|
PleasingFungus posted:In conclusion: I like your mod, but the machine parts shortage is a really major issue! Please fix your mod. I actually added some factories to North Africa, including Machine and Steel Factories, but apparently not enough of them, I'll try to further industrialize the region. It's kind of weird that only Korea is making them, usually Persia is the one leading Machine Parts production, oh well, maybe something hit them? But yeah, you're right about the election events being from NNM, maybe it would be better to remove at least one of the lines? Thanks a lot for the input. I have no idea what happened to your war with Vasconia, I'm as baffled as you are. The tale of two Spains ia a feature though. @Scrree, I'll try to see about that. Wiz exported a lot of the AI values to Defines, but I haven't touched that area, so maybe the answer is hiding in there. Whatever happens, I'll try to have a new version out in time for everyone to play with their moms in their day.
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
 Aztecs reign supreme over Iberia and France. The Pope rots in a Tunisian prison. The Holy Roman Emperor is a Cathar. Heresy is spreading like wildfire. Are you a bad enough dude to save Catholicism? 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:WWI started in 1908, the countries are Hot holy gently caress keep us updated, that's the biggest war I've ever seen in V2.  Alikchi posted:
Arian heresy best heresy 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Alikchi posted:Are you a bad enough dude to save Catholicism? "Twilight of Catholicism" games are just so rad and cool. Heresies and holy wars everywhere, empires dissolving, vast armies of invading enemies conquering and slaying everything in sight. It's a really apocalyptic feel!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:I think there's a specific invention that has to happen somewhere in the world, which only happens once a certain tech is researched. Specifically, I think your scientists have to invent Karl Marx, presumably by growing him in some sort of vat. If the 'Karl Marx' invention never triggers, communists never pop up. If Karl Marx did not exist, man would have to invent him.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Thanks to whoever posted those cheat decisions to easily manipulate voter ideologies and add cores everywhere. Is it possible to make a decision that will make every culture present in your empire an accepted culture? Or maybe a decision just makes every culture ever an accepted culture flat-out?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
You'd have to make a decision for each and every culture in the game, but yes, it is possible.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
In my current V2 game as Persia (which I'm really enjoying, except for the containment wars that inevitably happen after you civilize), the CSA won the civil war completely on their own accord (USA had not yet taken the Mexican Concession and Mexico had even gone as far as to colonize Idaho). I ended up going through and removing US cores on the CSA territories, mostly because I want to see how NA plays out with two counterbalances to the USA. This got me to thinking about making a decision for the US to lose those cores after a successful Civil War for CSA (much like "Abandon Finland", this would have to give some sort of tangible benefit for the US). This left me to think of the alt-history implications of a Confederate "victory" - read: not being eliminated. Considering the Confederate border stretches next-door to Washington, do people think the US would have considered moving their capital as a matter of security? I was thinking they might be tempted to shift their capital to, say, Philadelphia or New York. What else might happen as a consequence of a Union loss? Another thought just now was an increased demand to take more of Mexico and recoup the losses of the civil war?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:This left me to think of the alt-history implications of a Confederate "victory" - read: not being eliminated. Considering the Confederate border stretches next-door to Washington, do people think the US would have considered moving their capital as a matter of security? I was thinking they might be tempted to shift their capital to, say, Philadelphia or New York. What else might happen as a consequence of a Union loss? Another thought just now was an increased demand to take more of Mexico and recoup the losses of the civil war? I believe that the legitimacy of the concept of Federalism would have been deeply challenged. Texas v. White, which made secession illegal, would not have happened. And since the Confederacy seceded and won, this would have been seen as a step towards decentralization and more power to the states, as opposed to what happened in our universe with greater centralization and power to the federal government. It is possible that other groups of states might use this precedent in bids for secession later on, should major conflicts occur between the federal government and the states. And, keen to avoid a repeat of the Civil War, the USA might have been more amenable to peaceful devolution, autonomy, or negotiated secession. Meanwhile, the Confederacy itself