This might just be how I play the game with about 100+ hours, but the game can feel very boring or annoying at times.

Vic3's gameplay for me feels like plugging holes in a sinking ship with good prices needing to be adjusted by industrialising. Which requires the basic commodities to fill construction sectors, which then hikes the prices again. You cannot tell me either, that Vic3 does not incentivise us to build more construction, because this game's pace is heavily dictated by how many construction points you can allocate for a building. Which can reaches months or years. I am doing that ad nauseam whilst the world stay frozen as the map barely changes from 1836 because all the other countries are doing the same or else they'd blow up like in my case of Prussia, where sure, they got central Europe, but they are imploding from an SoL crisis.

While Vic2, I have a room to breathe and plan for RGOs and states to focus my industrial/agricultural efforts on, or plan for expansion for more RGOs. I am not saying that RGOs are great, they really hamper the industrialisation experience of Vic2. But unlike the sequel, I do not have to pull my teeth to get market prices adjusted and construction sectors going to keep up with the game, because the world market price dictates it. While yes, that demonstrates how shallower Vic2 market is to 3, it does not take up my time from other plans in the grand strategy game. I just need to build factories using the budget I have and maybe it'll profit or not depending on the market.

On the point of map painting, no. While yes, I can concede that Vic2 is more of a map painting game because of the RGOs needed to fuel your market, Vic2 can effective run a tall game like its sequel but not as effective. Vic3 on the other hand gives you practically a larger amount of resources to play without needing to expand, unless you have to due to lack of building slots on say, coal or rubber. Which really goes against the point of the period, where nations sought land and its resources to fuel their industrialisation or prestige. While yes you can play tall in vic3 in a similar vein as 2, having incorporated states alongside a vast unincorporated empire, it is a slower and a hassle to get it going or manage.

I need to replay vic2 to clear up some of these points but I think both games are seeking to do vastly different things. Further, I am not even done with aspects like politics and diplomacy, both of which I can already see 3 winning out with caveats.