So, I was screwing around with Victoria 2, primarily browsing the files, exploring many different methods of simulating battle conditions and making "fort" units by testing to see how long a heavily modded and expensive, and very, very slow guard unit would last....
Basically I was spelunking. Diving into the files, looking through the numbers to answer some questions about how to change particular items to my liking, for my own games. And, it seemed like asking some questions about these items, and showing other people what I think would be nice, would promote some good discussion of gameplay and balance.
Really, there are four files I dove into, the defines.lua, issues.txt, national_focus.txt, and static_modifiers.txt.
max_bureacracy_percentage = 0.01
fairly simple, the maximum effective percent of bureaucrats in a state is 1%. Seems like this *should* go up over time... oh!
bureacracy_percentage_increment = 0.001
so, for every social admin reform, the max effective bureacrats percentage increases by 0.001. So, with two social admin reforms, the max eff. burea. percent is 0.012, or 1.2%. I mean, personally, I'd be more in line with having the bureaucracy_percentage_increment = 0.002, or 0.0025, because tons of people in real life are just bureaucrats... I guess I could actually identify and quantify a curve of the number of bureaucrats, dating back to 1836 through 1936, but that is a lot of work and this is basically the first item on my laundry list of items I want to discuss.... so....
min_crimefight_percent = 0.2
max_crimefight_percent = 0.99
Alright, so the idea here is pretty simple, you can probably infer what these mean. But wait, the minimum crimefighting percent in 20%, thats not too bad, especially when you consider the lawless wastelands that I like to populate by refusing to address it at all, by increasing admin eff. (I think). Why not set the minimum to 0? or 5%? 99% even seems a little high, it feels like having 95% is a good limit.
conservative_increase_after_reform = 0.25
...I mean, I understand, having it set to 0 would be bonkers. Oh, this reform? Passed. Next reform, passed. You still have to deal with minimum time before another reform can be passed, but 25? 20, or 15, really, seems like a good limiting snowball factor. Eh. Not a hill I'm going to die on.
ai_support_reform = 0.05
So, when a percent of the population supports a reform, then the ai will support passing the reform, assuming it has the UH seats to do so. But 5%? Really, as far as my limited experience sits, 7.5% seems more appreciable, or even just a flat 7%. There, you have enough were not pursuing it would mean a very likely rebellion, but not just a rubberstamp reform of "oh shit all of scotland wants public shitters, better heed that call" every time 5% wants something. Kind of low, imo.
base_monthly_diplopoints = 0.3
So, this is really slow. I'll take 0.5.
diplomat_travel_time = 14
14 days! I'll take 7, or even 10. But 14? Agonizing.
noncore_tax_penalty = -0.05
5% tax penalty? For non-core? 25%, seems, imo, the *minimum* for non-core penalty. I mean, you don't really *own* own it, y'know?
base_tariff_efficiency = 0.2
Similar to the crimefighting argument, sure, the government can *set* tariff levels, but if a tariff were placed and no bureaucrat were there to enforce it, would there actually be a tariff?
created_cb_valid_time = 12
I'm interested to hear arguments on both sides. Look how long it takes to burn off 10 infamy. Long time. 0.1 infamy per month, 10 months for 1 infamy, and 100 months for 10. 8.3333 years to burn off 10 infamy. Yet, the CB stays for barely an eighth of that time. 18 months? On the other hand, lets shorten it to 6 months, so that you have a higher risk-reward, in case you aren't ready, and sometimes your ally will decide to refuse joining in a war...
investment_score_factor = 0.005
0.5%. That's how much a percent of industrial score you get from building a whole factory in another country. To compare, you'd have to build 200 factories to compare, assuming I'm doing my math right. Why not 25%? I understand not having 100%, because, hey, it isn't your factory, bud. 25%, sure, it isn't in your country, but hell, you've spread your McDonalds into a whole country, regardless of who uses it, you are the one who bankrolled it. That takes industrial power. That, should give you score. You've run out of places to put factories in your country, but hey, this bozo isn't using his coal/iron state right, but he has very little money, or is just dumb. Let me just... woaaah, 25%! Heck yeah.
tech_factor_vassal = 0.5
I mean, 25% seems more appropriate. 50%? That's just nuts. I'm not sure how you could scientifically say "well x% is actually a good number to rest on" but 50% is kind of high. Based on.... well nothing but what my common sense says.
naval_base_supply_score_base = 10
naval_base_supply_score_empty = 2
naval_base _non_core_supply_score = 0.3
Alright, this just seems silly. So, the first is how much supply score you get from a naval base. Easy.
