• 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.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #79 - What’s next after 1.2?

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to the first Victoria 3 dev diary after the release of update 1.2! With this update now out, we feel that it’s a good time to return to the Post-Release Plans we outlined in Dev Diary #64, check what’s already been done and go over what further changes and improvements we have planned for the game in future free updates such as 1.3, 1.4 and beyond. In the Post-Release Plans Dev Diary we outlined three key areas of improvement for the game: Military, Historical Immersion and Diplomacy and these are very much still our main targets, but are now being joined by an Internal Politics section. The Other section is also still there for anything that doesn’t fall neatly into one of the four categories.

For this dev diary, I’ll be aiming to give you an overview of where we stand and where we’re heading by going through each of these four categories and marking on each one with one of the below statuses:
  • Done: This is a part of the game that we now consider to be in good shape. Something being Done of course doesn’t mean we’re never going to expand or improve on it in the future, just that it’s no longer a high priority for us.
  • Updated: This is a part of the game where we have made some of the improvements and changes that we want to make, but aren’t yet satisfied with where it stands and plan to make further improvements to it in future updates such as 1.3, 1.4 and so on.
  • Not Updated: This is a part of the game where we haven’t yet released any of our planned changes/improvements in either 1.1 or 1.2 but still plan to do so for future updates.
  • New: This is a planned change or improvement that is newly added, ie wasn’t present on the list in Dev Diary #64.

Just like in the original Post-Release Plans dev diary, we will only be talking about improvements, changes and new features that are part of planned free updates in this dev diary. So then, let’s get to the categories and see where we stand! For each point in each category that isn’t new to this update there will be a sub-point detailing our progress on the point so far.

DD79_01.jpg

Military​

Done:
  • Adding the ability for countries to set strategic objectives for their generals
  • The ability to designate Strategic Objectives were added to the game in update 1.2
  • Addressing some of the rough edges in how generals function at the moment, such as improving unit selection for battles and balancing the overall progression along fronts
    • While there are still rough edges in the military system and we undoubtedly will continue to tweak the precise balancing here, we consider the specific issues with front progression and unit selection for battles largely resolved in update 1.2
Updated:
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
    • We have made a number of improvements to army visualization in 1.2 and added breakdowns for factors such as battle sizes, but we have more work to do when it comes to giving players a good overview of wars and making multi-front wars easier to manage
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
    • Some improvements have been made here, such as removing the restriction on naval invasions using Generals from different HQs, but we still consider navies an area of the game in need of improvement from a visibility and usability standpoint
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
    • We have mitigated this issue in update 1.2 by auto-closing small pockets and improving battle province selection but the issue still persists (particularly in wars with a large number of small countries) so further improvements are needed here
Not Updated:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • Some internal design work has been done on this, but it’s very tricky to get right without worsening the front splitting issues - it’s still very much a high priority for us nonetheless!
New:
  • Adding a system for limited wars to reduce the number of early-game total wars between Great Powers
  • Solving the issue of armies going home after Generals die during a war by adding a system for field promotion

Historical Immersion​

Done:
  • Ensuring the American Civil War has a decent chance to happen, happens in a way that makes sense (slave states rising up to defend slavery, etc), and isn’t easily avoidable by the player.
    • The ACW is now more difficult to avoid, and when sparked over the issue of slavery, should now create a historically plausible CSA (note that there may still be unintended cases of a ‘fake CSA’ appearing due to a non slavery related landowner revolt, which isn’t covered by the above fixes)
  • Working to expose and improve content such as expeditions and journal entries that is currently too difficult for players to find or complete
    • The Journal Entries that we wanted to make easier to complete and/or more visible have been tweaked in the intended way (though we will undoubtedly continue to make minor balance adjustments to them)
Updated:
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
    • Significant improvements have been made to the AI’s ability to complete Journal Entries such as Tanzimat, Manifest Destiny and so on, though it still struggles with others like the Meiji Restoration and so further work is needed.
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada doesn’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
    • The Unifications now occur in a way that is more ‘on schedule’, but we still want to change them so that they mechanically behave in a more historically plausible way
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way
    • Significant changes have been made to the diplomatic AI in both 1.1 and 1.2 but this is an area that is going to continue receiving attention from us for some time, particularly when it comes to making the AI less opaque in its reasoning (for example, explaining why they sided against you in a diplomatic play despite good relations)
New:
  • Adding more country, state and region-specific content to enhance historical flavor of different countries

