|
Mandoric posted:Realism in numbers is not necessarily a good thing, just doing this as a spitball "what's obviously way out of whack". this is really interesting stuff! as you say the realism isn't very interesting to me, but the breakdowns, historical detail, and explanations of level of abstraction are super interesting. jesus, that logging camp poo poo though
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
I’m doing my first Germany run and this is probably gonna be my last time in Western Europe because hooo boy zooming in to see my buildings turns my game into a slideshow even with a 3070. Zooming in and seeing the towns grow is a huge plus with me so I can’t go without it for too long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 07:25
|
|
|
Yeah OK I think I'm done beta testing this buggy mess, time to put it aside and check on it again in 6 months. I got bit by the permanent 'no market access' bug because my convoys were raided. The war is over and I'm at peace. I thought maybe it was because the ports weren't connected to my shipyards and thus couldn't be 'supplied' with clippers, so I built a shipyard locally and then subsidized it. That didn't fix it. I had a native uprising, after that ended they were still stuck. Cool game, too bad it got shoved out the door in this state.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
Most times that sort of bug is fixed by reloading your save
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 09:41
|
|
|
Yeah that was what I tried first.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 09:47
|
|
|
Sometimes when the war is over your convoys keep being raided, I had that in my current game. I don't know if it's always the same reason, but in my game I suspect that it was due to France being in two different wars, one with me and one with Great Britain, and when the war with me was over the French admiral kept his raiding order because he was still raiding the British convoys in the same spot that mine were being raided. I guess maybe it just doesn't cancel the raiding on your convoys if that happens. I ended up checking the node to see which admiral was raiding, then editing the savegame to change his order from raid to patrol, which made it go away. Really annoying having your economy crash because of that, here's hoping it's fixed in 1.1 AG3 fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 09:49
|
|
|
The lack of stockpiles is one of the things I would not change at all with the game. When great powers mobilised in any great number - which is to say, during WW1 - every country involved immediately burnt through their pre-war stockpiles within weeks or, at the latest, months, and from then on were replenishing stocks as they used them. The problem with the game is an AI one in that every conflict is marked by complete mobilisation, which is a problem that impacts basically all the games' features. If the AI was a bit less willing to fully mobilise its conscripts to intervene in a conflict between Italy and Eritrea, you would only experience a shortfall in war materiel in a truly apocalyptic conflict, at which point it's entirely reasonable that you should have to crash-restructure your economy to a war footing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 10:29
|
|
|
The arms industries in the game are a bit of a simplification too, since historically much of the production of firearms was contracted out to industries that primarily produced other things, anything from bikes to agricultural equipment. I guess if realism was a concern, you should have a setting that would convert some percentage the production capacity in things like tools and engine factories to produce small arms, artillery and ammo instead in times of war. Would it make the game more fun? Eh, maybe? It would certainly be easier if you didn't need so much dedicated and expensive arms production in peace-time just to make sure you can get enough equipment in war-time. It would at the very least be more realistic having your civilian production needing to take a backseat to your military production in times of war, with the economic consequences that would have not just for the government's budget but also the pops whose goods now get more expensive due to lack of supply. AG3 fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 11:02
|
|
|
After 4 almost full length game, I‘ve come to the conclusion that they really need someone who‘s good with numbers to create a model for the economy. Right now the resource inputs, workforce numbers, production improvements don‘t really work, the numbers just don‘t add up. Primary goal in every game early on is to snag the opium provinces from Mamluks/Egypt and puppet Siam so you can annex them 5 years after. After that I focus on taking all the oil provinces I can get, which means in 3 of my 4 games I ended up splitting Russia in two. They really need a better model so they know what resources need to be available and try to get the effectiveness increases from production methods to make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
Some of the production methods really make no sense. Yes, I would like to replace 15.000 low paid laborers with 15.000 higher paid engineers/machinists while also replacing some of my cheap input goods with more expensive ones for a tiny output boost. Sometimes the cost of the new inputs are higher than the price of the output too, and I have no idea in what situation it would make financial sense to switch. Chainsaws for logging camps are a good example. You don't get any output boost, but you replace 1500 laborers for 200 each of machinists and engineers, which leaves you with wages equivalent to 1200 laborers, which is a minor saving of 300 laborer-wages (in theory). But then you also need 10 tools and 5 oil, and there's just no way for the maths to add up. The only use case I can see is if you just need to free up as much labor as possible regardless of the costs in inputs and qualifications, in any other case you'd use Steam Donkey which trades 1 engine and 4 coal for saving you 1000 laborers which makes sense as soon as wages start hitting a certain threshold, unless you just want to employ the maximum number of people. AG3 fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 12:39
|
|
|
The thought of chainsaw going vroom vroom should be enough to make the brain happy. It's maybe worth it if you have completely run out of manpower in a no migration country. But yeah, some numbers simply don't work out yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
