|
Except the actual in-game result is African Americans are all still enslaved, but they’re also the only pops not discriminated against. Somehow. Dayton Sports Bar fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Dec 3, 2022 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Dayton Sports Bar posted:Except the actual in-game result is African Americans are all still enslaved, but they’re also the only pops not discriminated against. Somehow. American Mameluks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Yeah what ends up happening is the entire black population is still in legacy slavery so it's just a bunch of rich white plantation owners going around pissing and moaning about how much it sucks to be discriminated against. Which is.. weirdly accurate lmao.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
So I'm not a fan of the idea that capitalist factories would increase wages as a means of preempting radicalism gain, both for gameplay and historical reasons. Victorian-era capitalist societies loved famines and poverty as a means of separating the worthy and elect from the inferior and unworthy, and usually responded to people's demands after the fact, not before. I feel like capitalists should use wage increases as the last and most desperate possible resort for increasing employment (if increasing employment is profitable), and should lag behind the actual disruptive effects of lower-class radicalization. What if a state's turmoil made a proportional cut to employment/hiring rate in that state? This could have a number of implications on the hiring practices of industries in that state and even country strategy: -Incentivizes increasing police institutions as a means of pushing turmoil down with bureaucracy cost to encourage employment without impacting the capitalists' bottom line -Makes social unrest something to be reacted to as gameplay, rather than a failure state that can and ought to be avoided -Induces the possibility that a state as a whole can enter a death spiral if turmoil effects outstrip profitability of pushing incentives for hiring up and not enough subsistence farms to catch the unemployed, possibly causing more punctuated bursts of migratory transience and population redistribution -Allows for welfare-based economies to avoid wage-spirals as long as people are kept relatively happy (Capitalist pops should be more demanding of profit to make this strategy still untenable without well-secured socialism, foreign imperialism, or domestic imperialism, but that's a different issue)
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
Boy oh boy USA, your utterly undeveloped gold mines in Nevada and Cali are looking awfully enticing... I'm running the Central Banks mod that adds bank notes and securities as goods, and gold mines are the only way outside of the 1/country Central Bank building to produce banknotes. I am hideously short of banknotes at all times (and thus my Bankers are like 30 SoL points ahead of everyone else  ) so those gold mines are as attractive as opium or oil.
Arrath fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Dec 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
what does that mod do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:what does that mod do? https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/644007602522685470/1048766719323295845/paw.exe-04122022-0001.mp4
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
wait poo poo meant to post this sorry https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2884670827&searchtext=central+bank
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:wait poo poo meant to post this sorry https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2884670827&searchtext=central+bank That's the one. It's fun but needs some further balancing to truly fit in. Supposedly you're supposed to be able to set up beneficial loops where industries use securities to reduce their input goods requirements (ie a must have for oil or hardwood using products) and produce banknotes in the process, but 1) banknote production is too limited (banks process bank notes, services* and paper into securities, so securities are $$$ due to a near ever present input good shortage of banknotes) and 2) securities demand from pops eats any and all production you can manage without any left over for your industries. On the other hand I'm exporting mad securities and making ridiculous bank off of the tariffs. And the aforementioned, totally on-brand, "bankers are rich as god" effect. *this demand for services seems fairly well tuned, it pushes them over the cusp of complete oversupply in the mid to late game so the price doesn't crater, IME. Arrath fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Dec 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
Also another fun one from my Uruguay game - I was a part of the American Market via my Protector master Brazil, and America went to war with France - very suddenly a few weeks into the war my entire economy collapsed because I, and Brazil and the American colonies, had no market access into the American market. What happened here? The war is over but the access hasn't come back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:wait poo poo meant to post this sorry Was wondering for a minute what kind of metaphor for capitalism scooping cats into a bowl represented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 05:45
|
|
|
I am looking forward to the new patch. That oil map!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 09:42
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I am looking forward to the new patch. That oil map! It's bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
