|
Eiba posted:This discussion is kind of interesting because it doesn't really seem like a '+10% to this -10% to that' kind of trait warrants it. That's not a 'great man' defining trait. It's just a bit of flavor. At the end of the day, though, that person needed to get the idea from somewhere (not necessarily having it taught, though that should obviously be a route; Prince Gautama leaving the palace and seeing peasant pops with basic needs not met should be enough even if it is rather inchoate.) And they needed it to be a plausible enough idea for it to enter the conversation as a societal change rather than just, say, Washington's personal manumissions upon death as he maintained the institution of slavery, or Grant's being quite friendly with assimilated native Americans and subsequent increased conviction that the solution to governance of the plains was forced assimilation. Since Vicky's class evolution/devolution mechanic is right there, and provides a convenient tool for simulating this, I'd prefer to see it split between a personality trait along the EU lines, mostly governing which (hostile, friendly, warlike, peaceful, x-phile, x-phobic, spendthrift, penny-pinching) options are taken when the AI sees multiple acceptable courses, and ideological focuses around particular laws, which can be rolled from the preferred policies of the character's class in the character's tag, but also the classes the character's class promotes to, the classes it demotes to, and the ruling classes in its allies, enemies, and major trade partners. This would cover reformers and archconservatives both, and have the potential to produce in the same country i.e. the bureaucrat V. I. Ulyanov, who for personal reasons rolled quite a few laborer interests and was in a position to put them into force when militancy from war exhaustion led to a successful revolt, and the bureaucrat B. N. Yeltsin, who for personal reasons rolled quite a few capitalist and clergy interests and was in a position to put them into force when militancy from slipping GP status led to a successful revolt. As its primary weight should be local, it would primarily start coming into play when there was a significant political disconnect between rule and demands, and simulate for example how the US abolished slavery yet maintained the planter class as a significant political force for centuries beyond rather than turfing them out of power beyond the checkbox-change. But the international factor would allow for a more organic simulation of everything from 1868 Japan to 1991 USSR, requiring a tag to either go big and find or create a sphere with similar values or accept (possibly to its own benefit, viz. that 1868) that the great power ranking is a big club and they'd better try to be in it lest they be hit with it. The roll could also be adjusted between mainstream-weighted and radical-weighted based on militancy or particular events like that assassination example, providing additional reasons to try to keep that number down even if a revolt isn't a security worry and avoiding the playstyle of hitting reforms precisely when they keep rebels to a manageable number. Can't keep the aristocratic cabinet in place with its bonuses PLUS collect the reforms if you can't find a single aristocrat willing to part with any more power. Or maybe it wouldn't reach a satisfying balance before it collapsed into Smartian "your alien race's big buttcheeks require +2 toilet paper consumption, and all purchased spaceships are now nonfunctional as the plumbing can't handle it" oversimulation. I dunno.
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Nicodemus Dumps posted:Karls Marx Would the ideological split in the populace between orthodox Marxism, Marxism-Marxism, and Marxism-Marxism-Marxism be modeled?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2022 05:13
|
|
|
Poil posted:Isn't Japan the 8th or 9th Rome anyway? I'm imagining a world in which physical media for PC games never died, but neither did gimmick antipiracy--and to load the game from the main menu, each disc is printed with just a flag and you are asked to insert the nth (DVD-)Rom. I'm then also imagining getting tired of keeping the manual on my desk and instead relying on some shady eastern European webforum, but having to remember that due to legal requirements in the poster's country their order differs in some positions from the North American release.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think it depends on your laws. I believe they have said in like, a communist worker's state, you genuinely would not have any capitalist or aristocrat pops and all the buildings would operate without them. In a more standard capitalist or pre-industrial state, they might have something where buildings have aristocrats required to "own" them to be allowed to operate, not because they are actually doing any work but because the legal situation simply does not allow for labourers to come in and work on enclosed but unused property. I don't think you can have a decent simulation of capitalism that doesn't delve into the 99 capitalists with unsatisfied needs once one capitalist is ballin' enough to fund the entire factory himself. Nor a decent simulation of fascism in the endgame without those extremely resentful demoted-to-clerks or demoted-to-officers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
I managed to get the Shogun himself to storm out of government in a fit of pique. Sadly, this is not one of the things that can kick off the Restoration, I just had to wait for him to cool his head and be invited back in before I could pass anything. Furnaceface posted:No idea what Im doing but the plan is to turn Lower Canada into the socialist hellscape the modern world seems to think it is. Hands off our superior maple syrup.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Russia has grabbed all of Sakhalin and Ainu before I could do poo poo about it. Japanese Jimmies status: Rustled. You have to try really hard to fail as Japan, I'm finding. Which isn't necessarily good, because everyone's not necessarily happy with the Shogunate but they're chill with it, the westerners are keeping their distance, my sole foreign policy interaction was Kramering into the Taiping Rebellion to weaken Qing and now Russia in particular loves me, and it's rolling up on 1886 and all I have to do is click a resource extractor up when the processors are at capacity/click a processor up when there's new resources to feed it/lower taxes when I hit the gold hoard cap. Correction to that, the Shogunate absolutely loathes the Shogunate and refuses to stay in a governing coalition for more than a year or two at a time after a few common-sense legal changes. So I also don't get to interact with laws that much at all, since they're still by far the strongest interest group and I can't keep legitimacy high enough without them in government to push anything through--but it's "okay", they'll just sit there at 30 support/90 radicalism sulking and never actually kick off a realignment.