It is likely to be a total shitshow on a scale worse than Imperator.Įxpect Imperator has likely made a profit. This means any release is going to be littered with people complaining about how nothing is getting made as soon as I say make it, people flaming about how the economics of the game are completely broken, and the invariable politics flame war that will be sanitized by many a ban. So what will happen is likely more people complaining about how Planned is too much work(which is none the less a legitimate complaint) despite having perfect information on the needs of pops and the nation for resources(the holy grail of planned economies) while LF is stupid as fuck at actually running a economy(YMMV, but considering RL Corporations, not unsurprising). This isnt changing, because actually modelling an economy that actually functions like real economies is basically a Nobel Prize winning accomplishment.

It either is basically literally having to do everything like in Victoria 1, or A mess that cant be figured out in 2. Or even more importantly, consider just how broken the economy is in the series.

Consider how we tend to constantly get people asking why simple things about the game work. Which is simultaneously the thing most likely to push people away from the game. Victoria's main draw is the economic system. Imperator at least has the draw of being about Rome to attract people. Even Paradox Devs must answer to Corporate. The simple issue is that Victoria fans tend to forget that amongst the 4 main series, the least popular is by far Victoria. I want a Victoria 3, but I dont think we will get one. The track record is that PDX takes a few years between games and then releases dlc for a long period of time, I doubt they'd want to spread themselves thin by releasing 4 new games in such a short period of time (of which Viccy would need a whole new dev team for), all of which will need large updates/dlc (and would probably have lower sales than releasing dlc for the existing games because > 'Ew new PDX game' mentality) no matter how polished they are on release.

Prove me wrong PDX, papa needs his Viccy fix! I will admit it's possible that PDX will continue the cycle of new games every year especially as EU4 is undeniably coming towards the end of its dev cycle (although possible updates to Africa and some other majors may be enough to keep it going for a while) but I don't see it coming a year after CK3 and as much as I want it I don't see Vic 3 coming two years after CK3. The track record is that PDX takes a few years between games and then releases dlc for a long period of time, I doubt they'd want to spread themselves thin by releasing 4 new games in such a short period of time (of which Viccy would need a whole new dev team for), all of which will need large updates/dlc (and would probably have lower sales than releasing dlc for the existing games because >'Ew new PDX game' mentality) no matter how polished they are on release. I don't think that two games coming out within a year or so of each other is enough evidence to say that PDX will start releasing a game a year from now on.

Victoria 3 time period