* AccidentalAesop:
** The series as a whole reinforces that once the rot is too deeply rooted, it is better to have regime change and then try to reform from a fresh start, even if going through a RevolvingDoorRevolution in the process. To make the aesop even more accidental, the very first game treated revolutions as the worst thing that could happen to your country fluff-wise, but gameplay-wise, they were often more desired than anything more gradual or peaceful.
** Both ''2'' and ''3'' (even if less so) made it clear that politicians will only ever do anything to change the status quo when there is a direct threat to their own rule, looking out only for their own offices and seats in it. As long as people keep their heads low, the worst kind of abuse can fly. Conversely, this also had the equally accidental message that gradual, "one-step-at-the-time" changes and reforms are never done to truly change anything, but are just temporary concessions to placate the increasingly restless masses - and can be often revoked just as easily.
** ''Vicky 2'' had a few:
*** A completely free and deregulated economy just doesn't work; government intervention and heavy involvement is absolutely necessary, especially when developing new and crucial businesses. Private investors only care about their own profit, preferably acquired quickly, and nothing else.
*** Conversely, [[https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/em3l26/victoria_2s_flawed_economic_model_and_the_good/ as detailed in this post,]] an all-powerful state which is focused on its military grandeur and expansion trying to milk all resources it can out of the market while not spending enough, will set itself up for economic devastation.
*** Incremental political/social reforms causes less upheaval than sudden, violent revolutions. Also, implementing gradual reforms (and thus giving up some benefits) is often better for vested interests than to lose everything in a revolution.
** ''3'', on the other hand, goes in the opposite direction (particularly in version 1.2 on).
*** A completely free and deregulated market absolutely works. Trying to manually control everything in the economy is a ticket to bankruptcy unless you conquer a lot of other territory or reduce your people's standard of living significantly. Left alone, investors create many valuable jobs, even when they don't care much about workers' rights. To make this aesop even more accidental, the release state of the game operated in a full-on command economy, where the player had to micromanage everything.
*** Trying to make too sudden a change guarantees violent backlash. It's better to slowly phase out undesirable laws in order to weaken and discredit those who support them.
* AnnoyingVideoGameHelper:
** In ''II'' (and to a much lesser extent in ''Revolutions'' expansion to the original game) Capitalist [=POPs=] under State Capitalism are pretty much useless since the player has enough control of the system to build what's needed, where it's needed, and when it's needed. Doesn't prevent the AI from constantly "helping" by setting up useless factories now and then, usually in the worst spot imaginable. Factories that player doesn't really need and yet still get priority on the market for resources, slowing down the construction of things ''you'' ordered to be built. And all of that is constantly cluttering the UI. By late game, Planned Economy is often the desired economy policy. Not due to being superior in any way, but because capitalists aren't allowed to build anything under it and thus players don't have to stop the construction of 20 different factories each week. And if you are running either Interventionism or (God forbid) Laissez-faire early on, you can expect capitalists building the most useless factories in the most inconvenient spots all the time and you can't do ''anything'' about it - including closing down and destroying those factories until they outright go bankrupt, angering workers inside and making them leave your country for greener pastures. Even if you put a national focus on a specific state, it doesn't guarantee a factory is going to be built there, along with being of a specific group (market demand takes priority over the focus), not to mention making exact goods that you need. And even if players put up with all of this and find creative ways to keep capitalists occupied, the basic problem of stimulating immigration by industrialization is impossible with capitalists around under the more liberal economic policies. Capitalists will just keep expanding factories each time they reach 70% of employment, which means craftsmen and clerks will stay in that state, rather than pack their things and leave to a different one, where a barely staffed factory is offering employment.
**  In ''III'', there are two rules when it comes to autonomous construction: either pops build on their own, where they live, what local bankrollers consider useful... or the people within the investment pool simply bankroll what players are currently building, as long as the existing economy laws allow them to bankroll things in the first place. The direct investment pool is an ObviousRulePatch when compared with the issues from ''II'', but if one sticks to the (default) autonomous investments, all the issues of the original problem rear their ugly heads, since pops focus first and foremost on things that are expensive, rather than making sure the stuff your country is making cheap stays like that, and the AI in general over-focuses on raw resources vs. industrial buildings. Notably, when selecting the rules of the game, ''both'' options for investment pool are allowed without disabling achievements and Iron Man mode, so the issue is far less severe and even not obligatory when compared with ''II''.
