|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:If the battle goes on for several weeks it makes sense that modifiers like surprise maneuver or poor visibility would go away after a while imo. Honestly, battles take way too long currently. At least so long as there can only be one battle per front. It's pretty frustrating for thousands of Russians and Chinese to fight in Manchuria for months while other massive armies just kind of twiddle their thumbs in Mongolia waiting for them to wrap up. If you want to bring more forces to bear at once you gotta do a naval invasion. I like most of the changes outlined in this Dev Diary, but the most fundamental issue with warfare in Victoria 3 is the wildly inconsistent pace of it based on the number of fronts you have. With the war goal stuff the most frustrating parts of giant fronts- random nonsensical advances- have been addressed, so I honestly would be able to make peace with giant fronts if they weren't so drat slow compared to multi front wars. It shouldn't double the speed of a war between Russia and China to open a front in Korea. This seems like an issue that could be addressed though, with faster battles or more battles for really long fronts. They say in this Dev Diary that the size of the battle is actually reduced by the length of the front. And that sounds like it would make the issue worse, but if smaller battles are significantly quicker maybe it'll help? I'm not sure.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
Proposal for an event: The Armed forces interest group splitting once both the Army and Navy are big enough. That way, one can represent that classic inter-branch rivalry that always tends to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
imo they should remove battles completely and fully abstract the combat model. It seems odd to me to remove the ability to move units into battle, while retaining the battle itself. Battles are unsatisfying because there is basically no player agency - you assign a general to a front, and the rest the game literally plays itself. May as well remove them and create a more involved front system with greater player interaction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
They are inherently trying to avoid 'a more involved front system with greater player interaction'. Battles existing or not existing does not do anything to change that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:i liek big arrow i made transbikal a war goal in my war against russia, then i set transbikal as a strategic objective. a nice big arrow appeared on the screen and it was very satisfying. my army took exactly transbikal and no other land before the russians capitulated because i took and held the goal and the war was hopeless for them. game good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:imo they should remove battles completely and fully abstract the combat model. It seems odd to me to remove the ability to move units into battle, while retaining the battle itself. Battles are unsatisfying because there is basically no player agency - you assign a general to a front, and the rest the game literally plays itself. May as well remove them and create a more involved front system with greater player interaction. The battles are fun and tense sometimes
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
So, as a conceptual/tech question. Why does the game grind so haaaaaard when you get big, even though that means there's less for the AI to worry about? The same amount of economic activity is taking place, even over the same area if i.e. you hit GP and immediately shank and eat the GP you were riding the customs union of. Are the calculations threaded per-tag? Is there an element I'm not thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 08:39
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:imo they should remove battles completely and fully abstract the combat model. It seems odd to me to remove the ability to move units into battle, while retaining the battle itself. Battles are unsatisfying because there is basically no player agency - you assign a general to a front, and the rest the game literally plays itself. May as well remove them and create a more involved front system with greater player interaction. Imo they should have battles, and "skirmishing". Seeing battles where two generals duke it out is cool. (and should happen faster, and bigger fronts should allow more battles.) But there should be a general level of skirmishing accross the front just to end it faster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 08:55
|
|
|
It's pop fragmentation and division from migrations and education and conquests etc. Just more to calculate. And more goods in the economy for them to consume
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 08:55
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:So, as a conceptual/tech question. Why does the game grind so haaaaaard when you get big, even though that means there's less for the AI to worry about? The same amount of economic activity is taking place, even over the same area if i.e. you hit GP and immediately shank and eat the GP you were riding the customs union of. Are the calculations threaded per-tag? Is there an element I'm not thinking of? 1) More PoPs not "number that multiplies PoP consumption" but actual hard number of PoPs. 2) Multi-threading, the game indeed use multi-threading to split apart tags(or markets i'm not sure which). So as you create more PoPs and consolidate them into a single thread, the game slows down as you now have one processor doing 100x the calculations it was doing at game start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 08:59
|
|
|
