|
Stellaris has imaginary sci-fi hellscapes, Victoria has realistic historical hellscapes like invading other countries so you can tear down their diversified local economies and install a plantation economy in its place
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Stellaris has imaginary sci-fi hellscapes, Victoria has realistic historical hellscapes like invading other countries so you can tear down their diversified local economies and install a plantation economy in its place Look I can't help it that I need both food, tea, and tobacco and marginalized landowners, okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
Arrath posted:I mean my public school and public healthcare perfectly safe workplace utopia has the highest wages and SoL on the entire planet, no, discrimination, fully multicultural, full suffrage and a nice ruling coalition of parties, no hellstate required. Fully multicultural? No, discrimination!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
Being the Utopia country in 1850 has fun effects like a mass exodus of French people to Persian East Java? Someone has to produce my rubber and wood, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 08:36
|
|
|
I think my main peeve with this game (given that I've used a mod to fix the obvious political power bug) is that having an overwhelming numbers advantage in a war doesn't seem to mean you get a numbers advantage in battles. Playing as Russia and fighting the various unrecognised powers to the south (Kazakhs, Bukhara etc), I'll generally send 100 regiments to the fight, and they'll generally have about a dozen. In half the battles that occur, they have a numbers advantage, and in the others it's even. I don't think I've seen a battle where I've had a numbers edge. I'll still win eventually due to technology and being able to sustain much greater attrition, but it's crazy to commit so much more to the war and see so little on the actual battlefield. I wonder if it's another bug, someone's got a positive/negative value flipped so the outnumbered side gets more regiments in battles than the outnumbering side, or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 10:49
|
|
|
My first reaction is to say it's actually great cause it's like even with big numbers behind you a smarter opponent general can concentrate more troops where they're needed. Especially if they're defining in a good terrain. But then I don't know what defines how many soldiers get involved in any given battle. Logistic techs don't say anything about it. Is it defined by general's stats?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 12:15
|
|
|
Gort posted:I think my main peeve with this game (given that I've used a mod to fix the obvious political power bug) is that having an overwhelming numbers advantage in a war doesn't seem to mean you get a numbers advantage in battles. I think that's because the people you're attacking have poo poo infrastructure? IIRC infra in the state the battle is in limits the amount of battalions that can fight. I've definitely sometimes been surprised sometimes how many battalions the French have been able to bring into Piedmonte at once in my Italy games. e: the infra-based cap seems to be (5+(infrastructure)/2)*(combat width of the province). Combat width is based on the terrain, as far as I can tell. 1 for plains, 0.5 for forest, 0.3 for mountains and urban, etc. Most terrain seems to be 0.7 or 0.8. I'm guessing a lot of the states in central Asia have something like 20 infra in 1836, so you'd be capped at 15 battalions in plains, probably 10.5 (presumably rounded down?) due to terrain. Or 4.5 in mountains. Which makes some sense for a province, I suppose, but the fronts being limited to one battle at a time really doesn't make sense here. Staltran fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Dec 6, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
According to some modders there are hidden modifiers that make the defender get more regiments in the battle.quote:The default battlesize calculation in Victoria III includes a randomfactor that reduces the battlesize for attackers by up to 66% and for defenders by up to 50%. This mod removes this and sets a fixed battlesize reduction of 33% for attackers and 25% for defenders to keep this defender advantage. A battlesize bonus of +25% has been added per 100% battalions more than the enemy at a front. This bonus is capped at +100%. The bonus is intended to allow larger armies at a lower tech level to compete with smaller high-tech armies. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2880945323&searchtext=predictable+battlesize The mod's changes sound reasonable to me, but I haven't tested them yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
Gort posted:Wait for 1.1.1, there's a bug where capitalists and bureaucrats have no political power in common situations Oh god that's why my capitalists are still loving nowhere and I can't ditch the landowners or even the loving clergy as Ottos. FFS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:(given that I've used a mod to fix the obvious political power bug) Gort posted:According to some modders there are hidden modifiers that make the defender get more regiments in the battle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
defender advantage is very impactful and something you should try to take advantage of rather than fall victim to. setting good generals on defense and letting them mow down the enemy for a few months before you start to make an offensive push can be a much better idea than just pushing forward from the start, although obviously if the army quality disparity between you and your opponent is large enough in your favor you can feel confident in winning offensive battles
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Can you link the mod? I scrolled back and dont see it linked in the thread but I may be missing it. Gort posted:Imagine a landlord stamping on a human face, until they hotfix it