Happy Litterbox posted:The thought of chainsaw going vroom vroom should be enough to make the brain happy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
So, a couple things about the realism post. Are you factoring in throughput bonuses? Because if not then many outputs will be substantially higher, except for the wood but I feel like at this point everyone knows wood is definitely a problem resource. Second, are we counting in transportation networks to move these goods? That's something Vicky3 somewhat takes into account with rail workers, but I imagine the total amount of manpower involved in supply chains might end up being higher. We'd need dock workers too and other stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 14:39
|
|
|
Put me down for oil and rubber not being plentiful enough to go around. Scarcity is good and real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't agree with the logic they've put forward, which is basically, "Half the world's oil is in the USA and Russia, so if they collapse the world won't have enough, so we're putting extra oil all over the world" My thoughts are that if the USA and Russia collapse the world should be different from history. The USA and Russia collapsing and not having a major effect on the world is an undesirable outcome. Gort fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:34
|
|
|
If the US/Russia won't/can't produce the oil the rest of the world needs, the world should take matters into its own hands. I don't see how that is a bad thing. I'll do my part by building those whaling stations in Northern Norway. I'm helping!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:39
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:The problem with the game is an AI one in that every conflict is marked by complete mobilisation, which is a problem that impacts basically all the games' features. If the AI was a bit less willing to fully mobilise its conscripts to intervene in a conflict between Italy and Eritrea, you would only experience a shortfall in war materiel in a truly apocalyptic conflict, at which point it's entirely reasonable that you should have to crash-restructure your economy to a war footing. When I attacked Siam as Lanfang/Borneo both Qing and independent EIC sided against me but they only raised 300 out of their combined 1200 available brigades and I was able to beat them pretty handily. V3 is the first Paradox game where a constrained regional conflict like that is even possible which is pretty cool, but the norm still seems to be total mobilization so I agree that the AI should be a bit more conservative, as long as it doesn't also make every war a cakewalk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
I'm using chainsaws because I've maxxed out almost every logging camp in my empire and yet my people still thirst for hardwood.  Naval warfare is baffling. What's the point of separate escort and raid orders? There is no need for any granularity in orders besides "go to this general area and blow poo poo up" and naval invasion. I'm on my nth world war now where second-rate powers decided to join the underdog side in exchange for a favour. The diplomatic AI is just braindead. Even when they do ask for something it's almost always stupid. Like I took Outer Manchuria from China but in the next war they fought they asked for Liberate Poland instead of getting it back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
eXXon posted:I'm using chainsaws because I've maxxed out almost every logging camp in my empire and yet my people still thirst for hardwood. Chainsaws don't increase hardwood per camp though Nothing does
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Gotta colonize some equatorial provinces for the hardwood bonuses in them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
I’m up to 1910 in my Korea game and am finally at the point where I’ve kind of snowballed the fun out of the game. 10 pages of constant continuous construction, GDP close to a billion, the whole loop now is just adding yet more buildings always and warring whenever I feel like it because my troops nearly outstrip the other powers combined, and trade almost doesn’t matter because I’m the world production leader, by far, in nearly everything. It does definitely make the simulation fall apart a bit. It took me until the 20th century before those cracks started showing up, but a. I wasn’t brilliant at the game and b. Korea is a lot weaker than most of the major western powers for a long time, so there was a long lead up before I could actually break the game’s systems over my knee. I am feeling if I’d done my first game as one of the great powers I’d be feeling a lot more negative about it, since I guess you’d get to this point much more quickly. When the interest groups are actually strong and working against you, when the economic management takes consideration and has trade offs, resources are limited, and your troops are matched by your enemies, I think the game is close to Paradox’s best, and it’s nearly exactly what I was hoping for. Hopefully those can all remain true for more of the game’s timespan. I will say one criticism I really don’t get, having a bunch of land wars now — they’re mostly fine? Like, way more compelling than having to micro stacks around in EU or CK. Fronts breaking up is annoying but no more than lots of stuff in the other games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Gort posted:Chainsaws don't increase hardwood per camp though drat it. Well, as it turns out I'm still short on softwood, just less so. Koramei posted:I will say one criticism I really don’t get, having a bunch of land wars now — they’re mostly fine? Like, way more compelling than having to micro stacks around in EU or CK. Fronts breaking up is annoying but no more than lots of stuff in the other games. I don't see anything compelling about the randomly rolled one battle per front that also makes most of the general traits meaningless and naval invasions are a buggy mess. For example, even if you successfully claim a beachhead, sometimes your army will just instantly teleport back to its HQ. You can thankfully teleport them back by issuing two different orders to the same front  .The front system is an okay idea but the implementation sucks. Managing generals and HQs is awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
