>Biggest flop of the last twelve months. >No one cares

>Biggest flop of the last twelve months
>No one cares
Lol!

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >slowly adding old warfare system back in
    honestly no clue what they where thinking

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Do they really? HAHAHAHAHAHA but I thought REAL grown up Paradox gamers don't like "playing with toy soldiers"!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The only thing they have added/changed is that stats for battles are detailed better, and that you can set a priority province for the AI to make its way towards instead of using its default pathing mode.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Real grownup Paradox gamers as in troons who have taken over the forums.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They've taken over the development too, I think one is in charge of the combat changes

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >slowly adding old warfare system back in
        honestly no clue what they where thinking

        Victoria was never focused on war to begin with, you want war? Then go play HOI or Stellaris

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >never focused on war
          lmao victoria 2 has the exact same war system as hoi3.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Do they really? HAHAHAHAHAHA but I thought REAL grown up Paradox gamers don't like "playing with toy soldiers"!

      adding old warfare system back in
      very unlikely they would do this or can at the moment, they would have to change completely the entire codes of the game. they will probably try some random bullshit and creates more bugs in this way, but this is paradox after all, so nothing new. this entire warfare system in vic 3 is the biggest crap that paradox has ever created so far and is the biggest issue that this game has at the moment.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Strategic objectives

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          wow great, but did they fix the collapse of front lines into hundreds of smaller ones? or that your army is sent home at oversee, without any reasons? or that naval invasions are still bullshit? also are fleets now useful?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The whole war system experiment was so bizarre. Especially when the devs themselves admitted it was one of the hardest things to program. How did nobody on the team realize that it was a huge waste of time?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I mean I don't want to be mean but look at the last 3-4 titles they've launched. It's not just Victoria 3, it's like they bonked their heads and forgot how to make good games.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Crusader Kings III
          Lots of opinion's on that one
          >Imperator: Rome
          Everyone says it's bad
          >Age of Wonders: Planetfall and BattleTech
          I have not heard anyone say anything about these games.

          Wait, launched games or developed games? They are a publisher as well as developer so they published plenty of games they didn't develop

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I’m not arguing against paradox’s modern games being shit, I’m saying that the investment of resources into a war system nobody asked for instead of just reusing the war systems they’ve already created is insane. Paradox are somehow both incredibly greedy and lazy, and put huge amounts of effort into shit that sucks.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Anon it's not an entirely new war system. It is quite literally an obfuscated Hoi4 system as if you use the automated frontline. It just designates provinces as locations to move towards like in Hoi.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              People hated and still hate, hoi4's automated army map drawing system. Difference is in hoi4 I can choose not to use it

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              With HOI4 battlelines, you have troops and they bash their heads against the enemy's line until they hit enough victory points to win.

              In Victoria 3, troops have no physical location; they occupy the entirety of whatever front they're assigned to simultaneously, regardless of how many troops are there or how long it is. This is the source of almost everything wrong with the war system besides markets.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with the experiment is that while war isn't a focus of the game, when you do actually go to war it is your sole focus and most important part

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's not a controversial flop, but rather a disappointing one.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Remove war in a century with several major wars
      >Frick up the economic system in a game about the economy

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >tfw you remember when they tried to gaslight people en masse that 19th century was this peaceful utopian era of industrial progress alone

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I have played three hundred hours and seen the American civil war maybe twice, and one time it was the North seceding because slavery wouldn't end. I have never seen the AI open Japan, and every time I play the Shogunate I spend 60 years just trying to get the Meiji Restoration. It's insanely difficult for some reason, and there is no event where Japan is opened. The Ottomans are the fricking worst too. You have a timer that starts say one to pass these insane reforms or the entire country explodes. It's one of Paradox's least railroaded titles and that is a bad thing

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds great. Shame about the war stuff.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          they really tried that?
          for the 19th century?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah between roughly 1920-2010 American education absolutely portrayed (and largely still does) the Victorian area as a march of industrial progress with some hiccups along the way like slavery and monopolistic transport and energy tycoons that we definitely took care of perfectly 😉

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              they really tried that?
              for the 19th century?

