 year span of the game unless you play with Better Politics Mod, which is in my opinion an absolute requirement to make this game playable. I can't hold that against Vic 3 that much - after all it's predecessor (if only in name, because they are entirely different games) is unplayable by 2025 standards without mods. BPM offers a strong influx of flavor that you can truly interact with and is a game within itself, making this dry simulation at least somewhat interesting.

One of Vic 3's greatest failings is it's - not inability - but refusal to simulate the latter half of the game's timeframe properly. Before the game was even released, there was uproar about the lack of a great war system for example, conflicts of truly immense geopolitical consequence are not really present without player intervention and if by some miracle they do occur, the odds of the player even knowing a war is going on in the world that they're not involved in is unlikely, since the game has no interest in immersing you in anything other than the lines in your country going up. In 1936 the world feels the same as 1836. There are a few more goods and modifiers, by the way, the AI will be incapable of actually exploiting them for the most part, especially finished products, so feel free to dominate the world of automobiles and aeroplanes. A conflict in 1836 somehow feels the exact same as 1936. In vanilla, fascism as an ideology barely exists despite it's obvious rise post WWI OTL, maybe it's because the game doesn't think WWI seemed to happen between 1836 and 1936?

Wiz + the dev team's hubris got in the way of them listening to any criticism of this game and it continues to show. There's a reason Johan throws subtle backhands at the decisions made for this game as EU5 continues to develop. I'm not saying the game has no value. I enjoyed it for a time but that time is over, and it doesn't offer me any of the thousand+ hours of replayability I've gotten from older PDX titles.

Gave the game another chance since release.
Optimization is still abysmal. After 1870 you're starting to suffer. After 1900 it's unplayable.
The war system is still the least intuitive and most frustrating in any paradox game.
The economic system is still one of the best out there and got better since release. Though sometimes your capitalists make retarded decisions, which makes it very realistic in a way.
Politics got better but can still be annoying since when the game runs at 1 week every 2 minutes, it can feel like a law will take 3 hours IRL to be voted.
If you guys don't want to improve the war system, since it's necessary when you unlock new production methods to war dec and expand, you could change the trade mechanics when you have a significant ownership of resources building in a nation to improve trade volume (land or convoys) with the nation in which you own the buildings.
This could be seen as "priority trade with an investment partner". And I think this would be a major beneficial change to the game.
Also, though it might be unrealizable, but when having complete ownership of every resource building of a nation, giving the option to change production methods ? I guess it wouldn't serve the optimization problem right. Though it would be very useful.

I don't know where to begin. I really wanted to like this. I sunk 200 hours in because I was certain I'd figure out how to make it work. Every other Paradox game I've played, I've been able to figure out. I like playing economic games and the time period interests me. It feels like this game doesn't want you to succeed. The more I advance in time and along the tech tree, the less money I make. I am constantly being hit with revolutions and counter revolutions, always stronger than my nation. The warfare feels like an afterthought. The AI feels like I'm playing a game made 20 year ago. The strongest computer players gang up on you and defend nations that they should have no interest in defending. Why would Britain in the 1840s care what happens in a war with the United States and Mexico for example?. None of the nations feel unique. The random events are repetitive. The political situations and government institutions within countries are not at all accurate to their historical government structures, most certainly the case with the United States. I'm left playing a spreadsheet simulator with soulless gameplay. The only silver lining is I got this game at a discount and didn't waste any more of my money on the DLC. This feels like a scam. Do not waste your time or your money on this... I can't even call it a game. I don't understand how anyone could find this experience enjoyable.

Its good and amazing perfect for people who want a economic based game.

Great strategy game. Needs to still make diplomacy more XIX century feeling, and limit the number of senseless total wars.

The war system is fundamentally flawed and requires a full replacement that the devs aren't willing to make. Its boring when it works and actively fights against you the rest of the time.

Game is becoming deeper after each patch. It is still missing some important features like banking, currency management and stockpiling (that i hope will be added). I still highly recommend it.

The combat system is actually atrocious. It feels like it doesnt matter if you have the quantity or quality, the results are based on if the game likes you or not.

I have a lot of time in game and keep trying to make it work but it's so buggy. This game is broken with peace deals and the military aspects suck. You have to buy dlc to make it enjoyable. Don't pay $80 or anything for this dog shit.

This game can be summarized in one word: Unpolished

I really want to love this game however in its current state it really is unloveable. If you plan to buy this just be aware that you'll "only" get a few hundred hours of fun out of this game as opposed to Paradox usual thousand. And this will not change for a long (at the time of writing this, presumably a few years of) time.

Every nation feels and mostly plays the same and its unpolished state applies to both game mechanics AND [nation]flavour.

If you want to know how you'll play 90% of games if you want to do decently well it will look like this: 1. Pick a great power, 2. liberalize, 3. build an economic based on a construction bubble (Iron, steel, tools) and 4. repeat.

