• 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.
You can still exit the game, open the save file in notepad, and edit the provinces by hand. So lovely. :rolleyes:

But I will shut up about it and wait for the released game before I start clamoring for console codes again...

Which is immensely tiresome.;)
 
When you release a state as a satilite you should be able to choose what provinces you give it. Not be forced to blindly accept its cores whether you want that province or not.

This should be possible, but it should also increase military of people of the state you release, in the provinces you keep.
 
Umm... Clausewitz games are stupidly easy to modify this way. Most of the steps you list would be utterly unnecessary.

Which of the steps were unnecessary?

1. Exiting the save game. (And possibly exiting the program.)
2. Opening said save game in notepad (or text editor of choice)
3. Finding the right line of code and changing it. (Likely with the help of a province ID number map.)
4. Saving and reloading save game. (And possibly starting the program again.)

If there's a faster way, let me know! :eek:

Also, taking minutes to do something that would otherwise take seconds in game doesn't sound like an improvement...

I just doing get the arguments against it really. It's either immersion breaking (and note pad isn't?), or it's exploitable (There's still exploits in EUIII and there's plenty of new game mechanics in Victoria II that could be exploited. Should we do away with everything?).
 
Isn't all this talk about having manual control over releasing provinces and such just a lot of tiresome micro-management?

:p
 
Which of the steps were unnecessary?

1. Exiting the save game. (And possibly exiting the program.)
2. Opening said save game in notepad (or text editor of choice)
3. Finding the right line of code and changing it. (Likely with the help of a province ID number map.)
4. Saving and reloading save game. (And possibly starting the program again.)

If there's a faster way, let me know! :eek:

Also, taking minutes to do something that would otherwise take seconds in game doesn't sound like an improvement...

I just doing get the arguments against it really. It's either immersion breaking (and note pad isn't?), or it's exploitable (There's still exploits in EUIII and there's plenty of new game mechanics in Victoria II that could be exploited. Should we do away with everything?).

You left out part of what you said before. :p But it is easier. For one, the province numbers are laid out clearly in the game files, so you don't have to be in the game using a console command to show the id numbers of provinces. Secondly, province ownership is handled in the entry for the province in the save file, rather than in the entry for the country. Said here, that doesn't sound like a lot, but it makes a huge difference, trust me. All you have to do is find the province and swap out the country tags. In some cases, you wouldn't need to even look up the province number, since the capital is listed (You can find London simply by searching for London, for instance). I've done a lot of editing of files and save games in the Clausewitz games, so I can say from experience you can tear through these very quickly.

Look, I'm not defending the decision to leave out negotiations. I understand the stated reason, but I would prefer to see them left in, too. I'm simply saying that manually editing the files isn't nearly as time-consuming or annoying as it was in the older engine.
 
Nope, you've got a real understanding of this game.

Great! :D I hated RGO expansion, it could make any country with one iron mine produce oodles of iron, as long as labor was dedicated to it. Not to mention expansion of farms... :p
 
It is rubbish. When Soviet Russia was industrializing, many new mines have been build. There isn't any better way to simulate it rather than expanding RGO.

Since there is no simulation of mines being depleted sooner because of making the extraction from mines much more intense, it is better to have no RGO expansion at all.
 
King, in the screenie I see several types of goods, but there aren't a lot of them (only 8). Is it the intention you can encourage the production of any kind of manufactured good in a state (provided the technology is available), that you can only enourage a selection (based on what?), or are there just a lot of fewer types of manufactured goods in the game?
 
King, in the screenie I see several types of goods, but there aren't a lot of them (only 8). Is it the intention you can encourage the production of any kind of manufactured good in a state (provided the technology is available), that you can only enourage a selection (based on what?), or are there just a lot of fewer types of manufactured goods in the game?

Did you notice the "Encourage Consumer Goods Industry" part? Even with only three resources per icon, there would be 30 resources.
 