              Well they aren't wrong, after Napoleon Europe hardly saw any war

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Crimean war, Franco Prussian, unification of Italy, Greek independence+ Balkan wars
                Are you having a laugh or what?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The Concert of Europe was still working back then

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >try to "de-problematic-ize" a century most known for rampant colonization and human rights violations

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          All of that and it still lets you do it/has no interactions with natives anyway. Also countries will keep slavery until the end of the game despite it making no economic sense

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >keeping slavery despite it making no economic sense

            Slavery has never made any economic sense.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It did until roughly the 1840s. Part of the reason the South was so desperate was because it could see the writing on the wall and didn't build infrastructure because it relied so much on slavery

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Yes it did stop with this meme.
              Otherwise people wouldnt have done it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                For subsistence economies it makes sense. I'm an industrial consumption-based market economy it absolutely does not.
                Surely you're not naive enough to believe that the end of slavery coinciding with the industrial revolution was purely coincidental and slave holders simply realized how bad and sad it was.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >For subsistence economies it makes sense.
                I'm glad you agree.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You know damn well that's not what you meant when we're talking about a game that is explicitly about transitioning to market economies and abandoning practices that no longer make economic sense (slavery).
                Don't be a c**t.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, it took civil wars and revolutions to end slavery. Slave holders did not just willingly give them up because they recieved more profits without them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A vast majority of slave trading countries willingly ended slavery, and half of the United States did. The CSA wasn't the norm

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                American spotted

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Brazil you moron??? They didn't get rid of it until 1888

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So around the time Brazil caught up a little further in economic development. Cool. Face it dude, if slavery was ever practical in modern economies it would've stuck around until WW2 just like the colonial system.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Black person lover

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Slaves don't pay taxes

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >buy these slaves
                >now free them

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >19th century
          >human rights

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Human decency

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The entire reason why the Belgian Congo went from being personally owned by the king to being taken from the government was the result of one of the first cancellation campaigns

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I will never forgive them for taking a "moral stance" against the phrase deus vult, in a fricking game called CRUSADER KINGS. It's totally meaningless and pointless, but it shows where the company is at right now. They don't care so much about the history and historical accuracy so much as they do about being "on the right side of history". It's wild.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it still suckered more than 50k people to buy it on steam alone
    and morons will still buy the dlc's en masse despite it being a flop

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    people expected it to be shit, expectations we're already low.

    Paradox titles on release are bare-bones as frick compared to the old game in the series, and your waiting for the DLC/updates to come in.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Paradox is full of dumb Black person lovers that do not understand modular development. Having to reinvent the wheel for every interation of a series is inexcusable. In a better world they would be sued for this level of incompetence

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the problem is their DLC moronation

        you can't modify things without removing the DLC featurs so are forced to keep them like AIDS

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because Ganker is normie central regardless of what you've read here, if it ain't nintoyndo it ain't (you).

    As for my opinion on the game, the coin dropped once they did the first Dev steam playing as Japan and it became clear that the game was an overglorified cookie-cliker, fill your construction que and wait.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Paradox devs don't understand why people play their games. They actually think people play multiplayer for one. It actively has made EU4 less fun and more restricted

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Do they actually think that or do they just think cultivating a multiplayer audience is cultivating a an audience that won't pirate DLC?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They sell enough piracy doesn't matter. EU4 has something called "end game tags" where once you are that you can't switch to anything else. You know why? One of the devs lost a multiplayer game where his opponent did some frickery and conquering to transform the Mongols into Prussia and it made him mad.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That shit was around in EU3 as well, you could do some odd country changes by changing your primary culture in unintended ways but you weren't allowed to form nations as special tags like the Papal States or HRE.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the coin dropped once they did the first Dev steam
      and not the three shit games in a row they released before it?

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Does Vicky3 still have that single threading horseshit that makes the other modern paradox games turn to manure at late game

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >it's another base game on release is absolute dog shit and needs to be fixed with 10 years of $2000 worth of DLC episode
    at this point I'm starting to think they're doing it on purpose

