|
There's two big things I'd personally like to see out of V3: First, for free trade to become a viable strategic solution, which would basically require the AI to actually be capable of producing enough to meet the needs of other countries. This goes especially hard with rare resources like oil, rubber, and to a lesser extent silk and opium - it's basically always better to directly conquer those provinces for now because otherwise you can't rely on the AI actually developing those to the degree you want and need. The other thing I'd like to see is for politics to be somewhat less deterministic. Right at the moment once you get the conditions in place a given political coalition can basically rule untrammeled for ages with no surprises on the horizon unless you actively fiddle to change up the status quo. You don't really get parties swapping back and forth unless the balance is currently pretty even - and that'll end soon enough once you enact the reforms you have planned. I'd like to see more curveballs, or interest groups being more strategic about joining parties or what have you. Mind, in order for that to work you'd probably also want parties to have more of an effect than "how much legitimacy does it offer" and "what laws can you pass." Maybe a setup where the composition of interest groups within a party offers different bonuses based on who's in power, modified by the power structure of the country and the party in question? I.E. the intelligentsia offers different bonuses based on whether they're currently backing a communist party or a market liberal country.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 11:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
Dev diary is out, some extremely good poo poo in here. Better data visualisation and fewer clicks required to see useful information all round.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Tomn posted:There's two big things I'd personally like to see out of V3: First, for free trade to become a viable strategic solution, which would basically require the AI to actually be capable of producing enough to meet the needs of other countries. This goes especially hard with rare resources like oil, rubber, and to a lesser extent silk and opium - it's basically always better to directly conquer those provinces for now because otherwise you can't rely on the AI actually developing those to the degree you want and need. I feel like the other side of the trade equation is that the AI also needs to be more willing to run an import-based economy to encourage that kind of global development. The problem right now is that if the AI doesn't have access to a particular resource to say, implement a new PM, it just won't activate that PM, so the demand within their market stays low and they never really look to import it, which means other nations that might develop it also see that there's not really any demand and don't bother producing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Dev diary is out, some extremely good poo poo in here. Better data visualisation and fewer clicks required to see useful information all round. Let me put my infamy in the outliner dammit
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Dev diary is out, some extremely good poo poo in here. Better data visualisation and fewer clicks required to see useful information all round. Oh this all looks excellent, all that beautiful data!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Gort posted:Let me put my infamy in the outliner dammit Reading the comments, looks like your infamy now appears in your top bar to the right of loyalists 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
Yess
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
I request pivot tables for the census browser, please. We really need to drill down, here!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
PIVOT TABLES IN TOOLTIPS!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like the other side of the trade equation is that the AI also needs to be more willing to run an import-based economy to encourage that kind of global development. The problem right now is that if the AI doesn't have access to a particular resource to say, implement a new PM, it just won't activate that PM, so the demand within their market stays low and they never really look to import it, which means other nations that might develop it also see that there's not really any demand and don't bother producing it. One thing I'm a bit confused by is that a free trade country should basically be setting prices to non-isolationist nations for the development of resources like oil to "Free nation's price + Convoys" which should be higher than a lot of AI nation's alternatives, but I haven't seen that in my games. I need oil and no one builds it until I take over and do it myself. Granted, this is describing a pretty benevolent order that could use some Victorian "diplomacy" but the baseline function of free trade seems to not work for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
Any idea why during a native uprising play I can’t assign troops to the colony that is on the front. This is the Congo colony and I can station ships there but not troops. It just says no path, it started saying this as I was transferring troops in. Closing and reopening didn’t fix it, any other ideas before I roll the game back via auto save.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
