|
Freudian posted:Radicalised by shoggoth slave revolts Paging Anbennar devs e: I'm Carter from Innsmouth and the deep ones invasion dlc removed my ability feel human
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Seize the tentacles of production That Standard Oil poster was right
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 23:53
|
|
|
Qing's several hundred troops don't mean much when they're cut off from supply and still not using artillery, lol. Naval superiority is my favorite new drug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:Qing's several hundred troops don't mean much when they're cut off from supply and still not using artillery, lol. OpiumWars.txt
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
Is there a good warfare guide out there? Maybe with some emphasis on naval industry and combat? No idea what im doing in most wars and how to become a naval power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
buglord posted:Is there a good warfare guide out there? Maybe with some emphasis on naval industry and combat? No idea what im doing in most wars and how to become a naval power. I'm not an expert in naval warfare, but a couple of basic concepts: First, naval combat at the tactical level in Victoria 3 is basically land warfare but at sea. Discrete ships as a unit aren't kept track of, a flotilla is basically identical to a battalion and in battle works pretty much the same way. The main difference is in what they can do and how they do it. Broadly speaking, naval warfare on the strategic level is mostly about trade routes - in order to make real use of navies, your goal is to raid and cut off the enemy's trade routes while defending your own. This works by assigning flotillas to raid convoys in sea nodes that your enemy has trade routes going through - the more convoys you successfully sink, the worse market access becomes for any ports and attached territories that trace your routes through that sea node. So if, for instance, you raid the sea node in the western Mediterranean while at war with Sardinia-Piedmont, you can drop market access on Sardinia down to 0, ruining the local economy and preventing them from effectively transporting their goods to Piedmont proper which doesn't suffer a lack of market access but whose overall economy might suffer from the imbalance caused by low Sardinian market access. This does mean that land-based powers that mostly rely on trade with their neighbors aren't greatly affected by blockades other than perhaps for key colonial goods - the United Kingdom, on the other hand, can potentially be utterly crippled if you can sweep the Royal Navy away and set up an effective blockade around British waters. This doesn't just have economic effects, however - if the enemy has troops abroad they trace a supply route from the homelands out to wherever they are, so cutting off market access to the fronts they're in can cut off their supplies, applying increasingly stiff combat penalties until they're easy to mop up. So while a naval power may have issues affecting a land-based power, said land-based power can only successfully influence anything within reach by land - any attempt to exert influence outside of their borders can be stymied by by naval power if the naval power wishes it. The flip side of convoy raiding is convoy escorting - you basically pick a flotilla and pick a HQ for them to patrol to. Every sea node between them and that HQ will then be considered "protected" by the convoy escort, and if a hostile power tries to raid that trade route the defenders have a chance of triggering a battle - successfully fighting off the enemy forces them back to lick their wounds and prevents them from raiding convoys. Note that it's usually not possible to COMPLETELY eliminate convoy raiding if the enemy is making a serious attempt to try it, but convoy defense can keep raiding at small, manageable levels if successful. Because the odds are that if you're a naval power you have a wide number of far-flung trade routes, it's therefore not critical to have a single gently caress-off powerful fleet, but rather to have multiple reasonably sized fleets that can be tasked with both protecting your trade and striking at the trade of any rivals. At this point, it's worth pointing out that I haven't played with the latest patches yet but on release technology did much less than you'd think - a stack of 20 end-game battleships with maximum doctrine and training were regularly defeated by a stack of 40 ironclads. It's possible that the flotilla morale bugfix might change this somehow, but for now it's safe to assume that numbers matter and you should aim for each fleet to have about 40 flotillas - this is particularly a pain for large naval powers because a small country can afford to stick all their ships into a single fleet that's dangerous enough to force you to commit a full fleet to countering them, so if you expect to be up against multiple such nations you're going to need a MUCH bigger fleet to be sure you can cover everything AND still have naval power left over for offensive purposes. It's entirely possible to have the largest fleet in the world by a wide margin and still feel somewhat overstretched. At this point I should mention naval invasions. These are, frankly, broken in ways that both help and hurt the player. At a basic level, naval invasions work by having a fleet and an army HQ in the same location. If this is the case, you can choose to conduct a naval invasion using one of the army HQs located where your fleet HQ is, which takes a few weeks to prepare and then opens a battle in the targeted province. Winning the battle opens up a new front with your army HQ stationed there - losing it means your troops get kicked back to their HQ and need another few weeks of preparation to naval invade or go anywhere else. Now first off, you need as many flotillas as you have battalions if you don't want your troops to suffer crippling naval landing penalties - the more your troops outnumber your ships, the worse the penalty will be. Second, though, the front AI tends to go a little insane when opening up a front by naval landing - you can only open up one front with one army at a time, but because of the way the fronts get drawn it's not uncommon for your troops to expand out of their initial beachhead and immediately open up a second undefended front which takes ages for you to reinforce (being an ocean away) but takes much shorter for the defenders to man, which causes that front to instantly collapse until it rolls up the front you're actually defending, kicking your currently still undefeated troops out of the beachhead entirely and wasting your time as they're forced