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >at this point I'm starting to think they're doing it on purpose
      From a business perspective, why wouldn't you? They buy it anyway, despite complaining.
      It works more often than it doesn't.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    does anyone else think modern paradox is just fricking doomed? think of ck3, imperator rome, some other sim so forgettable i dont even remember its name and now this fricking thing. only thing they have going that is relatively modern is stellaris and hoi4 and they are from 2016 (who tf cares about skylines)

    whenever they make a sequel they keep going on and on about "focusing on the essence of the game" and act as if their prior design choices were wrong which is not only some huge cuck shit but also wrong as it shows with vic 2 and ck2 being WAY better and more fleshed out. a future eu V is going to be shit at this point.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Imperator Rome flopping was the death knell, if Life By (You) is successful I don't think they'll really care about their gsg catalog much. Cities Skylines is one of the best selling PC games ever, they care comparatively little about the Victorian economy sim.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >ate Sim City's lunch
        >about to eat The Sims' lunch
        Paradox is going to go from the king of 'hardcore' to the king of 'casual' in five years.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Life By You will never dethrone The Sims, especially now that TS4 is F2P. It's being sent out to die. Paradox got tricked into thinking they can steal EA's lunch money whenever they want just because Sim City shit the bed a decade ago

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What could Life by You actually do that The Sims doesn't? Seems like with TS4 especially people don't have major problems with the actual game itself, just DLC etc which has been a problem since 2 and Paradox will not improve on

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              People want an open game like TS3 where you don't hit a loading screen every time you walk across the road, but with the visuals of TS4. That's basically it. The shot of the car driving in the trailer is promising but the visuals are choppy; don't expect Paradox's raggity dev team to beat EA at visuals. You'll see Sims content creators praising the game for challenging The Sims - you won't find any of them actually playing it once it releases.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Seems likely. I actually want a mission based game like the handheld Sims/Medieval, it wasn't as good when it was done in TS4

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sims had some amazing focused games back on the ps2, Sims bustin out, urbz, castaway, I wish they kept making them.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It's being made by the guy that did sims 3, hopefully more like that but doesn't run like shit and less like sims 4.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Skylines didn't eat EAs lunch, it was the only food actually offered to people. EA burned the lunch and dropped it on the floor then gave up. The Sims is/was handled better but maybe Life by You can do even better

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ck3 was great at launch (and still is) and was rightfully successful
      it's the singular example that doesnt fricking apply and the fact you mention it among Imperator and Shiggy3 means you're just spouting memes without thinking, probably you dont even play

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        While I do enjoy a lot of the features in CK3, CK2 is still a much better game, and the fact that CK3 is missing so many mechanics from CK2 just so they can sell them as DLCs again is absolutely fricking gay

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          ck2 is a better game but the interface will make you crosseyed and blind with all the tiny text

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >ck3 was great at launch (and still is) and was rightfully successful
        No it wasn't. It got the "DLC will fix it" pass, and the strategy mechanic DLCs have never come.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ck2 is objectively better than 3 , it has a decade worth of content for it , and paradox is just fricking about with ck3 dlc by not releasing anything substantial at all.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I remember when they kept going on and on about how CK3 would have everything 2 did up to Holy Fury then a month before release they started with the "uhh ackshually we won't have playable republics or hordes or factions or China mechanics because we want to rework those features or something, but you can turn catholicism into a religion of cannibal nudists isn't that hecking cool??"

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >ck3 was great at launch (and still is)
        No. I had about 400hrs in ck2 before 3 got released. Dumped 150hrs into ck3 a couple of years ago and lost interest. Since then the only one of the two I came back to play is ck2. It's just more fleshed, has great mods and is mechanically better.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >ck3 was great at launch (and still is) and was rightfully successful
        Got any sources for those claims, champ?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >ck3 was great at launch
        lol
        >(and still is)
        lmao even

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      CK III is good, it just needs a few more DLCs and it'll actually be more worth to buy or pirate than CK II. Vicky III isn't even a Victoria game.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      CK3 would be fine if paradox didn’t treat it like the red-headed stepchild.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >alienate the majority of your incredibly niche audience by bastardizing or removing all the systems people enjoyed about it
    >try to play down the "problematic" issues with the setting by appealing to the groups that were imperialised, whilst also having one of the most Eurocentric understandings of world history at the core of your design choices
    >bank success off of new players discovering the series
    >it flops
    Who could have forseen this?

