|
skeleton warrior posted:I’m playing as Chile who has expanded to take over most of Argentina and Peru. I’ve got maybe 10K peasants total across my entire nation, and everything else is empty mines and factories, but apparently neither Britain nor France are willing to produce enough of anything to support my economy at all. My basic goods are running at -50% and it’s still not enough to get good SOLs. I have every non-late-game worker-reduction tech up and running, my rails are fully subsidized, and I still can’t get people into a Steel factory. If people aren't in mines and they aren't in factories, then where are they? Farms and plantations? If so, you probably need to deconstruct some of your excess agricultural production, and the newly-unemployed peasants will go to your mines. An easy solution to industrialization for a small unpopulated country is to get into someone else's large customs union. Their market will provide seemingly endless demand to buy up all those basic goods you produce, while you'll have access to all the agricultural and manufactured goods the rest of the market produces, which means you'll have plenty of money and can afford to deconstruct some buildings and focus your construction on whatever the market has particularly high demand for. On top of that, you don't have to micromanage trade routes that way. Dr. Clockwork posted:Should you always fire up the labor replacement PMs like steam donkey etc so those laborers try and find better jobs or is this a state-by-state assessment to avoid mass unemployment? Seems like whenever I click those over the business tanks in productivity immediately. No. Those labor replacement PMs are usually complete garbage when you first unlock them, especially if your nation has been slow to industrialize. Turning them on too early will not only tank your country's productivity, but also create a bunch of radicals and increase the strength of your Aristocrats and Capitalists. You should only turn them on when you have a specific reason to do so. Usually, I do it when one of three things is true: 1. The state is running low on labor and I desperately need to free up some workers for other buildings 2. I want to reduce the number of laborers in my country, either to drive people to professions with higher average wages or to reduce the power of the Trade Unions 3. The input good for that PM is really cheap, to the point where either: 3a. the PM is cheaper than the workers' wages, or 3b. I want to increase demand for that input good
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
something to consider: there's some weird poo poo in play when supply and demand are not exactly equal say the base price for a widget is $100. you have 1,000 widgets produced in your market and 1,000 widgets consumed. supply = demand so the actual price is exactly the base price. collectively the widget producers get $100,000 and the widget consumers lose $100,000. all good but then lets say we have excess demand: 1,000 widgets produced in the market but 1,100 widgets consumed. that's a 10% shortage so the price is 110% of the base price, $110. the producers sell their 1,000 widgets @ $110 to get $110,000. but the consumers buy 1,100 widgets at $110, so collectively they paid out $121,000. $11,000 disappeared into nothing and 100 widgets appeared from nothing. obviously if you flip the situation then you'll have free money and deleted widgets instead. i think this makes oversupply better in general, since the extra money will be used to increase SOL, and then people will buy more widgets, increasing demand until it hits an equilibrium again. undersupply would have the opposite effect and tend to decrease SOL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Will German cultured states join a unified Germany post-unification? Würrtemberg did not join in back when I unified; it's some years on and they are in the German customs union with very high relations. Am I waiting for them to research pan-nationalism/for a random event to fire, or should I just start sabotaging and do this the Kaiser way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:something to consider: there's some weird poo poo in play when supply and demand are not exactly equal crises of underproduction 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 03:59
|
|
|
Enjoying 1.5 so far -- have been trying USA as a place to relearn the game since I haven't played since 1.0. Thus far I'm trying to get the construction loop going, but get stuck on the Iron -> Steel transition specifically, and in general am not sure when to change PMs. Also am trying to concentrate industry (e.g. Pennsylvania has wood + iron + coal so I'm trying to have that be my primary steel production) and build tall... but I run out of peasants. re: PM swapping, either I drive the price up to the stratosphere (and often can't import it since it's not being made by anyone else) or I try to prebuild factories but then they do nothing since there is no one to buy anything. I guess I could go state by state and micro each one but that seems like a lot of micro? My current game it's like 1880 and I have 500 construction capacity as USA, which feels low -- but I had to declare bankruptcy earlier in this run since I got completely death spiraled by running a deficit and not being able to stop running a deficit in time. It turns out being in default reduces government building throughput which in turn reduces bureaucracy which in turn increase tax waste which means you lose more money which puts you harder into default... yeah. Military-wise, managed to win the Civil War by building barracks in northern states. Also made Mexico my protectorate but am not sure what to do with it (there's no diploannex so I need to go to war a few more times to incorporate them? is that right?). I've