|
I think there's one mostly confirmed bug (peasants are probablt looking at the wrong number for job satisfaction) but also a lot of additional effects that could be bugs, unintended, oddly implemented, poorly explained, or just plain skill issues
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Major bug: Peasants are not experiencing enough misery, preventing economic progress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
I'm fine with the peasants being happy in the fields, historically early industrial life was absolutely hellish and not at all preferable to farming in a lot of places. But you gotta give me some kind of better enclosure mechanic to force them into the factories anyways then, having to build 70 farms to eat up all the arable land requires too much infrastructure to kickstart an industrial workforce. You can only do it after the industry is already chugging and you stack railroads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
More bribery methods please, also make worker safety office give satisfaction bonus to factories
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I'm fine with the peasants being happy in the fields, historically early industrial life was absolutely hellish and not at all preferable to farming in a lot of places. But you gotta give me some kind of better enclosure mechanic to force them into the factories anyways then, having to build 70 farms to eat up all the arable land requires too much infrastructure to kickstart an industrial workforce. You can only do it after the industry is already chugging and you stack railroads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
Besides an edict that allows you to directly move populations around an edict that pushes enclosures would also be nice and give you another early game authority outlet that you can turn off as you liberalize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
I would like a button that inflicts pain upon random pops in my country, would that be possible?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Legitimately, an "enclosure" decision that just lowers quality of life for subsistence farmers, without having any immediately positive economic effects for anyone else, wouldn't be terribly ahistorical. I mean it should probably make the landowners a fair bit of cash
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:I would like a button that inflicts pain upon random pops in my country, would that be possible? research the secret brexit tech to unlock that button
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Slightly annoyed with the Federation of the Andes formation. Getting there is a lot of fun, I got it done by 1870. By that time both Peru and Chile managed to culture convert their capitols to Chilean/Peruvian culture. Since the formation only annexes states with North Andean/South Andean culture, Peru and Chile hold on to their capitals, leaving me with a pockmarked, border gory Federation. Not a big issue since you can easily eat them at this point anyway. Just a bit of a bummer when you expect the formation event to give you a unified western seaboard. I wish they would just give you all the states with the "Andes" trait instead, or include Chilean/Peruvian cultures in the formation condition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Besides an edict that allows you to directly move populations around an edict that pushes enclosures would also be nice and give you another early game authority outlet that you can turn off as you liberalize. Vagabong posted:I mean it should probably make the landowners a fair bit of cash Schnitzler posted:Slightly annoyed with the Federation of the Andes formation. Getting there is a lot of fun, I got it done by 1870. By that time both Peru and Chile managed to culture convert their capitols to Chilean/Peruvian culture. Since the formation only annexes states with North Andean/South Andean culture, Peru and Chile hold on to their capitals, leaving me with a pockmarked, border gory Federation. I get that more national identities and divisions are forming, and that's cool, but surely they should still be accepted cultures in the Federation. And just mechanically I had no idea I was racing against a clock and took longer than I needed to as a result. Still, it's a very satisfying country to form. Very fun region of the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:research the secret brexit tech to unlock that button Brexit means brexit -All pops lose 3 SOL -Gain 5% loyalists -Gain blue passports -Lose 20 legitimacy
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
Biggest problem with the job satisfaction hiring issues, I think, is that the game does a poor job at explaining this to the player. There are been lots of posts here and on reddit from people confused as to why their building isn't hiring when the game is offering explanations like "building needs higher productivity to compete with other buildings in this state" or "machinists with qualifying population of x won't work for wage y but will work for wage z" when the real problem is "your peasants are too satisfied with their lot in life."
