Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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 9164 Bug Reports 5279 User Mods 401 Multiplayer 48 Suggestions 2332 Tech Support 546 After Action Reports (AARs)
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Dev Diary #36 – Construction

16_9.jpg


Hello and welcome to another Victoria 3 development diary! Today we’ll be returning to more mechanics-oriented dev diaries, starting out with a very important mechanic for the economic development of your 19th century nation - the construction of new Buildings.

Construction in Strategy games tends to follow a pretty typical formula: you save up money, order a construction and pay a lump-sum cost, wait some time, and the new building pops into existence. As mentioned in Dev Diary 12, however, the vast majority of expenses in Victoria 3 are not lump-sum costs but applied over time as part of your national budget. So how does it work instead? To answer that, there’s a few concepts we need to cover, namely Construction Capacity, the Construction Sector and the Construction Queue.

Let’s start then with Construction Capacity - which is actually just named Construction in-game, but we’re calling it Construction Capacity here to differentiate it from the overall concept of building things. This is a country-wide value of your nation’s overall ability to make progress on new buildings in a single week. For example, if your country produces a total of 100 Construction and a new Textile Mill costs 300 Construction, you’d expect to be able to build that Textile Mill in a total of 3 weeks. However, it’s a little more complicated than that, as we’ll see below when we explain the Construction Queue.


With Construction Sectors present in Lower Egypt, Matruh, Sinah and Palestine, the Egypt in this screenshot generates a respectable amount of Construction for the early game, though their finances may struggle a bit to fund it all.
DD36 01.png

So, how do you produce Construction? This is where the Construction Sector comes in. All countries get a tiny amount of ‘free’ Construction Capacity to ensure that you never get stuck in a situation where you need Construction Capacity to expand your Construction Sector but need a Construction Sector to get Construction Capacity. This amount is woefully small though, and wholly insufficient even for a small nation, so if you’re not planning to run a subsistence economy long-term you will definitely need to invest in a proper Construction Sector by building more Construction Sector buildings in your states.

Mechanically speaking, the Construction Sector is a type of government building which employs people and uses goods to output Construction Capacity with a variety of different Production Methods, ranging from simple Wooden Buildings to modern arc-welded Steel and Glass structures. It does work a little bit differently though, in that the amount of Goods used by the Construction Sector each week depends on the actual need for Construction Capacity - if your Country is producing a total of 500 Construction Capacity, but will only need 250 for ongoing projects that week, the total usage of Goods in the Construction Sector is cut by half - though you still have to pay the wages of all the Pops employed there.


More advanced methods of construction are expensive and require complex goods - but you will find it difficult to build up a true industrialized economy without them.
DD36 02.png

Ultimately, what this means is that how fast you can build things depends entirely on how much money, goods and research you’re willing to throw into your Construction Sector - having only a handful of Construction Sector buildings using only Wood and Fabric will certainly be cheaper and easier than building up a sprawling Construction Sector using Steel-Frame Buildings, but will naturally limit your ability to industrialize your nation.

So then, how does Construction Capacity actually turn into finished buildings? This is where the Construction Queue comes in. Each country has a nation-wide Construction Queue, with each project in the Queue corresponding to building a single level of a Building in a specific State. For example, a Construction Queue in Sweden might look like this (all numbers are examples):


  1. Expand Government Administration in Svealand (250/300 Construction Capacity remaining)
  2. Expand Fishing Wharves in Norrland (155/180 Construction Capacity remaining)
  3. Expand Fishing Wharves in Norrland (180/180 Construction Capacity remaining)
  4. Expand Rye Farms in Svealand (180/180 Construction Capacity remaining)
  5. Expand Port in Götaland (240/240 Construction Capacity remaining)

Each week, your produced Construction Capacity is allocated to projects in the Queue in order of priority, with a maximum speed at which projects can proceed (so it’s never possible to, say, build the Panama Canal in a single week). Using the above construction queue as an example, let’s say the maximum progress that can be made each week is 50, and Sweden is producing 112 Construction Capacity.

