|
Elendil004 posted:Is there anything I can build to reduce turmoil in a state? Maine is real mad at me. If there's a lot of unemployment in a state, then building any building profiable enough (or subsidized enough) for people to keep their jobs is basically the only long-term solution to turmoil. If there's not a lot of unemployment and people are angry because of unmet movement demands... then no, not really, the only way to calm those people down is enacting laws that movements want.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Is there anything I can build to reduce turmoil in a state? Maine is real mad at me. cops guaranteed liberties also helps actually address the root issue by making people not mad at you anymore as long as you start improving standard of living once you have it
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Is there anything I can build to reduce turmoil in a state? Maine is real mad at me. Do it up like Spain did
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I do want to know if people with more powerful CPUs are able to do endgame faster lol, I know stux says it's a pipe dream but how can more FLOPS not be better I have played three campaigns and noticed no slowdown- on speed 4- whatsoever. There was a point in my first game where having the trade ui open created a lot of lag, but it was specific to that ui and didn't effect the tick rate as far as I noticed. 5900X e: I would not recommend this game to anyone until the war jank gets ironed out. It's like a glove constructed exclusively out of razor blades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
Pakled posted:If there's a lot of unemployment in a state, then building any building profiable enough (or subsidized enough) for people to keep their jobs is basically the only long-term solution to turmoil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
Stux posted:thats not what the nepmen were. they were private traders and business owners in a mixed economy. Which is exactly what '30 wealth' machinists are in a market-based workers cooperative system. Unless you think poo poo like Mondragon or Murray Goulburn are vanguards of the worker's struggle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:cops Seconding. Law Enforcement/Home affairs have no downsides (beyond the occasional "police brutality" event which is honestly not that bad), I try to prioritize techs/laws that increase those institutions first, since they'll smooth over all of the later reforms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:anyone have tips for Brazil start? What worked for me was mobilizing everything, in order to get the two starting wars done and over with as fast as possible. Focus on one then the other. Focus on the intelligentsia and screw everyone else. Ol' Dom Pedro II is your best friend here. Get rid of slavery ASAP, it instantly almost doubles your economic base. I personally dumped all the infra/government/education buildings into Rio de Janeiro, then slapped on the "Social Mobility"/"Grenner Grass" decrees and watched the huddled masses pour in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
I feel like secession movements shouldn't be allowed to have their own splits during the war of secession, or at least give me the option to take part in the war to reconquer them without eating a bunch of infamy. I conquered Dahomey as Great Qing. They start a secession, okay, fine, nobody is siding with them. Except they split into a military revolt, and after I put down the secession, I have to start a separate play to "return Dahomey" against the former split, and now some European powers decided to jump in and now it's a big war where I'm having my convoys sunk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:anyone have tips for Brazil start? Mobilize 2 armies and your conscripts to win the starting wars. Then go grab the gold mines from Bolivia/Peru and Argentina/Chile as your next priority. Literally carve out just those provinces if you have to, the gold is amazing. Beeline for the railway tech so you can actually have infrastructure in your mountain and forest states. Also, you are far more able to defend against the powers than you might expect because of your position. There's only so many people they can send in their little boats. Also, a trick for beating a far away opponent who has an adjacent state they can attack from without naval landing, say the British with their piece of Guyana, is if you wait for the last minute to send troops to that front the enemy will wait for war before they send theirs in, buying you time to take their as yet undefended state before their armies arrive. Leaving them with only naval invasions to get to you. Sulla's idea for making Rio de Janeiro strong with decrees is a good one I missed. A lot of your problems as Brazil early on are going to be infrastructure and population and that tip helps with both. Phigs fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
God, I had things I was supposed to do today. I sat down and started playing this morning and I just...didn't stop. I had a quick lunch but went right back to playing afterwards. Now ir's nighttime. The game has a hundred things it could improve on but the addictive nature of the game is top notch even with all its flaws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