One of the issues with the oil economy is that there isn't enough oil in the deposits that currently exist to maintain one national economy let alone the world's. Restricting oil to about seven eight natural spots and then forcing the players to knife fight each other to gain access to these after tripling the amount in each one would be one way of simulating the historical outcome, but not one that players may find engaging after the fifth time the end game plays out the same way. Also, I'm not sure if oil is profitable enough for the capitalist pops that own the oil fields. edit: just to be clear, there was a huge divide in the oil industry between the super rich owners and most oil prospectors. Oil prospecting was a very risky business and most of the prospectors went broke, lost money, or barely covered their costs. Except, every now and again some of them become insanely rich and went on to have disproportionate influence over national governments due to their wealth and ownership of the fields. edit 2: You know, at some point in the future - not now obviously - it might be interesting to make oil a sort of rng natural resource. You send out expeditions like with the Antarctic or American West Coast and you get a hit on a spot somewhere in the world (chosen from a long list of current oil reserves) and those are the oil fields you've discovered. If you get lucky the oil fields might be in your country, if not, oh well. That's one way of reconciling the 'historic' outcome with the fact that oil is actually quite common around the world, but sometimes difficult to access. As I recall, prospecting in Arabia originally came up as a bust until like the 1960's when they discovered that about 1/3rd of the world oil supply was in one spot, then later on we discovered that there's actually shitloads of petrofuels all over the planet. Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Dec 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Wait...so are you saying the Beverly Hillbillies WAS an historical documentary or not?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Half-wit posted:Wait...so are you saying the Beverly Hillbillies WAS an historical documentary or not? I meant the wildcat oil prospectors who risked it all on finding oil in unexpected places. Wildcatting is like gambling on finding oil in some place where it's not expected to be because you have a hunch there's oil under that cornfield and if you're right then you make a ton of money (assuming Standard Oil doesn't just steal your operation). The Beverly Hillbillies were more like the people whose house gets shot up or burned down by Standard Oil goons after a wildcatter finds oil under the outhouse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:edit 2: You know, at some point in the future - not now obviously - it might be interesting to make oil a sort of rng natural resource. You send out expeditions like with the Antarctic or American West Coast and you get a hit on a spot somewhere in the world (chosen from a long list of current oil reserves) and those are the oil fields you've discovered. If you get lucky the oil fields might be in your country, if not, oh well. That's one way of reconciling the 'historic' outcome with the fact that oil is actually quite common around the world, but sometimes difficult to access. As I recall, prospecting in Arabia originally came up as a bust until like the 1960's when they discovered that about 1/3rd of the world oil supply was in one spot, then later on we discovered that there's actually shitloads of petrofuels all over the planet. Maybe add a bonus to discovery if one or more rivals have a stranglehold on production, or if oil has been discovered nearby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I feel like it'd make sense if they were just discovered over time, based on tech, the overall oil supply, and demand. So like, if your territory has the potential and you or your overlord has the tech, there's a small base chance based on how much of the potential has been discovered, which trends towards zero as the percentage of discovered fields goes up. That chance is then multiplied by a modifier based on the price of oil. I'm mostly suggesting my idea because it makes oil production and discovery something that you have to fund and undertake, makes the process a bit more interactive, and gives you new targets for imperialism that you may not be expecting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
I think I love this game. The only other paradox game I’ve played is 800 hours of Stellaris, and most of my playtime for both games has been multiplayer with friends. Stellaris has, imo, only improved over the last 6 years so I’m just incredibly excited to see where they take Victoria. I’d like to see more game modes, some ui improvements to how data is presented, and maybe variable starting conditions.
Gato The Elder fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Dec 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
So two questions that might be complex: 1) What do the three economic systems that allow for investor pools (interventionist, agrarian, and free trade) cover and what don't they cover? 2) What exactly does a treaty port do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
The investment pool covers the same thing regardless of the economic law, the difference in laws just affects how much will be contributed to it. It's probably quicker to list what it doesn't pay for than what it does; it doesn't cover government buildings like government administration, barracks, etc. It also doesn't cover universities, ports or construction sectors, and power plants for some reason (I'm not clear on why it doesn't cover that last one because it does cover railways and I feel like both of them are "infrastructure" but I guess the game considers power plants to be government owned). Everything else can be paid for by the investment pool, where the investors will pay for as much of the cost as they can afford (this can be all the way to 100% if the pool has accumulated a surplus, it will spend it down to 0 again before you have to pay anything from the state coffers). Treaty ports force open access to all markets in the same strategic region as them - basically the same as if they had a trade agreement with you (so no tariffs and they can't embargo you), except that they don't get the option of breaking said treaty. This was changed in the last patch to only apply to markets whose owners are lower ranked powers than the owner of the treaty port. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