to hike all the way back home before they can invade again. To conduct a successful naval invasion, therefore, it is advised to micromanage the battle by setting the front to "defend" the very instant you win the initial battle, thus giving you time to ship in other armies so that they're close enough to reinforce newly opened fronts before they collapse. It's also useful to raise colonial troops and fleets near where you expect your colonial expeditions to be so that they can react to local situations without taking multiple months in the doing. If you can successfully land troops without collapsing your own fronts, however, the rewards are kinda broken. The AI isn't incredibly great at prioritizing if you already have a land front with them elsewhere, allowing you to spread in their undefended rear like wildfire. Even if you don't have another land front and they're slamming all their weight at your beachhead, taking only a single province in a state currently counts as 100% occupation of the state for warscore purposes - which means that if your target state is coastal or their capital is accessible by coast, taking a beachhead and then holding it defensively counts like gangbusters for war support purposes and allows you to win entire wars without ever moving off the beachhead as long as your tech is good enough to throw back any enemy advance. Overall, naval power currently has interesting concepts behind it, and it's probably necessary for any first rate GP hoping to project power or maintain any kind of colonial empire, but it's also weird and janky in a lot of how it works. The main thing to note is that it's basically impossible to have enough flotillas more or less, ever, and that however good the fleet is you almost certainly need at least a reasonable army to provide some punch as the navy along can't be certain to be decisive against certain enemies on certain battlefields.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
I feel like design-wise, ie apart from the bugs and AI, the way that fronts are implemented is the biggest problem in the game. They can be both arbitrarily long like when you're fighting against Russia, or arbitrarily short if the combat AI decides to create a bunch of pockets as it advances. I feel like a simple bandaid solution for the latter problem would be for troops to be assigned at the strategic region level, not the front level - I guess you might lose some depth, but you wouldn't have the problem of unavoidably creating 6 different fronts because your troops advanced in a weird way, which I think is a good tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
 Well I haven't seen this event before! That's one way to get rid of an old general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:
i hope they just add more and more victorian literature events. give me sherlock holmes investigating irene adler on the commission of a random european king. flashman bumbling his way through random wars and being absurdly racist
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 03:48
|
|
|
Persia game is fun, I have one political party and it has the intellegitas, the armed forces, the industrialists, and the trade unions in an unholy alliance I can only assume is based around screwing over the land owners and the clergy. I will feel bad when the industrialists get the boot when I pass proportional taxation but until then time to modernize my laws further
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Japan: Recognized. Austria and Russia: Humbled. Naval Superiority: Established. East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere: Greater. Fun game! Going from 'Oh god the Shogunate control everything aaaaaaa' to 'lol the Landowners just got marginalized' was pretty good. Slightly disappointed I did not go theocratic but eh the Meiji restoration event probably would have ruined it anyway. Slow-down is a lot better, too. Still some bugs (I kept crashing when I moused over or clicked some of the battles in that last war, which was annoying) but game is fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 06:09
|
|
|
 Maths 2.0 BBJoey fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Nov 16, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
Arrath posted:That Standard Oil poster was right Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:If you think that unifying the HRE is a wacky and entertaining, you might be a boring nerd! oh. ok
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 08:05
|
|
|
I don’t get why I can’t fight the Mexican American war in this game. It won’t let me press all my war goals and forces a truce immediately after the Mexicans back down giving me only my primary war goal and nothing else. At this rate forming the continental United States will take decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 08:11
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I don’t get why I can’t fight the Mexican American war in this game. It won’t let me press all my war goals and forces a truce immediately after the Mexicans back down giving me only my primary war goal and nothing else. You can try to bait them into it by not mobilizing until late in the process. If you mobilize all your generals right away it intimidates the AI more than just leaving them at home. This is also kind of a known issue though and one of the things they said they had on their roadmap was a way to add more items to your "primary demand" so that you'd still get them if the other side backs down, and my feeling is that it's explicitly because of the issues with taking states from Mexico as the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 08:22
|
|
|
Lategame slowdown is much better now, still chugging along at a reasonable pace in 1919 First time intentionally triggering a civil war. Did the "reduce all miltechs to base level" cheese, it worked well enough that my USA that had nothing East of the Dakotas was able to beat the twice as large East Coast/Midwest. That wasn't so bad, but then an even stronger revolutionary (or reactionary, the law that was inciting the rebellion was Council Republic) coalition immediately formed with the same IGs. Shouldn't there be a cooldown on "formal" civil wars after you win one over the same issue? To add insult to injury, winning the war doesn't increase the progress/likelihood of passing the law. Shouldn't the gov't have immediately pushed it through once all of the opposition was in armed revolt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 08:42
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I don’t get why I can’t fight the Mexican American war in this game. It won’t let me press all my war goals and forces a truce immediately after the Mexicans back down giving me only my primary war goal and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 09:09
