@ Darkrenown
I discovered this today
I played one year as Sardinia Piedmont : (1836)
with the military slider at 0 % , the population raised from 941.22K to 941.29K
that means the population grew by 90 people
Then another year with the military slider at 100 %
The population raised then from 941.22K to 947.59k
Not a single person immigrated or emigrated externely - it's all natural growth
An example : With the military slider at 0 - the natural growth was +6 on the 2nd day -
with the military slider at 100 the growth was + 50
Could it be that i am right when i am sceptical about the game mechanics ?
Or did i oversee something ?!
I mean if i didn't oversee something...this is a joke or ?
Well...
First, I find it odd you had no emigration in either year. I'm not going to say you missed it, but that seems odd given the immigration-happy state of 2.1.
Second, military spending at 100% vs. 0% should increase pop.growth at least a little bit - at 0%, your soldiers/officers are starving, counteracting the natural growth of the rest of your population. At 100%, of course, they're growing along with the rest of your population (and spending money to buy your other POPs goods, which should be helpful for their income and thus growth)
Third, it's possible that a third factor is affecting growth. Maybe in 1836, a lot of your POPs weren't getting full life needs[ because of shortages on the world market (the lack of substitution effects is kind of the system's Achilles' Heel, isn't it?) and thus growing less, while in 1837, the shortage had cleared up/nations ahead of you lost prestige and you bought first/you got some prestige by invention or random event.
That is a common misunderstanding. Or put it in another word, that is where game mechanic differs from real life. In game, tarrif has no relation with buying preference.I usually put 1-3% on the toll to make people choose local products instead of foreign, but of course it can make things less competetive too.
One thing that could be missing though is that large industries should gain some slight efficiency bonus from being large. Early economies would have companies accumulate capital to eventually grow into heavy industry (maybe to simulate a free market of light industries turning into a set of corporations and market oligopoly). With a planned economy, you would, as in real life, skip the decades of uncoordinated light industry capital acumulation and build heavy industry from the beginning, thus industrializing and catching up more rapidly. In Vic 1 the Free Market option was underdeveloped, the AI was very stupid, now it has caught up and it should be time for the planned economies to improve.
.
That is a common misunderstanding. Or put it in another word, that is where game mechanic differs from real life. In game, tarrif has no relation with buying preference.
In game, people always choose local products first. When the country is not in a sphere, all national products are of course available for national people. When the country is in a sphere and not as sphere leader, though, a big chuck of national products are "robbed" into sphere common market, leaving only a small portion for local (0% unciv, 25% civ, 50% SP, less if sphere leader has investment in). When people buy products from common market (as no enough goods to satisfy demand in local market) or from world market (as no enough good in both local and common market), there is no priority on origin of the product. Every product sells equally and thus proportionally. People simply pay tarrif or recieve subsidy for foreign product purchase, and make no reaction to it.
I would object to this because if a player could do that then it would ruin the evolution of the game. So the game would be played the same way every time with the same result every time.
THUMBS UP!! PARADOX INTERACTIVE AND MODDERS!
L-F is great when prestige is high and inputs are available, but terrible when prestige is low and competition for inputs is fierce. The UK thrives on it in the opening 10 years or so, but most other countries will struggle to compete. Later on, as the RGO output bonuses unlock around the world, L-F becomes monsterously powerful.
I just wanted to add that even later in the game, if your prestige even remotely sucks, you have a hard time getting anything consistently off the WM.
Playing as Japan, I became a GP in the 80s. But my prestige was still in 27th place or so, so my industries were cyclically starving for certain resources. You could literally track profitability and availability of inputs on a sine wave. I used subsidies to smooth out the rough edges, (fluctuating from 0 to $500 a day) but despite being #2 in industry, we just weren't making any money.
Then I discovered the North Pole and earned 105 prestige at one time. This moved me to #7 in prestige. Boom, instant awesome economy. No more cyclical shortages, and profits shot way up. No more significant subsidies for industries, either.
100 prestige was literally the difference between a mediocre industrial sector and one that was dominating the planet. Nothing else changed. I was even still sitting at State Capitalism when the prestige fired.
So, the lesson is that it is possible to over industrialize relative to your access to inputs. Prestige can fix that problem, even in the late game.
Goods not sold are dumped in the sea
Your country does not sell it goods to another country, it goes on the world market and is then bought or not bought, after your own market gets dibs
Naselus and I both said AHD has probably the best economic model in a commercial game.
´probably´ means there might be better out there, but i wouldnt know them, or i cant think of any right now, at least.
´model´ means, that the parameters might still need some tweaking, but the basic way things are linked is more complex and realistic than in any other...
´commercial game´ means primarily built for the purpose to sell for entertainment.
That sounds like an excellent idea.Prestige and SOIs are actually a pretty good method of modelling economic exploitation in the period; I would argue that they could be better integrated, however. I'd also argue for all nations to ALWAYS be in an SOI, and the addition of 'continent' SOIs - so if you're in Asia, you start in the Asia SOI and must trade locally on your continent first, rather than simply dumping goods onto the World Market and leaving them to the ravages of the prestige system straight away.
Is trickle down economics vindicated in this game? As in, if you have low taxes on the rich, they'll create more factories(more "jobs"), which ultimately benefit and enrich all classes, making your tax revenue increase?