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:check to see if they don't have a lot of +modifiers on their clout score. playing as japan and shooting for an early restoration, the aristocrats are powerful and have a bunch of things propping up their clout. removing them from government isn't enough, you have to push their clout down below powerful and keep it there for 10 years. i went for an early reform and freed the serfs, this pissed off the landowners and the warrior IG into fighting me - they lost, but the landowners were still able to come back and be a bothersome opposition faction because i did not undercut the laws propping them up like hereditary bureaucrats and a locally controlled police force The Restoration handling is real weird, at least as a player, and I'm not sure how you'd fix it given other assumptions the game makes. In particular, I found it very easy to enter a situation in which after a reform or two the Shogunate refused to participate in government, so I essentially had the historical samurai/industrialist interest group Meiji setup--except the Shogunate was only sulking and hadn't been deprived of clout, so I couldn't actually pass any more laws to continue to deprive them of clout, so my legitimacy stayed tanked for like 40-50 years (and only maybe 10 or 12 parliamentary checks) before I XCom 3%ed a professional army and was able to proceed with the restoration. No one was interested in bringing things to the historical civil war point, even sitting for years at 30% support 90% radicalism. Yet also, Traditionalism is a generic traditionalism so I was able to claw myself up on a raw tech and industrialization level with a Euro major, and *gestures to what the AI does in North America*, so no black ships ever came knocking to tip the stack over; if I'd wanted to lose a war to enact Free Trade or something I would have had to aggress over the inevitable Euro colony in Hokkaido that I couldn't outpace because, again, no new laws and somehow colonizing Sapporo pregame is fine but Asahikawa during requires a major realignment. Autocracies in game terms really should give you a near-immediate CW play if the autocrat themself leaves government as a result of favor dropping rather than clout dwindling.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I vaguely recall one of the streams mentioning that it takes some time for troops to spool up to full effectiveness after changing PMs, so this might actually screw your military. A year or so, at like half effectiveness. It's well-hidden near the bottom of the tooltip with no numbers. Not much reason to consider doing it, you'll autolose any defensive war that isn't a purely continental power taking a swing at your bad boy points without considering the logistics, while having an army that still probably costs more in wages than the peacetime gear consumption of conscripts. I guess maybe if you're on a scuffed Japan run that industrialized without reform and thus looks too scary for black ships, but hasn't ditched peasant levies and thus can't give conscripts cannon--but then you probably can't export. either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2022 11:12
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:Operation: Relocate the Netherlands is a success If you reform into an absolute monarchy, you'd be 大日本低国, then? Arrath posted:Yeah I was in a war where the opponent sent all their forces to a border my ally was pushing, letting my army rampage through my front and start taking ground. In an entirely random, border gorey, meandering path that spawned front after front after front. There's also the opposite problem of things which should be fronts but aren't. Not even in the "well historically they were split to allow tempo changes on each" sense, like, if you're trying to take Siberia and land in Okhotsk, northeast to Kamchatka across the narrow strip of traversible terrain is treated as the same front as west toward Transbaikal, even though they're separated by like 1000-1500km of land; if your war goals are to neatly trim any potential for Pacific ports away (not that it matters with infinite-range fleets, but eh maybe you like clean lines on the map) you straight up have to do a separate naval landing to get credit for holding at least one province in the state to let their war support tick down below 0 (or, presumably, march all the way to the Baltics before your dudes double back to fill that pocket.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:I went down the multicultural universal-suffrage route, so everyone is Dutch. It says so on their passport. Don't question it. 低国  "low" in compounds and "imperial" in compounds have the same standard pronunciation in Japanese, "empire" as a word is a compound "imperial-country", thus...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:so how often you guys are expanding agricultural buildings You can, hypothetically, not other than tweaking luxury prices if you pump enough fertilizer in. I finished a Japan run today that basically (realistically to OTL economic conditions outside the major cities?) eschewed enclosed farming altogether in favor of mass fertilizer application on the starting stock, always had cheap labor to churn the RGOs and factories without the labor-replacing methods, and that was happy enough because all the goods were also cheap because I didn't break out of autarkhy until well into tier 3 industrial tech; it had really potentially bad implications re: never reaching tier 5 because even in Tokyo over half the people were still illiterate, apolitical subsistence farmers but also sustained industry on a level with other GPs while producing a politics where weird pseudo-Jeffersonian trade unionists reigned supreme in a council republic while never demanding even socdem workplace reform. (I would've gotten completely loving pasted if any of the AIs had looked beyond their borders for anything but desultory cut down efforts that were just convoy turkey shoots until they WPed out, but the US split, Germany and Italy catastrophically failed to launch to the point that the NGC just let all of West Germany go back to being petty principalities, Russia stayed at Qing levels of military tech, France and Austria had constant civil wars, and the Brits could always be relied on to never man Canada and to also WP when I strolled into Vancouver unopposed for the 8th time.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2022 02:08
|
|
)
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:The ease of getting multiculturalism is because its supported by the intelligentsia. That should be changed, as the 19th century was not the century of social liberal academia, it was the century of racial science. General support/oppose should probably be more dynamic based on the pop-based growth/decline in clout for an IG if it were to be passed; if academia is already drawn from the dominant culture they'll come up with racial science, if they're in a situation like the Han intelligentsia under the Manchu, Multiculturalism might be more appealing than one of the heritage-keyed options, but Cultural Exclusion, Five Races Under One Banner, should be yet more appealing. The downside of the latter two, if one needs to exist, should be that high radicalism in plurality- or majority-minority states should lead to secession movements. I mean, it should in general and especially Multiculturalism should reduce it, but if you've maneuvered into having an Imperial and Royal Dual Monarchy so the Hungarians are happy, and poo poo starts to go south for other reasons, they should in turn start wondering why their sectioned-off self-contained government needs a Hapsburg at its head.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Stux posted:the words "worker co-operative" by themselves should explain whats going to happen even if youve never heard of it before somehow To be as fair as possible, standard English usage does its best to keep "soviet" as something weird and foreign, and leap from "worker's cooperative" to just "cooperative" and further switch the definition of that to a buyer's club. I can see someone thinking in a vacuum that it means they're converting to froo-froo grocery stores. Except, of course, it's not in a vacuum. Even if one's history education was lacking, it being in the government column in opposition to a president or a parliament should make one think for a moment.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