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    flop of the last twelve months
    Darktide

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine thinking either of these niche games barely anyone gives a shit about is the biggest flop of the past year when Forspoken exists

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No one had any hope for forspoken

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone predicted that it would flop.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Forspoken is the better game and yes I have played both

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How is it a flop exactly? It's doing massively better than victoria 2.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ~~*Paradox*~~ heavily simplified the war and economy system. You can teleport armies from one corner of the world to another without suffering attrition, westernization was removed altogether because muh Kangz wuz advanzed before colonizer Crakkkaz ruined it, etc...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >westernization was removed altogether because muh Kangz wuz advanzed before colonizer Crakkkaz ruined it, etc
        Frick off with your false narrative, all they did was remove the label primitive nation.

        Because it makes total sense that Persia, a region and nation that has more history and culture then all of Europe is a "primitive" nation

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It actually works for everything but colonization in Africa. Mainly for the reasons you say in non European countries

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe my brain is tired but I don't get what you're saying

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Anon that's just subjective. You don't enjoy it as much as CK2, but that doesn't make CK3 bad. Elder Kings, Godherja, LotR full conversions are already out for it, After the End is in beta, and AGOT should be coming out for it this year.

              Japan should not be an uncivilized nation and neither should Persia. Victoria 3 handles it better

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Mate in the 19th and most of the 20th century "uncivilized" literally just meant "not being a west european", back then Middle Easterners, pajeets and chinks were all considered uncivilized peoples who had to be taught civilization by Europe the same way they did to an african tribal. Not even those countries gave that much of a shit, which is why the japanese and ottomans all felt the need to also copy european dress and customs when they modernized.
                The definition of "civilization" as "living in cities" didn't really become universal until like the past 50 years or so.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Japan and Persia have histories longer than most Western European nations, "unrecognized" works better because it reflects that Europeans ignored this because imperialism

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Japan was still in middle age before america knock and 0 technological level

                Persia more advance but still a shithole sociaety with 0 innovation.

                they are uncivilized at 100% without europeans they would enver develop

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >but still a shithole sociaety with 0 innovation
                How do you know?
                >they are uncivilized at 100% without europeans they would enver develop
                And now your true colours are showing, you know without riches from Asia Europe would be dirt poor and unable to industrialise

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                total isolation and lack of knowledge
                >without the riches of Asia

                all carbon was from England and Germany
                INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION HAPPENED THANKS THE CHEAP RESOURCE OF CARBON IN ENGLAND.

                your true colors of moron show

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You think it's a mere coincidence that the industrialism happened after the English got hold of India? That the taxes which the people of the region paid ended up in England

                Also are you sure you're thinking of carbon and not coal?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He's very clearly ESL and can barely string a sentence together

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cool tell me how indian resource tell english the math for the steam engine?

                brainlet

                He's very clearly ESL and can barely string a sentence together

                samegay is pathetic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >resource tell english the math for the steam engine?
                It doesn't, but with more money in their coffers they have more money to spend. Like on new inventions and other investments

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Mughuls were richer then england same for China.

                both lost and english won

                WHY?
                Superior Math

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What you mean both lost?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                both never develop like europe even with more population, resource and whealth.

                this is why lost.
                instead europe won with no resource, no population and no whelth.

                PATHETIC

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >europe won with no resource, no population
                You might want to double take that part

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Muslims had fertile lands, dominion of the sea, commerce with China etc..

                LOSE

                China had the majority of human population
                LOSE

                India produce the biggest resource on earth
                LOSE

                who win?
                europe with 0 of these things

                MATH >>>> EVERYTHING ELSE

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >europe with 0 of these things
                he says when some of the most fertile soil in the world is found in France and Ukraine

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Not true, the reason colonization kicked off was because all those industrialized nations started looking for large, exclusive markets for the goods they're producing in order to keep increasing production. See Opium wars.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Japan
                lol no, japan was pre-roman british isles-tier until like the 8th century AD

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Japan and Persia have histories longer than most Western European nations,
                And yet Europe managed to absolutely mog the shit out of them by the 17th century lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Japan
                lol frick off weeb. Trying to fricking compare Japan to Persia is laughable.
                Japan was just a bunch of squabbling tribes when Rome was dominant in Western Europe. They were completely irrelevant throughout history until Europeans landed on their shores.

                >but still a shithole sociaety with 0 innovation
                How do you know?
                >they are uncivilized at 100% without europeans they would enver develop
                And now your true colours are showing, you know without riches from Asia Europe would be dirt poor and unable to industrialise

                LOL the industrial revolution started in Europe with coal founded in Europe. Try harder.

