|
Literally no-one understands how the Vicky 2 economy works, even the people with access to the source code. As for Vicky 3, I don't think we know much details yet.
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Steam Achievement Manager exists
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
logger posted:Suppression is supposed to model those things in Victoria 2. Also the rebellions are supposed to be only an annoyance for a stable nation, but cause problems once other things get out of hand. The rebellions in Vicky II would often cause significant population loss.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
karmicknight posted:iirc (because why would I play the UK sober) it's an event that drags down the liferating of Ireland and pisses off the Irish. Wait what does life rating do in provinces that aren't "uncolonized"?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Do you have a source on that? I understood in those ages the nobles were even worse than CK3 lets on, and much more state/religion sanctioned genocide and other atrocities. I mean the Romans were famous for crucifying whole cities, men women and children all, because some resident pissed off some Imperial official, and that wasn't terribly unusual at the time. The Romans at which point in time? I don't think the Byzantines were big on crucifixion. If you mean early empire/late republic Romans, that's... most of a millennium before CK3 even starts? The middle ages generally had lower intensity conflict than antiquity, both because medieval polities were less able to field large armies and religious/cultural factors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
fuf posted:Or, if the unrecognized nations are determined by dynamic rules and as a function of which nations are on the GP list, could you end up with weird situations where the recognized/unrecognized distribution "flips" as the GP list changes? You probably can't go from recognized to unrecognized.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
The mechanic is arbitrary and unfair (because that's the point)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Wonder-building mechanics? I didn't know I could get any more hype! That's the best part of Stellaris for me, and I'm really excited they're bringing it over to Victoria 3! I'd imagine it will be closer to EU4 monuments than megastructures.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
8 am UTC
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you still have to cart them personally from system to system, and orders do not persist through landing and taking off again, so this is of fairly limited value They automatically follow fleets in the system when on aggressive, at least, though that only helps if you have fleets bombarding (or otherwise still in the system). And they fixed the bug where armies would go back to passive stance when taking off after a battle. It still more trouble than it actually adds to the game (which is very little). There's a reason Byron said yesterday that he'd like to get rid of assault armies (though there are no plans to do so).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It's not. Are there any plans to add some kind of Great War system later?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
sloppy portmanteau posted:Can anyone tell me which states in South America have good oil production? I don't think anyone there has the tech to discover it yet. The only discovered oil so far is in north Germany, and I'm not invading there. La Paz and Santa Cruz have 30 each, Zulia has 60. None in Africa.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
So I've thought about the economy So, from putting all of my market's prices in a spreadsheet and graphing them, I was able to figure out that the price multiplier is equal to 0.75*(buy orders)/(sell orders)+0.25 when there are more buy orders than sell orders, 1.75-0.75*(sell orders)/(buy orders) when the other way around. Capped at 1.75 and 0.25, of course.  So, having figured this out, I first turned to figuring out how to maximize revenue when buy orders are constant and assuming no trade routes.   Turns out that's at 7/6 sell:buy orders ratio. (That's -12.5% price modifier) Only about 2% higher than 1:1, though. So, if you were exporting everything, you don't want to go higher than that. Let's look at the derivative:  Well, that's... interesting. Selling stuff at +75% price is quite lucrative, of course, but if you have a monopoly then you're basically selling every additional good at -75% price until you hit 0%, at which point it gets even worse and goes negative at -12.5% before returning to -75% once the price reaches that. But what if you're using the goods yourself?   Or in terms of how much sell orders beyond half of buy orders reduce costs:  Of course, if the seller and buyer are both your own buildings, you probably might be interested in the sum of the seller's revenue and the savings on the buyer's end? I dunno, don't ask me for actual economic advice, I'm busy going chain bankrupt as Belgium. #1 GDP but still can't stay solvent long enough to build manufacturing buildings. I'm going to call it total value for now.  Local maximum at 5:3 sell:buy, -50% price. In case you want to see the composition,   It was the goddamned anarchists. And sky high wages murdering profitability on most buildings. But I should've shot the anarchists and went vanguardist, I'm sure that would have solved everything! With consumption taxes! Anyway here's the derivative of value generated.  