|
almost?
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Can't wait to institute full Georgism on my first run through.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
This is something I'd really like to see fleshed out Inna DLC/update. I don't see why you couldn't come up with a confidence/interest rate based mechanic rather than a hard cutoff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2021 13:12
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Was it one of V2's features to set races to be discriminated against? In eu4 you have unaccepted cultures which are less good then your ones (there's a tiered system). You can genocide them though to get full value from a province.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
There's a cool book on the origin of nationalism and the creation of national identities, "Imagined Communities"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
RattiRatto posted:If the city/fields density shown on map change as the population/urbanization/factories change, i think i have found what i will be doing full time for the next few years. England slowly turns into a cloud of smog
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Bold (but correct?) to claim that time is not a real concept
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
Command Ops 2 is extremely gorgnardy and its UI is flawed in many ways, but it has a good go at simulating uncertainty about information and command and control limitations at a smaller scale. You aren't quite sure where enemy units are or what they are, and there are penalties for trying to direct subunits below your direct subordinates. There are delays between orders being given and them actually being carried out. It's a pretty fun experience and fairly unique. Only thing that I can see being appropriate to Vicky is uncertainty about enemy strength, the command delays are probably more appropriately handled via abstracting warfare entirely
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Seems weird that the goods (sulfur) would be imported from somewhere where it has a high price to one where it has a low price.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Presumably in this scenario the texans want sulfur to make gunpowder, what with the war. Shouldn't the price be higher though in the Texan market? Otherwise the importer is taking a huge loss.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:So, the Texan government's buying sulphur and then dumping it on the market at a loss so they can get more ammo made? Is this something that actually happened in the states? Seems like it would require export controls on Texas's part and still be easier money for smugglers
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
VostokProgram posted:The part that doesn't make sense to me is how the price in the texan market ends up at 25. That doesn't make any sense at all The state subsidising the cost is the only option which barely makes sense, but even then locals would presumably buy it all and ship/smuggle it all back to the rest of America where it's 3x the price. quote:But lets assume that the trade is unprofitable, well that means there isn't profit to go to the trade centers, which means that they are conducting this trade at a loss. Now this loss may wash out in the many other profitable trades the trade center is conducting. Regardless to some degree this means that less profit is at the trade center, which means salaries are lower because profits are lower - if this was the only trade route well salaries would dry up - pops would look elsewhere for jobs and as a result of not being able to staff your trade center the trade route would not deliver goods. This seems wrong to me, the trade won't (irl) (outside of weird shocks) stop because people lose their jobs as traders, it'll stop because traders won't import goods which they know to be extremely unprofitable. They know they're better off sitting on their rear end all day then paying 80 and selling for 25. distortion park fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Mar 18, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2022 07:42
|
|