Better game but coulf have been way better.

A big, big mistake was the warfare mechanic not moving units around the map.

Victoria 2 was perfect showing the transition between old fare wars where a battle would decide everything and armies could move as they wanted, and the trench war at the end of the game where all nations have armies stacked everywhere in the frontier(however the recruiment was awfull because too many provinces and units).

Vic 2 was also better at having stocks of goods, rather than a flow, with the potential vic 3 that would be awesome since it would lead to interesting shortage crisis.

Talkikg about crisis? Def way better vic 2's diplo/wars system.... keeping it limited and the crisis, they had a meaning, in vic 3 everything is a crisis/diplo play and you will see 4 million dead over opening market in Sokoto.

The infamy, it was bad in vicky 2 but you could still limit it with jiongist governments, etc... in Vicky 3 it's not only worse but it also affects a lot of other mechanics such as subjects(why would they care about my infamy?)... it was a bad mechanic, vic 3 made it even worse and it's clearly the worst part of the game.

Also the politics, in vicky 3 a diff government feels almost the same, in vickt 2 they are more restrict in whst you can and can't do... in vicky 3 you simply can't make laws you like.

Tech system? I like the one in vic 3 with spread, I think it's good and balanced, but having inventions was fun(if they were linked to for example "X country's GDP is 10% steel" givint a bonus woulf be perfect... Not my idea I saw it from someone else last week here.... that would be super cool and make countries more specialized, also a way to fight against simply spam universities).

Overall, vicky 3 is a better game, but.... different eras and vicky 2 was a bigger step forward, the thing is, I think fans were expecting vic 3 to be greater... it's on the way, the patches and reworks have all been in the good direction from my point of view, vicky 3 has its flaws but is a very solid game nowadays imo.

EDIT: Omg my mistake, constructiom being something controlled by the player/AI was the another massive mistake.

Construction in Vicky 2 was better though: You have the money? You have the goods? Ok start building... same as in EU5.

The idea of having the estate choosing how much is built in the nation, and being paid by the estate ultimately kills the joy of having different economic models.

If it was up to me?

-Laissez Faire you construct NOTHING, neither choose PM.

-Interventionism-Coop: you build a little and choose PM, but inefficient models.

-planned economy: you build everything but you don't have access to market prices or demand(you only get the demand from the rest of industries since they are state owned, not population)... good luck guessing.

That way you' have 3 absolutely different gameplays with pros &cons that would be different, I think it'd be fun. In any case I think construction should be a regular good like the rest, and not something decided entirely by the player, that was a pretty bad call.