|
buglord posted:Do the buildings I build influence the clout of certain IGs? I still don’t quite figure out how IGs work, how their strength is determined from “wealth”, how that bleeds into clout and election momentum. The whole thing is a black box for me. Buildings and their production methods increase the number of pops with certain jobs, and the job they hold generally determines their interest group (though it's not 1 to 1, I don't know what other factors play into that) Laws are the most important modifiers to a group's political strength, mainly the Distribution of Power category but a number of other laws also have modifiers. Political Strength is a number, and Clout is a percentage of the sum total of Political Strength in the country
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
buglord posted:Do the buildings I build influence the clout of certain IGs? I still don’t quite figure out how IGs work, how their strength is determined from “wealth”, how that bleeds into clout and election momentum. The whole thing is a black box for me. Generally, yes, depending on what PMs you're using. Keep in mind every building has employees, and (assuming the building runs a profit or is subsidised) those employees get paid, which contributes to their wealth and subsequently their clout. A simple example is Servicemen and Officers. Your naval bases and barracks employ servicemen and officers, who would be in some other line of work (or would be forced into one anyway) if the barracks didn't exist. Your military funding in turn affects their salary. You jack up the funding, your servicemen and officers will get more money and so more clout. You slash the funding and they will lose power. Your PMs can also tweak your proportions: as you increase Naval Traditions (the purple one), you'll be employing slightly more officers and less servicemen, so the balance of that salary money will shift more towards the officers as you adopt new PMs. Those pops support varying IGs to different degrees, so favouring officers over servicemen may also slightly contribute to empowering the Landowners (after Armed Forces, Landowners are the second-largest tendency for officers). Other buildings work the same: who works there (and in what proportions) affects where the salaries and dividends go, which affects who in your country has money and power. The Narrator fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Kalko posted:Yeah, I see what I did wrong now. I had Guaranteed Liberties and I'm pretty sure the Industrialists and Intelligentsia were both loyal (is that what you mean by loyalist or are loyalists spread throughout the whole population?) but I slammed the Landowners, Clergy, and usually the PB at every opportunity thinking I didn't have to worry about them once they had no clout. loyalists are the number in the top bar next to radicals, right below your weekly income/deficit. they are spread through the population and pops mostly turn loyalist because you've raised their standard of living, with guaranteed liberties dramatically increasing loyalist generation due to increased standard of living. if you pass guaranteed liberties after most of your pops are well-off because it seems like a low priority law compared to all of the other stuff you can fiddle with, it won't generate that many loyalists compared to doing it while they're poor and then making them comfortable. interest groups get bonus approval toward you if their members are loyalists. even members of an IG that hates you can be loyalist, and in enough numbers they can make the IG not hate you as much, which can be the difference between revolution and them just simmering in anger without doing anything. japan probably can't build enough farms to completely eliminate the peasants, india and east asia in general have way more arable land than the rest of the world. you don't really need to bother, just keep building stuff and employing people and the peasants will leave their subsistence farms for better buildings buglord posted:Do the buildings I build influence the clout of certain IGs? I still don’t quite figure out how IGs work, how their strength is determined from “wealth”, how that bleeds into clout and election momentum. The whole thing is a black box for me. no, buildings themselves don't matter, but which pops they employ and how much they're paying those pops does. production methods change the class structure of a building's employment - firing laborers and hiring clerks, that sort of thing, which will lead to the pops of the professions employed in the building earning wealth and therefore boosting the clout of their chosen IG. in general the production methods are geared to move you toward your politics being dominated by the industrialists and the unions over time in a standard capitalist economy with fairly liberal laws, but start off favoring nobles, clergy, etc.; the intelligentsia and armed forces are mostly going to be drawing government wages which you set yourself in the budget tab, so if you want them strong pay them well and if you want them weak, well, don't. clout is the percentage of political strength that a particular IG has. it's probably easiest to just think of wealth as directly affecting clout because political strength is just an intermediate number that doesn't affect anything independently afaik. election momentum is a black box that might be bugged at the moment. paradox is going to fix the slowdown in the next patch, it has to do with pop splitting due to migration Jazerus fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
I’m phone posting so quoting and snipping is hard but I want to thank everyone who answered my pop question. Y’all answered it way easier and more succinctly than a lot of the 40 minute YouTube videos I’ve been going through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