Diplomacy​

Done:
  • The ability to expand your primary demands in a diplomatic play beyond just one wargoal (though this has to be done in such a way that there’s still a reason for countries to actually back down)
  • Adding additional primary demands was added to the game in update 1.2
Not Updated:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, ie the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action
New:
  • Allowing peace deals to be negotiated during a Diplomatic Play instead of only having the option to give in

Internal Politics​

Updated:
  • (Moved from ‘Other’) Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style
  • We have made some changes here, such as locking laws behind regressive distributions of power and changing GDP to not unfairly favor manufacturing economies but this is still an area where we want to do more
New:
  • Improving the mechanics of law enactment and revolutions to be more engaging for the player to interact with
  • Adding more mechanics for characters and giving the player more reason to care about individual characters in your country:
  • Adding laws that expand on diversity of countries and introduce new ways to play the game

Other​

Done:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
    • Update 1.2 added new overviews for Pop Needs and better explanations for the reasons behind radicals and loyalists
  • Experimenting with autonomous private-sector construction and increasing the differences in gameplay between different economic systems (though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player)
    • Autonomous private-sector construction was added to the game in update 1.2
  • Ironing out some of the kinks with the late-game economy and the AI’s ability to develop key resources such as oil and rubber
    • While the economic AI is definitely going to continue to receive improvements, the specific issue of the AI never developing these key resources should be fixed
New:
  • Improving Alerts and the Current Situation widget to provide more useful and actionable information.

Just as last time we shared these plans, the above is not an exhaustive list of everything we want to do, and I can’t give an exact timeline for any of the individual points or which precise future update they will be a part of. This list also still only covers changes and additions that will be part of free updates! We are planning to continue releasing dev diaries like this updating you on our progress after each major update to the game.

That’s all for today’s update, I hope you found it informative! Next week we’ll dive right back into regular dev diaries as we start going over the details of what we have in the works for Update 1.3, though I’ll note that we won’t be ready to talk about the release date for that update. See you then!
 
  • 162Like
  • 37Love
  • 25
  • 11
  • 2Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I appreciate the improvements to this fun game. Please continue.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
When the battle is fought by a few percent of the starting number of troops, you're either trying to man a very long front or you might be advancing into very undeveloped terrain. In such situations you are actually better off on average to mobilize a smaller number of troops, so you suffer less attrition and lower materiel cost while trying to wage your campaign. That's intentional, a total war with full mobilization over a small African colony is meant to be a bad move.

That's not to say we won't continue tweaking the battle size setup script where we see a reason to do so, of course.
The problem is that I cannot manually change size of troops attached to my generals. Also it is not obviously show how front size is determine based on what factors. So my only choice is to hire more generals to balance out the troops or fire my experienced general just to hire more?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
The problem is that I cannot manually change size of troops attached to my generals. Also it is not obviously show how front size is determine based on what factors. So my only choice is to hire more generals to balance out the troops or fire my experienced general just to hire more?
Yeah this is extremely frustrating. I know that I want fewer troops, but I'm not allowed to say to one specific general "hey, you only need this many men for this war, leave the rest at home". Later on, it's not such a big deal because you probably already have a bunch of generals and it makes sense to keep at least one or two generals with a small army, but especially earlier in the game it's very annoying and unintuitive.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
As a sandbox game where most actions have a reaction elsewhere in the system, there are very few instances in Victoria 3 where you have "no-brainer" types of actions to take. Our rule of thumb is that alerts, that prominently signal a call to action and stick around until you've resolved them, should be irrefutably bad for you and something the player is usually easily able to resolve with a few clicks. For example, an undefended front will cause you to lose territory very quickly, and a severe goods shortage is very likely to hamstring your industry without a net benefit to anyone. Both situations can usually be resolved by sending a General to the front (even if you have to hire a new one) or importing goods / reducing consumption by downsizing, so these qualify as Alerts.

Other types of "alerts" are a lot less severe, might require long-term planning to resolve without knock-on issues, or might even be a desired (though unbalanced) state - say you're paying a lot of money for Man-o-Wars but your Capitalists that run the Shipyards need to be kept in check, you might not want to reduce their earning potential by importing from your neighbors. Exposing this situation under a menu you can access on demand when you have time, and even dismiss items if they don't apply to you, makes more sense than shoving them in your face and demanding you deal with them by some prescribed method.