everydayfalls posted:Any idea why during a native uprising play I can’t assign troops to the colony that is on the front. This is the Congo colony and I can station ships there but not troops. It just says no path, it started saying this as I was transferring troops in. Closing and reopening didn’t fix it, any other ideas before I roll the game back via auto save. You might have gotten the bug where armies can get stuck in certain locations because they want to try and reach a port you don't own to get to sea (one area this commonly happens if you conquer Transvaal and Oranje through Gaza and do not control Zulu). Can your troops reach any other base or are they stuck where they are? If they're stuck and can't seem to reach the coast, try forming a new army somewhere that can reach a port (or multiple if you have a lot of generals) and disband the armies that are stuck; the troops should auto-allocate to the empty armies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:You might have gotten the bug where armies can get stuck in certain locations because they want to try and reach a port you don't own to get to sea (one area this commonly happens if you conquer Transvaal and Oranje through Gaza and do not control Zulu). Can your troops reach any other base or are they stuck where they are? They rerouted to one of my other colonies in Namibia, but it’s not contiguous so they can’t walk there. I can’t ship in other armies either they all say they can’t find a path. Edit: It appears this is a known bug “occasionally there is ‘No Path’ to HQ and frontline in Kongo”. It was in 1.5.11 which I started this run in but long ago upgraded the game to 1.5.13. It doesn’t look like the hot fix addressed that issue. Fingers crossed I can save scum till I avoid conflict in that area. everydayfalls fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Feb 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 02:38
|
|
|
Finally finished a game as Italy. Was 3rd great power until the 30s, then overtook France to become second. In mid 1935 joined a war against the UK, and Prussia and one other GP joined on my side. We were winning, was so close to finally getting the number 1 spot and the game ended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 06:25
|
|
|
everydayfalls posted:They rerouted to one of my other colonies in Namibia, but it’s not contiguous so they can’t walk there. I can’t ship in other armies either they all say they can’t find a path. I'm having a similar problem in my Brazil game where basically any troops that go in Africa get stuck in Africa (which I control a lot of, including multiple coastlines) can't leave the continent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 07:59
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:One thing I'm a bit confused by is that a free trade country should basically be setting prices to non-isolationist nations for the development of resources like oil to "Free nation's price + Convoys" which should be higher than a lot of AI nation's alternatives, but I haven't seen that in my games. I need oil and no one builds it until I take over and do it myself. Yeah the AI doesn't generate resources so every powerful economy needs to generate most of its own input goods, however you can still abuse free trade to export tons of finished goods to everyone
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 10:07
|
|
|
i don't really want to annex venezuela and a few middle east states, but you fuckers won't make oil unless i do. not sure on the split been DLC and free update, but something like foreign direct investment is coming in 1.6, or so is my understanding
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2024 12:46
|
|
|
Mr. Fix It posted:i don't really want to annex venezuela and a few middle east states, but you fuckers won't make oil unless i do. not sure on the split been DLC and free update, but something like foreign direct investment is coming in 1.6, or so is my understanding Lol yeah but on the other hand a Venezuelan hell war is what let my Chilie sucker in a huge contingent of British troops to starve in the jungle after I blockaded the seas, eventually leading to a revolution and the bloody brits finally leaving me alone in my imperial ambitions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Lol yeah but on the other hand a Venezuelan hell war is what let my Chilie sucker in a huge contingent of British troops to starve in the jungle after I blockaded the seas, eventually leading to a revolution and the bloody brits finally leaving me alone in my imperial ambitions. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
I think I am getting better at this drat thing, also learning to utilize command economy better. However, still upset that I cannot eliminate Capitalism and still have Canals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:I think I am getting better at this drat thing, also learning to utilize command economy better. canals still "function" (i.e. naval ships can travel through) without folks working them, right? just stop subsidizing unless you really need the company benefits imho. i am looking forward to better modeled canals and govt/cooperative ownership tho. not sure if we'll get that in 1.6 since it's a diplo patch primarily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:19
|
|
|
maybe this would make the game too easy, but its weird that you cant have a hybrid economy. there might be some stuff where nationalizing it makes sense and other stuff where you're fine with it being capitalist or co-op owned
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:maybe this would make the game too easy, but its weird that you cant have a hybrid economy. there might be some stuff where nationalizing it makes sense and other stuff where you're fine with it being capitalist or co-op owned You kinda can already, there's government owned PMs that you can turn on for certain buildings in otherwise capitalist economies, or you can have communist agriculture/industry while the other is capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 02:33
|
|
|
If anything, it's kinda odd how easy it is to nationalize some businesses!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 10:13
|
|
|