the youtubers are by and large not wrapping their brains around the subtle parts of the game yet. they tend to do dumb poo poo like pay their bureaucrats and military poorly because it "saves money" without thinking about how it's going to affect the actual pops
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Paying less government wages doesn't even work very well to save money if you're a domestic consumption based economy. I was having money troubles in such an economy and all turning down government pay did was lower my income a little because it just hurt my economy for them to have less money to spend on poo poo I make for the purpose of selling to them. A great money saver is to cut military wages and/or change all your armies into skirmisher irregulars temporarily so they don't use any materiel. Unless of course you have a robust internal arms industry or you need to fight someone soon. I think it works for military because you have relatively few of them and they're higher pay. With government workers you'll have quite a lot more of them, especially if you go out of your way to replace the clergy with clerks everywhere you can because gently caress the clergy just let me get multiculturalism it's good for the economy goddamnit. Phigs fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Buildings and their production methods increase the number of pops with certain jobs, and the job they hold generally determines their interest group (though it's not 1 to 1, I don't know what other factors play into that) there's between two to four different groups each pop can join and it's more or less a dice roll each time one is created. so for farmers they're heavily weighted towards green folk, but can also go religious or side with the landowners. location also plays a factor, so a labourer employed in an urban job can become a trade unionist as can miners and loggers but working on a plantation or farm limits their potential to religious or green. as far as I can tell the type of education they receive doesn't enter into it, so there's no chance of religious machinists or anything like that, which is kinda a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:18
|
|
|
buglord posted:Do the buildings I build influence the clout of certain IGs? I still don’t quite figure out how IGs work, how their strength is determined from “wealth”, how that bleeds into clout and election momentum. The whole thing is a black box for me. gently caress being succinct, lol Buildings have jobs, like "Laborer" or "Machinist" or "Clergy" or "Shopkeeper" or "Aristocrat" or "Capitalist." These jobs are split into lower strata, which gets base wage, middle strata, which gets a multiplier of base wage, and, under most circumstances, upper strata, which gets a larger multiplier of base wage as well as dividends, a portion of the building's profits. Once the building is built or any time it has open jobs, it will start hiring. The base wage will generally start at base wage (which... I don't actually know how base wage is determined) and hire as many people as they can. If the building still has money to hire people, they'll keep hiring until every job is full or until they can't hire any more people, at which point they'll raise wages for everyone working at that building and try hiring again. The building will keep raising wages this way until they fill up or become unprofitable and run out of money in the "cash reserve" bar, at which point they'll start laying people off. Any excess money left over once wages are paid and materials are bought and the cash reserve bar is filled is creamed off to the upper strata pops working at the building as dividends paid to their personal wealth. (Sometimes the dividends go to Shopkeepers, a middle-strata job, instead, and under a Council Republic there are no upper strata jobs and the dividends instead go to all of the workers evenly.) Each of these jobs can only be filled by pops of the same type. A Laborer job can initially only be filled by unemployed Laborers or Laborers working for less money in a different building in the same state. However, pops will eventually convert type to match unfilled, better-paying jobs. Pops generally convert to new jobs based on their literacy, personal wealth, and whether or not they're discriminated against. (You can read the specifics if you look at the tooltip for a job.) Pops will convert to whatever type of job pays better than what they're doing now; that's usually a higher strata, but not necessarily. Pops who are enfranchised and politically active contribute their personal political strength to an Interest Group. Disenfranchised pops include slaves, people in unincorporated states, and dependents (although laws can change this last one). Pops will often stay politically inactive if they are illiterate and reasonably satisfied with their lot in life. For those pops that are enfranchised and politically active, which IG they support is usually based on their job, although particularly popular or unpopular IGs or IG leaders might have some cross-appeal, and suppressing or bolstering an IG makes pops more likely to support that IG. Laborers and Farmers and Peasants tend to support the Rural Folk, Aristocrats tend to support the Landowners, etc. Each pop has a political strength, with a base value just from a pop existing, which is then multiplied by their wealth. Pops that are discriminated against get a large penalty. Your voting laws also modify the political strength of each pop, and IGs tend to support voting laws that favor their members. Clout is the sum of the political strength of all of the members of an IG, divided by the total political strength of all of the politically active enfranchised pops in your country, expressed