Recent reviews by 2Dee

:)

Let's start with a quick disclaimer: I did not have virtually any preformed expectations going into this game. I have not played a whole lot of Victoria 2 (and the time I did play was a long while ago so essentially forgotten and not worth mentioning), I am primarily an EU4 player with >1000h on record, so if anything that will be my term of comparison for this review, though I am familiar with most other Paradox titles. I have also read some of the other reviews, particularly the negative ones, and will try to take their criticism into account when writing this.

Suffice to say, I have spent a large portion of my waking hours playing this game since I bought it and I found it highly addictive. I think the main reason for that is that unlike in most other Paradox titles, you always feel like there is more to fix in your country. Very rarely did I find myself zooming through the game on speed 5 for long periods of time, just waiting for something to happen, and unlike in EU4 for instance, that is true regardless of if I'm playing an OPM or a major power. However, that is not to say that I found it a flawless game, far from it. I'll share my insights into the specifics of each major system to clarify this:

Economics - by far what feels like the game's main focus and what you'll be spending most of your time on. The economics system is riddled with constant challenges and interesting decisions that will make it require your constant attention and careful consideration. Will you join the market of a larger power and try to fulfill the role of a niche supplier or have your own self-sustaining market and manage the entire supply and demand? Will you set up import routes to fulfill your need of a strategic resource or instead try to conquer a region that produces it? Technological progress makes it so you're constantly provided with new and improved ways to fulfill the ever-growing need of your pops; however, switching your production methods to incorporate this advances will oftentimes involve a restructuring of the economy. What's more, economics is probably the most strongly tied with the other systems, meaning that a nation without a well thought out economy will face difficulties in all other aspects as well. If, like me, you enjoy the simple things in life like watching a GDP graph go up (or 'stonks go brrrr', as some might say), you'll love tinkering with this.

Politics - the best way I can describe it is it feels a lot like the Democracy series. From what I could tell, every nation in the game starts out in a position with much to be desired in terms of social progress, though some more than others; and yet, the path to progress is never straightforward. You will always face roadblocks from interest groups that are against your changes, and it's up to you to manage a careful balancing act where you accept that reforms will anger some people and it's fine for them to be a little bit angry, but not angry enough for them to spark a revolution in your country. The support or 'clout' as the game calls it that each interest group has is largely dependent on the shape of your economy - an agrarian economy will hire many aristocrats and therefore bolster the landowners, whereas an industrialized economy with capitalists in charge will favor the industrialists, for instance.

Diplomacy - admittedly this has been the part of the game I disliked the most. The diplomatic system offers a relatively large array of options for interacting with other nations, multiple types of subject nations and so on. However, particularly in the case of wars it feels like you can't predict a priori whether a great power will favor your side or instead screw you over and side with your enemy (which especially if you're playing a minor nation, will make or break your run), nor does it feel like there is much you can do to influence that outcome. Very few wars tend to be contained, a lot of them will escalate in a domino cascade where one by one, every nation that can join one side or the other will do so (which I guess you could argue is somewhat historically accurate, it is after all how WW1 started essentially, however maybe it'd be nice if not every regional conflict turned into WW1).

Warfare - by far the most controversial system in which Paradox made the bold decision of moving away from the tabletop-esque 'I move my army to this tile' and instead offer a more simplified version of conflicts in which everything happens in battles that automatically take place on front lines. I personally see this as a tradeoff of less tedium but also less strategical depth from maneuvering your troops, which I'm personally fine with but I can respect the people who dislike it. Ultimately, military prowess in this game is decided by how large an army your economy can sustain, as well as how many technological military advances your nation has unlocked. I would also mention that this system is by far the most optional to actively invest in than the others. In my playthroughs, the majority of the time I spent was not at war, and hypothetically I could imagine a totally viable and enjoyable run in which the player engages in almost no conflict whatsoever. Victoria 3, unlike most other Paradox titles, is not primarily a war game, and that is totally fine.

Finally, some closing remarks - do I believe the game is unpolished or lackluster? Perhaps. It runs well, though I've had a couple of crashes, and the AI can certainly use some improvement. Do I believe there are aspects of the game that could use being more fleshed out? Absolutely. In particular, I'd really enjoy it if nations got more in terms of possible decisions, especially nation-specific, and if nation formations actually meant more than just a flag change (as was the case with my Romania and Gran Colombia playthroughs). Did I enjoy my Victoria 3 experience regardless? Definitely. I believe a game should not be judged based on what it could have been or based on its predecessors, but what it is as a standalone product, and for me, that product has provided plenty of enjoyment.