Let me get this straight. Because there are events we may not care about or that are complicated, they are hidden behind the "big number" alert. I need to click on that alert when the number and/or color change to access some submenu. Some items in that submenu need to be clicked on and others need to be moused over. I must do this to determine if I should care about a new notification. Somehow, this is way better than having multiple alerts for different types of problems. If such separated alerts existed, I could decide just by looking at the alert "image" if I care about this right now, but /s no, it is way more user-friendly to constantly click /s.

This has been discussed many times in this forum. However, this obsession to "not overwhelm" new players is hurting the long-term enjoyment of the game. I cannot even understand how having played the game more than a few hours, you don't see why the current alert notification system is just bad.

I could comment similarly on many parts of the UI. I spent 80% of my active playtime clicking across menus to access information needed to make minor decisions. This is not great. I would also point out that some of the "alternative views" (e.g., "province building big pictures" VS "province building compact list") lose information (in the previous example, I don't believe the employment provided by unused arable land is accessible from the "province building compact list").

It seems someone at some point did a user study with players who never touched the game. That informed all the UI design. Since no one thought that maybe it would be good to see if people who learned how to play the game found the UI accessible.

I strongly encourage PDX to listen to the community when a lot of players keep saying there are problems with the UI.
 
  • 13
  • 2
Reactions:
More war changes are required, being able to shift units between generals is crucial, being able to retreat generals from battle is crucial. And what about the horrendous naval invasions? Also, it should be possible to demob generals during the war, you can add cost to it, or some penalty in politics, whatever you want, but it should be possible! Also it should be possible to add wargoals while at war, and countries enter into the war. BASIC THINGS.

During the crimean war for exemple prussia and austrhia threatened to join the Ottomans if Russia takes too much, USA joined to ww1 only later, Italy swithced sides.... C'mon guys, focus the military more pls, it is the soul of MP, and MP will contribute a lot to keeping this game alive.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
One other thing, you talk about there being a lack of "no brainer" actions - totally fairly. I agree that the V3 team has done a good job of making most decisions *real* in that there are viable options in most situations.

What I don't really follow is your rule of thumb on alerts.
When a drop down appears in Eu4 there are 4 main options:
- Resolve the alert such that it goes away
- Leave it there to be a persistent reminder of an ongoing situation
- Dismiss it such that it comes back next time it is relevant
- Dismiss it such that it never comes back

each of these are valid, and have different use cases for different players and different alerts. It seems (from your rule of them as described) that you are considering only the first and last of these options when considering how alerts should be designed - so I'd like to speak up for the middle two.

- Leave it there to be a persistent reminder of an ongoing situation
This is useful to inform the player about a situation that either doesn't want resolving, or will take along time to resolve, that they non-the-less want to know about persistently. I personally feel almost forced to play with the situation menu open constantly because a LOT of things fall into this category, I want the information on screen at all times - and the only way to do that in game at current is through a (I'm sure we can agree) intentionally intrusive UI element.
To give just one example - a high priced government good. This is something that I clearly want to stop being the case, but that won't happen fast (at least sometimes) when my way to change it is by increasing domestic production. So what I need is an alert that persists while the situation is ongoing, and then noticeably goes away when it is resolved - something EU4 does very simply and elegantly, and V3 currently struggles with.

- Dismiss it such that it comes back next time it is relevant
Maybe I don't care right now- because I've reviewed the situation and decided it's not a problem for example - but this might not always be the case.
Pretty simple usecase for this one.
I wanted a response that was more than just an agree for this. I figured quoting and saying that was the only way.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
Please for the love of all that is holy, please admit the current war system is flawed in it's core design and just redesign it from the start. There is no shame in admitting that the war system is very flawed and needs a massive overhaul. For me personally the biggest sin with the current war system is not a lack of clarity, which it does not have, but the total lack of player agency.
 