as a percentage. (IGs can also get a direct bonus or penalty to their political strength from various events, and it's a zero-sum game: an increase to one group's political strength comes at the detriment of all others.) As a result, you can look at what jobs a building has, and determine roughly what sort of political tendency will emerge from that building's workers, because people will convert to whatever jobs need doing in that building. Additionally, as people become richer, they will become both more powerful politically, as well as more literate, and thus more likely to be engaged with politics at all. If you build farms, you'll end up with Laborers, Farmers, Clergy, and Aristocrats, pumping up the Rural Folk, Church, and Landowners. If you build factories, you'll get Machinists, Clerks, Shopkeepers, and Capitalists, and thus pump the Trade Unions, Intelligentsia and Petit Bourgeoisie, and Industrialists. No matter what you build, you'll also end up with Urbanization and Trade Centers, which also have IIRC mostly middle strata jobs (but I can't recall the specifics). Your production methods and laws can also change what jobs buildings use. Higher-tech production methods often involve employing more Machinists and middle-strata jobs, but oftentimes (but not always) fewer jobs overall. Switching your bureaucracy or religion laws can replace a bunch of Clergy with other middle-strata jobs. You can also have a more subtle effect on IGs by taxing things they consume (like luxury goods), or raising or lowering the pay of pops in those jobs (generally only something you control directly with gov't or military jobs). Slashing government pay can gut the power of your Intelligentsia, so it's generally a pretty bad idea if you're trying to liberalize. Your main tool for changing your IGs is simply to build buildings with new jobs. This is more or less a natural process of liberalization as long as you're mostly building mines and industry, because the workers in those jobs want more reforms that favor further industrialization as well as reforms that liberalize human rights and worker protections. (Except for the Petit Boug, who suck almost as bad as the Landowners.) A number of laws also have large, direct effects on the power of various IGs, and you'll probably want to change those ASAP, since the groups they boost tend to be regressive, like the Landowners, Church, or Armed Forces. You might not be able to change them right away, though, because those IGs usually get mad about their preferred laws being changed. (I could write a whole guide on which laws to change and when and how, but this is probably enough  for now.)Elections don't do very much at all, and Momentum is literally a random number determined at the beginning of an election. You can usually pretty much ignore the elections entirely unless you have a Presidential Republic, where they choose your head of state. (You get a large legitimacy bonus from having the IG/party of your head of state in your government, plus the characters themselves have modifiers from their traits that apply to your whole country.) Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:gently caress being succinct, lol Yeah but I still read this and comprehended it in 6 minutes rather than having to suffer a 45 minute YouTube tutorial lol. Much appreciated, thank you so much for writing it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 07:39
|
|
|
Ugh, ran into the first real scenario I actively didn't like. Chile just does not have enough people to do anything with, and I couldn't get into any markets really easily to suck up pops quickly. I probably could figure something out if I was willing to wait around not constructing things for a bit but that just feels bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 07:58
|
|
|
China is crazy. I tried to do Cultural Exclusion + Migration controls to keep the pop down but it absolutely does not stay down. I don't know what to do with all these peasants, there's not nearly enough raw resources to feed a manufacturing industry the size this population could work. I guess I could build a huge amount of farms and plantations with the work modes set to not use things like coal or engines? Dunno what I'd do with all that grain and fruit and stuff though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 09:40
|
|
|
Speaking of which, while I really like the economy system and its works, I am kinda bummed that it seems impossible to really drive the prices of basic stuff into the ground to make poor people happier without deathspiraling your economy and/or getting all your surplus hoovered up by the market / countries importing thousands from your market. I guess you could do it with infinite subsidies, but I haven't been able to turbocharge my economy enough for that I believe
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 09:47
|
|
|
Thanks so much for all the explainer posts on the last couple of pages, they're super helpful. I said it before but the way the buildings / economy ties into the political makeup of the country is so loving cool. Hey here's one that's still kind of a black box: Education access? I know it's to do with pops being qualified for jobs, but do for example labourers quietly skill up to be machinists, and then wait around for a machinist job to appear that they can immediately jump to? Also this ties into literacy somehow? One thing I realised that's kind of sad is that I never really look at the pop screens that much. I basically only look at that one tool tip that shows pop expenses to figure out what they're overspending on. I would appreciate some more summary visualisations that give a sense of the general state of the nation. Like I can imagine a cool screen based on this which would show how power and wealth is currently