|
I just saw this on the workshop, a mod that seems to help with lategame construction lag
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
AG3 posted:The more I play this, the more I get a feeling of the game being released way earlier than the devs themselves actually would have liked. A lot of the mechanics feel like... if not a proof of concept, definitely like something that was obviously bare-bones and needed a make-over, but there was simply no time to do so before release. I mean the devs aren't dumb; it's not like they didn't already know of a lot of the obvious shortcomings in some of the systems, but time and resources are finite and the game had to release at some point even if it wasn't in the state they would have liked it to. There's tons of stuff and systems that there were obviously big ideas for, but that never got fleshed out properly before release, like all the decisions in the journal. The more I play the more I feel they left in plenty of room for features to be included in future expansions, and I don't mean that as cynically as I probably sound. The baseline economic system is phenomenal and considering how many hours I've already sunk into it is clearly a quality gameplay system, but there is certainly a lack of flavor in the way that a paradox game that is later in its development cycle would have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
IMO the diplomacy and diplo-plays need the most help. Everything outside of a diplo-play feels totally useless since the AI never agrees to any meaningful deals ever, and will side against you in plays seemingly regardless of relationship. Diplo plays are a great conceptual spark but fall down in so many ways in their current implementation -- the constraints they add are generally way more frustrating than fun. I think more than anything there needs to be an ability to escalate a war, basically re-entering the diplo-play phase while the war is still being fought, or to allow immediately setting new war goals if one side capitulates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 07:39
|
|
|
It just annoys me that i have to start a series of 6 - 8 plays against Mexico over the course of 40 years to complete the manifest destiny journal entry as the US. And in any one of those plays, there's a serious risk of some random european power like Austria getting involved for god knows what reason. I've just started save scumming diplomatic plays, to be honest. There's absolutely zero way to predict what any of the third parties will do until you actually launch the play. And that is a huge issue with the system. Predictability is key to any good system in a strategy game, because if you can predict something, then you can plan for it. But instead, it feels like every country with an interest flips a coin to decide if they're going to interfere or not. And you get some really bizarre interests too. I've had Austria interfere with me trying to conquer a random OPM on Borneo as Japan. Like, what the gently caress? Utterly nonsensical. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Jan 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
ro5s posted:I just saw this on the workshop, a mod that seems to help with lategame construction lag Gonna try this tonight. If this is the solution to playing on a potato, then PI are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 10:21
|
|
|
It does really feel like the playtesting had an extreme focus on the first decade or so of the game. I get why you'd do that, but the game scales really poorly in the lategame in a number of ways as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 11:24
|
|
|
Gort posted:It does really feel like the playtesting had an extreme focus on the first decade or so of the game. I get why you'd do that, but the game scales really poorly in the lategame in a number of ways as a result. It can't be intended gameplay that for any nation bigger than a single state or two, you have to literally queue up dozens upon dozens of buildings from mid-late game by hand to use your thousands of construction capacity, and do it every few weeks (what, 10 minutes ingame?). It gets extremely annoying and without Anbeeld's AI mod and its autobuild feature I'd never have gone past 1880 or so
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 11:27
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:It can't be intended gameplay that for any nation bigger than a single state or two, you have to literally queue up dozens upon dozens of buildings from mid-late game by hand to use your thousands of construction capacity, and do it every few weeks (what, 10 minutes ingame?). It gets extremely annoying and without Anbeeld's AI mod and its autobuild feature I'd never have gone past 1880 or so There's a lot of indicators that the devs thought that people just weren't going to build massive amounts of construction industry for whatever reason and therefore didn't test the game under those conditions, I think this is the underlying cause of most of the obvious problems that the game has (for example the AI isn't anywhere near as much of a pushover if you never go over 500 construction)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 12:08
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:There's a lot of indicators that the devs thought that people just weren't going to build massive amounts of construction industry for whatever reason and therefore didn't test the game under those conditions, I think this is the underlying cause of most of the obvious problems that the game has (for example the AI isn't anywhere near as much of a pushover if you never go over 500 construction) Yeah it seems clear to me that they wanted to somehow limit the amount of construction you can get - but they failed the first try looks like, because there's absolutely no point in not making GDP number go up, and construction is THE way to make GDP number go up... softcaps like "players won't make enough money" and "no one is insane enough to queue up 100 buildings every 4 ingame weeks" clearly aren't enough, especially since the money problem eventually solves itself after you overbuild spectacularly and get several size 50 city centers. And the hardcap "maximum X construction sectors per state" is a complete joke honestly, even on "tall" playthroughs I think I never maxed a single state's construction sector and I still got hundreds/thousands of construction points... Still having a blast with it, but I'm willing to wager that in 1 year the game will be much better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 12:14
|
|
|
