Recent reviews by dax.asd

Game is good, but it's yet quite unpolished.

1. technical state is far away from release (unpleasant crashes still happen, a bit more optimization might be required)
2. Core game loop is good:
* build production to get resources
* build cultural buildings to attract citizens (main secondary resource) and increase citizen satisfaction (it gives you great bonus) (if possible wonders, prioritize service buildings)
* expand with towers
* identify what you're lacking to grow, buy blueprints
* repeat
3. Many additional things happen all along
> faction mechanics (it does not feel like enough "infighting" between them is happening, plus visual representation/their strength is not visible) and taxation
> trade system (money & goods flow)
> rampant building

What I liked:
* organic grow, focus on core gameplay --> less micromanagement (and please don't introduce it, roads and distances are irrelevant and that is ok, that layer would make it unnecessarily complex)
* every epoch has unique challenges (especially the jump between ancient and medieval can be quite hard, even if you have managed to build a wonder and thought "you're good enough", that is good!), dynamics and mechanics of governance changes
* visuals change over time
* some sort of story decisions are neat

What I disliked:
* "deep forest"-soil mechanic (you can't build buildings on it even if you already cut down the whole forest)
* very strong cascading effects: if you managed to ace the first epoch, it becomes easier to ace the second one and third one feels a bit too easy in process (at least one standard map).
* building space mechanic does not always make enough sense
--> at some point you're placing wonders somewhere far away from the city, because building it nearby is impossible (the tower of pisa stands somewhere alone behind a forest along with 2-3 houses, because it does not attract enough people to settle nearby), this looks ugly
--> it's too efficient to build the new city center as far away from the first one as possible. This way you get 3 city centers all build way too far from each other to be counted as "one city". Would be cooler if you got Synergy effects in the overlap zone or smth. to make it a trade-off decision...
* Visuals and relevance of military and seaports are kinda underwhelming. Access to sea and trade routes as as well as military points should play a bigger role.
* In the beginning, the various points you get are superrelevant, in the end you have thousands of them and not many things to spend it on. As a ressource it should be more useful

Great game about the great war. I recommend playing the tutorial (please, it's not awful and you learn a lot).

During my several runs including both sides (1914 ofc), I generally liked the mechanics, although I found it not that hard, after solving the supply part of the game (logistics > tactics ! <3).

Don't expect great graphics (that's not so great), but at least it runs smoothly.

Great atmosphere, great dialogues, graphics, atmosphere and a good portion of freedom and many decisions to make (that mostly do matter).
Haven't read the books, played all the three games.

Main Story is (in my opinion) not the strength of the game, but the surrounding and embedded plots are really great, making this part the most exciting about the game ("finding ciri" feels a bit like an excuse to put you through all the regions once you played it once).

The two DLCs are worth every penny.
Hearts of Stone is a rather mystic and tragic story about a pact with the devil in a bit of a darker setting.
Blood and Wine plays in a colorful Toussant (a southern region of the Witcher Universe) - even if the story itself is not exactly positive.
In my opinion the DLCs main stories are not only great - they actually give the player something to think about.

This is a game with so much details that there are YouTuber, who still continue to find new things in the game. I am certain we'll hit the 10 years mark since release and they will still be finding new stuff about it.

I really liked it and I am sure you will.

TL;DR: maybe a bit niche, but a must-have for any fencer out there.

Played the game since the Pre-Beta. One of the most realistic games out there (feels realistic and is historically accurate).

The fencing system right now is already really great, but I am sure, that it will keep getting better over time.
So far, we have a solid bunch of different weapons, different characters with unique fencing styles.

Last update: the boss fight's in the arcade mode is heading into the right direction. Really hope that the campaign will feature animations like that. Also finally some functioning armor in a video game! A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

I understand, that people dislike Victoria 3 for breaking traditions with Victoria 2 (a bit like how CK2 fans disliked CK3).

For me, it's a challenging economic simulation with actually good depiction of how economy worked in general. Yes, we can add complexity through adding currency or ease it through automation, but I don't think that's the goal here at all. I think the core gameplay is economics, markets, society. And this is good - even if many people dislike it.

Why? Because this is more or less an unexplored field. Sure, you can go try capitalism or democracy, but Victoria 3 captures the essence of global competition - it's not a nice or fair place. It's not a game of ever climbing numbers and bonuses - it's a tedious marathon, where in the end still might fail or be out-competed by a newcomer.

I don't think we need a complex interactions with the military like in HOI4, where you spend most of the time in a war. I don't even think we need the direct control over our units like in EU4. I think it's pretty good as a concept, since it captures the actual top-view of a country better than anything else - and doesn't distract from the core gamplay.

Now for the core gamplay itself. My economics professor would surely criticize the perfections of markets and unrealistic speed of adjustments, but I honestly don't think it's bad. Not only do companies in V3 have a solid cash reserve to compensate, but markets fluctuating slowly over time would just not give enough feedback to the player.

Same for de-facto public ownership of private companies. Here again. I don't see how privatization would be any meaningful to the gameplay. It would add an addition layer of complexity if you want to do it right - or create a buggy mess, if you do it wrong. And boi, this can get wrong.

There is a tendency in the reviews - and it's people not wanting to play the game "as intended" - aka actually messing with economy. However, there is one point of critique: it's repetitive work sometimes - especially the manual trade routes part. I'll be honest - a bit of a ministry of trade would certainly help. On the other hand, this is why custom unions exist.

TL;DR: game is focused on economics and society. This part is complex. Other parts are abstracted, but still thought through. People hate it, because it's a different experience than other paradox games.

The game a great, but in the lights of the Russo-Ukrainian war, it really needs a rebalancing. Russia is completly missrepresentend in the game.

Best medieval incest story generator on the market.
Also very funny to play. 10/10 would buy again

The Game is ok. Pretty fun and addictive, the price policy is however pretty bad and just not worth it.

Status: 13h.
The game is worth every single of the 1499 cents I payed for this.

The game is easy to learn, but hard to master. I recommend playing straight on "brutal". Why? Because that's when the game unfold it's true potential. I don't want to say, it's supposed to be played on brutal, but I believe it's only then a challenge - just like every real insurgency.

The game is not about micro, not about dps. You can always press SPACE to pause. You "only" control the ground units and invest money into development of your region, army and so on. Every now and then you will have to make decisions. With these instruments you influence your provincial development, corruption, inflation and the constant fighting against the insurgency.

This sounds a little bit short at first, but is actually pretty big: each map, each leader and each composition of advisers have their own strategies to pursue. The leaders for instance all feature totally different gameplay elements: the economist get his budget money only once per year, the tank commander provides tanks and so on. Due to their own unique upgrades and gameplay mechanics the same map has plenty of replayable content.

Sure, the game is of course an abstraction of the reality, if you're looking for some combat RTS sim or something, it's not for you. The game is however quite authentic and yes, if you know how insurgencies work in real life, you will find it pretty accurate.

Therefore I can only recommend. it 10/10 even for the full price.

Really liked the "Evil Bank Manager". Unfortunately, Evil Democracy: 1932 is way too limited in comparison. After you've figured out a strategy, you proceed with pressing "skip" until the game is finished.