In my opinion multiculturalism should somehow hamper colonization and/or imperialism in general. It feels super weird as a multiculturalist Germany to colonize Africa and invade Burma for resources, especially with the "colonial exploitation" law. Perhaps a more benevolent colonial law if nothing else? Even resettlement sounds weird, although not so bad. I mean, as far as I know all this poo poo in real life was justified by racism and white man's burden, so it feels jarring to be able to do it just as well when my society is ostensibly not racist and all cultures are accepted. On the other hand, I do realize that multiculturalism does not mean some hippie pacifism, but I fail to see how this would work. I guess the Mongols showed how a tolerant empire might still be ambitious and imperialist, but yeah still hard to wrap my head around how this is supposed to be believable
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
Keisari posted:In my opinion multiculturalism should somehow hamper colonization and/or imperialism in general. It feels super weird as a multiculturalist Germany to colonize Africa and invade Burma for resources, especially with the "colonial exploitation" law. Perhaps a more benevolent colonial law if nothing else? Even resettlement sounds weird, although not so bad. "the civilizing mission", "bringing democracy to my homeland", "permanent revolution", even a sense of smugness at going back home to remind the village bully his caste is outranked by a passport with Her Maj's seal on it and his heirloom sword gets him shot dead at fifty paces with a Colt. There are slight nuances in how each mindset would consider it that you might be able to show in game mechanics, but if anything making the colonization a no vote on traditional leadership rather than a racial animus makes it easier for people--even/especially people who rejected that leadership and emigrated--to accept.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 09:42
|
|
|
Keisari posted:In my opinion multiculturalism should somehow hamper colonization and/or imperialism in general. It feels super weird as a multiculturalist Germany to colonize Africa and invade Burma for resources, especially with the "colonial exploitation" law. Perhaps a more benevolent colonial law if nothing else? Even resettlement sounds weird, although not so bad. In fact the very first imperialists were the first multi-culturalists, who had the singular invention of "what if, when we win a war, instead of just taking their land, we make the people on that land join us". Successful empires have to become multi-cultural (or create an imperial cultural but those are functionally the same thing as imperial cultures are meant to go on top of local cultures.). If it wasn't for the taxing thing, I would make a strong arguement not accepting the natives should bar you from integrating land all together. While racism was invented with science to justify colonialism, it also doomed the empires of the period. WhitemageofDOOM fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:1) More PoPs not "number that multiplies PoP consumption" but actual hard number of PoPs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
PoP stands for Pieces of Population
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
did nerds invent an acronym for where there once was just a term again. Pops have always been units of Pops (short for population).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
Older games called them POPs, old habits die hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Archduke Frantz Fanon posted:PoP stands for Pieces of Population Part of Population, actually. Close enough though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Part of Population, actually. Close enough though! I thought it was Proportion of Population, but same thing yeah. But yeah, this is why. It isn't about population number, it's about number of PoPs. 10,000,000 people in one PoP is either no more taxing than 10 or only somewhat more taxing. 100 PoPs of 10 population are 100x as taxing a 1 PoP of 1,000 population.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Keisari posted:In my opinion multiculturalism should somehow hamper colonization and/or imperialism in general. It feels super weird as a multiculturalist Germany to colonize Africa and invade Burma for resources, especially with the "colonial exploitation" law. Perhaps a more benevolent colonial law if nothing else? Even resettlement sounds weird, although not so bad. The problem with multiculturalism in Vicky 3 is that it imposes a 21st century teleological view of liberals and conservatives onto the 19th century. The most multicultural empires of the period - Austria, Ottomans, Russia - were also the most conservative. It was often the traditional monarchy or clergy who advocated for the rights of smaller ethnic groups against the interest of nationalist liberals. The French Revolution, and French nationhood, led to the intentional destruction of French dialects. Bismarck fought the Kulturkampf. The Young Turks tried to exterminate the Armenians. The idea that societies progress from primitive ethnostates to glorious multicultural ones is almost exactly backwards. Tightening cultural exclusion was part of the modernizing national project almost everywhere it happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:The problem with multiculturalism in Vicky 3 is that it imposes a 21st century teleological view of liberals and conservatives onto the 19th century. The most multicultural empires of the period - Austria, Ottomans, Russia - were also the most conservative. It was often the traditional monarchy or clergy who advocated for the rights of smaller ethnic groups against the interest of nationalist liberals. The French Revolution, and French nationhood, led to the intentional destruction of French dialects. Bismarck fought the Kulturkampf. The Young Turks tried to exterminate the Armenians. This is indeed true. The church is as long as they are going to have the annoying religion/culture split, absolutely a thing that should be a thing that supports multiculturalism. And the landowners could be pretty big on that too. Racism was a product of science. Nationalism / the nation state a product of liberalism. (what justifies democratic rule? if not god or king.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