Yeah, a general rule in game design is, "If the optimal way to play is unfun, change the optimal way to play". Right now the optimal way to play is to have as much construction as you can afford, which is thousands of points for mid-game major powers, and unfun to administer. I think construction needs a big overhaul: 1. As TorakFade says, the limits on the number of construction sectors you can have in a state is so high you'll basically never reach it (being limited by money first in every case I've ever seen) - this points to the devs having expectations that turned out to be wrong. I'd just ditch the limit, honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense that you can have 10,000 art academies in a state but only 5 construction sectors. This may require the ditching of the "local construction sectors mean local buildings get built faster" rule as well, and that's fine too. 2. Better tech should let you put more construction points into a single building. At present each building can have 20 points per week put into it. Since in the late game you have thousands of construction points, this means that later on your construction queue has hundreds of items in it, which is very unwieldy in both brain-space and UI terms. It makes sense that better construction techniques would allow individual buildings to be constructed faster, so maybe let individual buildings have 20 construction points a week using wooden buildings, 40 points using iron-frame buildings, 60 points using steel-frame buildings, and 80 points using arc-welded buildings. 3. The UI for construction needs to be improved. Later in the game you'll be building sets of 20 or more buildings at a time - displaying each building separately in the build queue won't cut it. If I queue up 20 steel mills in Yorkshire, just put "20 Steel Mill, Yorkshire" in the build queue and display the time until all of them are completed next to that, I don't need to know about each mill separately. 4. This is also true of the rest of the game's buildings, but there needs to be a way to transition a stack of buildings smoothly from one production method to another. For example, if I have 15 construction sectors in Yorkshire and I want to move from iron-frame buildings to steel-frame buildings, I have to transition all 15 at once, which can be a big economic shock with input goods shortages. Let me transition a few of them at a time to avoid this. 5. There may need to be diminishing returns for construction sectors (though I'd need to run the numbers to know for sure). So your first wooden buildings construction sector might give you 2 construction points, but your hundredth is only giving you 1. This would only be needed if it turns out the game has too much construction in general though. Gort fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Jan 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 13:03
|
|
|
Gort posted:Yeah, a general rule in game design is, "If the optimal way to play is unfun, change the optimal way to play". I get the construction UI being the problem, but from what I've seen it only becomes the problem when there is no point to build anything anymore. If you can produce 100 buildings simultaneously then you probably have a bigger economy than the rest of the world combined and could probably WC if you wanted. Of course, raising the numbers is a reward on its own, but it's clear that you've stepped outside of what this game is about at this point, and that is the real problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I get the construction UI being the problem, but from what I've seen it only becomes the problem when there is no point to build anything anymore. If you can produce 100 buildings simultaneously then you probably have a bigger economy than the rest of the world combined and could probably WC if you wanted. Of course, raising the numbers is a reward on its own, but it's clear that you've stepped outside of what this game is about at this point, and that is the real problem. Nah, constructing things is a chore long before you get to 2000 construction points. And outstripping the AI massively is more an "AI can't play the game very well" problem than a "rules of the game" problem - you can see what a half-decent AI can do with Anbeeld's AI mod (which comes with rather crippling performance issues since it's a script floating on top of the existing AI code, which can't be directly modded). I would also like the devs to work on the AI, but "the AI can't play the game" and "construction is a chore" both need to be solved before this game will really be good. If you solve only one, the other will drag you down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
Gort posted:And outstripping the AI massively is more an "AI can't play the game very well" problem than a "rules of the game" problem - you can see what a half-decent AI can do with Anbeeld's AI mod (which comes with rather crippling performance issues since it's a script floating on top of the existing AI code, which can't be directly modded). We don't know if whatever this AI mod does can be implemented with satisfactory performance, so it's premature to call it half-decent. In general I'm skeptical of AI mods cause it's such a black box system hard to test that it's always hard to tell how well it performs and if it doesn't break anything else. In a game like this design and AI and performance are interwoven. Individual changes here or there help, but for it all to come together you need game systems that suit UI and vice versa. Construction queue is a good example of what doesn't work in all regards: it's unwieldy in UI, it causes performance issues apparently, it demonstrates AI weakness cause when you're able to do it you eclipse AI, and I'm not sure if other gameplay systems support such rapid growth (I think they do not cause at this point lack of specialists and workforce should probably be a problem but it doesn't). If you make UI for that perfect and AI learns to play the game so this possibility is not an overkill then it's still questionable design and possibly not something the engine is supposed to handle performance-wise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:04
|
|
|