DJ_Mindboggler posted:Seconding. Law Enforcement/Home affairs have no downsides (beyond the occasional "police brutality" event which is honestly not that bad), I try to prioritize techs/laws that increase those institutions first, since they'll smooth over all of the later reforms. Honestly, that police brutality event feels pretty toothless - and in some ways, kinda unintentionally (or intentionally?) disturbing if you think about it. As near as I can tell the best thing is always to step in and say "No, we can't be having with that kind of thing" and get a boost to the approval of interest groups. Sure, your policing level goes down by one step, but the thing is there's literally nothing stopping you from re-upping to the old level immediately and the penalties of losing a level aren't exactly that bad, so ultimately all you lose is maybe a little bit of time in which the poors aren't being suppressed QUITE as effectively. So in other words the best thing to do is always to make the right noises and fire a few bad apples and then go right back to business as usual. Really, really dunno if that's WAD or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
DJ_Mindboggler posted:Seconding. Law Enforcement/Home affairs have no downsides (beyond the occasional "police brutality" event which is honestly not that bad), I try to prioritize techs/laws that increase those institutions first, since they'll smooth over all of the later reforms. The police brutality event is kind of weird because you can just take the "reduce the cops institution by -1, make IGs happy" option and then just go and raise it right back up again. It does take some time to re-establish it but it's not like being at level 4 instead of level 5 is that huge of a difference anyway. Magil Zeal posted:I feel like secession movements shouldn't be allowed to have their own splits during the war of secession, or at least give me the option to take part in the war to reconquer them without eating a bunch of infamy. I conquered Dahomey as Great Qing. They start a secession, okay, fine, nobody is siding with them. Except they split into a military revolt, and after I put down the secession, I have to start a separate play to "return Dahomey" against the former split, and now some European powers decided to jump in and now it's a big war where I'm having my convoys sunk. See I feel like this should be a thing that's allowed to happen, it is fairly historical for big revolutions or secession to splinter into multiple warring sub-factions, but how it should probably handled is that every part ends up mutually belligerent to each other, so the war doesn't resolve until all sides but one have capitulated. That way if say, a secession movement has its own secession movement split off from it, the original parent country gets an "annex (second secession)" wargoal added to the original secession war, while that second secession now has to beat both the group it split off from, and the main parent country, if it wants to genuinely win its independence. Although I suppose this could create issues if the second secession capitulates before the first one, because the question becomes "capitulates to who", since you would have two different tags with the same wargoal to annex them. This feels like a resolvable problem though, there would just need to be some kind of consistent rule about who gets precedence when a side capitulates in two different wars at the same time (or just prevent any capitulation at all until all other involved parties are also at -100). The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
or you can just double down on the thin blue line and get approval from the armed forces. since their +10 loyalty bonus is a very impactful offense/defense buff, if they were at like +9 right before a war you could literally win wars with police brutality i think this is definitely an event that's Saying Something lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 03:38
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:See I feel like this should be a thing that's allowed to happen, it is fairly historical for big revolutions or secession to splinter into multiple warring sub-factions, but how it should probably handled is that every part ends up mutually belligerent to each other, so the war doesn't resolve until all sides but one have capitulated. That way if say, a secession movement has its own secession movement split off from it, the original parent country gets an "annex (second secession)" wargoal added to the original secession war, while that second secession now has to beat both the group it split off from, and the main parent country, if it wants to genuinely win its independence. Yeah, the issue is that as the overlord who is trying to annex the splintering power, the faction splintering in the middle of the war can end up doing really weird things where they somehow gain independence and there's nothing you can do about it. The country is an active warzone that's crowded with my troops, there's no way that they get independence other than via a bug at that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 04:01
|
|
|
Schnitzler posted:I think the trap factor stems from the fact that in other games, healthcare and welfare would improve some kind of happiness metric in your population, so they are always beneficial. But here, healthcare just improves your population growth. Which is great when you need people, but causes issues at a certain point. Same with open borders. I found myself going closed borders around 1905 due to being unable to build fast enough outbuild population growth, causing steadily rising unemployment. It's one of those cool mechanics that make me like the game when I think about it - rather than the Vic2 Strat where all you ever want to do is push up welfare slowly to reduce militancy and grow pop, there's a balancing act where being a welfare state has its own set of problems and advantages. In the end I dropped welfare down and as a result my unemployment dropped when everyone immigrated out, this spiking my SOL and bringing me back to balance again which I could build up (along with invading other countries in Indonesia for gold). RabidWeasel posted:It's very funny how the gameplay currently works as a minor, you latch on to a GP's market and get your economy turbo charged by integrating with it, but this causes you big problems further down the line if that market has any issues. This is a big risk factor for the "supply another market" strategy - I was doing great for a while until the British got a civil war in the 1890s and my SoL dropped 6 points and my GDP halved. After that happened I decided I'd built enough to be my own supplier and went for independence, which also cut my recovered SoL to a point where it took 20 off years to recover after victory. It's a fun concept and it makes for cool gameplay and decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 04:28