|
|
|
Man you wouldn’t want to be a boring nerd in a thread about a 19th century economic simulator. Imagine how embarrassing that would be
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 10:08
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Man you wouldn’t want to be a boring nerd in a thread about a 19th century economic simulator. idk how does it feel
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 10:44
|
|
|
Playing Austria a bit yesterday, I think the thing that interfered with my enjoyment of the game most was the construction queue. Once I had a construction industry or two in each province and I'd moved them to iron-framed buildings, I had about 400 construction, which is enough to build about twenty buildings in parallel. I was really missing Hearts of Iron's construction queue, where if you're building say, 5 levels of radar station in a province, that appears in your queue as a single line item with a "5" next to it, instead of each individual level taking up a line to itself. I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but the current construction queue interface is not fit for purpose for Great Powers once you're out of the early stages of the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:Playing Austria a bit yesterday, I think the thing that interfered with my enjoyment of the game most was the construction queue. Once I had a construction industry or two in each province and I'd moved them to iron-framed buildings, I had about 400 construction, which is enough to build about twenty buildings in parallel. I was really missing Hearts of Iron's construction queue, where if you're building say, 5 levels of radar station in a province, that appears in your queue as a single line item with a "5" next to it, instead of each individual level taking up a line to itself. They should definitely do this. They should also make construction techs increase the amount of construction in a building per week (20 is a piddly amount lategame)
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Dumb guy question and I apologise if it's been asked a million times already but Is there a benefit to spreading out your buildings rather than building them all in one province? Seems like that's the best way to stack urbanization and optimize infrastructure. This is coming from a perspective of "I've played one game so far and it was as chile"
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:Dumb guy question and I apologise if it's been asked a million times already but Is there a benefit to spreading out your buildings rather than building them all in one province? Seems like that's the best way to stack urbanization and optimize infrastructure. One obvious reason is sometimes you run out of peasants in your main state but have other states full of peasants who can't wait to start working in factories and farms. Another good reason is state edicts: there's three edicts for boosting agriculture, resource extraction, and manufacturing. I tend to have a state specialising in each of those three and plop those three edicts on them and just leave them as long as I can afford the authority. Oh another reason might be if you want to micro manage production methods. Like you might have a level 5 furniture factory in one state pumping out basic furniture, but then a level 2 factory somewhere else doing luxury furniture. If you are playing a conquest focused game you don't really have to plan this because you will pick up random factories here and there as you take over states. In practice I usually spread out agriculture and resource extraction but when it comes to major factories like arms industries and motor industries I just stick it all in my capital. Once your borders get a bit more porous for immigrants you usually get a flood of peasants to your capital state anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
You do get a stack bonus (thoroughput?) for going all in on one state with a building. Generally though I think being able to have fine control over production methods is far more important so I like to spread things around a bit. Especially with the split production buildings like clothing/furniture/wood/motors etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
So, I am on my fourth run through the game, having played Chile, Persia, Ethopian principality into Ethiopia, and now playing Siam. The first three games I stopped around 1885-1895 mark, as the slowdown was beginning to get noticeable. The core game loop of managing production works very well for me in the early game. I get a lot of satisfaction from seeing the economy grow, balance building out the construction sector versus everything else. The political game is fun too, though I admit I’ve started using “save-reload and reform government” in my last run. Maybe it would work better where instead of having percentage rolls, you accumulate progress for each step, with better initial odds giving you a “leg up”, as it were, to avoid the temptation to save-scum all the time. I’ve only done a bit of warfare in generally lop-sided situations, outnumbering the enemy, and I can see it as being a good addition – not the main focus of the game, but something to manage on top of everything else. Overall, I’m still enjoying it, playing it every night, but might need to take a bit of a break, so as to come back once the bugs are fixed and some balancing happens (maybe AI gets improved). It sounds like the bigger the country you play and the more you try to do, the more likely you are to hit these bugs, so hopefully I’d be able to play Prussia or Russia once I come back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:14
|
|
|
throughput is king for a lot of goods. it can easily be the difference between a wildly profitable industry and an unprofitable one. the only ones where it doesn't really matter are the industries that have inconsistent, or consistently low, demand like arms and munitions, and i suspect those will be rebalanced sometime in the future since supplying hundreds of battalions off of 5 levels of munitions industry is very weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:15
|
|
|
Later on I tend to spread my industry around, focusing more on raising the SoL in hinterland states by plopping down 5 steel mills or whatever misc industry I need more of and bringing the jobs. Early game I'm all about centralization for all the reasons mentioned above.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
