|
Phigs posted:Russia is an autocracy so no elections. It also has a lot of really bad laws like serfdom that you have to remove before you can enact other laws so you can't just switch freely amongst various laws you want to pass. The aristocrats start with like 45% power and the intelligentsia start as marginalized. There's no way to have legitimacy with the aristocrats out of power. And legitimacy also tanks if you stuff a bunch of parties in. Here's my current "progress" on passing an end to serfdom: What's the stall chance? Why are you only posting one of the numbers affecting law enactment? Why didn't you cancel it when it first got a negative modifier? There are no elections so you can instantly just start passing the law again Have you considered passing laws that don't have huge stall chances? In Jan 1836, you can have 11% legitimacy with very low taxes and industrialists and rural folk in government, 1626 days between checkpoints, putting the first one in July 1840. Bolstering them+suppressing landowners+building more non-agriculture buildings would also bring that up once you're not in literally 1836, so you wouldn't need to gut taxes. Maybe get rid of peasant levies first, to get rid of the +25% landowner political strength, or hereditary bureaucrats. Landowners are only -5 for those so probably easier to keep them from forming movements against them. Also force their generals and admirals to retire (not sure if starting generals/admirals are random or not, but in the Russia game I started to test this they had a major general, a rear admiral, and a vice admiral, for +20% total) Why should it be easy to abolish serfdom when the landowners have almost 50% clout in your country? If anything it's too easy.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:There are easier targets than serfdom that can weaken aristocracy --- reforming away from peasant levies is one, just put an IG that supports it (military supports pro army, someone else militia) alongside the landowners into government (don't remove the aristocrats, that would make legitimacy too low to pass anything). Intelligentsia will help you get appointed bureaucrats. Wealth voting is another one; the landowners support it, but it can be used against them once capitalists and other rich classes appear. In fact, just industrializing in and of itself weakens the landowners, since a lot of their power derives from everyone else in the country being dirt poor and/or politically inactive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
It's ahistorical because if you were actually the Russian Emperor and tried to abolish serfdom in 1836, you would mysteriously die Joseph II-style. Reform in a backward, rural absolutist monarchy is supposed to be hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
megane posted:Wealth voting is another one; the landowners support it, but it can be used against them once capitalists and other rich classes appear. In fact, just industrializing in and of itself weakens the landowners, since a lot of their power derives from everyone else in the country being dirt poor and/or politically inactive. Yeah this is a big one, autocracy gives +50% political strength to aristocrats. To stick with Russia there are only 45.6k capitalists and 87k officers at game start, but 1.66M clergy, which is more than the 1.05M aristocrats. The church isn't that much better than the landowners, but this does let you divide and conquer, since the church doesn't care about abolishing peasant levies and hereditary bureaucrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
a lot of heavy reforms are, getting rid of slavery in my Persia game required an armed standoff with the land owners not sure why they were still alive after they backed down, I feel like a starting a diplomatic play against an absolute monarch then standing down should end with a chunk of pops disappearing as that ig gets made an example of
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:33
|
|
|
The opposition to changing away from peasant levies is even higher than serfdom. The stall chances are 39%. I've switched between them and agriculturalism (aka away from traditionalism) when they tank in chances. The serfdom one has multiple hits because I figured I'd leave it there to see if it recovered after the first couple negatives, but it just hit enough negative to hit 0%. Discussing different laws is kinda weird because every law that makes aristos weaker faces the same aristo opposition. There are a couple that are even harder because of the church or whatever, but the ones I'm talking about are just pure sristo opposition. The point is not that it's hard. The point is that it's random. It's not even that I haven't been able to pass a law. I'd rather be required to get aristo influence below 20% before I could pass any laws than to have it be this percentage chance. It does not feel good as a game system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
Morrow posted:It's ahistorical because if you were actually the Russian Emperor and tried to abolish serfdom in 1836, you would mysteriously die Joseph II-style. Well, it's interesting to bring up since it was abolished in 1863 by unusually reformist Alexander II (...who got assassinated, though not by hardliners) but the game does have mechanics for that --- if you have an intelligentsia tsar, you can push this stuff easier. Some people earlier reported having a Shogun like that helped a lot.... but unfortunately the 100-year reign bug makes it unlikely. Oh, and this makes me realize that assassinations from ticked off radicals should really be a thing in the game...