                You think it's a mere coincidence that the industrialism happened after the English got hold of India? That the taxes which the people of the region paid ended up in England

                Also are you sure you're thinking of carbon and not coal?

                Read what you wrote and think really really carefully about it.
                The claim was that without Asian wealth Europe would be dirt poor.
                Yet a supposedly dirt poor tiny island nation halfway across the world conquered one of the largest and most populated countries on the planet. BEFORE THEY EVEN INDUSTRIALIZED.
                Last time I checked, no poor nation could manage that.
                Keep trying.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >The claim was that without Asian wealth Europe would be dirt poor.
                Well yes, by all accounts India and China were both richer then Europe. This all changed however when the east India company took control of India, suddenly all that moment found in India went to England.
                >Last time I checked, no poor nation could manage that.
                Well you should check harder then, like how Roman got defeated by the German tribes. The reason how England was able to do this was by exploiting existing tension in the region

                Muslims had fertile lands, dominion of the sea, commerce with China etc..

                LOSE

                China had the majority of human population
                LOSE

                India produce the biggest resource on earth
                LOSE

                who win?
                europe with 0 of these things

                MATH >>>> EVERYTHING ELSE

                Lose what? England is no longer the power they once were, are they losing? Same with all former European empires
                >MATH >>>> EVERYTHING ELSE
                Wait, are you implying that only Europeans had math?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                are we speaking about now or 1800-1900 where the game took place?
                >Wait, are you implying that only Europeans had math?
                Yes

                when portugal fought india, both have muskeeters and cannon but portugal had Venetians.

                a single shot of a cannon could be predicted by venetians math, making them win again 100 times superior force.

                >europe with 0 of these things
                he says when some of the most fertile soil in the world is found in France and Ukraine

                egypt, north africa, etc.. romans single handed feed 100 million people with these 2 land.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You are a special kind of stupid idiot if you think Europeans are the only ones who had math, I should be angry for wasting my time with someone this stupid but you opened my eyes to a special kind of stupid that I can't help but stare in awe of it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >no argument
                set theory alone created all modern science, set theory created by europeans

                did you know +-*/ were created in 1600?
                if math can define the universe, math can be used to create efficient boats, weapons and trade routes to allow europeans to compensate their lacks.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Did you know that no native European number system had the number 0?

                Did you know that the Chinese came up with the concept of negative numbers?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                so no one had the concept of zero?

                what mean the number 0,1,2?

                1 exist 0 do not exist
                NO OTHER MATH SYSTEM HAVE SETS
                JUST THE EUROPEAN ONE

                your ancestor are superior to use because they used rocks and sticks better?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No they had a concept of zero, they just didn't have a number for it. I don't really get it either but if you want an example of what I mean go find out how 0 looks like in the Roman and ancient Greek number system

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                a thing exist or not

                the absolute axiom of the universe
                even caveman knew what 0 means

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I get your point but zero is a important number, a number which no European number system has.

                How do you write 0,57 in Roman numbers?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                an object is defined by its proprietis not by a simble.

                Romans understand the object not a meaningless emoji.

                Romans bridges were made with sqrt(3) or 5, thanks romans understand of math objects.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Show me the number 0 in a European number system.

                A vast majority of slave trading countries willingly ended slavery, and half of the United States did. The CSA wasn't the norm

                American spotted

                In some nations (most notably the British Empire) the government had to pay slave holders for lost labour after slavery was abolished.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you have the burden of proof moron.

                the point is how european math was superior to all others in 1800-1900 making them the strongest and beong able to made the industrial revolution

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You don't even seem to be aware that our current number system comes from the Arabs

                0123456789, this an Arabic system.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                this is the indian system which arabs bring to europe

                a number system is just a way to rapresent math NOT MATH

                thsi show you are a moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Where's that native European 0

                >government spends money to end economically inefficient practices because capital is tied up in it and people do not think macroeconomically and are reluctant to lose their capital
                >this means the practice was actually efficient
                Damn dude. You manage to feed yourself that brain?

