Check out the Prison Architect 2 announcement trailer for the upcoming 3D prison management simulator from Double Eleven and Paradox Interactive. Prison Arch...
I think people look at Vic2 with some very rose-tinted nostalgia glasses.
Economy in Vic2 was stupid easy to break, either via intended mechanics or bugs. Sphering a nation duplicates their goods, take a part of China and win by default, all sorts of weird stuff going on.
Vic3 economy is not fully realistic and has a bunch of safeguards in there to prevent it from derailing completely in the way Vic2 economies often would. It’s a compromise between trying to mirror an economy as realistically as possible, versus trying to create an economy that is semi-realistic but also works well with other game mechanics in a fun way. There’s a tradeoff between Vic2 and 3, but I think it’s definitely a net improvement.
Warfare is mostly just very different. Mind you, Vic2 warfare was very basic, and the endgame was always a deathstack of some kind. Vic3 has far more interesting warfare mechanics that also integrate with the economy in much cooler ways, but unfortunately the state of the warfare UIs is kinda poor. Vic2s warfare was much easier to decipher, Vic3s is considerably more cryptic (which is not good). If you can fully understand what’s going on it’s much better than Vic2s warfare, but it’s also a matter of personal taste. Vic2s warfare was much more tactical, whereas Vic3s design goals require a more strategic level of warfare.
Both games are quite good and fun in their own right. I personally consider Vic3 an upgrade, but not a game without faults. It’s also different from Vic2. A lot of people were expecting an experience that was much closer to Vic2s, particularly regarding warfare I think, which caused some criticism (especially early on as the game came out). Warfare being so cryptic is still Vic3s weakness I think, along with the somewhat strangely behaving diplomatic AI.
I think people look at Vic2 with some very rose-tinted nostalgia glasses.
Economy in Vic2 was stupid easy to break, either via intended mechanics or bugs. Sphering a nation duplicates their goods, take a part of China and win by default, all sorts of weird stuff going on.
Vic3 economy is not fully realistic and has a bunch of safeguards in there to prevent it from derailing completely in the way Vic2 economies often would. It’s a compromise between trying to mirror an economy as realistically as possible, versus trying to create an economy that is semi-realistic but also works well with other game mechanics in a fun way. There’s a tradeoff between Vic2 and 3, but I think it’s definitely a net improvement.
Warfare is mostly just very different. Mind you, Vic2 warfare was very basic, and the endgame was always a deathstack of some kind. Vic3 has far more interesting warfare mechanics that also integrate with the economy in much cooler ways, but unfortunately the state of the warfare UIs is kinda poor. Vic2s warfare was much easier to decipher, Vic3s is considerably more cryptic (which is not good). If you can fully understand what’s going on it’s much better than Vic2s warfare, but it’s also a matter of personal taste. Vic2s warfare was much more tactical, whereas Vic3s design goals require a more strategic level of warfare.
Both games are quite good and fun in their own right. I personally consider Vic3 an upgrade, but not a game without faults. It’s also different from Vic2. A lot of people were expecting an experience that was much closer to Vic2s, particularly regarding warfare I think, which caused some criticism (especially early on as the game came out). Warfare being so cryptic is still Vic3s weakness I think, along with the somewhat strangely behaving diplomatic AI.