|
|
|
First time going full socialism as Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 05:33
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:See I feel like this should be a thing that's allowed to happen, it is fairly historical for big revolutions or secession to splinter into multiple warring sub-factions, but how it should probably handled is that every part ends up mutually belligerent to each other, so the war doesn't resolve until all sides but one have capitulated. That way if say, a secession movement has its own secession movement split off from it, the original parent country gets an "annex (second secession)" wargoal added to the original secession war, while that second secession now has to beat both the group it split off from, and the main parent country, if it wants to genuinely win its independence. Yeah, if it'd worked out that I was at war with the new faction with the wargoal of trying to reclaim the territory I'd have been okay with that. As was though, I have to finish the first war, reclaim the territory that's now split awkwardly down the middle, and start a whole new diplomatic play with more infamy to reclaim this new splinter (which only gets recognized as a power I can initiate plays against after I beat the first one). Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 06:19
|
|
|
infamy for small splinters is weird in general. i think there's a base infamy cost for a play and then a scaled modifier based on population in the state or something along those lines? but the base cost is too high for things like the US/mexico border where you might be claiming a tiny shard of utah to clean up the border gore and it costs 7 infamy
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Which is exactly what '30 wealth' machinists are in a market-based workers cooperative system. Unless you think poo poo like Mondragon or Murray Goulburn are vanguards of the worker's struggle. Stux posted:i think u and the other guy just didnt know whaht u were takling about 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Which is exactly what '30 wealth' machinists are in a market-based workers cooperative system. Unless you think poo poo like Mondragon or Murray Goulburn are vanguards of the worker's struggle. no i think the 30 wealth machinists are probably just running machines and then going home to grill & chill, but in a nice house with a fancy grill because there's no capitalist eating the profit
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
OK, the war system is complete nonsense. Like I get how it's supposed to work, but none of the numbers make any sense and it seems completely random. I just got completely rolled in a 1 on 1 war against a country with fewer and worse troops than me. Absolutely no indication that I could have done anything better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:40
|
|
|
 Is it possible here for me to take over either Revolutionary Ainu or Ainu Uprising without resorting to war? I began improving relations but it doesn't seem to lead to any useful actions. Is it even possible to diplomacy your way to new territory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 08:45
|
|
|
To the goon who was making the post-collapse mod: your timeline is cool and scary bleak. That tells me a lot about what happened before the game begins, but what is your idea for what happens during a session of play? Is it about rebuilding the world? Do we colonize the wasteland? Is it about reversing the effects of climate collapse or is it about managing further decline? I think it's a neat idea and I hope it's possible to build some kind of nice solarpunk society in the ashes of the old world and isn't just misery porn.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
Kalko posted:Is it even possible to diplomacy your way to new territory? While I can speak to that specific question about the screenshot, I can answer this one: No, with a caveat. You can diplomatically add other nations to your customs union, and diplomatically ask them to be a protectorate. At that point, annexing them requires a play, which can result in war if they think they can win a war. A play can also result in other nations becoming involved. It's also only possible if you don't have a truce with them (and diplo-protectorate applies a truce) and your relations with them are below cordial (not green). Except for colonization or some country-specific event stuff, adding territory to your own country requires a play, which can always turn into a war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 09:39
|
|
|
Think my run for the Algeria achievement (become a great power and own Algiers) is doomed. It’s 1900 and although I own large parts of North Africa and have the 20th largest economy I just don’t see me expanding fast enough to hit great power by 1936. I am boxed in by France’s and Great Britain’s colonies and France has a huge army which I have to beat to retake Algiers. The only hope is if I can start a diplomatic play and and get the other great powers who are afraid of France to take my side. Fun achievement but quite hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 10:12