This would mean that projects 1 and 2 would both be allocated 50 Construction Capacity, while project 3 would get the left-over 12 and projects 4 and 5 would not progress at all in that week. It would take 5 weeks for entry 1 to finish at that pace, but after only 3 weeks, project 2 will be down to only 5 progress needed, and so most of the Construction Capacity allocated to it will be freed up for other projects. This also means that project 2 will actually finish before project 1, which is perfectly normal, as different buildings require different amounts of Construction Capacity to complete - it’s easier to build a Rye Farm than a Shipyard.


With just above 40 construction output and the help of some local Construction Efficiency bonuses, this country is able to make rapid progress on the Wheat Farms and Iron Mines at the top of the queue and even get a bit of weekly extra progress on the Logging Camps.
DD36 03.png

If all this seems confusing, don’t worry! All you really need to understand is that the more Construction Capacity you have, the faster things go - but a large Construction Sector will need to be kept busy with multiple projects at once if you want to use its entire output.

There is one more important factor to Construction, which is a modifier called State Construction Efficiency that governs how effective each point of Construction Capacity you put into building Buildings in a State is. For example, a state with a +50% bonus to State Construction Efficiency means that every Construction Capacity allocated to projects in that State actually results in 1.5 progress on said projects, while a malus of -50% would reduce it to 0.5 actual progress.

A few factors that will increase or decrease State Construction Efficiency are:
  • Terrain-based State Traits, such as mountains or jungle, tends to reduce State Construction Efficiency
  • Building a Construction Sector in a State increases the local State Construction Efficiency
  • Low Market Access reduces State Construction Efficiency

Industrializing the Amazon Rainforest is neither easy nor cheap.
DD36 04.png

That’s it for today! Join us again next week as we continue talking mechanics, on the topic of Market Expansion!
 

Attachments

  • 16_9.jpg
    16_9.jpg
    906 KB · Views: 0
  • DD36 01.png
    DD36 01.png
    486,3 KB · Views: 0
  • DD36 02.png
    DD36 02.png
    2 MB · Views: 0
  • DD36 03.png
    DD36 03.png
    548,1 KB · Views: 0
  • DD36 04.png
    DD36 04.png
    133 KB · Views: 0
  • 198Like
  • 44Love
  • 13
  • 13
  • 13
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Xeiki said:
@Prince Ire : Thanks for the clarification!

For me, because I just now realized that this was the case, so I'm talking about it only now.
Click to expand...

A quick summation of the debate/reasons:

Growing your industry is a central pillar of the game design. Especially with the new production methods they have introduced in Vic3.
Since it is a central feature, and the designers know it is a central feature, they have talked about tools / macro builders that allow you to look after a large empire easily (or at least easier)
The designers specifically have stated they don't want the player locked out of doing one of the central pillars of the game just because of the results of the latest election.

The investment pool guides/funds only certain buildings and so there will be a noticable difference between a country with agricultural aristocracy vs. industrial capitalists vs militant trade unionists. It is not the case that every country is a planned economy with exactly the same feel. (although details so far from the developers are light on this matter)
Also you can build the building - you can't force workers to work there. As long as there is competition then the workers will move around as they see fit. You might be able to fund / subsidise the building depending on your laws.
There are unlimited building slots for industry. The slots for resources are limited but industry / urban building are unlimited so you wont be forced to keep old factories just to stop unemployment (as per Vic2). Hopefully this means there will be more competition for jobs and thus your industries should feel more alive.
There will need to be a (vaguely) competent AI - if only for all the other countries. So complaints about the Vic2 AI are valid but tangential.

War is not viewed as a central pillar and it is a MAJOR timesink when it occurs so the designers have decided to try out a new idea so the players can carry on concentrating on the true central pillars of the game - buildings & politics - while the war continues. The war will have major effects on your economy (and hopefully politics) but it will no longer be the case that you spend 90% of the time during a war trying to move units/counters around the map, and only spare a brief moment every month or year to glance at how your economy is doing.
 
  • 6
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Wizzington said:
On the topic of always paying wages, we used to have the construction sector fire its employees when not building things but this created a variety of weird gameplay flows and honestly just didn’t feel very good.
Click to expand...

Interesting. The construction sector is one of the most direct ways government policy can affect employment, either through direct building programs (like the New Deal) or indirectly through interest rates (though ok, the latter is mostly outside the time period), so it's a bit sad there will be no connection between the demand for construction and employment.