Minor nations are even less playable because by the time you fixed your nation the game is already or close to over.

Im gonna list every Problem I have with this game just do demonstrate the unpolished state of the game however be aware this is by far not every problem the game has to offer:

1. The Warfare system is boring, now theres a lot of criticism for the warfare system by the community however this is one of the features that is in my opinion the least in need of fixing. While it is very oversimplified (You basically draw a frontline and then either attack or defend). I think all this game needs are polishing features like frontlines splitting in 2 causing you to have a hole in your line and causing you to be instantly overrun. Military Research actually affecting your units instead of changing your production method (the Ultra Historical mods fix this). And adding a stockpile for equipment so your military factories stay productive in peace time. Plus making your attack orders actually be followed would go a long way.

2. The game runs super slow by the time you reach 1890 [depending on your PC, +/- ~10 years]. This is especially annoying because it means you get cut off from a lot of cool action. It essentially means you'll rarely see your fruits of labor pay off. Want to play Germany and establish colonies? By the time you've unified Germany and have done all the important other things the game is already slowing down. Want to play as a socialist country? By the time you're ready to become socialist your game is so slow that waiting for laws to pass is no longer fun but just annoying. Want to be Japan? By the time you implemented the right laws the game is too slow to start Japans historic rapid industrialization. Want to play as an American trade empire? By the time you unified America you'll at best have time to get the South Americas into your sphere of influence.

3. The economy system sucks. Want to build an economy as any Great power? Heres how, 1. build iron/coal mines and logging camps, make tools, repeat. 2. Unlock Steel, steel needs iron and coal, iron needs tools, make more tools using steel. 3. Unlock Dynamite, make sulfur mine, make fertilizer factory. Dynamite needs fertilizers which you make with sulfur, then you use the dynamite production method to get more resources out of mines.... resources like sulfur. And that's basically it, now go Laisez Fairre so your capitalists invest in some other stuff so you can larp the semblance of a diverse economy.

3b. Trading sucks. Hoi4 has a more interesting trade mechanic/balance then this game. Every game devolves into an Autarky Simulator. Don't have enough of something? What can you do? You have to build it yourself. Basically no shortage except engines and other rare goods can be fixed using trade. Want to larp an imperialist power that dumps massive amounts of cheap goods into a country causing local competitors to go bankrupt forcing the country to economically rely on you? Tough luck, you cant.[This is a game about colonialism and trading by the way]

4. The politics of this game are super boring and lame, if you want to be decently successful you have 2 options: Capitalist Liberalism to focus on a game with a lot of GDP or Communism to see that standard of living go up. There is no incentive to play anything else. Monarchism and other Authoritarian ways to play only compensate you with "Authority" which are points you can use to implement decree's that buff you in a selected state in a bunch of different ways however quite frankly, its useless. And while its obvious that playing as a Theocratic Ethnostate will have little benefits, there is absolutely no reason other then larp to pick them. Theres no specific unique buff, no odd situational event, nothing. They could have went with something like Monarchies uniting the populace causing less Radicals from political movements or Ethnostates/Theocracies giving less radicals from Standard of Living for the Primary culture but more for oppressed cultures but they chose nothing and hence you are always forced to pick the same old boring policies.

5. The game lacks utter immersion. Despite this game being set in unarguably one of the most important and most rapid changing times of humanity you, the player, feel nothing about it. Are you an industrial great power? Are you a small, non industrial tribe? Are you an oppressed puppet/colony? It "feels" the same. The game lacks utter immersion, while even hoi4 tries to immerse you in its setting with news events like the olympic games, the Hindenburg, etc. no such thing is going on in vicky, add this with the already distant experience from the Global Strategy approach and you're in for a dissapointment. Very very rarely do you feel like you're in these turbulent times. Events that are supposed to immerse you rarely work to do that. The only events that do make me feel immersed are that of nihilism, positivism and communism. However 2 of these rarely fire. And it is just as bad for nation specific immersion. As Prussia/Germany, you'll never feel like you're uniting people that want to be united, you just start 3 wars, get an event and annex lands. Or as Japan, you do not get experiences that make you feel like your world was basically turned upside down when the Europeans [yes Europeans because America will not even reach you] open up your country. There is a massive missed chance of adding visual novel'esque events [or news events like hoi4 does] that immerse you. Imagine how great it would be, you play as Japan and suddenly you're forced to open up. And while you change your laws you keep getting pop ups about people/interest groups describing their perspective of a changing Japan. You could see how displeased the Samurai's are getting with each event, how they feel about losing their privileges while for the Peasantry you feel their sweeping optimism as they went from the bottom of the hierarchy to a respected group. Ultimately this is a huge missed potential that is also surprisingly not alot talked about in the community.

heres a lot more to say and criticize but I've reached my steam word limit... yeah that one sentence sums up the vicky 3 experience.