                Just saying that the willingness of ending slavery needed some extra push from the government in order to get the slave holders to go along with it

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                not the point moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I see. You're just another autist that needs to pretend they're slightly critiquing something that doesn't need critique so they can compensate for their insecurity over their never having read a book and their entire education coming from 19 year old YouTubers.
                Carry on.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >government spends money to end economically inefficient practices because capital is tied up in it and people do not think macroeconomically and are reluctant to lose their capital
                >this means the practice was actually efficient
                Damn dude. You manage to feed yourself that brain?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You went SIR, DO NOT REDEEM awful quick.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The romans did not get "defeated", whatever that fricking means, by a bunch of german tribes.
                The fall of the Western Roman Empire, wich what you are talking about, is way more complicated than just "barbarians invaded".
                Kys Black person.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >is way more complicated than just "barbarians invaded".
                So you say and believe that, then you also admit that the British conquest of India is way more complicated than just "they were just better"

                oh what about the Huns, who the Byzantine had to bribe to get off their land?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not the anon you were talking to about India.
                Anyways you sound like a moron frick. Stop posting anytime.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >expecting a history thread on Ganker not to be moronic
                give up, it's not worth the blood pressure.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Anon that's just subjective. You don't enjoy it as much as CK2, but that doesn't make CK3 bad. Elder Kings, Godherja, LotR full conversions are already out for it, After the End is in beta, and AGOT should be coming out for it this year.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Compared to 19th century Europeans, yeah they were pretty damn primitive

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            How? Because they didn't send their children to work in factories? Because they didn't send all their shit water in their drinking water?

            the what?
            Pesia was killed after arab invasion

            muslims has nothing of old arabs moron.

            oh shut up with that horeshit, if nonsense like that true then why are there still Hindus around?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >How?
              Because their technology was still objectively inferior to that of Europe, children dying or not doesn't change that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Arguably not, the guns where all the same. The only difference was the industrial production.

                ZOROASTRIAN PERSIA WAS THE CIVILIZATION

                Muslims persia?
                invaded and desteoyed 300 times

                Zoroastrian is still around, the Persian elite adopted Islam and the Islamic caliphates formed society around the Persian elite.

                Why can you not articulate your "argument" without cursing? Are you really that low IQ?

                Because I'm sick and tired of /misc/'s horeshit, it's always those frickers who go "X doesn't exist because it was invaded and replaced". Seeing that anywhere gets me angry so the response gets as much thought put into it as the argument does. Which is none

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are such a tool, stfu

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              ZOROASTRIAN PERSIA WAS THE CIVILIZATION

              Muslims persia?
              invaded and desteoyed 300 times

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why can you not articulate your "argument" without cursing? Are you really that low IQ?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          the what?
          Pesia was killed after arab invasion

          muslims has nothing of old arabs moron.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >mod the shit of ck3 since its the only way to have decent clothes and events
    >achievements stop working

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, anon
    I know you want to be part of a Tortanic-like thread and feel excitement, but not everyone slavers for moronic flops to take the piss out of 24/7

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know what kind of a game this is, but that poster looks like commie bullshit so good riddance.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think everyone just quietly expected it to be shit. Some were hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but it's like reading there will be rain according to tomorrow's forecast. You can still hope it'll be sunny, but you're not exactly 'upset' when it does rain the next day.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The best anyone hoped for was something thats not a total trainwreck that might be playable 3 years down the line

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly I checked out once they started doing their dev reports on colonization and shit. Vicky is not the series to be pulling that shit with. The fun of the game was balancing the economic system WITH war and colonizing. If you gimp those aspects there's not much left

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Anon, you know what was actually the biggest flop in terms of development costs that's actually forgotten? Pic related.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly paradox is getting worse and worse.

    CK3 Went all in on the reddit memes with customizable religions with cannibal polyamory popes and shitty "roleplay" events simulators like the royal court dlc instead of expanding and refining elements from Ck2 like having better bizantine government, better representation of investiture crisis better republics and nomads, deeper economy and realm managment.

    With victoria 3 they made a shitty mobile tier system for warfare with only 3 buttons you can press because "micromanagmemt is bad okay sweaty" only to turn trade and economy into actual micromanagment hell with individually setting trade routes and production methods and individually constructing every building basically pretending that every single country in the 19th century was a planned economy shithole like the Soviet Union.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No shit anon, they've been getting steadily worse since CK2
      No, EU4 wasn't good just because it was your first Paradox game

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No, no Republics, no imperial governent for byzantines, no college of cardinals, no nomads, all religions feeling generic and not unique, no realm laws like in conclave, no real epidemic system like in reaper due.

