Kane
I have many names
pop demand
I've worked out on each of those aspects. I've added bonuses for being a civilized non-GP, nerfed mobilization, gave a pop growth bonus for Germany, a pop growth penalty for France and solved the critical global Timber/Coal shortage (in a rather simplified manner, but I wasn't quite sure how to balance out a charcoal factory). Depends really on what you want, I tried to keep the more streamlined and arcadey style of Vicky 2 alive while improving various aspects that needed work, Pop Demand and VRRP do major changes that I didn't enjoy.So uh any recommendations for the essential mod to "fix" Victoria?
- Sort out population growth to a realistic level (heard people saying that immigration is pretty much the only way to get historical 19th century pop growth)
- Sort out the economy
- Perhaps give non-Great Powers (but not uncivs, who realistically should get slaughtered except for the odd Zulu moment) a better shot in things
Pod Demand?
VRRP?
Kustom Kodex Mod?
As a pretty large proponent of 'The Lost Cause of the Confederacy,' I'm still of the impression that slavery was the fundamental underlying reason for the secession and subsequent civil war. Any other reason that gets brought up will lead back to that issue, the institution of slavery was of vital importance to the status quo of the Antebellum South and it's no coincidence that the battle lines were drawn at who owned slaves and who didn't. It's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about slavery.Bullshit... slavery was the main and primary reason for the civil war. The Economy argument is still directly tied to slavery, as is the States' Rights argument, etc.I dont think that slavery was even one of the main reasons for secession (one of the confederated states was a non slavery one anyway) so its not strange that CSA can easily abolish it.
A couple of things to know:Bros, teach me to enjoy Vicky II.
For the reference I only played Vicky I for like 15 minutes and the only grand strategy games from Paradox that I played really extensively are the HoI games in all shapes and forms (though I did try all the other ones).
Inspired by the Confederacy LP I played three games so far:
1. Japan - updated myjournalcountry to a very respectable shape, was nothing to do, quit out of boredom.
2. Oranje - did some conquest and colonization, when I started gaining power UK and Portugal declared war and rolfstomped me. Lost everything, didn't bother to continue.
3. Argentina - I actually finished this one as #8 great power, conquered most of SA, had colonies, very powerful navy and army, decent industry and a lot of prestige.
Ok, so what's there actually to do in this game cause it seems to me that the most accurate answer is "not much"? Developing your country is extremely basic. Few sliders to move, improving the provinces is laughable (build railway/fort/naval base, set focus), colonizing is not exciting at all. You research one technology at a time, choosing from one of short, linear trees (+10/+15/+20). There are some events, but they are banal, shit, boring +10 diapers in stock or +10% farming for some time (they seem to be totally bugged for me as well, I frequently got events that said I will get bonuses till two years ago).
Diplomacy is somewhat developed when compared to your average strategy title, I'll give them that. Though you can have fun with it mostly as a bigger country.
And of course there is war. But it just sucks so bad with, yet again, utter lack of options and total randomness. I got repeatedly whacked by technologically inferior forces and I had no idea why. The only strategy that AI uses are doomstacks so you have to have doomstacks of your own and watch them knocking each other on the head. The infamy mechanic is pretty cool and realistic, but mostly results in smaller countries not being able to do much despite theoretical possibilities.
Generally, you spend ridiculous amount of time just staring at the screen. There's not even any hectic micromanagement from HoI to do here.
One thing that still intrigues me and prompts to try another game is the industrialization process and factories. I didn't really get how that works so far, I tried to fit factories to the profile of my country, but they just ate lots of money as subsidiaries and went bankrupt frequently.
Oh, and this is the only game on their new engine that doesn't look repulsive to me, just plain ugly. That's always something I guess.
I solved the issue in a better IMO. I simply enabled subsidies to persist under Laissez Faire (this is critical and the main reason for Laissez Faire being the worst), while improving the bonuses LS and Interventionism provide. The issue isn't that State Capitalism is overpowered, the issue is that vanilla Laissez Faire and Interventionism suck (Planned Economy is actually fairly well done, it can be useful but it has notably penalties, and most 20th century dictatorships will be locked in it).The issue with socialism being overpowered could be easily fixed by giving efficiency penalties to everything other than laissez faire - the more centralized industry is the greater it gets, with communism capping at 70% or something similar.