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Phigs posted:Russia is an autocracy so no elections. It also has a lot of really bad laws like serfdom that you have to remove before you can enact other laws so you can't just switch freely amongst various laws you want to pass. The aristocrats start with like 45% power and the intelligentsia start as marginalized. There's no way to have legitimacy with the aristocrats out of power. And legitimacy also tanks if you stuff a bunch of parties in. Here's my current "progress" on passing an end to serfdom: cancel the change, wait until the cooldown is over, try again with a fresh 30%
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
Morrow posted:It's ahistorical because if you were actually the Russian Emperor and tried to abolish serfdom in 1836, you would mysteriously die Joseph II-style. And yet, in my very first game I turned Two Sicilies into a shining beacon of freedom and culture with 97% literacy by 1936 (women's suffrage and multiculturalism passed in like 1860, landowners marginalized by 1850 or so). I kind of agree with those that say it's kind of too easy, but of course this is from the point of a Paradox game fan so I'm used to bullshitting my way around modifiers and the like. I wouldn't really want "oh I chose Two Sicilies / Russia / any other backwards autocracy, guess I'm stuck with no freedoms until 1900" either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Also landed voting would give +20 flat legitimacy instead of +30 when ruler's IG (ie landowners almost always in a monarchy).Phigs posted:The opposition to changing away from peasant levies is even higher than serfdom. The stall chances are 39%. I've switched between them and agriculturalism (aka away from traditionalism) when they tank in chances. The serfdom one has multiple hits because I figured I'd leave it there to see if it recovered after the first couple negatives, but it just hit enough negative to hit 0%. Dude your chance of stalling are higher than succeeding, why are you surprised when it happens. Also you don't have to switch, you can just cancel abolishing serfdom and start abolishing it again instantly in an autocracy. If you had 0% stall chance, sure you'd start with say 20% pass 40% advance 40% debate, but even if it doesn't pass at the first checkpoint you'd probably get at least +10%, even if that ight have a cost from a debate. But if there's a significant stall chance that makes things much harder. That's why you should get landowner clout down before trying to pass things they oppose unless you can keep them happy enough while out of the government to not start a movement to oppose you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
I mean I agree that law changes being RNG is lame. I do want it to be hard though, especially for the most benevolent laws. Considering what these countries were like it should be a huge and lengthy struggle just to liberalise, never mind going from autocratic monarchy to multicultural council republic. Making law changes a sure thing but with much stricter and easily identifiable reqyurements would be my preference. Don't totally hate it as is though, just what I'd prefer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
Phigs posted:
yeah if i'm trying to pass a law and it gets -dunked% by the RNG i just cancel it and try something else for a while
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:And yet, in my very first game I turned Two Sicilies into a shining beacon of freedom and culture with 97% literacy by 1936 (women's suffrage and multiculturalism passed in like 1860, landowners marginalized by 1850 or so). I kind of agree with those that say it's kind of too easy, but of course this is from the point of a Paradox game fan so I'm used to bullshitting my way around modifiers and the like. I wouldn't really want "oh I chose Two Sicilies / Russia / any other backwards autocracy, guess I'm stuck with no freedoms until 1900" either. Two Sicilies isn't particularly backwards, I don't think. You start with serfdom abolished, professional army, slavery banned. That's about as progressive as backwards autocracies get.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
I don't understand how much of a good a pop will buy. What determines if a place can grow opium? Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Nov 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I don't understand how much of a good a pop will buy. Plenty of everything, except for telephones if my current game is anything to go by. Please buy more telephones, I'm trying to fix my radio shortage here but all these telephones sell for like nothing. Baron Porkface posted:What determines if a place can grow opium? Wiz's whims. There's a link in the OP with an image of all the places the different resources can be found, including opium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
