What Victoria II fails to teach you, then, is that industrialising early isn’t actually advised. There’s also global trade to take into consideration, including factoring in how much everyone else is making, and of which goods. It involves nations needing to industrialise over the course of the game, but without the right techs in place factories will actually get out-performed by pre-industrial economic setups. Victoria II’s economy system is a weird beast so much so that I’m not sure anyone at Paradox really knows how it works any more.

Consider this meme from the official Paradox twitter account, which sums up the situation nicely:

It’s interesting enough, though, that many long-time fans want to see it modernised. If you’ve never played Victoria II, I’m not sure I can actually recommend you try it – especially if you’ve only come to Paradox post-CK2. Victoria II and Crusader Kings III are worlds apart, but there’s a lot about the nature of Victoria II that informs how one should approach Crusader Kings, and in turn a third Victoria game could benefit greatly from the developments that have gone into CK3. Much like ancient Rome, there is still a streak of romanticism associated with the mid-late 19th Century, and there aren’t many games that cover the period to the same scale.

No, I don’t understand it either, but as of writing it stands as the last bastion of unrevisited old-school Paradox series, surrounded by more modern siblings with fans clamouring at the gates for a third game.Įver since Paradox actually went and made Imperator: Rome last year (which is the EU:Rome successor everyone wanted), Victoria III stands as the most requested game among traditional grand strategy fans.

While it’s all rather exciting that Crusader Kings 3 is happening – and that a bunch of us got to play it recently – do you know what I’ve been playing? Victoria 2.

Victoria 2 reduce infamy