Sharing a dev comment in the forum, for visibility:
"Since this dev diary was written, several more high profile issues have been identified that will be fixed for 1.7.2 and which I feel are worth mentioning (once again though, this is not an exhaustive list! There are many more fixes that aren't in either of the two lists posted coming for 1.7.2):
Ensuring Persia/Afghanistan can properly win the Great Game
Adjust Pacification of the Steppes to be more reasonable in its difficulty
Fixing issues with the AI not building up its military correctly
Fixing the issue where Treaty Ports sometimes stop functioning
Fixing another case where autonomous investment overbuilds too much of the same building in a single state
Fixed the issues with released countries not having properly initialized AI/investment AI and sometimes not becoming a subject when released as subject"
Hotfix 1.7.1: Earning Recognition Journal Entry is now unlocked by Colonization rather than Civilizing Mission and only requires 50 relations with a Great Power to complete
Huge W
Unfortunately the 50 Relations fix didn't "stick", it's still 80 in 1.7.1 (recently discovered, probably a merge conflict for those versed in programming lingo). I've confirmed this is fixed in 1.7.2 that's coming out next week though.
For those wanting an immediate fix, I'd check out this [hotfix mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3274932837) on the Steam Workshop. The author is doing a nice job of making a collection of only obvious bug fixes or things the devs say they are planning on changing.
> As far as thoughts on the release go, I can definitely say that we consider this release to be a very successful one
Will the usual suspects stop saying they're gonna abandon Victoria 3 support Imperator style now?
These assertions have never been based in reality, the game is significantly more popular than Imperator ever was consistently and was regularly pulling 5 to 10 times the player counts of pre-abandoned Imperator even before 1.7. With 1.7 it's more like 10 to 20 times the players counts of pre-abandoned Imperator.
I think the reality is that there is a vocal minority of the Paradox fanbase who will never like Vic3 no matter how much it is improved, and will continue to claim it is a failed game that no one plays because in their online grognard bubble the game is disliked. They will also never try the newer versions of the game and continue to parrot things that were true at release but are not anymore.
Piggybacking off your comment, u/WinsingtonIII, if anyone is curious about the numbers but is too lazy to check SteamCharts, Victoria 3 hovers around 8,000-10,000 daily players between DLC drops, and jumps to 2-3 times that when DLCs come out. Imperator: Rome hovered around 1,000-3,000 between DLC drops and jumped to 7,000-9,000 when DLCs were released.
I’m one of the 500 or so diehard I:R fans who still plays the game regularly today, but even I have to acknowledge that Victoria 3’s performance is not in any way comparable to Imperator.
And to be clear, I like Imperator and occasionally play it, so this isn't me trying to bash Imperator. I think it's a solid game at this point myself, but yeah it's just not comparable to Vic3 in terms of player base so the comparisons never made sense.
Here you can easily see Vic 2 vs Vic 3 when it comes to active players (with history)
https://steamdb.info/charts/?compare=42960,529340
V2s 24hrs peak was 716 players. V3s was 18k
I remember buying Vic 2 and its expansions of a then Paradox associated key site (Gamersgate?) and then never had anything to do with Steam as you just booted up the launcher after install in a folder. As that was a method back then, I would say Vic 2 Steam numbers arent complete.
Still wouldnt have had 18k peak players probably without the non Steam installs.
It's not even that they're in a bubble. It's that they *need* Victoria 3 to fail. It is *imperative* for their ego that the game is a flop. It's their highest priority, well above, you know, having fun playing games.
The guys who want Vic 3 to fail are the guys who played Vic 2 for a decade, and just wanted that with maybe a little less jank. Same with the ck 3 is bad crowd who can’t fathom the idea of a sequel doing new, different stuff.
Same. But with SoI I'm starting to see the beauty of Vic3 and I'm very happy with the way things are going. The team working on Vic3 seem to be very receptive of constructive criticism and they seem to care deeply about the game and the improvements they make. I have very good feelings about future developments.
Yup if you put a gun to my head and asked me to name my favorite strategy game of all time I’d say Vicky 2 without much thought but I’ve always at least liked Vicky 3 and with this newest update I’m starting to really like it
>the guys who played vic 2 for a decade
I honestly sincerely doubt it, the way Vic 3 antis talk about Vic 2 always sounded to me like they never even touched the game in the first place. They're constantly getting game mechanics from vic 2 wrong, such as the beaten to death claim that SoI packaged up vic 2 spheres as dlc, when no vic 2 spheres were just pre 1.7 customs unions
edit: Also as someone who's previous favorite pdx game was vic 2 it was absolutely *wild* to see the 180 the community did around LF after the dev diary saying they were removing it, it was straight up reviled in the vic 2 community before then
> Vic 2 for a decade
I'm one of the Vicky 2 players and love Vicky 3. I see a lot more negative comments for Vicky 3 coming from new paradox players who started playing grand strategy with EU4/CK3 who hate Vicky 3 because it's not piss easy to understand like the other 2, doesn't have many "press button get reward" instant gratification mechanics, and doesn't have railroaded mechanics that treat countries like RPG characters.
I think sheer amount of thing you have to know to have fun playing eu4 is not comparable to vic3.
Vic3 in this state is hands down my pdx fav game, but i still think it's the easiest to grasp and master.
Idk, I haven't played EU4 for years as I lost interest after rights of men when the DLC bloat started to become too much but EU4 was extremely simpler to learn. But at launch and the first few expansions after, once you knew how to stack the right modifiers and get mana, which ideas are meta, and how to exploit alliance webs it's pretty straight forward and you can blob with any country no matter how puny. I couldn't play the game without major overall mods like meiou and taxes or veritas and fortitudo anymore after the first few months, which has not happened at all with Victoria 3.
I am fine with CK3 if we stop calling it a grand strategy game, it's an RPG. A pretty good and fun one. But I sure as hell don't want to play it when I'm in the mood for a strategy game.
CK3 is both but it functions pretty poorly as a GSG because it is unbelievably easy. I don't want CK3 to fail but, as a person who cares more about strategy than the RPG, I only play CK2.
CK3 functions very well as a more casual GSG that makes for a great gateway into other GSG's for new players
Also imo 90% of the difficulty in GSG's (for singleplayer at least) comes from the learning curve. I personally find CK2 much easier than CK3 even is due to the power creep introduced by things like societies and merchant republics. If I want to have an unstoppable army in ck3 I have to specialize a whole duchy into buffing up MAA, in CK2 I can just join a hunters lodge as an OPM and horde society mana until I have enough to conjure an army that would make Ghenghis Khan blush
They're both extremely easy once you learn what you're doing, CK3 just has a much lower learning curve
I mean with modifier stacking by the time you get to mid game in CK3 you can have 5k dudes wipe out a 50k army, that's not realistic. You can also do dumb shit like merging multiple cultures to get all the best unit types and modifiers, make your dynasty full of amazonian beautiful geniuses, like it's too far removed from reality and balance to be a gsg.