        Next expansion is actually about tournaments, with more roleplay shit like royal court and epic memes like a dedicated organize Red wedding button just like in my heckin Game of thrones for the reddit upboats even though killing people in mass at weddings wasn't actually a thing in the middle ages.

        On the bright side they are finally adding regencies 3 years after release, that will be 30$ plus tax thank you.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          My bad meant to reply to

          Does CK3 even have republics yet?

          and not to

          No shit anon, they've been getting steadily worse since CK2
          No, EU4 wasn't good just because it was your first Paradox game

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >On the bright side they are finally adding regencies 3 years after release
          Lmao are there really no regencies in ck3? I can't remember

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Does CK3 even have republics yet?

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the first time played eu4 is see the writing

    THE GAMING DIFFICULT IS HISTORICAL SO NOT ALL THE NATION ARE BALANCED.

    NOT ANYMORE
    NOW IS JUST TOTAL COSTUMIZATION
    NO MORE HISTORICAL

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Has he killed himself yet?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      how much israelitegold would it take you to shill like him?

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Despite everything I like CKIII and I actually like its UI but it's seriously neglected which is disappointing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That's grim. Is this just due to paradox incompetence? Video game development is taking longer in general these days.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Despite everything I like CKIII and I actually like its UI but it's seriously neglected which is disappointing

        >game is actually almost feature-complete at launch
        >for once not going full israelite with dlc
        >this is a bad thing!
        Just needs republics and the game is done.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Need Holy Fury like two years ago.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Its weird because CK3 was obviously released with missing features intended for DLC and was a pretty big success but then nothing happened.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >sword of islam
      boring
      >legacy of rome
      boring
      >sunset invasion
      a weird one but not bad
      >the republic
      a decent one
      >the old gods
      one of the best dlcs of ck2
      >sons of abraham
      shit
      >rajas of india
      performance got killed with this one, i remember this
      >charlemagne
      boring

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you could've saved yourself the trouble of typing all of that and just wrote "I'm gay"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          you could've saved yourself the trouble of typing all of that and just wrote "I'm gay"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >treefricker opinion

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >ck2 dlc actually added content
      >ck3 dlc is all "roleplay" garbage nobody wants

      what happened parabros

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        CK2 DLC added content that was in CK3 at release. You couldn't even play as non-christian countries in base CK2.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm thinking of getting into CK only for the "roleplay". Should I buy CK2 or CK3?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        CK3

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >only for the "roleplay"

        it's actually best played like that (roleplay and "handicap" yourself) and in ironman mode, once you learn either game's mechanics which are not that hard then they are extremely easy to abuse and when you start to minmax it destroys the fun beyond one or two playthroughs

        actually watching shit fall apart and scrambling to fix it in any way possible then adapting makes for fun games

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    WHY THERE IS NO CORPORATISM?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Turn on laissez faire and get the industrialists in government

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        why i can't shot the corporations leader who do bad?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Fascism is in the game.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        FRICK OFF
        Fascism do not mean a racist as party leader.

        i want unique featurs as CORPORATISM.
        an Absolute monarchy has no difference with fascism in this shit game

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Insult and alienate your extremely small fanbase
    >Make a sequel game that is nothing like the previous one
    >On top of that, the game is shit
    Everyone at Paradox deserves the rope and I could not give less of a shit.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    well yeah, that's what flop means

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Fascism and communism are both considered "populist"
    Lol!

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    biggest flop was this game being pozzed by ubisoft

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >flop
    >sold over 100 time more than Victoria 2
    What did he mean by this?

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't communism break the economy for this game?

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this game is fundamentally fricked and you would need to rework every single aspect of the game to fix it, which you might as well just make another game altogether

    first of all it runs like ass, worse than any pdx game i've played, 1k error messages in 30 minutes of gameplay
    the UI is genuinely dog shit and makes the game unplayable, things that were easy to find now require hovering over tooltips inside tooltips
    the game doesn't even have the most basic map modes
    for a game that wants to focus on pops, you can't really view them like you could in v2
    the war mechanic doesn't simplify anything, you just have less control over it, but it requires just as much micromanagement as it did before
    oops, the front you advanced broke into 3 seperate fronts, if you don't do anything your troops will be surrounded
    the front ended, well now your general is teleported into africa
    the economy is bad
    it's ridiculuous that changing production methods in a factory works in an all or nothing fashion, it can't happen organically as you start to produce the required resources and becomes more efficient
    no a factory instantly changes 100% to the new production method if you have the necessary materials or not
    almost every country starts with basicly nothing, not even fricking farms
    this is 100% historically accurate, there were no farms before the industrial revolution only subsistence mudhut farms
    all countries play almost the same, dude make tools or you're fricked
    changing laws is RNG siege timers and the government legitimacy mechanic is just bad