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It should probably be a production method rather than an edict. It's not like there was any undoing it once it had been done. I was going for edict because it could represent state authority being used to help push the peasants into urban areas or plantations. A production method isn't that much different, but it could be tied to laws like tenant farmers so that you have a reason to not want to immediately rush for laws that weaken the landowners because you might want to use them. Honestly, the game could use more incentives for players to keep landowners around because right now they're dead weight, but that results in some very ahistorical outcomes for countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Biggest problem with the job satisfaction hiring issues, I think, is that the game does a poor job at explaining this to the player. There are been lots of posts here and on reddit from people confused as to why their building isn't hiring when the game is offering explanations like "building needs higher productivity to compete with other buildings in this state" or "machinists with qualifying population of x won't work for wage y but will work for wage z" when the real problem is "your peasants are too satisfied with their lot in life." I know mine said "can't hire workers because they aren't enough qualifications: you only have 15 000 qualified out of the 500 required"  but even after a while the notif would just stop showing anything and it would just be an empty void, giving out no reason. there's definitely a cleanup to do somewhere in there to give control back to the player, because right now there isn't a path that fixes this that isn't obtuse and worth my time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
Yeah, I had the same problem a while back. Turns out that the number of qualifications you get shown is actually the theoretical amount of pops that could change professions if the job they would change to offered them infinity money. Not a very useful figure tbh!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
Also: "building won't hire until date x because it failed to hire too recently" is really annoying to have take up the entire "can't hire pops" tooltip. It means I have to wait a few weeks to get an actual explanation. I'd like it a lot better if the tooltip went "building won't hire until date x because it failed to hire too recently. It last failed to hire because <reasons>"
Pakled fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 09:56
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:I would like a button that inflicts pain upon random pops in my country, would that be possible? More land tax.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 10:48
|
|
|
I bought the complete set and am now dipping my toes into Vic 3. I'm checking the settings and there's one for pop consolidation. It says this setting may greatly impact game performance in the mid-to-late game, but I just bought a new computer recently and am not concerned. Is it more interesting and chaotic to not let pops consolidate? I'm not sure how any of this works yet so I may just leave it on default while I play the tutorial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 11:20
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:I bought the complete set and am now dipping my toes into Vic 3. I'm checking the settings and there's one for pop consolidation. It says this setting may greatly impact game performance in the mid-to-late game, but I just bought a new computer recently and am not concerned. Is it more interesting and chaotic to not let pops consolidate? I'm not sure how any of this works yet so I may just leave it on default while I play the tutorial. I've not seen anyone say the setting makes much of a difference performance wise
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 11:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:I've not seen anyone say the setting makes much of a difference performance wise I meant, what is the point of having pops consolidate or not? Which is more interesting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 13:31
|
|
|
It just means that if you are in a situation where you have 100 different 100 person pops with different cultures/religions, it'll get rid of them by merging them together. It's not really something you'll ever notice since it won't affect any pops that would make an actual difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
I'm still working my way through the tutorial and got a pop-up saying Industrialists want me to enact free trade or they will radicalize over time. I start enacting it, they're happy but now the landowners and rural workers are upset and give me a malus. So... Basically if I do something I'm screwed, if I don't do something I'm also screwed? Is there a way to just tell a pop I don't like to gently caress off without it damaging my country? Also, is it like CK3 where I lose if me and all my heirs die?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:I'm still working my way through the tutorial and got a pop-up saying Industrialists want me to enact free trade or they will radicalize over time. You will always piss off the landowners and regularly piss off the rural folk, as long as they're not actually angry (-10 or worse relations) you will be fine. If they're angry they might start a civil war but the civil war is only likely if they have a decent amount of political support and you can always cancel law enactment if you need to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