  • 11
  • 7
Reactions:

Military​

Not Updated:
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts
    • Some internal design work has been done on this, but it’s very tricky to get right without worsening the front splitting issues - it’s still very much a high priority for us nonetheless!
A rule or a toggle for one-front-per-strategic-region (per war) may work: fronts will be big enough to solve the problem of micro-fronts and small enough to solve the problem of pan-continental fronts.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
As a sandbox game where most actions have a reaction elsewhere in the system, there are very few instances in Victoria 3 where you have "no-brainer" types of actions to take. Our rule of thumb is that alerts, that prominently signal a call to action and stick around until you've resolved them, should be irrefutably bad for you and something the player is usually easily able to resolve with a few clicks. For example, an undefended front will cause you to lose territory very quickly, and a severe goods shortage is very likely to hamstring your industry without a net benefit to anyone. Both situations can usually be resolved by sending a General to the front (even if you have to hire a new one) or importing goods / reducing consumption by downsizing, so these qualify as Alerts.
I'd really like to be able to dismiss some of the current sticky alerts. For example when I have no navy but my market has a shortage of warships. Or when I've had an election and I've looked at the parties and don't want to change anything.
Other types of "alerts" are a lot less severe, might require long-term planning to resolve without knock-on issues, or might even be a desired (though unbalanced) state - say you're paying a lot of money for Man-o-Wars but your Capitalists that run the Shipyards need to be kept in check, you might not want to reduce their earning potential by importing from your neighbors. Exposing this situation under a menu you can access on demand when you have time, and even dismiss items if they don't apply to you, makes more sense than shoving them in your face and demanding you deal with them by some prescribed method.
I find these more situational alerts are exactly the ones I want to be able to visualise quickly when they pop up. Having to pause, open the "!" menu, often open the submenu and then read and dismiss them is exactly the wrong experience for alerts which might be important or might be trivial. I want those to show somewhere I can quicky make a decision on them (dismiss vs take action).

This is made much worse by alerts that turn on and off and on again quickly. Government legitimacy moving from 51 to 49 and back again, prices of goods oscilating, etc. It would be good to look at how to make some alerts in some situations stay hidden for longer.
What we're going to look into here is improving what information shows up where and in what form, and ideally giving more control to customize this as well. I don't have any more details to share quite yet though.
Customisation is one way to solve some of these issues. I could hide the navy alert until I build a navy, I could dismiss the lumber price alerts once I have no forests left to chop down.
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
Wars in victorian era saw some real bad defeats. The British retreat from Afghanistan, the Sepoy rebellion, the Cossacks marching down to India getting chopped to pieces. And then there were incidents of course like the Light Brigade...Id like to see some way for these sorts of things to get modeled. Esp if you are taking so much control from players' hands, theres a lot of room for memorable narratives that define each war, especially if you can integrate them with some sort of localized diplomacy and commander personalities. Just a thought. How much were British colonial actions impacted by reversals in policy from the forward school to "masterful inactivity" and the yoyo between the two. The Anglo-Sihk war ... I mean the sequence of events was absolutely fascinating. From the butting heads of Lord Ellenborough and Genergal Gogh, with Gogh going full Jingo and Ellenborough just worried about his job, the assassinations up in the Sihk country right on down to the march of Kahlsar whose leaders were reportedly secretly taking British orders because the Maharani wanted revenge that the army killed her brother and was running out of cash to bribe the army and...zomg. I wouldnt even know how to even approach modeling something like this in the game but yeah... Its a good read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Sikh_War
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'd really like to be able to dismiss some of the current sticky alerts. For example when I have no navy but my market has a shortage of warships. Or when I've had an election and I've looked at the parties and don't want to change anything.

I find these more situational alerts are exactly the ones I want to be able to visualise quickly when they pop up. Having to pause, open the "!" menu, often open the submenu and then read and dismiss them is exactly the wrong experience for alerts which might be important or might be trivial. I want those to show somewhere I can quicky make a decision on them (dismiss vs take action).

This is made much worse by alerts that turn on and off and on again quickly. Government legitimacy moving from 51 to 49 and back again, prices of goods oscilating, etc. It would be good to look at how to make some alerts in some situations stay hidden for longer.

Customisation is one way to solve some of these issues. I could hide the navy alert until I build a navy, I could dismiss the lumber price alerts once I have no forests left to chop down.
I like the idea of a "peacetime message' mode and "wartime messages mode' and then Id like it if you go ahead and apply that to all of your flagpole games CK3, EU4...though I guess HOI it would be sort of silly
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
1 thing that causes nausea for me: the 'Tab' pan out. That camera movement is discomforting.

Please add option in settings to use the Tab button for something else.

What I would like the 'Tab' button to do is... go to the next tab.
 
