|
i'm so ready for spreadsheets
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
It really sucks to lose a war as a country with a small coastline and a big colonial empire. Lost a war as Belgium, and Russia demanded a treaty port in Flanders - taking my only European port and cutting me off from my entire overseas market, pretty much forcing me into a war with one of my other neighbors before my whole economy fell apart. To add insult to injury, while I was busy with that war, the treaty port rebelled against Russian control and was quickly beaten down - which removed its treaty port status, leaving it a fully-held Russian province.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2022 07:55
|
|
|
Is there a way to make factories show the market prices for their output goods by default, instead of their local pricing? The new local pricing stuff is cool and all, but the actual market price is going to be more important most of the time
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Relearned how to play this fairly easily, and making war is legit much easier, having rolled the gently caress out of Venezuela as Chile without anyone interfering. I also feel like I've finally learned how to pace myself in regards to expanding construction capacity and running a positive continuously. It's still early, but I'm pretty sure the secret to local resource pricing is to not pay too much attention to it, especially at the start. If you've got more than a couple of states, then don't try to optimize everything by local market price. Instead, focus on using it for unprofitable or barely-profitable industries that you'd usually have to subsidize. It's really tempting to try to min-max the heck out of it and take advantage of it as much as possible, but (as you've already found out) labor supply becomes a limiting factor as you pile more and more industries into the same state, and that's especially true for your most profitable industries that you're going to build up the most. It seems like it's a good idea to spread your resource production around so that multiple states can benefit from the cost reduction, but you sacrifice economy of scale bonuses by doing that, so it very much depends on how widely your resources are spread out and how your labor is distributed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I like that politics are based around a faction system and I appreciate that political mechanics have gone through several changes since 1.0. Even so I don't think this part is anywhere close to good. I have over 100 hours in game but I still struggle to understand the repercussions of my political moves. I can tell that having a faction at -10 or less makes them insurrectionary but I have often provoked revolutions by underestimating the movement to preserve the current law. Quite a few times I have accepted a popular movement to change the law but had to immediately backpedal, causing the popular movement to get furious and sometimes leading to guaranteed civil war. It would be nice if there were some middle ground before two-thirds of my country secedes and fucks up all my production methods. Moreover differentiation between different government types is entirely superficial. Some countries have elections but they do not matter. Even the Xianfeng emperor has to win debates in the public square or his proposed legislation won't pass. Factions care about laws but as far as I can tell they don't care about diplomacy, war, or anything else I can do. Political parties are in the game but I have no idea what they affect. The big thing here is that IG approval ratings aren't just affected by laws, events and budget settings. They're also influenced by how many loyalists and radicals are supporting that interest group. That's why revolutions can sometimes seem to pop out of nowhere. If you propose a law that brings an IG down to -8 or -9, they won't immediately radicalize...but then maybe you go and downsize a few buildings, or some trade routes go inactive and choke your market, or your market leader brings a new country into the CU, and this temporary economic shakeup creates enough radicals to take a couple points off that IG's approval and turn them radical. And since angry IGs both withdraw from the government if they were in it (disrupting your legitimacy) and add their clout to the radicalism level of the political movement (which is also influenced by pop radicalism, so you're taking a double hit here), it's pretty likely that the movement will rapidly snowball into a budding revolution. On the other hand, if you're being pushed just over the line by a temporary economic blip like that, then it's pretty common for the threatened revolution to not erupt into an actual revolution, so you don't necessarily have to back down right away. If you have the right institutions or didn't piss people off too badly, the revolutionary fervor won't grow all that fast. If your economy stabilizes quickly and your SoL is generally trending upwards, it's entirely possible new loyalist growth will bring the IG back up to -9 and abort the revolution before it actually happens. And if you're still able to put together a government with decent legitimacy and good support for the law, you can often pass the law and end the political movement before the revolution actually fires. Of course, if the revolution isn't going to be a complete military or economic disaster for you (and the game helpfully gives you a preview of exactly how big it's likely to be) then you might just want to let it happen. If you defeat a revolution, the IGs that supported it will be forced into "Marginalized" status for a few years, so they'll be helpless to oppose any laws you pass.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
megane posted:The CK2 council DLC had a system where your council would vote on both law changes and other actions (going to war, awarding titles, etc.) and it added a really cool layer of depth. You'd frequently want to give a title to your kid and find that some jerk who pressured you into letting him on the council has decided he hates your guts anyway, and he has also suborned 2 other councilors to block you, so you can't push through the action without tyrrany (or, you know, murder). Why not borrow that? When you try to start a war or something, have the ruling IGs vote with their clout and throw a fit if you go against them. in CK2, if some prick won't let you go to war you can assassinate him and put someone more compliant in his place Rather than letting IGs veto war decisions and other foreign policy moves, I think a more Vicky-style way would be pressuring the player to get involved in particular regions. During the game's era, expansionism and imperialism was heavily driven by popular opinion - not only were there various political movements pushing for the country to involve itself in foreign areas one way or another, but there were also plenty of cases of civilians, companies, and rogue officials just going off to conquer poo poo on their own and then inviting the mother country in anyway. Neither one is very well represented here; nationalism is just a tech choice that gives you some new country formation options, rather than giving you increasingly violent irredentists to deal with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
A Renaissance Nerd posted:So it's just about using that deficit to build your GDP, and by building your GDP you build a credit limit as fast as or faster than your debt grows? Building your GDP also results in more tax income. Those new buildings you make will put more money in the hands of your pops and more profits in the hands of your buildings, both of which leads to more money for you. Once you understand how to get your economy going, the increased income from your newly-industrialized economy will more than pay for the piled up interest and can even pull you back into the green. You will eventually want to slow down your building a bit and let the accumulated debt clear away, of course. But since industrialization starts off so slow and then snowballs so hard later, it's usually worth it to get that ball rolling as soon as possible, even if it means digging yourself pretty deep into debt to do so. That's especially true for European countries, which tend to have low interest rates and plenty of labor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
Good Dumplings posted:I think I need 'a little' and 'eventually' defined in numbers, since what usually happens when I try deficit spending instead of maintaining break-even income is: If you hover over the budget number at the top or the expenses number in your budget screen, you'll see a line labeled "Balance (excluding Temporary Income and Expenses)". Keep that value above 0. Construction expenses count as temporary expenses, but interest doesn't, so that value shows what your net income would be if you hit "Pause Construction". So as long as that number is positive, you can bring your income back into the positives just by pausing all construction, and you'll eventually be able to pay off your debt like that (as long as you don't get into an inconveniently-timed war, anyway). If that value goes negative, then you're in trouble, because even stopping construction won't put you back in the green, and you'll have to take more drastic measures like raising taxes, cutting government spending, or bullying money out of your neighbors. If all of that doesn't get you back into the green, then your fate is basically out of your hands.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 05:44
|
|
|
The new military stuff is great in general, except for two things: 1. There's a lot of states an army can be in where you can't really mess with it, but the UI doesn't consistently tell you that. Sometimes it'll let you click the buttons and the buttons just don't do anything. The biggest one is if you try to transfer units to an army that's busy, sometimes it'll just transfer the units to a whole new army instead (and not tell you) 2. Fleets repair way too fast right now. Opposed naval invasions take years now. You have to win 4-5 land battles in a row to actually win the naval invasion, but your troops can't start one of those battles while there's hostile ships around. So your ships have to drive off the enemy ships first, then launch the ground attack. But in the time it takes for your ground troops to finish one battle, the enemy fleet will fully repair and come back for more, and they won't actually engage until your ground troops finish the first land battle and are ready to start the second. So you'll have also have to do three naval battles between each land battle. It ends up taking a minimum of about 20 battles just to get your troops' feet planted solidly on the ground. I guess if you're the Royal Navy you could put several fleets around your invasion fleet just to defend it from the enemy, but that feels extravagant for most other navies. FPyat posted:I have maybe 25-30 export routes going and I'm only two-thirds of the way there. Most of the routes stay stuck at 5 units. You have to drive down the price of coffee in your market, that'll increase how much each trade route exports.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
Dr. Clockwork posted:I'm probably missing some basic wisdom on this, but the upgrade for Rail Transportation in mines is all red numbers. Is it secretly GOOD to lay off thousands of laborers and tank Weekly Balance by $10k? Not right away, no, but it's usually good later. Production method upgrades (especially the green ones) are tradeoffs. Rather than being clearly better, they allow you to better adapt to different situations. Generally, you shouldn't turn them on right away - instead, wait for when they're clearly a good option that helps you out. The Rail Transportation upgrade gives you the option to replace part of your labor force with Transportation. There's various reasons you might want to do that. For example:
The same goes for the other green PMs, like Steam Donkeys or Harvesting Tools, except that they consume more important industrial resources (such as Coal or Tools) so they tend to be more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:I mean, OK, but that's very unintuitive - I set up an agitator to enact a presidential republic, faced a revolution to stop this, I defeated that revolution and put the landowners back in their place (as a landowner-run autocratic government... I think that's where the biggest disconnect happens, when you don't want to actually enable your party in charge or want to tear it down in practice but necessarily all your actions are "filtered" through them so to speak since that's the government you start with), they utterly lost and conceded everything, the law passed - so I would expect to enact a presidential republic like the game "promised" me to, not that the game would still leave the old guard in charge as a dictatorship, especially since they utterly lost their chance at stopping this on the field of battle. I would've expected that defeating the rebellion and passing the law would put Mazzini in charge as president of the new republic Couldn't you just have reformed the government after the civil war? The parties on the losing end of a civil war get a -100% modifier to clout, which slowly ticks back to 0% over the next few years, giving you an opportunity to suppress them and pass a couple of laws they hate. Legitimacy is still going to suck, because the other parties aren't going to get a clout bonus, but that's just the price you pay for violently seizing power in a revolution. You do need at least 25 Legitimacy to pass any laws at all, though, and it sounds like the Intelligentsia weren't quite ready to be put in charge. Put the biggest IG or two on the winning side in control and do everything you can to weaken the IGs you don't like before their clout can recover. Yeah, that'll probably be the church and rural folks, but it sounds like the Intelligentsia are still pretty small in your game. The church and rural IGs should let you pass plenty of laws to weaken the Landowners. Once you've cleared out all the Landowners' beloved regressive laws and can start really cranking up the education and industrialization, the church and rural folks should naturally weaken over time, allowing you to pass power over to the Intelligentsia.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 20:34
|
|
I think it should be clearer that enacting a republic will not, in fact, enact a republic, and that's pretty bad - especially since presidential republic doesn't hard-lock autocracy out, it's parliamentary republic that does that, or so it looks like. I think there is too much of a disconnect between the current government "you" represent as the spirit of the nation, when you actually do want to change your government and laws.
I'd have been perfectly fine with landed voting or wealth voting, I did all this to empower the intelligentsia not the dirt farmers
|
Bremen posted:New player here, but I was coming to the thread for help but it seems like I might be having the same problem? Except mine is with a literal goldmine. I think it's just a bug, the job satisfaction system is new and still needs some tweaking. I had exactly the same problem in my Japan run. I think the best way to handle it in general right now is to just wait for it to resolve on its own, as the problem will naturally clear up as your population grows and becomes more educated. Still sucks for situations like Hokkaido where it's a low-pop state with gold mines in a country where internal migration is banned, especially since Japan could really use those gold mines right at the start. I tried forcing the peasants off the farms with enclosure and it worked horribly. All those extra farming buildings pushed Hokkaido well over its infrastructure limit and tanked its market access. Building infrastructure buildings to try to resolve that just meant the island's entire population was busy working at infrastructure buildings instead of gold mines. The island's population is just too low to try anything with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and any small population state were major problems before the patch because of migration attraction and the fact that you can't really effectively move people into states. The only way I see this getting fixed isn't to go at this from a job satisfaction angle, but instead at fixing the small state death spiral that makes it impossible to build up these areas in the first place. A state edict that actually allows you to settle these places instead of relying on immigration attraction would be a huge boon. The problem with Hokkaido specifically (and anywhere else you colonize as Japan) is that laws don't distinguish between migration within a country and migration between countries. If you have the Closed Borders law, then not only does that prevent foreign immigration, but it also prevents your population from moving from state to state. Migration attraction doesn't matter, because all your citizens are legally prohibited from moving. So you're stuck with just Hokkaido's original population and natural population growth until you manage to change your migration law, which is slow going as Japan.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:What do you guys do as a small country when you've built all you can and there's no one left to employ? Delete construction sectors and put them to work elsewhere? Then tech to steel buildings once you need to ramp up construction again? If you have a decently progressive society, decent SoL, and open borders, you'll get plenty of migrants to staff up those buildings, especially if you're in a customs union. In this case, keep on building. Having plenty of employment available will help increase your migration attraction, and you can go from "I don't have enough workers for these buildings" to "I can't build fast enough to provide employment for all these workers" surprisingly quickly. If your laws are regressive, your SoL sucks, or your borders are closed, then you probably want to demolish some buildings and build some other buildings to increase profits or change your pops' professions (and therefore their IG support). Building a massive military and doing some imperialism is always a viable option when you're rich, of course. Puppet some countries to force them into your customs union and let their population migrate to you, or conquer and exploit some territory directly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Teriyaki Koinku posted:I'm still working my way through the tutorial and got a pop-up saying Industrialists want me to enact free trade or they will radicalize over time. In a game covering the Industrial Revolution, you are going to have radicals and upset political factions, and avoiding that isn't reasonable. It's just a matter of who you piss off, how much you piss them off, and when you piss them off. You're pretty much always going to have at least one group annoyed at you unless you're super rich and prosperous, and a big part of the political gameplay is how you balance and manage that discontent. From a CK perspective, think of the interest groups as dukes who can't ever be assassinated. You want to keep them generally happy, but sometimes you're going to have to piss them off to do what needs to get done. And sometimes they'll rebel and you'll have to smack them down, and sometimes you want them to rebel (if you think you can take them) so that you can weaken them. Though civil war is a lot more damaging here than it is in CK, and also slightly harder to cheese. As a general rule of thumb, the Landowners are going to spend the early game as that really annoying ambitious megaduke who owns half the country, the one you badly need to weaken but can't afford to directly pick a fight with. They generally start off politically dominant in most countries, but they love really regressive and lovely laws that substantially weaken your country but boost their own political power. You want to get rid of those laws, but getting rid of those laws pisses them off. So you want to carefully weaken them while keeping them happy enough that they won't rebel until you've sufficiently weakened them. One thing that isn't like CK is that your ruler doesn't represent you, and it makes absolutely no gameplay difference to you if your ruler's whole family dies out. The only impact of a ruler dying is that your new ruler will have different politics and different traits, which can have a varying impact on your political options depending on your current laws. Teriyaki Koinku posted:Could I hypothetically set up a dictatorship of the proletariat while telling the bourgeoisie to pound sand? Would that crash my economy and/or set me up to lose a civil war? You can later in the game, when you've unlocked the right techs. However, most of the interest groups that it'll weaken will also HATE it quite a bit, and will likely start a civil war over it. Whether you win or lose that civil war is mostly up to how much you've weakened those groups before that. Again, think of the interest groups as dukes you can't assassinate. In CK games, you might be able to pass laws that weaken your vassals, but you'll need the vassals' approval to do so, so first you either need to win your vassals' favor or be ready to fight the ones who don't approve. Laws in Vic3 are more complicated, but at a conceptual level it's basically the same thing: you need the approval of your constituents to pass laws, and if you try to force things through without sufficient approval, the ones who don't approve will cause trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:I’m playing as Chile who has expanded to take over most of Argentina and Peru. I’ve got maybe 10K peasants total across my entire nation, and everything else is empty mines and factories, but apparently neither Britain nor France are willing to produce enough of anything to support my economy at all. My basic goods are running at -50% and it’s still not enough to get good SOLs. I have every non-late-game worker-reduction tech up and running, my rails are fully subsidized, and I still can’t get people into a Steel factory. If people aren't in mines and they aren't in factories, then where are they? Farms and plantations? If so, you probably need to deconstruct some of your excess agricultural production, and the newly-unemployed peasants will go to your mines. An easy solution to industrialization for a small unpopulated country is to get into someone else's large customs union. Their market will provide seemingly endless demand to buy up all those basic goods you produce, while you'll have access to all the agricultural and manufactured goods the rest of the market produces, which means you'll have plenty of money and can afford to deconstruct some buildings and focus your construction on whatever the market has particularly high demand for. On top of that, you don't have to micromanage trade routes that way. Dr. Clockwork posted:Should you always fire up the labor replacement PMs like steam donkey etc so those laborers try and find better jobs or is this a state-by-state assessment to avoid mass unemployment? Seems like whenever I click those over the business tanks in productivity immediately. No. Those labor replacement PMs are usually complete garbage when you first unlock them, especially if your nation has been slow to industrialize. Turning them on too early will not only tank your country's productivity, but also create a bunch of radicals and increase the strength of your Aristocrats and Capitalists. You should only turn them on when you have a specific reason to do so. Usually, I do it when one of three things is true: 1. The state is running low on labor and I desperately need to free up some workers for other buildings 2. I want to reduce the number of laborers in my country, either to drive people to professions with higher average wages or to reduce the power of the Trade Unions 3. The input good for that PM is really cheap, to the point where either: 3a. the PM is cheaper than the workers' wages, or 3b. I want to increase demand for that input good
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2023 03:30
|
|
|
alcaras posted:Enjoying 1.5 so far -- have been trying USA as a place to relearn the game since I haven't played since 1.0. "How much construction to build" doesn't have an easy answer, it's something you've gotta work out by feel. If you overdo it, you can easily downgrade or deconstruct some construction, so it's not a big deal as long as you do it before you bury yourself in an inescapable debt spiral. Keep an eye on the budget tooltip's "Balance without temporary expenses" line, as that's what your income would be if your construction isn't running. As long as that number is positive, you can get yourself back in the green solely by pausing construction; if it's negative, then you'll have to take more drastic measures to dig yourself out of debt, and that's dangerous. In general, swap to PMs when they're more profitable. The tooltip that tells you the impact of a PM change on a building's profit is pretty accurate now, at least as long as the building is generally functional and mostly or completely staffed (the estimate becomes totally unreliable if the building is deeply unprofitable and has few/no workers). If the tooltip says the PM swap will increase profits, it's usually safe to go for it without thinking twice. Also, if you want to adjust production or consumption of a particular good or resource, it's sometimes worth changing the PM even if it decreases the building's profitability, as long as you don't drive the building into the red. Think of everything in terms of its whole impact on your overall economy. The best way to militarily expand is to have more soldiers and boats than your likely foes, preferably with at least equivalent tech levels or better, and with a militarily powerful ally who likes you and is willing to join all your wars without too much in return. Add a lot of artillery to your armies (but not so much that it makes up more than 50% of the army), and add a lot of heavy ships to your navies (but not so much that it makes up more than 50% of the navy). Other than that, you don't really need to sweat the details. I'd recommend not relying too heavily on naval invasions right now since they're kinda crappy in 1.5, but I'm sure that'll be adjusted within a month or two. Tech-wise, prioritize what's useful for you right now, followed by what you expect to be useful in the future. Keep in mind that a lot of laws are gated behind tech too, so check those and plan ahead, so you don't finally get the IGs you want in government only to find that you still can't pass the law. With the new local pricing stuff, there's not much point trying to concentrate industry early on, and it's probably better to spread it around a bit at first. There's basically no diplo-annexing in Vic3 outside of special cases, but subjects are actually pretty useful in Vic3. And if you'd still prefer to annex, going to war to annex a subject incurs a lot less infamy than directly conquering the states. Vizuyos fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Nov 25, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2023 07:11
|
|
|
War Reparations doesn't require occupying the enemy capital - you just have to occupy any of their territory at all. The more the better, of course, but even just occupying some lovely outlying island is enough to get that warscore ticking below 0. According to the wiki, the only wargoals that require occupying the capital specifically are Humiliation, Cut Down To Size, and the ones that change the target's laws. However, occupying the enemy capital can enable warscore to fall below zero even if you haven't fulfilled the specific objectives of your actual warscore. Vengarr posted:So if a recently-conquered state declares secession, your only possible response is to fight another war? That’s insane. My guys are sailing home just to naval invade them again. Yep, colonial policing is tough, especially if your government is openly racist against the colony's population. You're just gonna have to deal with that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Vengarr posted:Yeah, that's fine, except I had 30 battalions headquartered there and now I have to re-invade. Just conquer their neighbor too, so when one of the two rebels your soldiers can just stroll over to the other one and start the war from there. I doubt winning the war will reduce turmoil, but there's probably a cooldown period before they can pop another secession. Should give you time to turn on emergency relief and build a few things. Even if discrimination is a major contributor to turmoil, raising SoL should be able to bring turmoil down enough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
alcaras posted:More noob questions: 1. Yeah, I think so 2. Nope, be careful with that peace screen 5. Electrify what needs electrifying. You probably don't need to electrify everywhere right away, focus on the industries and states that'll gain the most from it 6. I use auto-expand on railways, and also on my most profitable buildings that are basically guaranteed to keep pulling in the big bucks no matter how big they get 7. No, but it's pretty quick to skim the Buildings screen and look for anything that doesn't match the PMs you have set everywhere else. Dr. Clockwork posted:Love when my army refuses to walk through the territory of my puppet to go to war and just has to sit landlocked twiddling their thumbs during a major war. What the gently caress is this? You can't send troops through anyone's territory unless they actually joined the war. If they're not in the war, they're neutral, and neutrals don't let belligerents send troops through their land. Only the less-autonomous subject types (like puppets or vassals) will automatically join your wars. The more autonomous ones, like dominions, won't automatically cooperate with your military matters, so you have to sway them into the diplomatic play like anyone else. If you want them to be guaranteed to join your war (and therefore let you invade through them), you have to make them a puppet or vassal. Colonial countries are dominions, who are militarily independent. You can always drive down relations and use Violate Sovereignty.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Dr. Clockwork posted:Is it common for them to drop run-killing “hotfixes”? I will never financially recover from the amount of radios they added to my military I haven't tried out the new patch yet, but can't you just downgrade your troops to a level that doesn't require radios? Granted, it's a bit annoying on the UI side since there's no downgrade button (unless they added one), so you'll have to deconstruct the higher-tier troops and rebuild them as lower-tier troops, but barracks build fast The biggest impact on me is probably gonna be the re-enabling of convoy raiding since it means I'll actually have to care about large enemy navies again, but I can't really blame them for me cheesing the fact that it was so broken they had to disable it. Just hope the newly updated version isn't a miserable micromanaging hell to deal with
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
alcaras posted:What's the TL;DR on Naval Orders? Hover over the order names and it'll tell you what they do. IIRC, Coordinated Interception reduces the chance of intercepting an enemy fleet but gives in-battle bonuses once the interception happens. I've never seen Aggressive Interception but I imagine it's probably the opposite. Convoy raiding can majorly cut down on market access and supply network efficiency for the raided convoy routes. How bad this is depends on how much you depend on ocean-going supply. If the AI raids a sea node near your capital, it could potentially interrupt supply to every single state you have that isn't connected to your market by land, causing your economy in those states to grind to a halt. This can also cut you off from the rest of your customs union as well as any trade routes you might have, potentially wrecking your whole economy. And if you've got soldiers fighting someplace that doesn't have a direct land connection to your territory, convoy raiding can interrupt the flow of supplies to them, inflicting severe debuffs in combat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
alcaras posted:Unrelatedly, I've been fighting non-stop (do GPs jump in more when you have Infamy above 25 or above 50? had to fight off Austria and Russia both to keep protectorating South America)... and have neglected to develop much more my interior. Notably lots of states are in Turmoil from Radicals, which I guess is from not building buildings / raising SoL? Yeah, higher infamy makes other countries more likely to intervene against you. Your turmoil mostly looks like it's from pops being poorer than they want to be, yeah. They're not being paid enough. Forcing your literacy too high too early can definitely be a mistake, but I think this level is probably manageable. 13 SoL for the lower strata is certainly a bit on the high side, but I imagine the US should probably be capable of that level of industrial output by 1893. There's no SoL historical data, but it doesn't look like it's growing at all - not only do you have a bunch of radicals, but you have virtually no loyalists, so your other stratas aren't seeing much SoL growth either. Here's some things you can do about your SoL problems:
As for New York specifically, it's worth remembering that whenever you're trying to nail down mystery turmoil in a particular state, you can go to the state's Population tab and look at the full pop breakdown to see exactly which workers aren't getting paid enough, as well as which building they're working at. The first thing I see here is that a substantial portion of the state's population is directly employed in buildings that are owned by the government and produce no profit. 100 Barracks, 40 Naval Base, 43 Government Administration, 17 Construction, and probably some Ports and Universities too. You've probably got half a million people on the government's payroll there. If you increase government and military wages, you will probably see an immediate jump in pop happiness (and loyalists) from all those clerks and servicemen getting raises. The next thing that jumps to mind is services are very expensive there. Have you looked at whether changing the Urban Center's PMs might improve service availability while still keeping things reasonably profitable? Another thing I see is that you've got a lot of buildings on auto-expand, including poorly-profitable or unprofitable ones, despite the fact that you're out of labor there and still have millions of peasants elsewhere in the country. You should probably give that a once-over and focus on expanding the profitable buildings, while making sure you spend more of your construction on the other states that still need to be built up. You're out of labor in New York, so if you can upgrade production methods there without making those buildings unprofitable, now might be a good time to start looking at doing so. That especially goes for the automation and transportation PMs that just reduce the number of laborers. Just make sure to build a few extra levels of your most profitable buildings first so your newly-unemployed laborers will be able to get new jobs immediately. Laborers are one of the worst-paid pops, so reducing the number of laborers per building level will help drive your overall SoL up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
By the time you have enough tech and industry for there to be any point in changing production methods, the impact of local prices is too small to have a meaningful impact on which production method you should use anyway
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:Switching to power and transportation are the two big ones because those goods are purely local, but even the transition from iron to steel construction sometimes needs to be micro'd. Same with the PMs that use more tools or more coal etc That's only really true if you're not actually producing enough iron or tools or coal or whatever to feed the new production method. And I like the option to be able to transition partially rather than entirely. It's pretty easy to handle, since the economic system is simple - just look at how much production surplus you have, and then look at how much your buildings consume per level, and switch over the appropriate number of building levels to consume that much. VostokProgram posted:Well it's also bizarre that this mechanic just gets eroded into nothingness when you have high enough MAPI. It's because it's fun to have plenty of micromanagement early in a production game when you have few things to manage, but micromanagement becomes undesirable later in the game when you have a lot of things to manage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:On one hand, I think it's fine that parts of this stuff are opaque. This game is about indirect control and some of the information should not be readily available. But it's hard to process what radicals want and I understand the game doesn't track it. Doesn't matter why you became radical, and you can shift your priorities once you're radical as long as you're mad. It's much more about presenting information and here Vic3 is similar to CK3 in my perception. Both of these games pretend to be about maps but maps poorly present what happens and what's important. Parts of your countries that join the revolution are likely to be unhappy in general. You have unrest icons on the map but it's not enough for me at least to feel like I understand what's happening in the country. Radicals want the same things anyone else wants: better SoL and more attention toward their interest group's political priorities. It's just that they're pissed-off and discontent, and have lost faith in the system to provide those things, and are therefore much more willing to work outside the system by joining pretty much any revolutionary movement that doesn't outright repulse them. The game tends to present "loyalists" and "radicals" as different groups, but it's really just a happiness system - happy pops are loyalists and unhappy pops are radicals. Outside of events and conquest, there's three major factors that cause radicals: poor or falling SoL, discrimination, and various aspects of the political system (such as low legitimacy, failing to meet the demands of political movements, or reshuffling the government too much). Laws, institutions, and tax levels can also affect how many radicals you get from those things. As such, getting rid of radicals is pretty straightforward, although not always easy to do quickly. Improve your citizenship laws, reduce poverty and unemployment in the affected provinces, carry out the political conditions that make people happy (high legitimacy, being responsive to political movements, etc), and do things like lowering taxes and changing institutions to reduce your +radicals modifier and increase your +loyalists modifier.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
IAmThatIs posted:Is there a way to get an army on a front to not attack? I was doing colonial shenanigans vs Netherlands as Belgium. I had a slightly weaker force deployed on the home front to hold the line, but every time the attacker bar would fill up my guys would be attacking??? Even when it was the Dutch bar that filled up. right-click on each of the generals in that army and tell them to Defend
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I see what you're saying but many of those, like Gort is saying, take too long and dont have a direct impact. I am talking about "there is turmoil in a state, I want to interact with it. Why is there turmoil and what can I directly do to fix it?". As in, I want to be able to see a cause listed and options to fix it so I can better the lives of my people. Its just how I expect to be able to handle a situation in a videogame; I realize my expectations and desires may not be realistic for how this game handles it. Start building in Baluchistan. Bunches of profitable buildings that pay solid wages. Drop the unemployment rate by a couple points and raise the state's overall SoL a bit, and most of the radicals will disappear. That's the way to get rid of radicals: bread and circuses. All the stuff that says it helps with turmoil, like police institutions and the Violent Suppression edict? Those do nothing to actually get rid of turmoil - all they do is reduce the negative effects of turmoil. Which can be helpful, but turmoil won't go away just because of that. If you want to actually get rid of the turmoil, you'd be better off spending that Authority on the welfare-boosting edict (which seems to do something even when you don't have welfare institutions yet, btw). That said, reducing the effects of turmoil is valuable as a short-term measure, since turmoil slows down construction and thus makes it harder to do the economic development that's needed to get rid of the turmoil. I'd use Violent Suppression when I'm actively building in the province, and Emergency Relief when I'm not. As for seeing why pops are radical, just look at the pops screen in that state. Each pop will have the number of radicals in that pop listed, and while it doesn't tell you the specific reason, it shouldn't take long to see trends in what kinds of people are making up most of your radicals. Though I don't usually bother with this anymore - in my experience, the number one source of radicals is always "unemployed people and broke subsistence farmers", and the number two source is "people working in the shittiest farms with the worst wages". Even if they have other complaints (like discrimination or political movement demands) standard of living has a large enough impact that it tends to override everything else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2024 03:49
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:They literally walked up to my desk one day and asked if I could recommend trains for an art pack, and of course I've had a Train Matrix sorted by country and historical period prepared for just such an occasion. surprised they didn't require everyone to have a Train Matrix as a condition for even being on the Vicky 3 team
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
burnishedfume posted:ty for the confirmation that I didn't miss some fun disaster event in Portugal in my game! Getting access to a big market early on can speed up your building and industrialization a lot, particularly in those crucial early years. Getting that ball rolling early can be a big advantage. The biggest disadvantage is that if the market leader's convoys are getting raided, everyone else in the customs union is cut off from the market, since all market traffic passes through the market leader's capital. If your market leader gets caught in a nasty hellwar that drags on for a while without a clear resolution, you can lose access to basically all goods for the duration, wrecking your economy. There are a couple of other potential issues that can crop up, depending on the balance between your economy and laws and those of the market leader, but they're much less of a big deal than that. As a result, I'll usually aim to leave the customs union after a while, but that's usually tricky because first you have to build up production capacity for all the stuff you were relying on the larger market for, or cut demand for what you can't reliably source on your own.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
Ideally, the game systems should allow you other options for handling surpluses of goods, and the problem is that those systems aren't really quite there yet. For example, trade and markets. Instead of perfectly balancing your hardwood production, you should be able to either produce more than you need and export the excess, or produce less than you need and import the rest. But in practice, it's hard to rely on trade for many goods, because the AI doesn't export some goods in sufficient quantities, and doesn't tend to rely on imports from outside its own market if it can help it. All the foreign investment stuff coming with Sphere of Influence might change that, but it's hard to say how much small and poor countries (who tend to be worst-affected by these issues) will be able to make use of that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Does the game offer more to differentiate gameplay between nations, especially late game? Late game it feels like your country is just a blob of GDP which increasingly trends towards population. I had a game where due to resources I was 3rd place from sheer resource availability fueling my industry but gradually and then very quickly fell off as other people got techs. Not sure which country you were, but generally you were supposed to spend that 3rd-place time beating the crap out of your potential rivals and stealing anything valuable from them before they could catch up to you in industrialization.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
elbkaida posted:I'm playing Peru-Bolivia (minor power) and have Argentina (also minor power) in a customs union with me. Should I have the 'make protectorate' play available? I tried that and they yielded before going to war and nothing happened. From the tooltip I'm guessing since they are also minor power I can't make them a protectorate? Yeah, a minor power can't make another minor power into a subject. It shouldn't even give you the option to try. In order to make a country into a subject, it has to be a lower rank than you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Poil posted:I'm probably doing that wrong as well because I'm drowning in authority despite liberally liberalizing. As a general rule of thumb, conservative and authoritarian laws concerning your governmental system will tend to give you more authority, while liberal and democratic laws tend to give less. For example: An Autocratic Monarchy with State Religion, Ethnostate, and Outlawed Dissent will get +200 Authority for each of those five laws, for a total of +1000 Authority A Presidential Republic with Landed Voting, Racial Segregation, Freedom of Conscience, and Censorship will get +100 Authority for each of those five laws, for a total of +500 Authority A Council Republic with Universal Suffrage, Multiculturalism, Total Separation of church and state, and Protected Speech will get +0 Authority from each of those five laws, for a total of +0 Authority So you'll tend to start the game with a lot of Authority, which will decrease over time as you liberalize your political system to take power away from the old entrenched interests and give your populace more of a say in politics. Poil posted:I also built a rubber plantation in my African colony, and discovered that there is no demand for it anywhere in Sweden. Good thing I'm not actually the supreme monarch of a nation. There's usually not much use for rubber when you first start getting it, but it's used for a lot of later-game techs, so it's good to secure a supply of it when you can.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:Rubber 'spread' (actually reveal) is by event in states containing or bordering available plantations, no? So getting enough mtths churning to feed your demand is important if some of those aren't march states. No - the state owner just has to have the right tech to find the rubber, they don't need to actually build any plantations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2024 03:37
|
|
|
Poil posted:Is building construction sectors a trap? Without any you get 10 but as soon as you build one you end up with HALVED construction so it takes 5+ years to build even "quick" buildings. You'd have to go from 0 to at least 5 instantly and that's ruinously expensive in materials and wages. Unless something substantially changed in the month or so since I last played, you don't lose your initial base construction when you build some of your own. Without any construction sectors, you get 10 construction. With one construction sector, you should get 10 construction plus the output of one construction sector. If your construction is slowing down, it's likely because of unrest or something along those lines tanking your construction efficiency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Your private construction queue starts to take their share after you've built a construction sector, especially in the early game they will often build a load of useless farms you don't really need especially when you might want to get crucial industries such as paper and tooling online. So you're basically giving up a significant percentage of your total construction pool when you build that first construction sector If you're struggling with the costs of keeping a couple of wooden building construction sectors running, then it's probably too early to be spending either money or wood on paper production. There's not much use for paper early on, except for rushing universities, which can be powerful but is also very expensive, especially for a poor agrarian country with no industry and no construction. And if you generate demand for tools by building more mines, the private construction may start building tooling factories. It builds what your market needs now, not what your market is likely to need in the future according to your expansion plans, so it's often worthwhile to just build the demand first rather than worrying about securing the supply first.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
FalloutGod posted:What is the trick with small nations? I feel like I barely do anything for the first 40 years and that can't be "correct". Is it just about conquering all the nations with out standing armies on the map to grow the GDP with peasants? Depends a lot on how small a country it is and what part of the globe you're in, but the early game for anyone that doesn't start rich and highly populated does tend to involve a fair amount of "conquering pretty much anyone you think you can take, in order to secure population, resources, and money for your eventual industrialization".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:For whatever reason Paradox seems convinced that manually checking and establishing trade routes is riveting gameplay. I'd much prefer it if you could just tell the AI to use up to a certain amount or percentage of convoys (so you can theoretically have a strategic reserve of them / a buffer in case of war) and it automatically creates trade routes. Maybe some laws allow you to prohibit certain exports or imports and tie the opium wars into that, and then allow you to use bureaucracy to force certain trade routes like the system currently works in case you want to import a certain good even if it's not sufficiently profitable for your trade centre's shopkeepers to do it themselves. Trade has a big impact on prices in your internal market, though. Which specific countries you trade with for which goods can also matter quite a bit. Unlike most other games, trade isn't just a pure profit thing in Vic3. It's another lever for the player to adjust things in the economic and political simulation. I typically use trade first and foremost to adjust internal market prices, importing goods that are too expensive and exporting goods that are too cheap. While these trades are often profitable, that's a side benefit for me. If anything, the improvement I'd want from the UI for trade is for the market pricing to show clearly how much of a good is being traded, so that I don't have to go into the trade screen or the detailed information for that good to check how much leeway I have to adjust its price by tweaking the trades.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:09 |
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I agree that trade has a big impact but the current system isn't really "fun" or even feels natural or an economics simulation in any way. The differences between protectionism and free trade are fairly negligible. Why bother setting the import and export tariffs on a per-good basis, if trade is established by the state? Sure, it can disincentivize AI countries' trade routes to some extent but it has barely come up or mattered in my games so far. Just get free trade ASAP. Game the corn laws journal entry if you need to. The import and export tariffs impact how much of those goods you're importing/exporting, by making the import/export price different from the internal market price. IMO, the main use of this is to adjust the size of trade routes without having to cancel them outright, since the price difference between your import/export price and the other country's export/import price impacts how much trade actually goes along that route. You determine who you trade with and what goods you trade (AI trade aside), but the actual size of the trade route is determined by pricing, and tariffs modify the prices used for that. That's why it can be useful to force another country into free trade, for instance. Tariffs give countries a bit of ability to protect their internal production by imposing pricing penalties on trade, making it a bit more difficult for it to beat internal production on price. You're right that you never really have to bother with any of this, of course. It's a complaint that I've had before. Trade as it currently exists is pretty underutilized ingame, largely because of the way the economic situation is tuned and the way the AI tends to interact with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2024 17:55
|
|