was founded upon the concept of state's rights to secede and associate. It's unlikely that it would have been able to maintain its cohesion were disputes between the member states to come up. This would have been added to the fact that the CSA was extremely underdeveloped economically, with slavery on the decline, and very poor industrial infrastructure. The CSA would have had to rapidly industrialize (unlikely, given the conservative government and aristocratic culture) or eventually end up as a dependent nation to the USA. It's likely that the CSA would have continued along as an independent nation for some time, until some crisis or dispute came up which would break it up. It's also possible that after such a breakup, some states might elect to voluntarily rejoin the USA, or bid for US protection while retaining their autonomy and government. Really, the best-case scenario in my mind would have been a much more decentralized and weaker USA. Perhaps not Balkanized to an extreme case, but possibly more disparate and consisting of a number of autonomous and semi-autonomous regions united under a common market, not unlike the EU, except more united by common culture and language. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 05:13 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:In my current V2 game as Persia (which I'm really enjoying, except for the containment wars that inevitably happen after you civilize), the CSA won the civil war completely on their own accord (USA had not yet taken the Mexican Concession and Mexico had even gone as far as to colonize Idaho). I ended up going through and removing US cores on the CSA territories, mostly because I want to see how NA plays out with two counterbalances to the USA. This got me to thinking about making a decision for the US to lose those cores after a successful Civil War for CSA (much like "Abandon Finland", this would have to give some sort of tangible benefit for the US). In some alt-history stories along that line, Washington remains the de jure capital while Philadelphia becomes the de facto capital with most of the government offices up there. But thinking about what you're saying it's a drat shame that Vicky II isn't that conducive to more alt-history scenarios or even randomized starts. Most paradox games seem to become more narrow in that idea as the years go by, from the relative openness of Crusader Kings and even bits of EUIII to "WWII must start like this" in Hearts of Iron.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I believe that the legitimacy of the concept of Federalism would have been deeply challenged. Texas v. White, which made secession illegal, would not have happened. And since the Confederacy seceded and won, this would have been seen as a step towards decentralization and more power to the states, as opposed to what happened in our universe with greater centralization and power to the federal government. It is possible that other groups of states might use this precedent in bids for secession later on, should major conflicts occur between the federal government and the states. And, keen to avoid a repeat of the Civil War, the USA might have been more amenable to peaceful devolution, autonomy, or negotiated secession. Due to slavery's status as a, well, status symbol, I have a lot of difficulty accepting that especially the Deep South would peacefully do away with slavery on its own (as opposed to, say, Tennessee or Arkansas where an eventual abolition would eventually only reflect the weakness of slavery in the region to begin with). In fact, I could well see the CSA dissolving eventually over a debate between the Upper South and the Deep South over the same questions of what happens if Arkansas abolishes slavery and a Mississippi slave flees to it. In all events, I think the Upper South eventually rejoins the Union, and I don't see Florida or Texas (the bookends that were never all that "Southern" to begin with) staying with the CSA in the long term, though both might prefer independence to rejoining the USA. I think the CSA ends up a rump grouping of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, maybe with North Carolina divided in half with the western half joining the Union. EDIT: worth pointing out that even in this scenario, the old slave culture would've been dealt a massive blow by the Civil War itself, as huge numbers of slaves used the conscription of their masters as an opportunity to make a break for it, and the USA would be happy to take in those ex-slaves as a way of dealing a blow to the Confederate economy. The CSA might end up forced to reopen the transatlantic slave trade, which would put it at serious odds with the British. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 05:52 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 05:47
|
|
|