The current war system feeds back into emphasizing the primacy of economy and technology of your nation rather than basing it on micro, the game shouldn't be about war, and it isn't; that's plenty compelling. If you've done a good enough job managing your nation, the randomness isn't going to screw you more than plenty of like events in history. Yeah there is some bullshit too for sure, there is in EU4 and CK3 as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
eXXon posted:The front system is an okay idea but the implementation sucks. Managing generals and HQs is awful. It would be fine if there was a combat width and you could get multiple battles based on that if the front was long enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:So, a couple things about the realism post. Are you factoring in throughput bonuses? Because if not then many outputs will be substantially higher, except for the wood but I feel like at this point everyone knows wood is definitely a problem resource. Second, are we counting in transportation networks to move these goods? That's something Vicky3 somewhat takes into account with rail workers, but I imagine the total amount of manpower involved in supply chains might end up being higher. We'd need dock workers too and other stuff like that. I'm not, which is why I only really settled on the ones which are over 10x off as especially funky; throughput is 1% per so at the very Detroit-est you'd only be seeing numbers dropped to a half to a third. Though it is worth noting that, in the same year, all transportation-related trades together--including not just the rails, but things like mailmen and road builders and longshoremen, who should surely go to urban centers or government administration or construction or ports--only come up to about 2.6 million, barely the surplus workers for lumber alone. Like I said, simulating actual historic data is of limited value; even spot-on to estimates as seen by governments of the time would involve a game that takes decades to make and requires persistent online teams of millions, and if it were to be attempted it'd quickly fall to pieces based on what was papered over for ideological and technical reasons in said estimates. And I'm generally okay with that bottom-line number of "it's doable but you're going to need to either kill civilian industry, adopt all the laborsaver PMs, or allow women into the industrial workforce" (and the implied "it's doable but you're going to need to kill civilian industry AND adopt all the laborsaver PMs AND allow women into the industrial workforce" if you plug WW2 numbers in.) I just think it's a passable razor for determining what's getting overemphasized in the rules, whether a mismatch with other industries that have the same incorporated externalities but don't see the same overemphasization (mining), where it conflicts with other elements of the rules (logging and needing to operate at nearly max theoretical capacity), or off by orders of magnitude at a specialized step but plausible for the whole creating a "assuming that World War 1 will occur, your government's fiscal and industrial policies must begin preparations before German unification" issue. ulmont posted:It would be fine if there was a combat width and you could get multiple battles based on that if the front was long enough. I'd also like to see the ability to assign particular state-buildings to generals, or even just keep the current system but be able to remove state-buildings from generals. Make military PMs actually relevant as something other than a tech/industry check by having a less clunky way to commit especially extra light infantry for holding quiet fronts, and allow us to do limited conscription rather than raise 100 battalions in California, 20 of whom go deal with the rebellion in the Philippines under a colonel and 80 of whom sit at home landscaping the field marshal from the same HQ's local golf course (because if we raised 20 like we needed in in Nevada we'd get 4 on the frontlines and 16 peeling potatoes.) Mandoric fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The current war system feeds back into emphasizing the primacy of economy and technology of your nation rather than basing it on micro, the game shouldn't be about war, and it isn't; that's plenty compelling. If you've done a good enough job managing your nation, the randomness isn't going to screw you more than plenty of like events in history. Yeah there is some bullshit too for sure, there is in EU4 and CK3 as well. In what way does it do that? It's rigged so that defenders get an overwhelming advantage regardless of numerical superiority, and even a technological edge isn't enough at times. The notion that a strategy game covering the era of Crimea, Taiping, Civil War and WW1 shouldn't be "about war" is an absurd excuse for the systems being at best half-baked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
eXXon posted:drat it. Well, as it turns out I'm still short on softwood, just less so. Further good news! Chainsaws don't increase softwood production per camp either. All they do is reduce the number of workers in the camp and cost you tools and oil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
eXXon posted:In what way does it do that? It's rigged so that defenders get an overwhelming advantage regardless of numerical superiority, and even a technological edge isn't enough at times. Not at all, this absolutely is the period where war starts to matter way, way less in the context of a strategy game. For prior eras you're still near wholly dealing with societies structured around warrior elites, where the vast majority of the state's (or state-proxy) resources were funneled into war. The 19th century is when that stops. This era should not be about war. I'm not gonna argue the war system is perfect by any means; it's clearly a first pass of a radically new system for Paradox games and it misses as much as it hits, but where it does hit is that despite yeah sometimes bullshit defender advantages, your economic power is still the determinant of how poo poo goes down, and not having to micro like crazy lets you actually pay attention to the important parts of the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
On another note entirely, do you need to bother with the colonial affairs institution once all of your colonies are done growing? Does it do anything if you have unincorporated states?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