don't worry, at least the notifications cover your mil hotbuttons
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
Found a very spicy glitched interaction--if you set transfer subject as a war goal, it sticks even if the suzerain abandons the original war target. So you can i.e. if the Qing are having a bad time demand control over Dai Nam while they're backing Mindanao, they back out, you stomp Mindanao's eight divs and get a free Dai Nam (since it's an active war goal but Mindanao's the only one defending it.) E: You also don't get a truce with them because they weren't party to the war, so you can kick them down to puppet the next week.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
I managed to successfully maintain central planning for three decades, and then torpedo it in half a year after a war, and I think I've found what kills it. First is that subsides seem to be applied after rather than during the main economical loop--if ie sulfur is high but not actually hitting goods substitution, then it goes down the chain of say explosives, iron and coal, steel, engines, electricity, electronics, government offices, each one paying exorbitant rates for the input and thus having to charge the same. Then, after all that's processed, the treasury steps in and makes them each whole. Breaking out at each step, so in the same example the fertilizer plant just gets paid whatever it takes to make explosives 6 coins even if sulfur is 10, would produce far better results: there were obviously other moving parts in play but the current system seems to almost reproduce Gorby's mid-80s bookkeeping reform in the USSR, the one that also floated prices between state enterprises and then backstopped them with the treasury post-facto and led to the same sort of death spiral. The other is that sulfur is the true granddaddy good of the game, not electricity or coal or oil. It goes in absolutely everything. In tiny amounts so you don't see demand/price creeping up, and probably tend to go 'whoa poo poo I need twenty of something else to knock it back down'. But those 20 more factories will just stagnate further. And if it's hurting, you're gonna hurt whether in subsidies or radicals. Literal 750k swing in balance off a 1m state budget when I ate AI Qing's lovely mines, didn't pay close attention to what i grabbed, slammed everything back to dynamite, and then spiraled into insolvency--on a lark I declared bankruptcy and turned building back on, the five sulfur mines I'd pushed to the end because everything else had huge red digits but they were doing fine finished, and I was back at a comfortable 200k surplus.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 10:57
|
|
|
It's definitely there in V3, and frustrating the other way where your eyes are bigger than your stomach and you wargoal an island you can't land on and thus prevent the state next to you from autoresolving (or ever resolving if they have enough gold reserves). Guy may have just seen he was losing and capitulated, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
Is there a view to see total goods balance of your own production, not including trade or market members?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I've seen exactly one cut-down-to-size that had broad buyin (though to be fair, it's also during the one where I bordered two other major powers.) As implemented, maybe if you can get a little bit of isolation but a lot of the prospective GPs have it, it's more a reward for being a bad boy than a punishment as it just lets you skip the wait while your diplomat talks poo poo. I couldn't find a view or mod for it, so I put together a basic calculator of internal-market goods balance--it doesn't solve what I'd hoped it would solve, namely seeing what I'd have accessible when my suzerain once again had a civil war (even your internal market falls to pieces when that happens,) but it did let me figure out what to build so that the next time it happened I could immediately demand independence without an economic meltdown. I guess if you're Tokugawa, or somehow decide to pass Isolationism, it could come in handy too. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WRkQwpLn8iBBVjdv-v-PCZfapel5ZlCMwo0JuFNIaG4/edit?usp=sharing Comes with a bundle of caveats, the most important being that it can't see any sort of throughput bonus, but staying out of the dark red does tend to keep you out of actual input shortages.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Whoa, this is awesome. Thanks! Done! Also fixed it to pass tank production up to the urban and then overall summaries. E: Finished another run, managed to keep a balanced budget with Command Economy, maxed Social Security, and maxed Workplace Safety Office (so also having to subsidize buildings that couldn't cover minimum wage.) Got a SoL second only to Kutai (?!) out of it, but still more radicals than loyalists even running a 100% legitimacy government through the last 70 years of the game--and man, that £1.5 million a week in welfare and £250k in subsidies on total government spending of £2.5m would have funded a hell of an army. Mandoric fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Nov 12, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
I feel like, even before we go into wonky metagamed/Infamy-driven boundaries, national borders probably shouldn't matter for mass migration. When we talk about large migrations of the XIXth, surely we have to include urbanization, the portions of the Irish diaspora that ended up in Britain, and the settling of the American western frontier alongside the flow of European peasantry to the new world and German dissidents and then Russian minorities to the west. That said, the current migration target system attempts to produce that frontier and diaspora settlement by triggering based off of turmoil rather than raw SoL, and turmoil is currently really, really unavoidable--people will get het up into a panic flipping between say 14.9 and 15.0 SoL based on just the natural slop in the market system, and decide they have to mass migrate. And once they do, the bias towards undeveloped states sets in--it's supposed to represent long-term opportunity, but it has to be a really sloppy estimation of opportunity based only on land usage because the AI makes no effort to picture how somewhere would look post-development. That combines with the preference for places where they're not discriminated to produce some... strange internal targets. First up, turmoil needs to be dialed in a bit more, because turmoil is a good driver of a lot of the examples in a vacuum but the entire world seems to develop toward a fin-de-siecle Russian roil. Once that's done, I'd be interested to see pops looking at similar pops' relative rates of type and especially strata upgrade more than raw SoL to handle both urbanization and frontier settlement in relatively stable societies; what was the Jeffersonian dream that pushed Americans out to the prarie if not a promise that sure, staying a peasant or a laborer back home meant a higher immediate SoL, but out west they could tick over to farmer proper or even shopkeeper?