This game does lack a lot of flavor, but what is there is really great! Got through the Tanzimat reforms, and it's the most fun I've had with the game thus far. I might try to modernize Japan next, or get opium out of Great Qing. Is there any other countries that have a good national story to play through?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:throughput is king for a lot of goods. it can easily be the difference between a wildly profitable industry and an unprofitable one. the only ones where it doesn't really matter are the industries that have inconsistent, or consistently low, demand like arms and munitions, and i suspect those will be rebalanced sometime in the future since supplying hundreds of battalions off of 5 levels of munitions industry is very weird. There are two approaches to weapons manufacture - have enough industries in your country to supply your army in peacetime, and buy extra from abroad when you go to war, or have enough industries in your country to supply your army in wartime, and sell the extra abroad when you're at peace, subsidising the factories if that's not enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
So it's 1845, and America is now the #1 producer of tools in the world. I still have a 1.5k deficit in my economy because despite 20% export tarrifs, Britain is hoovering up all of my tools and crashing my economy because none of my facilities can work without them. They're buying over 2.5k worth of tools from me and using up 2555 convoys (presumably theirs) I can't stop them. Short of passing isolationism surely there has to be a better way to protect my domestic market? With protectionism enabled I should be allowed to cancel exports too? Without those tools my economy is completely hosed. Also how does workforce function in the economy? I'm not sure I fully understand it yet. Like if I build a steel mill or a motor industry as Japan, how do I suddenly have machinists and engineers where I previously had peasants. Where can I properly evaluate, quantify and control the rate of conversion or how these pops convert? I'm assuming peasants are basically unemployed pops that live a lifestyle on the land where they create and consume their own needs and as you industrialize they leave their villages to become workers which eventually requires specialized labourers and farmers on farms and textile mills to make up the deficit? But how are they getting their training? How does a peasant jump to engineer or capitalist? What are things I can do to ensure I have a supply of qualified workers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
just build more tools. britane deciding to hitch such a fundamental part of their economy to yours is a good thing not a bad thing because it means you'll get crazy tariff income and if you ever go to war with them, the mere fact that you're no longer trading will crash their economy while a surplus of tools can be sold to literally anyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
It will also risk crashing your economy and you'll need a lot of boats to export them. Luckily US has a lot of coastal states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:50
|
|
|
I had the same issue with Qing which I fixed by damaging relations until I could embargo them. That said the only reason I did that was because I really needed the tools for mine upgrades, the real answer is to just go ape poo poo with tool factories until you saturate demand, then enjoy that if the UK tells you not to annex canada their economy burns down
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
1500 tools is like 19 tooling workshops if you're making steel tools. That shouldn't take too long to build, just make sure you mix the required coal mines, iron mines, logging camps and steel mills into your build queue so you don't run too low on the required inputs, and make sure you put the 19 tooling workshops in the same place for the economy of scale bonus, but that the place you put them actually has the people to staff them. As Jazerus says, having a country buying a ton of your stuff through tariff barriers is a really good thing if it's something you can easily make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Like if I build a steel mill or a motor industry as Japan, how do I suddenly have machinists and engineers where I previously had peasants. Where can I properly evaluate, quantify and control the rate of conversion or how these pops convert? I'm assuming peasants are basically unemployed pops that live a lifestyle on the land where they create and consume their own needs and as you industrialize they leave their villages to become workers which eventually requires specialized labourers and farmers on farms and textile mills to make up the deficit? But how are they getting their training? How does a peasant jump to engineer or capitalist? What are things I can do to ensure I have a supply of qualified workers? How many pops you have qualified for each job is viewable by hovering over the checkmark next to Qualifications in the building screen for each state. It also shows how many new qualifications that job gets each month. Note that 1 pop can qualify for multiple jobs, and if you want to know how many of say your capitalists are actually unemployed you can hover over the capitalist line in that tooltip to see what the pops currently qualified to be a capitalist are working as, if they are working. If you get a warning on the upgrade button for a building saying that you don't have enough capitalsts to fill all the new jobs that would be created, but 8.000 of them are working as clerks in some other building, you can just upgrade and they'll swap jobs right away (since it pays better than being a clerk).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This game does lack a lot of flavor, but what is there is really great! Got through the Tanzimat reforms, and it's the most fun I've had with the game thus far. I might try to modernize Japan next, or get opium out of Great Qing. The East Indian trade company has several journal entries that you can try to accomplish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 16:56
|
|
|
kinda feel like meat is an underutilized good, you can't process it and it seems like demand is pretty mild compared to every other food.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Agean90 posted:kinda feel like meat is an underutilized good, you can't process it and it seems like demand is pretty mild compared to every other food. Yeah, feels like you should be able to use it in place of fish in the Food Industries building. Maybe they don't have a way of implementing buildings that use one thing or the other depending on what's cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2022 17:02
|
|