|
Gort posted:The main fix for me is for the bug where buildings get stuck with a single worker hired and never hire or fire them. That one's quite bad if you suffer it. There was a workaround here where you'd subsidise the building or change PM to make it start hiring, then remove the subsidy / change PM after it has workers, but yeah that one was annoying. I've also heard that the AI government switching was happening a lot and making the AI more unstable than it should be
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
New beta just hit. Fixes:quote:Unbuilt buildings display "Building is unable to fully hire" warning
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
Gort posted:New beta just hit. Fixes: Finally, game was fully unplayable. So I'm doing a 2nd France run and it's going much better. Only have tiny pockets of unemployment and my SOL is 21. I wish there was a way to give your vassal more tech though. I have a bunch of vassals that are using clippers for ship in 1900 so my market is constantly screaming at me that I'm short like 5 clippers. I also have some huge vassals that basically just produce dyes and cotton and crops like that, but they lack the tech for automatic irrigation. It's sort of a brutal punishment for trying to use the vassal system rather than outright blobbing. Ended up annexing them and within a year of my management and tech their production increased about 300% For vassals to make any economic sense we need the ability to directly fund and manage buildings in our colonial holdings. Have the buildings tied to our tech and thus use our production methods. It still seems borderline impossible to be communist AND feminist, which is weird. I finally got the women's suffrage events and it turned my marginalized intelligencia feminist, which meant a whopping 6% chance to pass women in the workplace or full suffrage. What's odd is that the trade unions violent oppose both of these, despite nothing in the tooltips for their party or leader saying they're against it, in fact it clearly states they are neutral on them. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
 I've had this for 40 years now non-stop. When I played last year I didn't have this, how do I make it go away? I'm running interventionism, is it related to that? Do I need an economic system that gives more to private construction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
That's a new alert added for the autonomous investment pool construction patch. It's saying that your investment pool is large enough to build more if you build more construction, so you should build more construction so they can build more (assuming you can afford the government construction of course.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Yeah it means your investment pool is getting more money put in then they are spending. Building more construction sectors or yeah getting an economic system that gives more priority to autonomous construction would help. Or you could let your government construction sectors run empty for awhile to shift their points over to private if you need money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It still seems borderline impossible to be communist AND feminist, which is weird. I finally got the women's suffrage events and it turned my marginalized intelligencia feminist, which meant a whopping 6% chance to pass women in the workplace or full suffrage. What's odd is that the trade unions violent oppose both of these, despite nothing in the tooltips for their party or leader saying they're against it, in fact it clearly states they are neutral on them. I had a feminist rural folk and industrialists as India and the intelligentsia was willing to join a coalition of other interest groups to start a civil war over it. Just imagining an intelligentsia willing to kill tens of thousands of people to prevent letting women vote is kind of depressing. I had pretty bad issues with radicalism that game. And yeah, to the rest of your post, I think the biggest missing feature at this point is developing foreign economies. I think Wiz has said it's something they want to do, but they want to make sure the profits go to your capitalists or whatever to make it historically plausible, but I kind of don't care. I just want to turn Sindh into the world's largest opium plantation and I am just fine if they keep all the profits, as long as my armies can afford their drugs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
I still will switch countries all the time to get my vassals to change production modes. For example, I have most of Brazil as a vassal and I want them to be a hardwood farm. They have a vast lumber industry, using ELECTRIC sawmills. Oh, but they have every mill in the country on "softwood" only. Softwood is at like -20% price, hardwood at +60%. Years of this and they just refuse to change the production method from one that is losing them money to one that would make them rich as hell. So, I tag switch over, change their production methods, switch back. I don't get achievements but I'm helping the poor AI out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I wish there was a way to give your vassal more tech though. I have a bunch of vassals that are using clippers for ship in 1900 so my market is constantly screaming at me that I'm short like 5 clippers. Finnish Flasher posted:
The solution to both of these problems is the same: dismiss the notification. The warnings and suggestions in that drop-down are often low value and unactionable so I ignore it most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Is there something to take account when choosing where to build construction sectors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Finnish Flasher posted:Is there something to take account when choosing where to build construction sectors? Construction sectors also give construction point bonuses for that state, so anything getting built there eats less points for the same progress. This is helpful for concentrating development
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
I build them in proportion to how much I plan to build in a state, which most of the time means roughly proportional to population