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Are "vassals" different than "puppets?" I've finally successfully ended feudalism as Japan and it's time to get an empire but direct conquest costs so much infamy. 1k. After 100 the special war goal unlocks, and the AI likes to try and avoid that, but you can keep digging a lot further.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Japan can and should hit GP status pretty easily in the timeframe--remember, even historically, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, one of the first if not the first treaties on equal terms between the west and the east and with the undeniable #1 GP to boot, predated the Russo-Japanese War by several years. And gamewise, while getting rid of sakoku is of course nice to do, the early years leave you with an extremely strong economic base. GP recognition is also very easy to snap up early--there are five GPs who you can demand recognition from, and one is almost always rather ill. Especially if America failed to launch vs. exactly one of Mexico or the Confederacy, it's probably dangling down there at #5 and about 1/3 of the points of the UK or France, with poo poo for a Pacific fleet (not that the game really simulates how wrenching it is to put a fleet out of base, even though this drove so much colonialist thought) and a large, angry enemy just across a long border--it's very vulnerable to "Pearl Harbor but it works this time" tactics where you just kick over California (and maybe keep it for yourself) while they're more worried about other things. Or Spain if you catch them early enough, as part of a century-early Nanshinron. Relatedly, Nanshinron is the way to go, you can't beat Russia into any kind of useful submission just due to how many decades it takes to start eating anything but empty taiga even winning maximalist demands on truce cooldown, but you can control around peak WW2 extents (and therefore be set on opium, rubber, and if you actually need more oil than is in Chubu, in addition to the iron and coal that you just get automatically for some reason) easily before you've even removed the shogun.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
It should work. Additionally, and presumably for the same reasons, hovering over the revolution will tell you where it is--if you hover over the political lens iirc, you also get little map icons for the power center of each of your IGs, the state where it has the most pops, and it's almost always here plus maybe a neighbor or two for each of the aggrieved IGs. You can swap that state's barracks and conscripton center to pikemen while the revolution brews, and stomp through at least a year guaranteed of 75% offense/defense debuff for switching. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it's because without the AI actually developing rubber it's impossible to know whether the current supply is sufficient or not. i guess it might be the case that they've had that fixed in a test build since the day after launch or something and they're working on known numbers instead of guesses, but idk seems weird to discuss resource distribution in a dev diary as an isolated topic with things being the way they are in the live build I feel like you should be able to ballpark a number fairly easily, to be honest. Laying out arbitrary points of SoL was necessary to begin with, since it's of course an arbitrary measure; rubber demand = how far the AIs are falling short in clothing + radios from expected (or how much the algorithm needed to be juiced to produce planned amounts) + the amount needed to produce the same GC target with fewer buildings + expected radio demand from regulars. Oil's messier, as it's also a way to make electricity more BC-efficient. Related to this, I'd really like a way to be able to tweak barracks/conscription center PMs in individual generals' panes (or ideally, to have an HQ layer in the popup on the right and put this there, and ideally from that, be able to define or at least influence HQs.) Especially if you're playing China, or someone expected to eat big parts of China, you end up with a long list of state names that are still all in the same language and it's a lot of work to go through and go "well I'm chill with Dai Nam and don't want to gently caress with the EIC's daddy, those guys can stay skirmish if not irregular, but I really want the borderlands with Russia to have new kit."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:In my experience if your upper class is in a position to start a civil war over council republics they will. In mine, I've repeatedly been standing there holding the guillotine lanyard and the capitalists seized the moment to... demand the restoration of private schooling. I don't think having council republics legislatable is wrong for the game; it's sort of the inverse of being able to legislate to restore serfdom or chattel slavery, choices which respectively the rural folk and every discriminated pop should instantly have 999 radicalism about. It's a weakness of the legitimacy model that the legislation window is always force-extended for measures that alienate (or don't even; the biggest hit is -20 which isn't even a guaranteed resignation) a major IG rather than allowing the player to choose to take the opposition as extra radicalism rather than delays, though an understandable one given worries about human players' ability to cheese the CW, turning ten days that shook the world into eh, three or four years that tip over a lawn chair. This is compounded as an issue by civil wars not really doing much to IG support (something which also plays into weirdness around Japanese westernization); something which invites immediate, violent reaction cannot be permitted because the CW winner will immediately go to war again unless the reform immediately destroys the aggrieved IG--ironically, council republics are one of the rare ones which do this. In general I like the materialist take that an IG's backing is determined by pop circumstances and demands are fixed based on what would benefit those in those circumstances, but there really should be representation of some sort of suppression/generational unwillingness to bleed again over it. State-by-state "well it still works that way here" based on spare authority vs. proportion of dissenters is an idea that sounds nice on the surface and would model things like the rise of the Klan, but it'd be an absolute nightmare to play, made worse by choice to use authority as a naturally declining resource. I guess you could go interesting places with modeling say the ACW USA as a Presidential Republic/Autocracy or Meiji Japan as a Parliamentary Republic/Oligarchy, but that would require further the further knockon effect of changing Distribution of Power laws from fixed support to "in-government IGs want higher on the list and out-of-government want lower". There's a hint of a solution in having legitimacy govern authority rather than legislation cycles, but that's getting pretty drat Derek Smart. I do think that within the current system, vanguardism should be a much rarer roll by default with heavily scaled chances to occur based on exceptional SoL (unions/rural folk) or war losses (armed forces) radicalism in its potential IGs, and be required for any group to approve rather than be neutral on council republic and thus unlock the option.