Of course importing slaves from other countries was explicitly forbidden in the CSA's constitution. Someone posted this comparison between the US and CSA constitutions. It has some interesting parts, like forbidding public funding of infrastructure. It is also doubtful that the CSA was founded on "states rights" rather than ARE SLAVES. All in all, the CSA wouldn't have lasted a decade, and them "winning" the civil war wouldn't have changed much.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Due to slavery's status as a, well, status symbol, I have a lot of difficulty accepting that especially the Deep South would peacefully do away with slavery on its own (as opposed to, say, Tennessee or Arkansas where an eventual abolition would eventually only reflect the weakness of slavery in the region to begin with). In fact, I could well see the CSA dissolving eventually over a debate between the Upper South and the Deep South over the same questions of what happens if Arkansas abolishes slavery and a Mississippi slave flees to it. In all events, I think the Upper South eventually rejoins the Union, and I don't see Florida or Texas (the bookends that were never all that "Southern" to begin with) staying with the CSA in the long term, though both might prefer independence to rejoining the USA. I think the CSA ends up a rump grouping of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, maybe with North Carolina divided in half with the western half joining the Union. Fun fact that might make a difference in any discussion of the postwar CSA: the Confederates were basically fighting two Civil Wars the whole time, one against the Union and another against themselves. You see, a whole lot of the people in the Confederacy didn't particularly want to live in the loving Confederacy, and there were anti-Confederate guerrilla groups everywhere. Even at the higher levels of government things were ridiculously unstable - late in the war Georgia tried to secede from the Confederacy, only to be informed that they were not, in fact, allowed to do that (  ). If the Confederacy somehow won, I really can't see any possible outcome beyond the entire thing collapsing into chaos within ten years.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
Success! After my last post, I edited my save file to add 300 Machine Parts to the global market, and that seemed to be enough to 'unstick' things. From there on out, it was a pretty straightforward path to become the #1 power and form NO_TEXT_FOR_KEY FRENCH_CULTURAL_UNION. Throughout the game, I was engaged in a vicious feud with my eastern neighbors - initially with Italy, who wanted to claim their cores in the eastern half of Sardinia-Piedmont (while I wanted to keep my cores in the western half!), and later on with their big buddies Germany. During a crisis over Latvia's Lithuanian provinces, Germany backed Latvia and I backed Lithuania. My initial plan was to destroy Germany and Latvia's armies in the west, while sending an expeditionary force by fleet to land in ostpreussen and occupy Lithuania. Unfortunately, my perpetually underfunded & underteched fleet was almost immediately caught off the coast of Belgium and almost completely destroyed. (The Germans attacked while I was in the process of loading troops - lucky they didn't attack a week later!) So, I ended up fighting across the entirety of Germany, west to east, carving out a long stripe of occupation to reach Latvia. It was an experience! When Lithuania was released, it for some reason gained a number of provinces which it didn't have cores in? Possibly they were in the same state; I'm not sure.  Bonus note: Great Britain seems to have revolted from England, but left England in control of London. I'm... not sure that's supposed to happen? (It's certainly very Paradox, though.) Anyway: great mod, thanks for making it! I'll definitely be Serbing it up further in future.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Bonus note: Great Britain seems to have revolted from England, but left England in control of London. I'm... not sure that's supposed to happen? (It's certainly very Paradox, though.) I think that happens when England revolts from the Papal States, thus forcing the old England tag to become Great Britain. However, GB doesn't actually get cores on anything, so it becomes trivially easy for England to take over GB. Also this can cause weird war splits, where ENG pre-revolt was at two wars, but only one went with the ENG tag while the other went with GB. I dunno, Europe is weird.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
I've started quite a few games to test various mods and things out and just play around, and I've yet to play a single game where canada isn't all hosed up with Columbian British Columbia and an ugly patwork of UK/Canada provices. Vanilla and NNM.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:18
|
|
|
I'm getting really sick of Germany's colors in this game. Supposedly occupied by rebels, I can't see it.  Some of these are occupied by Germany, some are occupied by rebels, can you tell the difference?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Due to slavery's status as a, well, status symbol, I have a lot of difficulty accepting that especially the Deep South would peacefully do away with slavery on its own (as opposed to, say, Tennessee or Arkansas where an eventual abolition would eventually only reflect the weakness of slavery in the region to begin with). Slavery was done in the South by 1865. They had already begun a process of gradual emancipation. They promised every slave freedom if he joined the army but it was too late.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
 So finally finished my Germany game and I've got some thoughts.