Interesting discontinuities here, though you could see them in the value chart too. Ignoring the effect of input shortages, you get a spike when you start lowering the price. Drops pretty sharply, though. And again, you're actually losing money when going from 5:3 sell:buy to 2:1. I managed to build some new oil rigs lately, which was nice. Bankruptcies are down to about twice per year, so I should be able to start building stuff again soon. Had to completely disband the military, though. Of course none of this really helps me since it doesn't consider employment, welfare for unemployed pops, or even the input costs for the seller increasing when raising production. Then there's the question of trade, and how much you care about saving your pops money when they're buying goods, whether buy orders are actually constant, etc etc. I guess the main takeaways are that you definitely don't want to go beyond -50% price usually, or... below +75% if you control all of the sell orders in the market and don't care about the buyers. Unless you want to increase employment or something. I did pass Autocracy later, by the way. Promising to purge the anarchist bureaucrats helped pass it. Too many radicals by then though, turmoil everywhere. One last graph, this time my GDP. Pretty obvious I was trying all kinds of random poo poo to unfuck my budget, isn't it? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 21:02
|
|
|
Another Person posted:I'm able to get 1/3rd or more loyalists. It just seems there is no way to actually make people stop being radicals past a certain point - and the AI seems to have that issue too. A lategame fave is to tab over to France and see their country just on fire constantly for... no real reason. To be fair France having constant riots setting everything on fire seems pretty appropriate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
Interest groups with conflicting ideologies seem to work weirdly—I have trade unions in Belgium with Egalitarian (endorse Propertied Women, neutral on suffrage and workplace) and Feminist (Strongly endorse suffrage, endorse workplace, neutral on property), and the net result is that they prefer Propertied Women over suffrage. They joined a revolutionary movement to go back to Propertied and most of the country would have revolted, including all of Belgium proper, conquered Dutch lands, and Hanover, so I gave in. Now it's impossible to pass suffrage again unless the suffrage movement can happen twice, since no interests group want suffrage. I'm guessing the game only checks ideologies until it finds a stance, then stops looking? So only the first ideology in the list that has a stance on the issue will matter. Also I realized you can burn off a lot of radicals by starting to pass stupid poo poo so you can magnanimously back down when a movement to preserve the current law forms. Went from about 35M radicals (out of a population of 60M) to below 20M by doing that a few times. That reduced turmoil enough that I might be able to stop chain bankrupting! Only took over 20 years and dozens of bankruptcies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Right. One (apocryphally?) causes Civ Gandhi to nuke you, the other nukes the program. Technically the Gandhi one was underflow.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Welp I think that's it for my Qing game. I got complacent and thought the Heavenly Kingdom would just go away eventually since nothing was happening, but it eventually did rebel and apparently it takes every state the cult has spread to, not just the ones with turmoil. So I should have just tried to spike turmoil once the fourth state got it to get it to fire early, I guess. But the real game-ender was that the Taping Rebellion isn't actually a civil war country. They immediately had a capitalist revolt take almost everything, and those guys were just independent after the original rebellion capitulated to me. And pretty much all of my industry was there, and a lot of mines etc too. Also, 180 infamy from the revolt.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Sounds like there should really be a minimum amount of free admin. There is, though. Every state has 100 base taxation capacity, even without any techs. Also I'm not sure government administrations are even net-positive in 1836 with lovely tax laws, filing cabinets at best, and mostly peasants to tax. e: Oh right it's the actual bureaucracy that's the problem, not taxation capacity, nvm. Staltran fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:In 3 games now I didn't really have trouble passing laws, it usually involves reform government shenanigans and lots of switching suppress/bolster on appropriate IGs, of course you also have to be lucky and some laws just won't pass at a certain point in time but you can indeed cajole the government into doing what you want eventually. Keep building those factories full of mechanists, engineers and the like and slowly they'll be more powerful than the old guard! If you have elections you can also just wait for one and use the free government reform. The most important thing in passing laws seems to be minimizing stall chance, if a law has no chance of stalling then the chance to pass it will always keep going up. Of course sometimes you can't avoid a movement to preserve forming and interest groups joining it, so you might still be better off keeping IGs opposing the law in government for the legitimacy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 14:34
|
|
|
Phigs posted:Russia is an autocracy so no elections. It also has a lot of really bad laws like serfdom that you have to remove before you can enact other laws so you can't just switch freely amongst various laws you want to pass. The aristocrats start with like 45% power and the intelligentsia start as marginalized. There's no way to have legitimacy with the aristocrats out of power. And legitimacy also tanks if you stuff a bunch of parties in. Here's my current "progress" on passing an end to serfdom: What's the stall chance? Why are you only posting one of the numbers affecting law enactment? Why didn't you cancel it when it first got a negative modifier? There are no elections so you can instantly just start passing the law again Have you considered passing laws that don't have huge stall chances? In Jan 1836, you can have 11% legitimacy with very low taxes and industrialists and rural folk in government, 1626 days between checkpoints, putting the first one in July 1840. Bolstering them+suppressing landowners+building more non-agriculture buildings would also bring that up once you're not in literally 1836, so you wouldn't need to gut taxes. Maybe get rid of peasant levies first, to get rid of the +25% landowner political strength, or hereditary bureaucrats. Landowners are only -5 for those so probably easier to keep them from forming movements against them. Also force their generals and admirals to retire (not sure if starting generals/admirals are random or not, but in the Russia game I started to test this they had a major general, a rear admiral, and a vice admiral, for +20% total) Why should it be easy to abolish serfdom when the landowners have almost 50% clout in your country? If anything it's too easy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
megane posted:Wealth voting is another one; the landowners support it, but it can be used against them once capitalists and other rich classes appear. In fact, just industrializing in and of itself weakens the landowners, since a lot of their power derives from everyone else in the country being dirt poor and/or politically inactive. Yeah this is a big one, autocracy gives +50% political strength to aristocrats. To stick with Russia there are only 45.6k capitalists and 87k officers at game start, but 1.66M clergy, which is more than the 1.05M aristocrats. The church isn't that much better than the landowners, but this does let you divide and conquer, since the church doesn't care about abolishing peasant levies and hereditary bureaucrats.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Also landed voting would give +20 flat legitimacy instead of +30 when ruler's IG (ie landowners almost always in a monarchy).Phigs posted:The opposition to changing away from peasant levies is even higher than serfdom. The stall chances are 39%. I've switched between them and agriculturalism (aka away from traditionalism) when they tank in chances. The serfdom one has multiple hits because I figured I'd leave it there to see if it recovered after the first couple negatives, but it just hit enough negative to hit 0%. Dude your chance of stalling are higher than succeeding, why are you surprised when it happens. Also you don't have to switch, you can just cancel abolishing serfdom and start abolishing it again instantly in an autocracy. If you had 0% stall chance, sure you'd start with say 20% pass 40% advance 40% debate, but even if it doesn't pass at the first checkpoint you'd probably get at least +10%, even if that ight have a cost from a debate. But if there's a significant stall chance that makes things much harder. That's why you should get landowner clout down before trying to pass things they oppose unless you can keep them happy enough while out of the government to not start a movement to oppose you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
elbkaida posted:I just had a war where I was defending in mountains with 26 vs 32 units and even tech plus my general had defensive strategist + mountain combat expert. Somehow lost most of my battles for some reason. I noticed the mountain combat expert bonus didn't seem to apply? My bataillons just got worse and worse morale and pushed back a few times and then I got annexed. Are you sure the battles were actually in mountain, and not mines or factories or whatever? Also make sure you have the armed forces at +10 or above for the attack/defense boost. Pretend to be totally passing censorship or something if you have to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Hryme posted:Anyone have any idea why some natives I fought in south america as Chile had 63 in defence? That seems to be excessive. That combined with that the individual battles were fought in small numbers so my numerical advantage didn't apply made me lose every one. I couldn't figure out where that number came from. They were defending in mountains but that should not increase irregular infantry that high. I might shelve the game until the next patch so they can iron out the kinks in the battle system. Leader traits? Pretty sure there's a flat +10 defense trait and a +20 one (trench rat?). Or maybe they had the mountain trait. Hovering over their defense and then the defense of one of their brigades should let you figure it out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
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. Vassals are the unrecognized equivalent of puppets. I think they only pay half as much tribute? Also they'll automatically convert to puppets if their overlord becomes recognized.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
buglord posted:Which mod is this? I think I’m missing something obvious on the steam workshop I think they mean Rapid assmiliation and conversion. It jacks up conversion and assimilation rates by 10x, so any tiny migrant pops should rapidly assimilate away.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
AG3 posted:The impoverished Swedes in Sweden migrating because their SoL was completely wrecked is understandable, but why would Swedes in Norway who were affluent do the same thing at the same time, and to the same place? Especially considering that this nice place where they had nice jobs and good SoL was their homeland. As I understand it mass migrations work at the culture level. There was a lot of turmoil among Swedish culture pops, so all pops with Swedish culture started migrating en masse, including the ones that didn't have significant amounts of radicals. It's working as designed, the design is just wonky. If there was a previous Swedish mass migration to e.g. Michigan then those pops would have started migrating to Norway too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I‘ve not tried this but I assume most of the recommended mods to fix issues disable achievements, which are important for me. Mods don't disable achievements in this game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2022 12:34
|
|
|
Anyone know a workaround/mod for the permanent 0 morale bug? Army not navy. Would deleting the buildings and rebuilding them fix it? Also does anyone know how to get wages to go down? I have massive unemployment. I could probably fix some of it by going to propertied women from suffrage and lowering trade union approval with fake law changes to deactivate solidarity to get my workforce ratio down, I guess. Also I think I found a new bug: Peasants seem to be immune to investment losses. Before I went Council Republic I had aristocrats and clergymen starving at wealth 1 because the subsistence farms they owned had massive losses, because the wages they paid the peasants were far more than the value of the goods they produced, but now that they're worker co-ops I don't think anyone's actually paying? The farms are still running at a loss, but that's ok, the peasants can still pay themselves their full wage. With money they forge themselves, maybe, no idea where else the money would come from. The subsistence farmers are at wealth 19 and positive income, but still at only 16k/400k employed (since they're running at loss, even though no-one's actually paying that, they can't hire more peasants), with a million wealth 5 unemployed people in the state.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:They're laying off other peasants to reach an equilibrium point, but it does sound weird. I've never had a situation where the subsistence farms starting firing people. What's your market look like? I let it run for a couple months and I did see that three peasants were fired one week. That was the only time I spotted that though, steady at 16.1K peasants. Also the equilibrium would pretty clearly be 0, there's no way subsistence farm good production could be enough to pay over 5£ annually to each peasant. It's not like they would possibly significantly affect the price of anything. Bunch of screenshots here e: Though I misremembered, there's only 250k unemployed in Piedmont now. Guess the rest moved somewhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2022 10:11
|
|
|
I think peasants get subsistence output directly though, it's not via the building's budget. When there were aristocrats around I could see the building's deficit listed as investment losses in their (and the clergy's) expenses, and it brought them all the way to wealth level one. (They were still paying it somehow, of course, so money was still being generated, but at least they were starving for it). With co-ops it seems like no-one is paying the building's losses at all. The worker-owners are just paying themselves wages (separate from the subsistence output), putting the losses on the building's tab, which is apparently not paid by anyone. e: It's rather weird that subsistence farmers are paid wages at all. Wasn't the idea that the subsistence farmers paid rent (whether cash, grain, or labor on the landlord's unrented land) in exchange for using the landlord's land to farm for themselves? The owners paying the subsistence farmers is backwards. It would make more sense to buff the subsistence output and lower peasant wage factor to 0 (from 0.2). Staltran fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Nov 19, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2022 12:35
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Sindh is easy to overlook in northern India. Persia also has opium. Fars has both opium and oil, which is nice. Gort posted:Yeah, can recommend conquering Sindh. It gets you lots of good stuff - opium and dye in particular. There're a lot of people working there too, and lots of arable land. I've had the EIC attack me for Sindh once after I conquered it. And that means like 5 fronts, since their puppets neighboring you get your own fronts. It's safe if they've become a British puppet, but they start as a dominion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:To be fair, if you increased damage and hit points/armor by a factor 10, then the result should be that each ironclad can beat up 100x as many wooden ships as it could before. I feel like that would have the desired effect, even if it's very brute force. Like, do you really need anything more for the level that combat happens at in the game? Only if each ironclad can only be fired upon by a single wooden ship at the time
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I feel like the number of ships that should be able to engage another at any one time should be low enough that it would largely hold up anyway. Maybe not 100x, but wooden ships being able to theoretically swarm should be countered by also being weak enough that the iron clad would quickly cause their numerical advantage to dwindle, meaning that a battle that starts out 5-to-1 would average out to closer to a 5-to-2 battle. The usual exponent used for Lanchester's laws is 1.5 I think, which would mean if ironclads had 10x the attack/defense as man of wars the man of wars would need about 21.5:1 numbers to win.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 07:20
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Wouldn't both factors count? A 10x increase in attack would require roughly a 32:1 ratio for the opposing side to win, but so would a 10x increase in defense, according to that law. And multiplying those together would mean a 1000:1 ratio. Anyway, the exact number doesn't really matter as long as a new ship type can take on far greater numbers of ships - whether a 20:1 ratio or a 1000: ratio. Something that'd be easy to do without even considering these kinds of military theories. No the exponent is to quantity, not quality. A 10x increase in attack xor defense would require about 4.64:1 ratio for the wooden ships to win. But yes it would be trivial to just crank up the stats with higher tech units. But that would probably really emphasize how weird production methods work with navies, where a year after you get a tech your entire navy is modernized.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:I've got a general stuck as "busy" despite not being assigned to any tasks, so the game won't let assign him to a front. Any way to unstick him? Unfortunately I previously promoted him so he commands a good chunk of my armed forces. It's about 1905 and the guy is only 58 so he's projected to live until well after the end date. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2886423894&searchtext=
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
quote:When battles start, units are now deprioritized to enter combat if they are injured or demoralized. What this means is that even if you end up with fewer than your full complement of battalions in a particular fight, the rest of them will make use of this short respite to recover for the next one. This is honestly pretty big, I think there's currently a problem that the battalions at the top of a general's list are put into every battle first, so even if you have plenty of full strength units the ones actually fighting might consistently be heavily understrength. Seem like good changes, though nothing earth-shaking.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:guaranteed liberties is even better than secret police because it generates loyalism in addition to reducing radicalism However the -50% political movement radicalism from secret police lets you avoid a lot of revolutions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:"Treaty ports only work if you're a higher rank than the market owner" will solve the game-start issues we've got with Pondicherry, but I don't think it's the best solution possible. It doesn't seem right that if the UK loses great power status then France instantly gets access to their market, or if someone takes a province bordering Pondicherry then France gets access to their market. I'd sooner they fixed whatever craziness forces places like Pondicherry to be treaty ports in the first place. I do recognise that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good, but I hope this isn't the last time this issue is looked at. What do you mean by "whatever craziness forces places like Pondicherry to be treaty ports"?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
I think (one of) the root problem(s) here is that peasants are just weird in this game. Even in 1836, and not just in England but anywhere in the world, peasants will gladly leave their land to work in the factories, where they are paid a high enough wage to have a higher standard of living than in the subsistence farms. This is really ahistorical. Factories shouldn't be able to afford to provide their laborers a higher SOL than subsistence farming until way later in the game, and the process should generally be peasant-unemployed-laborer instead of directly going from peasant to laborer. You should have to force peasants off their land to provide labor for manufacturing. Also capitalist pops, like all pops, have no class consciousness, and are happy to compete with each other for workers by raising wages. And they really need to introduce a way for buildings to lower wages in states with high amounts of unemployed and qualified pops.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2022 04:59
|
|