also ignored navy entirely at the moment and am not sure what to do with it. Military wise I understand I should have a bunch of all-infantry defensive armies (one for each state on my border)? and a few offensive armies that are 50/50 inf/art? I've heard something about "troop borrowing" but have no idea what it is or how it works. GeneralistGaming's videos have been helpful but also feel like they assume a lot of knowledge that I don't have since I haven't played since early 1.0. Teching randomly (if it boosts construction, I take it, if it boosts MAPI, I take it, else I am lost -- feels like a lot of meh techs out there). My noob understanding of the key clusters are: - wood+coal+iron -- for construction and steel - wood+sulfur -- for paper - wood+lead -- for glass TL;DR: - How to know how much construction to build? I don't want to put my eco in a nosedive I can't get out of - How to know when to swap PMs and how to do it? And I guess don't swap to automation right away, per prior discussion? And what to do about luxury production like porcelain? Ignore it? Put one state on it? - What's the best way to militarily expand? - What should I be prioritizing tech wise? Appreciate any advice or guidance. Am having fun, with memorable losses (I've played a bunch of USA games so far, losing is fun) so far including a racist communist rebellion because I tried to enact multiculturalism and couldn't get it enacted before almost the entire country east of the Mississippi rose up against me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
You can move towards diplo annexing subjects with demands to lower autonomy. There’s multiple steps that each trigger a truce. Once they reach puppet I think, you can do a play to annex. At each step they can refuse, which will trigger a full diplo play. Their likelihood to accept is based on army size, opinion of you (more positive is better) and I think a few other things. It’ll tell you before you launch the demand how likely they are to accept. Mexico is probably too big to annex peacefully, but maybe if you get big enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 07:06
|
|
|
alcaras posted:Enjoying 1.5 so far -- have been trying USA as a place to relearn the game since I haven't played since 1.0. "How much construction to build" doesn't have an easy answer, it's something you've gotta work out by feel. If you overdo it, you can easily downgrade or deconstruct some construction, so it's not a big deal as long as you do it before you bury yourself in an inescapable debt spiral. Keep an eye on the budget tooltip's "Balance without temporary expenses" line, as that's what your income would be if your construction isn't running. As long as that number is positive, you can get yourself back in the green solely by pausing construction; if it's negative, then you'll have to take more drastic measures to dig yourself out of debt, and that's dangerous. In general, swap to PMs when they're more profitable. The tooltip that tells you the impact of a PM change on a building's profit is pretty accurate now, at least as long as the building is generally functional and mostly or completely staffed (the estimate becomes totally unreliable if the building is deeply unprofitable and has few/no workers). If the tooltip says the PM swap will increase profits, it's usually safe to go for it without thinking twice. Also, if you want to adjust production or consumption of a particular good or resource, it's sometimes worth changing the PM even if it decreases the building's profitability, as long as you don't drive the building into the red. Think of everything in terms of its whole impact on your overall economy. The best way to militarily expand is to have more soldiers and boats than your likely foes, preferably with at least equivalent tech levels or better, and with a militarily powerful ally who likes you and is willing to join all your wars without too much in return. Add a lot of artillery to your armies (but not so much that it makes up more than 50% of the army), and add a lot of heavy ships to your navies (but not so much that it makes up more than 50% of the navy). Other than that, you don't really need to sweat the details. I'd recommend not relying too heavily on naval invasions right now since they're kinda crappy in 1.5, but I'm sure that'll be adjusted within a month or two. Tech-wise, prioritize what's useful for you right now, followed by what you expect to be useful in the future. Keep in mind that a lot of laws are gated behind tech too, so check those and plan ahead, so you don't finally get the IGs you want in government only to find that you still can't pass the law. With the new local pricing stuff, there's not much point trying to concentrate industry early on, and it's probably better to spread it around a bit at first. There's basically no diplo-annexing in Vic3 outside of special cases, but subjects are actually pretty useful in Vic3. And if you'd still prefer to annex, going to war to annex a subject incurs a lot less infamy than directly conquering the states. Vizuyos fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Nov 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 07:11
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 07:34
