|
Mister Bates posted:Wouldn't it be safer to just puppetize/sphere all the little Central American nations separately, rather than merge them into a big bloc that can potentially gain enough power to be a threat to you? If they ever have a revolution or otherwise try to leave your sphere, it'll be a lot easier to re-subdue them if you don't have to fight all of them at once. NNM adds a decision to found/release the USCA if all of the former members are in your sphere. It's pretty handy. It adds similar decisions for other unions like Arabia and Italy I believe.
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Wouldn't it be safer to just puppetize/sphere all the little Central American nations separately, rather than merge them into a big bloc that can potentially gain enough power to be a threat to you? If they ever have a revolution or otherwise try to leave your sphere, it'll be a lot easier to re-subdue them if you don't have to fight all of them at once. Even combined the USCA will never really be a threat to Mexico unless played by a player nation.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
I beat the poo poo out of the USA as the CSA then turned my eyes on Mexico, now about to cOlonize. What would a colonizing CSA do in Africa 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:What would a colonizing CSA do in Africa Couldn't do much worse than Belgium.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
Enrico Dandolo posted:Couldn't do much worse than Belgium. You put too much faith in the humanity of southern slave owners.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:You put too much faith in the humanity of southern slave owners. Actually, I think it's more that it would pretty much be physically impossible to do worse than Belgium, short of just outright exterminating everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Whoever gave me that advice to play Japan to learn Vicky 2... High five damnit. I finally feel like I'm doing ok.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:You put too much faith in the humanity of southern slave owners. Yeah, no, the stuff Belgium did in Africa was pretty horrific. You know the whole thing in Rwanda was directly caused by their colonial policies, right?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yeah, no, the stuff Belgium did in Africa was pretty horrific. You know the whole thing in Rwanda was directly caused by their colonial policies, right?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yeah, no, the stuff Belgium did in Africa was pretty horrific. You know the whole thing in Rwanda was directly caused by their colonial policies, right? Holy poo poo. I had no idea.  Wikipedia posted:Through the forced exploitation of rubber, copper, and other minerals in the upper Lualaba River basin, together with the global rubber boom, huge surpluses were generated. Léopold II used part of this new wealth for the embellishment of his native country: the Royal Galleries in Ostend, the Palace of the Colonies in Tervuren, or the triumphal arch in Brussels were funded from the profits generated by the Congo. It soon became clear that these profits were generated on the back of brutal mistreatment of the local people and plunder of the Congo’s natural resources. When freaking Wikipedia calls your colonial enterprise a humanitarian disaster, you know that you're playing in the Evilness big leagues. quote:Congolese children and wives whose fathers failed to meet rubber collection quotas were often punished by having their hands cut off. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
I, for some reason, bought a book detailing the poo poo that leopold did in the congo and it legit made me depressed for about two weeks.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The Rwandan Genocide, you mean? That seems...difficult to prove, at best. I don't know if I'd characterize it as direct causation, but the German and Belgian policies of favoring the minority Tutsis definitely didn't help ethnic tension. They even did poo poo like make them wear ID cards stating their ethnic identity. I always try to remain cautious when drawing causal links, but they certainly made things a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Cityinthesea posted:I, for some reason, bought a book detailing the poo poo that leopold did in the congo and it legit made me depressed for about two weeks. Yeah I read a book on this topic too, ahh shoot, what was it called again? A House Divided, I think? I'm sure it'll come to me.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
Cityinthesea posted:I, for some reason, bought a book detailing the poo poo that leopold did in the congo and it legit made me depressed for about two weeks. Leopold's Ghost really did me in for awhile.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Defeatist Elitist posted:I don't know if I'd characterize it as direct causation, but the German and Belgian policies of favoring the minority Tutsis definitely didn't help ethnic tension. They even did poo poo like make them wear ID cards stating their ethnic identity. I always try to remain cautious when drawing causal links, but they certainly made things a lot worse. In the Congo, though, yeesh. That stuff was just monstrous beyond belief.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Holy poo poo. I had no idea. To make things slightly worse, note that the colony wasn't considered a Belgian colony per se, but the personal property of Leopold himself, with all profits going into Leopold's personal bank account to use as he saw fit. So Belgium itself was only enriched as much as Leopold cared to enrich it in whichever ways he wanted to enrich it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Defeatist Elitist posted:I don't know if I'd characterize it as direct causation, but the German and Belgian policies of favoring the minority Tutsis definitely didn't help ethnic tension. They even did poo poo like make them wear ID cards stating their ethnic identity. I always try to remain cautious when drawing causal links, but they certainly made things a lot worse. *or at least fearing they will be.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