On a sidenote: will unemployment be a constant issue (which would be historically plausible, but might have gameplay problems) or will it be more or less trivial to solve, achieving full employment like in Vic2?
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Nis Baggesen said:
Yeah, I was also surprised that cement, bricks, stone, sand and gravel all seem entirely absent from the list f required goods, despite those materials being significant to this day
Click to expand...
If only thing those Goods are used would be Construction and can be produced in pretty much every State there is, those might as well be abstracted in the Construction Industry Building.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Clay and cement were and are massive industries all related to construction. Im kind of disappointed they are not in game and all the use, for some reason is clothes??? And wood. But oh well. I really hope they improve on construction with materials like clay, stone and cement once they introduce housing, which should be one of the primordial pop needs. Different houses would need different building materials. Going from wood for the poorest, bricks for low-middle class, to stone for middle-upper class etc.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
cristofolmc said:
clothes
Click to expand...
Fabric (cloth), not clothes.

There are an assortment of uses for textiles in the construction and outfitting of buildings; leaving aside any insulation-related uses, there's curtains and carpets. (That said, it's a little odd that the higher tiers don't use any, but whatever.)
 
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
BeauNiddle said:
A quick summation of the debate/reasons:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the summary and the explanation. I guess my last post was kinda misleading - I'm not against the war system; quite the opposite. Taking direct control away from the player inherently adds difficulty, and gives the feeling of dealing with simulated people doing their own simulated stuff (e.g., I appoint a general, and that general does well or he doesn't). This kind of indirect/limited control is what I'd like to see for the economy (or more precisely, the construction side) as well. Also, when saying "the arguments seem to revolve around ..." I was referring to the arguments raised in this thread shortly before my post, which seems to revolve mostly about horrible AI being bad, therefore it is good that we don't have to rely on horrible AI any longer and can just directly control all construction at all times. I wasn't responding to the arguments by the developers, but the community arguments here, because they didn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, it's pretty futile to speculate on how playing different countries will feel, so I won't attempt it, especially because I don't understand the economic/construction system very well, like I said. The only thing I can say is that not directly controlling construction doesn't have to mean no player influence on the economy at all, if there are tools in place which allow for indirect control or guidance, like subsidies, tariffs, the state ordering certain things for itself, etc, while elections actually changing the way the game plays (by allowing or disallowing certain mechanics) would be a great tool to make countries feel distinct and give a reason to be invested in elections. Again, I don't know what is already in place to make countries feel distinct with regards to the impact of the economic system you are embracing, so I'm not saying that they don't feel distinct.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
No autonomous AI entrepreneurs/capitalists building stuff on their own in a Victoria game. Quite the disappointment. As someone said, the time frame represent the apex of economical laissez-faire, ie free capitalism. On the top of that it was an integral part of the broader 19th century liberalism movement.

At this point, the more dev diaries are released, the less I understand the vision for this game. It seems to be lacking period.
 
  • 11
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Xeiki said:
It's just baffeling to see that a game focused on socio-economic simulation doesn't actually simulate the "economic" bit, and makes no meaningful distinction (in practical terms, as far as I can see) between free market economies and command economies. [...] Now, whichever system I opt for, I'll always have to micromanage everything. I already dread playing a large country lategame
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree on this: market economies need rational price setting and investment allocation.
The investment fund should be fully automated, with players restricted to using tax funds for their pet projects.

Xeiki said:
... since it seems that we'll only be able to build factories in the same increments (add 5k/10k (??) workers each step), it'll be a lot of fun trying to build factories fast enough to keep up with population growth.
Click to expand...
Indeed both the factories and the farms should have MUCH larger increments if they are meant to represent entire (regional) sectors rather than individual companies.
The only redemption factor here is the 'auto-expand' feature, but it only jumps in AFTER full employment has been reached and the unemployed start to pile up.

