AHD DD2 – Railroads and Tradegoods

[Sayd]

This is questionable. The workforse is not infinite, so one can siply not have enought workers to build everything for tham at same time.

Usually where are many workers, sometimes even unemployment exists. They could implement so every construction of building requires workers, so any unemployed can work, so any construction projects will require to pay them money
Now if state doesn't have any factory when you start building process you can see unempoyed clerks and craftsmen, so during building process they are always unempoyed and it seems to me they sometimes going to migrate becouse of that.
PI could just add new poptype - builder (constructor), so every building process will require clerks + builders.

[wwwww]

Did anyone else notice this: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/vi...-house-divided
It has screenshots that were not in the dev diaries along with a more correct CSA. Also, they didn't fix the Austrian armies so there are Austrians in Italy.

[Dyranum]

Did anyone else notice this: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/vi...-house-divided
It has screenshots that were not in the dev diaries along with a more correct CSA. Also, they didn't fix the Austrian armies so there are Austrians in Italy.

That was noticed and pointed out in DD1. One week ago.

[wwwww]

Damn.

[The Zealot]

I hope along with this railroad improvement is something to help the capi ai, cause if it's now going to cost a helluva lot more to build railroads, they better start building them semi-intelligently, no more spamming them across the pacific islands as I'm trying to build forts and naval bases.

This. Can we be allowed to queue up (and down, in case of misclicks) forts and naval bases while railroads are being built please? Because railroads are usually built for many years in a newly occupied or colonized province, it can take years before you finish building all the railway levels when what you need the most first is either a Naval Base or two (to expand range) or a Fort (to consolidate advances) and then, yes, by all means, build as many railroads you need.

[Darkrenown]

Did anyone else notice this: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/vi...-house-divided
It has screenshots that were not in the dev diaries along with a more correct CSA. Also, they didn't fix the Austrian armies so there are Austrians in Italy.

Why should there not be Austrian armies in Italy in 1836?

[Kalelovil]

Also, they didn't fix the Austrian armies so there are Austrians in Italy.

That's the culture view mode, not the political view mode. Austria did own northeastern Italy in 1836 and massively fortified the area, so it makes sense for some of their armies to be there.

[Mirza Khan]

I'd like to see some nerf to South American nations, historically at beginning of 20th century they were far from being Great Powers for most cases. Yet each game I see Ecuador, Chile, Venezuela, Colombia etc lined up at 8-16 places..It's really a bit strange. Maybe nerf the amount of immigrants whole central and south Americas get ?

Immigration was not, in and of itself, South America's problem-Argentina and Brazil are probably just as much immigrant countries as the US is. South America's problem was that its economies were largely focused on exporting agricultural products (beef/leather in Argentina, sugar and coffee in Brazil, etc.) and didn't really have much of a native industrial base. However, agricultural commodities were (and are) very vulnerable to market speculations and price swings. Meaning that in, say, Brazil, if the world price for sugar and coffee was very high, the economy would do great, but if prices for coffee and sugar fell, the Brazilian economy could very easily be kicked into a depression and the government forced to borrow money. As said above, South America imported most manufactured goods-for example, when Argentina began building its first rail network, it had to import the track, rolling stock, expertise, etc. from Britain-which was rather expensive. Generally, if you want to nerf South America, I'd say make cash crop RGO's (tobacco, sugar, coffee, dye, etc.) very vulnerable to price swings, and make importing manufactured goods (steel, cement, etc.) very expensive, so that its somewhat difficult for a country without an industrial base to build one.

[Alex_brunius]

People here mentioned maintenance cost for RR... Far be it from me, but wouldn't it work if you, say, create a new resource - trains, or locomotives, or whatever? That was quite an important good that is non-existent in the game, even though there are railroads.

I think its better to keep things as general as possible.

A resource could be named "steam engines" instead, and it could have uses in both Advanced factories, Railroads and Steam powered ships (as maintainance or buildcost).

But the most imporant maintainance cost for railroad should ofcourse be coal.

[Carewolf2]

Immigration was not, in and of itself, South America's problem-Argentina and Brazil are probably just as much immigrant countries as the US is. South America's problem was that its economies were largely focused on exporting agricultural products (beef/leather in Argentina, sugar and coffee in Brazil, etc.) and didn't really have much of a native industrial base. However, agricultural commodities were (and are) very vulnerable to market speculations and price swings. Meaning that in, say, Brazil, if the world price for sugar and coffee was very high, the economy would do great, but if prices for coffee and sugar fell, the Brazilian economy could very easily be kicked into a depression and the government forced to borrow money. As said above, South America imported most manufactured goods-for example, when Argentina began building its first rail network, it had to import the track, rolling stock, expertise, etc. from Britain-which was rather expensive. Generally, if you want to nerf South America, I'd say make cash crop RGO's (tobacco, sugar, coffee, dye, etc.) very vulnerable to price swings, and make importing manufactured goods (steel, cement, etc.) very expensive, so that its somewhat difficult for a country without an industrial base to build one.