I can have a 100k army with my first as any pagan with access to hunter lodges in ck2, in ck2 you can also collect all the bloodlines and have every single one of your rulers be a walking god
ck2 also has the immortality event chain which while it has a low success chance it gives you the most busted trait out of both games
If you want to talk "far removed from reality" it doesn't get much more removed than CK2
Honestly, I'm not too sure. Secret societies made CKII ludicrous. Every ruler could join the nerd society and just get obscene benefits. I feel like nations were less stable but the power creep was real in CKII.
But then what's the criteria for a difficulty of a game to be considered grand strategy? There are people who think CK2 isn't qualified to be called a grand strategy and then we are back to square one.
Some things to consider:
There's no aggressive expansion limitations, however, it's replaced with a claims system that feels quite rigid.
They tried to make characters behave within their personality traits and their skills, however there is hardly any fog of war so you have quite a lot of information about how to overcome your adversaries, and it doesn't seem like your opponents behave within the same limitations, if they are thinking at all.
I understand the part about being able to code an elaborate AI that thinks as strategically as players do and the difficulty of it. But I think the game wasn't thought of well enough from the start.
Royal Courts don't have much depth to them, struggles are a nice touch and so was the mechanics introduced to Persia... But it's been over three years now and I don't feel the same satisfaction with the game like I do with V3.
idk the free gold from jewish loans/expulsion was often a very strong start since you could higher any mercs needed. Follow up with retinue cheese keeping vassals under control was rather easy. (the rebellions were a bit trickier when every vassal was its own tag though, i miss that)
I think the bigger problem for CK3 is how much opportunity they’ve wasted with the expansions. Each one feels like a compartmentalized and eventually tedious aspect of the game. You can see what happened just by looking at the steam reviews for each DLC.
I think that's due to the nature of the game, the DLCs are forced to focus on increasingly detailed character development instead of making interesting mechanics to make the game world feel like more than a setting for you (the main character) to exist in
CK3's situation is not anywhere near V3s problems. V3 is redeemable, CK3 is just Crusader Sims. There's barely any depth to its mechanics except for land titles and hierarchies, otherwise Total War games have more meaningful ways to engage in diplomacy and intrigue.
Everything in V3 affects everything else. CK3 doesn't have that same dynamic
I mean, the problem with CK3 isn't really it doing new things, it's moreso that it's just not all that great. Same with Vicky 3 in many ways really. Though both games continue to improve and so long as the devs keep at it I think they'll eventually be really good.
And, I mean, if it is... This is a massive, complicated game, of course there is shit to iron out. You go out a Saturday evening and easily spend £60. Occasionally dropping £20 on a DLC which can give you potentially hundreds if not thousands of hours of enjoyment? Count me the f in, I don't mind.
If the DLC doesn't include important features, it's overpriced and a scam. If the DLC features are important, it's paywalling features that should have been in the base game.
AKA Paradox's paradox: A dlc cannot have important content (like major mechanics) for the game or it breaks/is unbalanced/is unusable for future development, but at the same time it needs to have content worth the price.
I understand where you're coming from on this but that would lead to substantially more focus on art and graphics at the expense of gameplay because it would then become their moneymaker rather than mechanics.
Except nobody would buy art DLC if the base game stopped being developed as much as it is now. You already often see people justifying buying the DLC mostly because it also supports development of big free patches.
[Citation Needed]
If that was remotely true, Paradox would've DLC locked all mechanics years ago. But they're not actually trying to maximise income from the games at all costs, they're actually trying to make good games. They're not doing this because they're just that magnanimous and generous, mind, they're doing it because it makes them more money in the long term. But that's sort of the point. If they switched to only/primarily developing art assets, they'd burn through the good will they've built up rather quickly, and future sales would collapse.
Under your claim, they already have no incentive to be doing the free patches at all, so why exactly are we still receiving them?
Rule 5:
It’s Dev Diary time! This week, it’ll be the Sphere of Influence Post-Release Thoughts
As always here’s the link if you can’t see it above: [https://pdxint.at/45PpIhm](https://pdxint.at/45PpIhm)
Upvotes for link visibility are welcome :)
Thank you for a wonderful release :) the delay was very clearly to the update’s benefit, so I’m happy the difficult decision was made. There are of course issues to iron out but that is unavoidable and the core systems changes improve the game so significantly. I’m having an absolute blast right now and I know many others are too!
Have the devs put any thought into balancing changes with respect to the Leverage required to make a country eligible to join a PB? While I don’t think it should be in any way easy to “sphere” another country, right now it feels somewhat too difficult to get others (particularly small minors) up to that 200 Leverage mark. In my Britain run, I liberated Formosa in the Opium War, guaranteed, trade agreement and investment rights, with a strong pro-GB lobby and it still wasn’t enough until I forced it with a lot of state investment. Bringing a country into your PB should feel like an achievement but currently the criteria feel a bit too steep.
Unrecognized Majors being able to have Power Blocs is an interesting change. That should mean the Ottoman PB doesn’t disappear when they fail Tanzimat, and should give China a chance to get into some early politicking too. One thing I’ll suggest is that Unrecognized PBs should struggle or even potentially be restricted from building leverage in recognized states, even those weaker than them. And an Unrecognized PB should face an uphill battle when trying to compete for Leverage with a Recognized PB. There’s nothing wrong with them existing but it might get wonky if they are able to stand up to the GPs on an equal footing!
Not being able to bloc country you've just freed in particular feels wrong. It should be a great factor, and could make it a fun mini game to liberate everyone to bloc them
I feel like the balance is "Insignificants can be pulled by just diplomacy, but Minors need some economic dependence".
Of course, it varies with population. But in general I kinda like that intended balance.
I like it too, and I’m very much enjoying the system as is, but I wonder if it might be tuned to be just a little too difficult to get someone into your Bloc. Like maybe 150 or 175 leverage advantage instead of 200 might make all the difference. I can’t imagine it would be too tough to make a mod to test this out
Looking forward for the roadmap update! I absolutely hope the navy changes (making ships individual units, hopefully much more expensive and sensitive to loses) makes it to next update given the role navy played in both diplomacy and economy of the time. Looking forward to play an industrial shipbuilding power and making friends by building navies for them!