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:The thing I'm trying to figure out is which goods to keep cheap for SoL reasons and expensive for profitability reasons. Basic consumer goods, ok, obviously you want them cheap, keep people happy. Industrial goods however are weird: you want cheap iron and cheap tools since they're generally input goods, but do you want cheap steel? Steel feeds back into tool production eventually, and engines as well. I've just been keeping it safe by hovering around 0% deviance from market price, but surprisingly often it leads to factories complaining about not being productive enough for full employment, which TBF could be the whole job satisfaction thing again but eh You do generally want to aim for steel to be slightly cheap or even, not because it's all that good for your economy in the present but because you'll almost certainly be using more steel in the future and you don't want your motor industries to suffer and not be able to expand or your steel construction sectors to wreck your budget. In practice once you're using significant amounts of steel it'll be hard to get it to be very cheap other than when you switch to better steel PMs, and if you do that means you should expand your steel consuming industries, or if that doesn't make sense then export it until you can use it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 07:38
|
|
|
Vizuyos posted:There's basically no diplo-annexing in Vic3 outside of special cases, but subjects are actually pretty useful in Vic3. And if you'd still prefer to annex, going to war to annex a subject incurs a lot less infamy than directly conquering the states. Vassals are one of my favourite things in Paradox games, but being unable to move troops through them in Vicky3 is crippling. Say you have a vassal on your border, and another on theirs; if the second vassal has a rebel problem, you can't actually reach them because the first won't let you deploy troops on their territory. This forces you to only have one layer of vassals around you, instead of having a blanket of them. Unless there's a button in a third submenu hidden somewhere I've missed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 09:49
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:MB, basic agricultural resources. I've gotten up to importing 1.3k units of grain before. Qing rules for this. Making 6k just importing grain and exporting oil from my whale industries as Brazil. Putting an interest in the Balkans is also a good way to export hella coffee to the Ottomans, but you will need to build some ports to increase volume because it eats a lot of convoys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 10:16
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Vassals are one of my favourite things in Paradox games, but being unable to move troops through them in Vicky3 is crippling. Say you have a vassal on your border, and another on theirs; if the second vassal has a rebel problem, you can't actually reach them because the first won't let you deploy troops on their territory. This forces you to only have one layer of vassals around you, instead of having a blanket of them. Get the autonomy in your subjects low enough and they’ll join your wars. Then you can deploy to their borders. Violate Sovereignty might work too? Never tried that on a subject, fair odds they’ll just capitulate. Downside is of course they’ll send their dogshit troops to junk up your fronts
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 11:30
|
|
|
What’s everyone ratio of artillery to front line men so far? I’ve been going for a 2:1 more out of sheer simplicity than any calculated notion. Cavalry I usually put ten and that’s it. I feel like artillery could probably be taken up right to the very limit before you get your malus from having too much of them without a problem…
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 11:41
|
|
|
Popoto posted:I feel like artillery could probably be taken up right to the very limit before you get your malus from having too much of them without a problem… I believe that this is the meta for offensive armies, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 11:47
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:It's a clear and imo severe UX regression but you can change the construction UI to go back to showing peasants or unemployed with this little control that's hidden away at the top of the pane: The most frustrating thing here is that if there wasn't this obsession with everything being fixed-width panes they could just, you know, show both numbers at once Hey Wiz, have you considered how incredibly dealing with fixed-width UI panels that alternate sides and bottom is for anyone playing on a 21:9 monitor? (It's me. I'm the one with the ridiculous oversized monitor)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
So to clarify a few things on armies and battles; you can have one battle going per state which is a part of a front. Each battle will select a single general from your armies present on that front to be in charge. That general will then select troops from their own army to make up their force for the battle. This will be supplemented by "borrowing" troops from other allied armies present but ONLY FOR DEFENSIVE BATTLES (this might change in an upcoming patch). Armies gain a penalty to their stats if you have less than 50% infantry in the army, but when the actual battles are carried out the troop configuration doesn't matter (AFAIK?) so if you have a huge army with loads of artillery on the offensive you will be attacking with pure artillery. This informs army configuration as follows: Firstly you want your attacking armies to be 50% infantry and 50% cav / art. Outside of low tech situations artillery is better, but the difference between cavalry and artillery is smaller earlier in the game and having 30% cavalry gives access to a pretty useful attacking order so you might want to use more cav in the early game (also you don't need to build up a separate cannon industry if you don't have one at the start of the game). You want your attacking armies to be large enough that you will be able to attack with 100% cav/art, so having large individual armies is good for offense. If you only have a small number of individual armies in your military, each army should have at least one defensive general present. Every