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I still will switch countries all the time to get my vassals to change production modes. For example, I have most of Brazil as a vassal and I want them to be a hardwood farm. They have a vast lumber industry, using ELECTRIC sawmills. Oh, but they have every mill in the country on "softwood" only. Softwood is at like -20% price, hardwood at +60%. Years of this and they just refuse to change the production method from one that is losing them money to one that would make them rich as hell. i dont give a drat about the achievements, but you lose your GDP chart going back to 1836... a fate worse than death
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Yea my first game I noticed that as Sweden. Norway has all the sulfer and they just won't build them and you have no way to influence them. I tried switching my paper mills to sulfate pulping to see if it would encourage them (this was 1.1) but still nothing. Even now with the auto invest when I formed Scan they were all at lvl 1. Part of it may be the 1 worker glitch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
This is hilarious, PDX put up a post about how many people helped with the beta/are playing post 1.2 and thanking them, and Skudbutt and other nerds are malding about it. They're still trying to manifest the "Victoria 3 is the next Imperator" narrative into reality. Imagine making hating a video game your whole online personality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Finnish Flasher posted:Is there something to take account when choosing where to build construction sectors? Concentrating them in one state means that you get small construction efficiency bonus in the state they're in. Distributing them across multiple states means that you can easily switch some of their PMs as needed, which is useful early on. Other than that not really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
It may be obvious, but construction sectors also employ some people. Add some urbanism. I was playing a multiplayer game with a friend who was struggling with Tanzimat as the Ottomans- specifically he needed to get most of his states to 100 urbanization. As the deadline drew near we figured his best bet was spamming construction sectors in all his states and just absolutely destroying his economy in the process, but reaching that urbanization goal! It worked, and he spent the next several years digging out of the hole resulting from "successful" reforms. It was a fun game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:This is hilarious, PDX put up a post about how many people helped with the beta/are playing post 1.2 and thanking them, and Skudbutt and other nerds are malding about it. They're still trying to manifest the "Victoria 3 is the next Imperator" narrative into reality. Where's this post? People want Victoria 3 to be a kinda failed title that just fizzles out and isn't update anymore?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Where's this post? People want Victoria 3 to be a kinda failed title that just fizzles out and isn't update anymore? The hostility on the official forums is honestly baffling. I have to imagine 99% of people who see that go "huh, that's nice". It takes a special kind of person bizarrely invested in hating the game to be motivated enough to leave a comment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
They just need to totally re-do the interface for military stuff and the game will be in a pretty good place. The military system we got is unbelievably bad. I got into some big wars and holy poo poo what a cumbersome system. Ordering around 20-30 generals is a nightmare, and the way the general list snaps back up to the top after you give an order just adds insult to injury. Every time I get into a big war I keep thinking "I have to be doing this wrong, there has to be a better workflow for managing my army" but I don't seem to find a better way. Even just recruiting generals is a pain. I'll have a ton of commands each with 20 or 200+ troops waiting. So I recruit a general to say the 200 troop command, then I have to go back out of the screen, find that new general on my huge general list, promote him up to max so he can command a full 100 troops, then go back to recruit a new general. I'll do this over and over until all my unassigned units have commanders. For all those dozens of little military regions with only a dozen or so troops you still need an individual general for each one of course, because they can really add up and make a difference. But now I have like 40 generations, and I have to order each one to specific fronts. Again, go to the military tab, army, scroll down until I see a general who isn't assigned to a front and then assign him to a front. The list of course snaps to the top each time. Do this 40+ times. Sometimes when a war breaks out I have to pause for a solid 10 min just to struggle with the interface and hope I've sent everyone out to the right places. You can't merge generals of course or group them, can't put those dozen or so 5-10 unit generals into a single 100 unit formation. Nor can you split once assigned. Naval invasions can only carry 1 army, regardless of size. So if you don't have a single giant army, you're screwed. I love the more abstract front based system, but I wish they'd represent your generals/armies better on the map more like a traditional Paradox game. you could just click on them, or select a bunch of them with a selection box, and then single-click to new fronts to order them around. Basically move them around like any other paradox game, but they can only go to fronts or back to commands. The current system of having to navigate and scroll through a bunch of windows over and over is a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
yeah a condensed/streamlined army UI system is right after foreign investment on my wish list rn. The system was supposed to eliminate tedium not shift it
