My Theory on why Vic 3 is so difficult for some people. (2024)

Vic 3 is a VERY different game than most of us are use to.

Before I get started I need to explain two terms I am going use. Completest and Zero-sum.

Completest is a person that wants to finish something. Think of the game Monopoly when you get the final land that gives you a Monopoly. Now you can build houses and hotels. Even better think of when you have Hotels on your property. You are done. You are complete.

The other idea is Zero-Sum. Again think Monopoly. When you pass go and collect 200 you get 200 and no one else loses 200. In a Zero-Sum game you would collect 200 only because someone else lost 200.

One of the issues I think people have with Vic 3 is it is not friendly to the the Completest and it is a Zero-Sum game. You are never done.

I, as someone who is a Completest, can deal with it, but it is not easy. I want to be done. When I research that technology I want to upgrade everything. In Vic 3 this is killer. Take Japan you would think spending some coal to improve production would be a good idea. However, it is probably better to build more tool workshops, and hire some more of your vast population, than to use coal and limit the number of employees.
This is not intuitive.

The other idea, that ties into it, is that Vic 3 is a Zero-Sum. Yes, you can do good over here, but then you will lose out over here.

This does not make Vic 3 a bad game. I am not saying that. In fact, I am greatly enjoying it. I am just saying is goes against some of the things that we have learned playing games over the years.

I think it's more that they are playing it like it's EU4. They think the optimal strategy is expanding gobbling up weaker powerrs to make themselves stronger but that's not optimal here, the high risk and high uncertainty f war coupled with how long it takes to integrate states if you doin't have a reduction means that if you play it lik it's EU4 you're going to have a bad time.

The zero sum part touches on this, the idea that you must blob to be the biggest blob and thus be able to beat the other blobs, but Victoria favors playing tall instead (Barring colonialism). When most people think of going to war they mostly seem to think conquest but they would be better of thinking treaty port. Or if they are afraid f a neighbour thinking about forcing him to release soemthing to independence. The latter being a very suboptimal play in most cases in eu4 (I've even heard EU4 players ask why it's even a thing, what sane person would ever do it).

LoLuecoLueco said:

nah bro its just bad

Click to expand...

Spoken like a true grognard.

I first wrote something here about how my experiance was different from yours. But then understood your post better.

I agree that there are things that are unintuitive. YOur example of using techs to employ less people in a building. People dont realize that the same profits will now be spent on the same people, meaning higher wages.

But I would still say that this game actually isnt complicated. As in any PDX game the curve is very steep (perceived dificulty of the game/how deep it is) . Every hour you learn more and understand more, but there is a point where this curve falls of. For some games like Eu4 and V2 the curve stays neutral/ turns downward and you understand things to be easier. But Games like Stellaris and Ck3 this curve falls deeper and faster.

For V3 this curve is a cliff i would say. I had to explain parts of the game and ideas for smart economical managment to friends and they suddenly understood things at a level that they never did in any other PDX game. And the realization was nearly always followed finding the game less interesting or a mechanic to simply be stupid....

TheDungen said:

I think it's more that they are playing it like it's EU4. They think the optimal strategy is expanding gobbling up weaker powerrs to make themselves stronger but that's not optimal here, the high risk and high uncertainty f war coupled with how long it takes to integrate states if you doin't have a reduction means that if you play it lik it's EU4 you're going to have a bad time.

Click to expand...

If you play that way then you will have a bad time, but what i find troubeling happens in any game of V3 i play. I dont go around and conquoer stuff to stay aflot or something. The other thing is that iam most of the time using conquest in some areas to get states with valuable resources. Indonesian celebes is an amazing state if you need dye. Bahrain is a good oil state same as omans part of the trucial states. ALso who intergrates states? I dont care about those people in Bahrain or Indonesia But maybe thats where the Eu4 player in some of them shines through.

TheDungen said:

I think it's more that they are playing it like it's EU4. They think the optimal strategy is expanding gobbling up weaker powerrs to make themselves stronger but that's not optimal here, the high risk and high uncertainty f war coupled with how long it takes to integrate states if you doin't have a reduction means that if you play it lik it's EU4 you're going to have a bad time.

The zero sum part touches on this, the idea that you must blob to be the biggest blob and thus be able to beat the other blobs, but Victoria favors playing tall instead (Barring colonialism). When most people think of going to war they mostly seem to think conquest but they would be better of thinking treaty port. Or if they are afraid f a neighbour thinking about forcing him to release soemthing to independence. The latter being a very suboptimal play in most cases in eu4 (I've even heard EU4 players ask why it's even a thing, what sane person would ever do it).

Click to expand...

I find endless expansion is still best. Even as Japan which has native dye and silk, I conquer through Thailand every game I play now that I’ve learned it. Need Opium, and even as a vassal or customs Union meme we they refuse to build Opium. Und then also throughout Indonesia for gold and other goodies…

As Papal States to be strong enough to fight for Italian Leadershup I conquered throughout Africa for prestige, money, GDP, and manpower.

Honestly tall is good but like most games, albeit with a few country specific exceptions, expansion is far better than peaceful building.

Exceptions are Russia (already huge poor population), Grossdeutschland (far more important to actually unify your industry. I often find I can’t catch up to France due to their head start and massive colonial empire), France (has everything it needs…), and maybe Britain.

Even as USA I’m joining French Customs Union then conquering throughout Africa and North America. Too much money and too many resources left on the table to do anything else.

TheDungen said:

I think it's more that they are playing it like it's EU4. They think the optimal strategy is expanding gobbling up weaker powerrs to make themselves stronger but that's not optimal here, the high risk and high uncertainty f war coupled with how long it takes to integrate states if you doin't have a reduction means that if you play it lik it's EU4 you're going to have a bad time.

The zero sum part touches on this, the idea that you must blob to be the biggest blob and thus be able to beat the other blobs, but Victoria favors playing tall instead (Barring colonialism). When most people think of going to war they mostly seem to think conquest but they would be better of thinking treaty port. Or if they are afraid f a neighbour thinking about forcing him to release soemthing to independence. The latter being a very suboptimal play in most cases in eu4 (I've even heard EU4 players ask why it's even a thing, what sane person would ever do it).

Click to expand...

The problem is i was promised not a map painter but somehow its a map painter. You cant interact with your subjects production so where do i get the stuff i need? by conquering small nations. Thats what AI loves to do very much in Africa - just gobble everything up

I think that for many people growing GDP/SoL and seeing green arrows and budget numbers increasing is just not enough to enjoy GSG. It's a major factor why V3 is now mixed on Steam (only 63% positive reviews and that number decreasing even more every day).

Except for growing eco and maybe gaining enjoyment from microing factories like in Factorio (I know people that love increasing factory efficiency in that game) there is not much to do here since other in game systems are either too simplified compared to even V2, barebones or just don't work to well.

TheDungen said:

I think it's more that they are playing it like it's EU4. They think the optimal strategy is expanding gobbling up weaker powerrs to make themselves stronger but that's not optimal here, the high risk and high uncertainty f war coupled with how long it takes to integrate states if you doin't have a reduction means that if you play it lik it's EU4 you're going to have a bad time.

The zero sum part touches on this, the idea that you must blob to be the biggest blob and thus be able to beat the other blobs, but Victoria favors playing tall instead (Barring colonialism). When most people think of going to war they mostly seem to think conquest but they would be better of thinking treaty port. Or if they are afraid f a neighbour thinking about forcing him to release soemthing to independence. The latter being a very suboptimal play in most cases in eu4 (I've even heard EU4 players ask why it's even a thing, what sane person would ever do it).

Click to expand...

When RGOs were set in stone in vic2, sphereing made sense. You substantially increased the goods produced assuming that your sphereling wasn't way behind on tech.

Now that RGOs have to be built, one of Vic3s main problems becomes apparent - the AI is incompetent and cannot build RGOs properly, leaving key goods under produced. This is why customs unions are terrible and the solution is just endless conquering - if I want to have oil in the midgame, I'm going to have to take borneo and Iraq and even Pennsylvania. Customs unions and markets are pointless. I have never seen the point in taking a treaty port when I can just directly take what I need and accept all pops and religions to eliminate resistance to direct rule.

TheHostName said:

The other thing is that iam most of the time using conquest in some areas to get states with valuable resources. Indonesian celebes is an amazing state if you need dye. Bahrain is a good oil state same as omans part of the trucial states.

Click to expand...

Can you please explain why you 'need' to conquer these states to get these resources?

Why not just import them? So far I have not found any good that is not importable from somewhere or other, but I play slowly.

And even if's not importable, the worst that happens is that the price is high, isn't it? The good might be expensive, but there's no such thing as shortages.

SeekTruthFromFx said:

Can you please explain why you 'need' to conquer these states to get these resources?

Why not just import them? So far I have not found any good that is not importable from somewhere or other, but I play slowly.

And even if's not importable, the worst that happens is that the price is high, isn't it? The good might be expensive, but there's no such thing as shortages.

Click to expand...

There are shortages! Mid to late game I had to go on a military rampage to get oil because no one produced it except me.
I want more ability for communication between my customs union members and my puppets. i want to steer the economy not wait for the AI. Warfare already does that

I disagree. I think people are finding it difficult due to lack of feedback in the game, not that they are approaching it wrong. (And when I say difficult I do NOT mean difficulty in liking the game).

I dont think its fundementally doing anything different, at the basic level. Its really not that radical of a departure from other pardox games, its not even a new series. The idea that progress is non-linear, that people have to choose between different options, its always been present. Take a simple example from EU4: you have 200 gold, do you spend it on buildings that will increase your income or do you spend it on your military to defend against your big neighbour that doesnt like you and might invade? Neither are bad options, and you wont know whether its wrong immediately.

The difficulty in Voc 3 comes from systems that dont EXPLAIN what the effects will/could be. To use your example: would the player have chosen to improve production methods if he had known it would cause mass unemployment? Probably not. But its because they didn't know. Its because they didn't understand it was a possible consequence. And afterwards they might not even understand why all those pops have suddenly become unemployed, because there is no feedback that tells them it was a consequence of their decision. They simply didn't understand the choice because they didn't KNOW the possible consequences. At that point the player cant even understand from their mistakes and cannot learn from them. At this point it isnt even difficulty, its bad game design.

Lets go back to that EU4 example. They dont know if the angry neighbour will attack or not. But they know the odds of winning a war will be increased if they invest in their military. But the gain more long term by investing in their buildings. Basically a choice between long and short term, but the difference is that they UNDERSTOOD the choice and they UNDERSTOOD possible consequences. So when the angry beats them in a war becuase they spent the gold on buildings its not a suprise, its something they can learn from and adapt to.

What Victoria 3 economic system has right now is a problem giving the player feedback about their possible and past decisions, which is bad. And you can say that the information is there, somewhere. They just need to get the current employment rates and times that by producytion increase, minus market suplus and on and on. But players dont have time to calculate all this stuff. And its usually not fun if they do so.

TLDR: The problem isnt that its difficult, its that people find it difficult to understand whay is/has happened and cannot learn from their mistakes.

Carrierguy said:

Vic 3 is a VERY different game than most of us are use to.

Click to expand...

Because nothing is properly explained.
Trade, Warfare, Laws, Government all don't work the way you'd expect them to work and nothing is done to teach it to you.

YellowMoonshine said:

To use your example: would the player have chosen to improve production methods if he had known it would cause mass unemployment? Probably not. But its because they didn't know. Its because they didn't understand it was a possible consequence. And afterwards they might not even understand why all those pops have suddenly become unemployed, because there is no feedback that tells them it was a consequence of their decision. They simply didn't understand the choice because they didn't KNOW the possible consequences. At that point the player cant even understand from their mistakes and cannot learn from them. At this point it isnt even difficulty, its bad game design.

Click to expand...

In my experience there is a tooltip for each Production Method that shows whether it will increase or decrease the employment levels of each Profession if you change to that PM. So the information is provided. And nested tooltips are clearly signalled as V3's primary way of providing information.

I'm not saying the UI is perfect; it's clearly got major flaws. But this particular example does not prove the point that's being made, as far as I can see.

I've not seen anyone complain about not being able to world conquest. I'm seeing people complain that it's too easy to conquer and form germany etc and it's not fun.

Feel like we're making up straw haters in here.

SeekTruthFromFx said:

Can you please explain why you 'need' to conquer these states to get these resources?

Why not just import them? So far I have not found any good that is not importable from somewhere or other, but I play slowly.

And even if's not importable, the worst that happens is that the price is high, isn't it? The good might be expensive, but there's no such thing as shortages.

Click to expand...

Mid - Late game your the only producer in rubber-oil

As USA I still had Liberia as a protectorate and they refused to build their rubber producing building, so I had to max out my infamy trying to get even more

The only possible way to deal with the shortages is too start downgrading off of oil back into coal or even completely forego tanks/automobiles too free up rubber

SeekTruthFromFx said:

Can you please explain why you 'need' to conquer these states to get these resources?

Why not just import them? So far I have not found any good that is not importable from somewhere or other, but I play slowly.

And even if's not importable, the worst that happens is that the price is high, isn't it? The good might be expensive, but there's no such thing as shortages.

Click to expand...

Because the AI cant build sh*t in this version. They will never build Oil wells. Might aswell take the state and use the Oil the moment i have reseearched it. Ai will never be on par with a humans research. Also what is faster: Me conquoring Iraq and spamming the prod quee full with 120 oil wells or waiting on the AI to research it and then maybe build 1 or 2 here and there?

Answer: I conquor it.

A prove for this: Have you ever looked at your market and what gets exported and noticed that when your nation is really big and wealthy, that you seem to supply the world with all the goods? Yeah thats because the AI is near braindead. Even with mods like Anbeelds AI revisions will they take any resource that is even 1% cheaper to import.

dr_AllCOM3 said:

Because nothing is properly explained.
Trade, Warfare, Laws, Government all don't work the way you'd expect them to work and nothing is done to teach it to you.

Click to expand...

I too think the lack of feedback in the game is the number 1 priority to improve but its very specifically related to warfare and politics.

economics and trade are the most complex part and what people seem to find difficult which gives sufficient feedback to learn how to improve your gameplay in retards to it IF you understand supply/demand on a competent level which requires some practise actually

StenKilla said:

There are shortages! Mid to late game I had to go on a military rampage to get oil because no one produced it except me.
I want more ability for communication between my customs union members and my puppets. i want to steer the economy not wait for the AI. Warfare already does that

Click to expand...

Foreign Investment DLC has entered the chat...

(I haven't played the game)
I think Victoria 3 is misunderstood by many players. What I mean is that they find certain things unintuitive, not knowing the game has the exact feature they're looking for.

I've seen gameplay videos where people click on a state to build five times, instead of pressing alt/ctrl and then clicking. People saying that they dislike the (somewhere along the lines of) removal of map modes, not knowing there's a map mode button on the small lens icon beside the lenses. Videos where players incorporate states one by one, not knowing they can just open political lens, incorporate state, and select them on the list. People complaining about opening building menu after menu, probably not knowing they can right-click a building on the state tab and select options not visible in it, like subsidize and auto-expand.

Now, whether it is their inexperience or a really unintuitive design, I don't know. Maybe it is that some players expect a modern, accessible design with a mostly covering tutorial, and when they perceive Victoria 3 isn't that way, they form a negative opinion about that. In paper, I find Victoria 3's interface pretty intuitive, but that might change once I actually try the game and my opinion revolves about the design and most importantly how it works within the game loop.