|
Anyone have any idea why an IG would not back a law they strongly endorse? I can't get Intelligentsia to back Universal Suffrage, they're republican and led by a moderate.Blorange posted:IGs only care about the difference between your current law and the new law. If they strongly support both Census and Universal Suffrage, they won't help you switch between them. That makes sense, thanks Jackie D fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 28, 2023 |
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
IGs only care about the difference between your current law and the new law. If they strongly support both Census and Universal Suffrage, they won't help you switch between them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
I've mostly played fairly low aggression games so far (and I didn't play any full campaigns pre-1.2) but I'm being more aggressive now and I wanted to check that I don't have anything wrong on how infamy is generated: All infamy generation is scaled based on the rank and recognition state of both parties involved (basically: it's good being a GP and sucks being unrecognised) All war goals which take territory either directly or indirectly are scaled by population of the target state(s) but there's a cap. Taking unincorporated territory is cheaper (unsure if this only applies to "conquer / return state" war goals, I'm guessing that it does?) Each war goal has a static base cost Forcing the release of states doesn't cost infamy This has the following implications: 1. Vassaling / puppeting and then annexing is more infamy efficient than direct conquest only if the target has more than one state, especially if it has 3+ 2. Conquering directly from GPs, especially if you're unrecognised, is absurdly expensive, and you should probably just force them to release some territory instead 3. It's probably optimal to generally avoid directly conquering territory from anything other than unrecognised states 4. Similarly it's optimal to only conquer the largest individual states because of how infamy doesn't scale linearly with population Some of this seems really counterintuitive and pretty bad for gameplay so hopefully I'm missing something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I've mostly played fairly low aggression games so far (and I didn't play any full campaigns pre-1.2) but I'm being more aggressive now and I wanted to check that I don't have anything wrong on how infamy is generated: This is correct, but I'd say that there's some nuance to conquest. States with large oil deposits (or gold if you're a smaller nation) are often worth the hit. Cutting off a rival in colonial regions can also make "sub-optimal" conquests worth it in the long run considering the value of the secured territory. Conquering less (but more educated) pops of your culture/religion might be worth more than more pops at less education with the "wrong" culture or religion when deciding between conquests, all else being equal. Releasing nations is super overpowered at the moment, with one war you can explode any great power for no infamy. For a lot of games, especially past the mid game, game, resources are more valuable than population (especially if you've taken any provinces in China or India as a European/American power), so resources/infamy is the actual thing you'd optimize for. You also can't direct production in vassals, so the territory will be sub-optimally exploited for longer versus conquering it directly. I agree that infamy at present is not ideal, something more akin to EU4 Aggressive Expansion (where the relation hit is affected by religion/proximity/etc.) seems a better direction to go in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Blorange posted:IGs only care about the difference between your current law and the new law. If they strongly support both Census and Universal Suffrage, they won't help you switch between them. Yeah, I like the army IG with the patriot(?) trait for a big example of this. If you start with Land-based taxes and can hold off until you get the tech for Proportional taxes, going from Land->Proportional with the army IG is much easier to do than Capita->Proportional with the trade unions or so. The Army won't help if its Capita->Proportional since they care about them the same. I've considered Capita->Land with Landowners/Industrialists then Land->Proportional with the army, but haven't been that desperate to try it yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
I haven't thought about it until now but I wonder if this game also fails the Spanish-American war test. In Vicky 2 the infamy costs were so high for conquering colonial states (you could randomly roll no infamy on the first war goal but subsequent goals are full price) that the US taking Cuba, all Philippines states, and Puerto Rico in one war would shoot them so far above the infamy limit that the entire world would flip to hostile and immediately start declaring containment wars on them, even if they immediately release the Philippines and Cuba. The soft infamy cap feels a lot more forgiving this go-round at least. You can even eat nations as big as Japan while staying under it if you go for the lower subject type (dominion?) first, which doesn't make them join your wars but still allows you to go straight to annex at a steep discount.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Heinrich Cotta who is considered to be one of the fathers of modern, sustainable forestry (at least here in Switzerland/Germany) die during the early period of Victoria 3. I think a lot of his theories/how to's are from the late 18th century. The inevitable consequences of your rapid and endless lust to see the gdp chart go up seems like good dlc fodder: pollution affecting quality of life and mortality, natural resources depleted from over use, arable land rendered incredibly dangerous to farm due to shelling, that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