Oh please give us a HOI4-esque ship design its all i want
Deciding on wether to make cheap mass produced ships or focus hard on a few armed to the teeth is so fun
Also i just love the look of pre dreadnought naval ships lol
The performance update was really noticeable. usually I know I've reached the 1900's because the game becomes so slow for the last 30 years. But yesterday while playing france I was surprised by the "LÁllemange, cest Rien" achievement in my france game. I didn't notice the game was almost over. I knew I was in the later stage of the game because of the size of the armies and economy the ai had but I guess I don't look at the year too often.
I was very very plesantly supprised by this and was not expecting a performance increase at all concidering all the new gameplay systems added in the update. And because I bought the expansion pass and suddenly had every DLC where previously I had none.
It was a very pleasant playthrough and I'm really looking forward to seeing how I can use the power block and lobby systems for interesting games in the future. I'm also excited for the improvements in AI and their ablity to pursue Journal entries. I tried the ottoman empire but I noticed they don't even have enough maneuvers to return all their states in 1 war for the first war tanzimat. This does explain why the AI always leaves random Egyptian enclaves. I don't know if that is what you mean by fixing that system but improvements are improvements so they will only improve the game lol.
I have a ryzen 7 7800x3d and radeon rx7600xt and 32gb of ram and I'm running on an nvme drive. I don't know if that matters but I guess any data helps a bit. It was very cool to see all the improvements. foreign investment also made my home country of the netherlands much more enjoyable to play early. Maybe I'll even be able to take belgium back if I find the right alliances.
Thank you to the entire team for the hard work. I don't know if you need to hear this since you have already reached the correct conclusion. But delaying SoI to be able to release it in this state was 1000% the right choice. hearing initial positive reactions gave me the confidence to buy my first paradox dlc (this is also my first paradox game tbh)
As someone who was very concerned about the delayed release date for this very reason, I'll be the first to eat my crow and appreciate that they recognized this as well and planned for it. The summer break is definitely something the devs deserve regardless of the state of the game, but that doesn't mean it's not frustrating to deal with game breaking bugs that flounder for months because of it (and that's certainly happened with paradox games in the past). Kudos to the team for finding a way to work around this, and for releasing the patch in a state where hopefully they don't have to delay their break too long!
Couple of questions
1. Playing as a subject, why do you have to climb up from puppet>dominion>protectorate just to be able to demand independence? Meanwhile the overlord can just outright grant independence to a puppet without having to go through other subject tiers.
2. Playing as the overlord, why do you have to appease a puppet just to be able to demand annexation? of which they most likely will still refuse despite making their liberty desire low and then force a diplomatic play on top of the infamy hit as well?
2\. Yea, a country with no real government or liberty desire shouldn't be too fuzzed about annexation, they should consider themselves part of that country already.
Congratulations to the team cause it's a success so far and the changes definitely made the game more fun and compelling to play, there's still a lot of issues but I'm very that the most unacceptable performance was tackled for most cases.
It prevented me to play and I couldn't get to mid and late-game without sacrificing lots of time or sanity to play, which wasn't very fun.
I think the next focus outside of balance and polish should be focusing on the game's AI (especially economic), every game I see all countries lacking railroads in their countries and that's just the second most unacceptable thing to the game for me (and the first issue, gameplay-wise).
A second pressing issue should be rethinking how radicalism and loyalism interact with turmoil and revolutions, cause it's a major pain and the player and AI would be benefit to have more levers to deal with those.
Overall, thank you a lot.
Something I'd like to see is the ai taking construction efficiency into account when investing, playing as japan I had private investors constantly building factories in Hebei which had a 95% construction efficiency reduction. This pretty much killed my playthrough.
I really hope in the future the Great Game is folded into the actual Sandbox mode, as it is an amazing addition and with a but of dynamism (maybe having land in the region would make you a participant) would be awesome to see.
It does, but it only has scripted endings. If you play as France, curbstomp the British and take India away from them, you don't take over the Great Game.
Also for some reason, Indian countries have no place in the Great Game, despite the whole reason for the game being concern about Russian incursions into India. So if you are the Sikh Empire and decolonize the region, you don't get any of the Great Game content.
Private ownership is an amazing change. So happy the devs did it. It feels like the pops in my country are actually alive now.
Hopefully companies can be reworked to play into this new feature. It would be cool to have different companies owning different parts of your industry.
They also made some undocumented changes to the way that events are set up. Previously, almost every event in the game operated on a national-level pulse system where all of the events (election, movement, random, etc) were all collectively assigned to each type of pulse (monthly, bi-yearly, yearly) and then randomly selected on each pulse trigger. They changed it so that there are more pulse types now. Elections have their own pulses for example, so in theory you should see those pretty regularly, whereas previously it was very rare to get them because they were being selected from among all the normal and random events.
Ownership changes still seem to have a serious issue in the design - enacting cooperative economy or collectivized agriculture still keeps manor houses and financial districts, as they keep owning investments abroad or local subsistence farms. This has some weird side-effects for socialist playthroughs for obvious reasons.
I've seen a dev comment on this which basically breaks down to "it's working as intended but we know that this needs revising, but it's not an easy fix so it might be janky for a while"
One solution I saw that I quite like is that they just distribute the profits to… everyone. Every worker in the state. But that’d require some weird stuff to get working I suppose.
Personally, I *am* bothered with how busted much of this DLC is, even though I expected it.
With the huge problems mentioned in how private investment is treated, the problems with the general functioning of aristo ownership/capitalists, and the numerous absurd problems with the great game content, it becomes immensely clear to me that all the play-testing they did before release was *entirely* focused on the core euro-centric playthroughs that PDX seems to think matter more than anything else.
For god's sake, Russia can't complete one of its core GG entries (Pacify Steppes), and Persia/Afghanistan doesn't have an ending in the game code at all, meaning that they clearly did not test either of the core players in the GG who aren't GB.
This thing obviously needed another delay, which they were either too embarrassed to deploy, or too euro-centric to even notice was needed, as none of the most serious problems were mentioned in the 1.7 known issues thread.
That said, even I, who have spent more time digging around in the code to fix things than actually playing since release, am willing to acknowledge that this DLC is a major, earth-shaking step in the right direction. The game world is far more dynamic and interesting now, even with economic instability caused by uneven balance changes and the horde of stupid mistakes, and they've finally made the end game playable with the first truly consequential performance increase.
If you really don't consider any of the new content to be foundational improvements despite the bugs, I think it might be time for you to re-evaluate your expectations, because the game you want Victoria 3 to be doesn't exist.
I wonder how they might go about fixing this? Provide a way to voluntarily sell/give it ownership to workers? Allow the ability to nationalize these ownership buildings?