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Where's this post? People want Victoria 3 to be a kinda failed title that just fizzles out and isn't update anymore? i was searching for some info i can't remember on the steam forums (99% of the times a quick shift+tab and search in any steam forum of the concerned game gives me the answer I need, what can I say.) I was baffled at seeing the same 2 guys posting in every single thread there about the horrors of this game and how it is to be avoided, especially in response to newcomers checking in if the game is worth it, clamoring vic3 a dead game. thankfully a quick check of the steam reviews shows there's way more positives than negatives since 1.2 Popoto fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Mar 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
Anyone in the beta seeing generals get stuck with one battalion while everyone else is doing garrison duty? Feels like a new bug EDIT: NVM, it was the HQ/general thing toasterwarrior fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Mar 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 07:25
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:They just need to totally re-do the interface for military stuff and the game will be in a pretty good place. The military system we got is unbelievably bad. I got into some big wars and holy poo poo what a cumbersome system. Ordering around 20-30 generals is a nightmare, and the way the general list snaps back up to the top after you give an order just adds insult to injury. It would help immensely if the list of possible fronts to send a general opened in another window and also highlighted how many divisions already go there (this value is visible on the map, should be visible in the list too) and highlighted the front where general is right now so that when you want to switch the stance without moving you can quickly do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
The generals system isn't good, but I've never needed forty generals. When I play Russia I have like, five. Each one gets 100 regiments - did you miss the option to promote generals, or do you have 4000 regiments in your army? If I have a military region with some awkward small number of regiments in it, I just demolish the barracks there. It would definitely be good to have a better system for locating which provinces regiments are coming from, and for recruiting generals. I should be able to recruit a top-level general in three clicks - select some ungeneralled troops from the outliner, click "recruit promoted general", select the person I want from the menu of three possible generals. With the military lens, some level of zoom should show which provinces have barracks in them. I don't think there's an easy way to locate and demolish all the barracks in a military region. Gort fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Mar 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
The game limit is 20 Generals, you need mods for more but I would not recommend it. Having a large enough army to require more than 20 generals means you likely run into a Coal/Iron/Steel shortage, one you can't fix because there's simply not enough available resource nodes. I do agree that the interface for armies and generals is pretty bad. There's also a bug where an army returning to their home base is not visible in the home region at all until it completed it's return journey (usually they show up in a slightly darker color but are selectable). The more annoying thing are the naval regions, there's a couple of them with only 2-3 coastal states that should flat out be merged with other ones. Patrol and protect convoys being two different modes is hilariously bad too. Why would my 80 ship fleet patrolling the cape not protect my convoys in that sea zone? One more thing, do you think they ever did some math to figure out if the amount of available resources actually works out? I pretty much doubt it. If you play Qing for example and play them aggressively enough, you hit a point where you run out of iron and coal and thus steel I tried to fix it by conquering Scandinavia, Anatolia, Persia and Arabia but no luck. Maybe that's realistic and intended but in my opinion the numbers need tuning. You could probably double all available resource nodes and it still wouldn't be enough mid/late game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 10:40
|
|
|
I did a Spicier Chile run (more conquering and less rushing for liberalism) and finally learned got in tune with a comfortable pacing for expanding my construction sector; ie. don't just account for if you're still in the green or not when building one, also keep expanding resource buildings to accommodate construction good demand and just keep building whatever to keep that demand constant. Also found that eventually I'll hit a point where I realized I should've dropped Oligarchy for Census Voting/Universal Suffrage because I wasn't going to be able to pass the better tax laws, which was necessary because railway subsidies and whatever get very expensive in time. I was overvaluing the Authority bonus from Oligarchy by quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 10:57
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:One more thing, do you think they ever did some math to figure out if the amount of available resources actually works out? I pretty much doubt it. If you play Qing for example and play them aggressively enough, you hit a point where you run out of iron and coal and thus steel I tried to fix it by conquering Scandinavia, Anatolia, Persia and Arabia but no luck. I'm not sure if it works this way already but it would make sense if there were extra coal / iron / etc resources which unlocked with tech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 11:00
|
|
|
I have 1500 regiments in my russia campaign. I wasn't aware there was a 20-general limit. I have a feeling that I'm gonna be bumping into that soon. edit: Austria's got 900 regiments and just as many conscripts as me (around 1200?). Prussia's got around 500 regiments and some fairly large number of conscripts. You gotta keep up somehow. I'm actually gonna be outnumbered in any war they both focus on me in, so I feel like I need even more troops. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 11:43 on Mar 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 11:40
|
|
|
I have a question: do you guys try to build up a university base ASAP? It feels like qualifications aren't that hard to come by, at least for accepted pops, and the return on universities considering how much workers they need doesn't seem great. I seem to coast on by fairly well just with tech sharing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 11:43