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Also note, "market access" is entirely a pathfind from the state in question to the market capital (usually, but not always, either your capital if independent or your suzerain's capital if not) that multiplies the initial 100% at each step by % of infrastructure available (for land) or % of convoys available (for sea). You can't, say, build self-sufficient economies in both America and the Phillipines, or Honshu and Manchuria, or European Russia and along the Amur, and have them stay working perfectly on their own even if your commerce is being raided or you haven't finished sufficient rail capacity through the Urals and past Lake Baikal; the only solution to limited MA other than solving what's reducing the MA is to have a balanced market in each individual state, something that's near-impossible given how basic sulfur, iron, and coal all are/how rare it is to have all three mines available. Put another way, it's kind of like modern American grocery shipping where just about everything gets distributed through Chicago even if it's manufactured a county or two over from you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
smarxist posted:Is there like a production panel that shows the flow of goods (like in my country, before trade, and after local consumption, I'm positive 100 fabric), is that just the market details page? Because everything is based on supply/demand and buy/sell orders? There isn't other than enforcing sakoku and then looking at your market report, and there seems to be some degree of thought that you shouldn't need to think about it and should only work off relative prices. Which is probably historical rather than the neat "x steel mills need y coal mines and z iron mines" logic, but turns to gently caress and poo poo if you ever make a play for independence or fall behind the naval curve as an island (and I'm including the western hemisphere majors here as well) power. I put together a rough and clunky calculator, it takes a while to get the data in and especially to micromanage it as you build but it's saved a couple of otherwise bricked runs for me that were tied to the UK market and needed to get out. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WRkQwpLn8iBBVjdv-v-PCZfapel5ZlCMwo0JuFNIaG4/edit?usp=sharing
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I’ve had no problem with keeping power plants profitable, the opposite really. This is as much speculative based on the devs' likely assumptions as it is supported by data, but I thought that was the point. "Services" is a category that transformed radically in the era the game covers, with an 1836 Service-producer quite possibly being a chef in a castle and a 1936 Service-provider probably being a cook at White Castle; they aren't consumed until 10 SoL, but above 10 SoL are fungible across an entire category of needs. And the needs they substitute for some at times extremely awkward things to provide; Transportation is fine given that it scales around linearly with Infrastructure, Telephones aren't terrible because you can always kickstart and backstop that industry with government purchases, but Automobiles are otherwise only used in a late-but-not-endgame military PM that gets obsoleted, and Fine Art is solely the domain of the horrifically rich. (And now I'm tempted to mod in a Public Transport PM that demands it, Moscow's metro style.) On the other hand, the scaling is eye-watering; 10 services substitute for 1 Transportation, Automobile, or Telephone, and 20 substitute for 1 Fine Art. So I think the idea is eventually to crater (whether supported by welfare and eating the externalities yourself, colonialism and maintaining a high SoL in the core, or even more effectively economic colonialism and putting the sweatshops on someone else's SoL ledger) the inputs for service workers so that their own SoL remains somewhat passable even on low wages, and then in turn crater the price of services to drive wild SoL expansion among the upper crust without having to have to hurt the profits of high-tech industry or maintain swingy highbrow cultural production. Basically the modern American model. Barono posted:I think the approximate price change for multi-use goods like services isn't well reflected, it just looks at buy/sell orders. If you build a bunch of cheap services people will use those instead of railroad transportation for that need, which will then lower the price of transportation alongside services. By default, you can only provide 80% of a subcategory with any one good. Exceptions are: Meat and fruit can only provide 40% each of basic food. All luxury foods can only provide 40% each of luxury food. Clothes can provide 100% of standard clothing demand between 10 and 50 SoL, while clothes and fabric both cap at 80% of the 0-15 simple clothing demand. (Above 50 the emperor truly wears no clothes.) For the 10-60 demand for household goods, glass can only provide 40%, and glass+paper can together only provide 95%, the last 5% must be furniture. From 15-cap for luxury items, luxury clothes, luxury furniture, and porcelain each must compose at least 5% of the basket, and all three plus radios can only compose 40% each. Heating caps at 60% for all goods except electricity, which can fill the basket alone. Both intoxicants and luxury drinks also cap at 60% per item; you need tea and coffee, coffee and wine, or tea and wine, but coffee tea and wine all together only helps cut the price of each. Mandoric fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 23, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
buglord posted:V3 has a lot of problems but I really love how I can do diplomatic plays and potentially get a province for free without a war instead of like in HOI4 where taking a treaty port means the US, France, UK and her puppets, Brazil and fascist Tibet all declare war on me and won’t concede until I knock each one out. I feel like it's probably something that needs to transition in-game as a result of tech and degree of GP involvement--as it stands it's also impossible to accomplish what got done at Versailles in ten wars worth of demands, never mind one, and the French and Germans will at most trade Alsace every few years even if they loathe each other and even if their few-month spates of industrialized war before the overagressive forced-capitulation timer rings kill the same millions. The French and UK AI having a solid few years at the end of abandoning Bohemia in an annexation play &c. because Total War was also on the table as a pseudodemand would also help simulate the runup to WW2 that can bleed into the extreme lategame.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