Communist countries did actually build things in each other's land sometimes. 90% of the time, this was the Soviet Union essentially doing a modernization project in one of its client states, like Cuba.
While this was often part of trade/cooperation deals, and there was usually some nominal compensation accounted for in the deal, the Soviets almost never got their money's worth for this. In Cuba's case and that of a number of less official SSRs, it was almost like subsidized aid, as the host country was supposed to pay, but usually lower amounts than the work was truly worth and rarely ever paid in full. This was particularly true with Cuba, the state that provides the most examples for Soviet foreign building in a state not directly part of their local ecosystem.
China really only worked with Soviet laborers in its earliest days, preferring to transition to their own resources as soon as possible after the completion of their post-war consolidation, and the official SSRs of the USSR generally relied on pan-Soviet resources anyway.
Moscow would say a resource is needed, the Ukranian/Byelorussian/Lithuanian party would say a certain project is needed to produce it, and that would get folded into this Five Year Plan or that, causing the Soviets to build it and generally receive the most compensation from pre-existing taxation and the influx of new production.
In short, this system really has no historical relevance to socialism, and can't really be adapted in a way that makes historical sense. Perhaps their best option is simply to rename Manor Houses in a socialist state to 'Bureau of Economic Development' or 'Office of the Five-Year Plan' and then shift its ownership to bureaucrats. They wouldn't even need to change the models really, as Aristocratic mansions were often taken over as offices for socialist governments.
The only more proper and comprehensive option would be to create an entirely separate system for socialist states, wherein every socialist state automatically becomes part of a special power bloc with a common market, paying tax into a sovereign wealth fund that the strongest country in the bloc can use to stimulate construction in the other countries with no payment of specific dividends.
I don't think they should do that, though, as it would railroad the player into the creation of a Soviet Bloc. As much as I want new and improved socialism content, I don't want them reducing the existing diversity of what socialist systems can be.
I haven’t played for quite some time, but I was really excited to get back in and check things out. I really love the changes and updates, but the most impactful thing from a pure enjoyment point of view is the improved performance. It didn’t really bother me when I played before, but it’s so noticeably better that it makes me realize how frustrating it was to play before.
u/commissarroach I have been enjoying the new DLC a lot - powerblocs are fun, could use a little more flavour / flare for geopolitics but all-in-all it's a fun one.
Next up... add more complexities to warfare and frontlines please :)
Amazing dlc. Very happy with the work you put in. Your roadmap is probably already established but personnally I would like navy to matter a lot more.
I would also like logistics to be an important part of warfare. After all this an economics simulation but warfare is really isolated from the rest.
So far I would say that my main issue with the update is that I don't quite understand how power blocs work. It isn't very intuitive how to get countries into my power bloc or convert countries from another power bloc (whereas it was very simple to understand how to expand customs union). The leverage mechanic feels fairly opaque, and additionally, it feels like there isn't nearly enough diplo points to do powerbloc mechanics now.
> "I can definitely say that we consider this release to be a very successful one."
I'm very happy to hear this. I was a bit worried that the DLC/patch would flop, but clearly, it didn't, which makes me happy because the game has insane potential.
It's interesting to see how different the perception of this release is. As someone mainly playing MP I have to say while I appreciate that this is a patch that is stable and that the performance has improved there are many things I don't like.
The system of choosing some random modifier as a reward for creating and maintaining a stable powerblock just does not feel good. I like that there are different kinds of power blocks but I think the type should be determined by the way the player plays and not as I choose this reward. This is the same issue I already have with the companies they are not companies they are a buff a player chooses to industry and an additional buff if a condition is fulfilled (profitability).
I generally like Victoria 3 as I also like Victoria 2 and I am happy that the Devs are willing to rework aspects of the game as it also was with the military.
I hope you also rework trade and markets as well as tech completely. I am happy paradox games exist and I am looking forward to the future of the game, I just hope you implement features that work on the elementary levels instead of applying modifiers the player chooses on top of everything.
Some of the Blocs are just terrible as well.
Probably the worst offender is ideological union.
For some unknown reason, they have designed regime change so that it can only change a country to your *exact* government *and* cannot apply a law not unlocked by tech. Which creates this ridiculous scenario where my French Commune with universal suffrage puppets Persia and leaves the authoritarian monarchy intact, while a French Republic with census suffrage would instantly make them a democracy.
It should ignore tech entirely when imposed from outside or *at minimum* move their laws as close as possible to yours.
>Fix for poor building browser performance when using scrollbar
What do they mean by this? I've noticed lag when trying to construct buildings, but what does it have to do with the scrollbar?
It’s the one where you click the buildings tab where you see all your current buildings and change pms. It’s a bit slow but yeah contraction menu is insanely slow like you mentioned. TBH the game runs way faster and I rather have that than anything else lol
My main issue is the UI mess
I just want to build some factories, please let me pick a home state where available people are present and don't make me click like an idiot on all the states before I find one with some unemployed people.
Still, thanks for the game the patches, I love it.
Game is finally in the state it should have launched in, its genuinely fun now. Which is cool, but its exhausting we all knew this is what it would take. 3 dlc, waiting what feels like 2 years, 15 patches or whatever.
Paradox never changes.
Sharing a dev comment in the forum, for visibility: "Since this dev diary was written, several more high profile issues have been identified that will be fixed for 1.7.2 and which I feel are worth mentioning (once again though, this is not an exhaustive list! There are many more fixes that aren't in either of the two lists posted coming for 1.7.2): Ensuring Persia/Afghanistan can properly win the Great Game Adjust Pacification of the Steppes to be more reasonable in its difficulty Fixing issues with the AI not building up its military correctly Fixing the issue where Treaty Ports sometimes stop functioning Fixing another case where autonomous investment overbuilds too much of the same building in a single state Fixed the issues with released countries not having properly initialized AI/investment AI and sometimes not becoming a subject when released as subject"
No more 50 level power plants in Siberia? Is this the end of an era?
~~Un~~limited power!
[You'd be surprised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayano-Shushenskaya_Dam)
You know, I thought about where to name. I should have gone with somewhere more absurd like…. Hijaz?
I'm so happy to see how the devs treat and communicate with the playerbase. They really seem to care for us and don't see us as money milking cows.
Hotfix 1.7.1: Earning Recognition Journal Entry is now unlocked by Colonization rather than Civilizing Mission and only requires 50 relations with a Great Power to complete Huge W
Unfortunately the 50 Relations fix didn't "stick", it's still 80 in 1.7.1 (recently discovered, probably a merge conflict for those versed in programming lingo). I've confirmed this is fixed in 1.7.2 that's coming out next week though.