* CheeseStrategy: While not an outright GameBreaker, in ''III'' Agrarianism (both the tech and the economic reform) has two modes: roleplaying a specific political mindset as everyone on the planet... or an all-powerful tool for reforming China and building its economy. Since China starts with an absolutely enormous population, and almost all of it are peasants, this causes Aristocrats to get a cut of profits from farms that aren't actually built... and Agrarianism increases Aristocrats' contribution to the investment pool. And since this is a law that both Rural Folk and Landowners support, it allows to easily and freely drop the highly restrictive Traditionalism, which in turn allows to switch various other laws, especially the taxation. Passing Agrarianism makes both interest groups happy, with both offering their bonuses ''and'' option to pass laws they ''don't'' like without a revolution. On top of that (and what makes it really cheesy), while the related economic law restricts the investment pool to be used only for agriculture-related structures, ''the reserve built this way is "inheritable" when the law is changed''. So a decade or so under Agrarianism allows China to build up its agricultural output (and further increase profits by increasing the amount of actual farms, the number of farmers and normally useless Aristocrats) and save a pretty penny to then be just used when switching to much more useful Interventionism. The only thing preventing all of this from being a GameBreaker on top of the benefits is the abysmal opening situation of China, so going for Agrarianism lessens the EarlyGameHell, rather than win the game.
* ComplacentGamingSyndrome:
** When playing as Prussia or Austria in 1836, the best option for either nation is to eventually form Greater Germany, by first removing the other nation from Great Power status and then adding it to their sphere of influence [[note]]along with all other territories which are German cores[[/note]] before activating the decision to form Germany. [[note]]Prussia will almost always form the North German Federation (NGF) first to consolidate their power.[[/note]] While forming Greater Germany as Prussia/ NGF is mainly for bragging rights (as well as another naval staging area that is the Adriatic coast), Austria actually benefits greatly from the formation, as North German will become an accepted culture, and the Baltic Sea ports are a boon to Austria's naval ambitions.
*** In the first game, the first thing to do as Prussia was to increase the mobilisation pool, then instantly mobilise, relocate standing army to the borders and, by the 1st of February 1836, declare war on any of the German minors that has an alliance clause on being unable to call Austria for help against Prussia (which is the vast majority of Northern Germany). The resulting war, despite fought against all the other Germanic states, is hilariously one-sided for Prussia and will allow to unify all of North, if not all of Germany (except for Hanover) without any repercussions since Prussia has cores on all of Germany anyway.
** When playing as the Netherlands in 1836, players will plan an invasion and annexation of Belgium by not signing away Dutch cores. While Belgium starts in the British sphere of influence, it often becomes a Great Power as the game progresses, which ironically means that if they don't have a formal alliance with Britain, Britain will not intervene in a war to annex Belgium. It is also common for a revolution to succeed in Belgium, which then removes British influence ''and'' any alliances Belgium may have.
** In ''III'', before patch 1.57, nations which start with Personal Unions almost always find ways to worsen relations with the junior partner and then try to bring said junior partner into the fold as a puppet. This is particularly more urgent for Great Britain, due to the union ending soon after the game starts and Hanover being involved in the German unification project. With two wars [[note]]one likely wrinkle is that Britain's rival France will jump in to support Hanover[[/note]], Hanover can become part of Great Britain proper, denying the formation of the North German Federation for Prussia and the formation of Germany for the German powers. With patch 1.57, the task is made even easier with ''Reduce Autonomy'', as the junior partner almost always accepts the demand without a war.
** Also in ''III'', there is exactly the same path each and every single nation has to take, no matter what: expand your construction sector to at least 30 points, and start building at the same time universities and additional construction buildings. Then, as the construction pool keeps increasing, keep adding additional universities, all in the same state, while increasing construction sector with surplus points. If by 1837 your country doesn't have at least level 11 university built[[note]]And if your literacy is anywhere above 15%, then the universities should be expanded even more, up to level 21, still stacked in a single state[[/note]], you completely and utterly harmed your nation's long-term growth - that even if you have to import wood and[=/=]or paper, lacking native production of either. Since universities directly contribute to the speed of research, and technologies can't be traded with other nations nor gained by any other means than researching them on your own[[note]]The spread of technologies already researched by other countries is also based on your innovation, thus making universities a necessity even if you rely on others to do the actual research[[/note]], the later you reach the literacy-based innovation cap of your country, the longer it will take to research new technologies. And if your country is backward enough to lack Academia technology, it's your first and foremost research goal. Everyone else has to focus on getting to Dialectics, an early game tech that increases efficiency of universities by 50%. This is all in stark contrast with the previous two games, where research was more automated and soft-locked behind a few technology gates that were accessible much later (not to mention the original ''Victoria'' allowed to simply trade technologies).
