To preface this I will just say I don't write many reviews so apologies if this seems to ramble a bit, I just feel so strongly about this game and series.

Every moment I start to enjoy the game, I get into a war and remember why I stopped playing it again. The war system is by far one of the worst mechanics I have ever experienced in a game to the point it soils the good mechanics in the game. Due to this war system, you can naval invade an AI nations capital multiple times at once therefore tying down their fleet and armies, with the third invasion landing no matter what. They will then begin to tick down so fast that they don't have the time to liberate their capital before capitulating as battles can take ages to complete.

Due to this abstract system, there is no strategic depth whatsoever in the game. You cant encircle/destroy the enemy armies, if encircled they just teleport to another front line and you cannot actively choose where battles are or what armies to fight meaning terrain has literally no purpose in warfare. There just simply is no player expression within warfare. This also kills multiplayer PvP completely.

There is no representation of World War 1 or anything, the closest you can get is to have a normal war with a large alliance. World Wars in Victoria 2 were a fun way to make a large impact on the game at the end, and it felt that it was a combination of all your effort spent early and mid game building up your nation in preparation. There are many in the Vic 3 community who have tried to downplay the role of war in this period of time, touting it as "the most peaceful time in history". Anyone with half a brain can see this isn't the case, even if you ignore WW1.

In Victoria 2 there were issues with the military, I won't deny that, but there were so many other ways to fix the issues in that game. Eu4 army templates, Hoi4 division designer/frontline system, Imperator Rome automatic army system, all without taking away player agency and pleasing both the original Victoria fans who have been waiting for Vic3 for over a decade, as well as providing a means for newer players to focus on other systems instead.

Personally, I don't mind and even enjoy the economics and internal politics in this game, but it is completely overshadowed by the warfare and the developers have completely ignored many of the criticisms about it, instead providing 'band-aid fixes' such as strategic objectives to a system I don't believe can be fixed at all. Hell, they have doubled down on their vision for this system. Just because you can write these visions into a dev diary and make this design sound like a smart idea doesn't mean it actually IS a smart idea. Because of this resistance to change I feel the game may never live up to the expectations the community had before release, even after its DLCs.

To preface this I will just say I don't write many reviews so apologies if this seems to ramble a bit, I just feel so strongly about this game and series. Every moment I start to enjoy the game, I get into a war and remember why I stopped playing it again. The war system is by far one of the worst mechanics I have ever experienced in a game to the point it soils the good mechanics in the game. Due to this war system, you can naval invade an AI nations capital multiple times at once therefore tying down their fleet and armies, with the third invasion landing no matter what. They will then begin to tick down so fast that they don't have the time to liberate their capital before capitulating as battles can take ages to complete. Due to this abstract system, there is no strategic depth whatsoever in the game. You cant encircle/destroy the enemy armies, if encircled they just teleport to another front line and you cannot actively choose where battles are or what armies to fight meaning terrain has literally no purpose in warfare. There just simply is no player expression within warfare. This also kills multiplayer PvP completely. There is no representation of World War 1 or anything, the closest you can get is to have a normal war with a large alliance. World Wars in Victoria 2 were a fun way to make a large impact on the game at the end, and it felt that it was a combination of all your effort spent early and mid game building up your nation in preparation. There are many in the Vic 3 community who have tried to downplay the role of war in this period of time, touting it as "the most peaceful time in history". Anyone with half a brain can see this isn't the case, even if you ignore WW1. In Victoria 2 there were issues with the military, I won't deny that, but there were so many other ways to fix the issues in that game. Eu4 army templates, Hoi4 division designer/frontline system, Imperator Rome automatic army system, all without taking away player agency and pleasing both the original Victoria fans who have been waiting for Vic3 for over a decade, as well as providing a means for newer players to focus on other systems instead. Personally, I don't mind and even enjoy the economics and internal politics in this game, but it is completely overshadowed by the warfare and the developers have completely ignored many of the criticisms about it, instead providing 'band-aid fixes' such as strategic objectives to a system I don't believe can be fixed at all. Hell, they have doubled down on their vision for this system. Just because you can write these visions into a dev diary and make this design sound like a smart idea doesn't mean it actually IS a smart idea. Because of this resistance to change I feel the game may never live up to the expectations the community had before release, even after its DLCs.