Vagabong posted:The inevitable consequences of your rapid and endless lust to see the gdp chart go up seems like good dlc fodder: pollution affecting quality of life and mortality, natural resources depleted from over use, arable land rendered incredibly dangerous to farm due to shelling, that kind of thing. This could create an interesting push and pull between the player's desire to maintain some degree of ecological equilibrium and also the need to drill baby drill in order to not fall behind your neighbors
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
DJ_Mindboggler posted:This is correct, but I'd say that there's some nuance to conquest. States with large oil deposits (or gold if you're a smaller nation) are often worth the hit. Cutting off a rival in colonial regions can also make "sub-optimal" conquests worth it in the long run considering the value of the secured territory. Conquering less (but more educated) pops of your culture/religion might be worth more than more pops at less education with the "wrong" culture or religion when deciding between conquests, all else being equal. I mostly agree, but would note that, at least for the early going into the mid game, having vassals can often help development/optimal exploition of a given region due to their free construction points. This scales with the size of the vassal, so you dont get nearly as much value from a large vassal like sokoto/persia doing the scattershot dev with 5 points vs some OPM that can hyperdevelop everything in their country by 1860 before you eat it infamy-free but yeah once you hit construction crew takeoff with tons of excess capacity and the backward OPMs are sitting on oil deposits they cant even exploit, its time to start centralizing everything under your direct rule
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Vagabong posted:The inevitable consequences of your rapid and endless lust to see the gdp chart go up seems like good dlc fodder: pollution affecting quality of life and mortality, natural resources depleted from over use, arable land rendered incredibly dangerous to farm due to shelling, that kind of thing. I had a pollution event go off in my Italy game I've never seen before. Basically the trade unions wanted a gov stipend to reduce pollution in my capital state. Even gave me pollution numbers and everything. I couldn't find anywhere in the menus where this was reflected though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
yeah I have no idea what the pollution counter does except maybe (??) some graphical affects on your cities? idk i never zoom in and play on lowest graphics bc lol potato pc lag
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Infamy feels really off. Often you’ll find that conquering an integral part of a European great power is less costly infamy-wise than taking one of their colonies in Africa, due to population differences. Maybe there should be some sort of scaling on the population factor based on discrimination or homelands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:Infamy feels really off. Often you’ll find that conquering an integral part of a European great power is less costly infamy-wise than taking one of their colonies in Africa, due to population differences. Maybe there should be some sort of scaling on the population factor based on discrimination or homelands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
I have some memory of Wiz or someone stating that there was a plan for ecological stuff in the future and it was definitely tied to wood with production methods that would give you more wood if you were willing to just clear cut a region, but then you had a chance of losing some output every year. Maybe I'm hallucinating again from too much absinthe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
It was part of the dev jam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
I feel like EU4 muscle memory made me misunderstand unincorporated territory. Maybe in high-level 1-tag speedrun of EU4 you shouldn't core territory, but I'm used to the idea that if a province is not a Trade Company it should be cored. And in Victoria 3 as far as I can see there's very little reason to incorporate stuff. There's an infrastructure issue but I'm not sure that it comes up often. When you incorporate the territory people there expect a decent life and political representation and that's not very nice of them. I had Sikh empire game and I wanted to see how long can I pull off monarchy and state religion. I also wanted to know what Autocracy journal entry does and it turned out rather underwhelming, +20% to assimilation for 20 years looked like the best bonus you can get out of it. It was probably very counter-productive cause there is almost no Sikhs outside of Sikh empire (and historically, I understand, they had to be open-minded about religion so it's strange they have State Religion law). I'm glad that 1.2 AI correctly understood by 1890 that my empire owning everything from Persia to Bangladesh (with some EIC exclaves) is weak enough for French and Russians to get a treaty port (a little strange for Russians to do that cause we share a huge border but whatever, transport your goods around Africa), and while Britain came to my help in that diplomatic play it was not worth it to fight out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 09:54
|
|
|
I found the opposite, incorporating a state is the only way to get the benefit of police and therefore reduce turmoil to a level where you can meaningfully build it up without a huge additional construction cost, and the extra taxes more than make up for having to build more government admin buildings. I played a recent game as Persia where finishing the incorporation of Afghanistan was what turbo charged my economy into becoming a GP since it happened right around the time I needed to increase my output of coal, iron and dye after already maximising exploitation of my core territories. Edit: This might be a stupid question but is there a good way to overview all of your buildings at the same time to identify any which are understaffed? I've largely been ignoring the possibility of empty buildings because it's such a UI hassle to fix (I've been doing it on the state level) RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Mar 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 10:26
|
|
|