Actually industrialization IS of paramount importance, as your military capability is directly proportional to your ability to build and maintain a powerful army. Ironically, luxury clothes factory IS primarily for the military, as it's required for production and maintenance of Guards.Yeah economy is pretty badly fucked up. Industrialisation hardly seems worth it (instead of essential to long-term survival as it was historically). Would also be nice to have a 'relative profit per worker' tool thing that would tell you if your workers would be making more of a profit back in the fields/mines than the factory. Even in the case where a factory is doing well I'm never quite sure if we'd be making more having them in a RGO (which are unhistorically stable and always make a profit).
Ideally you'd have laissez-faire as automatic investment and expansion in the most profitable factories with resources, investment and workers drawn from less relatively profitable factories/RGOs but at the cost of loss of self-sufficiency (all those previously lucrative luxury clothes and furniture factories aren't worth shit now that you've spent seven years in military deadlock and naval blockade means your soldiers are starving and your artillery is being forced to conserve every shell) and risk of mass unemployment and social disturbance when certain industries no longer become profitable. Instead it just sucks and is broken with the sole advantage of saving you 500 mouse clicks as Russia when you want to build railway lines.
All issues of which slavery was of primarily relevance to.As a pretty large proponent of 'The Lost Cause of the Confederacy,' I'm still of the impression that slavery was the fundamental underlying reason for the secession and subsequent civil war. Any other reason that gets brought up will lead back to that issue, the institution of slavery was of vital importance to the status quo of the Antebellum South and it's no coincidence that the battle lines were drawn at who owned slaves and who didn't. It's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about slavery.Bullshit... slavery was the main and primary reason for the civil war. The Economy argument is still directly tied to slavery, as is the States' Rights argument, etc.I dont think that slavery was even one of the main reasons for secession (one of the confederated states was a non slavery one anyway) so its not strange that CSA can easily abolish it.
And it's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about economics, culture, and geography with a bit of political maneuvering ensuring Northern dominance of the country.
Agreed, and in a manner that was of a greater benefit to not only the South, the North, and the rest of the whole damned country(into this day!), but even for the slaves themselves.The North in every sense of the world held the strings of Southern prosperity.
The issue could've been settled in a few more decades and a lot less men dead.
All issues of which slavery was of primarily relevance to.As a pretty large proponent of 'The Lost Cause of the Confederacy,' I'm still of the impression that slavery was the fundamental underlying reason for the secession and subsequent civil war. Any other reason that gets brought up will lead back to that issue, the institution of slavery was of vital importance to the status quo of the Antebellum South and it's no coincidence that the battle lines were drawn at who owned slaves and who didn't. It's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about slavery.Bullshit... slavery was the main and primary reason for the civil war. The Economy argument is still directly tied to slavery, as is the States' Rights argument, etc.I dont think that slavery was even one of the main reasons for secession (one of the confederated states was a non slavery one anyway) so its not strange that CSA can easily abolish it.
And it's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about economics, culture, and geography with a bit of political maneuvering ensuring Northern dominance of the country.
Agreed, and in a manner that was of a greater benefit to not only the South, the North, and the rest of the whole damned country(into this day!), but even for the slaves themselves.The North in every sense of the world held the strings of Southern prosperity.
The issue could've been settled in a few more decades and a lot less men dead.
All issues of which slavery was of primarily relevance to.As a pretty large proponent of 'The Lost Cause of the Confederacy,' I'm still of the impression that slavery was the fundamental underlying reason for the secession and subsequent civil war. Any other reason that gets brought up will lead back to that issue, the institution of slavery was of vital importance to the status quo of the Antebellum South and it's no coincidence that the battle lines were drawn at who owned slaves and who didn't. It's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about slavery.Bullshit... slavery was the main and primary reason for the civil war. The Economy argument is still directly tied to slavery, as is the States' Rights argument, etc.I dont think that slavery was even one of the main reasons for secession (one of the confederated states was a non slavery one anyway) so its not strange that CSA can easily abolish it.
And it's plain revisionist to say that the ACW was not about economics, culture, and geography with a bit of political maneuvering ensuring Northern dominance of the country.
Agreed, and in a manner that was of a greater benefit to not only the South, the North, and the rest of the whole damned country(into this day!), but even for the slaves themselves.The North in every sense of the world held the strings of Southern prosperity.
The issue could've been settled in a few more decades and a lot less men dead.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but it wasn't a "significant" amount, unless by significant you mean "enough for a regiment". Certainly wasn't significant enough to impact the war at all by the time South realized they could use the slaves.
Additionally, many of them were fighting for money, not because they loved the Confederacy - just like a significant portion of the soldiers of the North were fighting just for money instead of any lofty ideals or even patriotism.
What's your problem, faggot?Conductor we have a problem!
I just think we should Free Jim Profit!What's your problem, faggot?Conductor we have a problem!