I hate that it's possible to get stuck in a weird political situation where it's literally impossible to make a government with more than 50% legitimacy because the IG of the head of state is really weak but you're either a monarchy or you're under presidential republic and the largest party is a horrible Frankenstein's monster which gets the largest vote share but still has little clout (I currently have an "agrarian party" which has gone through multiple elections as Rural Folk + Intelligensia + Devout) This seems to happen if you move out of Autocracy into a more representative government type, but not all the way to Census Suffrage or US. You end up with very powerful Industrialists and the only IG which natively supports moving from Oligarchy / Landed Voting / Wealth Voting to CS or US are the Intelligensia or TUs. I guess the solution to this problem is sitting in Autocracy for longer until you can go straight to CS, either by support from the Industrialist + Intelligensia combo, or luck into a Democrat landowner or other powerful Democrat IG leader. My typical way of playing to date has been going for either Oligarchy or Wealth Voting ASAP to strengthen the Industrialists, but while this helps with getting reforms done early (especially breaking out of Serfdom and Traditionalism) it leads to this awkward mid game situation which can last for a very long time if you're not lucky. Obviously if you can use Corn Laws to reform your economy fast this isn't such a problem but a lot of the countries I enjoy playing have rice farms which makes it impossible to raise the price of grain enough to get Corn Laws going
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I hate that it's possible to get stuck in a weird political situation where it's literally impossible to make a government with more than 50% legitimacy because the IG of the head of state is really weak but you're either a monarchy or you're under presidential republic and the largest party is a horrible Frankenstein's monster which gets the largest vote share but still has little clout (I currently have an "agrarian party" which has gone through multiple elections as Rural Folk + Intelligensia + Devout) It's probably a skill issue but I feel tired when a council republic movement goes into revolution threatening to consume 2/3 of my country, but when I start considering this law the preserve monarchy movement threatens to go revolutionary with almost the same 2/3 of my country. I kinda like that you can end up in a situation where a civil war is almost inevitable, but it has to make more sense. I get that plenty of territories might be on the fence and join whoever is the first to draw blood but this is ridiculous sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:It's probably a skill issue but I feel tired when a council republic movement goes into revolution threatening to consume 2/3 of my country, but when I start considering this law the preserve monarchy movement threatens to go revolutionary with almost the same 2/3 of my country. the civil war splits seem sort of silly. i understand that some IGs with clout are big mad and they hold sway in those states, but i think the odds of stuff splitting off should be lower if there's no mass support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 13:52
|
|
|
My understanding is that radicals are happy to join any fun activity, including the revolution to preserve things. So you can have revolutions with completely different issues happen on the same territory. But maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 14:09
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:My understanding is that radicals are happy to join any fun activity, including the revolution to preserve things. So you can have revolutions with completely different issues happen on the same territory. But maybe I'm missing something. I love this idea that radicals are just camping in the lobby posting "LFG for a radical time" and any revolution comes along they're like "Hell yeah let's go boys!!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 15:47
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:My understanding is that radicals are happy to join any fun activity, including the revolution to preserve things. So you can have revolutions with completely different issues happen on the same territory. But maybe I'm missing something. Iirc this isn't true, radicals will still only join movements they decide will favor them. But a) that math is completely opaque b) if there's a whole bunch of pissed off radicals in general then any movement that does attract them will get insurrectionary real fast. I think the territory thing is just that the math is kinda generous about which provinces represent which interest group- so like if a province is 30% industrialist and 30% trade union it'll go either way? But that at least is just speculation I don't have testing to back it up
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
Mr. Fix It posted:canals still "function" (i.e. naval ships can travel through) without folks working them, right? just stop subsidizing unless you really need the company benefits imho. i am looking forward to better modeled canals and govt/cooperative ownership tho. not sure if we'll get that in 1.6 since it's a diplo patch primarily. I went in and modded it, literally just made two copies of its production line one set to work on command econ and use bureaucrats, one for worker's cooperative with shopkeepers. Bang zoom works fine, no more upper class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Iirc this isn't true, radicals will still only join movements they decide will favor them. But a) that math is completely opaque b) if there's a whole bunch of pissed off radicals in general then any movement that does attract them will get insurrectionary real fast. I think the territory thing is just that the math is kinda generous about which provinces represent which interest group- so like if a province is 30% industrialist and 30% trade union it'll go either way? But that at least is just speculation I don't have testing to back it up On one hand, I think it's fine that parts of this stuff are opaque. This game is about indirect control and some of the information should not be readily available. But it's hard to process what radicals want and I understand the game doesn't track it. Doesn't matter why you became radical, and you can shift your priorities once you're radical as long as you're mad. It's much more about presenting information and here Vic3 is similar to CK3 in my perception. Both of these games pretend to be about maps but maps poorly present what happens and what's important. Parts of your countries that join the revolution are likely to be unhappy in general. You have unrest icons on the map but it's not enough for me at least to feel like I understand what's happening in the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
