|
megane posted:Did they mention what triggers that progress bar in the first place? Is it just being an unrecognized major power? Correct.
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Sorry, my post might have been badly formulated. But my issue is that it‘s always hard to judge if it‘s worth switching to a better PM that requires more input goods. Pretty much all of the production-boosting PMs are worth upgrading into, but don't switch into them if doing so will completely wreck your economy. Sometimes you have to roll out the upgrades gradually as you improve your coal and iron production. Some of them use rare goods to boost production that you might not have, like elastics. They're still worth using when you can, but make sure you actually secure their input goods first. One of your highest research priorities should be the iron and coal mine upgrades. The atmospheric engine and condensing engine techs are massively important and should be beelined very early (maybe not as your #1 priority but close to it). The nitroglycerin and dynamite techs are helpful but less important to beeline. You will need to upgrade your mines and other industry in stages instead of all at once. Go back and forth between building/upgrading tool factories and your mines. Also note that no PM changes are permanent. You can very easily revert any changes you made if you accidentally made the wrong PM changes or went too fast. And if you've already exploited all of your local coal and iron, it's time to get some more elsewhere. edit: it should also be said that not all automation PMs are worth using for all countries. Automation frequently fails to improve overall profitability, but it allows you to stretch a limited workforce further, and it should improve the average wages for your workers. But if you have large unemployed populations or an inexhaustible peasant population, it is better for your national standard of living to employ 5000 workers at average wages than, say, 2500 workers at high wages. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
How bad is it to skip the "Nitroglycerin" PM? I usually don't go for it because it has such a big mortality rate and I just feel bad sending all my miners off to die like that  I also read some reddit post ages ago saying nitro was a trap of a PM, maybe because of the mortality rate balancing out any productivity? I can't really remember. So is it so bad to skip nitro and rush to dynamite instead?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:How bad is it to skip the "Nitroglycerin" PM? I usually don't go for it because it has such a big mortality rate and I just feel bad sending all my miners off to die like that Honestly, I don't know what the math on nitroglycerin is. That may be one of the few trap PMs, though it probably depends on how much population you have. For a country like China that has an infinite workforce, well...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
I would definietly get Nitro if you have gold mines as the direct minting is too good to get rid of.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Sorry, my post might have been badly formulated. But my issue is that it‘s always hard to judge if it‘s worth switching to a better PM that requires more input goods. Have you built every single coal/iron mine you're capable of building in your territory? Have your coal/iron mines literally run out of workers to employ? If you didn't answer "yes" to either of those questions, then you should probably think twice about upgrading your mining PMs. PMs are all about tradeoffs. They're not a straight upgrade path where the new PM will always be better than the old. The way the game flow tends to go, most of the tradeoffs will usually work out positively by the end of the game...but that doesn't mean they'll be good tradeoffs when you first unlock them. It's important to look at what the tradeoffs actually are, and consider how they'll fit into your situation. Half of the mining PMs significantly increase the mine's input goods requirements and wages in exchange for producing more output goods. But you can also produce more output goods just by building more mines, and the only ongoing cost to that is having to pay more workers. Usually when you first unlock these PMs, you've got tons of surplus labor, so wages are low. When you've still got a ton of peasants around, just shoving more unskilled laborers into the mines is a way cheaper and more profitable method of increasing your output than sending in a bunch of highly-paid engineers to go spend a bunch of tools. So upgrading the PMs right away will badly cut into profits. The other two mining PMs add more input goods requirements in exchange for reducing the number of laborers. But this runs into the same problem as above: early on, unskilled laborers are cheaper than the input goods would be, so spending more goods to employ fewer laborers tends to reduce profits. Not only that, but early on when you first unlock that stuff, you usually want to employ more workers, not fewer workers, because at that stage of the game you'll have plenty of unemployed workers hunting for jobs, and tons of peasants that you'll want to lure off their subsistence farms and into the industrial workforce. So why do these PMs even exist, then? Well, let's hop forward a decade or two. As you build more and more buildings, your mines will become more profitable as demand for their industrial output goods rises. At the same time, all those new buildings will employ more and more workers until you're pretty much out of peasants and unemployed people, and wages will rise significantly as your buildings compete for workers. At the same time, you won't be able to grow your industry any further, because even