So I've been playing a new game as Prussia. It went pretty well by early 1840s, I had founded the NGF and in 1870, had Greater Germany. I had to reload though the first time I didn't get to gobble Austria. But I've run into a slight problem during a crisis. I had a huge war with France, Russia and the Netherlands. Nobody likes me so nobody joined my side. At first, I managed to stop France at the border with my professionnal armies but didn't have enough troops to stop the Russia hordes in the east. Finally, I managed to mobilize enough troops to more or less hold the line around the natural borders of Germany, meaning the whole Austria was occupied, getting me ton of war exhaustion. I beat the Netherlands, advanced in France to get them out and turned my armies east, pushing back the Russian hordes and slowly advancing into western Russia. This took years of constant fighting. Sadly, at this point, rebels started to pop out due to war exhaustion and a falling economy. Sweden, in my sphere, helped me out by declaring war to Russia and I managed to get them to free Poland (the whole point of the crisis thing). But it seems I lost more than I won. By then, after a four year war, I was facing massive revolts, my industry scores fell apart as half my factories weren't making any profits due to blockade I believe. Thousands of craftmen are unemployed and joined the rebellion. I'd would reopen them if I had the money but I'm in debt due to the prolonged war, close to bankruptcy I think. Rebels from Jacobin to Reactionaries are shouting down with the Kaiser. Basically I won the war but just lost the game. I guess what would have happened to real Germany if they had won WWI but kept being blockaded. Should I just let them revolt and hope the new government fixes thing ? Should I borrow more money to reopen the factories and hope they get back me in the green to reimburse my debts ? How do you fight off both France and Russia at the same time without losing grounds ? My standing armies can't man the whole border and at max speed, I can't keep track of all the doomstacks.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
When is it preferable to take a nation as a puppet (or is it satellite)? When is it preferable to take a nation as a sphere? How about both? What's the difference between a colony, a protectorate, a full national state, a dominion and a satellite? Since I can only build big ships from states with level 4 naval bases that are in the same continent as my capital, what benefits does building naval bases on other-continent states provide me, aside from ship repair, extended naval supply range and additional colonial points?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
Just had a thought after a chat with Pattersong - would it make sense to require a state to have a certain percentage of population be bureaucrats/of an accepted culture before you can spin it off as part of a dominion? Since it'd be a bit odd for, say, the British Empire to tromp down to Africa, plant a bunch of flags down, and then proclaim "OK, you guys are all part of the Dominion of the Congo, now have fun ruling yourselves!" before leaving the befuddled natives for all time, never to return.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
mmtt posted:How do you fight off both France and Russia at the same time without losing grounds ? My standing armies can't man the whole border and at max speed, I can't keep track of all the doomstacks. You don't. There's a reason Germany lost both world wars, and you don't even have the Ottomans or Bulgarians to help you. I'd say either reload from way back and try to find some more allies if you're really dedicated to this game, borrow heavily and hope that works out in time, or pick your rebel poison. Tomn posted:Just had a thought after a chat with Pattersong - would it make sense to require a state to have a certain percentage of population be bureaucrats/of an accepted culture before you can spin it off as part of a dominion? Since it'd be a bit odd for, say, the British Empire to tromp down to Africa, plant a bunch of flags down, and then proclaim "OK, you guys are all part of the Dominion of the Congo, now have fun ruling yourselves!" before leaving the befuddled natives for all time, never to return. This sounds great. I don't know how well colonial migration works (I haven't played in forever) but .25% of the population sounds good.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