Better infrastructure abstraction would help. If large parts of south america will be impossible to give railroad until railroad level 3-4 then the development is going to lack behind except at few high population coastal provinces.

[Dishonor]

Hi Podcat, can you please tell us more, what exactly will be player input to economic part of the game? Vanila V2 feels like it plays itself without player input or with very few no-brainer input.

[alpinespam]

I think its better to keep things as general as possible.

A resource could be named "steam engines" instead, and it could have uses in both Advanced factories, Railroads and Steam powered ships (as maintainance or buildcost).

But the most imporant maintainance cost for railroad should ofcourse be coal.

Definitely have to agree!

[Sid Meier]

I wholly support giving railways expenses/inputs, additionally this should apply to RGOs as well.

Make it like POP demands substinence/everyday/luxury needs, the more needs you fill the more "efficient" the railway gets, so that we can model the affect of some nations not investing and maintaining infrastructure.

This we we can help spur additional demand for steel that should increase overtime in a way that accurately reflects economic trends as well as institute additional demands for other goods that tend to have poor demand; such as machine parts and vehicals.

[Thracian]

...and if railroads make loss, they are shut like factories?

[sterrius]

The terrain changes to railroads sounds great, but to keep with the terrain idea. What about giving a base/minimum infrastructure boost to coastal and river provinces. Before railroad they were the natural center of industrialization since only by river or sea could goods be transported. They could start with something similar to level 2 railroad bonus, but which becomes less relevant as other provinces get rails.

Agree. If railoads become limited by terrain places with rivers need to give a bonus to remain competitive. Much of those areas have mountains, jungle or florests with will make them isolated from a railroad network for decades, some countrys can even find railoads to be a total waste of research points.

The Ideal would be a waterway infrastructure but this would need a whole new system. Making fixed buffs much more viable.

I agree railoads early in tibet are strange and should not happen, but i also agree with another post that once build there should be no penality in efficiency, bridges and tunnels don´t make a train slower.

Working the solution with maintance and build cost is maybe a better option for those regions.

[Capt. Kiwi]

Bridges and tunnels don't make a railway less efficient, but slopes certainly do, as does reduced coverage due to some parts of a region being impassable.

[sterrius]

Bridges and tunnels don't make a railway less efficient, but slopes certainly do, as does reduced coverage due to some parts of a region being impassable.

As a raiload system work more with keypoints where the region can unload its cargo before going to the coast those "impassable terrain" was mostly compesated with good road networks or hydroways (if the country got the money for it). Both of them we can´t improve because for the game only railoads exist.

Also some areas are plain or small hills but only got a difficult terrain because of jungle, cold or something like that. Not a problem for a raiload once build. (Only the maintance is a problem there making the costs to keep it working high).

See that im not complaining of siberia getting the raiload late. Just from get a permanent penality never being able to use 2-3 lvs of railoads system just because its too cold.

[LeeDub]

Thank goodness for these changes ^^

Now, while we are in the subject, how about a nice "build all available" button so us poor souls playing commies won't have to pause 40 mins each time a new railroad tech is researched?

Hmm, a sort of autobuild toggle, that acts like capis would, but using heightened costs would be excellent - preferably with an additional slider that would allow us to set the amount of money we're willing to pour in!

[Capt. Kiwi]

As a raiload system work more with keypoints where the region can unload its cargo before going to the coast those "impassable terrain" was mostly compesated with good road networks or hydroways (if the country got the money for it). Both of them we can´t improve because for the game only railoads exist.

Also some areas are plain or small hills but only got a difficult terrain because of jungle, cold or something like that. Not a problem for a raiload once build. (Only the maintance is a problem there making the costs to keep it working high).

See that im not complaining of siberia getting the raiload late. Just from get a permanent penality never being able to use 2-3 lvs of railoads system just because its too cold.

The specific example given was the Alps, and the three level reduction seems reasonable there. I'm sure the penalty in other (non-mountainous) terrain will be less severe, with only a slight reduction in efficiency. If they're not going to include maintenance costs, then a reduction in efficiency is a reasonable abstraction of them. Adding resource costs to railways would not be a simple undertaking, even though it is ultimately possible.

[Kalelovil]

The specific example given was the Alps, and the three level reduction seems reasonable there. I'm sure the penalty in other (non-mountainous) terrain will be less severe, with only a slight reduction in efficiency. If they're not going to include maintenance costs, then a reduction in efficiency is a reasonable abstraction of them. Adding resource costs to railways would not be a simple undertaking, even though it is ultimately possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Rail_Tunnel