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:defender advantage is very impactful and something you should try to take advantage of rather than fall victim to. setting good generals on defense and letting them mow down the enemy for a few months before you start to make an offensive push can be a much better idea than just pushing forward from the start, although obviously if the army quality disparity between you and your opponent is large enough in your favor you can feel confident in winning offensive battles Yeah, to be clear, the mod for battle sizes doesn't remove the defender advantage, it just also adds a scaling "more regiments at the front" modifier if one side has more regiments at the front, where if you have twice the regiments you get 25% more regiments in the average battle, maxing out at double the regiments in the average battle if you outnumber the enemy four to one. In the vanilla game there's really no way to make numbers work for you - the defender will almost always have more regiments than you do in every fight. The only way to attack efficiently is to have a tech advantage. Big countries can still win, of course, just by eating the losses that are probably much less impactful for them than the minor nation they're stomping, but it still doesn't feel right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:defender advantage is very impactful and something you should try to take advantage of rather than fall victim to. setting good generals on defense and letting them mow down the enemy for a few months before you start to make an offensive push can be a much better idea than just pushing forward from the start, although obviously if the army quality disparity between you and your opponent is large enough in your favor you can feel confident in winning offensive battles The enemy has to actually try to advance the front for this to work, though. Gort posted:Playing as Russia and fighting the various unrecognised powers to the south (Kazakhs, Bukhara etc), I'll generally send 100 regiments to the fight, and they'll generally have about a dozen. In half the battles that occur, they have a numbers advantage, and in the others it's even. I don't think I've seen a battle where I've had a numbers edge. I'll still win eventually due to technology and being able to sustain much greater attrition, but it's crazy to commit so much more to the war and see so little on the actual battlefield. The flipside of this is if and when Qing get mad at you, you can hold off their entire army on the one giant Asian front with just a couple of decent defensive generals even while outnumbered 6:1. Also something something you try invading Afghanistan and see how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
eXXon posted:The enemy has to actually try to advance the front for this to work, though. In my experience, if you offer them enough of a numerical advantage they'll happily ignore the huge qualitative difference and send their line troops into the teeth of your trenches because they have 200 battalions to the 30 you're defending with. It's a very slow song and you'll need to rotate the army out to regain morale at some point, so keep an eye on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
not sure what the system gains by having a battle system
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 02:08
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:I just hope this game doesn't make oppressive psychotic hellstates into The Meta like Stellaris did. I still like to make a nice place in that game, even though I know I'm hobbling myself by not committing Maximum Murder. You can play nice empires just fine in Stellaris. The Meta, such as it is, often emphasizes super early military power to conquer your neighbors because doubling the size of your empire in the early game by stealing someone else's is hard to compete with; peaceful empires cannot and should not be able to match that level of growth (but will otherwise grow faster if all else is equal). I like Vicky 3's approach at the moment. You start out exploiting the everloving poo poo out of your population to get as much money as possible into the furnace that's powering your industrial development. But then you start needing your population, which means you start educating them and giving them access to healthcare, more rights, a say in government, etc. And then at some point you decide if you want to continue riding the capitalist gravy train of absurd investment or if you want to smash the upper class into a fine paste that is then used to feed your other workers. The people are almost certainly better off under Council Republic/Interventionalism, but boy howdy does Laissez Faire with public companies just skyrocket your investment pool and let you expand your industry to meet the needs of the expanding industry. And if the expanding industry runs into a barrier like a lack of people or raw resources, well, then it becomes time to do a colonialism. Though, to be fair, if I'm running a communist utopia, I also happily use force to spread worker's rights across the planet. Maybe I'm just a bad person and doing a colonialism or two (or three, or four, or several dozen) is too much fun to pass up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:but boy howdy does Laissez Faire with public companies just skyrocket your investment pool and let you expand your industry to meet the needs of the expanding industry. This is something I was meaning to investigate in greater detail but never got around to, but does public companies actually provide any economic benefit? As best I know the effect is that it hires more capitalists, but this shouldn't affect the investment pool since dividends are as far as I know divided up out of the factory's total profits before getting divided up between the various capitalists. If anything, public companies should theoretically as far as I'm aware be WORSE for the company since it means more capitalists drawing wages and reducing profitability before the results get turned into dividends, while more capitalists to split dividends up amongst means more but slightly poorer capitalists (which might overall be a net gain for economic demand, but hard to say). Near as I know the main benefit of public companies is simply that it means more capitalists, which can be important if you want to cultivate them as a political group to leverage out landholders - otherwise it's of questionable, at best neutral value.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 04:44
|
|
|
Waifu Radia posted:not sure what the system gains by having a battle system They needed some place to show off those stunning character models and animations
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
As China, I actually ran into a wall where I ran out of demand, despite the relatively low QoL of my population. I may have had 550M people, but when 70% of them are peasants, they don't generate much demand and my industry has nothing to do. This prevents me from expanding my industry further and giving the peasantry better-paying jobs. How do you break out of this rut? I tried setting up some exports to generate external demand, but that didn't go super far. It's 1905, and I'm struggling to find enough stuff to build for my current ~2300 construction points (and I'm sure my economy could support over 5000 construction points if I had the demand for such growth). Also, lead has become a pretty serious problem. I tried to alleviate the lead shortfall by invading the dutch east indies (who have a ton of it), but then spain came to their defense and made me a rival in the process, and they were giving me several thousand lead so now I'm in an even bigger hole. Oops.
Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Dec 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 06:57
|
|
|
 https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2898482972 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 07:08
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:You can play nice empires just fine in Stellaris. The Meta, such as it is, often emphasizes super early military power to conquer your neighbors because doubling the size of your empire in the early game by stealing someone else's is hard to compete with; peaceful empires cannot and should not be able to match that level of growth (but will otherwise grow faster if all else is equal). liberating the workers of Venezuela and Brunei and letting them share in the bounty of the Greater Punjabi Co-Prosperity Sphere is not colonialism, comrade 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 07:10
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:As China, I actually ran into a wall where I ran out of demand, despite the relatively low QoL of my population. I may have had 550M people, but when 70% of them are peasants, they don't generate much demand and my industry has nothing to do. This prevents me from expanding my industry further and giving the peasantry better-paying jobs. How do you break out of this rut? I tried setting up some exports to generate external demand, but that didn't go super far. It's 1905, and I'm struggling to find enough stuff to build for my current ~2300 construction points (and I'm sure my economy could support over 5000 construction points if I had the demand for such growth). Also, lead has become a pretty serious problem. I tried to alleviate the lead shortfall by invading the dutch east indies (who have a ton of it), but then spain came to their defense and made me a rival in the process, and they were giving me several thousand lead so now I'm in an even bigger hole. Oops. Just go ham building farms? Peasants consume something like 10 or 20% of the amount of goods a non-peasant at the same SoL does. If it craters the price of grain in the process that'll just give pops more money to spend on other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
CrypticTriptych posted:Just go ham building farms? Peasants consume something like 10 or 20% of the amount of goods a non-peasant at the same SoL does. If it craters the price of grain in the process that'll just give pops more money to spend on other things. I guess I should. Maybe I'll just go ham building 100 construction buildings and a shitload of farms. If this works, then I'll feel dumb for not having done it decades ago. Sometimes, you just have to give your economy a good shock to kick it into gear, it seems like. I did something similar when I decided to just set every single urban center to covered markets in order to generate more demand. It certainly worked! And the cheaper services helped too. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Dec 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
Mods do what Pdox don't
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 07:55
|
|
|
In a perfect world we'd have a separate screen including this info for any group of population. Like click on Labourers in population screen and see this for Labourers across the country or in a specific province. Click Bueareucrats in a Government Administration in London and see what's the deal with this group (which might include some non-English or non-Anglican people).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 09:59
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I guess I should. Maybe I'll just go ham building 100 construction buildings and a shitload of farms. If this works, then I'll feel dumb for not having done it decades ago. Opium plantations also tend to be in high demand since everyone needs it for their military (and you get to cut off enemy opium supplies if they're buying it from you and go to war with you). But generally I've never run into demand issues as China - when you build more stuff, you get more workers who aren't peasants who demand more stuff, which means you build more stuff, which means you need more demand... China has enough pops that it generally is the market, once your pops start consuming things, that is. As for lead, I usually go for Japan throughout the game. It's its own interest area, and generally you're only really competing with Russia in that sphere, with other great powers popping in and out on occasion once the colonies are finished. Get over 100 boats and you can intimidate Japan into surrendering a province, and from there it's trivial to invade them further because you can just start on their island. My general conquering order is to make Burma, Dai Nam, and Siak vassals (you get their vassals/tributaries as well), and intersperse a province or two from Japan while burning off infamy. At some point during this time you modernize enough that your army is competitive with great powers, at which point you start ignoring the infamy cap and go ham with conquering everything you can get your hands on. There's really nothing that even GB can do to you when you're fielding 2,000 professional army divisions with the latest technology, and Russia's peasants are a joke. If you're really, really lucky, you can actually colonize Hokkaido. Russia will get Kazakh first. If that takes them too long, you can get central planning and the tech for colonialism before they get a chance to colonize Hokkaido, at which point you can trivially invade Japan. Do watch out though - going for colonialism first will crater your bureaucracy and that's a death spiral. Tomn posted:This is something I was meaning to investigate in greater detail but never got around to, but does public companies actually provide any economic benefit? As best I know the effect is that it