|
In spite of the French not supporting our rightful claims we should still ally with them if possible. The Pyrenees are the natural border for both our states and we have nothing to gain from fighting.
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Clayren posted:Well here are a few ways you could do a pomegranate: I love the crown version of this, it's suprisingly clean-looking for a fairly busy design.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Man it's so long I'd totally forgotten you could have a crisis happen because two states are both colonising the same place at the same time. V2 has some nifty mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
Moderates, we can't war for half of the first decade anyway, and it's the sensible choice. We need allies and industry! Gonna vote for royalists later though, if we can somehow get back all of the west Mediterranian islands I'll be amazed and I want to see it happen
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Interesting how, according to the density map, South Italy is more developed than North Italy. Is that due to North Italy being turned into a crater-filled hellscape by the Tirruni Wars, or was it a development over the course of several centuries? Wasn't this also historically a thing, with the relative povery of the south being a later development due to industrialisation (and the policies of unified Italy in general) favouring the north? I know that in real history Naples was the 2nd largest city in Europe for some time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Do we have any allies? This seems like an important thing to look at for the royalist / moderate split. The most important thing is to not get LF this early so I will vote tactically if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Hashim posted:We had France, Egypt and Provence - but Provence broke their alliance with us when France added them to their sphere, literally just after the update. Those are some acceptable allies but I think I will vote Moderates anyway on the basis that holy poo poo guys we don't have mechanical production yet aka the tech that makes your RGOs not suck all the way Though I do note that all the coal is on the wrong side of the border and we need to rectify that, I figure that the moderates will go to war for our lost provinces in Iberia if the circumstances are particularly good, in spite of them generally not being pro war. I have to say you did a great job in splitting up priorities and policies between the different parties to make them all appealing and it's a testament to V2 compared to other Paradox games that intentionally not going to war for decades could ever be even a vaguely good idea. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jul 5, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
How the gently caress does the game decide on your upper house ideologies anyway, I don't remember at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Rodyle posted:What is the point of this "wait for our chance" approach if we neither prepare for that chance by researching miltech and recruitment, nor take it when it comes, when our enemy is fighting on the other side of the planet. Industry and culture techs basically make all aspects of your economy stronger, including education (=tech) and population (correlates to manpower), and you get better results by researching them now, rather than later. Since we were, for good reason, not planning to start a war any time soon focusing on improving the economy made sense. Also going full reactionary in the springtime of nations events probably would have been bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Yeah there was no way we were ever getting that war goal, but other than that things went pretty well. SGF would make a great ally though they have obvious long term conflicts with the Dual Monarchy if they truly mean to become masters of all Germany. Given how the battles with Morocco went I think we can comfortably start to take a more aggressive role in Europe in the near future. That was a very busy 5 years!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
What's our infamy like now? I could honestly see another 10 years of moderates being a good thing if we're still sitting on a chunk of infamy to burn. We could still use better techs to improve eduction, tech points, and mechanisation. E: Actually we're in the middle of researching Biologism which is huge so I'll vote Royalists anyway since it wouldn't hurt to start developing mil tech heavily after that - based on the recent war we can potentially totally destroy Morocco with a well trained army. After we've retaken Iberia we can go back to Moderates for another decade to hopefully get the really juicy RGO techs. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
rarx posted:Getting nothing for besting Morocco alone? Yup. In V2 wiping a bunch of enemy troops (especially in the early game) is actually huge because you're literally killing their population and they can never get that back, only grow the remaining pops to make up for it. Yeah we didn't get any territory and it sucks but this war will have hurt Morocco in a meaningful way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:Socalists that will hopefully spawn sometime during the next turn If we never give the liberals one sniff of power for the entire V2 period and go directly from Prussian-style monarchy to socialism I will be proud of this little fake country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbD1XDhKr8U rarx posted:We would have got that anyway along with Iberia and Palermo. Education > territory at this point in the game. Also we still have infamy to burn so it's not like we're sitting at zero wasting potential conquering that might have theoretically happened. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jul 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Clayren posted:I do quite like the idea of a moderate party overseeing 20 years of peaceful expansion and wealth but then immediately eating poo poo because it oversaw a victory over the main national rival but didn't gain as much as people wanted. It's the sort of thing historians will look back at and be like "actually the moderates were good and here's why: ... ". So Royalists, is what I'm saying. The fact that Al Andalus is ruled by a dynasty founded by a war hero and now has another war hero general means that people are probably really pro-military at the moment. The game actually models this in a way, there's a stat called jingoism which does various things relating to militancy and makes it cheaper to add war demands during an existing war. You gain jingoism by having unfulfilled war goals or by having unclaimed cores so we probably have quite a bit floating around at the moment. We just beat our biggest rival on land purely because they were way behind on tech, instead of making sure that we don't lose this extremely critical edge we're going to build lots of boats so we can go invade dumbfuckistan instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
Snipee posted:Wait, so why would anyone ever choose this policy? Is it viable when you have a big enough capitalist population? Is it ever advantageous? It's sort of vaguely ok when you're a hegemon and have a strong industrial base, but no it's basicallly never the sensible choice. And it's fatal under many circumstances, which we may sadly be about to find out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
puppets freak me out posted:Yeah it seems like lots of people have an itchy trigger finger after that war. Being able to stomp Morocco like that and not have anything to show for it makes me (and probably others) feel like Al Andalus needs to take the wheel. To be more accurate both options have something incredibly poo poo and it's hard to know which one is worse: Royalists will avoid researching some extremely critical techs to enable colonisation later and to boost economic output, and will not pass liberal reforms, so our population will start to get really pissed off Imperalists will avoid researching critical army techs which (based on the last war) will ensure that we maintain our superior army quality, and their LF policy will cause our factories to all shut down. Moderates are a bad choice at the moment since we really should be angling to go to war one way or another and we have all of the active techs which boost research and education already which are the super important ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
habeasdorkus posted:Seconding the above. The Iberian War actually went better than I could have hoped, we completely pushed Morocco's poo poo in. If it weren't for Frangleterre being their allies I'd think we'd be nigh ready to crush them. Our government type isn't sufficiently reactionary I guess. gently caress France, I wish we'd been given the chance to vote on if we wanted to support them in their power grab. I only wanted to ally them to prevent backstabs but I forgot that V2 predates the Paradox rule that alliance breaks give you a peace treaty.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
rarx posted:Eh, we'll get more chances at Qattalun, but Palermo was an oppertunity. We had the ability to tech up quickly because the moderates gave us decades of building up our literacy, education efficiency and RP generation. The royalists did do well though, I'd be happy for imperialists after this since we're never going to get a real victory over Morocco without a navy. Anyway we just need to make sure we become BFFs with whoever unifies Germany and we're good, I hope there's some way to split up the DM again because gently caress those guys.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Frionnel posted:That invasion of Palermo was a dumb move. We could have focused on Iberia and maybe gotten better concessions from the Moroccans. Nah Palermo was a good move, we got a sphereling for next to nothing, Sicily has some gigantic sulphur mines so it's actually quite useful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Vicky 2 is a game that uses accelerationism for it's politics,so it's actually the best possible thing to do  Time to get some red flag up ins
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Did I miss a post with tech breakdown or did that just not get posted this time? Also I'd be interested to know what our literacy is like. It looks like imperialists are going to win by a landslide but falling behind in the tech / industrialisation game to play with boats would be pretty sad. Socialists seem to be essentially a superior form of moderates, at least in game terms; presumably without a general shift away from reaction voting them in would cause some kind of civil war.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Rodyle posted:Yeah that's the thing for me, we're never going to get the level of Navy tech that this weird, temporary foray into colonialism and, ugh, LF ECON, is going to be worth it. Yeah, LF is still quite scary as our industry is hardly booming; we need more railroads and techs I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Hashim posted:Tech screenshots were included in the state of the world update. Our literacy is hovering around 45% at the moment. Got it, thanks  We're actually more up to date on culture tech than I thought which is great, as long as we keep education well funded we should be ok with RP generation. With that in mind I'll vote Socialists even though it won't win as I still think that making more railroads and industrial research is the best thing we can do right now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
rudecyrus posted:The cement will flow. Directly into a dumb fat capitalist's rear end where it will stay while he slowly ponders the greatness of the free market that allows him to do absolutely loving nothing useful and still exist.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