King, in the screenie I see several types of goods, but there aren't a lot of them (only 8). Is it the intention you can encourage the production of any kind of manufactured good in a state (provided the technology is available), that you can only enourage a selection (based on what?), or are there just a lot of fewer types of manufactured goods in the game?

i think they divided the goods into 8 kinds of goods you can encourage. consumer goods is one of them that's for sure, and it includes liquor, wine and glass as shown. i guess lumber, furniture and lux. furniture are in one group. canned food, artillery and small arms are more likely to be in one group as well.

this makes much more sense than encouraging only one good.

what i don't understand though is, it's shown that wine, glass, and liquor get 30% focus each. where does the remaining 10% focus goes is the question to be asked.
 
:D

I applaud the decision to no longer allow RGO expansions. I thought it was a shame Vic1 lacked any sense of population pressures because you could expand RGOs ad infinitum.

+1

However, what I really hope is that a "full" RGO encourages migrants that would otherwise land here to move to the next "partial" RGO area over.

Also, I hope that provinces have different size RGO's IF there physical size is different (substantially so, not quibbling over a few 10%'s of area, but if the central valley in california is one province, and Venice another, I think there RGO max size should be different), not just different quality ones.
 
what i don't understand though is, it's shown that wine, glass, and liquor get 30% focus each. where does the remaining 10% focus goes is the question to be asked.

I figured it was just +30% to the capi build priority points for those goods, or something like that. Maybe there would be a production boost, but for that +30% sounds like a lot tbh.

I don't think it's that each good gets X% of the focus.


+1

However, what I really hope is that a "full" RGO encourages migrants that would otherwise land here to move to the next "partial" RGO area over.

Also, I hope that provinces have different size RGO's IF there physical size is different (substantially so, not quibbling over a few 10%'s of area, but if the central valley in california is one province, and Venice another, I think there RGO max size should be different), not just different quality ones.

Availability of work probably will still be a factor in POP immigration destination.

And judging by the screenshot with Bergen, provinces DO have different sizes, which directly affects the max amount of people who can work there. Climate has an effect on at least farmer RGOs, but other than that, there aren't "poor" or "rich" coal mines, for example. I think.
 
And judging by the screenshot with Bergen, provinces DO have different sizes, which directly affects the max amount of people who can work there. Climate has an effect on at least farmer RGOs, but other than that, there aren't "poor" or "rich" coal mines, for example. I think.

You mean in reality or in the game? In reality different coal mines have different amounts of coal deposits, as well as different coal purity. In the game, I expect them to keep the RGO values from V1, which determined how productive a specific RGO would be in relation to others.
 
My references to province size, climate and coal mine size were all in-game. The size of the coal deposit is only modelled by the province size it's found in, in-game.

I expect them to keep the same mechanic, ie. all coal mines (with equal province size, technology, workforce etc.) produce the same amount of coal, and there's no different qualities of coal modelled either. I do expect them to tweak the exact relative production values for the economy to function properly.
 
So will the different NF actions come with different costs? Like, since we can't promote pops directly, will it cost more to put an NF in a state to produce capitalists than craftsmen or soldiers? To take another example, would it cost more to have a consumer goods focus than a military one?

It would also be nice to be able to set a single, genuinely "national" focus. For example, the US transcontinental railroad did not require upgrading the whole infrastructure of Illinois, followed by Iowa, followed by Nebraska, etc... Instead it was a national goal to connect San Francisco to Chicago, which just cut through those provinces it needed.

Or, if specific goals like that are too complicated, it would be nice to just be able to say "promote more capitalists" or "build luxury goods" or "create more soldiers" at a lower rate but on a national scale, rather than having them all crowded into one province. Setting a goal this way could provide low level modifiers, but do so for all provinces. And maybe they would be "locked in" for longer, forcing you to really consider which to choose. Just a thought...
 
So will the different NF actions come with different costs? Like, since we can't promote pops directly, will it cost more to put an NF in a state to produce capitalists than craftsmen or soldiers? To take another example, would it cost more to have a consumer goods focus than a military one?

Alternatively you could adjust the benefit side of the equation, so that there's no cost (beyond using a precious NF), but you'd get more soldiers than you would capitalists.