I thought laws influenced which buildings the investment pool can be spent on? Eg on agrarianism it can only be used for rural buildings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Treaty ports force open access to all markets in the same strategic region as them I thought it was just the markets directly adjacent to the treaty port (which usually works out to be one market).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I thought laws influenced which buildings the investment pool can be spent on? Eg on agrarianism it can only be used for rural buildings. You're both saying the same thing =p The investment pool always covers construction costs, but different laws change who contributes, how much they contribute, and what kind of construction projects the funds can be used on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I thought laws influenced which buildings the investment pool can be spent on? Eg on agrarianism it can only be used for rural buildings. The laws don't change what the investment pool can be used on, they change what you're allowed to subsidize. Subsidies are basically the opposite of the investment pool, where you're throwing in government money to cover the cost overrun of privately owned buildings, to allow them to operate at full employment even when their income doesn't cover their operating costs. Interventionism lets you subsidize everything, laissez faire only lets you subsidize infrastructure and trade centers, while agrarianism adds farms/ranches/plantations to that. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Dec 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The laws don't change what the investment pool can be used on, they change what you're allowed to subsidize. Subsidies are basically the opposite of the investment pool, where you're throwing in government money to cover the cost overrun of privately owned buildings, to allow them to operate at full employment even when their income doesn't cover their operating costs. no, they absolutely do change what you are allowed to spend investment pool funds on. interventionism is the only one that allows you to spend investment pool on everything, and also the only one that lets you (but doesn't require you to) subsidize everything. laissez faire doesn't allow investment pool funds to be spent on infrastructure or agriculture. agrarianism only allows funds to be spent on agriculture. in general, you want laissez faire if your economic strategy is capitalist-heavy and interventionism if it isn't, but interventionism is just all-around good as well
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:its weird that there is no simulation at all of the global market. all the markets are cordoned off from eachother and only interact discretely and on purpose The technical demands of actually tracking any good from origin to destination is too much for a simulation of this scale. In the previous titles they made it so that global trading happened under a strict order of operations, everything was traded and sold with no or extremely simple input from the player. Trade routes (and the concept of market access) were completely impossible. The IGs are eminently more changeable, and more dynamism would be a great change. The best part of Vicky is when you lose control over your populations desires and they get pissed at you. It's far too easy to get exactly what you want in this title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The laws don't change what the investment pool can be used on, they change what you're allowed to subsidize. Subsidies are basically the opposite of the investment pool, where you're throwing in government money to cover the cost overrun of privately owned buildings, to allow them to operate at full employment even when their income doesn't cover their operating costs. No? Like, I'm pretty sure various laws allow you to only use the investment pool for ranches and agriculture etc vs industry. Am I losing my mind.  Okay yeah I just confirmed ingame: Agrarianism for example can only fund the construction of agriculture, plantations, ranches, and infrastructure from the IP. For comparison, Interventionism can fund Agri, Plantations, Ranches, Infra just like Agrarianism but also Manufacturing, Mines, Forestry, Rubber, Whaling, Fisheries, and Oil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:no, they absolutely do change what you are allowed to spend investment pool funds on. Oh, I had to look into it but I see where the issue I was having was, at release you could use it on everything but apparently this was a bug and changed in patch 1.04 (I haven't played it recently). It looks like the tooltip now will just tell you what types you're allowed to use it on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Oh, I had to look into it but I see where the issue I was having was, at release you could use it on everything but apparently this was a bug and changed in patch 1.04 (I haven't played it recently). It looks like the tooltip now will just tell you what types you're allowed to use it on. Maybe the effect of this was bugged but I played on release and I 100% remember the tooltip explicitly saying that each economic system could only use its investment pool on specific types of buildings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Maybe the effect of this was bugged but I played on release and I 100% remember the tooltip explicitly saying that each economic system could only use its investment pool on specific types of buildings. Yeah I remember playing a 1.00 game on Ethiopia, rushing for Agrarianism, and only being able to use my investment pool on ports at the beginning because I didn't want to enrich my landowners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
edit: Nvm guess this doesn't work now.
Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:Yeah I remember playing a 1.00 game on Ethiopia, rushing for Agrarianism, and only being able to use my investment pool on ports at the beginning because I didn't want to enrich my landowners. Well I'm not sure why it was doing this for you because I just did a quick test on the 1.03 rollback version with a construction queue of nothing but industrial buildings under agrarianism and the investment pool was paying for all of it. In any case the version of the investment pool I was describing no longer exists so everything I said about it is outdated info. Here's the updated version: 1) Government buildings are never paid for by the investment pool (this part from my original post is still correct). Government admin, barracks, naval bases, universities and for some reason arts academies and power plants are always paid for in full by you no matter what the law is. I believe all the special unique projects like the suez/panama canals, skyscrapers, the eiffel tower, etc. also get counted as government buildings but this is just going based off the wiki (which is still extremely incomplete) since I don't have a save handy to check any of these. 2) Infrastructure is always covered so long as you have a law that gives you an investment pool in the first place. Railways and ports are infrastructure. I think construction centers might be as well but I'm not 100% on that. 3) The rest depends on the law. Interventionism covers everything, agrarianism only covers farms/plantations/ranches, laissez faire covers all manufacturing, as well as resource extraction buildings like mines and logging camps. Fishing and whaling are also considered resource extraction apparently, so laissez faire will also pay for them. Gato The Elder posted:I thought it was just the markets directly adjacent to the treaty port (which usually works out to be one market). I was misremembering the tooltip here - it's "state region", not "strategic region", so yeah in practice it does usually mean direct neighbours but this isn't necessarily true if you have a state split between multiple different nations. I don't think this really comes up much in a normal game outside of colonial regions or all the German minors. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
stumblebum posted:So I'm not a fan of the idea that capitalist factories would increase wages as a means of preempting radicalism gain, both for gameplay and historical reasons. Victorian-era capitalist societies loved famines and poverty as a means of separating the worthy and elect from the inferior and unworthy, and usually responded to people's demands after the fact, not before. I feel like capitalists should use wage increases as the last and most desperate possible resort for increasing employment (if increasing employment is profitable), and should lag behind the actual disruptive effects of lower-class radicalization. They've said they have tried it working this way and the result is literally no wage increases ever until every peasant is employed, followed by suddenly every business maxing out wages down to 0 profitability when there is one empty job to fill. Which I guess makes some amount of sense in a purely supply&demand way, given the simplifications of the qualifications systems, but doesn't sound very fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
I think (one of) the root problem(s) here is that peasants are just weird in this game. Even in 1836, and not just in England but anywhere in the world, peasants will gladly leave their land to work in the factories, where they are paid a high enough wage to have a higher standard of living than in the subsistence farms. This is really ahistorical. Factories shouldn't be able to afford to provide their laborers a higher SOL than subsistence farming until way later in the game, and the process should generally be peasant-unemployed-laborer instead of directly going from peasant to laborer. You should have to force peasants off their land to provide labor for manufacturing. Also capitalist pops, like all pops, have no class consciousness, and are happy to compete with each other for workers by raising wages. And they really need to introduce a way for buildings to lower wages in states with high amounts of unemployed and qualified pops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Staltran posted:I think (one of) the root problem(s) here is that peasants are just weird in this game. Even in 1836, and not just in England but anywhere in the world, peasants will gladly leave their land to work in the factories, where they are paid a high enough wage to have a higher standard of living than in the subsistence farms. This is really ahistorical. Factories shouldn't be able to afford to provide their laborers a higher SOL than subsistence farming until way later in the game, and the process should generally be peasant-unemployed-laborer instead of directly going from peasant to laborer. You should have to force peasants off their land to provide labor for manufacturing. The problem might be a lack of flexibility in what inputs go into SoL in rural vs. urban settings. Wage labor in cities was paid consistently higher than in the countryside throughout the industrial revolution in England, it's just that cost of living was disproportionately higher as well. If an urban pop had higher requirements for services or paid more for food/housing it might capture this better, but that would probably be calculation intensive. If a laborer on a farm and in a textile mill have the same input needs, then the choice to move to the city seems obvious. The game just doesn't account for urban dwellers' higher cost of (some) goods/services (especially rent). Expected SoL should also probably be more dynamic than flat increases with certain technologies, with urban pops becoming discontent with inequality more rapidly than rural ones, etc. If "Housing" was a pop need, it might solve some of this. DJ_Mindboggler fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Dec 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 07:40
|
|
|
New patch is out
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
cool av posted:They've said they have tried it working this way and the result is literally no wage increases ever until every peasant is employed, followed by suddenly every business maxing out wages down to 0 profitability when there is one empty job to fill. I feel like businesses in general are too preoccupied with getting full employment to the detriment of actual profits. It makes really very little sense that when a business is missing like 100 people out of several tens of thousands, they'll constantly up wages for every one of their employees until they can poach some workers from a neighbouring company to fill those last 100 jobs, tanking their profit margin in the process. Generally speaking businesses probably shouldn't fill vacancies unless it would increase their profits (or at least not significantly lower them), but I wouldn't be surprised if this behavior would have a detrimental effect on game performance. I just wish I could pre-expand industries in areas with no currently available workers and not have that cause a bidding war for workers in a race towards the bottom of profits. I mean, it kind of makes sense that businesses would compete for workers, but there should be a stopping point where a businesses should stop trying to poach workers which preferably would be long before the entire company is in the red and the average wage in the state has increased by 1000%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
My Great Qing collapsed economically as the General strikers demanded work protection - something i could not provide because, due to a bug or an oversight, not a single interest group was interested granting it. Not even the labor group that had 41% political clout. Same happened with state religion. I just couldn't end it and thus I couldn't really educate the poor masses. -640k a week is my new economic collapse record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
what kind of save game compatibility does the new patch have? Will we get the map/resources changes, or do we need to start a new game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2022 13:07
|
|