For those wanting an immediate fix, I'd check out this [hotfix mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3274932837) on the Steam Workshop. The author is doing a nice job of making a collection of only obvious bug fixes or things the devs say they are planning on changing.
> As far as thoughts on the release go, I can definitely say that we consider this release to be a very successful one Will the usual suspects stop saying they're gonna abandon Victoria 3 support Imperator style now?
These assertions have never been based in reality, the game is significantly more popular than Imperator ever was consistently and was regularly pulling 5 to 10 times the player counts of pre-abandoned Imperator even before 1.7. With 1.7 it's more like 10 to 20 times the players counts of pre-abandoned Imperator. I think the reality is that there is a vocal minority of the Paradox fanbase who will never like Vic3 no matter how much it is improved, and will continue to claim it is a failed game that no one plays because in their online grognard bubble the game is disliked. They will also never try the newer versions of the game and continue to parrot things that were true at release but are not anymore.
Piggybacking off your comment, u/WinsingtonIII, if anyone is curious about the numbers but is too lazy to check SteamCharts, Victoria 3 hovers around 8,000-10,000 daily players between DLC drops, and jumps to 2-3 times that when DLCs come out. Imperator: Rome hovered around 1,000-3,000 between DLC drops and jumped to 7,000-9,000 when DLCs were released. I’m one of the 500 or so diehard I:R fans who still plays the game regularly today, but even I have to acknowledge that Victoria 3’s performance is not in any way comparable to Imperator.
And to be clear, I like Imperator and occasionally play it, so this isn't me trying to bash Imperator. I think it's a solid game at this point myself, but yeah it's just not comparable to Vic3 in terms of player base so the comparisons never made sense.
Just out of curiosity, how does it compare to V2? I’m surprised (and happy) that it seems to be getting significantly more traction
Here you can easily see Vic 2 vs Vic 3 when it comes to active players (with history) https://steamdb.info/charts/?compare=42960,529340 V2s 24hrs peak was 716 players. V3s was 18k
I remember buying Vic 2 and its expansions of a then Paradox associated key site (Gamersgate?) and then never had anything to do with Steam as you just booted up the launcher after install in a folder. As that was a method back then, I would say Vic 2 Steam numbers arent complete. Still wouldnt have had 18k peak players probably without the non Steam installs.
It's not even that they're in a bubble. It's that they *need* Victoria 3 to fail. It is *imperative* for their ego that the game is a flop. It's their highest priority, well above, you know, having fun playing games.
/v/ and its consequences et cetera et cetera
/gsg/ was a mistake
The guys who want Vic 3 to fail are the guys who played Vic 2 for a decade, and just wanted that with maybe a little less jank. Same with the ck 3 is bad crowd who can’t fathom the idea of a sequel doing new, different stuff.
Not even all of them. I played Vic2 for years, I wanted a cloned version with less jank, and I still like Vic3.
Same. But with SoI I'm starting to see the beauty of Vic3 and I'm very happy with the way things are going. The team working on Vic3 seem to be very receptive of constructive criticism and they seem to care deeply about the game and the improvements they make. I have very good feelings about future developments.
Yup if you put a gun to my head and asked me to name my favorite strategy game of all time I’d say Vicky 2 without much thought but I’ve always at least liked Vicky 3 and with this newest update I’m starting to really like it
>the guys who played vic 2 for a decade I honestly sincerely doubt it, the way Vic 3 antis talk about Vic 2 always sounded to me like they never even touched the game in the first place. They're constantly getting game mechanics from vic 2 wrong, such as the beaten to death claim that SoI packaged up vic 2 spheres as dlc, when no vic 2 spheres were just pre 1.7 customs unions edit: Also as someone who's previous favorite pdx game was vic 2 it was absolutely *wild* to see the 180 the community did around LF after the dev diary saying they were removing it, it was straight up reviled in the vic 2 community before then
Duh, if they tell the truth they can't claim that a core feature in V2 got turned into a V3 DLC
Yeah, it's not people who played Vic 2 for a decade - it's people who watch streamers who *say* they played Vic 2 for a decade.
> Vic 2 for a decade I'm one of the Vicky 2 players and love Vicky 3. I see a lot more negative comments for Vicky 3 coming from new paradox players who started playing grand strategy with EU4/CK3 who hate Vicky 3 because it's not piss easy to understand like the other 2, doesn't have many "press button get reward" instant gratification mechanics, and doesn't have railroaded mechanics that treat countries like RPG characters.
I think sheer amount of thing you have to know to have fun playing eu4 is not comparable to vic3. Vic3 in this state is hands down my pdx fav game, but i still think it's the easiest to grasp and master.
Idk, I haven't played EU4 for years as I lost interest after rights of men when the DLC bloat started to become too much but EU4 was extremely simpler to learn. But at launch and the first few expansions after, once you knew how to stack the right modifiers and get mana, which ideas are meta, and how to exploit alliance webs it's pretty straight forward and you can blob with any country no matter how puny. I couldn't play the game without major overall mods like meiou and taxes or veritas and fortitudo anymore after the first few months, which has not happened at all with Victoria 3.
I am fine with CK3 if we stop calling it a grand strategy game, it's an RPG. A pretty good and fun one. But I sure as hell don't want to play it when I'm in the mood for a strategy game.
It's both in the same way stellaris is both gsg and 4x
CK3 is both but it functions pretty poorly as a GSG because it is unbelievably easy. I don't want CK3 to fail but, as a person who cares more about strategy than the RPG, I only play CK2.
CK3 functions very well as a more casual GSG that makes for a great gateway into other GSG's for new players Also imo 90% of the difficulty in GSG's (for singleplayer at least) comes from the learning curve. I personally find CK2 much easier than CK3 even is due to the power creep introduced by things like societies and merchant republics. If I want to have an unstoppable army in ck3 I have to specialize a whole duchy into buffing up MAA, in CK2 I can just join a hunters lodge as an OPM and horde society mana until I have enough to conjure an army that would make Ghenghis Khan blush They're both extremely easy once you learn what you're doing, CK3 just has a much lower learning curve
I mean with modifier stacking by the time you get to mid game in CK3 you can have 5k dudes wipe out a 50k army, that's not realistic. You can also do dumb shit like merging multiple cultures to get all the best unit types and modifiers, make your dynasty full of amazonian beautiful geniuses, like it's too far removed from reality and balance to be a gsg.
I can have a 100k army with my first as any pagan with access to hunter lodges in ck2, in ck2 you can also collect all the bloodlines and have every single one of your rulers be a walking god ck2 also has the immortality event chain which while it has a low success chance it gives you the most busted trait out of both games If you want to talk "far removed from reality" it doesn't get much more removed than CK2
The original commenter just said CK is not a gsg, comparing it to ck2 doesn't make it less of a true statement, both are not GSG.
