In Vic2 populations can be become militant, much like other Paradox games. If you don't have enough resources or money to buy resources, you won't be a successful industrial nation (which is 100% essential in Vic2). If your economy is doing poorly, you can't be successful in a war. For instance, coal is the backbone of industrialization and having coal being produced within your own is very valuable, as you won't have to spend a ton of money buying it on the international market. Instead, war is often fought over resource-dense areas. In Vic2, there's no point in going to war over a region in the desert that only produces a tiny amount of wheat. In EU4, resources are a complete afterthought. The economy is challenging and intricate. When I played as Austria, I avoided war at all costs and instead focused on making my population literate and industrialized. For example, when I played as Prussia I had a major war every 20 years or so. Rather, it requires the player to constantly manage their own population, resources, and relative strength compared to competing nations.
This game doesn't revolve around the constant need to conquer and expand, although it may be a vital part of your game depending on which nations you choose. More than just a "map-blob" game (like EU4). Now I'll try and shed some light on why some people love this game and why some people dislike it. The DLC is absolutely essential at this point, but it's not a rip off and actually makes the game feel like a complete game (there's only two, so you won't have to spend 2 month's salary to get them).
I haven't played EU4 since I got into Vic2, and that was several months ago. I put 300+ hours into EU4 as my introduction to Paradox's grand strategy games, and I didn't hear about Vic2 until much later on. If you enjoy The Industrial Revolution/WWI, 110% YES.
0 kommentar(er)