I'm leery of using stockpiles specifically to discourage number-go-up compulsive remodernization, because it implies the split of mil goods into several different versions each. Shipbuilding is about the healthiest place it could go and even then it's a large expansion of the number of goods and thus the amount of microing PMs in your arms industry/not being able to find the exact match for your doctrine on the world market. Meanwhile, working only with flows rather than stockpiles of goods it's abstracted away as time taken to issue or commission the new kit. On the other hand, I definitely also would like the penalty for switching to be something else. It's rather absurd that rolling out, to give examples of things which were adopted over the course of WW1, tanks or airplanes or gas or trench or squad infantry isn't just something that needs engineering and doctrinal lessons from the field to gain the full benefits, but in fact you're encouraged to leave your metropolitan regulars as they were antebellum lest they be chunked down to a match for Qing conscripts for a year, and instead first upgrade unmobilized colonial auxiliaries. And stockpiles--specifically being able to enforce a temporary cap on them as a wargoal, but also not being able to empty them except through market demand--would give low-unrest options for neutering an aggressive neighbor and prevent the cheese of simply keeping the troops in potentially-rebellious states as pikemen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
Realism in numbers is not necessarily a good thing, just doing this as a spitball "what's obviously way out of whack". For perspective, punching solely what you'd need for a WW1-scale US Army at endgame PMs (and guesstimating said army's peak strength at around 50% of the 4.8 million who served in the Army during US involvement, probably lowball given the short length of the war and that 40% are known to have been deployed overseas never mind trainees/reserves/rear echelon/marines) into the calculator, all tech unlocked highest PM for products and lowest for unneeded byproducts, state-run since that's the lowest workforce I can get in the save I'm pulling numbers from but it should match publicly-traded, and I think I caught all the typos but dunk on me if I didn't, collectively adds up to purely for the war effort: Labor-intensive PMs: 109 tooling workshops, at 4650 workers each; 506,850 84 chemical plants, at 5650 workers each; 474,600 86 steel mills, at 4650 workers each; 399,900 26 motor industries, at 4650 workers each; 120,900 60 electrics industries, at 5150 workers each; 309,000 180 arms industries, at 5650 workers each; 1,017,000 134 munitions plants, at 4650 workers each; 623,100 46 power plants, at 5050 workers each; 232,300 108 war machines industries, at 5150 workers each; 556,200 (tank curve DOES catch up, 48/60 for exactly tank demand) 69 coal mines, at 4450 workers each labor-intensive; 307,050 119 iron mines, ""; 529,550 58 lead mines, ""; 258,100 51 sulfur mines, ""; 226,950 46 cotton plantations, at 4900 workers each; 225,400 96 opium plantations, ""; 470,400 576 (!!!) logging camps, at 4600 workers each; 2,649,200 40 rubber plantations, at 5050 workers each; 202,000 145 oil rigs, ""; 732,500 Total, 9,841,150 employed in the war effort, of which 4,239,850 manufacturing and 5,601,300 extraction. Comparing to the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1918 numbers, though those are 1910 and of course also include the civilian economy: Tooling workshops: 506,850 compared to 14,514 mechanical engineers, 488,049 machinists and toolmakers, and 240,519 smiths, forgemen, and welders = 743,802. Would have to be a huge impact here from the war effort. Chemical plants: 474,600 compared to 9,847 fertilizer factory workers. lol. Steel mills: 399,900, compared to 406,425 skilled and 92,308 semiskilled blast furnaces, rolling mills, other iron and steel works, plus 36,251 furnacemen, smelters, etc, 1,901 annealers and temperers, and 18,407 rollers and roll hands = 555,292. Within range, especially because RL was a melange of labor-saving PMs. Motor industries: 120,900. It's a wide-open question whether to include carmakers in this, but excluding them and only going straight for boilermakers, that's only 44,761. Electrics industries: 309,000 compared to 135,519 electricians and electrical engineers. Arms industries: 1,017,000 to 3,251 gunsmiths, locksmiths, and bell hangers. Ouch, though again 1910--but I'd assume most of the foundry labor is in other iron and steel works. Munitions plants: 623,100 to 4,277 skilled and 5,263 semiskilled workers in powder, cartridge, etc. factories. Also ouch, but also 1910. Power plants: 232,300 to 8,176 actually employed in electric light and power plants. War machines industries: 556,200 compared to completely contained in other entries on this list. Coal mines: 307,050 to 613,924 actual coal miners and 16,603 coal yard laborers. The more important question is how this would have changed for 1918, and gently caress digging up that data, but it doesn't really raise an eyebrow. Iron mines: 529,550 to 49,603 iron miners Lead mines: 258,100 to 19,486 lead and zinc miners and 1,864 semiskilled laborers in lead and zinc factories. Sulfur mines: 226,950 to 27,786 all miners excluding coal/iron/lead/zinc/gold/silver/copper. Eesh. Cotton plantation: Farmers aren't broken out by crop, though cotton millers (included in V3's conception of cotton workers surely, given that it produces fabric) are 7,603 skilled and 50,349 unskilled. Opium: Medical manufacturing isn't broken out at all. Logging camps, the single biggest fucker, purely because hardwood comes 10 per camp at best: 2,649,200 compared to 169,199 lumbermen and overseers, 289,167 skilled manufacturers in lumber industries excluding furniture, 43,276 sawyers, 104,678 semiskilled lumber industries excluding furniture, and 43,398 lumberyard laborers for an all lumber sectors total of 649,718. Rubber plantations: 202,000 to 13,546 workers in rubber factories, but eh, colonialism. Oil rigs: 732,500 to 25,562 oilmen and 11,215 oil refiners. Total gainfully employed 38,167,336 of a working-age (which they quite candidly admit is 10+) population of 71,580,270, 37,027,558 of which were male. So, uh, conclusions. - Again, realism in numbers is not necessarily a good thing. First and foremost, this is a game, and all of this poo poo should be abstracted fairly hard, if only to make up for all the industries that don't make the cut to be explicitly simulated. - The overall number involved seems a bit harsh for a major war effort, but within the tuning window especially because I'm not doing the math for labor-saving PMs. It also lines up quite well with the increase in US womens' employment from 1914-1918. - Especially because realistically most of that number is going to be trench infantry with mobile artillery and no support. - Big pain point here is that it's hyper-fiddly to try and get lower-armed conscripts exclusively on defensive missions where they can win by force of numbers; you basically have to have an HQ with no barracks but lots of conscription centers and set its generals to defend, or just trust in the AI feeding the right troops in. - The exponentially