Getting to 100 simultaneous constructions doesn't require any amazing feats of dominance. Several countries can do it while never expanding beyond their starting borders, only going through their natural progression arc. The only reason why a player who accomplishes this is always in such a dominant position comes down to how bad the AI is. If victoria 3 had better AI, then several AI countries would be in that position right alongside you, and it would happen every campaign. So I strongly disagree with this position being outside the scope of the game or whatever. Getting there is exactly what the game is about, and the endgame should feature world-spanning clashes between such superpowers (as we saw in real life) If the designers did not intend for countries to reliably reach thousands of construction points, then they've hosed up in many more ways than making a tedious interface. They need to either fix the interface issues present when managing thousands of construction points, or they need to completely re-balance production so it's almost impossible to reach that point without achieving great feats of conquest. Because, as the game is now, that ordeal is absolutely within the bounds of what the game is about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:17
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:So I strongly disagree with this position being outside the scope of the game or whatever. Getting there is exactly what the game is about, and the endgame should feature world-spanning clashes between such superpowers (as we saw in real life) I'm probably very bad at explaining what I mean. I didn't mean scope as what the game is supposed to have, I meant to say that at this point you're already at a situation where the game as a whole breaks apart, all of its parts except for statistics screens that show that your numbers still pointlessly go up. To me talking about UI here is like complaining about how in arena shooter getting out of map bounds allows you to see through walls or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I'm probably very bad at explaining what I mean. I didn't mean scope as what the game is supposed to have, I meant to say that at this point you're already at a situation where the game as a whole breaks apart, all of its parts except for statistics screens that show that your numbers still pointlessly go up. To me talking about UI here is like complaining about how in arena shooter getting out of map bounds allows you to see through walls or something. I still disagree. Going out of bounds in a shooter involves glitching the game in some way, while getting to thousands of construction points is exactly what Vicky 3 wants you to do. This would be more like if an arena shooter broke down if you got a mild kill streak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
It's an issue of the rich getting richer, which is a point of the game that the AI doesn't fully understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
Fair. Anyway, the late game requires some complex balancing. AI should do smarter decisions, sure. But it's probably supposed to be balanced better in a variety of ways. Perhaps just fixing the AI would help! I find it unrewarding to play as a minor power and end up extremely developed by the end game. If AI can do similar stuff it would still feel off cause not every minor power in Asia was an industrial powerhouse in the 1900's. I feel like some balancing act should be there like rapid economic growth should not be a no-brainer. Devs alluded to that saying that the mindless building of the economy may empower wrong people or make your people want strange things, but you rarely see that in the endgame. Perhaps more active AI would force me to switch focus to defense or expansion instead of economic development, and the choices would be more interesting, and the world would be more diverse. Perhaps just fixing the AI would make very rare those boring endgame situations when you just wait for hundreds of buildings to upgrade. I don't know! ilitarist fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jan 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:42
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Perhaps just fixing the AI would make very rare those boring endgame situations when you just wait for hundreds of buildings to upgrade. I don't know! The game is extremely complex, and we don't know all the numbers, so yes, this is a very hard issue to untangle. E: I just hope Paradox, as others have said, will give it a bit of that Stellaris magic... to a point. Can't say I agree with how Stellaris panned out, but it's certainly a better game than at launch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
Imo tie constitution sector cap to urban center level. Every state has room for One or Two sectors by default then get an extra one for every let's say 3 urban center levels. edit: furthermore out a soft cap on urban center levels that gets increased with the techs that used to increase con sector cap. Once ur past level 10 or whatever it takes increasingly impractical amounts of points to go up a level to encourage players to not just open palm slam every factory into the capital state at the start of every game Agean90 fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jan 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Imo tie constitution sector cap to urban center level. Urban center soft cap could be a rising mortality penalty due to health and sanitation, with the cap increasing as you research sewers and other better urban infrastructure, even.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Urban center soft cap could be a rising mortality penalty due to health and sanitation, with the cap increasing as you research sewers and other better urban infrastructure, even. That and the amount of urbanization points needed for the next level starts to go up. The idea is that the cap is the max you can build a city to before it comes a stereotypical victorian era shithole and the farther you get beyond that the harder it is to keep the city growing in a way that isn't slums.. Add mortality, chances for disease outbreaks, and a general penalty to migration attraction as people seek to get the gently caress out
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Fair. Anyway, the late game requires some complex balancing. AI should do smarter decisions, sure. But it's probably supposed to be balanced better in a variety of ways. Perhaps just fixing the AI would help! I find it unrewarding to play as a minor power and end up extremely developed by the end game. If AI can do similar stuff it would still feel off cause not every minor power in Asia was an industrial powerhouse in the 1900's. I feel like some balancing act should be there like rapid economic growth should not be a no-brainer. Devs alluded to that saying that the mindless building of the economy may empower wrong people or make your people want strange things, but you rarely see that in the endgame. if super rapid growth under LF capitalism resulted in a capitalist coup of your country that turned you into an anarcho-capitalist hell state where you're unable to collect taxes or some other penalties, maybe that would be a more interesting balancing act you'd have to strike. it also doesn't help that none of the factors that caused the great depression seem simulated here. there's just zero downside to unregulated rampant growth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:It just annoys me that i have to start a series of 6 - 8 plays against Mexico over the course of 40 years to complete the manifest destiny journal entry as the US. And in any one of those plays, there's a serious risk of some random european power like Austria getting involved for god knows what reason. Just Puppet them and ignore the reclaim entirely. Puppet and then annex the moment the truce comes up is a) way lower on infamy than taking all the states at once and b) handily avoids the backing down problem since you're only after one goal. Also leaves you with loads of play points for if some fucker joins in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