 I don't mean to sound like a negative nancy, HoD is a ton of fun and by far the best time I've had with Victoria 2. There's just a lot of minor quality of life improvements that would make the game incredible. e: Ireland's communist flag is the best. e2: Dai Nam ranked higher than a civilized China. uPen fucked around with this message at 09:16 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
uPen posted:I've got no idea where 'Waddai' is and the only way for me to find out is to open the pop screen, find 'Waddai' open it up, look at the provinces in the state, close that screen, open up the search and then search for one of the provinces. Why can't I search for states? Why can't I click on the state in the pop screen and zoom to it, Whyyyyyy. quote:On the upgrading factories front, shift clicking factories to upgrade them all is great. Except for the fact that if a capitalist is trying to upgrade the factory then the shift click doesn't catch it. This normally wouldn't be a problem but I tended to have 20+ factories on the projects screen sitting at 0.0/0.0 for months at a time and if I wanted to upgrade them I'd have to go manually click the + on each and every factory. Aside from that, yeah, I agree with your criticisms.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:You can go into the projects screen and ctrl-click to fully fund that project or shift-click to fully fund all projects (or maybe it's the other way around, I don't remember). Yes that's what I'm talking about. Fully funded projects (I would sit on the projects screen and just shift click anything that turned blue while waiting through the slow 1900s) just sit at 0.0/0.0 funding with all the parts purchased. I would have projects sit like that for weeks, fully funded, all parts purchased, just... waiting. If I go and expand the factory on the factory list it would kill the project and the factory would expand like normal. It's just annoying, if I want to upgrade every factory then upgrade every factory, I don't care if my capitalists are thinking about maybe one day making a larger shirt factory.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
Riso posted:Slavery was done in the South by 1865. They had already begun a process of gradual emancipation. Not really, no. The idea of arming the slaves was a last ditch attempt to save the Confederacy proposed by General Patrick R. Cleburn. When word of this proposal reached Confederate high command in early 1865, Thomas Connally writes, "it was greeted with polite silence... and ignored". The Confederate Constitution was constructed in such a way to make the abolition of slavery as difficult as possible. Multiple articles in the Confederate Constitution make any attempt to pass or enforce anti-slavery laws impossible. Given how entrenched the Southern aristocracy was, I have no doubt they would have tried to keep the slave train running as long as possible. They were devoted to slavery, much to the South's detriment. The institution strained relations between powers who would have otherwise been happy to assist the South. It enraged poor southern whites who were unable to compete with free labor into supporting the Union. Had the Confederacy somehow won the war, slavery would have neutered their industrial capacity and made any large scale urbanization impossible. If I had any modding talent whatsoever, I would add a several new event chains to the CSA. A few states, mainly Texas and Georgia, debated secession from the Confederacy after the war had been won. Other northern Confederate states wanted to petition the United States to let them back in. Have the United States support anti-slavery rebellion in border states but take away their cores on the South to prevent total reconquest. Give the Great Powers a decision to intervene in the South to end slavery if rebellions get too out of hand. It would not be much fun for anyone wanting to play as the CSA, but it would turn North America into such a fascinating clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Not really, no. The idea of arming the slaves was a last ditch attempt to save the Confederacy proposed by General Patrick R. Cleburn. When word of this proposal reached Confederate high command in early 1865, Thomas Connally writes, "it was greeted with polite silence... and ignored". The Confederate Constitution was constructed in such a way to make the abolition of slavery as difficult as possible. Multiple articles in the Confederate Constitution make any attempt to pass or enforce anti-slavery laws impossible. I do recall Robert E. Lee endorsed the idea, but you are totally correct that the idea had absolutely 0 traction, and you'd be more likely to see an attempt at a CSA-Mexico alliance, trading Texas for it than armed slaves fighting off the Union. The only way I can see the CSA abolishing slavery and industrializing is this; either the CSA rises to great powerhood, and in order to maintain their ability to compete with the other great powers of Europe, painful attempts to force through industrialization lest they become the poor man of America, or they fail to reach great powerhood, and in order to protect themselves from the American giant, they seek a European great power to be their protector, falling deep into their sphere of influence. In the event of the former, I'd say the CSA should have two choices on how to do it: either max decenteralization; allowing states to abolish slavery if they