distributed:  It's a shame that Paradox has this iron dictum that all information has to fit into the little panel on the left of the screen. I would love some nice big, clear ways of visualising all this data. Phigs posted:A great money saver is to cut military wages and/or change all your armies into skirmisher irregulars temporarily so they don't use any materiel. Unless of course you have a robust internal arms industry or you need to fight someone soon. I thought I was being clever by doing this but bear in mind you get a really huge (like 75%) malus to your offense and defence values every time you switch out equipment for a barracks., and it takes quite a long time to burn off. It's not totally obvious either because you have to hover over the values to see it. Weirdly I don't think military wages has an effect on army performance? That seems like an obvious +/- 10% modifier to throw in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 10:32
|
|
|
fuf posted:Weirdly I don't think military wages has an effect on army performance? That seems like an obvious +/- 10% modifier to throw in. Not directly, but it does affect opinion of the armed forces which gives you a big %modifier to offense/defense when they're loyal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
I managed to successfully maintain central planning for three decades, and then torpedo it in half a year after a war, and I think I've found what kills it. First is that subsides seem to be applied after rather than during the main economical loop--if ie sulfur is high but not actually hitting goods substitution, then it goes down the chain of say explosives, iron and coal, steel, engines, electricity, electronics, government offices, each one paying exorbitant rates for the input and thus having to charge the same. Then, after all that's processed, the treasury steps in and makes them each whole. Breaking out at each step, so in the same example the fertilizer plant just gets paid whatever it takes to make explosives 6 coins even if sulfur is 10, would produce far better results: there were obviously other moving parts in play but the current system seems to almost reproduce Gorby's mid-80s bookkeeping reform in the USSR, the one that also floated prices between state enterprises and then backstopped them with the treasury post-facto and led to the same sort of death spiral. The other is that sulfur is the true granddaddy good of the game, not electricity or coal or oil. It goes in absolutely everything. In tiny amounts so you don't see demand/price creeping up, and probably tend to go 'whoa poo poo I need twenty of something else to knock it back down'. But those 20 more factories will just stagnate further. And if it's hurting, you're gonna hurt whether in subsidies or radicals. Literal 750k swing in balance off a 1m state budget when I ate AI Qing's lovely mines, didn't pay close attention to what i grabbed, slammed everything back to dynamite, and then spiraled into insolvency--on a lark I declared bankruptcy and turned building back on, the five sulfur mines I'd pushed to the end because everything else had huge red digits but they were doing fine finished, and I was back at a comfortable 200k surplus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 10:57
|
|
|
had to abandon a Persia game because Italy wardecced me (the gently caress I ever do to you?!), they never invaded and I couldn't reach them because they were massive lost the war due to attrition from having more radicals, they got my two best provinces and I just quit
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 11:02
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:had to abandon a Persia game because Italy wardecced me (the gently caress I ever do to you?!), they never invaded and I couldn't reach them because they were massive Wait, what? Didn't they introduce a feature back in EU4, that made it so the attacker had to actually make gains, as a stagnant war/status quo would be much worse for the attacker rather than the defender? (Or am I misremembering? Pretty sure it was EU4, back when I played it years ago) Sounds like I need to wait a little while before diving into V3
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 11:31
|
|
|
It's definitely there in V3, and frustrating the other way where your eyes are bigger than your stomach and you wargoal an island you can't land on and thus prevent the state next to you from autoresolving (or ever resolving if they have enough gold reserves). Guy may have just seen he was losing and capitulated, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
How do you stop a movement? I have a movement (enact agrarianism) with a medium amount of support backed by two of the smaller IGs in my country, and the radicalism is just slowly building, endlessly. It's getting to be pretty big after I've ignored them for so long, but I can't figure out how to actually appease them without giving in to what they want. Can I give the IGs something else they want instead to get them to give up on agrarianism? I've been trying to suppress the bigger of the two IGs (rural folk, at 10% clout—the other is the trade unions at 2% clout), but that hasn't done anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 11:58
|
|
|
They're mad as hell about a lot of things - find the biggest one that's not the reform they're yelling about, and do that. Throw money at them, give them nice jobs, turn the racism dial until they start applauding, if any of them will still join your government then let them in (governing IGs can't be part of movements). Alternatively, get ready for revolution. Or, y'know, listen to their demands and accept this as the will of the peohahaha nah, it's the carrot or the stick. Edit: with regard to suppressing the Rural Folk, that's not gonna do much, especially if their clout is already low. Clout is about politician capital - the peasantry's mainly supplying the body count here. Your best bet is to change migration laws to be more racist, and lower the cost of their staples/boost jobs for them. Freudian fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