* EndingFatigue: Many players rarely make it to 1936, usually ending their games around 1910 or so. Part of this is that the game mechanics, though great for simulating the first 80 or so years of the game, start becoming less believable once the 1920s and 1930s rolls around.
** The game also begins to suffer serious slowdown on most [=PCs=], thanks to the absurd numbers of pops it has to keep track of, which doesn't help. In ''3'', due to the way how [=POPs=] informations are stored[[note]]This was eventually partially fixed, as one of the game rules allows to assimilate very small pops, solving the previous issue of keeping track of literal millions of pops that were below 20 people each[[/note]], the game flat-out ''refuses'' to work after 1890 or so due to inability to process the data. Thankfully, the situation has improved with subsequent patches, but the game still chugs disproportional amount of processing power by late game.
* EvilIsCool: [[http://imgur.com/a/np1o9 Fascists get a lot of cool weapons and animals on their flags.]] Republic flag variants tend to just have a few boring stripes. YMMV on what you think of Monarchies and their fancy crowns and Communists and their hammers and sickles.
* GameBreaker: With [[GameBreaker/VictoriaAnEmpireUnderTheSun their own page now]].
* GameMod: Pretty much essential as the best mods did much to fix a lot of broken stuff under the hood. [[https://www.pcgamesn.com/victoria-ii/best-victoria-2-mods One editor put up his lists of the best mods]].
* GeniusBonus: With the abstraction of sliders, and knowing that your pops act perfectly rationally, you can actually see how supply-side or Keynesian economics work - surprisingly well. Try it out! An economics graduate who masters the UI will have an economy humming along in no time.
* FanNickname:
** The man and the woman featured on Victoria 3's main poster were named John Paradox and Victoria Clausewitz by the community.
** The whole series is affectionately named ''Vicky.''
** The points in Brazil's "Magnanimous Monarch" journal entry in Victoria 3's ''Colossus of the South'' DLC are sometimes called "Pedro points" by the players.
* GoddamnedBats: Rebels can be this, particularly Anarcho-Liberals in the early-mid game and Socialists near the end. The worst offender though is probably the Boxers in Victoria 2. If you play as China, the Boxer Rebels are a special kind of Reactionaries that don't actually replace the default Reactionaries, so you have to fight both. Boxers also get militant and revolt more easily than standard Reactionaries, and they only need to occupy a single province to "win". Meaning unless you have strong and well-spaced-out patrols, a tiny revolt in the middle of the Gobi Desert could completely eliminate all your hard work. When Boxers seize a province, they have the same effect as Reactionaries, reverting your government and westernization, but they additionally give all eight of the great powers a free Casus Belli against you for failing to stop them. It's clear that they were intentionally designed to easily win in order to guarantee the event granting the Casus Belli occurs for all the Great Powers, and ensure that an AI China gets pounded into the dirt in a normal game. It is strongly recommended to manually delete the Boxers in the game files before playing as China.
* GoodBadBugs:
** Due to the way how it is coded, each reload causes AI-controlled nations to buy goods for their strategic stockpile, as the game displays "0" for values related to the economy due to the inability to see how things were going the previous day, as the game is "paused" because of the reload. This has two effects: causing constant shortages, the more severe the more you reload in a short period of time, and... making countries easily go bankrupt since they are using huge amounts of money to fill their strategic stockpile. Any country that goes bankrupt suffers a massive prestige hit ''and'' grants you a CB if you happen to lend it money prior to bankruptcy. Even if you won't gain CB, any country with negative prestige can be attacked and conquered without major diplomatic repercussions. This exploit is particularly potent against uncivilized nations, as their economy is even weaker, making them far more suspicious of bankruptcies. However, while it might be beneficial to force bankruptcies, it's a double-edged sword, since you might make it easier for Great Powers to exploit the potential weakness of any given country.