To reduce the late-game micro-dread I would love to see:
  • An 'accelerated auto-expansion' building option that is always one step ahead of employment. New building has hired their first employee? Immediately build lvl2. Lvl1 is full? Immediately build lvl3 etc. In effect, the hiring and expansion process will happen in parallel, rather than in steps.
  • An 'expansion planner' similar to HOI4: shift+click to add 10 lvls of cotton farm in Astrakhan to the queue
  • A 'parallel construction' option in the construction queue: Split the 10 lvls of cotton farm in Astrakhan as 10 separate entries, that can be built at the same time (provided your construction industry is large enough)
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sbrubbles said:
On a sidenote: will unemployment be a constant issue (which would be historically plausible, but might have gameplay problems) or will it be more or less trivial to solve, achieving full employment like in Vic2?
Click to expand...
Vic 3 has got a perfect, cost-less job guarantee program: At game start only about 20% of the population is working in the formal economy, and everyone else is working on subsistence farms for a few pennies a day. You need to remember that subsistence farming is not a real job but akin to unemployment in the modern sense.

At game start you can build an economy and society around subsistence farming. But as your pops get more literate and learn new ideas such as egalitarianism, socialism etc. they will ask for a better standard of living.
The only way to maintain social peace is to first abolish serfdom to improve peasant's SoL and then develop formal employment (this includes commercial farms) as quickly as possible to improve people's SoL before they get too radical.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Compromise solution which just came to mind: make it so that capitalists (and other investors, if they exist), can suggest stuff to build to the player. The player, as the government, gets to choose to grant a building permit or not. So instead of the player being able to more or less freely choose how to invest the funds of the investment pool, they only get the choice to accept or reject whatever the capitalists want to build. Make it so that a permit costs a small amount of money, leading to extra income to the state whenever a building project is approved.

Obvious counterargument: it'd be extremely micro-intensive, requiring to approve or disapprove things constantly, and one could argue that it's only a cosmetic change, since players will most likely only approve the things they'd build themselves anyway.

Counter-counterargument: If the player is given the option to tick a "approve all building projects which have full funding behind them" box, the system would be automated much like it was in Vicky 2. Addiionaly, if the building projects can be automated by type (e.g., "approve all cotton industry buildings"), it'd decrease the micro load immensely while allowing the player to direct development.

Thinking about it - this seems like a perfect opportunity for another game rule (which is a great system, btw:): "Player always in control of construction [X]" Much like with Monuments being only ornamental depending on the game rules the player chooses, this would make it so that players can choose their preferred game-play model, without needing much additional programming effort (besides establishing the game rule), as all the systems needed are already in the game: there is the tax pool which will always be controlled by the player, and there's the investment pool, which can be automated by giving it to the economic AI already in game. Default setting would be that the player is always in control, to get around the next

Counterargument: if the economic AI isn't powerful enough, players might complain that the game isn't sufficiently optimized, with certain settings not working as advertised. No clue how well a warning like "By checking this option, you run the risk of your country being not as optimized as it could be!" would work.

Edit: since it is related, a similar game rule for "Public Construction Industry only [X]" could be implemented. But I have no clue how much more programming effort would have to be spend on this (establishing a private construction industry if the box is unchecked).
 
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
cristofolmc said:
No autonomous AI entrepreneurs/capitalists building stuff on their own in a Victoria game. Quite the disappointment. As someone said, the time frame represent the apex of economical laissez-faire, ie free capitalism. On the top of that it was an integral part of the broader 19th century liberalism movement.

At this point, the more dev diaries are released, the less I understand the vision for this game. It seems to be lacking period.
Click to expand...
Developers' vision seems to be based on making a game instead of making a ant farm.

Making game on era of rapid industrialization while stopping player from taking part in that industrialization would be same as making WW2 while making player unable to control their forces. (TBH war game based entirely around logistics could be neato)
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
Baneslave said:
Developers' vision seems to be based on making a game instead of making a ant farm.

Making game on era of rapid industrialization while stopping player from taking part in that industrialization would be same as making WW2 while making player unable to control their forces. (TBH war game based entirely around logistics could be neato)
Click to expand...