if you build more stuff, there's no one to work at those buildings. At this point, workers become a very precious resource, and setting a building to use more goods and fewer workers can become a big boon not only to that specific building but to your economy as a whole, freeing up tens of thousands of workers to go fill up another few levels of some other building. When your economy becomes worker-constrained, that is when those mining PMs become a massive advantage. Aside from that, there are other side benefits to these PMs that, depending on the specifics of your economical and social situation, can be worth adopting even when they're not profitable. First of all, replacing low-pay laborers with medium-pay machinists and highly-paid engineers is expensive, but it does bring other benefits to your overall economic and political situation. Second, those extra input goods needed for better PMs can stimulate demand for the buildings that produce those goods. So by sacrificing some of the profits from highly successful mines, you can prop up other industries or put a bit more wealth back into your workforce. These aren't things you can just do willy-nilly, though - you have to consider the economic and social situation of the building, the province, and your country as a whole. If all of this is too complicated, hovering over a new PM in the PM selection menu will give you an estimate of the impact the PM change will have on the individual building's profitability, and these estimates are reasonably accurate as long as the building has a full workforce (the estimates get real wonky if the building's having trouble hiring). If the estimate says that upgrading the PM will make profitability go up, then upgrading won't hurt the building at all. If the estimate says that upgrading the PM will make profitability go down, you should think very carefully about whether you really have a compelling reason to upgrade despite that. As for your iron/coal exports, turn them to your advantage. Put all that extra money into the military and go conquer yourself some more iron and coal. If the countries importing all your iron and coal oppose you, they'll be the ones getting their economy ruined by a bad wardec.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
I tend to use Nitroglycerin because sulphur has very efficient PMs so adding a ton of sulphur demand to your market is really good, explosives drive sulphur demand both from raw sulphur and paper as inputs. If you don't have a domestic sulphur industry then maybe skip it
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Vizuyos posted:Have you built every single coal/iron mine you're capable of building in your territory? Have your coal/iron mines literally run out of workers to employ? Heavily disagree with this advice. The mining engine pumps should be upgraded as soon as possible. It takes resources, time, and opportunity cost to build new mines, while the atmospheric and condensing engines offer immediate massive upgrades for a relatively minor increase to tool demand. But even that increase to tool demand is a good thing since you get to build and sell more tools, giving your economy a large jump start. The GDP growth from upgrading your mines early is huge. edit: The tradeoffs you speak of aren't zero sum when it comes to the engine and explosives PMs. The tools require fewer raw resources to build than you get from the upgrades. Instead of holding off on upgrading those while building more mines, you will get more resources overall and have a stronger economy if you upgrade those PMs and use those construction resources to build more tool workshops. edit 2: think of it this way. if you have no upgraded PMs, for each iron mine you build, you get 20 iron. if you have the atmospheric engine, every iron mine gives you 40 iron instead, and you get 60 per mine if you have the condensing engine. You have a limited number of parallel construction projects available. If you are using all available construction to build iron mines, you will meet whatever goal you have for iron production three times faster with the condensing engine compared to picks and shovels. this allows you to begin constructing tool workshops, steel mills, and (most importantly) more construction sooner, and your economy in general will grow markedly faster. You say upgrading the PMs right away badly cuts into profits, but I have never had this happen with mines unless I just did not have any coal at all and enabled a PM that requires it. In every other situation, even at the very beginning of the game, enabling atmospheric and condensing engines created a huge increase to both building profits and national GDP. And this goes for more than just mines. There are only a small handful of production-boosting PMs that actually reduce profits when you can meet their input goods demand, which includes the latter steel PMs. In all other cases, you pretty much always want to adopt production-boosting PMs as much as your market allows, the moment they become available. Also, it is okay for buildings to become temporarily unprofitable, just like it's okay for you to run a national deficit. You can build your way out of these holes, and it's often faster to do it this way than to very slowly and carefully adopt PMs only after you have a large surplus of input goods or whatever. And this game is all about compounding, exponentially accelerating growth. the faster you grow your economy now, the faster it will grow in the future. edit 3: this is a very late edit, but this post was written from memory without having played the game in a while. now that i have played the first decade of a new campaign again, i can say even more emphatically than before that you should upgrade your production-boosting mine PMs as soon as humanly possible. The quoted post was very wrong about how badly the 500 engineers per building level eats into your profits. The doubling of your mine's output more than offsets that by a large degree. The tools cost is literally the same as building new buildings. coal is a bigger concern but, wait for it... you can upgrade your coal mines as well to offset that cost. all-in-all, upgrading your iron mines early allows you to build more iron-frame construction sectors early which allows you to build more buildings faster and grow your economy much, much faster. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 21:02 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