Sadly there's no "gently caress off this is dumb" option for petitions yet, and no heirs arent gonna game over you (losing a civil war apparently does tho)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:You will always piss off the landowners and regularly piss off the rural folk, as long as they're not actually angry (-10 or worse relations) you will be fine. Typical way of playing early game is basically trying to not piss off your landowners too much while you try to make your country run like it's not the 14th century any more and make your economy not be centered around landlord barons taxing peasant serfs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
Could I hypothetically set up a dictatorship of the proletariat while telling the bourgeoisie to pound sand? Would that crash my economy and/or set me up to lose a civil war?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Typical way of playing early game is basically trying to not piss off your landowners too much while you try to make your country run like it's not the 14th century any more and make your economy not be centered around landlord barons taxing peasant serfs. Pissed off in the sense that they don't like what you're doing, but not enough to start a civil war over it. Teriyaki Koinku posted:Could I hypothetically set up a dictatorship of the proletariat while telling the bourgeoisie to pound sand? Would that crash my economy and/or set me up to lose a civil war? Fortunately the bourgeoisie of Victoria 3 is much less into maintaining power at all costs than IRL so it is actually possible to peacefully transition to socialism, through the ballot box even.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:Could I hypothetically set up a dictatorship of the proletariat while telling the bourgeoisie to pound sand? Would that crash my economy and/or set me up to lose a civil war? If you have the tech to pass the laws and enough proletarians to support you, sure, but other major imperialist powers may not appreciate the advent of glorious socialism iirc
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:Could I hypothetically set up a dictatorship of the proletariat while telling the bourgeoisie to pound sand? Would that crash my economy and/or set me up to lose a civil war? The closest thing to what you're asking for is probably to Suppress that interest group. If you go to the info screen you'll see the button for that, which lets you spend Authority to reduce the IG's power. However, you can only do this if the IG is not in the government, which the landowners usually are in the early game. You could remove them from the government and Suppress, but that may kill your Legitimacy and maybe cause a civil war too. The bottom line is there's rarely a "press button" shortcut to killing conservatism in early-game agrarian countries. You've gotta shape your society over time the way is mostly happened historically - by industrializing and eventually creating a bourgeoisie (industrialists and petite bourgeoisie) strong enough to contend with the nobility (landowners). Then in the later game the proletariat (trade unions) starts to rise in prominence too, and that's when socialism or social democracy start to get viable. And honestly, having a civil war isn't the worst thing in the world if the bourgeois IGs are in a position to win it. Sometimes it's just ripping the bandaid off, after which you can just start ramming reforms through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Why are Spain and Russia interfering with my conquering of Brazil as Chile What the gently caress do you assholes even have to do with us (well okay Spain at least makes sense) Looks like I'm going to need way more battalions and tech advantage before prosecuting this war
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Why are Spain and Russia interfering with my conquering of Brazil as Chile Check their attitude towards both you and Brazil, most likely either they think that Brazil needs protecting or they just loving hate you. You can change these attitudes by improving relations and generally being nice / helpful towards them (trade agreements, helping them with their diplo plays etc) Fray posted:The closest thing to what you're asking for is probably to Suppress that interest group. If you go to the info screen you'll see the button for that, which lets you spend Authority to reduce the IG's power. However, you can only do this if the IG is not in the government, which the landowners usually are in the early game. You could remove them from the government and Suppress, but that may kill your Legitimacy and maybe cause a civil war too. Recently I've been not using suppress / bolster so much and instead have just been pooling authority to get the 25% law passage speed boost, it can make some of the early game reforms much, much faster. Bolstering is more of a thing when you can't get the relevant IGs over ~10-15% clout which I've found is about the threshold to avoid stalling out on law changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:I'm still working my way through the tutorial and got a pop-up saying Industrialists want me to enact free trade or they will radicalize over time. In a game covering the Industrial Revolution, you are going to have radicals and upset political factions, and avoiding that isn't reasonable. It's just a matter of who you piss off, how much you piss them off, and when you piss them off. You're pretty much always going to have at least one group annoyed at you unless you're super rich and prosperous, and a big part of the political gameplay is how you balance and manage that discontent. From a CK perspective, think of the interest groups as dukes who can't ever be assassinated. You want to keep them generally happy, but sometimes you're going to have to piss them off to do what needs to get done. And sometimes they'll rebel and you'll have to smack them down, and sometimes you want them to rebel (if you think you can take them) so that you can weaken them. Though civil war is a lot more damaging here than it is in CK, and also