Anyone else finding that hiring behavior is still really finicky in the latest version? It seems buildings are still too reluctant to lower or raise wages, and it can sometimes take years for them to adjust wages enough to start hiring again or make a profit. In some circumstances, the impasse seems permanent. I saw a building that was offering Ł14.00 to machinist pops and couldn't hire them because the pops were demanding... Ł14.00. The building's offer must've been just a fraction of a penny too low, and it was like this for years before I subsidized the building for Ł0.00, which solved the problem. There have been numerous other buildings where the difference was more tangible, but they still don't adjust wages like they're supposed to. So the last patch definitely didn't iron out all of the kinks in the hiring system. edit: crucially, the bug where buildings fail to lower wages while sitting at negative income and 0 cash reserves still exists, it's just a bit less frequent than before. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Mar 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 10:57
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I found the opposite, incorporating a state is the only way to get the benefit of police and therefore reduce turmoil to a level where you can meaningfully build it up without a huge additional construction cost, and the extra taxes more than make up for having to build more government admin buildings. Maybe it is the opposite, I don't know! I didn't have police institutions high enough for states with turmoil to work well, I appreciate the police for reducing the number of radicals. Once you incorporate a state people there want fancy stuff and turmoil raises, isn't it? Though in case of Sikh Empire it would probably be smart to double down on bureaucrats and incorporate everything since Punjab and Delhi (which you probably should grab ASAP) are so populace you can't get enough bureaucracy to tax them all. So your bureaucrats always serve a double purpose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 11:36
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:
It's not just 1.2, in one of my 1.1 Persia games France also randomly tried to get a treaty port of me. It went poorly for them. I suspect the AI is more likely to start poo poo with unrecognized powers, which good because sometimes it's nice for the ai to start poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
i'm sure this question gets asked a bunch so feel free to quote a recent update post at me. how;s this game rn? i haven't played since release but have been thinking about it lately
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:i'm sure this question gets asked a bunch so feel free to quote a recent update post at me. how;s this game rn? i haven't played since release but have been thinking about it lately Way better than release, still has lots of oddities and content holes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Can Qing win the Opium Wars in 1.2? UK doesn't take long to demand a treaty port and I wasn't able to get any good allies before that. China has a lot of barracks but no arms industry and the only hope of winning the war seems to be equipping the army with line infantry and cannon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Can Qing win the Opium Wars in 1.2? UK doesn't take long to demand a treaty port and I wasn't able to get any good allies before that. China has a lot of barracks but no arms industry and the only hope of winning the war seems to be equipping the army with line infantry and cannon. I did it in the 1.2 beta. Basic strategy was to cut the army down to 200 regiments, beeline to line infantry and mobile artillery in all of 'em, building the required arms factories to support them. Then ban opium, the UK will invade, and thanks to the horrible amphibious invasion penalties you should be able to beat 'em.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Way better than release, still has lots of oddities and content holes. I have no doubt there will be a lot of content added for various nations but it's clear the Devs wanted generic rules to be interesting and I commend them for doing that. My playthrough as Sikh Empire is unique not because of special Sikh things, but because their religion is uniquely located and their population is spread in a n interesting way. Doesn't change the fact that I'm a little sad that religious and cultures are basically interchangeable names and the game doesn't acknowledge achievements like getting Delhi under control.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Maybe it is the opposite, I don't know! I didn't have police institutions high enough for states with turmoil to work well, I appreciate the police for reducing the number of radicals. Once you incorporate a state people there want fancy stuff and turmoil raises, isn't it? How are you able to grab Delhi and Punjab? Playing as the Sikh Empire the EIC refused to join against me in my diplo plays against the smaller states to my west and if I start a play against them GB jumps in and I'm screwed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Miles Vorkosigan posted:How are you able to grab Delhi and Punjab? Playing as the Sikh Empire the EIC refused to join against me in my diplo plays against the smaller states to my west and if I start a play against them GB jumps in and I'm screwed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I have no doubt there will be a lot of content added for various nations but it's clear the Devs wanted generic rules to be interesting and I commend them for doing that. My playthrough as Sikh Empire is unique not because of special Sikh things, but because their religion is uniquely located and their population is spread in a n interesting way. Yeah, I much rather paradox build a game on an extremely solid core mechanical foundation even if the content is pretty generic at the start. The reverse is the Stellaris design philosophy of having dogshit core mechanics and just burying them under mountains of flavour content and story packs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