I could use some pointers on how colonization works, I feel like the game barely explains it. I'm playing as Belgium, it's like 1865, I've got a single colony in the Congo that is very slowly expanding because I don't have malaria tech yet. The progress bar on colony growth finally completed, but then it just began a new progress bar for another phase of growth. I think maybe the colony got a little larger on the map, but I am not sure. How many phases of this are there until the colony is done? What exactly will happen when the colony is done? My colony is surrounded by decentralized countries (or whatever the ones that are not filled in with a solid color are called). I don't seem to be able to launch a diplomatic play against them or interact in any meaningful way. Is there anything I can/should be doing to expand into them? I want to start another colony in the state immediately to the south of my colony, which I believe is in the same region for interest purposes, but the game tells me it is out of my range. What determines colonial range and how can I increase it? I don't really understand how I should be developing my colony. I built a couple levels of port and a dye plantation. People seem to be emigrating to my colony, but mostly not from Belgium and instead from various other European countries. I'm not sure if I can or should be doing more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What determines if a place can grow opium? The province list for each resource is hardcoded. There's a map in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Two Sicilies isn't particularly backwards, I don't think. You start with serfdom abolished, professional army, slavery banned. That's about as progressive as backwards autocracies get. Hm that's true, I think I haven't yet played a truly full-backwards place - Japan starts with some liberties too like freedom of conscience and stuff. Still, Two Sicilies is a far cry from the actual decent-from-the-start places like Sweden, and it's not particularly hard to turn it into a complete freedomland in about half the game's timeframe - if luck is on your side with laws enactment randomness, and you can spin a bunch of plates at once, that is I'd also want to remove some randomness, but I feel it depicts politics quite well (even when everything seems like it should work well, it often doesn't) and if you really stack your chances via bolstering/suppressing, having the proper IGs in government, and doing what you can to push their clout in the right direction, you can almost ensure a law will pass. Sometimes you have to go in steps - I think almost no one's going from land-based taxation straight to proportional taxation, most often you'd have to first grab per-capita and so on. I would dislike a "you have fulfilled some conditions, now you can click button and have law instantly". The way it is now it feels like you have to actively work for it and there's a lot of moving parts that might or might not help/hinder whatever law you want to pass at the moment, if say enacting multiculturalism is just "have X number of discriminated culture pops, marginalize landowners, click button" it'd feel a lot less involved to me. Maybe they can figure out a better way to do it though, I'm no game designer
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:27
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I don't understand how much of a good a pop will buy. For goods I found it more useful to look at the market screen and just produce whatever had the most inflated price. For opium:  (More in the OP)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:I could use some pointers on how colonization works, I feel like the game barely explains it. I'm playing as Belgium, it's like 1865, I've got a single colony in the Congo that is very slowly expanding because I don't have malaria tech yet. Each state is composed of a bunch of mini-provinces. When colonizing, you simply gobble them up one at a time. There's no colonial range - you're just limited by declaring interest in various regions. Decentralized states are just your colonial free real estate zone, them formally being countries only matters for the scope of eventual rebellions/military interventions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
I was able to form Arabia as Egypt which has been a huge turnaround, the intelligensia and industrialists had much more wealth in my puppets so with them integrated I was able to end serfdom in the 1870s. The landowners are down to about 30 percent clout after that, a few more years of chipping away at them and I think I can introduce some kind of republic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
Phigs posted:The opposition to changing away from peasant levies is even higher than serfdom. The stall chances are 39%. I've switched between them and agriculturalism (aka away from traditionalism) when they tank in chances. The serfdom one has multiple hits because I figured I'd leave it there to see if it recovered after the first couple negatives, but it just hit enough negative to hit 0%. Discussing different laws is kinda weird because every law that makes aristos weaker faces the same aristo opposition. There are a couple that are even harder because of the church or whatever, but the ones I'm talking about are just pure sristo opposition. Making it deterministic is what sounds lame to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
I kinda dislike both solutions. The percentage-chance method means you can just get unlucky over and over and stuff that ought to pass doesn't, while a deterministic method would mean you start every Ottoman game by following the same steps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
on one hand rolling to 99% as prussia passing national guard feels really bad otoh rolling the 20% chance to ban slavery as america feels real good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
I've played X-Com games all my life, I'm used to it by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:There's no colonial range - you're just limited by declaring interest in various regions. What is blocking me from reaching this state then?  It's immediately adjacent to my existing colony and I have an interest in the region.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