You mean a game where the player does not control his force during real time tactical engagement ? Like Hearts of Iron ? God forbid it ! !!
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Anna_Gein said:
You mean a game where the player does not control his force during real time tactical engagement ? Like Hearts of Iron ? God forbid it ! !!
Click to expand...
So, what is the complaint then? Player has about same amount of control on their divisions in HoI4 as they have on buildings in Victoria 3. And WW2 certainly was not era of rulers leading their forces on the frontlines.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Baneslave said:
So, what is the complaint then? Player has about same amount of control on their divisions in HoI4 as they have on buildings in Victoria 3. And WW2 certainly was not era of rulers leading their forces on the frontlines.
Click to expand...
Yeah and the Victorian era certainly was not the era of fully planned economy soviet style.

Sincerely I am not following you. It feels like you are just angry somebody did not post an overly enthusiastic comment to the dev diary.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Anna_Gein said:
Yeah and the Victorian ear certainly was not the era of fully planned economy soviet style.

Sincerely I am not following you. It feels like you are just angry somebody did not post an overly enthusiastic comment to the dev diary.
Click to expand...
I just happen to find it interesting that people tend to use "Mechanic X does not make sense for setting Y" argument only for mechanics they don't like. HoI4 would be more historical game if player couldn't order divisions around but it wouldn't necessarily be any better game for it. Similarly economy not being player led system would make Victoria 3 more historical but it wouldn't necessarily make it better game.

(Historicality of potential actions of omnipresent, omniscient player is rather philosophical topic anyways)
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Baneslave said:
I just happen to find it interesting that people tend to use "Mechanic X does not make sense for setting Y" argument only for mechanics they don't like. HoI4 would be more historical game if player couldn't order divisions around but it wouldn't necessarily be any better game for it. Similarly economy not being player led system would make Victoria 3 more historical but it wouldn't necessarily make it better game.

(Historicality of potential actions of omnipresent, omniscient player is rather philosophical topic anyways)
Click to expand...
Except my post was more a broad comment that a specific reaction to a specific mechanic. Hence the reference to previous diaries.

Anna_Gein said:
No autonomous AI entrepreneurs/capitalists building stuff on their own in a Victoria game. Quite the disappointment. As someone said, the time frame represent the apex of economical laissez-faire, ie free capitalism. On the top of that it was an integral part of the broader 19th century liberalism movement.

At this point, the more dev diaries are released, the less I understand the vision for this game. It seems to be lacking period.
Click to expand...

So you just mis-read my initial comment and post unfriendly angry reaction because I appear to be less enthusiastic than you.


In fact I made sure to not turn my first post into an history lesson course more than necessary because that was not the point anyway. The broad issue is not that mechanic x or mechanic y is historically inaccurate or less accurate than it could reasonably be. The problem at hand is that as more and more dev diaries are released, the concept behind Victoria 3, the so discussed "vision", the leading ideas articulated around game design pillars, or however you want to call it, appear less and less clear.

Is Victoria 3 a game where the player is primary active indirectly with a big place for AI automation ? Or is it a top heavy micro game ?

Is it a game where "buildings" are more large scale abstraction as it was explain in earlier diaries are "buildings" truly individual buildings (a necessity when you have monument and large scale infrastructure like canals) ?

Some characters like generals and admirals have a basic level of autonomous conscience and are capable to lead wars on their own as well as form "groups of interest" to push laws and policies which may run counter to the player's wish, thus leading to internal crisis. But other characters like capitalists appears to be near empty shell with no capacity to act on their own. Even as by definition, they were irl mostly independent from the government while military leaders were, again by definition, both integral part the government and active mostly according to the government wish.

Who or what exactly is the player ? According to this answer, what dictates where the player can act directly and where he can only act indirectly ? Is he the nation he choose at the start date ? But then can the player still play if/when your nation loose its statehood ? Or is the player a political party ? But then what happens if your party loose the elections ? Can my nations be led by a liberal party while simultaneously allowing me to micro manage and plan all aspect of my economy ? Or is there some constrain to the player free will depending on what happens in-game in internal politic ?

What is the theme of the game ? It was said military interactions were reduced both the minimum and through indirect means because this is not the "theme" of the game and thus the devs have an other "vision". Ie focus on economy, society and interior politic. Fine. But how are these more in-depth while maintaining an overall balance ? From this dev diary, it seems building '"buildings", infrastructures and the broad internal development can only be done in one micro heavy way (aka as a form of fully planned economy). But how does this make the game more in-depth in economy, society and internal politic save for the amount of micro management you must do to build "buildings" (aka something which have no clear definition in the game) ? Likewise how does this make Victoria 3 unique and interesting compare to others games like say ... Anno 1800 ?