yeah tbh there are enough flavor pack type mods that you can try a run with them and it basically covers that base for the time being
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Do you guys leave your core industries on subsidize to make sure sudden price crashes won't cause them to fire people and leave you in a resource deficit? If they're making a profit, the subsidy won't cost anything right? I'm recalling times where I've had to stop building in order to not run up debt, and usually this would cause iron prices to crash since you need so much of it for construction goods, making people leave and subsequently kneecapping my tool/steel supply
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
I do wish more policies allowed you to subsidize arms/munition/shipyard factories for just that reason, unless I'm at war they can not stay at capacity
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 18:02
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Do you guys leave your core industries on subsidize to make sure sudden price crashes won't cause them to fire people and leave you in a resource deficit? If they're making a profit, the subsidy won't cost anything right? I had to subsidize because it fucks up the interface and I can't see at a glance if the industry is profitable at all. I wish the interface wouldn't do that. Sure, show my subsidy costs, but don't have them nearly totally cover up a now barely readable profitability readout. That's how I decide what to expand!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Having played a few large countries, I have changed my standard method of choosing what to build/expand. First, I still check the market to see if there are any major issues. Then rather than going through my states and figuring what's profitable to build there, I go to the production lens map mode thing at the bottom of the screen. I then quickly click through all the agriculture/resource/industry buildings. Just keep in mind that farms/lumber camps/fishing ports are 150 construction points, mines are 300 construction points, and factories are generally 450. So you could build three farms in the same time as one factory. (This is surprisingly easy to miss, and so worth emphasizing- I spent an embarrassing amount of time with this game before I discovered how hugely different the build speeds were for different buildings.) If you sort by profitability you can quickly compare which building out of everything will give you the most profit for your construction points in your whole country, no matter how big your country is. Or you can sort by labor or infrastructure if those are bigger concerns. It's pretty convenient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
TBH I don't build for profit, I usually build to address deficits (which usually comes with profit) and to get people out of the peasantry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
yeah unless im an ultraminor trying to just build enough capital to do anything, im usually building with an eye towards raising SOL for greater overall demand or just key goods to drive down costs generally
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
I mean, "profit" is usually a function of how cheap the input goods are and how expensive the output goods are. If you want to balance input and output quickly you could do worse than looking at the profit. You could probably do better carefully looking everything over, but if you've just got to queue up another 20-50 buildings in a massive empire, you might just want a method of flipping through all the buildings everywhere, and that's where the production lens comes in. I resisted using those lenses for the longest time because they weren't how I was used to dealing with map games, but they're actually very useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
Gort posted:Then ban opium, the UK will invade, and thanks to the horrible amphibious invasion penalties you should be able to beat 'em. The UK doesn't wait for Qing to ban opium anymore. They'll declare on you quite early, long before you can remotely get your military up to the point of stopping them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Jackie D posted:I do wish more policies allowed you to subsidize arms/munition/shipyard factories for just that reason, unless I'm at war they can not stay at capacity I'd rather there was just more private demand so that the state didn't have a sole monopoly on arms. It would help moderate the wild swings during wars and maybe add a little more interesting political options.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:I'd rather there was just more private demand so that the state didn't have a sole monopoly on arms. It would help moderate the wild swings during wars and maybe add a little more interesting political options. Making an export arms industry helps, then when war happens you can just stop exporting if you need
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
It's pretty awkward because none of the other economic systems would work well with it and it would mess up the balance of a lot of things but... you should really be able to stockpile arms. You shouldn't have to pay people to keep the lights on in an arms factory- you should be paying them to fill a warehouse full of guns. I wonder if it could be hacked in with like, a production method on your military that constantly consumes weapons and ammunition and fills a "stockpile" modifier, up to a certain cap, and the units would reduce that stockpile number before they needed supplies off the market. You'd want market access/supply access would still penalize troops, to represent the fact that they aren't carrying their warehouses with them on campaign. Or even simpler: you could have an "arms warehouse" building with two production methods- one consumes weapons and increases an internal modifier, and the other method requires that modifier to be positive and produces weapons and decreases that modifier. I don't know if that'd be too fiddly or unbalanced, but right now there are certain plausibility issues with how arms industries work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2023 21:27
|
|