*** A variation of the above allows the British to have a far easier time in India. Each of the puppet states under British control has an event leading to annexation by the East India Company, should they go bankrupt. Unless you are playing as the UK, it is paramount to decrease the amount of reloads to a minimum and try to avoid them to less than once per decade, since direct control over various parts of India makes the British empire far, far stronger, while making life of anyone trying to catch up even harder.
** The civil war system in ''3'', thanks to war system changes, works by having states break away from the central government, rather than by spawning rebel armies. In early versions, people in a one-state country ''cannot'' rebel, no matter how angry they are. Thus, a player in control of a tiny power can pass absolutely any laws they like. Enjoy being absolute ruler of your own {{Ruritania}} or BananaRepublic! This was later changed so that individual provinces within the state may break away in order to have the civil war.
* IKnewIt: Martin "Wiz" Anward leaving his very successful and well-regarded tenure as lead developer for ''VideoGame/{{Stellaris}}'' for a top-secret "dream project" was very widely suspected to be a ''Victoria'' sequel, both because such a game was long overdue and because, during his tenure, the economic and planetary management system for ''Stellaris'' (which originally resembled that of ''VideoGame/GalacticCivilizations'') was conspicuously reworked to much more closely resemble ''Victoria''. Of course these suspicions were vindicated in May 2021.
* InferredHolocaust: Once you've colonized an area, usually in Africa, the speed at which the native population is replaced by yours (it can be up to 99% European in as few as five years) is a little alarming.
** Furthermore, placing soldiers in a non-colonized province speeds up the colonization. They're probably just protecting the settlers... or it could be that they're being more proactive with the natives.
** The ethnic ratio was fixed and colonial [=POPs=] are impossible to assimilate now. Players first must turn colonies into states, which gives the local population equal rights with the metropole. Since it's extremely hard by the ''Heart of Darkness'' expansion, it hardly ever happens.
* MemeticMutation:
** AI and its tendency to march armies without taking attrition into account [[https://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/12/00/03/77/subcon12.jpg is a running joke, especially in Vicky 2]].
** Victoria 3 confirmed!!!!! [[note]]The meme became ascended/depreciated as of May 2021, with the announcement that the game is indeed under development.[[/note]]
** "Wickedness must be stamped out"[[note]]An event about religious fundamentalists in the US, which would fire for every single state at random, so you'd have spam of the event[[/note]]
** "Line goes up" [[note]]''3'' was seen as having a lackluster launch, and some have disparagingly described the only reason to play the game is to see lines on graphs go up.[[/note]]
*** It also had a variant with "Numbers go up".
* ObviousBeta: As traditional for earlier Paradox games, the first two games were extremely buggy on release with subpar AI. (The third was ''less'' buggy, but had its own AI and balance issues.) One of the most egregious parts was the impossible to pacify political radicals who often stage massive rebellions when it made no sense for them to; AI democracies would often be overrun by Jacobin rebels demanding a democracy, for instance. Some developer oversights still persist, particularly involving colonization and empty territory. An uncolonized province in Canada oftentimes leads to the United States colonizing Alberta, and the way that cores on uncolonized territory works means that there will often be uncolonized 'holes' near Liberia and Ethiopia. A broken decision intended to form Yugoslavia from Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia causes one country to turn into Yugoslavia [[EpicFail without annexing any territory.]]
* QuicksandBox: The ins and outs of the economic system can leave the player at a loss as to what to do next...
* ScrappyMechanic:
** In Vicky 2, you can only ask for the entire state in peace negotiations. If you wanted to get just a single province - tough luck. It's particularly egregious in the case of small spots of land that did change hands historically (Hong-Kong, Alsace-Lorraine, etc) because they are deliberately turned into a state. Any other state you conquer and the end result is land that you don't want, don't need and the worst, border gore. Takes a step further with fault design, because South America has a bunch of border provinces that have claims from all neighboring countries... but by taking those provinces, they swallow the entire state. Wanted to make a minor border shift? Tough luck, now enjoy half of the Amazons!
** Inventions. In both games, they are treated as an event, with either a completely random chance of triggering at all ''or'' a modifier based on other inventions, technologies, years and other factors ''or'' both of those. In practical terms, it means you might spend decades waiting for some crucial invention, say, the ability to build a small-arms factory. What makes it a scrappy mechanic is the fact that you might be a top researcher with the best set of positive modifiers to triggering the invention... and still spend then years waiting for it to trigger.