These are better odds than our last hellwar, I think? No idea if we can compete with the Moroccan navy, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Snipee posted:These are far worse odds. France basically singlehandedly fought off half of Europe and won in that last hell war. We barely played a role by defending their southern front from Morocco. This time, we’re fighting against France, and we don’t have Russia or the Celtic Union on our side. I must have misremembered, I thought that Russia was involved against us in that one. We've had too many pointless wars.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:The minorities rising up in the fitna like they did didn't even make sense in context and was the result of Hashim going (imo) way too hog wild on the event. I mean the whole LP is "Hashim contrives to make it possible to fail at Paradox games", and though I agree that the rebelmageddon was a bit excessive we're still a GP in the early part of Victoria
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
To my eye the voting breaks down thus: Royalists are too dangerous to elect under any circumstances for the forseeable future given how close to a reactionary hellhole we are. Though we need to be careful not to fall behind in mil tech. Moderates are fine, possibly 1st choice depending on our tech situation; hopefully they would still support a war to reclaim our cores under the right circumstances. Imperialists are fine, probably 1st choice if we don't need to go back to culture techs. More naval focus would be good vs. Morocco. Passing some reforms would be good. Socialists are too anti-military to be a good choice at the moment since Morocco is still a mortal threat and we still need our cores back.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
Moderates for a stronger navy! Hear me out on this one. We're getting really, shockingly behind on industrial techs. Industrial techs give some massive increases to RGO production. Like with 2 techs we could probably more than double our coal and steel production. Triple it with some more modern railroads. Output of many other products could feasibly go up by 50% with some tech and modern railroads. Generating more resources makes you lots of money. Ironclads are really expensive and even if we can afford it now, we're going to be straining our economy and cutting back on other necessities such as education which is not good - I think our literacy was at 44% in 1860 so it's probably up to maybe about 50% by now, which isn't exactly glorious. Moderates will still expand our colonies and engage in wars to reclaim Iberia if circumstances permit and growing our economy at this point will do far more for our strength in the long term than a few more boats, right now. We all saw how successful our armies were after 2 decades of careful moderate growth of the economy to support it - let's now do the same for our navy. Super Jay Mann posted:Incidentally, how did our industrial base hold against LF? This is a good question that I meant to ask. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:commerce techs get us as much money while also improving our rgos and factories. Plus boats are easy to build, the real bottleneck are our naval bases. Imperialists at the very least we should get an iron navy before getting tech add Business regulations are the only really major economic boost we're missing at the moment in the commerce tree, meanwhile we're also missing poo poo like interchangable parts, clean coal, cheap iron, etc. not to mention that we're just not building or researching railroads at the moment. It's not like imperialists would be a disaster I just favour growing the economy first given the restrictions which Hashim has imposed through the party system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Fascism roleplay got a lot less fun when fascism started becoming an actual thing again
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:It'd be literally impossible to narratively justify a country with Landed-Only Suffrage and a powerful monarch having its high nobility select a Communist faction to lead the country. I was thinking more like "maybe if we have a big communist uprising Hashim should just let them win because the game is seriously flawed in making late game rebellions completely nonthreatening even if you have to kill 25% of your adult male population" Crazycryodude posted:It's honestly absurd that we're in the 1880's and have yet to pass one single reform of any type. I'm not sure why our upper house really loving doesn't want to pass any reforms but then I've never intentionally put myself in a situation where I had to rely so hard on the "conservatives being afraid of rebels" mechanic. We need a Bismarck 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Snipee posted:We had a Bismarck, and he just died. The Imperialists are the only ones out of the three ruling parties that we have had thus far that could have pass any reforms according to the narrative, and apparently, they have decided that it’s more important to build up a navy and conquer a chunk of India than to make any concessions to the poor. I don't think we're allowed to pass reforms because the upper house doesn't support them due to being too conservative and reactionary. The usual way to get around this is to have lots of angry pops which then makes conservatives support reforms. But for some reason this doesn't seem to be working, we've had plenty of rebellions but presumably too many of our pops are totally happy with the way things are and don't care about us having no reforms. Our early choices essentially boiled down to: become some kind of anarcho-capitalist hellhole where 90% of the population is illiterate and nobody knows what a rifle is (also all the factories immediately burn down because L-F early game is economic suicide), become an actual 17th century absolutist monarchy where 99.9% of the population is illiterate, never research mil tech because we're scared of Royalists and then we get annexed, and what we did (which was spend 30 