|
Who has the easiest time forming India? The Sikh Empire seem like they start pretty strong but not quite strong enough to start taking territory off the EIC if the British show up to defend them. Should I just start as the EIC themselves, do intentionally badly and create a lot of radicals, and then pick Hindustan when the revolt happens?
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Who has the easiest time forming India? The Sikh Empire seem like they start pretty strong but not quite strong enough to start taking territory off the EIC if the British show up to defend them. Should I just start as the EIC themselves, do intentionally badly and create a lot of radicals, and then pick Hindustan when the revolt happens? The Mutiny event is pretty weak and radicals don't seem to make it any stronger. The wiki suggests you can form India as EIC if you've researched Pan-Nationalism and aren't a subject of GB. You'd actually want to avoid triggering the mutiny since that turns you into the Raj well before you could get that tech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 05:56
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Nah I'm coming in to take their poo poo. They have only 6 battalions more than I do but about 25 conscripts sitting in reserve, I have 50. I have 40 offense/43 defense to their 25/33. I got 8m pops to their 5.6m. Legit don't understand how attrition is doing this much damage to my poo poo; like I said, that numerical advantage they have should be melting when I literally have a 4:1 k/d ratio against them. That seems odd. I beat them with par level troops with a numerical advantage. Having numerical advantage is key in the wars so maybe trying building more battalions then them and then disbanding them after the war if you can’t support it Wars in South America are pretty fucky tho and yea watching Russia ship a dozen of 4 battalion armies half way around the globe to fight in the Andes is annoying
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 06:46
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:That seems odd. I beat them with par level troops with a numerical advantage. Having numerical advantage is key in the wars so maybe trying building more battalions then them and then disbanding them after the war if you can’t support it Supporting armies at this point is totally fine; my logic is that if I can get such a lopsided K:D ratio through quality advantage and still lose the manpower clash because of attrition then sending more troops is only going to exacerbate the problem. Either I'm sending too many troops* or just fumbling army management by having everyone sit on the front and melt away from attrition...shrug, it's tough. *likely, but I don't know what is the "right" amount of troops then; should I match the enemy's largest army's size, then keep a reserve army of the same size to swap in once the first army is down to half manpower or whatever?? which means that I SHOULD have a major numbers advantage but the trick is making sure I don't commit everyone all at once, except it takes really long to replenish manpower...shrug, it's real tough and I would really like a guide or pointers Anyway, maybe there'll be some advice from their discord or the reddit down the line, or maybe a confirmation that some numbers are off, we'll see. At least the economic game works very well now and I enjoy how it tickles my brain. As an aside, after relearning this game and getting a run to 1900+, migration as a New World nation is pretty interesting now thank to the new migration wave button. I don't join customs unions as a personal rule since I feel like it makes things too easy to piggyback off but also it reaaaally sucks when you build your economy as a component of some rear end in a top hat's CU and then they boot you out because you're getting too big and fuckin destroy your financials as a result; this is important because passive migration from outside your nation is usually facilitated by being part of a CU so in effect, I actually don't need to really think about maxing out SoL on a national level early on because I'm not getting migrants anyway. That means I should be more open to running higher taxes and juicing construction as much as I can, and only start working on SoL once I actually have good laws for migration, which is usually a ways out for most nations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 10:13
|
|
|
After a nice easy first game as Persia, I decided to give the US a shot. Boy was I surprised when the front system kept me losing ground to Mexican forces inferior in quantity and quality as my ever victorious armies wasted literally months pathfinding between Wyoming and Texas and back again and again as the enemy advanced unopposed. Is there anything I can do to remedy this? Would setting a strategic objective stabilize the armies' focus? Splitting up into more, smaller armies?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 10:34
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Supporting armies at this point is totally fine; my logic is that if I can get such a lopsided K:D ratio through quality advantage and still lose the manpower clash because of attrition then sending more troops is only going to exacerbate the problem. Either I'm sending too many troops* or just fumbling army management by having everyone sit on the front and melt away from attrition...shrug, it's tough. Devs have said in their discord that they are looking into the attrition numbers for the next hot fix. Then, further on, they want to adjust attrition based on terrain etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
Star posted:Devs have said in their discord that they are looking into the attrition numbers for the next hot fix. Then, further on, they want to adjust attrition based on terrain etc. That's good to know, thank you very much!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 12:02
|
|
|