Does Victoria 3 not risk to end up as a disjointed, counter-intuitive and confusing experience ? Sometimes you can only act directly with a lot of micro. But sometimes you are stuck to extremely indirect gameplay. Sometimes buildings are buildings. But sometimes buildings are abstraction for broader infrastructures and broader entities. I am not anymore sure what Victoria 3 is all about nor what are the devs trying to do.

Save for the fact that Victoria 3 is a game set in the Victorian era which apparently only represent very loosely this period and often goes full a-historical in letter and in spirit.

I guess the joke is on me as in an other discussion, I tried to define what Victoria (the Franchise) is all about and the time frame was pretty much irrelevant.

To come back to the example of Anno 1800, it is clear to me what this game is. This despite the fact that the game is set in a semi fictional universe. Anno 1800 is a city builder with a large economical simulation. The player is a colony entrepreneur who set to build colonies on islands of various size but all being restricted to a limited pool of resources. All the game revolves around theses core principles : a colonial entrepreneur, a city builder, economy simulation, islands with limited space and resources.

But what is Victoria 3 ? I do not know. And the more dev diaries I read, the less I can answer this question. Despite the wealth of gameplay mechanics details I learn with each new diary. Imho this is something worrisome period.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Making game on era of rapid industrialization while stopping player from taking part in that industrialization would be same as making WW2 while making player unable to control their forces. (TBH war game based entirely around logistics could be neato)
Click to expand...
This is just complete strawman and misrepresentation. Nobody is arguing that we should be disengaged from industrialization. The debate is by which means and at which level we should engage with Industrialization - and one facet of industrialization was precisely that the private sector did stuff on its own, creating tension with the general populace and the state. All of that tension already is modelled in the game, with the interaction of pops and interest groups and the player, and it is not dependent on the player being able to micromanage the building of all factories and other buildings, just like engaging with warfare is not dependent on being able to move around individual troops. Individual control of troops was removed because it is not the focus of the game - the focus of the game lies on the aforementioned interactions.

What's lost if the player doesn't control all construction directly? The ability to directly control and steer every single construction (obviously). Mind you that nobody is arguing that there should be no player driven construction at all, so this isn't a complete loss and doesn't cut out the player from engaging with industrialization directly through construction, either. State Railroads, State Mines, State Buildings are all still there, unless there's such a thing as anarcho-capitalism or straight up anarchy in the game - the player is still able to influence things very directly, just not all of them!

What is gained if the player doesn't control all construction under all economic systems directly? The same thing that is gained by not making individual troops directly controllable. You have to rely on your generals, which means you have to create a system where those generals can and are likely to succeed if you want to win. It is not a game of micromanagement, of outsmarting the AI in nitty gritty detail by virtue of being a more intelligent agent which can plan ahead much better.

But again, that is only the case for certain economical systems. Nobody is arguing "remove planned economies!" Under a system were investors can construct their own buildings, the player still has the choice to influence the politics of his country to change to a system which offers more direkt control. So more player choice, not less. More interaction with the internal politics of a nation and more reason to be interested in it, not less.

In short, this isn't a black and white issue at all, and neither is it one based solely on historicity. We all know that it's a game, not just a simulation or documentary. At least from my PoV, it's a debate about game systems, and what would be fun and challenging and interactive and mesh well with the other mechanics in the game and the timeframe it is set in. And again, this is only about construction. One small part of the whole. Not "EvErYthInG ShoULd be DiFfeErenT!" or "NeW tHing SucKS."
 
  • 5
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This is totally unrelated to the content, but the construction icon in the WIP pictures looks like a toadstool, and now that I've seen it, I can't unsee it.
 
  • 5Haha
Reactions:
Seems really good so far. Question: Can you buy/sell construction capacity to/from other countries? If poor little me is playing just a teensy weensy third rate power like Finland for example, can I buy construction capacity from Russia or Germany to build some of that enticing looking steel framed infrastructure and thus help me industrialize, at some significant cost?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back