in particular it's usually a good idea to get the first level of mine upgrade (I think atmospheric engine?) on your iron mines before turning on iron construction
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:How bad is it to skip the "Nitroglycerin" PM? I usually don't go for it because it has such a big mortality rate and I just feel bad sending all my miners off to die like that Awful, the actual mortality (iirc) is a really small absolute modifier, so you're trading off a big jump in productivity and production of mine rgos for, like, an extra couple dozen dudes not dying.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Awful, the actual mortality (iirc) is a really small absolute modifier, so you're trading off a big jump in productivity and production of mine rgos for, like, an extra couple dozen dudes not dying. A lot of games are incredibly bad at telling you when a modifier to a percentage is multiplicative or additive, and V3 is really no exception. I also usually don't use nitro, either because it's unprofitable for the mine, there's an engineer shortage, or I can employ more peasants by building two more mines instead of an explosives factory. Dynamite is either available or around the corner by the time I run out of peasants.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 04:28
|
|
|
Thanks for those effort posts, I‘ll start a new game tonight to see if I can actually apply this without crashing my economy because I can‘t get more coal/iron anywhere. Maybe try Japan, they should have more than enough resources.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Thanks for those effort posts, I‘ll start a new game tonight to see if I can actually apply this without crashing my economy because I can‘t get more coal/iron anywhere. If you're doing experiments to learn you really aught to play either of the cheat countries, Britain or the USA. Impossible to lose in those and oceans of margins to try something different to recover from an experiment
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 07:13
|
|
|
ThisIsJohnWayne posted:If you're doing experiments to learn you really aught to play either of the cheat countries, Britain or the USA. Impossible to lose in those and oceans of margins to try something different to recover from an experiment Contrarily, I'd suggest Persia since you start with almost nothing built but you have an embarassingly large amount of resources just waiting to be exploited, so you have to make the entire economy yourself which is great for getting to understand how everything links together. You also don't have to deal with isolationism and generally have an easier time modernising.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 07:52
|
|
|
Does Persia have a good amount of capitalists etc? I just started a game as Mexico and in a number of provinces that have great resources I struggled to get mines/workshops/steel mills going at capacity simply because there was a shortage of aristocrats willing to work there, they rather sat in some plantation. Is the solution to the above just education and general buildup of industry? In one case I had a goldmine that couldn't employ any workers (sat at ~150) because it wasn't profitable - how does that even work? It eventually sorted itself out but I ran into a good amount of debt by then 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 11:33
|
|
|
Perhaps confusingly, you don't want existing capitalists to work in your buildings, you want to convert other pops into capitalists. Which is done via providing education access and wealth. The main cause of "I can't employ anyone" is a general lack of population; you might have 100k peasants, but those peasants are mostly too poorly educated to get promoted to better jobs. If you instead have 1 million peasants in a single state, the small proportion of better educated / richer peasants will be able to move up to better jobs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 11:52
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Heavily disagree with this advice. The mining engine pumps should be upgraded as soon as possible. It takes resources, time, and opportunity cost to build new mines, while the atmospheric and condensing engines offer immediate massive upgrades for a relatively minor increase to tool demand. But even that increase to tool demand is a good thing since you get to build and sell more tools, giving your economy a large jump start. The GDP growth from upgrading your mines early is huge. Going to second this. Getting mine upgrades is an absolute must have tech early on unless you're doing military first stuff. Tooling workshops are also cash money and really good for getting an urbanized population and the right IGs into power so tool demand is actually kind of a good thing. Also, mine techs lead to railroads, the real essential technology.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 11:53