Did any countries practice multiculturalism in the vicky sense? Liberals and conservatives just had different ideas about who and how to oppress. The one-way always better progression into liberal isn't my fave thing about this game, and similarly the one communist experiment was back into russification-as-policy by 1936. And why would oppressed and genocided people buy that? Britain, 1889: "Ireland, India, we have magnanimously decided you get to be british now. Friends?" or e: turboliberal enlightened philosophy France trying that on Algeria and spoiler alert to how well it went down Building a utopia is part of the fun, I get, but multiculturalism really sticks out as something that never worked and was never even attempted by vicky-era people from the classic major powers. The algerians, the irish, the cherokee, the kazakhs, it was never really equal, it was pretend enlightenment defined by a supremacist culture or set of cultures that started before and lasted after the period. Feels like adding Marxism-Leninism to EU4 if you pick the right ideas as Russia. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Yeah arguably the Soviets tries but then see the second half of that post. I think it should be possible in game the way that you can run a decentralized anarchist republic, but should be harder to do and probably have a bit more friction (additional laws along the way, perhaps an institution or something to represent slow progress towards integration)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2023 22:21
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:The problem with multiculturalism in Vicky 3 is that it imposes a 21st century teleological view of liberals and conservatives onto the 19th century. The most multicultural empires of the period - Austria, Ottomans, Russia - were also the most conservative. It was often the traditional monarchy or clergy who advocated for the rights of smaller ethnic groups against the interest of nationalist liberals. The French Revolution, and French nationhood, led to the intentional destruction of French dialects. Bismarck fought the Kulturkampf. The Young Turks tried to exterminate the Armenians. As is minority cultures are perfectly happy in a intellengsia-ruled state to be ruled over by an outside imperial majority in their own homelands, being outvoted in every election. Honestly, it would be great if you got to set cultural rights (limited by your laws) for every culture you owned a homeland of (and your laws will provide a default for immigrants/minorities outside their homelands) a la Imperator - allow the Raj to grant the 'martial tribes' rights to military service, let me play off the Slavs against the Hungarians as Austria, etc. The ideal in my mind would be to place the player in a position where they're terrified to start reforming and granting cultural rights for fear it will tear apart their empire, while at the same time knowing that reform may be necessary to stave off open revolt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Citizenship law kind of makes more sense, as portrayed, as "who even CAN assimilate" than "who doesn't need to assimilate". Could probably say some interesting things about the French or Americans early, or Soviets late, by starting most pops as (state/region)-ese and forcing the player to make the calls about how much of the power of a focused unitary ideological (whether bourgeois or proletarian) government they want vs. how much they want to piss off other pops by forcing assimilation into the capital's baseline vs. how much they want to piss off Parisian or Yankee or Great Russian pops by embracing broad tent politics or spreading the SoL to assuage the former, with the potential to have both get radical if you end up with unsatisfactory compromises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Building a utopia is part of the fun, I get, but multiculturalism really sticks out as something that never worked and was never even attempted by vicky-era people from the classic major powers. The algerians, the irish, the cherokee, the kazakhs, it was never really equal, it was pretend enlightenment defined by a supremacist culture or set of cultures that started before and lasted after the period. Feels like adding Marxism-Leninism to EU4 if you pick the right ideas as Russia. I mean, I think it should be harder, but sticking it to the major powers of the era is the best part. That definitely includes ideologically. I'm not here to start having already won the game, I'm here to make the zulu #1 great power in my pan-african empire of "gently caress the colonizers". Mandoric posted:Citizenship law kind of makes more sense, as portrayed, as "who even CAN assimilate" than "who doesn't need to assimilate". Could probably say some interesting things about the French or Americans early, or Soviets late, by starting most pops as (state/region)-ese and forcing the player to make the calls about how much of the power of a focused unitary ideological (whether bourgeois or proletarian) government they want vs. how much they want to piss off other pops by forcing assimilation into the capital's baseline vs. how much they want to piss off Parisian or Yankee or Great Russian pops by embracing broad tent politics or spreading the SoL to assuage the former, with the potential to have both get radical if you end up with unsatisfactory compromises. Yeah the fact citizenship is the ability to assimilate is a deeply ignored or "why would you assimilate" thing. It's citizenship law for a reason, it's who you allow to be treated as a legal person. WhitemageofDOOM fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Mar 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
I've been playing with Stable Diffusion and I thought it would be fun to make like a "V3 pop visualiser" app that maps pop attributes to prompt fragments and then generates a portrait image. Some examples:       It's fun to play with the different combinations:  (opulent loyalist officers)  I don't really know what the point is but I thought people might think it was cool. fuf fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Mar 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 12:44