so choose, but to prevent the American Civil War from happening a second time, reducing the federal government's authority so much it cannot actually ban slavery even if it wanted to. This would be reflected by having the CSA release each state outside of Virginia as a satellite, and each one handles their own affairs. The CSA is now a nation in name only, and is really a loose alliance of states. Further, based on whether Virginia remains a slave state or not, relations with states that have a different slavery policy will constantly drop. If it gets low enough, the state may rebel for independence, or petition to rejoin the union, and the CSA would need to fight the USA to keep it. The CSA gains a decision to petition the other states for centeralization, via a conference event, and based on how the states vote, the CSA either centeralizes entirely (all satellites are absorbed into the CSA) split opinion (civil war) or flat rejection (status quo maintained, relations with other states dips). If the CSA chooses to ban slavery but not decenteralize, and just force it regardless of the opinions of the other states, it either instantly triggers "The War of Southern Abolition" or every aristocrat in the CSA instantly gains 10 CON and MIL (I favor the former). If the CSA is not a GP and chooses to become a sphered nation of a European GP, if the European GP abolishes slavery, the CSA gets frequent events to either a) Abolish slavery to calm abolitionists in the European GP, b) Hand over a lot of cotton/money to keep relations calm with the GP without doing anything, or c) Refuse, and lose the protection of the GP, also possibly triggering a war with the USA. If the CSA does not abolish slavery and makes no efforts to, a new civil war chain starts with African-Americans, convinced the USA cannot protect them and the CSA will never free them, deciding to found their own nation. I'd say start in Mississippi, expand to a few states in each direction. I mainly suggest these because I think I could reasonably know how to code these  .
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
The fact that there were multiple well-respected professionals within the Confederacy willing to say 'we should really emancipate the slaves and focus on freedom' really just establishes how deeply the Aristocracy had sold the 'states rights' argument to them in order to trick them into fighting a war that was in reality entirely about perpetuating slavery.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
I finally understand Victoria 2 mostly! I've owned the game since it first came out but never really got into it. Now what are protectorates and puppets? I'm trying to create a wargoal for an African minor in NNM, and I have an option for either one. Which one do I use if I want to get the African coal in my market?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Protectorates are colonies, puppets are.. puppets.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:I finally understand Victoria 2 mostly! I've owned the game since it first came out but never really got into it. Protectorate will give you control of their land as a colonial state. Puppet basically turns them into a client state of your own with an automatic defensive alliance. You have to be a GP and sphere them in order to simply get dibs on their resources.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:I finally understand Victoria 2 mostly! I've owned the game since it first came out but never really got into it. A protectorate is a polite term for a colony, which in turn is a polite term for annexation. Puppets, on the other hand, retain independence as a nation, but are automatically given to your sphere and have powerful bonuses allowing you to keep them in your sphere with little fuss. Also, they do pretty much whatever you want diplomatically. So if you're a GP, both works, but if you're not you may be better off with the protectorate. Edit: gently caress, beaten like an African minor.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
uPen posted:Words on the UI Pretty much agree with this 100%. They revamped the colonial system without really doing anything to represent the new system on the UI and upgrading is still way too tedious. You can't check which provinces are or aren't building forts, you can't see if your Capis have any pending projects that you could be funding without going into the Projects tab of the Production screen, and the game badly needs toggles to just upgrade everything as hard and fast you can afford it. For the mechanized mining and other event spam, I did make mention of this a little earlier: quote:On V2 mods, I found this fairly small "quick fix" mod with a couple of good ideas:
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
So I control a huge chunk of africa and Egypt. I really only care to get a reliable cotton supply and some tropical wood and coffee as a bonus. Am I better off releasing them as puppets/dominions or what ever? What are the upsides/downsides? With every province at only 15-25% admin efficiency does that mean I'm barely getting taxes? Is there even any way to see exactly how a province/state is actually contributing?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
uPen posted:
I can see the logic for this actually, from a real-world standpoint. I understand a "dominion" in the sense of British colonies experiences at the turn of the century, where they are effectively self-governing, this being a critical difference between a dominion and a colony. If the British had "released" India as a self-governing centralised country and it industrialised and grew its military to the point where it could be considered a "great power" by the standards of this game, I highly doubt the Indian people would have been content to consider themselves a "dominion" of the British. In Australia and Canada's cases they couldn't be considered "great powers" by the standards of V2 but they became effectively independent eventually in any event. I think the game encouraging releasing smaller chunks of land as dominions is appropriate for this reason, however the problem is that there is no way to release land in chunks except by doing it as you colonise and go along. The problem is that historically large swathes of lands were annexed/colonised and administered centrally for many decades and it was only much, much later that colonies were permitted limited self-governance, in the case of many African colonies, not until the 1950s onwards, well after the game's timeframe. If there weren't cores in South Africa to allow a British player to release SA as a dominion by itself, then a Britain with historical borders would have to release Rhodesia along with it. The answer is therefore adding cores approximating African states (somewhat deterministic) or to allow players to choose what is released as a dominion or not. Incidentally, if they create an interface to allow players to choose what is released as a dominion, can they also allow players to choose what states/provinces are released as puppets? It would be nice as Austria for example to be able to release a modern day-sized Hungary without having to release half of Croatia, Serbia and Romania as well. Clapham Omnibus fucked around with this message at 18:28 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Pretty much agree with this 100%. They revamped the colonial system without really doing anything to represent the new system on the UI and upgrading is still way too tedious. You can't check which provinces are or aren't building forts, you can't see if your Capis have any pending projects that you could be funding without going into the Projects tab of the Production screen, and the game badly needs toggles to just upgrade everything as hard and fast you can afford it. If they want to make V2 a GREAT game, I think they need to make it much easier to find useful information. Like being able to find out what goods and how many a country produces for the purpose of sphering. You can find out the top five producers of a good, but most of the time those are great powers or China, so that doesn't do you any good. There's the RGO output mapmode, but even with that you have to hunt down a province producing that good first. I wish there was just a button on the goods detail window to automatically display which provinces produce it. Also speaking of sphering, that whole system needs to be revamped I think. It's just so god awful boring.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If they want to make V2 a GREAT game, I think they need to make it much easier to find useful information. Like being able to find out what goods and how many a country produces for the purpose of sphering. You can find out the top five producers of a good, but most of the time those are great powers or China, so that doesn't do you any good. There's the RGO output mapmode, but even with that you have to hunt down a province producing that good first. I wish there was just a button on the goods detail window to automatically display which provinces produce it. All in all I hope the next expansion deals with the economy. It's already pretty complex, but most of the stuff happens behind the scenes and is out of your hands. You had more influence in EU3.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
e X posted:All in all I hope the next expansion deals with the economy. It's already pretty complex, but most of the stuff happens behind the scenes and is out of your hands. You had more influence in EU3. It's a total black box for me. I'm still playing France in my HoD game and it's like 1915 and I'm the #1 industrial power in the world and have been for some time. GOD KNOWS HOW?! My total 100% interaction with the economy was to drop a few basic industry national focuses and leave them untouched. I've never looked at any factory, RGO, input, output, pop or whatever. My goal on acquiring land in Africa was pretty borders, and the only spheres I have is Columbia so I could build the Panama canal.  I mean it's nice that someone really micro focused could turn Krakow into a industrial powerhouse by knowing what they're doing, but in my opinion if a Great Power in the game can become and maintain the number one industrial position without ever interacting with the industrial/goods side of the game at all then that part of the game is fundamentally flawed.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Mainland France is pretty much perfect resource-wise for the start of the game. All the prestige from events and such ensures you stay ahead and get anything you want/need off the world market throughout the game as well. France and the UK both would have to be purposely steered the wrong way to end up going bad I would think.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Carver posted:Mainland France is pretty much perfect resource-wise for the start of the game. All the prestige from events and such ensures you stay ahead and get anything you want/need off the world market throughout the game as well. If you crush France decisively in one war they seem to collapse hard. In my game they spent the last 60 years of the game flipping between communist dictatorships, fascist dictatorships and a democracy every few years. I don't think I saw mainland France free of rebels after 1880. Britain is tougher, if you can force them to release Ireland or take India from them they'll unravel. One thing I really liked about the British AI is if you sink their fleet they instantly sue for peace no matter what your terms are.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