mmtt posted:How do you fight off both France and Russia at the same time without losing grounds ? My standing armies can't man the whole border Also, you don't have any natural points of conflict with the Dutch, so you can try buddying up with them. Once China westernises, it's a fantastic ally against Russia. Similarly, Spain makes a useful ally against the French, if only by distracting their armies for a bit. If you can persuade Britain to be friends (don't question Heligoland), the beta patch makes them actually useful. quote:and at max speed, I can't keep track of all the doomstacks. quote:Should I just let them revolt and hope the new government fixes thing ? quote:Should I borrow more money to reopen the factories and hope they get back me in the green to reimburse my debts ? gradenko_2000 posted:When is it preferable to take a nation as a puppet (or is it satellite)? When is it preferable to take a nation as a sphere? How about both? A colony is a state which you don't have full control over. The main thing is you can't build factories there, and having a colony eats up colonial power points in maintenance. Colonials can't vote, and several events and techs affect consciousness/military in non-colonial states, but those are minor issues. A full state doesn't do any of that stuff. Creating a protectorate is a polite way of saying you're going to annex some brown people as a colony. A satellite is a country under your control, which stops other countries doing any sort of meaningful diplomacy with it and gives you a big bonus to influence there. A dominion is a satellite, but one you released rather than one you forced to serve you. You can build light ships from overseas naval bases, and I like to have a few cruisers to pad out my fleets just because they use a third as much naval supply as dreads. I have no idea if that's particularly optimal. Also, just the extra naval supply makes it well worth building all the naval bases you possibly can. Kavak posted:You don't. There's a reason Germany lost both world wars, and you don't even have the Ottomans or Bulgarians to help you. I'd say either reload from way back and try to find some more allies if you're really dedicated to this game, borrow heavily and hope that works out in time, or pick your rebel poison. quote:This sounds great. I don't know how well colonial migration works (I haven't played in forever) but .25% of the population sounds good. Friend Commuter fucked around with this message at 09:44 on May 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:This image is the best to show what Europeans thought, cicra 1821 As erroneous as this map probably is, historical maps with population density are hard to come by.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Why not? Greater Germany shouldn't have trouble fielding enough men to guard its borders. What year is it? Have you kept military spending high to encourage people to become soldiers?  Still, in that situation you should look at how you can most easily shorten the front. If you only have historical Germany then just setting up a straight north-south line from Danzig and down is a good way to stop the Russians, even if they get to hold Prussia for a while. If France is the war leader, those territories don't count for much, and if not you can just take them back after beating France. Similarly, if you're a Greatest Germany (Germany + most/all of Austria's starting territory), you should set up a similar line from Memel and down, which means making a rapid push into Russia. This will prevent the Russians from advancing into Germany, while trapping some of their armies and letting you take their Polish territory. Also, since the war started from a crisis, you would have had some time to mobilize before the war kicked off, which should have filled out the front lines. Speaking of that, does mobilizing have an effect on crises? It really should have, since it's a major escalation. Friend Commuter posted:Don't fight wars at max speed. Problem solved. Also, I find it easier to keep track of wars when every relevant thing (battles started, battles won/lost, sieges doing anything) is set to pause the game. It makes big wars take forever to play, but it stops me getting overwhelmed. Friend Commuter posted:A colony is a state which you don't have full control over. The main thing is you can't build factories there, and having a colony eats up colonial power points in maintenance. Colonials can't vote, and several events and techs affect consciousness/military in non-colonial states, but those are minor issues. A full state doesn't do any of that stuff. Creating a protectorate is a polite way of saying you're going to annex some brown people as a colony. A satellite is a country under your control, which stops other countries doing any sort of meaningful diplomacy with it and gives you a big bonus to influence there. A dominion is a satellite, but one you released rather than one you forced to serve you. Friend Commuter posted:Between migration and assimilation, it's entirely possible to get majority-European regions of Africa by game's end, especially since the colonisable bits of Africa don't have anyone's cores.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Why not? Greater Germany shouldn't have trouble fielding enough men to guard its borders. What year is it? Have you kept military spending high to encourage people to become soldiers? It's 1880. I'm fielding about 140 brigades, half infantry half artillery. I can man the French border (they have part of belgium) with 30+ stacks but that leave me lacking in the east. Military spending is at 50%. I usually leave it at that, not sure if I should increase it. I'm on pretty good terms with GB but they didn't join in and since this isn't a Great War, they can't join during the war. I'll probably reload and bid my time.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