front should ideally have at least 1 general assigned a defensive order per state present, so that you're always able to defend with a general with the correct order type. Offensive generals are able to fight defensive battles, but having the correct order type gives a bonus. Outside of the very early game it seems optimal to always have 3 or 4 generals for each army unless they're small infantry only armies used for defense (having lots of generals gives you more options for manipulating IGs so it's useful for political reasons also). If you have purely defensive armies (if you have a coastal capital it's very useful to have a defense force, and once you get large enough it's useful to have defense armies anyway) then they should be 100% infantry. Defensive battles can borrow troops so you can make these armies as small as you like. Make sure to check your generals orders as 1.5 has added lots of new unique orders which require the correct army setup or general traits, the majority of these are objectively better than the normal attack / defend orders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 12:24
|
|
|
Roadie posted:The most frustrating thing here is that if there wasn't this obsession with everything being fixed-width panes they could just, you know, show both numbers at once Poil fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Nov 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 12:28
|
|
|
Magissima posted:You do generally want to aim for steel to be slightly cheap or even, not because it's all that good for your economy in the present but because you'll almost certainly be using more steel in the future and you don't want your motor industries to suffer and not be able to expand or your steel construction sectors to wreck your budget. In practice once you're using significant amounts of steel it'll be hard to get it to be very cheap other than when you switch to better steel PMs, and if you do that means you should expand your steel consuming industries, or if that doesn't make sense then export it until you can use it. Yeah, I was afraid of stuff like this. It's why I've chosen to go for 0% price deviance as much as possible, but like I said it feels like the game now occasionally needs you to achieve more than just positive productivity to achieve high/full employment and I keep getting stumped by how to achieve that, to the point where I just don't bother anymore and write off states entirely if they're exhibiting strange peasant behavior due to satisfaction and wages being out of my hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
Some buildings are more sensitive to price volatility than others. This is mainly because they have a narrower profit margins between the base input good prices and the base output prices. Steel mills are one of these which is why they become unprofitable so easily if over built. In general agriculture buildings are the least sensitive because they have basically no inputs except labor until you turn on the automation PMs. Overall in of simple output goods - input goods it goes something like agriculture > basic industrial resources > tools and consumer goods > finished industrial goods (railways/electricity/motors) > steel/explosives in terms of how resilient buildings are to price changes. Labor costs will complicate this a little bit because more advanced industrial buildings usually have more high paying jobs. This makes motor industries for example still pretty sensitive to price fluctuations. So for steel you generally want to match your demand or be slightly under supplied to keep them profitable and able to stay employed if input or labor costs go up. Whereas for something like basic clothes you can easily get them to -20-30% prices and still have them fairly profitable. Military good are kinda their own category since you usually subsidize them if you can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Get the autonomy in your subjects low enough and they’ll join your wars. Then you can deploy to their borders. Violate Sovereignty might work too? Never tried that on a subject, fair odds they’ll just capitulate. Oh is that right? I must've missed that last I played, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Get the autonomy in your subjects low enough and they’ll join your wars. Then you can deploy to their borders. Violate Sovereignty might work too? Never tried that on a subject, fair odds they’ll just capitulate. Yea I’ve had wars take 4x as long as necessary bc for every battle my troops win decisively to take 25% occupation, useless vassal armies lose 3 battles and thus I can never gain any ground
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
What is going on with this diplomacy system? I attacked Vietnam for Tonkin, China joins Vietnam (because the are feeling protective), France joins me. The war is going in our favor. The diplomacy screen says they will both likely accept peace (Vietnam over 100%, China at like 40%). Yet China refuses to give up each time I propose peace. Does every war in Asia have to end in in a full occupation of China? Why does this system make so much less sense than Eu4?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
If you force Vietnam to capitulate China should eventually white peace. I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:What is going on with this diplomacy system? I attacked Vietnam for Tonkin, China joins Vietnam (because the are feeling protective), France joins me. The war is going in our favor. The diplomacy screen says they will both likely accept peace (Vietnam over 100%, China at like 40%). Yet China refuses to give up each time I propose peace. Does every war in Asia have to end in in a full occupation of China? Why does this system make so much less sense than Eu4? Where are you seeing percentages for countries' accepting peace? An AI country will either accept a given peace proposal or won't, there's no percentage involved. Show us a screencap of the peace proposal screen so we can see what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Where are you seeing percentages for countries' accepting peace? An AI country will either accept a given peace proposal or won't, there's no percentage involved. Here's from an earlier save before I ragequit [img] https://imgur.com/a/1TLQH5V [/img] edit: each time I send, the request times out as a no. Multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