Last edited:
I like the idea of a "peacetime message' mode and "wartime messages mode' and then Id like it if you go ahead and apply that to all of your flagpole games CK3, EU4...though I guess HOI it would be sort of silly
HOI can have peacetime too as the prelude to war (particularly when playing a reactive democratic country waiting for the AI to start the war).

In that mode you basically want to zip through that time, without wasting something important (eg empty tech slots for too long).
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
HOI can have peacetime too as the prelude to war (particularly when playing a reactive democratic country waiting for the AI to start the war).

In that mode you basically want to zip through that time, without wasting something important (eg empty tech slots for too long).
Thats very true, as it shifts into war stuff I cared about becomes a lot less important
 
While I like the game and the direction it took post-release, I'm shocked that this roadmap looks like the most pressing issues on the societal-economy front have been already fixed.
They haven't been. Victoria is the most economy-focused Paradox GSG, and for it, the system barely works as an MVP.

Here's the list of the most glaring issues that need prioritized fixing:
1) chronic oversupply of certain goods, leading to the industries never being profitable past mid-game
1.1) services
1.1) goods that are one of the products of an industry: e.g. non-luxury furniture and clothing, steamers
2) chronic undersupply of certain resources, mostly stemming from the inability of rich overlords to invest into poor subjects' production
3) unbalanced mortality/birthrate numbers leading to guaranteed Malthusian catastrophes unless the player goes into killing sprees with weak nations. This is exacerbated by point 2
4) lack of non-employee ownership system (yes, capitalists are employees too) meaning a profitable industry always enriches the locals, except for very indirect ways like taxation or donating into investment pool
5) goods substitution completely not working as intended, with pops making nonsensical purchase decisions considering market prices and leaving automobiles unused

Some of them don't even seem that hard to fix (for example, for point 1 a simple adjustment of constants and adding more granularity to output shares between goods can help).
Others are harder and maybe can't be tackled properly in the closest future, but damn, at least apply band-aids!
  • You can't make a foreign investment system yet? Triple the number of resources in some parts of the world, make them controlled directly by the overlord at game start, add the decisions to form subject colonies in late game (or transfer the land to the existing ones) that the AI would always take. Yes, this is not very realistic or elegant, but it's still better than what we have now, where the world is literally starving for resources that are there but unexploited
  • You can't untether the owners from the industries without a computational and UI nightmare? Add additional (and mandatory) PM and tax options to redistribute the unincorporated states' industries' profits to the metropole's aristocrats and capitalists, even if the mechanics are quite artificial. It would still be better than what we have now, when the SOL of all states is almost identical
  • Can't deal with millions of people being born in wealthy countries without proper employment on the horizon? Fix late-game labour sinks that the services should be, this would alleviate the problem hugely
I understand that "literally unplayable" is just a meme. But please, stop ignoring the fact that the core aspect of the game is so unpolished, it's barely playable. If you make 10 test runs and in 10 cases some product costs -75% for all top-10 largest markets, the game's broken. If you make 10 test runs and in 10 cases some product is valued at max price for all top-10 largest markets, the game's broken as well.
And no, "our testers always conquer half the world so there are ways to spend these tens of thousands of CP, tens of millions of workers, and suddenly resources are at a tolerable level of scarcity too" is not an excuse. You promised us a sandbox. What's the point of it, if only being a dictator in this sandbox makes it look like it's working?

Please, before rushing into improvements, implement fixes, however imperfect they can be given the rush.
 
  • 9Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Monkey brain is indeed weird! I have frequent conversations regarding both situations, AI getting involved when it feels weird that they do, and AI not getting involved when they'd be expected to. What this tells me is that we need to do more work visualizing how the AI makes decisions; better predictive tools relating to diplomacy; and more AI balancing based on such displayed information, to get expectations and reality to match up better and contextualize why the AI is making unexpected decisions in the situations where it does. And we do want some unpredictability, I think - if we had a perfectly predictable AI, diplomacy would turn into more of a puzzle game than a strategy game.
One thing I've noticed is that it's extremely hard to get a handle on how different powers see each other diplomatically. The information is there, in one of the map lenses, but it's a lot of work to find and integrate. With that said, I also don't know how I would represent it, either. I'm not sure two dimensions can effectively contain "Here's what everyone thinks of either of the two primary belligerents," although maybe a table of likely initial intervention opinions would do it? That's the part that is definitely not visible until the play starts, but that might also be too much exposure.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
While I like the game and the direction it took post-release, I'm shocked that this roadmap looks like the most pressing issues on the societal-economy front have been already fixed.
They haven't been. Victoria is the most economy-focused Paradox GSG, and for it, the system barely works as an MVP.