** To prevent players from nilly-willy changing their laws other than a steep up-front cost and upkeep, ''II'' introduced Upper House support, with each political ideology having their own set of laws and policies they support (or completely block). In practical terms, that means you might be perpetually stuck with starting laws, and all the useful social reforms are completely locked behind either having your entire population be extremely militant or, at the very least, having socialists take ''half'' of the Upper House - including stuff like the absolutely crucial education reform, without which your country will struggle both economically and technologically. The system is deeply disliked and often cited as one of the most obtuse parts of the game, often leading to highly ahistorical situations (e.g. Prussia can't pass its famous mandatory education system, because the conservative government in power doesn't support education laws).
** Infamy can be a particularly annoying mechanic for those looking to expand, especially for uncivilized nations. The amount of infamy you get from war justifications is completely random, so a bit of bad luck can lead to a random great power declaring war on you in order to "contain" your uncivilized minor nation, simply because you exceeded the infamy limit of 25. The game somehow treats the annexation of a minor central Asian backwater with more gravitas than someone stealing a core province of a major European power.
** Military Access can be extremely frustrating due to how easy it is to obtain, which allows AI to march its armies through a dozen neutral nations to reach your own. This can make investing in a powerful navy seem almost pointless if the enemy doesn't even need ships to reach you. As a result, it is not uncommon to see tens of thousands of Indian soldiers marching through the Middle East every time England fights a European war, who in real life would have needed to be transported by ship. It is also highly ahistorical, because in real life, giving military access to countries you weren't allied to was seen as tantamount to surrendering your national sovereignty. This is why Belgium refused to give Germany military access during World War I and subsequently got invaded.
** Reverse of above happens in early versions of ''Victoria 3''. Troops by all means just teleport to their assigned front, which can reach such silly situations like Prussia simply landing 150+ regiments in a land-locked country somewhere in Central Asia, despite having no physical access to the place. Any sort of defence is based entirely on having a bigger army than the would-be invader, since even a technological edge can't provide sufficient defense. This was later changed as armies with generals assigned to defend a front will have increased defence, while military access was made more difficult as only the main attacker's and defender's territories and direct dominions/vassals/puppets grant military access [[note]]Patch 1.5x removed the ability to create vassals/puppets directly. Instead, the opposing country has to be made a protectorate first, then have their autonomy reduced once to become a dominion, and twice to become a vassal/puppet.[[/note]].
** In ''Victoria 3'', the hands-off military system is broadly unpopular due to its seeming inability to capitalize on superior numbers (and often even getting outnumbered in combat by enemies with fewer troops at the front) and various bad decision making, such as throwing exhausted regiments into battle after battle while fresh regiments remain uncommitted, and no ability to prioritize where in the front a commander pushes.
*** AI randomly reassigning armies between fronts is a particularly annoying aspect of the entire system. Not a big deal in local wars, since frontlines are days apart, but a potential cause of losing a global conflict. When travelling between continents, an army will spend 50-90 days travelling to a new destination, leaving vital fronts open or undermanned. Thus despite everything being automated, it still takes extensive player supervision to make sure 400 regiments weren't reassigned to some colonial front, leaving 40 to defend the Franco-Prussian border. This was toned down when the maximum travelling time was changed to 63 days, which caused other problems.
*** Another aspect of the military system is the annoying debuff after adopting new gear for your troops. It is a year-long "adoption period" that provides a steep penalty to your armed forces for the duration. For ''each and every change done''. And depending on the game version, they could even ''stack'', so you could end up with your armed forces in complete disarray after adopting, say, a new kind of artillery and giving your scouts bikes instead of horses - up to the point where a bunch of literal tribals armed with melee weapons are going to beat your early 20th century army due to the debuff reducing the fighting capability of your soldiers into decimal values.