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:I mean, I think it should be harder, but sticking it to the major powers of the era is the best part. That definitely includes ideologically. Hmm good point, so basically in the context of my German Empire, they are still pretty racist and go with a lot of white man's burden stuff when conquering and subjugating around the globe, but there's no apartheid and a minority person can be considered german, or at least quasi-german if they assimilate enough and so on. So for example, there are no "only white people can become citizens" like the US had back in the times. Makes much more sense. On another note, I also feel awful and dirty sometimes when I play this game.  This makes me wanna read some history about how Indians were treated in British Isles, as far as I know there have been British-Indians for a long time due to their imperial conquests. If there is any history on that, because history usually focuses on the lives of the elite and not the commoners. But yeah feels like multiculturalism is there to fit with some kind of marxism-leninist or anarchist society, although iirc tolerance was not practiced as widely as it was preached even by the socialists/communists of the era. But, even if it isn't historical, I think a true multiculturalist society is plausible for the era, even if it didn't happen, and doing plausible alt history is really fun. Perhaps I'll turn my Germans communists as it will unlock in my save soon. But imo multiculturalism should be a bit harder to pass, for example by having a "racist" ideology on almost all of the nations at the start of the game and have some sort of "last of the monarchists" style journal entry, but called "last of the racists" which after X years removes the racist tag from all the IGs. The only IG not racist at start would perhaps be the intelligentsia, ironically. Even that feels kinda weird since science was used as a racist cudgel by the imperialists but that feels like the least nonsensical option. And even they wouldn't advocate multiculturalism by default, but would be neutral and could get a tolerant leader or something that would turn it into a strong endorse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:I mean, I think it should be harder, but sticking it to the major powers of the era is the best part. That definitely includes ideologically. I mean my beef applies just as well to every player empire. Why's the Mahdi and the Emperor of Abysinnia and the King of Morocco and the Caliph of Sokoto and all their people cool with the Pancommunist Turboafrican kwaZulu any more than any other continent would be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Keisari posted:Hmm good point, so basically in the context of my German Empire, they are still pretty racist and go with a lot of white man's burden stuff when conquering and subjugating around the globe, but there's no apartheid and a minority person can be considered german, or at least quasi-german if they assimilate enough and so on. So for example, there are no "only white people can become citizens" like the US had back in the times. This did not happen. Black people could be slaves/non-citizens, but there was no law restricting citizenship to white people. Edit: Especially because who was culturally considered "white" was a moving target in Victorian-era America, so that would be quite the unwieldy law. Quixzlizx fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Mar 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I mean my beef applies just as well to every player empire. Why's the Mahdi and the Emperor of Abysinnia and the King of Morocco and the Caliph of Sokoto and all their people cool with the Pancommunist Turboafrican kwaZulu any more than any other continent would be? Because the are subjects of Abysinnia now and never took up the concept of race to begin with? Like this is the period race is invented, and it's invented post hoc to justify the EXISTING colonial empires, so the european powers can sleep at night. It's invented to prevent extending citizenship to conquered peoples, who weren't enslaved at time of conquest explicitly(and generally one doesn't enslave entire nations). The emperor of Abysinnia sees no reason to claim some people born before their lands became Abysinnia can't themselves become Abyssian, why would he?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:This did not happen. Black people could be slaves/non-citizens, but there was no law restricting citizenship to white people. Naturalization was restricted to white persons in 1790, and black people couldn't be citizens according to Dredd Scott v. Sanford. Even after the civil war IIRC only white and black people could be citizens. E.g. Chinese people could only be naturalized in 1943.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Naturalization was restricted to white persons in 1790, and black people couldn't be citizens according to Dredd Scott v. Sanford. Even after the civil war IIRC only white and black people could be citizens. E.g. Chinese people could only be naturalized in 1943. Naturalization isn't the same as whether citizenship is possible, especially after the 14th Amendment established birthright citizenship. But I guess you could say that from Dred Scott to the 14th Amendment (1857-1868) there was case law explicitly denying citizenship based on race, although even that didn't explicitly define it as for white people only. And Dred Scott was considered a sham decision even at the time and helped lock in the inevitability of the ACW, leading to the 14A, so it's not like it was considered totally acceptable case law at the time that aged badly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Keisari said "only white people can become citizens", though. I wouldn't consider birthright citizenship as becoming a citizen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