Having superior troops and a smaller army that doesn’t attrit as much makes sense from a logical standpoint and a game design standpoint. Not disagreeing with you on that. As the game currently works, having more troops lets you steamroll thru the enemy quicker. I guess there is a historical parallel there - the firstest with the mostest or however that goes It’s entirely possible to conquer an enemy country without completely destroying their army and then whatever troops they have remaining just magically exists somewhere while the war score ticks down. There’s no army surrendering or POW concept in the game (and I don’t know how they’d manage that feature). EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
I’m not a fan of the magic immigration wave button the americas get, I’ll be honest. Feels deterministic whereas the entire game is trying to be setup as if systems are king. Anywhere should be able to get immigration waves if they set up the conditions that Americans had at the time. I guess enough people complained they didn’t have their button.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:That's good to know, thank you very much! There’s also a mod that lowers attrition if you want something right now https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3097652490&searchtext=
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Having superior troops and a smaller army that doesn’t attrit as much makes sense from a logical standpoint and a game design standpoint. Not disagreeing with you on that. As the game currently works, having more troops lets you steamroll thru the enemy quicker. I guess there is a historical parallel there - the firstest with the mostest or however that goes It did also make sense in Vicky 2 when you got Machine Guns that suddenly it was *much* better to be on the defense than on the offense because of how horrifying the losses became.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Popoto posted:I’m not a fan of the magic immigration wave button the americas get, I’ll be honest. Feels deterministic whereas the entire game is trying to be setup as if systems are king. Anywhere should be able to get immigration waves if they set up the conditions that Americans had at the time. Yeah, I was surprised to see that since extra-mechanical boosts to American immigration were a Vicky2 thing that the devs specifically said they wanted to do away with. Hopefully they kill it once the new migration system rolls out in 1.6.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Fray posted:Hopefully they kill it once the new migration system rolls out in 1.6.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:After a nice easy first game as Persia, I decided to give the US a shot. Boy was I surprised when the front system kept me losing ground to Mexican forces inferior in quantity and quality as my ever victorious armies wasted literally months pathfinding between Wyoming and Texas and back again and again as the enemy advanced unopposed. Is there anything I can do to remedy this? Would setting a strategic objective stabilize the armies' focus? Splitting up into more, smaller armies? In my limited experience, it seems like having at least one general set to Defend Front is important. Preferably an entire army of infantry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
Koorisch posted:It did also make sense in Vicky 2 when you got Machine Guns that suddenly it was *much* better to be on the defense than on the offense because of how horrifying the losses became. I feel like this is kind of an odd element of Vicky 3 and the way the combat works out because in 2 that was a real turning point in the game, but in 3 it seems like defenders have the advantage for the entire 100 year period so inventing machine guns doesn't really make a significant difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like this is kind of an odd element of Vicky 3 and the way the combat works out because in 2 that was a real turning point in the game, but in 3 it seems like defenders have the advantage for the entire 100 year period so inventing machine guns doesn't really make a significant difference. That's my one huge gripe with the military techs, the gulfs between radical changes in technology are not large enough. Ironclads and dreadnoughts are the worst example of it by far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
In the time period, the defender had a hefty advantage long before the general advent of machineguns. In the US Civil War there's tons of examples of troops behind walls or in trenches causing brutal casualties to attackers. It wasn't long after that that notions like marching shoulder to shoulder were abandoned because even without machineguns, breech-loading rifles made it far too dangerous. Where it gets weird from a game design POV is that strategic offense did not always correlate with tactical offense. Until like WW1 with trenches everywhere, you could march somewhere and pretty much force the defender to attack you, unless the defender steals a march on you and threatens your supplies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 23:59
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:That's my one huge gripe with the military techs, the gulfs between radical changes in technology are not large enough. Ironclads and dreadnoughts are the worst example of it by far. In this patch at least my modern fleets have been blowing up an infinity of sailcraft