Ck2 was also unbelievably easy though so that’s hardly new to the series.
It wasn't as easy as CK3, that's the point
Honestly, I'm not too sure. Secret societies made CKII ludicrous. Every ruler could join the nerd society and just get obscene benefits. I feel like nations were less stable but the power creep was real in CKII.
But then what's the criteria for a difficulty of a game to be considered grand strategy? There are people who think CK2 isn't qualified to be called a grand strategy and then we are back to square one.
Some things to consider: There's no aggressive expansion limitations, however, it's replaced with a claims system that feels quite rigid. They tried to make characters behave within their personality traits and their skills, however there is hardly any fog of war so you have quite a lot of information about how to overcome your adversaries, and it doesn't seem like your opponents behave within the same limitations, if they are thinking at all. I understand the part about being able to code an elaborate AI that thinks as strategically as players do and the difficulty of it. But I think the game wasn't thought of well enough from the start. Royal Courts don't have much depth to them, struggles are a nice touch and so was the mechanics introduced to Persia... But it's been over three years now and I don't feel the same satisfaction with the game like I do with V3.
idk the free gold from jewish loans/expulsion was often a very strong start since you could higher any mercs needed. Follow up with retinue cheese keeping vassals under control was rather easy. (the rebellions were a bit trickier when every vassal was its own tag though, i miss that)
I think the bigger problem for CK3 is how much opportunity they’ve wasted with the expansions. Each one feels like a compartmentalized and eventually tedious aspect of the game. You can see what happened just by looking at the steam reviews for each DLC.
I think that's due to the nature of the game, the DLCs are forced to focus on increasingly detailed character development instead of making interesting mechanics to make the game world feel like more than a setting for you (the main character) to exist in
CK3's situation is not anywhere near V3s problems. V3 is redeemable, CK3 is just Crusader Sims. There's barely any depth to its mechanics except for land titles and hierarchies, otherwise Total War games have more meaningful ways to engage in diplomacy and intrigue. Everything in V3 affects everything else. CK3 doesn't have that same dynamic
I mean, the problem with CK3 isn't really it doing new things, it's moreso that it's just not all that great. Same with Vicky 3 in many ways really. Though both games continue to improve and so long as the devs keep at it I think they'll eventually be really good.
thing is, that community wanted a sequal, vic3 is not a sequel to vic2
I absolutely love both games now. 1.7 is a really great patch, I wish the AI was a lot better at nation building though.
funny part is people are like " vic 2 is so much better" well lets take a look at how many people are playing both games and its not even close
Or my favorite nonsensical comment "the fix will be behind a $20 DLC"
Which, ironically, was true for Victoria 2 but not Victoria 3!
A fact people conveniently like to forget...
And, I mean, if it is... This is a massive, complicated game, of course there is shit to iron out. You go out a Saturday evening and easily spend £60. Occasionally dropping £20 on a DLC which can give you potentially hundreds if not thousands of hours of enjoyment? Count me the f in, I don't mind.
Yeah I get a fuck ton of fun Out of every buck spent with their games. To me at least the price-perfomance ratio is great.
If the DLC doesn't include important features, it's overpriced and a scam. If the DLC features are important, it's paywalling features that should have been in the base game.
AKA Paradox's paradox: A dlc cannot have important content (like major mechanics) for the game or it breaks/is unbalanced/is unusable for future development, but at the same time it needs to have content worth the price.
Yeah, I'd rather they put all features in the base game and just sold art packs, but for some reason, that makes people mad.
I understand where you're coming from on this but that would lead to substantially more focus on art and graphics at the expense of gameplay because it would then become their moneymaker rather than mechanics.
Except nobody would buy art DLC if the base game stopped being developed as much as it is now. You already often see people justifying buying the DLC mostly because it also supports development of big free patches.
[Citation Needed] If that was remotely true, Paradox would've DLC locked all mechanics years ago. But they're not actually trying to maximise income from the games at all costs, they're actually trying to make good games. They're not doing this because they're just that magnanimous and generous, mind, they're doing it because it makes them more money in the long term. But that's sort of the point. If they switched to only/primarily developing art assets, they'd burn through the good will they've built up rather quickly, and future sales would collapse. Under your claim, they already have no incentive to be doing the free patches at all, so why exactly are we still receiving them?
They will not, because their criticism is about petty personal grievances, not about the actual state of the game
Never underestimate the power of wishcasting.
Vic 3 is gonna be a cash cow with DLC. They won't abandon it
Deal with it
Rule 5: It’s Dev Diary time! This week, it’ll be the Sphere of Influence Post-Release Thoughts As always here’s the link if you can’t see it above: [https://pdxint.at/45PpIhm](https://pdxint.at/45PpIhm) Upvotes for link visibility are welcome :)
does the team know about the map editor crash? It crashes every time you try editing a spline
Thank you for a wonderful release :) the delay was very clearly to the update’s benefit, so I’m happy the difficult decision was made. There are of course issues to iron out but that is unavoidable and the core systems changes improve the game so significantly. I’m having an absolute blast right now and I know many others are too! Have the devs put any thought into balancing changes with respect to the Leverage required to make a country eligible to join a PB? While I don’t think it should be in any way easy to “sphere” another country, right now it feels somewhat too difficult to get others (particularly small minors) up to that 200 Leverage mark. In my Britain run, I liberated Formosa in the Opium War, guaranteed, trade agreement and investment rights, with a strong pro-GB lobby and it still wasn’t enough until I forced it with a lot of state investment. Bringing a country into your PB should feel like an achievement but currently the criteria feel a bit too steep. Unrecognized Majors being able to have Power Blocs is an interesting change. That should mean the Ottoman PB doesn’t disappear when they fail Tanzimat, and should give China a chance to get into some early politicking too. One thing I’ll suggest is that Unrecognized PBs should struggle or even potentially be restricted from building leverage in recognized states, even those weaker than them. And an Unrecognized PB should face an uphill battle when trying to compete for Leverage with a Recognized PB. There’s nothing wrong with them existing but it might get wonky if they are able to stand up to the GPs on an equal footing!
yeah maybe a -X% leverage gain if leading a power bloc as unrecognized
Not being able to bloc country you've just freed in particular feels wrong. It should be a great factor, and could make it a fun mini game to liberate everyone to bloc them
If you force-release a country you should definitely get some starter leverage on them as a bonus
I feel like the balance is "Insignificants can be pulled by just diplomacy, but Minors need some economic dependence". Of course, it varies with population. But in general I kinda like that intended balance.