While we're complaining about various things, I'd like to say that: 1 - I have no loving clue how to industrialize if I don't start with factories (or as Japan). 2 - I absolutely hate having to micromanage my sphere of influence, so I almost never play in Europe as a GP, and doing anything else in an area where the established GPs hang out is hard, since I don't know how to fight them. 3 - Most countries I think would be interesting to play as start with their economies as absolute poo poo, and of course, see point 1. 4 - Nothing much interesting happens outside of Europe + Africa. I'm still having a lot of fun with the game, but there's just so much that I don't know how to do.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
e X posted:All in all I hope the next expansion deals with the economy. It's already pretty complex, but most of the stuff happens behind the scenes and is out of your hands. You had more influence in EU3. Thinking about it, this system is kind of the mirror image of the current one. Instead of sphering a country to get its goods, here your attempt to dominate its economy would put it within your sphere. From what we've heard of EU4's trade system, my idea would just be an expansion upon it within the more detailed Victoria gameplay, so I think it's doable. Would be a major change though, pretty much a full expansion in itself. *at least in the perfect version I imagine in my head. Grizzwold posted:While we're complaining about various things, I'd like to say that:
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure they've said that they'd (ideally) like to do a fancier trade system for V2, like with regional markets and such instead of a giant world market, but that it would be a major enough change to how the game functions that it would have to wait for V3.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 02:25 |
|
|
DrProsek posted:NNM kinda fixes this by adding Rupert's Land, which the British AI frees pretty quickly, but it tends to release Columbia first anyway so Columbia ends up independent as soon as the war with Xhosa is over. Fister Roboto posted:If Karl Marx did not exist, man would have to invent him. The Narrator posted:This left me to think of the alt-history implications of a Confederate "victory" - read: not being eliminated. Considering the Confederate border stretches next-door to Washington, do people think the US would have considered moving their capital as a matter of security? I was thinking they might be tempted to shift their capital to, say, Philadelphia or New York. What else might happen as a consequence of a Union loss? Another thought just now was an increased demand to take more of Mexico and recoup the losses of the civil war? DrSunshine posted:Meanwhile, the Confederacy itself was founded upon the concept of state's rights to secede and associate. It's unlikely that it would have been able to maintain its cohesion were disputes between the member states to come up. This would have been added to the fact that the CSA was extremely underdeveloped economically, with slavery on the decline, and very poor industrial infrastructure. The CSA would have had to rapidly industrialize (unlikely, given the conservative government and aristocratic culture) or eventually end up as a dependent nation to the USA. It's likely that the CSA would have continued along as an independent nation for some time, until some crisis or dispute came up which would break it up. It's also possible that after such a breakup, some states might elect to voluntarily rejoin the USA, or bid for US protection while retaining their autonomy and government. LP97S posted:In some alt-history stories along that line, Washington remains the de jure capital while Philadelphia becomes the de facto capital with most of the government offices up there. But thinking about what you're saying it's a drat shame that Vicky II isn't that conducive to more alt-history scenarios or even randomized starts. Most paradox games seem to become more narrow in that idea as the years go by, from the relative openness of Crusader Kings and even bits of EUIII to "WWII must start like this" in Hearts of Iron. Patter Song posted:EDIT: worth pointing out that even in this scenario, the old slave culture would've been dealt a massive blow by the Civil War itself, as huge numbers of slaves used the conscription of their masters as an opportunity to make a break for it, and the USA would be happy to take in those ex-slaves as a way of dealing a blow to the Confederate economy. The CSA might end up forced to reopen the transatlantic slave trade, which would put it at serious odds with the British.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2013 22:02
|
|