I think a good improvement for radicals down the line would be having them more clearly delineated into different types - while you would still have "radicals" as a class, you'd also be able to drill into that and see how many of them support certain laws, or independence, and you'd have them split into different types such as (communist / liberal / etc) revolutionaries, separatists, etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I think a good improvement for radicals down the line would be having them more clearly delineated into different types - while you would still have "radicals" as a class, you'd also be able to drill into that and see how many of them support certain laws, or independence, and you'd have them split into different types such as (communist / liberal / etc) revolutionaries, separatists, etc Well like I said this is sort of already the case: "radical" just means they're pissed off, and they'll make their interest group and political movement angrier. You can see how many of them are in each interest group very easily. However, again it's basically impossible to tell how why pops will join political movements- there's hard coded weights based on conditions just like joining IGs, but they're not exposed anywhere (even not data mined on the wiki, though I've seen a few example cases on Reddit). I'm not even sure what gets a movement to start in the first place tbh E: vv yeah national separatism is extremely poorly modeled now StashAugustine fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Feb 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
The biggest change there other than player visibility would be modeling separatism differently, because right now it isn't actually based on pops and works off turmoil in homeland states
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:On one hand, I think it's fine that parts of this stuff are opaque. This game is about indirect control and some of the information should not be readily available. But it's hard to process what radicals want and I understand the game doesn't track it. Doesn't matter why you became radical, and you can shift your priorities once you're radical as long as you're mad. It's much more about presenting information and here Vic3 is similar to CK3 in my perception. Both of these games pretend to be about maps but maps poorly present what happens and what's important. Parts of your countries that join the revolution are likely to be unhappy in general. You have unrest icons on the map but it's not enough for me at least to feel like I understand what's happening in the country. Radicals want the same things anyone else wants: better SoL and more attention toward their interest group's political priorities. It's just that they're pissed-off and discontent, and have lost faith in the system to provide those things, and are therefore much more willing to work outside the system by joining pretty much any revolutionary movement that doesn't outright repulse them. The game tends to present "loyalists" and "radicals" as different groups, but it's really just a happiness system - happy pops are loyalists and unhappy pops are radicals. Outside of events and conquest, there's three major factors that cause radicals: poor or falling SoL, discrimination, and various aspects of the political system (such as low legitimacy, failing to meet the demands of political movements, or reshuffling the government too much). Laws, institutions, and tax levels can also affect how many radicals you get from those things. As such, getting rid of radicals is pretty straightforward, although not always easy to do quickly. Improve your citizenship laws, reduce poverty and unemployment in the affected provinces, carry out the political conditions that make people happy (high legitimacy, being responsive to political movements, etc), and do things like lowering taxes and changing institutions to reduce your +radicals modifier and increase your +loyalists modifier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:The biggest change there other than player visibility would be modeling separatism differently, because right now it isn't actually based on pops and works off turmoil in homeland states
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
Is there a way to get an army on a front to not attack? I was doing colonial shenanigans vs Netherlands as Belgium. I had a slightly weaker force deployed on the home front to hold the line, but every time the attacker bar would fill up my guys would be attacking??? Even when it was the Dutch bar that filled up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
IAmThatIs posted:Is there a way to get an army on a front to not attack? I was doing colonial shenanigans vs Netherlands as Belgium. I had a slightly weaker force deployed on the home front to hold the line, but every time the attacker bar would fill up my guys would be attacking??? Even when it was the Dutch bar that filled up. right-click on each of the generals in that army and tell them to Defend
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
ilitarist posted:My understanding is that radicals are happy to join any fun activity, including the revolution to preserve things. So you can have revolutions with completely different issues happen on the same territory. But maybe I'm missing something. This is repeated a lot but isn't actually true. Radicals will support movements they approved of, but the number of supporters of a movement from a pop can't exceed the fraction that would actually approve of that law change/preservation (based on IG membership and law support weights for stuff like 'pops with low SoL are likely to back welfare laws even if their IG disapproves of it'). There are no weights that would make the same individuals both support a revolution for and against council republic, it's different parts of your population.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 21:17
|
|