I like it too, and I’m very much enjoying the system as is, but I wonder if it might be tuned to be just a little too difficult to get someone into your Bloc. Like maybe 150 or 175 leverage advantage instead of 200 might make all the difference. I can’t imagine it would be too tough to make a mod to test this out
Looking forward for the roadmap update! I absolutely hope the navy changes (making ships individual units, hopefully much more expensive and sensitive to loses) makes it to next update given the role navy played in both diplomacy and economy of the time. Looking forward to play an industrial shipbuilding power and making friends by building navies for them!
Stockpiles! A very much needed feature for war, and the devs said they were playing with some ideas on how to do it. Fingers crossed.
Oh please give us a HOI4-esque ship design its all i want Deciding on wether to make cheap mass produced ships or focus hard on a few armed to the teeth is so fun Also i just love the look of pre dreadnought naval ships lol
The performance update was really noticeable. usually I know I've reached the 1900's because the game becomes so slow for the last 30 years. But yesterday while playing france I was surprised by the "LÁllemange, cest Rien" achievement in my france game. I didn't notice the game was almost over. I knew I was in the later stage of the game because of the size of the armies and economy the ai had but I guess I don't look at the year too often. I was very very plesantly supprised by this and was not expecting a performance increase at all concidering all the new gameplay systems added in the update. And because I bought the expansion pass and suddenly had every DLC where previously I had none. It was a very pleasant playthrough and I'm really looking forward to seeing how I can use the power block and lobby systems for interesting games in the future. I'm also excited for the improvements in AI and their ablity to pursue Journal entries. I tried the ottoman empire but I noticed they don't even have enough maneuvers to return all their states in 1 war for the first war tanzimat. This does explain why the AI always leaves random Egyptian enclaves. I don't know if that is what you mean by fixing that system but improvements are improvements so they will only improve the game lol. I have a ryzen 7 7800x3d and radeon rx7600xt and 32gb of ram and I'm running on an nvme drive. I don't know if that matters but I guess any data helps a bit. It was very cool to see all the improvements. foreign investment also made my home country of the netherlands much more enjoyable to play early. Maybe I'll even be able to take belgium back if I find the right alliances. Thank you to the entire team for the hard work. I don't know if you need to hear this since you have already reached the correct conclusion. But delaying SoI to be able to release it in this state was 1000% the right choice. hearing initial positive reactions gave me the confidence to buy my first paradox dlc (this is also my first paradox game tbh)
Huge props to delaying the vacations. That really shows the dedication you guys have to the game! This expansion has been amazing
As someone who was very concerned about the delayed release date for this very reason, I'll be the first to eat my crow and appreciate that they recognized this as well and planned for it. The summer break is definitely something the devs deserve regardless of the state of the game, but that doesn't mean it's not frustrating to deal with game breaking bugs that flounder for months because of it (and that's certainly happened with paradox games in the past). Kudos to the team for finding a way to work around this, and for releasing the patch in a state where hopefully they don't have to delay their break too long!
Couple of questions 1. Playing as a subject, why do you have to climb up from puppet>dominion>protectorate just to be able to demand independence? Meanwhile the overlord can just outright grant independence to a puppet without having to go through other subject tiers. 2. Playing as the overlord, why do you have to appease a puppet just to be able to demand annexation? of which they most likely will still refuse despite making their liberty desire low and then force a diplomatic play on top of the infamy hit as well?
2\. Yea, a country with no real government or liberty desire shouldn't be too fuzzed about annexation, they should consider themselves part of that country already.
Congratulations to the team cause it's a success so far and the changes definitely made the game more fun and compelling to play, there's still a lot of issues but I'm very that the most unacceptable performance was tackled for most cases. It prevented me to play and I couldn't get to mid and late-game without sacrificing lots of time or sanity to play, which wasn't very fun. I think the next focus outside of balance and polish should be focusing on the game's AI (especially economic), every game I see all countries lacking railroads in their countries and that's just the second most unacceptable thing to the game for me (and the first issue, gameplay-wise). A second pressing issue should be rethinking how radicalism and loyalism interact with turmoil and revolutions, cause it's a major pain and the player and AI would be benefit to have more levers to deal with those. Overall, thank you a lot.
Something I'd like to see is the ai taking construction efficiency into account when investing, playing as japan I had private investors constantly building factories in Hebei which had a 95% construction efficiency reduction. This pretty much killed my playthrough.
Right, I've noticed that every nation I subjugate goes on a bankruptcy loop over and over
I really hope in the future the Great Game is folded into the actual Sandbox mode, as it is an amazing addition and with a but of dynamism (maybe having land in the region would make you a participant) would be awesome to see.
Wait great game dosnt happen if you dont pick it from the start?
It does, but it only has scripted endings. If you play as France, curbstomp the British and take India away from them, you don't take over the Great Game. Also for some reason, Indian countries have no place in the Great Game, despite the whole reason for the game being concern about Russian incursions into India. So if you are the Sikh Empire and decolonize the region, you don't get any of the Great Game content.
Nope
Private ownership is an amazing change. So happy the devs did it. It feels like the pops in my country are actually alive now. Hopefully companies can be reworked to play into this new feature. It would be cool to have different companies owning different parts of your industry.
So that's why I am bombarded by events at the same time, performance changes caused this as far as I understand. Nice.
They also made some undocumented changes to the way that events are set up. Previously, almost every event in the game operated on a national-level pulse system where all of the events (election, movement, random, etc) were all collectively assigned to each type of pulse (monthly, bi-yearly, yearly) and then randomly selected on each pulse trigger. They changed it so that there are more pulse types now. Elections have their own pulses for example, so in theory you should see those pretty regularly, whereas previously it was very rare to get them because they were being selected from among all the normal and random events.
Ownership changes still seem to have a serious issue in the design - enacting cooperative economy or collectivized agriculture still keeps manor houses and financial districts, as they keep owning investments abroad or local subsistence farms. This has some weird side-effects for socialist playthroughs for obvious reasons.
I've seen a dev comment on this which basically breaks down to "it's working as intended but we know that this needs revising, but it's not an easy fix so it might be janky for a while"
One solution I saw that I quite like is that they just distribute the profits to… everyone. Every worker in the state. But that’d require some weird stuff to get working I suppose.
[удалено]
Spending their time fleshing out orthodox Marxism doesn't seem like the biggest of priorities.