underproductive relative to capital/labor investment items, the ones where it's hard to envision them being spun up that hard for WW1, are chemical plants, arms industries, munitions, power plants, probably war machines, mining other than coal, logging, and oil. - Within this, I'm sure you could make an argument for mining logistics and all the support industries of daily lives in mine towns "explaining" a lot; coal is almost the out-of-place one from that angle. - Logging it's real fuckin' hard, though. Hardwood availability is something I'd look at: I count 623 potential logging camps in the lower 48, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Panama, and a 2,400 battalion eyeballed historical army eats the output of 576 of them. - Oil's labor-intensiveness, especially because it's often in the middle of nowhere, can't be helping things there. - Munitions, eh, I honestly don't want to dig through the data, I accept that being a pain point for a war economy and I'm glad there is one. - If I wanted in-game orders of battle to look more like RL ones otherwise, I'd think about drastically turning up both the output and the steel consumption of arms industries--rather than a binary "am I painting the map this game", move the inflection to "domestic industry's gonna hurt hard if these guys have the demand to afford their inputs".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:So, a couple things about the realism post. Are you factoring in throughput bonuses? Because if not then many outputs will be substantially higher, except for the wood but I feel like at this point everyone knows wood is definitely a problem resource. Second, are we counting in transportation networks to move these goods? That's something Vicky3 somewhat takes into account with rail workers, but I imagine the total amount of manpower involved in supply chains might end up being higher. We'd need dock workers too and other stuff like that. I'm not, which is why I only really settled on the ones which are over 10x off as especially funky; throughput is 1% per so at the very Detroit-est you'd only be seeing numbers dropped to a half to a third. Though it is worth noting that, in the same year, all transportation-related trades together--including not just the rails, but things like mailmen and road builders and longshoremen, who should surely go to urban centers or government administration or construction or ports--only come up to about 2.6 million, barely the surplus workers for lumber alone. Like I said, simulating actual historic data is of limited value; even spot-on to estimates as seen by governments of the time would involve a game that takes decades to make and requires persistent online teams of millions, and if it were to be attempted it'd quickly fall to pieces based on what was papered over for ideological and technical reasons in said estimates. And I'm generally okay with that bottom-line number of "it's doable but you're going to need to either kill civilian industry, adopt all the laborsaver PMs, or allow women into the industrial workforce" (and the implied "it's doable but you're going to need to kill civilian industry AND adopt all the laborsaver PMs AND allow women into the industrial workforce" if you plug WW2 numbers in.) I just think it's a passable razor for determining what's getting overemphasized in the rules, whether a mismatch with other industries that have the same incorporated externalities but don't see the same overemphasization (mining), where it conflicts with other elements of the rules (logging and needing to operate at nearly max theoretical capacity), or off by orders of magnitude at a specialized step but plausible for the whole creating a "assuming that World War 1 will occur, your government's fiscal and industrial policies must begin preparations before German unification" issue. ulmont posted:It would be fine if there was a combat width and you could get multiple battles based on that if the front was long enough. I'd also like to see the ability to assign particular state-buildings to generals, or even just keep the current system but be able to remove state-buildings from generals. Make military PMs actually relevant as something other than a tech/industry check by having a less clunky way to commit especially extra light infantry for holding quiet fronts, and allow us to do limited conscription rather than raise 100 battalions in California, 20 of whom go deal with the rebellion in the Philippines under a colonel and 80 of whom sit at home landscaping the field marshal from the same HQ's local golf course (because if we raised 20 like we needed in in Nevada we'd get 4 on the frontlines and 16 peeling potatoes.) Mandoric fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:If you had to cycle out armies and assign them to a retraining action in order to gain the new stats/remove a malus more quickly, that’d be pretty cool. The disconnect between the barracks PMs and each General’s pool of units makes that approach very fiddly. Bonus points if that retraining action meant travel time back home and forward to the front. I like this, especially for base (and maybe artillery) PMs. Or--and this is HoIlike and as a rule I don't want HoIlike in my Vicky, but--if they must stay in place, dunk them down to zero supply (with attendant morale crisis) and apply a few months of morale recovery penalty if you don't want to idle them. The new kit works, but the doughboys and tommies and poilus are in absolutely no position to fight as their batteries get rolled away and replaced, and then a bit leery for a while of the idea of charging into where it's firing until they either see it work or get browbeaten into it. Scaling how long this lasts on how integrated the changed part is is--months to learn how to operate as a motor rifles division, a week to deal with "recce reports are now delivered by a man with a biplane rather than a man with a Model T"--would be nice in a vacuum but implies the existence of a division designer. And I absolutely do not want a division designer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
The worst part about it is that if as Qing or someone else who's supposed to try and eat Qing you thrust up through Manchuria and Okhotsk to the impassible provinces... your line with Irkutsk is the Perm front and your line with Kamchatka is also the same Perm front. Well, no, the worst part is the implication that it won't split until you hit Perm, six oblasts and like 1/6 of the world away. E: Now that I think of it, are front names based off HQs? Is "the nearest HQ is in Perm" actionable intelligence? Mandoric fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Nov 25, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