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:no i think the 30 wealth machinists are probably just running machines and then going home to grill & chill, but in a nice house with a fancy grill because there's no capitalist eating the profit That's right, because they're the petit-bourgeois wreckers. The means of production should be held in common by the whole of the proletariat, not carved up into competing fiefdoms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 10:53
|
|
|
I am trying out Lanfang and I got pretty far, but my economy is rocky as hell because Qing doesn't want to build any coal mines, and yet as soon as I started building my own coal mines they are now importing all of my coal. It's a very fun tag, though. Kind of interesting that the starting situation leaves the landowners with almost zero clout, but once you start taking over other parts of the island you pick up a lot of farms and plantations and it jumps them into pretty high levels of clout. I might wait until the AI gets fixed more before I play more, it's kind of frustratingly unpredictable/unrelaible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Command economy is such a pointless trap. I just did it for the Paris Commune achievement and my economy is a useless mess that only runs because apparently being in default doesn’t really matter. At this point I’m just running out the clock to get another achievement, while trying to get some combination of interest groups that will let me go back to interventionism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
MarcusSA posted:I’ve read a big chunk of this thread and watched way too many hours of YouTube about this game and I have to ask this, People generally seem a lot more positive about the game than me, I didn't read any info before launch though so only vaguely knew what to expect. Im kinda worried that the fundamentals of the game are gonna prevent it ever being very good. Nothing really matters apart from your own market and construction. It's cookie clicker basically. Theres a hundred menus so it looks complex but there really isn't much going on and I don't see a huge amount of room to improve things cause the fundamental is just making GDP go up and every country does that the same way. It's extremely barebones but also kinda limiting cause the whole game is based around one thing. That's just it as an economy sim, if you want it to sim like the time period or the effects of imperialism or industrialisation or anything like that, it doesn't even attempt to do that. Theres something about modern paradox games, theyr a lot easier to play but you play them for 10 minutes and realise the complexity is an illusion and the whole thing has been based around a very gamified system that doesn't quite work but was shipped anyway. Making games is hard mind you. e: im playing some now lol so it cant be all bad, but mind you ...  that doesnt mean its good but at its heart it really is an idle game built around HoI4's production menu and completing a HoI tech tree i like idle games well enough so imo its the second part thats the problem imo that system is very railroady so they are going to have to add a lot of very clever systems to add any kind of emergent or organic gameplay beyond "i overproduced fish resulting in a chain reaction and now number go down!" at the very least it would be nice to see an international market you don't control to have some proper trade but theres just so much in general they need to add and it needs to be good Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:People generally seem a lot more positive about the game than me, I didn't read any info before launch though so only vaguely knew what to expect. The main issues are that import/export is a chore and the AI is bad at building their own economies. Even then, there's plenty of good imperialism and the political ramifications of industrialisation in. Playing as Germany, I've done runs without colonialism and with it, and shockingly colonialism made things so much easier. Then I started to get in trouble with the other European powers because I was stepping on their colonialism, which feels very much in the spirit of Germany. Also got a lot of small quibbles like not being able to move generals between HQs (why does that even matter?) and naval invasions only matching to corresponding HQs (that is really dumb), or the equipment change modifier being so drat harsh when it should really just dramatically slow down your offences, the obvious performance issues, but otherwise, I think this game has a great foundation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
Star posted:Think my run for the Algeria achievement (become a great power and own Algiers) is doomed. It’s 1900 and although I own large parts of North Africa and have the 20th largest economy I just don’t see me expanding fast enough to hit great power by 1936. I am boxed in by France’s and Great Britain’s colonies and France has a huge army which I have to beat to retake Algiers. The only hope is if I can start a diplomatic play and and get the other great powers who are afraid of France to take my side. Thought it was only major power not gp
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
I mean all paradox games are based on a gamified system. They are literally based on board games. They just now aren’t as janky and poorly constructed
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