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:In the time period, the defender had a hefty advantage long before the general advent of machineguns. In the US Civil War there's tons of examples of troops behind walls or in trenches causing brutal casualties to attackers. It wasn't long after that that notions like marching shoulder to shoulder were abandoned because even without machineguns, breech-loading rifles made it far too dangerous. Yeah I think one thing Vicky 2 did really well was represent the changes in warfare from the Napoleonic era all the way up to WW1 because of the massive increase in unit stacks and the way the wide combat widths of the early game encouraged you to pile up your units into one doomstack while the later game you got more efficiency out of smaller, more spread out units digging in across a big frontline. Late game wars actually felt different than early game ones; the big problem was that it was a real pain in the rear end to micro all of it. Vicky 3's system kind of jumps straight to the WW1 style of combat where it's assumed that defenders are omnipresent along the frontline and you simply cannot advance without pushing through a fortified area. It's nice that it means there's much less micro (although it seems like there's still an awkward amount of it now with all the individually assigning conscript battalions to armies and fiddling with general orders so they stop marching undermanned armies to their deaths against vastly superior numbers), but I hope they can find a way to replicate that early to late game shift somehow. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Dec 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 01:16
|
|
|
Star posted:There’s also a mod that lowers attrition if you want something right now https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3097652490&searchtext= Yeah, saw this in the discord and am doing another go to see how things feel with some of that modder's stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Is there any way to encourage internal migration besides the Decree? I cannot get anyone to come to American Panama even though there are massively profitable jobs to be had. For instance, there is this canal Vengarr fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Dec 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
It's probably best at this point to not bother with the peaceful option, and just eat the whole state. Or just ignore it, ships still transit just as fast with an unstaffed canal and the only downside is missing a little prestige for getting the event. Or even just not build them at all, the gamified diplo means that you can move a fleet around the capes in plenty of time to react to a play and you're flat not allowed to have the Pacific squadron beating up on islanders while the Atlantic fleet duels the British or French, and the convoy raiding/escorting mechanic heavily rewards local swarms anyway while giving you perfect intelligence on where you can set up a decisive encounter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Tried ottomans out and couldn't get the sick man journal entry done in time. Egypt seems pretty trival, as does the military reform if you wait to do som upgrades until you're able to afford it. Urbanization seems a chore especially now that local prices mean slapping down random factories in the early game isn't as good. I should have gone for education by day one getting schools but it's harder than it sounds since you gotta get religious schools via the devout or get rid if state religion. Ended up sparking a civil war trying to get bureaucratic reforms passed but I probably coulda made it work with more time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
I just did sick man of Europe and managed to do it through the military, bureaucratic, separatism and Egypt reforms. I wasn’t even close on the education and urbanization reforms. My goal this run is to do the healthiest man in Europe achievement but I don’t think I will make it. You have so much ground to make up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
When picking out import/export routes in the trade lens, it'd be nice if it highlighted nations you have trade agreements with. The only mods I see that deal with the trade screen is for density/compactness, anyone know if there are any out there that has that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Found a weird interaction as Brazil. I joined the British customs union, went to war with Peru-Bolivia, and found that they were able to keep buying Small Arms from Britain via a land route through me. I had to drop from the union to make my blockade work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Star posted:I just did sick man of Europe and managed to do it through the military, bureaucratic, separatism and Egypt reforms. I wasn’t even close on the education and urbanization reforms. My goal this run is to do the healthiest man in Europe achievement but I don’t think I will make it. You have so much ground to make up. Yeah that makes sense. What laws did you start with? Serfdom seems like the big thing to kill since it locks you into traditionalist and no schools, professional armies or appointed bureaucrats if you can slip it past the landowners
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Playing as Qing -> Republican China and I really love being able to reverse sway independents into being my protectorates. It was also really nice to see Portugal give up their treaty port without a fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Bolivia has been really fun to play, lots of cash but little in the way of other exploitable early game resources makes for a unique experience (the usefulness of your iron mines is significantly reduced by the lack of pops in those states). And starting out with 50 infamy means you have a major incentive to not attack anyone in the first few years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:It's probably best at this point to not bother with the peaceful option, and just eat the whole state. Is this also the recommended way to get more rubber. My customs union partners are letting me down. Rubber is at 75% of base price, they would make a killing if they put plantations down, but NOPE. Can’t import from anywhere either, it’s 1920 and there is no rubber to be had anywhere in the world. I was trying to be a nice guy this run…
