I'm playing it some more tonight and idk I just don't know what to tell you, I think the granularity and scope of the simulation are what make it a "marxism simulator" because marxism is the idea that shit is based on and follows from material conditions. So here in EU5 we have the same sort of interactions with the economic system, you're building resource extraction and processing in the same way as in Victoria but on a seemingly more detailed level. I saw a post on the reddit where someone turned Ceylon into like 40% laborers, 30% burghers, etc etc. How is that any different than the depeasanting "you're building capitalism, then maybe socialism" gameplay loop of Vic 3?

You say you're interested in the historical period and that's cool like I get it but all that means is that a good EU5 mod set in the 19th century will blow vic3's dick off just because it's a much more detailed simulation. I saw some old reddit thread saying it doesn't have global markets but like, neither did Vic3 for like 3 years

I like vic3 and it's been the main game I've been playing for the last since it's been out, so like, don't get me wrong, I just feel like wow it's still kinda dogshit after all this time, compared to what's been put into this game

It doesn't even have shit like, okay so I just hit an Age change, I get to choose from a set of paths with different advances? Wow, choices, flavor, holy shit

Even with mods like Morgenrote Vic3 still has like hardly any flavor whatsoever, every country ends up feeling the same in the end, it's just a choice of starting resources and "who doesn't like you and how much"