Here's the list of the most glaring issues that need prioritized fixing:
1) chronic oversupply of certain goods, leading to the industries never being profitable past mid-game
1.1) services
1.1) goods that are one of the products of an industry: e.g. non-luxury furniture and clothing, steamers
2) chronic undersupply of certain resources, mostly stemming from the inability of rich overlords to invest into poor subjects' production
3) unbalanced mortality/birthrate numbers leading to guaranteed Malthusian catastrophes unless the player goes into killing sprees with weak nations. This is exacerbated by point 2
4) lack of non-employee ownership system (yes, capitalists are employees too) meaning a profitable industry always enriches the locals, except for very indirect ways like taxation or donating into investment pool
5) goods substitution completely not working as intended, with pops making nonsensical purchase decisions considering market prices and leaving automobiles unused

Some of them don't even seem that hard to fix (for example, for point 1 a simple adjustment of constants and adding more granularity to output shares between goods can help).
Others are harder and maybe can't be tackled properly in the closest future, but damn, at least apply band-aids!
  • You can't make a foreign investment system yet? Triple the number of resources in some parts of the world, make them controlled directly by the overlord at game start, add the decisions to form subject colonies in late game (or transfer the land to the existing ones) that the AI would always take. Yes, this is not very realistic or elegant, but it's still better than what we have now, where the world is literally starving for resources that are there but unexploited
  • You can't untether the owners from the industries without a computational and UI nightmare? Add additional (and mandatory) PM and tax options to redistribute the unincorporated states' industries' profits to the metropole's aristocrats and capitalists, even if the mechanics are quite artificial. It would still be better than what we have now, when the SOL of all states is almost identical
  • Can't deal with millions of people being born in wealthy countries without proper employment on the horizon? Fix late-game labour sinks that the services should be, this would alleviate the problem hugely
I understand that "literally unplayable" is just a meme. But please, stop ignoring the fact that the core aspect of the game is so unpolished, it's barely playable. If you make 10 test runs and in 10 cases some product costs -75% for all top-10 largest markets, the game's broken. If you make 10 test runs and in 10 cases some product is valued at max price for all top-10 largest markets, the game's broken as well.
And no, "our testers always conquer half the world so there are ways to spend these tens of thousands of CP, tens of millions of workers, and suddenly resources are at a tolerable level of scarcity too" is not an excuse. You promised us a sandbox. What's the point of it, if only being a dictator in this sandbox makes it look like it's working?

Please, before rushing into improvements, implement fixes, however imperfect they can be given the rush.
I feel that with 1.2 just out its a bit early to say that the things which Paradox have added are "fixed". Maybe a different word is better until they can see a few more real games completed by the community. They might be fixed, but they might also be buggy (for example the autonomous investment system didn't have a way to destroy unused buildings because its decisions were going to be too good to need that, but it hasn't turned out that way. Also particularly in LF its dumb that an unused cotton plantation can't be replaced by a productive coffee plantation).

I'd also like to say that I agree with your list of problems, and I really like the idea of doing some quick fixes like the ones you have suggested while a permanent fix is being worked on.
 
I feel that with 1.2 just out its a bit early to say that the things which Paradox have added are "fixed"
Maybe. I'm just commenting on the "post-release plans" picture. It makes it look (and I'm afraid this is really so in devs' minds) that the widest gaps are left in "Diplomacy" and "Internal politics". The socioeconomic didn't even get a branch, it just sits under "other", which is now mostly green already.
I disagree with that stance wholeheartedly. The economy is the core of the game, and it's not working properly yet. The devs should prioritize fixing this, and not improving the systems that are working as intended, but can be made better.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Hi.... Quite a few pages of comments already ;)
In Diplomacy when you want to do "More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land for support" - Could you give up full states exchange and expose those smaller provinces so that makes more sense - a country that consists of 2 states only and trading half of its land for something else (even if it's the same size), makes too large a change (which obviously may happen but is more like tribes wandering around and not local border adjustments)?

And if it was possible to make such diplomatic requests from a position of power - where you demand (and get) 2-6 provinces for only 1-3 of yours (depending on a situation - so basically mix and match ;)
 
  • 2
Reactions: