I don't know even where to start, whether it be the absurd modern-day progressive views pushed on this time period, whose direct descendants were still alive not even 3 years ago, who themselves would have called ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on many of the events and themes Paradox's expresses in this game. Or the blatant disrespect of player agency and intelligence. Or the ridiculous "features" that core parts of this gaming experience feel more like a punishment than a privilege to play with.

Now the negatives, critiques, or hate, whatever words you like to use to float your boat. Imperator was a better, more in-depth, action-packed, and fun experience than this game on launch and even now it's forever 2.1 Marius update patch will ever be. Those who thought Imperator was a barebones experience, I have one question for you. Did you ever play EU3 before the, An Heir to the Throne expansion, where you were given the privilege, no the honor to see if you had an heir to your Country, so you would stop getting trolled by random PU or game overs caused by being inherited when you leader dead. Or how EU4 was almost unplayable at its release as it was so barebones and buggy that EU3 was still the better choice, up to 3 years after its launch. Hot take, Johan Andersson was right in stating that Imperator had the most systems, functions, and mechanics of any paradox game then and even now on launch.

Why do I bring this up? It's only fair to compare this game to the most complete* and complex game Paradox has every release at launch. I’m no fool, Imperator was hot garbage at launch but, it has one thing this game will never have, a functional military system. How do you state your game is about diplomacy when to take away and beat to death with conviction the most important function of any diplomacy, the military? I have news for you Paradox, calling the military systems in all other paradox games “RTS strategy” is the same thing you call your Vic III military system a “Grand Strategy”, a bunch of hogwash. Strategy as a whole does not have a Grand or RTS element to it that some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ you’re trying to push.

In fact, how did you take a system that works, which was made in its best form in Imperator, and then decide non-fam I not feeling it, then make it so barebones, hands-off, AI run, and more RNG-based than any Wargaming game and see how the players like it. Do you think I’m stupid, too retarded to understand your complex system that you took my agency away where I have to really on your brain trouble AI to decide everything for me? I don’t know if I’m insulted or impressed you would have the balls to say that to me like a southern “bless your heart.” I don’t care how much you try to fix a bad system; it will never be good. So as long as Wiz is the director, I don’t see a change, however, this is not my game so it's not my choice on what way this wind blows.

Moving on, how on God’s green earth did you manage to make a government and party system that was even worse than Vic II? For real thou, you get some insane Jacobin-Anarchy Rebellion that never stops in Vanilla, but you have a functional military system that you control who were loyal to the state and would fight for the government even if the province that came from rebelled and do so until they’re manpower is depleted. What does Vic III have as of 1.5.9? The system tries to emulate a society but inset gives you a catch-22, where the traders, industrialists, and rural folk want a reform or they will cause a revolution in 3/4th of your country, with no reason on why each state will secede in rebellion. But when you push that law into play in the government that didn’t sit well with the ruler class so they went into their revolution with guess what with the same 3/4th of the country the others would have taken, so what is even the point? Also, when you do switch to the stronger side this wonderful game design just game overs you when you win because the country you were playing stops existing, I guess they forgot about that part.

Why doesn’t each faction have a limited core number of states? Why does this game not give reasons for a state to stay or rebel, not just a random flip of the coin? Why does it not model the counties/provinces with individual factions that control the parts of the local government which could be used to determine if it will rebel or not? You made the map feel more alive, which is good, to then make a pop system that functions mostly correctly, to then be like yea we don’t need local government representation to counter the RNG elements in this game’s politics systems. Why? You took the assets from making a good military system, so why weren’t they invested in to this? Piss poor planning leads to piss poor results.

Lastly, I’m going to take on this wokestpo nonsense that can be found throughout this game. Why do you look at cultures, traditions, and values that were affected by policies during the era with contempt and pity? I’m a direct descendant of the Indians of the Great Plains and Mesoamerica along with being an Archaeologist of both the Americans and Classics, on top of being a Veteran. I do not take kindly to false ideologue nonsense.

The ideas which can be mostly seen in this game are representative of its laws. Why is every conservative point of view either just a negative to have or just worse than any leftist point of view? Why do the libertarian values which are set in the middle of left and right ideology have no representation? Why are left/socialistic, which includes communism, seen as a greater benefit to all societies than what history has shown? Are we going ignore the 200 million lives lost to this way of thinking, as if this just hasn’t been done right yet? Where is the rise of fascism? You can call people a Nazi, but you refuse to show them in a historical game? They were a form of national socialism, like all fascism is, meaning they are leftist form of government control, but we ignore this part of history as it kills many arguments on the spot.

I don’t care if you are a Nazi lover or Stalinist or whatever floats your boat, you should have the ability to express it, as the Victorian Era was about the ideas exploring and expressing industrialization, sciences, philosophy, government, social change, human rights, the price of war, and many more ideas. It is still the most important era in human history and you, as the player, should have the right to express yourself in many different ways, not be forced to just follow one set of points of view. There is a cost and effect to everything. Nothing is free, nor is it beneficial to all, there is a cost on a social, traditional, or economic scale.

Victoria III tries to tackle this complex and important part of human history, but it’s trying to do it through a clouded lens, from what I can see. There are many ways to play it, but only one correct way to stand at the top. An Atheistic socialist utopian, a communist wet dream. Really? Who are you kidding, ♥♥♥♥ this makes me laugh as it's someone's leftist college-wet dream put into practice. If you don’t think so, why don’t you ask people not from your social group who are not leftists and see what they will say? I promise you it will not be a positive answer. It's been a year since its release and it is still in a poor state, on the same par as Imperator, just with more people who like the number go up simulator. This game overall seems to be made for the middle-class working man who just likes seeing graphics go up. If this is your cup of tea/coffee good for you but, I fail to understand how a basic society and economic understanding is seen as a “Grand Strategy”.