• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Zanza said:
It is no longer possible to convert pops that are not state culture...? Considering the loss rates I have and the size of your normal soldier pop that will mean that there won't be any soldier pops of non-state cultures left late in the game...

No, it is no longer for a non full citizenship party to convert soldiers of non state culture (colonial manpower is slightly different in that regard, that is impossible to promote you need to rely on population growth there). However it is all about trade offs here. If you want to be huge war monger then you're going to either need to rely on your national population heavly to fight the war or you are going to need to turn to an extreme ideology. Anarcho-Liberal Parties tend to be full citizenship and like the miltiary. The choices are yours, but every action should have a consiquence.
 
Okay. Got that. :) Trade-offs are fine.
 
Wombat101 said:
I love the changes to land combat that have been made for revolutions. But what of naval combat. Specifically will naval units have ranges in their area of operation? For example, as Japan, will I be able to send my Subs to the English channel and not worry about re-arming or refueling? Or will range be limited by presence of ports and/or coaling stations?

I totally agree with Wombat - If there is one change that I would make to the combat, it would be to reflect the real operating ranges of the warships (all those coaling stations had a real purpose, after all.
 
Zanza said:
It is no longer possible to convert pops that are not state culture...? Considering the loss rates I have and the size of your normal soldier pop that will mean that there won't be any soldier pops of non-state cultures left late in the game...
Then don't fight so many wars ;)
 
King said:
No, it is no longer for a non full citizenship party to convert soldiers of non state culture (colonial manpower is slightly different in that regard, that is impossible to promote you need to rely on population growth there). However it is all about trade offs here. If you want to be huge war monger then you're going to either need to rely on your national population heavly to fight the war or you are going to need to turn to an extreme ideology. Anarcho-Liberal Parties tend to be full citizenship and like the miltiary. The choices are yours, but every action should have a consiquence.

An... Anarcho-Liberal? What kind of wacko donky-kong herd-of-cats command-ideology is that? :wacko:
 
Sovereign said:
An... Anarcho-Liberal? What kind of wacko donky-kong herd-of-cats command-ideology is that? :wacko:

Here in the USA, we call them 'Democrats'.

(Just couldn't resist! :D :D :D :D :D )
 
A bit of a concern, can we promote state culture POPs in the colonies? I see no great evil in allowing that, and I want to keep the ability to have an "intermediate" quality type between native and regular...
 
Looks like small and big nations can both still go on Big Conquests sprees afterall, but mostly only in the later games when the extreme ideologies have come into play, unless they have the national-pop numbers to get started early.

But what about Native Quality troops, they and Colonial quality divisions would be formed from soldier-pops in Colonies (regardless of minority policy) I take it?

This is much better then I thought, looks like the game just got alot more challenging all round.:)
 
Last edited:
naval warfare ?

will there be any changes to the unlimited range of navies ?

i could not find anything about it
so if it is an already uncovered myth i apologize
 
Utilising non-state pops would be possible as Monarchy or Con-Mon, by putting full citizenship party into power and then getting rid of it after you having converted enough pops if you don't like its other effects.
Though this still wouldn't let you promote colonial pops.

The changes are much better from historical balance - but I think you should also stop non-state pops in colonies from voting, even with full citizenship. For instance, I can't imagine any party in the UK (even anarcho-liberal) giving Indians living in India full voting rights to UK parliament.

But I also think there should be dynamic political parties (at least if plurality is high under Democracy and Con-Mon), responding to voter demands - if 50%+ of voters want X and Y from their government, a political party will shift or emerge which has those policies as its platform.
 
Technology: Education (Social engineering?)

Except wondering as to what type of infantry is converted to Garrison infantry (HOI2DD). Any ideas?

With regards to the national POPs "nationalism", shouldn't it be possible to convert non-naional POPs to the "nationalism" of supported by the ruling elite (i.e. becoming national POPs or having no growth with POP growth going to "suitable" POPs). At least the ones in, or from, non-colonies. After all, education is used for this even today. However, might a drawback be to rais militancy or counsiousness for certain POPs if this policy were in use?

Also, new countries aught to have new "nationalism"s asociated with them. For instance. When Scandinavia is created, or even before, some POPs aught to turn "Scandinavian" from thir former "Nationalism"/"Nationality".
 
Hansag said:
Also, new countries aught to have new "nationalism"s asociated with them. For instance. When Scandinavia is created, or even before, some POPs aught to turn "Scandinavian" from thir former "Nationalism"/"Nationality".

Why? Unless I am mistaken Scandinavia has all the cultures of the region as state cultures - Danish, Norwegian, Swedish (and IIRC Finnish as well). The change would be, at most, a cosmetic one, not one that would directly impact the nature of gameplay as Scandinavia. Such a change can easily be modded by players if they so desire, but is really not something that is needed in the base structure of the game.
 
Just a thought about balance of the military-related political options.

At the moment there are very few disadvantages to having 'pro-military' or 'jingoism', because almost all players want to keep their army at a decent level of readiness and you don't save an awful lot of money by cutting defence and maintenance. (And should you wish to, regardless of your policies, you can disband divisions).

Will this become an even-more one-sided choice if policy influences the size of your mobilisation pool?

If it does, can we have some corresponding advantages for anti-military governments, or are we just to lump what the electorate's given us/make ourselves absolute monarchies? :)
 
TheLand said:
If it does, can we have some corresponding advantages for anti-military governments, or are we just to lump what the electorate's given us/make ourselves absolute monarchies? :)

Why should anti-military government get any advantage? They already are using less money on defence and keep their antimilitary POPs happy so why should they get any extra advantage? It's just like giving laissez faire some extra advantage to their income because they do not want to tax population at 80%.

Anti-military (or pacifistic) governments by definition save on defence spending so I see no need to give them any advantage because of their silly utopistic policy. If they (or more precise, the player) risk their nations ability to defend themselves in a crisis situation I think they just get what they deserv when hard reality (in the form of jingoistic neighbours!) strikes at them. :D
 
Gen. Skobelev said:
Why should anti-military government get any advantage? They already are using less money on defence and keep their antimilitary POPs happy

Because (say) with a pro-military govt you can cut defence and army spending to 40%, which is as low as I ever need it, and I find pacifistic govts an encumberance to be avoided. This will mke them even more of an encumberance.
 
TheLand said:
Because (say) with a pro-military govt you can cut defence and army spending to 40%, which is as low as I ever need it, and I find pacifistic govts an encumberance to be avoided. This will mke them even more of an encumberance.

But anti-military and pacifists can cut it even lower so they have some advantage then. And it could be argued that anti-military government is encumbrance in 19th century - unless, of course, some elements made it possible like Britain having large fleet while being an island...
 
So, the obvious choice for a 1835 GC aimed at WC would be either an 1835 "hi-tech" country, or a country with millions of potential soldiers, like China or Russia?

Can you trade techs in Vicktoria?
 
Ganz Anders said:
So, the obvious choice for a 1835 GC aimed at WC would be either an 1835 "hi-tech" country, or a country with millions of potential soldiers, like China or Russia?

Can you trade techs in Vicktoria?

Yes you can. You still must pay the 10 RPs (or however many research points the tech costs) for the tech.

And check some AARs - there are some truly great WC AARs written! :cool:
 
Is there a date for the lauch of Revolutions??