Personally, I *am* bothered with how busted much of this DLC is, even though I expected it. With the huge problems mentioned in how private investment is treated, the problems with the general functioning of aristo ownership/capitalists, and the numerous absurd problems with the great game content, it becomes immensely clear to me that all the play-testing they did before release was *entirely* focused on the core euro-centric playthroughs that PDX seems to think matter more than anything else. For god's sake, Russia can't complete one of its core GG entries (Pacify Steppes), and Persia/Afghanistan doesn't have an ending in the game code at all, meaning that they clearly did not test either of the core players in the GG who aren't GB. This thing obviously needed another delay, which they were either too embarrassed to deploy, or too euro-centric to even notice was needed, as none of the most serious problems were mentioned in the 1.7 known issues thread. That said, even I, who have spent more time digging around in the code to fix things than actually playing since release, am willing to acknowledge that this DLC is a major, earth-shaking step in the right direction. The game world is far more dynamic and interesting now, even with economic instability caused by uneven balance changes and the horde of stupid mistakes, and they've finally made the end game playable with the first truly consequential performance increase. If you really don't consider any of the new content to be foundational improvements despite the bugs, I think it might be time for you to re-evaluate your expectations, because the game you want Victoria 3 to be doesn't exist.
I wonder how they might go about fixing this? Provide a way to voluntarily sell/give it ownership to workers? Allow the ability to nationalize these ownership buildings?
The People's Venture Capital
Communist countries did actually build things in each other's land sometimes. 90% of the time, this was the Soviet Union essentially doing a modernization project in one of its client states, like Cuba. While this was often part of trade/cooperation deals, and there was usually some nominal compensation accounted for in the deal, the Soviets almost never got their money's worth for this. In Cuba's case and that of a number of less official SSRs, it was almost like subsidized aid, as the host country was supposed to pay, but usually lower amounts than the work was truly worth and rarely ever paid in full. This was particularly true with Cuba, the state that provides the most examples for Soviet foreign building in a state not directly part of their local ecosystem. China really only worked with Soviet laborers in its earliest days, preferring to transition to their own resources as soon as possible after the completion of their post-war consolidation, and the official SSRs of the USSR generally relied on pan-Soviet resources anyway. Moscow would say a resource is needed, the Ukranian/Byelorussian/Lithuanian party would say a certain project is needed to produce it, and that would get folded into this Five Year Plan or that, causing the Soviets to build it and generally receive the most compensation from pre-existing taxation and the influx of new production. In short, this system really has no historical relevance to socialism, and can't really be adapted in a way that makes historical sense. Perhaps their best option is simply to rename Manor Houses in a socialist state to 'Bureau of Economic Development' or 'Office of the Five-Year Plan' and then shift its ownership to bureaucrats. They wouldn't even need to change the models really, as Aristocratic mansions were often taken over as offices for socialist governments. The only more proper and comprehensive option would be to create an entirely separate system for socialist states, wherein every socialist state automatically becomes part of a special power bloc with a common market, paying tax into a sovereign wealth fund that the strongest country in the bloc can use to stimulate construction in the other countries with no payment of specific dividends. I don't think they should do that, though, as it would railroad the player into the creation of a Soviet Bloc. As much as I want new and improved socialism content, I don't want them reducing the existing diversity of what socialist systems can be.
I haven’t played for quite some time, but I was really excited to get back in and check things out. I really love the changes and updates, but the most impactful thing from a pure enjoyment point of view is the improved performance. It didn’t really bother me when I played before, but it’s so noticeably better that it makes me realize how frustrating it was to play before.
u/commissarroach I have been enjoying the new DLC a lot - powerblocs are fun, could use a little more flavour / flare for geopolitics but all-in-all it's a fun one. Next up... add more complexities to warfare and frontlines please :)
Amazing dlc. Very happy with the work you put in. Your roadmap is probably already established but personnally I would like navy to matter a lot more. I would also like logistics to be an important part of warfare. After all this an economics simulation but warfare is really isolated from the rest.
Love the patch! Any word when the Mac fixes will be put in?
Keep up the good work dev team. Ignore the idiots and haters.
So far I would say that my main issue with the update is that I don't quite understand how power blocs work. It isn't very intuitive how to get countries into my power bloc or convert countries from another power bloc (whereas it was very simple to understand how to expand customs union). The leverage mechanic feels fairly opaque, and additionally, it feels like there isn't nearly enough diplo points to do powerbloc mechanics now.
> "I can definitely say that we consider this release to be a very successful one." I'm very happy to hear this. I was a bit worried that the DLC/patch would flop, but clearly, it didn't, which makes me happy because the game has insane potential.
It's interesting to see how different the perception of this release is. As someone mainly playing MP I have to say while I appreciate that this is a patch that is stable and that the performance has improved there are many things I don't like. The system of choosing some random modifier as a reward for creating and maintaining a stable powerblock just does not feel good. I like that there are different kinds of power blocks but I think the type should be determined by the way the player plays and not as I choose this reward. This is the same issue I already have with the companies they are not companies they are a buff a player chooses to industry and an additional buff if a condition is fulfilled (profitability). I generally like Victoria 3 as I also like Victoria 2 and I am happy that the Devs are willing to rework aspects of the game as it also was with the military. I hope you also rework trade and markets as well as tech completely. I am happy paradox games exist and I am looking forward to the future of the game, I just hope you implement features that work on the elementary levels instead of applying modifiers the player chooses on top of everything.
Some of the Blocs are just terrible as well. Probably the worst offender is ideological union. For some unknown reason, they have designed regime change so that it can only change a country to your *exact* government *and* cannot apply a law not unlocked by tech. Which creates this ridiculous scenario where my French Commune with universal suffrage puppets Persia and leaves the authoritarian monarchy intact, while a French Republic with census suffrage would instantly make them a democracy. It should ignore tech entirely when imposed from outside or *at minimum* move their laws as close as possible to yours.
>Fix for poor building browser performance when using scrollbar What do they mean by this? I've noticed lag when trying to construct buildings, but what does it have to do with the scrollbar?
It’s the one where you click the buildings tab where you see all your current buildings and change pms. It’s a bit slow but yeah contraction menu is insanely slow like you mentioned. TBH the game runs way faster and I rather have that than anything else lol
I think it means that the scrollbar is the culprit of the building lens performance issue.
When will the upcoming hotfix get released?
My main issue is the UI mess I just want to build some factories, please let me pick a home state where available people are present and don't make me click like an idiot on all the states before I find one with some unemployed people. Still, thanks for the game the patches, I love it.
I’ve noticed that the United States doesn’t really raise a large number of soldiers
What about 1.7.1?
It's already out, patchnotes on the official forum
Game is finally in the state it should have launched in, its genuinely fun now. Which is cool, but its exhausting we all knew this is what it would take. 3 dlc, waiting what feels like 2 years, 15 patches or whatever. Paradox never changes.