hires more capitalists, but this shouldn't affect the investment pool since dividends are as far as I know divided up out of the factory's total profits before getting divided up between the various capitalists. If anything, public companies should theoretically as far as I'm aware be WORSE for the company since it means more capitalists drawing wages and reducing profitability before the results get turned into dividends, while more capitalists to split dividends up amongst means more but slightly poorer capitalists (which might overall be a net gain for economic demand, but hard to say). Near as I know the main benefit of public companies is simply that it means more capitalists, which can be important if you want to cultivate them as a political group to leverage out landholders - otherwise it's of questionable, at best neutral value. That's an excellent question. I think it helps a lot for plantations that would ordinarily be held by aristocrats. Also, more capitalists means more demand for luxury goods, which in turn makes those industries more profitable. Anecdotally, I do see my investment pool go up when I swap everything to public ownership, but I haven't actually run the numbers to check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
You can also pump up demand with some good ol' government expenditures. More construction means more demand for wood/iron/tools/etc, provided you have the budget to support it, which can get you some more laborers who need their needs met with other industries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:As China, I actually ran into a wall where I ran out of demand, despite the relatively low QoL of my population. I may have had 550M people, but when 70% of them are peasants, they don't generate much demand and my industry has nothing to do. This prevents me from expanding my industry further and giving the peasantry better-paying jobs. How do you break out of this rut? I tried setting up some exports to generate external demand, but that didn't go super far. It's 1905, and I'm struggling to find enough stuff to build for my current ~2300 construction points (and I'm sure my economy could support over 5000 construction points if I had the demand for such growth). Also, lead has become a pretty serious problem. I tried to alleviate the lead shortfall by invading the dutch east indies (who have a ton of it), but then spain came to their defense and made me a rival in the process, and they were giving me several thousand lead so now I'm in an even bigger hole. Oops. ramp up your construction and just build. the demand will appear either through AI nations noticing low prices and setting up routes of their own, or through your peasants becoming other things. you don't need to go ham on farms because your goal isn't to displace the peasantry but to get them into higher-paying work. peasantry is a useful fallback job that is better than unemployment so there is no reason to do the historical thing and enclose the commons unless you actually need the agricultural goods. on the other hand, farms build faster than anything else so if you want to employ people faster they're good for that
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
So did the army morale changes actually fix anything, like battles all taking a month or more?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
i keep running out of room to build any resources or farms or anything by like 1920-1915. it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
Waifu Radia posted:i keep running out of room to build any resources or farms or anything by like 1920-1915. it sucks. Sounds like you need to do a colonialism. Just think of all those poor people of the world who are enjoying themselves instead of toiling away in your sweatshops! Do it for them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
have u considered imperialism as a solution alternately start trying to drag people into your market, idk if they've fixed building ai but even before I could usually count on it for basic ag goods like fabric n poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Waifu Radia posted:i keep running out of room to build any resources or farms or anything [...] it sucks. Just do more imperialism. If there's no convenient imperialism left, pick an enemy empire and take their imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:have u considered imperialism as a solution I use the AI mod bc paradox’s dev diaries mainly just discussed things that modders said took them ten minutes lol so I’ve lost faith
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Sad how the real problem solvers are modders who claim to do wonderful things and their mods never get enough exposure to expose issues with their solutions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Waifu Radia posted:i keep running out of room to build any resources or farms or anything by like 1920-1915. it sucks. Conquering a Chinese province or two usually solves all of my agricultural needs, but yeah, lead and sulfur can get real scarce late game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
Is this working as intended: - start transfer subject play on Siam - France joins the play - I add liberate subject wargoals against France - France abandons the play - Siam escalates to war - I easily win the war, get to enforce all my wargoals on France as well as my puppet Siam goal This feels funny, but at least France paid a price for their meddling in my Imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Is this working as intended: Was France part of the war?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Is this working as intended: That seems like a bug, unless France rejoined the play at some point before the escalation started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2022 21:30
|
|