BigRoman posted:Here's from an earlier save before I ragequit you don't have the actual war goals selected, that's showing their willingness to accept a white peace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
I’ve seen that happen occasionally with no idea why. The AI just not taking an offer the game says they should accept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Based on that screenshot I am guessing that Dai Nam is now a Qing subject, which is a somewhat buggy interaction at present and kind of fucks up the war goals system (otherwise Dai Nam would have been instantly capitulated when they hit -100 war support) Also you're not actually selecting any war goals, you need to click them in the UI (they'll have a little tick when selected)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Additionally, Qing's war support isn't going to fall below 0 unless you occupy their capital, because you have the reparations wargoal. If you hadn't added that then all you'd need to do is occupy Tonkin and hold it for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
If you're clicking "propose peace deal" and they're not accepting it then that's a bug. Because as it stands, you're right, they should accept the white peace that you're offering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
Pakled posted:If you're clicking "propose peace deal" and they're not accepting it then that's a bug. Because as it stands, you're right, they should accept the white peace that you're offering. Yeah, they aren't selecting accepting white peace but creamcorn posted:you don't have the actual war goals selected, that's showing their willingness to accept a white peace. I was going for Tonkin, so let me reload and try and see what happens if I select the war goal Thanks guys
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Historian Bret Devereaux appeared on a podcast discussing the current state of the game. https://www.idlethumbs.net/3ma/episodes/victoria-3-one-year-later
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Did they fix it. I downloaded the episode and got last week's episode on some other game
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 05:41
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Yea I’ve had wars take 4x as long as necessary bc for every battle my troops win decisively to take 25% occupation, useless vassal armies lose 3 battles and thus I can never gain any ground Just experienced this with Prussia on the brothers war. It took like 2.5 years despite me kicking France out super quick because all the lovely troops got to take priority on advancing while my troops got stuck with defending duties. On the bright side, all their troops managed to wear the Austrians down significantly so by the time my troops actually got to advance Austria had an army numbering 250 battalions with an army projection of... 600.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
I conquered part of Malaysia and put an army in there in case the natives got restless. They predictably launched an uprising within a year or two, at which point my army...shrugged their shoulders and set sail for home. I'm absolutely baffled, and the mental image is incredibly. How are you supposed to keep conquered countries in line if you can't garrison troops?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 07:55
|
|
|
Build barracks there to create colonial garrisons Although I suppose if there's only one state the revolution will just steal the barracks....
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:South America is just kind of hosed because it is one of the most sparsely populated parts of the map and migration is undertuned at the moment. This is kinda ironic, given that the last expansion focused on SA so you'd expect it to be a bit more fleshed out, and especially have immigration work. I mean the latter was rather important for the Americas in the 1800s 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 10:38
|
|
|
Chikimiki posted:This is kinda ironic, given that the last expansion focused on SA so you'd expect it to be a bit more fleshed out, and especially have immigration work. I mean the latter was rather important for the Americas in the 1800s I think it's probably a side effect of using the beta to test the new migration system, they ended up putting it back to what it was in 1.4 but a bug fix to something else made migration numbers go down a lot
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 10:58
|
|
|
The fix is simple BTW, and on top of it you literally get a Create Migration Wave button which is both hilarious and kinda OP
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 11:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
I am rescinding my endorsement of the fix because...well I think it's actually *too* strong. Putting down the migration decree on a state would fuckin vacuum peasants to it, to the point where I couldn't even keep people in the states with gold mines, meaning my usual Chile run played out significantly worse than before. Maybe I was too aggressive with migration decrees, I dunno, but drat that did not feel great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 15:04
|
|