slightly harder to cheese. As a general rule of thumb, the Landowners are going to spend the early game as that really annoying ambitious megaduke who owns half the country, the one you badly need to weaken but can't afford to directly pick a fight with. They generally start off politically dominant in most countries, but they love really regressive and lovely laws that substantially weaken your country but boost their own political power. You want to get rid of those laws, but getting rid of those laws pisses them off. So you want to carefully weaken them while keeping them happy enough that they won't rebel until you've sufficiently weakened them. One thing that isn't like CK is that your ruler doesn't represent you, and it makes absolutely no gameplay difference to you if your ruler's whole family dies out. The only impact of a ruler dying is that your new ruler will have different politics and different traits, which can have a varying impact on your political options depending on your current laws. Teriyaki Koinku posted:Could I hypothetically set up a dictatorship of the proletariat while telling the bourgeoisie to pound sand? Would that crash my economy and/or set me up to lose a civil war? You can later in the game, when you've unlocked the right techs. However, most of the interest groups that it'll weaken will also HATE it quite a bit, and will likely start a civil war over it. Whether you win or lose that civil war is mostly up to how much you've weakened those groups before that. Again, think of the interest groups as dukes you can't assassinate. In CK games, you might be able to pass laws that weaken your vassals, but you'll need the vassals' approval to do so, so first you either need to win your vassals' favor or be ready to fight the ones who don't approve. Laws in Vic3 are more complicated, but at a conceptual level it's basically the same thing: you need the approval of your constituents to pass laws, and if you try to force things through without sufficient approval, the ones who don't approve will cause trouble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
By opening up the info pane of an IG, you can bolster or suppress it, which can help around edge cases or as a very longterm thing. Mostly, though, the game is about building the material conditions for the society you want. Maybe like a CK situation where you have very strong and independent landed heirs, except you're not assigning their holdings yourself the game automatically divvies it up based on buildings and laws? So most of the time is spent on managing improvements that will hand more control to the one(s) you're favoring at that moment and/or what the country actually needs, and then every once in a while one you like will rise to preeminence and you can push through the legal changes you want or one you dislike will have a coalition of their siblings form against them and you can use it to whittle them down. There are four rough categories of buildings you can build, and who has power is based on how many of each are doing well and how those buildings are managed: Farming - Anything in the rural tab that isn't a mine or a dockyard. Helps the devout a little bit in almost all cases except full communism; helps either the landowners, labor unions, or the rural folk a lot based on land reform policy. Industrial - Mines, most things in the urban tab, many things in the development tab. Helps the industrialists or the labor unions a lot based on the ratio of profits to wages; the industrialists, labor unions, or petty bourgeois based on ownership Production Methods; and the industrialists, labor unions, petty bourgeois, or intelligentsia based on adoption of various types of skilled labor through PM. Infrastructure - Urban centers (a special kind of building which grows based on how many and which other buildings are present in a state), ports and railways, universities, art academies. The first two help the industrialists, petty bourgeois, and/or the labor unions (depending here on both how much of a wage or "wage" they take and the ownership PM active) and the second two help the intelligentsia just by existing; various PMs in each let you fine-tune the devout vs. the intelligentsia or the either-of-the-first-two vs. the intelligentsia.) Military - The bigger your army and the higher its wages, the more influence your armed forces will have. And the armed forces, before events, just want the government to be rich and internally powerful. So, roughly, the "normal" starting path for a game is to move everyone from fields to factory or barracks, since you do want industrial goods and an army big enough to at least say no to rivals even if you aren't gonna map-paint. As you do this the intelligentsia, industrialists, and armed forces will gain clout at expense of the landowners, and you use this to push through things that take away landowner power like ending serfdom or the feudal levy, which will increase the trend. Eventually it'll be the industrialists as the big one, and if you want the revolution--or just want to increase cashflow so you can do more--you eliminate the reserve army of labor, build up to the point where there are few unemployed and everyone can demand a good wage, and then leverage those gains for the trade unions + the armed forces from military building to crank your taxes so that the industrialists have less money to spend on politics, and pet issues of the intelligentsia and devout to provide more social services so that the labor unions and rural folk have more. The twist is that each of these interest groups get one extra set of preferences based on their leader's personality, which gets rerolled every once in a while when they die, retire, or under some laws or some events you can manually replace them or update their thinking. IE, if you make significant progress toward communism, your