years getting enough industry / culture / military techs to be able to survive and then start actually doing things). I think we made the right choice but the downside is getting on the liberalism train really late. Also you don't get to be Bismarck if you do a dumb thing like get assassinated, jeez 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Hiveminded posted:Yeah we're probably gonna be stuck like this no matter how many times we elect the liberals or socialists. Maybe Hashim could add events to force the basic reforms through if we do get a third imperialist term, or to add events to at least partially adjust the proportions of the upper house based on the outcome of the thread votes? It's kind of nonsensical otherwise -- that the Majlis keep electing the liberals to power, but they never approve any of the liberals' reforms. Well we did get some special "the new king is a complete rear end in a top hat who will constantly undermine the Majils and encourage reaction" events so it would be nice to have something going the other way
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
Zikan posted:finally the War to knock our politics out of the 16th century and let us pass reforms all we need to do is *checks notes* lose to our most hated bitter rival Hey, we passed a reform! I think we can mostly agree that being oppressive and reactionary is worth it if we get to beat up Morocco (I'm more than slightly concerned that we've fallen behind the curve in mil tech though)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
willing to settle posted:Imperialists. At this point, this far down the rabbit-hole of imperialism and regressive politics, I think it's a bit rich to talk about switching to socialists. Feels a bit have your cake and eat it too. We don't get to be the good guys any more, at this point. Being the "good guys" in real history tends to mean getting annexed, and while I appreciate that in reality a nation exists without a state, it's quite awkward from a gameplay perspective. The Imperialists seem to be the best choice right now due to Jingoism and being in a huge rear end war as well as growing our navy further. Would be nice if they had Sardinia as a war goal - you would have thought that taking naval bases in the Med away from our sworn enemy would be part of their platform, but oh well. As soon as Morocco is no longer an existential threat I'm voting Socialists forever though. Our industrial situation is sad and we need those reforms.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Those GP figures might not be terribly accurate since DM, Celtic Union, Morocco and SGU will have all had tons of pops temporarily unemployed due to occupations. Currently the standings for industrial score go Japan - Al-Andalus - Hannover which seems kind of insane? Permanent alliances with Ibriz, Berber Union and Japan sound good. Enough loving around with Europe, everyone there hates us anyway (though I'd be happy for us to eventually feed England to the Celtic Union) The Narbuna Problem needs to be resolved asap. Real shame about Sardinia and Crete still being Moroccan, too. I guess we can deal with that if we ever get into a great war with them. E: Would be nice to know if the other beligerents vs. Morocco managed to make any gains RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Aug 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Red John posted:And so continues the long standing tradition of voting out the parties that have been successful. Surely, the goons cry out in a red chorus, the socialists will build a utopia. In terms of reforms Al-Andalus is a loving horrible place to live in compared to most of real Europe in the late 19th century, which is an offensively low bar. I just would like our factories to not be powered entirely by children working 16 hour days.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Aren't the Imperialists moving us steadily to the left in terms of reforms though? I thought they were the 'safe' liberal party, unlike the Socialists who want FULL REVOLUTION NOW!1!!!!! Nope, liberals in Victoria don't support any kind of social reform, because someone decided that the way that parties work had to be totally symmetric. So they will give everyone the vote but no state education / healthcare / working hours restrictions, unless a huge chunk of the population is rebelling over it. And socialists don't have anything to do with revolution, they just want the state to interfere with markets.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:54 |
|
|
Patter Song posted:My point is that the politicians making decisions on reforms have little incentive for change right now. Our world-class military is totally capable of mowing down dissenters and protesters at home and has just fought three of the strongest militaries in the world to a standstill, and our economy dominates the globe. If the workers want to revolt, we will shoot them in the streets and move on. They have no pressure at the ballot box, and if they were to strike, we'd force them to work at gunpoint. The problem is that liberals and socialists refusing to work together at all at this stage of political development is completely crazy (in spite of our voting franchise we have plenty of voters of both these categories which is fairly true to actual history). I don't know a huge amount about the history of socialism in every country but Germany and the UK both took different, logical paths towards a similar result (as of the early 20th century) based on electoral machinations in the former and reformism within parliament in the latter. Yes if you want to make everyone involved into a only-exists-in-economics-textbooks 100% self indulgent rational actor then you're right, why would the electorate of Al Andalus vote to effectively spend their own money on making the paups lives better? In the real world people have political beliefs that go against their personal interests.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2018 08:25
|
|