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:I have a question: do you guys try to build up a university base ASAP? It feels like qualifications aren't that hard to come by, at least for accepted pops, and the return on universities considering how much workers they need doesn't seem great. I seem to coast on by fairly well just with tech sharing. I don't build tons of universities as my absolute first priority, but I do try to reach my innovation cap early, yes. Being at the innovation cap is the bare minimum. Going over the cap actually improves the speed of tech spread, so that helps a lot too. Having low amounts of innovation and relying only on the tech spread generated by your literacy is going to result in some very slow teching.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
Am I right in thinking that universities work in an entirely linear way when it comes to innovation - i.e. if your innovation cap is 100 then you need +50 innovation to reach it and each university adds a flat amount of innovation based on its PM? It seems weird that this doesn't scale with number of pops somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 12:37
|
|
|
Gort posted:The generals system isn't good, but I've never needed forty generals. When I play Russia I have like, five. Each one gets 100 regiments - did you miss the option to promote generals, or do you have 4000 regiments in your army? If I have a military region with some awkward small number of regiments in it, I just demolish the barracks there. There are things here like, you want your armies to be the same size or smaller than your navies so you can do (effective) naval landings, and then there are incentives to do multiple small landings rather than a few big ones, so you want to split them further than that. Then you need at least one general per front, which can be a large number if you have a lot of small, scattered colonial holdings and are fighting an enemy that also has a lot of small colonial holdings... You probably want more generals than fronts, in fact, so you can choose where to concentrate force. And of course it is entirely possible to have barracks in more than twenty strategic regions, and you might think you can just be like, oh, those guys don't need a general. That can just be a garrison force. But then suddenly you're at war with France, and you really need every man, even the conscripts (who you can't concentrate in a single region, even if you've done the smart thing with your regulars). There are things you can do to mitigate all of this, of course, but I have actually managed to hit my general cap in more than one game. Tahirovic posted:Having a large enough army to require more than 20 generals means you likely run into a Coal/Iron/Steel shortage, one you can't fix because there's simply not enough available resource nodes. Nah check this poo poo out:    I could quintuple the size of this army and it would barely move the needle on steel. Military consumption is a tiny fraction of the whole. (War machine factories are also a negligible fraction of engine consumption, for the record).
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 12:38
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Am I right in thinking that universities work in an entirely linear way when it comes to innovation - i.e. if your innovation cap is 100 then you need +50 innovation to reach it and each university adds a flat amount of innovation based on its PM? Yeah, you've got it right. All that matters is literacy percentage, number of universities, and the production method they're running.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 12:54
|
|
|
I'm pretty negative about this game too tbf and would warn people away from it. It's probably the weakest paradox title Ive bought and played a good amount of. I don't exactly regret buying it but I wouldn't bother buying it if I could time travel back. Too much of the game is blatantly unfinished and the game that is there is imo unplayably slow even on my good PC. The whole game is just waiting for a timer to go off so you can start a new timer, which is fine I like idle games, but it's a really really slow and uneventful one. I hope it gets better and becomes the game it could but yknow I'm still waiting for that for CK3 so my fingers aren't exactly crossed
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 12:55
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:the game... is imo unplayably slow even on my good PC. That seems weird. Have you played recently?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 12:57
|
|
|
As much as I enjoy line goes up on the GDP graph, there does feel like something missing from the game in terms of reactivity compared to V2 but I'm not sure what it is. It's certainly not perfect and can see people disliking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 13:12
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:
I am at work right now so can't check my old save game but as super Qing I had something over 4k regular troops available. Pretty much all available mines were built and fully staffed and I focused my expansion on resource rich states (pops will migrate there over time if there's jobs). I ended up with about 70k steel missing in my market. I have no clue what I did wrong in that game. I was trying to optimize PMs to not use tools instead of workers (output should stay the same that way) as I had so many pops available and still ended up with massive shortages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
Are you certain it was the military that was the culprit and not the rest of the economy? There's definitely a resource crunch in the game, but I don't think military sizes are a major part of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
The military will always be an insignificant driver of demand compared to the rest of your economy. If you were short 70K steel, then it was clearly something else causing the shortage. As Ming, you have to aggressively expand to other parts of the world and seek out natural resources for what should be your ungodly massive economy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2023 14:09
|
|