AFAIK, it's just about colony development speed. Room to expand that institution so it does something with unincorporated states, definitely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Freudian posted:AFAIK, it's just about colony development speed. Room to expand that institution so it does something with unincorporated states, definitely. It would be nice if you could somehow switch it up to counteract the infrastructure penalty that unincorporated states have, once you're done colonizing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:I'm not, which is why I only really settled on the ones which are over 10x off as especially funky; throughput is 1% per so at the very Detroit-est you'd only be seeing numbers dropped to a half to a third. Though it is worth noting that, in the same year, all transportation-related trades together--including not just the rails, but things like mailmen and road builders and longshoremen, who should surely go to urban centers or government administration or construction or ports--only come up to about 2.6 million, barely the surplus workers for lumber alone. Your post was a nice look into some of the census data available. I think that besides the logging industry the other standout was the chemical plants - which I can excuse because I think we can assume that chemical plants covers more than fertilizers and explosives. It's a really wasted opportunity in some ways because building a chemical industry should be something that you have to do to industrialize, but its not really that necessary in the current game besides the demand for explosives (how I wish those two goods were decoupled from each other). If there's an industry that's understaffed compared to historic values I'd be willing to bet on the textile industries in the game, from what I recall those were historic labor sinks that employed enormous numbers of laborers - usually women so data for that might be... ugh not ideal. edit: rubber plantations and rubber is another literally impossible one given that at this point in time rubber was generally harvested by coerced labor in colonies so the data for that is going to be impossible to gather, but it's pretty significant. Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
eXXon posted:In what way does it do that? It's rigged so that defenders get an overwhelming advantage regardless of numerical superiority, and even a technological edge isn't enough at times. The differences between each tech aren’t extreme enough, and the equipment change malus making fresh trench infantry infinitely worse than line infantry means there’s no point in upgrading during a war, which, kinda destroys the technological side of WW1.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Freudian posted:AFAIK, it's just about colony development speed. Room to expand that institution so it does something with unincorporated states, definitely. Yeah you'd think it'd give you bonuses based on which colonial law you have, i.e. more resources or more migration and better unrest suppression or something
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:The differences between each tech aren’t extreme enough, and the equipment change malus making fresh trench infantry infinitely worse than line infantry means there’s no point in upgrading during a war, which, kinda destroys the technological side of WW1. Yeah I kind of feel like instead of just applying a massive penalty to stats, changing equipment to a higher tier should just have a gradual "roll up" period where it changes from the old stats to the new stats over that period. So you still have a lead time before you see the benefit of the upgrades, but it doesn't completely cripple your army to give them better guns in the middle of a war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Your post was a nice look into some of the census data available. I think that besides the logging industry the other standout was the chemical plants - which I can excuse because I think we can assume that chemical plants covers more than fertilizers and explosives. It's a really wasted opportunity in some ways because building a chemical industry should be something that you have to do to industrialize, but its not really that necessary in the current game besides the demand for explosives (how I wish those two goods were decoupled from each other). If there's an industry that's understaffed compared to historic values I'd be willing to bet on the textile industries in the game, from what I recall those were historic labor sinks that employed enormous numbers of laborers - usually women so data for that might be... ugh not ideal. not the entire period even though rubber in africa is one of the historical atrocities that is most sickening - by the 1910s or so rubber had really transitioned to coming from Brazil and some South American countries (on top of Indonesia where there was more complete census data), so i feel like there should be SOMETHING from there? maybe not though. i'm not an expert i just hope some of you hard Census Knowers might be able to use this to find poo poo The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah I kind of feel like instead of just applying a massive penalty to stats, changing equipment to a higher tier should just have a gradual "roll up" period where it changes from the old stats to the new stats over that period. So you still have a lead time before you see the benefit of the upgrades, but it doesn't completely cripple your army to give them better guns in the middle of a war. agree
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:The differences between each tech aren’t extreme enough, and the equipment change malus making fresh trench infantry infinitely worse than line infantry means there’s no point in upgrading during a war, which, kinda destroys the technological side of WW1. You have to upgrade your troops gradually, not all at once. Having to take armies off the line to retrain them is satisfactory imo The problem is more than controlling armies is too complicated. Lot of clicking and scrolling to do very little. Also the ways generals split armies between each other is very clunky
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
New 1.1 dev diary up https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/victoria-3-dev-diary-67-patch-1-1-part-3.1559133/ Topics are: troop morale, army wages and their effect on battle effectiveness, legitimacy when ideologically opposed IGs share space in government. buglord fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
😐
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
A lot of good changes (plus that forum post that says factories won't just constantly raise wages just because they're profitting a lot anymore). Nothing exciting but improvements are improvements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 20:00
|
|