mmtt posted:It's 1880. I'm fielding about 140 brigades, half infantry half artillery. I can man the French border (they have part of belgium) with 30+ stacks but that leave me lacking in the east. Yeah you should increase your military spending, if you're Germany even on max it will probably be a fairly insignificant ammount.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
mmtt posted:It's 1880. I'm fielding about 140 brigades, half infantry half artillery. I can man the French border (they have part of belgium) with 30+ stacks but that leave me lacking in the east.  That's far too low! Pump that poo poo up as high as you can, no poor people are going to want to be soldiers if you don't pay them well to jump into meatgrinders. Germany in particular can easily afford a huge army, so don't skimp on it. Germany's destiny is having a military that can take on all of Europe at once, not being challenged by two "great" powers and the Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's funny how different people's play styles can be, I don't ever use anything but max speed, I just (manually) pause often to make sure things are still going according to plan. But hey, whatever works/is fun! quote:Yeah, that really annoys me. No way in hell would most of those areas become majority-European without the states being both downright genocidal and forcing all their poor people to move to a disease infested hellhole (from the perspective of Europeans who were unaccustomed to the climate and diseases at least!) And the natives surely wouldn't be assimilated into the same culture as their oppressors, so that's right out as well. mmtt posted:It's 1880. I'm fielding about 140 brigades, half infantry half artillery. I can man the French border (they have part of belgium) with 30+ stacks but that leave me lacking in the east. On top of what's already been said about military spending, by 1880 your army tech lead on Russia should be devastating. You ought to be able to win decisive victories with any fairly-equal commitment of forces. If you can't keep the whole frontline manned, you can hold your armies in reserve and attack the Russkies as they start to siege your provinces. Also you shouldn't be using just half inf half art. Throw a couple bridages of dragoons/hussars and engineers into each stack, getting your siege and recon efficiencies up to 100% makes your armies much more effective on the offense.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 10:46
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I would love to know what goes into a hand-conversion -- is just a matter of tweaking values in a save file, line-by-line, or did you write a program to do it, or what? From a layperson's perspective, it seems like translating province ownership, for example, would be simple enough, but then I'm trying to think of how one would go about modifying/creating every single POP in the world for Vicky 2... Thankfully I've already made a post about it, I've had some experience with creating an alt-history Vicky. ZearothK posted:This editor works for Rome, EU3, HoI3 and V2, it really should be added to the OP, since this question comes up a lot. POPAdjuster really is fantastic and makes converting POPs quite easy. You can set it to search for any provinces owned or cored by a specific nations and then change POPs (specific or general) by a percentage or even to other types. So say, for example, you have a new nation around Brazil that is meant to be densely populated and industrialized by protestants, so you can tell the tool to search for cores of your new nation, and then change all Brazilian POPs to your new culture and religion, and then increase population by 150%, and then you can tell it to convert 2% of the labourers into craftstmen so you have people to work in the factories. It takes about a minute, it's easier than blitzing Belgium. There's also the new Victoria II Nation Establisher. I haven't used it as it only came out after I was done with creating nations, but apparently it automates the coding part of setting technology, government type, literacy, names, colours, flags, political parties, et al. So it should come in handy. What I mean is that the modding tools people keep asking about already exist.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 11:06
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:If you can satellite a nation, and you're willing to take the badboy for doing so, then it's better than sphering them. You get a big bonus to influence in a satellited nation, which makes it much less of a pain to hold onto. How is satelliting a nation comparable with outright conquest, though?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Also, since the war started from a crisis, you would have had some time to mobilize before the war kicked off, which should have filled out the front lines. Speaking of that, does mobilizing have an effect on crises? It really should have, since it's a major escalation. Mobilizing increases the crisis tension by 10 for each nation that does it, I believe.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 14:10