That's not true, if you follow the tech tree to council republic and then get it through the political minigame you can have normas instead of quotas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Food industries are part of that category that (from your perspective as an economic planner) convert labor into SoL. Thus, they only turn a profit if they help maintain SoL, that is if there's an actual affordable demand above and beyond substituting the processed good for the unprocessed one--though of course you can reduce losses by selling that substitution low and only eating the labor cost, rather than having it go to waste entirely and losing the inputs as well, if you also want a byproduct or if you've already built the building and don't want to scrap it. Specifically, at any SoL, your pops demand any two of liquor, tobacco, and opium. And liquor's the cheapest way to do it in a vacuum--to be exact, they want a combination of percentages of £30 worth of liquor at base price, £40 worth of tobacco at base price, and £50 worth of opium at base price that adds up to 100% while taking no more than 60% from any one, so assuming you've got a precisely ratioed economy 10k workers (or 20k dependents) will consume £18 of liquor and £16 of tobacco a week (getting 60% from the cheapest good, and then the remaining 40% from the next-cheapest.) But if you've driven your tobacco and opium price down below liquor's, say to £20/unit and £25/unit respectively, they will instead consume £12 of tobacco and £10 of opium, and ignore the liquor. If you don't have opium but do have tobacco down there and liquor at base, it would be £12 of tobacco and £12 of liquor. Here's where geography, politics, and the rest of the economy enter the picture. If you have a temperate climate you can have all the tobacco you want, and if you're on the south rim of Asia you additionally get all the opium you want. But if you're, say, in Europe, you get neither and may not have the trade pull or colonies for either--and then you need liquor. And liquor only comes from two places, subsistence agriculture of some sort with the Home Workshops PM or food industries with a Stills PM. So as a European country, you'll be forced to either import or to build up food industries (even if they're not necessarily profitable; the liquor is just a byproduct) as you enclose, industrialize, and proletarianize your peasantry, or drop your SoL and thus tank your education, research, taxation, and political pliability while slowing that industrialization process down. Later on, or honestly not that much later on as the process has already been running for a century or two before game start in the imperial core, you start to get further up into higher standards of living. And there's where food factories actually pay off. Above 20 SoL, pops require both basic foods (for which groceries are considered equal to grain or fish) and luxury foods (for which grain and fish do not qualify.) The entire luxury foods basket is £30 base price worth of meat/fruit/groceries/sugar of which no more than £12 any one source, and sugar only purchased at half the priority of the other 3 unless necessary to complete the basket. Sugar's also geographically gated off to some degree, and is itself processed fruit for the less geographically-gated version, so as segments of your pops hit 20 SoL they will begin to preferentially buy groceries (that is, processed grain and fish) even though their price is grain+FI labor or fish+FI labor unless you have an actual groceries shortage and they're forced onto sugar. Above SoL 30, only luxury foods are purchased, and people will literally starve before baking a loaf or bread or letting an unfileted whole fish look at them with its googly eyes. E: So basically tl;dr if you're south Asia they're mostly an endgame thing when/if SoL hits historical interbellum US/Europe levels, anywhere else they come with either bourgeois industrial proletarianization (which you might have at game start if you're Europe or the northeastern US! or might never ever hit if you're Japan and need to build several thousand rice farms to get there) or the implied people's proletarianization via collectivization of agriculture that comes with Command Economy. Mandoric fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Nov 27, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Guzba posted:Thanks for breaking that down so clearly. I think however Potato farms can also produce Liqour as a by-product much like other farms can produce wine or fruits/sugar. Ah, that's my oversight, I've primarily played Asian and North American tags so I'm still a bit iffy on some of the specialty farms.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
I've been doing a lot of imperialisms in my current run (fun discovery: eventually the mapdrawing logic will just decide that entire continents don't need to be labeled) and I've definitely, repeatedly, run into "target of a transfer subject goal doesn't enter the war but is counted as an unoccupied goal". Just been cheesing it by opening a ton of fronts and then naval invading the capital, but it's there. And yeah, a LOT of peace terms that were acceptable but needed the table cleared and then reproposition. If one party capitulates, the "demands enforced on ally" malus seems to be hanging around as a ghost.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I am really not sure what exactly happened there. Like I wrote, France abandoned the play after I added war goals on them and was not part of the war. Then after a long war Siam caved in to enforce war goals on France lol. I had the same happen in a Lanfang game, start poo poo in Indonesia -> Qing jump in -> I demand the transfer of Dai Nam -> Qing nope out -> dunk some minor Malay tag -> get Dai Nam anyway. I think it's working as conceptually intended--that is, once you commit to a play you're risking something and backing down loses you it--but that that conceptualization itself is flawed in three ways: - First and foremost, the AI seems to treat plays it joins in as a third party solely in terms of how much it cares about the second party in play vs. how much it has to lose. And because subject relations are incredibly points efficient, transferring (or demanding subjugation) crank up what it has to lose by a lot--but then, because the upside is still only considered as "keeping a regional minor down" rather than also boosted with "keeping this subject", it will let absurd things go in these negotiations that it never would if they were demanded directly. - Downstream from this, due to the treatment of plays as one-at-a-time and immutable, you get the absurdity of a war between Lanfang and Tidore over primarily Dai Nam, which neither of them control but has promised to go with Lanfang if it wins. Wargoals on supporters who then back down should probably just be procced when they back down and the play reopened, though this leaves room for the player to just keep one rolling set of demands going. - It also plays into the lack of requirement for a disputed subject to actually take part in the war over itself, something we've discussed previously because it means you can't actually occupy the wargoal and bring support below 0. Zeron posted:If you have really bad starting laws, the Armed Forces are usually a surprisingly good ally. It's very easy to increase their clout and they support a lot of laws that reduce landowner strength, and they get along pretty well with the landowners. There's also little penalty for making them strong; they're one of the IGs that can be forced to roll vanguardists; the only late-game liberal law they're likely to be strongly against is Guaranteed Liberties; and they have innate attraction to fascism, so it's unlike the Industrialists who you need to have to crack the Landowners but then in turn might need to be cracked themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2022 18:43
|
|