armed forces's preference for more thorough taxation will change to a preference for that plus all social services and government or collective ownership, and if you make very significant progress you can additionally pick exactly what flavor of left politics your left politicians will almost always roll as. Looking for ways to take advantage of this is the spice of the game; every once in a while you'll roll an abolitionist landowner and be able to get rid of slavery early, or an anarchist scholar who wants multiculturalism and means you can conquer and colonize without the penalties that normally come with a racial underclass, or a vanguardist soldier who's willing to hand all power to the factory councils even if they're too underpaid right now to have any chance of taking it for themselves. Or alternately, your petty bourgeois may turn out to have produced a fascist and need to be jettisoned from power until he croaks because you want the vote for everyone and he absolutely will not accept expanding it. E: Dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of a council republic is very viable, and has few immediately visible downsides, if you can get it through and deal with a significant penalty to diplo with anyone who doesn't have one. The internal difficulty is more that it absolutely fixes a worker-peasant-soldier coalition in power, and any regressive (or sectarian from the flavors of the left you didn't favor) measures you want to keep need to be in place beforehand. Collective ownership to go with it is pretty bland and ignorable, the changes to where the money goes just dovetail with the changes to whose money speaks the loudest pound-for-pound, but state ownership basically turns off the guardrails of "economic stagnation penalties can be taken either in the budget or in unrest" and "the AI will try to fill in buildings you overlook"; if everything's running smoothly it goes extremely well, like, annual budget surplus of 10%+ GDP with minimal taxes maximal services and a large army on campaign, but any holes in your economy will absolutely shred your budget. Mandoric fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I'm fine with the peasants being happy in the fields, historically early industrial life was absolutely hellish and not at all preferable to farming in a lot of places. But you gotta give me some kind of better enclosure mechanic to force them into the factories anyways then, having to build 70 farms to eat up all the arable land requires too much infrastructure to kickstart an industrial workforce. You can only do it after the industry is already chugging and you stack railroads. It sounds like this is mostly happening in states with lots of unfilled arable land. That's the Hokkaido situation talked about earlier, and there are lots of states like that in the Americas too. In most of the world, where the land is filled to capacity at game start, natural pop growth - especially with religious healthcare - and a reasonable number of farm constructions still seem sufficient to drive early industrialization. If you're having to build tons of farms before peasants start getting unemployed, then the state is severely underpopulated and I'd just say that the material conditions for industrialization don't exist there yet. I think it's ok for that to be the case sometimes. The real problem is that migration is busted right now (fingers crossed for next week's patch) so there's no rush of settlers that ought to fill the vacuum and eventually create those conditions. It's also arguable that the hiring algorithm ought to raise wages more aggressively to attract peasants even in the case of empty land, but of course it might not be possible for a building to stay profitably competitive while paying wages that high, especially if attracting those peasants causes food prices to rise. That's a case where strong protectionism may be in order to enable your industries to pay those high wages, which again is nicely historical. Overall I think we mostly need the new migration to roll out, and they really ought to decouple the migration law from internal movement which I've been wanting for a long time now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Oblig. "serfdom should restrict internal movement" comment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Oblig. "serfdom should restrict internal movement" comment. Instead of closed borders, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
My convoys keep bouncing up and down from +460 to -229 every 10 seconds or so on full speed. What the hell is causing this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 21:24
|
|
|
Formed Yugoslavia as Serbia after beating communist Austria and grabbing Croatia. I’ve also managed to fix my employment issues by building out my farms so that no subsistence farms are left. Got a GDP of around 50 millions and a government of industrialists and petty bourgeoisie that are quite strong because I finished the positive JE. I’ll probably try to go fascist now because I’ve never done it before. Not sure what else to do with the last twenty years of game time but thinking of kicking out the ottomans from Europe. I’ve got a small but elite army that punches above its weight. Star fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Nov 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
Dr. Clockwork posted:My convoys keep bouncing up and down from +460 to -229 every 10 seconds or so on full speed. What the hell is causing this? I've seen this too, my guess is that it's multiple trade routes seeing there's convoys available and all expanding at once, then seeing that there's a shortage and contracting. Or maybe something weirder like trade routes exceeding land trade capacity and shifting to convoys and back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2023 22:25
|
|