BTW, are the rapid assimilation mods still needed for performance gains or that has been worked on already?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I've had Austria interfere with me trying to conquer a random OPM on Borneo as Japan. Like, what the gently caress? Utterly nonsensical. I had Austria intervene against me when I fought Qing for the Tarim basin as Kokand, and send 200,000 soldiers to the desert where they never fought a battle because they were at 0 supply but had tens of thousands die of attrition. (Qing sending its entire army including conscripts to central Asia to die of attrition while 10 regiments fight at a time over a province with fewer civilians than soldiers is also weird)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
Finished my first playthrough (well got tired of it c.1890) and I agree with a lot of things I've seen in this thread/elsewhere. The economic/domestic gameplay is fun/has a solid base even if yeah probably too easy. As Belgium I was comfortably no.1 in GDP, GDP per capita, standard of living... which probably shouldn't happen in my very first game? But it's just satisfying to get those positive feedback loops going in your economy and see line go up. On the other hand the diplomatic/military mechanics put me off to the point where I outright don't want to engage with them/it's putting me off starting another game. Which is... a problem in a grand strategy game. Diplomacy and warfare seem random and obtuse in unfun ways, there don't seem to be enough meaningful ways to influence what happens in diplomatic plays/battles and it's never clear to me why a country sided against me or why an 80 vs 20 front keeps producing 5 vs 20 battles where my forces get wrecked time after time again. Could have used more time in the oven as others have said but there's enough good in it that I hope that the substandard mechanics get overhauls and the game can reach its full potential.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
What differentiates an interest group that is starting a revolution for one that is just whiney?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:What differentiates an interest group that is starting a revolution for one that is just whiney? The break point is -10 approval
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
-10 approval is the new 25 infamy
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Did a few short runs as Persia, then a few as Brunei. I gave up on my last one because my attempt at taking Java ended with me getting my poo poo kicked in by the DEI, the Netherlands and France. A couple of questions (apologies if they've been answered recently): - If your armies are bigger than your fleet (which causes an automatic naval invasion failure) is there a way to make a single army smaller (other than churning out new generals and splitting the existing regiments? - Is there a way to see the effective attack/defense of your regiments outside of battle? I know someone mentioned there was a debuff for switching barracks production types, but I have no idea where to check that. Nominally they should've been ~ 50 att/def, but in combat were at about 20.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
kalthir posted:Did a few short runs as Persia, then a few as Brunei. I gave up on my last one because my attempt at taking Java ended with me getting my poo poo kicked in by the DEI, the Netherlands and France. A couple of questions (apologies if they've been answered recently): First question: You can also delete some barracks! Yeah, no good way to reduce the size of a specific army. Second question: A couple places I think. In the army screen you should be able to click the general (or an arrow?) to expand, then you should see the regiments they're commanding. Also you can go to the barracks to see the same if you know where they are (shouldn't be a problem if you updated everyone at once). Hovering over their attack/defence shows modifiers like from changing methods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 22:01
|
|
|
How is humiliating useful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Humiliation prevents a country from joining diplomatic plays against you for 5 years last I checked so it can be useful to humiliate Qing or GB or Austria just to get them to stop messing with you in Africa or wherever you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
Plus it really shows them who's boss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Plus it really shows them who's boss. Also, doesn't it give them a prestige penalty and could theoretically knock them out of GP status?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:Also, doesn't it give them a prestige penalty and could theoretically knock them out of GP status? It does, I tried using it when I got the Habsburg Resurgence achievement. Turns out that taking the state of Brandenburg was way more effective at bringing Prussia down to a lower power ranking than the Humiliation CB. Although now that I think about it, that could be a pretty devious way to mess up the Ottoman empire if you covet their land or their subjects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
New update out to The Great Rework mod in case anyone’s interested https://reddit.com/r/victoria3/comments/10cz1kv/the_great_rework_major_update_completely_new/ Reworks German unification, China and how colonization works. To the latter they’ve added stuff like colonial disputes and and diplomatic solutions. They’ve also made it possible to do economic investments in other countries like puppets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 12:05
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1615000930520276996
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
It's an improvement, but it's not a spreadsheet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 20:40
|
|