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Perhaps confusingly, you don't want existing capitalists to work in your buildings, you want to convert other pops into capitalists. Which is done via providing education access and wealth. The main cause of "I can't employ anyone" is a general lack of population; you might have 100k peasants, but those peasants are mostly too poorly educated to get promoted to better jobs. If you instead have 1 million peasants in a single state, the small proportion of better educated / richer peasants will be able to move up to better jobs. So basically you're saying I should try and stuff everything I can into Mexico City until other provinces have become capable of supporting industry through growth and education?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 12:14
|
|
|
elbkaida posted:So basically you're saying I should try and stuff everything I can into Mexico City until other provinces have become capable of supporting industry through growth and education? I don't know the exact pop makeup of Mexico but that would probably work, yeah (as long as the state has access to coal and iron). The auto build queue is going to do its own thing anyway, so having most government construction in your highest population state is often a good way to approach the early game. Also a few early game universities in the capital can do wonders. Pops in the capital have higher clout than pops elsewhere, so government admin buildings and universities in the capital will give more intelligensia clout than if they're built elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 13:34
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Pops in the capital have higher clout than pops elsewhere Wow, never heard of that mechanic. Is this explained somewhere?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
CrypticTriptych posted:Wow, never heard of that mechanic. Is this explained somewhere? It's a feature of being a capital. Which is also the reason why you'd might wish to change your capital to a location that's more industrialized to increase the power of the pops that work in industrial buildings like say, Industrialists or Trade Unions.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Pops in the capital have higher clout than pops elsewhere  what the FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUck
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
So how much construction infrastructure is too much? Can I just max everything out and then run massive deficits for short bursts whenever I wanna build something? Is there some way I can mothball half of my construction industry and only run the part I can afford without having to re-build it again later? Will pops employed in construction go out and get other jobs when I'm not actively building anything, or will having an overly-large construction industry have knock-on effects on my economy even when construction is paused?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Popoto posted:
It's a flat percentage modifier to political strength so it's not all that significant unless a good chunk of your total population lives in the capital state
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
CrypticTriptych posted:Wow, never heard of that mechanic. Is this explained somewhere? Feel like this should be the thread title.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Pops in the capital should have more sway? especially before you invent telephones
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
CrypticTriptych posted:Wow, never heard of that mechanic. Is this explained somewhere? It's on the tooltip for moving capital I think or maybe the one for the capital state itself on the state overview pane. Yeah, moving the capital to your biggest industrial state is a good idea. Persia is a great example for this, move capital to Tabriz day 1 every time ZiegeDame posted:So how much construction infrastructure is too much? Can I just max everything out and then run massive deficits for short bursts whenever I wanna build something? Is there some way I can mothball half of my construction industry and only run the part I can afford without having to re-build it again later? Will pops employed in construction go out and get other jobs when I'm not actively building anything, or will having an overly-large construction industry have knock-on effects on my economy even when construction is paused? You should always be building as much as possible, so the correct amount of construction sectors is a number where you can keep them going at 100% capacity without going bankrupt
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:So how much construction infrastructure is too much? Can I just max everything out and then run massive deficits for short bursts whenever I wanna build something? Is there some way I can mothball half of my construction industry and only run the part I can afford without having to re-build it again later? Will pops employed in construction go out and get other jobs when I'm not actively building anything, or will having an overly-large construction industry have knock-on effects on my economy even when construction is paused?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:It's on the tooltip for moving capital I think or maybe the one for the capital state itself on the state overview pane. But Washington DC was a compromise!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
If your capitalists are already rich enough to pick up the slack then it's probably fine to pulse construction, since the capacity you're not using will flow over into private construction as long as there's enough in the queue. But by the time you're that deep into a game you're probably not asking that question any more.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Alternatively pulse construction if you feel like your iron/steel/glass industries can tank the demand drop. As long as you build often enough that they can stay afloat it can work. But you should be aiming towards making those goods cheap enough and your economy big enough that you can handle being at full construction without completely destroying your treasury/credit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