The reason for generals being locked to their HQs is for soldier origin locality, I think. So your soldiers from new england are actually based out of new england. I think this mostly makes sense pre-mobilization, but the inability to move your armies and garrison them wherever after they're mobilized is incredibly dumb, and I don't understand the reasoning for this. I'm not asking for traditional army control, but at least let me garrison another HQ or something. If I'm anticipating an enemy naval invasion for instance, I shouldn't have to wait for them to actually land before I can order my armies to respond. If I have a theater that's undermanned, I should be able to garrison it with more troops. I should be able to move armies from one theater to another just for staging reasons, e.g. so I don't have to do a naval landing all the way from new england to japan or whatever. And let me move troops to allied territory as well. Having fronts be your only possible target for army interactions is silly and downright frustrating. Again, I'm not asking for the ability to micro your armies. Just give me some basic controls that let me move them to different HQs or whatever. And yes, the rigidness of the landing system is just blatantly bad. They need to allow the navies to move independently and pick up armies from any HQ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:The reason for generals being locked to their HQs is for soldier origin locality, I think. So your soldiers from new england are actually based out of new england. I think this mostly makes sense pre-mobilization, but the inability to move your armies and garrison them wherever after they're mobilized is incredibly dumb, and I don't understand the reasoning for this. I'm not asking for traditional army control, but at least let me garrison another HQ or something. If I'm anticipating an enemy naval invasion for instance, I shouldn't have to wait for them to actually land before I can order my armies to respond. If I have a theater that's undermanned, I should be able to garrison it with more troops. I should be able to move armies from one theater to another just for staging reasons, e.g. so I don't have to do a naval landing all the way from new england to japan or whatever. And let me move troops to allied territory as well. Having fronts be your only possible target for army interactions is silly and downright frustrating. Again, I'm not asking for the ability to micro your armies. Just give me some basic controls that let me move them to different HQs or whatever. This makes sense for soldier pops and where they're based, it doesn't make much sense for individual generals though. I'd very much like to be able to move my best general from the Congo over to my Paris or Californian HQs. Garrison orders would also be really nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
They could pretty much borrow the orders from hoi4 but with some changes to reflect how Vicky doesn't have actual units. So the advance order could let you set a path of states to advance through or maybe just a target state(s) to seize, the naval invasion order lets you select a source and destination port, etc. State-level granularity is completely fine for the more abstract system. And perhaps instead of assigning generals to fronts, you select a bunch of states or an entire strategic region to be their "theater" and they automatically fight on all fronts that pass through it. That sort of solves front-splitting. E: and of course you should be totally free to move generals between HQs. Maybe on peasant levy you can't, to represent each general actually being a feudal aristocrat or powerful provincial governor, but all the better laws should let you move them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 16:22
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:People generally seem a lot more positive about the game than me, I didn't read any info before launch though so only vaguely knew what to expect. You're right in that the game is underbaked at the moment; there are a lot of little tweaks that need to be made to a large number of systems. I think overall though, the game has strong fundamentals. Much of what you're saying here is true because the AI isn't building its economy well. The systems are built to interact with each other - if the AI underperforms too much, then the complexity doesn't really show up. There are plenty of stories of players who tie themselves to a GP market and then find their economy implodes later on because something fundamental that they relied on dries up due to a war or some other issue. Once the AI's economy is more competitive (and there are mods that help with this - as you mentioned the fundamental building of buildings isn't that complex), then a lot more of the emergent systems will come into play. One thing that I think is fantastic right now is that the AI is able to navigate the new war system and present a meaningful challenge while projecting power overseas. There are still tweaks needed, like keeping a garrison at home (as hilarious as it is for Qing to invade France and take half the country because they sent their entire army to Indonesia, it probably shouldn't work out that way), and being better at naval invasions, but those are primarily tweaks, not a fundamental issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
I had a really mixed experience: on one hand, the game needs to stop crashing, and slowing down (it's November 1924, now let me finish!). OTOH, I had a fascinating experience: lots of trade with mega-Germany (Austria led, so it has everything Austri-Hungary did in our world) so when I went to war with them (protecting their indeoe attempt), my GDP crashed, rebooting the economy after was a challenge and left a huge chunk of the population ticked off. Edit: also limiting myself to diplomatically adding people to my market definitely makes things harder. OddObserver fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Thought it was only major power not gp Oh poo poo, you’re right. Ah well I won’t be able to beat France anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:That's right, because they're the petit-bourgeois wreckers. The means of production should be held in common by the whole of the proletariat, not carved up into competing fiefdoms. teh epic lenin av marixst cosplay guy who doesnt understnad the express function and design of the new economic policy and thinks the workers cooperatives were the reactionaries ftw
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 18:08
|
|