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Is this also the recommended way to get more rubber. My customs union partners are letting me down. Rubber is at 75% of base price, they would make a killing if they put plantations down, but NOPE. This is what I'm hoping the first major DLC tackles, being able to do foreign investment comes with the territory since it's called Sphere of Influence
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:This is what I'm hoping the first major DLC tackles, being able to do foreign investment comes with the territory since it's called Sphere of Influence Yeah being able to invest in subjects, or even other countries in your market, is probably the biggest missing feature right now. It's kind of weird that even at the lowest level of autonomy, your puppets are still 100% economically independent and can just build what they want rather than what you tell them to build. The ideal is that the AI sees the demand in your market and builds the appropriate buildings but this only works reactively and you still have to live with shortages for ages as they get around to it (if they ever do), rather than being able to build a bunch of rubber plantations or oil wells or whatever ahead of the anticipated demand that will be created when you switch PMs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Okay got through the ahitty early game as Ottomans but now I'm running into the problem that while my economy is growing my tax base isn't as fast because per capita is both the easiest to keep and the most money, and while gdp is going up I'm still not getting money fast enough. Maybe I just need to lean on the gas even harder
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 05:08
|
|
|
Star posted:I just did sick man of Europe and managed to do it through the military, bureaucratic, separatism and Egypt reforms. I wasn’t even close on the education and urbanization reforms. My goal this run is to do the healthiest man in Europe achievement but I don’t think I will make it. You have so much ground to make up. I think the education goal is just flat bugged, since it has both a "get to 20% literacy" and a "raise your literacy by 20 points (i.e. to 30-something%)" goal, and 30-something is super difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 05:45
|
|
|
The AI does accidentally make correct decisions sometimes. I did my first two sicilies game and got Tuscany into my market, they built nothing but iron mines for ages which was really helpful for my construction, and they immediately went atmospheric engine when I got a few coal mines up to support it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 09:22
|
|
|
getting the hang of things, slowly -- the tool / wood / iron -> coal (atmospheric engine) -> fertilizer / explosives (dynamite) construction production early game loop had a fun run as persia, though had to delete construction a few times because costs kept going up and down not sure why not sure at all how to get multiculturalism reliability. feels like rng whether i get an agitator or IG head with the right ideology -- also, why on earth does "Switch Sides" have no confirmation _and_ be in the same spot as "declare neutrality"? had one game where i had interests all around the globe so literally was clearing out a bunch of random rebellions i didn't care about, 'cept one was a small rebellion of my own and i hit switch sides since it's in the same spot as all the declare neutralities. no confirmation and rip there's no going back on ironman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
alcaras posted:not sure at all how to get multiculturalism reliability. feels like rng whether i get an agitator or IG head with the right ideology There's always gonna be RNG involved, but over the course of a whole game, it's pretty unlikely that you don't get an anarchist or humanitarian pop up at some point, and if you go down the socialist path, you can make anarchists a lot more likely to show up. Plus there's also inviting exiled agitators (though with Persia you probably won't see many available foreign agitators with "advanced" ideologies until you either get multiculturalism or get very late in the game) Pakled fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Dec 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 09:47
|
|
|
Something seems up with the investment pool. No matter how many construction sectors I build not enough private sector buildings are starting, there seems to be multiple 'waiting for funds to become available' ticks even with the pool at over 2 million and nearly 1000 spare construction capacity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 10:00
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:Something seems up with the investment pool. No matter how many construction sectors I build not enough private sector buildings are starting, there seems to be multiple 'waiting for funds to become available' ticks even with the pool at over 2 million and nearly 1000 spare construction capacity. Do you have a really long queue of private investments? Private investments won't queue up if total price of building the current queue exceeds the value of the investment pool. So it's counting all those buildings that havent been built yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Yeah that makes sense. What laws did you start with? Serfdom seems like the big thing to kill since it locks you into traditionalist and no schools, professional armies or appointed bureaucrats if you can slip it past the landowners If I remember correctly I lucked into changing to appointed bureaucrats quite early. Then I pushed through homesteading because that was the only one I had any realistic support for. Had to struggle for decades to move away from land-based taxation but I finally have a decent economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 11:17
|
|