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      To be fair, tooltips inside tooltips is just a substitute for a wiki.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I loved Vicky 2 and put hundreds of hours into it. But I booted up Vicky 3 and within 20min realized what an absolute disaster it was and refunded it. It reminds me of the state that Imperator Rome was in when it first launched, just in a different fashion. IR was bare bones and cookie cutter, Vicky 3 on the other hand was just a poorly designed mess.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >It reminds me of the state that Imperator Rome was in when it first launched
        its a shame that they give up on it after the marius update. probably because for vic3, which they thought it would go better than imperator rome.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah it disappointed me when I learned that they totally shelved it for good. I actually really enjoyed it even with it's issues, and the last update actually fixed quite a few problems. I still hold the opinion that is has the most beautiful map so far out of all Paradox titles. I put a good 500 hours into the sucker.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I thought they killed it to send the dev team to help fix the shitshow that was the leviathan update for EU4

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            That but it also was not turning out well enough for them

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I haven't played it since release, have they fixed anything yet?

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >this game will not be a painting map game
    >you can conquest until 50 of infamy
    trannies can't even respect their own memes

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I really like Vicky 3. I prefer playing it to V2 at this point(but that might be because I have actual thousands of hours in V2 and have done everything)

    The economy system is great. The warfare is a welcome change, because micromanaging units in V2 was the most cancerous shit to ever be in video games. There are loads more nations, and little dominion states that add flavor. Modding fixes the more moronic parts of the game like literacy and building automation.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      how can build your building great?

      the all point of economy is create the best system for the building to build themself.

      even in communism Stalin didn't build every single building by himself

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Well good thing 1.2 that comes out Monday adds autonomous investment by various groups so you don't have to. So now when you need X good but all your slots are taken by capitalists building uneeded factories, good luck.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          as an add-on
          gov builds roads and port totally ok but not the rest.

          even with the update that investiment pool is just a Bonus of your micro economy where your perfect META is destroyed by the capitalist bad AI choices.

          they need roads + technology = % of AI capitalists to build an industry, without palyer interference.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Guy is not white. Rejected.

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i put 400+ hours into vic2
    prob the same into eu3

    i cant stand the new games but ive also never "finished" a game of eu3 or vic2

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I made Sweden bigger.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Greenland still under Danish control
      >Finland not under your control
      You done a lot of work, but you're far from finished.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Greenland's only city is a Spanish treaty port. The capital of Denmark is a Caribbean island. I won. Finns will never be Scandinavian.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Get your balls back, sven.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Is Scandinavia still stupidly OP in Vicky3?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Still? Usually they suck in every Paradox game hilariously. This is the first one where they're good, and even then I'm only a major power

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Vicky 2 Sweds get to shit out a fleet bigger than England with their infinite ports right out of the gate and they start with 80% literacy. Any time the AI accidently forms Scandinavia they maintain world power for the entire game

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Everything is OP because the AI is dogshit.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    if you play victoria 3 then you're a homosexual. simple as

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is EU4 good?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Paradox works hard to make it worse every patch but there's still a lot of fun to be had.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The main thing about Grand Strat sequels is the question of, "What can this sequel do that the last game couldn't?" And for Grand Strats, that answer is always nothing and in fact it has less than the last game. So why even bother? Vicky 3 and CK3 did zero to improve upon their predecessors and released with less game.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >you need to install ai mod to make game work
    epic

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Islamic civilizations are boring

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Get woke go broke

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Paradox GSGs went to shit long before that was a thing

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >paradyke thread
    >flooded with ESL's
    Didn't see that one coming

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Afghanistan was my most fun run

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >biggest flop
    Paradox doesnt even get that much attention, sure it was bad for a studio their size but its not a mainstream Cyberpunk-level Tortanic

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *