Grand Strategy Victoria 3

[HeroMarine]

 

[LizardWizard]

actually, at least back in my day, alpha was for features and beta was for bugfixes. it's a barely working alpha according to the modifications they're planning.

V3 is practically the same game from the leak aside from bankrolling (useless feature) and a modified trade system. Trade system which is somehow weirdly worse since there seems to be no cap on trade level aside from convoys. Realizing I made huge mistake when making a trade agreement with Prussia as Ned as they steal 2k liquor from my pops when I had a surplus 900.

 

[thesheeep]

since there seems to be no cap on trade level aside from convoys. Realizing I made huge mistake when making a trade agreement with Prussia as Ned as they steal 2k liquor from my pops when I had a surplus 900.

You cured alcoholism by making Prussians alcoholics!

 

[Heroic Liberator]

You cured alcoholism by making Prussians alcoholics Bavarians!

Fixed that for you,

 

[Tyrr]

 

[thesheeep]

I think we have found the root of HeroMarine 's anger

It's not your fault, mate.
Some of us are just born into the worst shitholes and struggle all our lives to escape that legacy.

 

[Scarcity]

I think we have found the root of HeroMarine 's anger

It's not your fault, mate.
Some of us are just born into the worst shitholes and struggle all our lives to escape that legacy.

Location Tampere,Finland

At least Brazil isn't run by a whore.

Spoiler

yet

 

[darkpatriot]

I ended the Mexico-Texas war at the beginning of the game ONE WEEK into the first engagement because I caught Santa Ana.

That was how the real war ended. Sounds like they added that event to make Texas winning that war more likely. Winning the war as Texas was a bit tricky in Vic2 due to how the actual history, the leader of Mexico being captured by Texas, couldn't happen in Victoria 2's mechanics.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto

 

[HeroMarine]

I think we have found the root of HeroMarine 's anger

It's not your fault, mate.
Some of us are just born into the worst shitholes and struggle all our lives to escape that legacy.

Location Tampere,Finland

At least Brazil isn't run by a whore.

I think he was referring to my ratings on others shitting on Bavaria.

 

[HeroMarine]

I ended the Mexico-Texas war at the beginning of the game ONE WEEK into the first engagement because I caught Santa Ana.

That was how the real war ended. Sounds like they added that event to make Texas winning that war more likely. Winning the war as Texas was a bit tricky in Vic2 due to how the actual history, the leader of Mexico being captured by Texas, couldn't happen in Victoria 2's mechanics.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto

Remember the Alamo.

 

[Space Satan]

• Today at 07:51

• Add bookmark
• #1

- Reduced the number of monthly radicals from political movements to enact and restore

- Reduced the number of pops in the mid- to late-game by merging very small pops back into the general population
- Reduced the number of pops in the mid- to late-game by forcing unemployed pops to switch profession when sufficiently poor
- Improved performance of updating trends for political movements
- Improved performance of enumerating Liberation war goals

- Increased AI tendency to stick by its allies and subjects in conflicts
- Fixed AI acceptance for 'powerful protectors' factor to appear in virtually any alliance/customs union
- Fixed AI confidence and peace desire from gold reserves not being capped to 100% reserves
- Fixed AI incorrectly calculating how much an ongoing war or diplomatic play should add to their neutrality, making them abandon allies due to involvement in small conflicts
- Fixed AI involvement in a diplomatic play shown as an empty string in their neutrality calculation

- Fixed settings (such as in-game language) not being saved correctly when path contains non-latin characters
- Properly fixed flotillas not recovering morale
- Fixes "Pass a Law that enables an Institution" tutorial challenge being impossible to complete or writing to the error log under certain circumstances
- Fixed issue where a placated Political Movement might still trigger a revolution
- Fixed issue with American Territory Achievement using an incorrect trigger
- Fixed issue with not being able to get Berlin Conference Achievement.
- Star Swarmed Banner no longer requires exactly 100 states exactly to get the achievement, but rather 100 or more
- Fixed issue with placeholder image being used for flamethrower event modifiers
- Fixed CTD in CPdxTerrain::CreateEffect
- Fixed CTD in CWarGoal::IsAdjacent
- Fixed CTD in CBuildingType destructor

 

[darkpatriot]

What is the best way to determine what political reforms (or other actions) your radicals actually want to better determine what reforms you can pass to decrease radicalism? On a per state or per entire country basis is fine.

Right now the best I can tell is seeing what reforms the interest groups with the largest number of radicals want, but I don't think that is always a good 1 to 1 mapping. The change in radicals from last year is helpful for seeing if a desire for political reform is creating radicals, but it doesn't identify what reforms they want, or what reforms would be able to please radicals who became radical for other reasons.

Some way to see X number of Radicals want X reform and would be satisfied if that law was passed/repealed. The movements only seem to crop up once it reaches a certain level of severity or as a reaction to the current law you are trying to pass.

Right now all I can try to do to reduce radicalism is try to increase the standard of living (although this can make them more politically conscious and more likely to become radical, backfiring) and try to pass liberal reforms in general hoping it is one a significant number of radicals are pleased with. Which has only gotten me mixed results so far.

 

[Mortmal]

What is the best way to determine what political reforms (or other actions) your radicals actually want to better determine what reforms you can pass to decrease radicalism? On a per state or per entire country basis is fine.

Right now the best I can tell is seeing what reforms the interest groups with the largest number of radicals want, but I don't think that is always a good 1 to 1 mapping. The change in radicals from last year is helpful for seeing if a desire for political reform is creating radicals, but it doesn't identify what reforms they want, or what reforms would be able to please radicals who became radical for other reasons.

Some way to see X number of Radicals want X reform and would be satisfied if that law was passed/repealed. The movements only seem to crop up once it reaches a certain level of severity or as a reaction to the current law you are trying to pass.

Right now all I can try to do to reduce radicalism is try to increase the standard of living (although this can make them more politically conscious and more likely to become radical, backfiring) and try to pass liberal reforms in general hoping it is one a significant number of radicals are pleased with. Which has only gotten me mixed results so far.

Wish i know its probably very well hidden if int here at all. You probably cant do much as pleasing them will radicalize other groups...

 

[BlackAdderBG]

This shit is so fuckin easy

Spoiler

Had a game with Prussia too and in 1870 was already moggin Europe with colonies in Africa and SEA it was so braindead easy that just quit.

The biggest problem I see is that raising armies and going to war is very painless,there is so much population that just switches to soldiers in a instant that losing troops doesn't matter, it's even a bonus in the early and mid game. 2nd big problem is that getting goods is very easy as amassing big fleet can be done in 7 to 14 weeks, I made 200 strong flotilla with Germany and could secure all my colonies in a war just in 7 weeks. Also the fleet morale bug is hilarious, just beat the enemy once and for the rest of the war they are gone.

What I like the most is the Anno type supply and demand game that Vic3 is all about, if you want some sort of political or wargame focused mechanics, this ain't it.
If you played with one country you saw it all, there is zero flavor. This can be improved with tons of mission trees specific to every interesting country, but from the games I played Ottomans had the best one with the reforms you had to do in 20 years or you become Unrecognised nation, but it felt that after that even if you fail it was not that hard to recover, just wait the penalties and win a war against major power.
Other random things: diplomatic plays felt to happen too often and resolve too quick or are too local. Finished 3 game to 1936, never saw a wold war; characters are too simplistic and live to 100 years before dying; changing government whenever you want with just a 2 clicks, on top legitimacy doesn't matter; reforms are like a progression bar, once you implement them you forget about it. You even can do none and never feel negative impact to the gameplay ; making colonies is extremely easy with any country I played

 

[what am i doing]

I booted up Victoria 3 to give it a try again and see if the patches they've done have made any significant gameplay changes. After about thirty seconds ingame as Prussia staring at the game and remembering all the command economy bullshit micro I'd have to deal with, I decided against unpausing, closed it, booted up Victoria 2 with Divergences, and resumed my Aragon-Italy run.

VGH... what might have been. Shame they don't get Castilian as accepted anymore.

I may do a Dual Monarchy run next, or possibly Burgundy or Zhourao.

 

[Space Satan]

 

[IDtenT]

Yeah, that's how this game rolls. Being a capitalist is just a jawb.

 

[HeroMarine]

Trying to imagine a real life case of a subsistence farmer turning into a capitalist.

 

[what am i doing]

Trying to imagine a real life case of a subsistence farmer turning into a capitalist.

Depending on where you draw the line of subsistence farming, there could be a lot of cases in the US, since farmers, especially during the earlier colonial days, often were quite wealthy. But I think you'd need kind of an intermediary pop promotion pipeline to represent the fact that they started out as homesteaders (subsistence farmers, essentially), then expanded their operation and were starting to sell crops and livestock they grew, and then had the capital to engage in other business ventures. So you'd want something like subsistence farmer -> commercial farmer -> capitalist.

 

[IDtenT]

Commercial farmer is capitalist in the game. Whereas estate farmer is aristocrat.

There is no distinction between business owner and (((business owner))) in the game.

 

[whydoibother]

Trying to imagine a real life case of a subsistence farmer turning into a capitalist.

Sold the farm, bought a small shop in town.

 

[thesecret1]

There is no farm. He would be a regular farmer on a Wheat Farm "factory" otherwise. Subsistence farming means you only produce what you yourself eat, meaning something akin to a serf growing just about enough food to feed himself and his family, on land he is renting in exchange for labor

 

[HeroMarine]

Vic3 players on the right.

 

[IDtenT]

Amerika greatest ally. Provides me all my oil.

 

[Space Satan]

Yeah, that's how this game rolls. Being a capitalist is just a jawb.

The Party is obliged to solve unemployment for the people
The Party gave you a job of capitalist.
Why you complain still?