It's really wacky that I can be a protectorate of France and end up at war with France multiple times without it ending tanking market access across my whole country because I started raiding french convoys Invading Paris and forcing war reparations from someone I'm nominally subject too, geopolitical powerbottoming Agean90 fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Mar 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:Because the are subjects of Abysinnia now and never took up the concept of race to begin with? France is vastly closer to Algiers than Abysinnia is to Sokoto, and also vastly closer in religion and culture Somehow enacting your plan did not work in even one conquered land
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Keisari said "only white people can become citizens", though. I wouldn't consider birthright citizenship as becoming a citizen. Birthright citizenship hard--counters ethnic/racial citizenship; they are contradictory and mutually exclusive. Which is why modern American fascists fantasize about eliminating it. You can still have racist immigration policy, but it needs to be couched in other terms, such as nationality/income/education. Which really isn't much different from modern immigration policy throughout most (all?) of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Keisari posted:But yeah feels like multiculturalism is there to fit with some kind of marxism-leninist or anarchist society, although iirc tolerance was not practiced as widely as it was preached even by the socialists/communists of the era. But, even if it isn't historical, I think a true multiculturalist society is plausible for the era, even if it didn't happen, and doing plausible alt history is really fun. Perhaps I'll turn my Germans communists as it will unlock in my save soon. I don't think Multiculturalism as presented--absolutely no pressure to assimilate, as opposed to an assimilation target that is intended to be about ideology rather than ethnicity--is necessarily compatible even with a successful M-L society. A centralized New Soviet Man, even assuming that there are no culture-associated positions on various laws or cultures which lose relatively harder during the liquidation of the upper strata, demands full intellectual engagement with the state and thus de facto demands assimilation of language. Recognizing this and taking countermeasures increases, rather than decreasing, the number of people who need to assimilate; the historical Soviet requirement for Kazakhs or Buryats to learn Russian and adopt social customs to fit in would just be replaced by the requirement for even Russians to learn German or Esperanto or whatever got picked as part of their assimilation to Soviet (to say nothing of the fact that even Esperanto is roughly going to be a taller ask the further east one goes.) A decentralized Policy of Nationalities doesn't impose as many demands on the average person, could almost be called de jure Multiculturalism, but in turn does create a pecking order of importance based on the material fact that there is an industrial and political center of the country and the prevalent culture there will have outsized sway. Staying out of philosophical should or would and keeping strictly to what did historically produce radicals, Edgar Allen Ho has posted to a notable degree about how raw of a deal this felt for at least a particular strata of Kazakhs, and conversely the main reason our analysis is phrased "the USSR was..." rather than "the USSR is..." is that, to put things in V3 terms, declining SoL overall and the prioritization of resources for the periphery to paper over the existing discontent produced critical levels of radicalism among Russian Bureaucrat and Petite Bourgeoisie pops and a Russian secession with liberal politics. OTOH trying to actually simulate this gets us into the weeds of a Culture Designer, something which apart from custom Stellaris or ahistorical EU4 New World starts is simultaneously all the worst things about Paradox games and absolute catnip for the worst Paradox fans. Maybe just have Citizenship law as "who can assimilate" and a separate axis of laws that cover identity vs. purpose as unifiers, with identity reducing radicalism for primary culture or close relatives and increasing it for others, and purpose intensifying political radicalism/loyalism and adjusting assimilation rate based closeness of opinion on laws. This would also work roughly with the US, I think? Where Yankee and Dixie together were defined as ideological (but still also racially restricted) cultures and quite quickly ethnically cleansed the (identical-heritage) Tories, then eventually went to war over a proposed change to the slavery law that would be good for powerful IGs in Yankee-majority states and bad for powerful IGs in Dixie-majority ones. In general, though, and especially with your mention of Intelligentsia, it does feel like the game is sorely missing the idea of dynamic positions on laws based on material IG or Profession interest. It'd be nice to see Intelligentsia pops being for Ethnostate if they were the Anglo-Yankee writers in the US and UK who expounded on race science, for Cultural Exclusion if they were Han scholars in Qing with a secure but secondary position, and for Multiculturalism if they were discriminated Ashkenazi in the Russian Empire. To the extent that Distribution of Power lives in a liminal space where it's written to be autocratic vs. democratic but also wants to say things about democratic centralism vs. spectrum of opinions, it might also be worth having clear clout leader IGs move their preferences higher up the list. And of course, that American Civil War example where Yankee Farmers in particular, and especially recently assimilated from German ones, were anti-slavery, not just on a moral basis but because enclosed farms that had to pay a wage were competing with those that didn't. Lots of moving parts for something that's supposed to be an economic sim first and foremost, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
My wishlist is for china to change name/color if the dynasty is overthrown by a revolter that has no manchurian land from it (or something, you get what im getting at)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
The 1.2 changelog's been posted:quote:Features:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2023 16:12
|
|