** The entire economic model of ''Victoria 3'' in the release state was that of a command economy - player has to manage '''everything''' manually and directly. That despite the default economic model being ''called'' laissez faire and that the command economy itself is a late-game technology. Your capitalists wouldn't build anything on their own, being the opposite end of the issue ''Victoria 2'' had with constant construction going on. In many ways, the game ended up being more obtuse and micro-heavy than the ancient at this point OG ''Victoria'', especially since the system goes as far as asking the player how ''each and every building operates and what sort of production model applies to it''[[note]]While there is a command to give to all buildings, this actually makes things ''harder'' to manage, as it might be beneficial for certain buildings to have different production models going[[/note]]. This was partially resolved when autonomous investments were added to the game and further fine-tuned with later patches, but the obtuse micro-management system of every single production building remains.
* SlowPacedBeginning: The first 20-30 years of the game is mostly spend waiting, especially if your country lacks an initial industrial base. Doubly so when your economic policies prevent you from building your own factories and leaving you at the mercy of the capitalists (''I'' and ''II'') or you lack proper technology and infrastructure to properly tax your population and maintain economic growth (''III''). Once the ball gets rolling, the pace and options significantly increase, but it can be ''very'' discouraging to get it moving at all. And if you are playing as an uncivilised nation, you might spend ''most of the game like that''.
* UnconventionalLearningExperience: Regarding colonialism and imperialism as driving forces for decision-making:
** The first two games managed to have one toward colonial expansion. You don't have to take a particularly profitable or useful chunk of Africa or some jungle in Southeast Asia. What you want is first and foremost the ''prestige'' that comes from having a colonial empire or at least claiming a pretense of having one, even if it's by itself a drain on your economy and national budget. The first game made it particularly poignant due to the different colonial system (everyone could colonise, even uncivilised countries) - so taking an useless archipelago in the middle of the Pacific or a tiny port in the Horn of Africa ''still'' made your country look great and powerful in the eyes of other nations, affecting relations and your ability to curry better economic deals. This also includes conquest of uncivics. Russia taking over Central Asia, which is almost entirely worthless economically and also a potential hotbed for a revolution? Still worth taking for the prestige alone.
** All three games also make it clear that if you are left behind in the colonial race, your only hope for success as a "have not" is going to war against "haves" - they have the resources your economy needs, and there is no way to get them from them peacefully, too, as they directly control their sources and are gearing their economy to use up all there is, with no surplus on the market. While the game rarely tells it outright, a few big wars you are going to fight - some of them emulating real history - are going to be [[NoBloodForPhlebotinum over resources]], some of them trivial, too.
*** The third game changed things slightly, but it's still the most efficient to simply [[AppealToForce bully others]], and when that fails, directly declare war. In fact, diplomatic plays are ''all'' about the "prove that I'm not bluffing" type of deal, representing the various strong-arming techniques of "gunboat diplomacy" - and the alternative to folding is just a counter ticking towards the declaration of a full-scale war.
* TheScrappy: The Landowners interest group in 3. They start out very powerful in many major countries such as Russia and Japan and they tend to be in favor of very inconvenient and conservative laws and tend to resist attempts to liberalize or enact laws that help develop the economy in a meaningful way, leading them to be very hated among the player base and most players will spend much of the early game trying to reduce the clout of the landowners so they can properly develop their country. While it is possible to curtail their influence, it takes a ''lot'' of effort and time, while it might easily spiral into either an unpredictable revolution or, much worse, sending your country down some ''other'' undesirable path.
** ReplacementScrappy: To make matters worse, the usual outcome of trying to curtail powerful Landowners is elevating Rural Folk, who are nearly just as bad, and while they won't mind ''slightly'' more liberal laws, they can easily turn into an EvilLuddite force that will make building industrial buildings either extra hard or outright impossible, locking your country in a cycle of agrarian economy that changes hands between Landowners and Rural Folks. And if you have political parties allowed, both groups can form an ultra-conservative agrarian party, which will ''keep electing itself'' to power or requiring to bow to their whims due to their share in the popular support, essentially locking the player in a vicious cycle.
* WinBackTheCrowd: Patch 1.5 in general, and especially the 1.5.10 fix to it, is seen as this for ''Victoria III''. With the ironing out of bugs and the introduction of local prices, reverse sways and reducing autonomy[[note]]which makes protectorates useful by changing them to dominions[[/note]] and reworking the [[BrokenBase base-breaking]] military system, general consensus is that this is the patch which the game should have launched with. And around the time 1.5 was delivered, foreign investments were announced to get a return from ''II'' (in patch 1.7, scheduled for May 2024), addressing another common complaint.
----