I think it would be tough to nail down one thing. There are the clear comparisons to Victoria 2, which I haven’t played, but my understanding is that 2 is more “detailed” in it’s simulation of some things. There will always be people who don’t like changes from the last game. The military aspect is a lot less engaging than something like Hearts of Iron, but I think the intent there was to keep the focus on the economic and political sides of things. Warfare received a minor overhaul when I first tried the game that I’ve heard made things better, but it can still be a little frustrating at times.

Most of the complaints about the economic side that’s meant to take center stage is that your economy’s success boils down to how many construction points you can have going at once. That’s true, but I do like that you can’t pour everything into that without balancing the foundation needed to support the increase of construction, and just doing that could limit growth in other areas, like improving citizen lives, which could complicate your political affairs.

I feel like I’ve gotten a little lost in the weeds here. Overall, I think it has mixed reviews because Victoria 3 is still a work in progress. It’s a work in progress that I enjoy very much, but there is still room for improvement. I kind of fell off Stellaris between the Nemesis and Overlord expansions because it felt kind of bloated and repetitive, and I wasn’t wondering what kind of civilization I could play anymore. Victoria 3 has been successful at making me contemplate how I can manipulate the mechanics to achieve a specific outcome, even when I’m not playing.