I finally found a scenario where Graduated Taxation gave more income than Proportional Taxation: in a worker's council republic, at the lowest possible tax rate. Unfortunately by this point the Trade Unions had 0% clout due to overflow so I couldn't really try it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What is blocking me from reaching this state then? did you just place the interest? it takes a little time to lock in
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
ItohRespectArmy posted:did you just place the interest? it takes a little time to lock in Years ago at this point, and it's in the same interest region (?) as my adjacent colony as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Years ago at this point, and it's in the same interest region (?) as my adjacent colony as far as I can tell. I did run into a bug once where I couldn't colonize in a region where I had an interest, and it seemed like the AI couldn't either because Papua remained uncolonized until the end of the game. Though in my scenario the tooltip just kept claiming I didn't have an interest in the region, though I did because I held states elsewhere in Oceania (and thus couldn't declare or remove interests in the region).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Years ago at this point, and it's in the same interest region (?) as my adjacent colony as far as I can tell. probably just a bug in that case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:What is blocking me from reaching this state then? Kongo is not a decentralized nation. You have to invade them, not colonize them. Then you should be able to colonize the rest of the region.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Kongo is not a decentralized nation. You have to invade them, not colonize them. Then you should be able to colonize the rest of the region.  Their map color is so light that I didn't notice they weren't decentralized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
Gort posted:For goods I found it more useful to look at the market screen and just produce whatever had the most inflated price. - Turkey was a producer of opium at the time - Opium production has happened in Mexico and Colombia - The plant itself can be grown in most of the world I can see an argument for not just going hog wild and letting people grow it anywhere between 60° north and south, but at very least have the potential in Mexico and Colombia too to service local markets. Like, this is a gardening simulator, seems crazy to not allow you to plant pretty flowers if the conditions are right for it, even more so if those flowers were planted there in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
If you could grow opium in more in-game places you would have less incentive to do imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:If you could grow opium in more in-game places you would have less incentive to do imperialism. I can see the logic, though with opium you can usually grab one state in Egypt or SE Asia and be set for the whole game. Rubber and oil are far more enticing incentives to do imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Phigs posted:The opposition to changing away from peasant levies is even higher than serfdom. The stall chances are 39%. I've switched between them and agriculturalism (aka away from traditionalism) when they tank in chances. The serfdom one has multiple hits because I figured I'd leave it there to see if it recovered after the first couple negatives, but it just hit enough negative to hit 0%. Discussing different laws is kinda weird because every law that makes aristos weaker faces the same aristo opposition. There are a couple that are even harder because of the church or whatever, but the ones I'm talking about are just pure sristo opposition. why are my extremely powerful aristocracy opposing changes that would weaken them!!! fix it!! lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:If you could grow opium in more in-game places you would have less incentive to do imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I did run into a bug once where I couldn't colonize in a region where I had an interest, and it seemed like the AI couldn't either because Papua remained uncolonized until the end of the game. Though in my scenario the tooltip just kept claiming I didn't have an interest in the region, though I did because I held states elsewhere in Oceania (and thus couldn't declare or remove interests in the region).
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
Eiba posted:Papua is in Indonesia, not Oceania. It's also got some hardcore malaria and you need the hardcore anti-malarials to actually colonize it so it's often free until late. It's got rubber and dyes though, so it's not a bad choice, especially if you have colonies in Oceania. Well, either way I couldn't select an interest Papua because the area was already an interest (I think I am just misremembering the region). I did successfully take control of it in a later game, but in this particular game nobody ever got it, and not for lack of me trying. I won't rule out the possibility of me loving up, but I do know that the error message claimed I didn't have an interest in the region while the region was filled in on my declare interests selection. Magil Zeal fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 17:51
|
|