All in all this game just quite frankly sucks due to a lack of polish. Usually mod's fix this in other games but it is to severe in this game to fix. You need different major mods for every single aspect. I personally run the entire 5 or so Ultra Historical mods to fix research, combat and the lack of a historical ai. The better politics mod to make politics slightly less repetitive (they still are). Various Quality of life UI mods, performance improving mods, Event and Flavour mods. And always 1 Flavour mod for the nation Im planning to play.

And this won't be fixed within one update or a dlc, this will take a lot which is why I don't recommend it. If they keep the progress up, in 2 years I'd say this game enters a "releasable bare bones" state. As it is, you get a few hundred hours out of playing different nations and getting familiar with the game mechanics until you realize its all the same.

[tl:dr historical economic politics simulator that isn't historical, repetetive and boring, no variation.]

2 years later the warfare is absolutely unplayable. Extremely bugged, ruins runs and immersion - makes me want to uninstall. Until Paradox completely revamps it - don't give them a cent.

This game has come a long, long way and it's never been better. Still prone to border gore and ahistorical scenarios sans mods, but the big bugs have been squashed and a much wider variety of countries and approaches are now viable.

Wow! I didn't know what to expect when I bought this game. I love civ and I'd describe this game as the lovechild between civ and a Paradox game. Super fun synergies in the game just like a civ classic along with a tech tree and civ like warfare. This can make it hard for smaller nations, however given the style of combat and the prevalence of snowballing. Nevertheless, more than worth a buy.

Games alright i guess, managing the army is cancer but the navy is less cancer tho. The game is hard at the start but when you learn what to build in what order and what to research it gets boring after a while. I only bought the game becouse off market version was a alot slower. This game will definitely improve with time and becouse of that I do recommend this game

This is more of a poorly executed simulation of 19th century geopolitical landscape than a fully-fletched "game". It does get better with every DLC but these improvements should be in the base game already. The only way this "game" is remotely fun is with having all the DLC's and it gets tiring to have to pay for the stuff that should have been present at the release. It's also ill-optimized and several stuff aren't very well balanced. You have to be a paradox veteran to like this game. I know this game will get better as time goes on but it has already been several years since its release and you still can't call this a proper game.

I had high hopes for this game. It was fun to learn it from when it first launched, but every change they made just made the game more tedious and annoying. There was a lot of potential. It just feels like it makes me micro-manage everything I don't want to micro-manage and doesn't let me focus on the stuff I actually find fun.

My experience with this game makes me hesitant to try any other Paradox game. I wonder if they've lost it.

Flawed, but enjoyable

I've finished a full campaign and started and failed 2. I have overall enjoyed the game. The biggest problem I have are with dependency on DLC for content and warfare. I bought the Spheres of Influence DLC with the game and I think the diplomacy would be sorely lacking without it. I've heard other people have problems with the warfare, and the simplicity does bother me slightly. I have issues with the way armies advance, as I feel I have little real control after deploying them to the front lines. There are also no ways to build fortifications in your territory or prepare defenses during peacetime. Passing laws and maintaining government legitimacy is quite annoying, but that was likely intentional. But if you're interesting the economic management of this game, pick it up on sale. It's a good time.

armys teleport around the world mid war. units are totally unresponsive and will do completely computer glitch level of actions. this is on vanilla. only with mods is this even playable. i can not recommend this game at this time until this issue is resolved

This game has a steep learning curve so it may take time toget used to it but once u start getting the momentum then only u can truly get the feel of the game. Recmanded for players looking for detailed games

very deep and complex game with many moving parts. If you wanted a game where war is economy, politics is economy, diplomacy is economy, then this game is economy

DISCLAIMER IF THE MULTIPLAYER WASNT SHIT THIS WOULD BE A POSITIVE REVIEW
the game is really good and fun HOWEVER the multiplayer is completely FUCKED and my friends never have the same checksum as me

FIX YOUR GODDAMN GAME PARADOX!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!!one!!! WHY IS MY CHECKSUM NEVER THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!

Victoria 3 could have been a great game, but it feels bland and incomplete without additional (and expensive) DLCs. The lack of depth in the base game makes it hard to enjoy without spending more money.

I bought most of the initial DLCs, hoping they would improve the experience, but I gave up with the Indian Pivot of the Empire DLC. Even the DLCs now feel raw and rushed — more like blatant cash grabs than meaningful expansions.

It breaks my heart to see the path Paradox Interactive has chosen, prioritising DLC monetisation over delivering a fully fleshed-out experience at launch. It’s truly disheartening.

Very strategic game particularly if economics is of interest to you. Devs are constantly releasing amazing updates time and time again so its worth it in the long run.