Is getting onto Proportional Taxation before you marginalize the landowners a requirement early game and if you miss your shot you have to wait until an agitator shows up?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 01:50
|
|
|
That said, if the province is a coastal one, consider an inland province instead if you don't want to be stuck with a capital garrison death stack sitting on it the whole game to stop capital sniping.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
dont pulse construction countries only do that when they're very distressed
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 05:40
|
|
|
FalloutGod posted:Is getting onto Proportional Taxation before you marginalize the landowners a requirement early game and if you miss your shot you have to wait until an agitator shows up? If you start out with Per-Capita Taxation and don't revert back to Land Tax early game, yes. Most countries start with Land Tax, so as long as you don't pass Per-Capita Taxation at any point you should be able to pass Proportional Taxation as soon as it unlocks. On a related note it's weird that the TUs don't approve of proportional taxation, they're only neutral towards it, and only approve of graduated taxation (vs. strongly approve)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2024 07:52
|
|
|
I've put around 200 hours into this game but this is the first time I've finished it. Finished a Sweden start forming Scandinavia and colonizing a good chunk of southern Africa. Vanilla game besides high pop merging in the settings. I managed 2nd place with 8019 prestige, 726m GDP, 24 SoL and 111M Population. 88M Loyalists which I thought was kinda rad and I only had 4 military techs left to unlock. I kissed a lot of foreign rear end because I don't super understand the military still. E: Is there a trick to balancing all of the different PM's when it comes to Urban Centers and Railroad needs? There are 4 different kinds of trains with 3 different choices of wagon. At the end of my game I had like 30 states and it took quite a while keeping all that stuff somewhat even and not being inefficient. Same with the Urban Centers and what they need based on how big it is. You can nation wide change what you use but some of my states would have 200-300 extra infrastructure. Is that just kind of the game. Keeping your plates spinning nicely? E2: Trade felt tricky too honestly. In the beginning I tried to make smart choices with my imports/exports but at the end it felt it turned into a buy it all and sell it all kind of deal because I had the convoys and the numbers were green. I guess thats the point of Laissez Faire and Free Trade laws? FalloutGod fucked around with this message at 13:08 on May 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2024 23:17
|
|
|
Iirc pops contribute way more to the investment pool when their building reserves are capped, and investment is already based on profitability. Pulsing construction will cause a double hit your private construction rate. Lack of demand will make wood and especially iron way less profitable and potentially send them into deficit where they start to spend down reserves. Those will be the majority of investment contributions in an industrializing economy, so you want to protect them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Wow, I've never seen an AI peace deal like this. The North German Fed and France were stalemated in a war and stuck at 0 war support for ages until the NGF finally offered a mixed peace deal where both sides enforced some of their goals. - Germany got to unify with Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland, but was also cut down to size and forced to spit out Prussia (in Bavaria for some reason), Hanover, Mecklenberg and several other minors they had just eaten, becoming Germany-in-name-only. - France enforced the Cut Down to Size on Germany, but had to give up its German-border provinces and release Occitania (entire southern half of France) and Brittany, losing more than half of its population. Both countries fell off the great power list after that (from #2 and #3). I guess it's lucky to have two of the big dogs take each other out like that, but I'm mostly just tickled at the idea of a war so brutal and inconclusive that the only possible peace deal is a mutual Versailles treaty where both sides get dismantled. I don't usually see the AI go for the jugular like that in the first place. Force-releasing Occitania is brutal.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 11:00
|
|
|
kinda rad actually. My canon for that would be both sides civil society breaking down under the stress of an unending war resulting in a collapse of central authority, but the German army managed to stay together politically and is pulling a Prussia-style 'Army with a state attached' bit.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 11:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Randallteal posted:Wow, I've never seen an AI peace deal like this. The North German Fed and France were stalemated in a war and stuck at 0 war support for ages until the NGF finally offered a mixed peace deal where both sides enforced some of their goals. what year is it? i hope it's not too late so you can see the long term impact of that peace, because that's really cool
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 11:23
|
|