Major Isoor posted:Wait, what? Didn't they introduce a feature back in EU4, that made it so the attacker had to actually make gains, as a stagnant war/status quo would be much worse for the attacker rather than the defender? (Or am I misremembering? Pretty sure it was EU4, back when I played it years ago) Sounds like I need to wait a little while before diving into V3 I defeated Prussia as Denmark because Prussia couldn't naval invade or walk through unaligned minors, so the war was like eight years or so of literally nothing - not even naval combat. Prussia ran up tens of millions of debt because Victoria 3 doesn't let you unmobilize soldiers (why is this not fixed yet?). It wasn't until the entire country fell apart that they thought peacing out would be a reasonable option. Honestly, like all recent Paradox releases, the bones of a Really Good Game are here, but there's enough jank that I'd give it a year if you aren't one of those that have been waiting since the Victoria 2 release for a sequel. Sheep fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 12:48
|
|
|
What worries the most is that ck3 was their best release, great bones, just needs more content... Then a year (Jesus I just looked it up, it's actually 2 YEARS!) have passed and it's still nowhere near as content rich as ck 2 was 2 years into it's life. I trust wiz, I really do, but there's so many game breaking bugs right now (I'd say the biggest 3 are countries not developing late game resources, late game slowdown, and wars that go nowhere/micromanagement of fronts) I really hope they can rescue it but at this point I can only call it 5/10.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:Ugh, ran into the first real scenario I actively didn't like. Chile just does not have enough people to do anything with, and I couldn't get into any markets really easily to suck up pops quickly. I probably could figure something out if I was willing to wait around not constructing things for a bit but that just feels bad. Eh, I played as Chile and focused on labor-saving techs whilst passing good laws. Kept trading and improving relations with GB, and was invited to join their Customs Union - at which point all the poor Irish and Scottish peasants started emigrating to me. Had more pops than I could handle after that. Sure, it's a small country but in the end game, most of the pop growth comes from migration, not natural pop growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:19
|
|
|
In my Chile game I never joined another market but I still got a huge number of immigrants. I think if you change to multiculturalism and no immigration controls then they can still come?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Sheep posted:Prussia ran up tens of millions of debt because Victoria 3 doesn't let you unmobilize soldiers (why is this not fixed yet?). This was actually a deliberate design decision early on - the idea is that mobilizing during the escalation phase should be a big deal, a major sign of threat while potentially locking you into a long and expensive war if the other guy doesn't back down. Being able to demobilize during the war would have gone against that, making the decision to mobilize one of no consequence since you can just stand down whenever you think you have too many troops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
fuf posted:In my Chile game I never joined another market but I still got a huge number of immigrants. I think if you change to multiculturalism and no immigration controls then they can still come? As I understand it, there are two types of migrations - one is the "mass migration" where you get a pop-up. This can go from anywhere to anywhere - Chile can get people from anywhere in the world come, as long as there's trouble back home. This migration is random, but your chances to attract such immigrants are greatly improved by being a nice place to live (Multiculturalism + Total Separation to avoid discrimination by culture or religion). By joining Great Britain's market, I was also able to access intra-market migration - basically, all the people from GB who would normally emigrate to Canada and Australia would emigrate to me instead. You don't need to do it but it helps if you get it early enough when there's not enough turmoil in the world to cause a lot of "mass migrations" of the first type.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
12Apr1961 posted:As I understand it, there are two types of migrations - one is the "mass migration" where you get a pop-up. This can go from anywhere to anywhere - Chile can get people from anywhere in the world come, as long as there's trouble back home. This migration is random, but your chances to attract such immigrants are greatly improved by being a nice place to live (Multiculturalism + Total Separation to avoid discrimination by culture or religion). yeah this makes sense, I was getting a huge number of those popups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
Tomn posted:This was actually a deliberate design decision early on - the idea is that mobilizing during the escalation phase should be a big deal, a major sign of threat while potentially locking you into a long and expensive war if the other guy doesn't back down. Being able to demobilize during the war would have gone against that, making the decision to mobilize one of no consequence since you can just stand down whenever you think you have too many troops. Being forced to keep your troops active because you're still at war with a third party who's not actively pursuing the war is very silly though