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I totally get why they aren't willing to surrender to me, that makes sense and they are still sending soldiers out every so often so I get why the AI doesn't want to surrender, but my problem is the AI is sending me demands for peace that I gained militancy and war exhaustion for refusing. Good, use all that free anger to force through reforms!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks! I didn't know about the influence bonus for nations that are your satellite. I guess that means that I can satellite them, THEN put them in my sphere afterwards. This gets asked a lot, so here's a handy list to help you decide. Advantages of satelliting: - Significantly less infamy than outright conquest - The country is under your diplomatic control - Essentially perma-sphering, which gives you access to its resources - You can still build stuff there via foreign investment - No issues with nationalist rebels, this is especially a problem with civilized territories - The country will maintain a modest army of its own - Doesn't drive down average literacy (note, only civilized areas will do this if you conquer them) - Can create buffer states between opposing GP's - Doesn't take up colonial points (if unciv) Disadvantages of satelliting: - You don't get access to its manpower - Can't place NFs and tweak population - You don't gain any factories already in place - Doesn't gain access to your techs, so production probably be less efficient - Satellites build very little in the way of armies and count on you for protection - A revolution in either country will cause you to lose the satellite In short, it's generally better to conquer, the main reason for puppeting countries is if you just want secure access to their strategic resources and are wary about getting too much infamy / the territory would be troublesome to hold on to.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:Mobilizing increases the crisis tension by 10 for each nation that does it, I believe. Guildencrantz posted:In short, it's generally better to conquer, the main reason for puppeting countries is if you just want secure access to their strategic resources and are wary about getting too much infamy / the territory would be troublesome to hold on to./ pretty borders
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Quick question about Victoria 2 - as the UK I fought a war against France and lost. Fair enough, I'm terrible at this game. Problem is, I still had armies hanging around in France when the peace treaty was signed and for the life of me can't figure out how to get them back to Britain. Clearly (despite being able to disembark units anywhere) you have to own a province in order to embark them there. This is kind of a problem in this situation, as almost the whole British Army is now hanging around France and totally unable to return home. Disbanding them and reforming new units just seems so inefficient and wasteful. In the end, I had to march them all down to Gibraltar and pick them up there, but surely there's a better way of doing it than this?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Quick question about Victoria 2 - as the UK I fought a war against France and lost. Fair enough, I'm terrible at this game. Problem is, I still had armies hanging around in France when the peace treaty was signed and for the life of me can't figure out how to get them back to Britain. Clearly (despite being able to disembark units anywhere) you have to own a province in order to embark them there. This is kind of a problem in this situation, as almost the whole British Army is now hanging around France and totally unable to return home. Disbanding them and reforming new units just seems so inefficient and wasteful. In the end, I had to march them all down to Gibraltar and pick them up there, but surely there's a better way of doing it than this? Put transport boats in the Channel, order dudes to go into the Channel. You'll end up with boats full of dudes. Drop them off in England, repeat as necessary.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Put transport boats in the Channel, order dudes to go into the Channel. You'll end up with boats full of dudes. Drop them off in England, repeat as necessary. Believe me I tried. I couldn't get it to work. Maybe I'm missing something, I'll have another look.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Believe me I tried. I couldn't get it to work. Maybe I'm missing something, I'll have another look. Were the transports all in a single fleet and with enough free space to take the armies you were sending over? You need one transport per brigade you want to ship, however many men are actually in that brigade. If that doesn't work, I guess you could save a little time by getting military access from Belgium or someone. Although that's not an option if you've got to pull back from the British Isles or Japan.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Transmetropolitan posted:The Great Coal Crisis of the early 20th century is really annoying. Any tips in regards to that? I am Brazil, and the distinct lack of coal ANYWHERE in Latin America is frankly abysmal. I guess I will just add some in Colombia and Chile. This is one of the things I found frustrating about playing in Latin America. Even though there is coal in a few of those countries its very little in game.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:04 |
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Some people have mentioned they wish to see an LP of the game mechanics and stuff... I've been tossing around doing a VIC II LP... Do Hearts of Iron 3 instead please.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 16:03
|
|