Try a more varied start. You will not be spending your opening moves building up innovation and steel if you play in East Africa, for example.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Vic3 won't leave its beta state until it removes/reworks the construction sectors.
- Thread starter miov01
- Start date
-
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.
I'm not an expert on this, but from what I've read it's going to be very difficult to faithfully simulate the exact way power generation worked over this period. It seems like early on, in fact having to build a large state-level generating plant to power industries is unrealistic, because the industries would in fact have had local generators instead in most cases specific to their tasks. Then gradually things moved to more local power generation, then regional, then national.
So it's complicated. I think there's a decent argument to make that it ought to be cheaper to power a factory in a state which has cheap electrical power next door than one in a nation that hasn't built any electricity or where it's stretched to the breaking point (and therefore experts, parts, etc. are hard to come by). But I think the more literal interpretation is also valid. I would just say, when we have something where you can go either way on historical plausibility and won't get a perfect answer whatever you do, taking the one that's better for gameplay is a pretty good way to make the decision. I don't think purely local goods are good for gameplay; it's just really finicky not to mention immersion breaking to have to not only build a generator everywhere but then often have it be "too big" for the thing you need it for.
- 1
Why not have a form of subsidy farms just for construction? They naturally exist (like the subsidy farms) and provide basic construction in each province and consume basic materials like coal, iron, and wood. The people working in these Workshops are just artisans. Because without further knowledge or investigation, I imagined the main industrial force before they centralized and specialized production were little workshops all over the countryside with a wide array of output or some specialized output. So if an aristocrat wanted to build a factory, they commissioned one or more workshops to build their factories or at least sourced their building material from different workshops and hired laborers to build their factory supervised by a workshop that specialized in building.
Back to Victoria 3 terms: You start with very few centralized productions/factories, and the main force of construction as a resource comes from workshops that are like subsidy farms. These workshops will fizzle out, just like subsidy farms, when more factories are built, and a real construction industry is created and takes up the sector. So, construction is just another resource in your country that is used by your industry. To have the industry somewhat scale better and have a steady income, each building could need some construction as upkeep to simulate maintenance. So, your country shifts over time into an industrial nation this way, making the transition more believable and comprehensible. Construction could then even be exported or imported, allowing smaller nations to build up without exorbitant investments.
But maybe I just overlooked some major issue why this is not possible.
- 2
I think the issue stems from the base size of a 'building' is 5k. If it were smaller it would be easier to sprinkle all buildings, not just power, across states as it would happen naturally.
The problem with reducing the 'size' of a 'building' so they could be spread across states is that is will cause the number of Pops to grow.
The natural spread is being reinforced by mechanics like MAPI and addition of more local goods. The counter to this they reinforced stacking with throughput bonuses and 'companies'.
- 5
Construction Sector doesn't matter. What matter is ability to feed it with resources and cash.
How is that good thing?
That's positive feedback.
It's better than leaving a game that needs an overhaul un-overhauled.
- 14
The thing is, need of overhaul is overestimated by Paradox Plaza residents. In every game and in almost every hot topic. According to SteamDB, Victoria has slighty more than half of Stellaris active players. Half. Even with all overhauls that Stellaris got. Even with more DLCs and more renewed interest that they bring to Stellaris. That is hardly sign of game that is in dire need for overhaul in its core systems.
Also, I do not agree that bad overhaul is better than no overhaul. For me at least, Megacorp was the point where Stellaris lost its appeal. Before Megacorp, economy wasn't great, but it didn't bothered me so much. After Megacorp, it actively impede my fun.
- 8
- 3
To be clear, I wasn't saying Vic3 needs an overhaul. I was just saying that it's not something people should be afraid of.
- 8
- 1
You are playing as both, but your level of control over both changes depending on whether or not you have autonomous investment turned on. I think some of this would get better if we changed what we call buildings to sectors, because the state isn't building factories (in my mind), they're investing in the infrastructure and providing subsidies for businesses to open in that given sector in that particular state.
From a realism POV, sure, but this is a game and doing electricity state by state when you can't transition only part of the 34 timber buildings to electric saw mills just sucks to play. There's a mod out there that had a decent compromise/idea for bootstrapping electrical PMs; Electric Lighting produces small amounts of electricity instead of consuming it. Not enough to sate industries, but enough that you could turn it on, swap a few PMs, and not crash your economy while the private sector (or you) built up enough power plants to bring prices down.
- 2
- 1
It would be nice if each buildings could require different goods in its construction[like victoria 2 did, and even had custom static mainteneance cost templates], right now the goods are dictated by contruction tier, only the amount of them changes. What i want to say is that let say a plantation would need these goods, while a big factory would need let say engines or other goods that modder can add.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
Are you serious? You think it's OK that the only way one can get some variety in this game is by playing a tribe in the middle of nowhere?
And even then it will only be really different for the first couple of decades, once you get the ball rolling it won't much different from playing, like, Belgium.
Stellaris is nearly 8 years old, and even in its darkest moments, generally maintained favorable review ratings, while Victoria 3 is still shy of reaching 2 years of age and has always had terrible reviews.
And contrary to what you're suggesting, player counts usually dwindle over time as people look for the next big thing.
This game will be dead in no time if it doesn't get a massive revamp in all of its systems.
- 11
- 4
To be fair, there's lots of options to adjust construction sectors that don't require a massive overhaul. Adding MAPI and allowing private investment would not completely change the game. Keeping construction as a concept and deciding it's produced by urban centers is also not an enormous overhaul.
Sure, these definitely entail time spent balancing and tweaking AI, but this wouldn't be on par with Stellaris' "let's redesign core systems every 3 months" type of thing.
- 2
- 1