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
fuf posted:In my Chile game I never joined another market but I still got a huge number of immigrants. I think if you change to multiculturalism and no immigration controls then they can still come? No immigration controls and the pop that can migrate isn't discriminated against also helps. My Persia game had a big Kurdish migration with the starting racism law cause they were accepted. Agean90 fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Being forced to keep your troops active because you're still at war with a third party who's not actively pursuing the war is very silly though Just pointing out the original reasoning is all! Some tinkering is clearly necessary. Maybe if there's no active fronts and no battles have been fought for X time you should be able to start demobilizing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
so how does slave trade work anyway. I have a cunning idea for when the next patch hits and I restart my Persia game. The southern provinces don't have a lot of population and a surprisingly large amount of farmland, if I just crash build farms and ranches I should start improving more workforce to man them right? And if they do import more workforce and I hand out tools, do they get sold elsewhere or do they get freed
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
The one thing that bothers me about this game now is that I cannot use the USA's historical economic clout to peacefully control the rare Africa/Asia resources. My economy is intensely hungry for dye, my armies need opium, and I will eventually need rubber. Artificial rubber derived from petrochemicals isn't going to come until past 1936 so I'm entirely dependent on rubber plantations. So, at this point I have no choice but to attempt to colonize West Africa or forcibly invade parts of South America and the Carribean to get the materials I need. I would much rather be able to peacefully "invest" in some countries where they give US corporations access to certain resources, and we buy the resources from them at their domestic market rates vs global ones. Historically speaking the US has found ways to prop up their business interests abroad without having to necessarily having to seize control of countries politically. This has always been the point where a Victoria game breaks down for me. I'm glad that we have the ability to control where factories get built under laissez faire capitalism as a sort of "invisible hand" (that's how I'm RPing this) because leaving it up to the AI would break the game for me. Controlling trade routes and realizing I can't make other countries rich by buying their exports (because they're too stupid to build those industries up for GDP) is probably the most frustrating part of this game for me besides not being able to hit the Meiji restoration according to its historical timeline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
Yeah the game has a hard time modeling the sort of informal imperialism that the US developed in this period and continues to use to this day. We need the ability to do United Fruit Company and Standard Oil poo poo. Hopefully some of this can be handled by the foreign investment system they want to add but it might require a full expansion to fully develop a system to model this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:16
|
|
|
Patch 1.5: Say hello to neocolonialism!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
Yeah I stumbled rear end backwards into getting a lot of central Asia into a Persian customs union, being able to tell makhran to actually develop their loving iron mine would be great
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
I had to uninstall. Political Factorio is too addictive for me, and I wasn't getting other things I wanted to get to done. Very good game, can't wait for more story content.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The one thing that bothers me about this game now is that I cannot use the USA's historical economic clout to peacefully control the rare Africa/Asia resources. My economy is intensely hungry for dye, my armies need opium, and I will eventually need rubber. Artificial rubber derived from petrochemicals isn't going to come until past 1936 so I'm entirely dependent on rubber plantations. they mentioned foreign investment on the free patch roadmap so im optimistic a bit here. but i do want to see more AI development of these resources too, it's so frustrating they don't do stuff also keep an eye out on mods, some of em are looking at these issues Agean90 posted:so how does slave trade work anyway. I have a cunning idea for when the next patch hits and I restart my Persia game. surprising? iran is super agriculturally rich
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
I wish there was a way to rate limit construction automatically. Sometimes I want my construction capacity to be exactly whatever will balance the budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
My Egypt game has been a mixed bag so far. Usually someone is up for kicking in the Ottoman's teeth, either Britain to outlaw slavery or Russia for humiliation, and the Ottoman's will always back down without enforcing those goals so I can reuse that motivation for the next war. My attempt to gain recognition by going to war with Prussia has dragged on for 5 years because the Prussians have not built a navy so I'm just convoy raiding left and right, but despite destroying hundreds of convoys they won't give up. I sold part of the Suez to the French which just means I have to do a little more warring to form Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 17:22
|
|