The second is the supply score you get from a province that is coastal, that has... no naval base.
2? I mean, if you compare a complete unciv, who have no naval bases, but tons of coastline, and a civ that has a naval base, but very little coastline, you are telling me that the unciv just needs 5x the coastline to match the supply score? At this point I don't remember what supply score is, but I will fight to deny just lots of empty coastline the naval supremacy of an actual naval base. Hey, naval bases should cost money, so should forts, like maintenance wise. Sorry.
But the most bonkers: naval bases in non-cores give you 3/10ths the supply score of naval bases on cores. Look, if I build a naval base, regardless of where in the world it is, I have very little reason to believe that a non-core naval base, that I paid for, will be 3/10ths as useful in generating supply score. At that point, it is just 50% better than normal coastline. Nah. I'll take 9/10ths, or even 8/10ths, but 3/10ths?
loan_base_interest = 0.02
2% interest. I mean, money keeps flooding into the market with precious metal mines, therefore creating "inflation", so what is this inflation rate? I mean, the easiest way to find out is to mod in a complete world conquest, and keep all RGO's the same. This is our control. You find out, exactly, how much money is pushed into the system. Simply set the tax, etc... values so that you make money, and let the game run for 10, 25, 50, 100 years. Keep those values in mind.
Well, now just mod those precious metals out of the game, and absorb those provinces and pops into another local province, and use those same stats. I think. Just figure out the difference, in terms of generated wealth. That difference will tell you where the inflation rate is, I think. Is that inflation rate 2%? Probably not, I have no idea, I haven't done that test. But, let's raise it to like 5%. I'm going to make money loaning money to other people.
bankrupcy_duration = 2
So, this measures the number of years until all loans cancel. Let's raise it to 10.
trade_cap_low_limit_naval = 0.3
Armies, and Construction, can be set to 0. I can just decide not to pay my clergy, like some sick twisted luddite who believes that france is better as an unciv. But, I can't decide to just not pay my navy. Why not? If I want to torpedo my ruling of the waves, let me. Also, let the AI.
soldier_to_pop_damage = 0.20
So, for every soldier killed in battle, 0.20 soldiers from that pop die. I don't think this makes sense. Do I just not understand what is happening here? I mean, I understand soldiers getting injured, but where does this 0.20 come from? I would like to run a test game at 1.00. Another fun game would be setting it to higher than 1, like 10, but I could very easily see that becoming a complete joke game. A soldier dies, and another 9 die from grief. Sad.
naval_low_supply_damage_supply_status = 0.25
Basically, if a navy has 25% or lower supply status, it takes damage. Or, begins to register that it should take damage. Because...
naval_low_supply_damage_days_delay = 30
Uh... I mean, supply variance over a few days, I understand. But 30 days? I can understand a week.
But back to our original question, 25% or lower, and you take STR damage. I think it should be 75, or 70 percent. You look at a bunch of people on a boat, and if they only get 26%, they're fine? The ship doesn't start taking damage? We've got about a quarter of the supplies, guys, but we can still make do. Nah. Wait...
naval_low_supply_min_str = 5.0
So, if I don't fund my navy, by choice or by finances, or by other ways, they can only go down to 5.0 strength. Nope. 0 STR. Can't buy the stuff? Boats go bye-bye and sink. But, how long till they go bye-bye?
naval_low_supply_damage_per_day = 0.25
Lets lower this. Lets cut it in half, because adding the dangerous threat of mothballed fleets (or unfunded fleets) just sinking because the engineers ran out of tape should be offset by the ships sinking... slowly. Rusting away, slowly.
Now, on to issues.txt
Party issues seem important. You've got protectionism and free trade. My ideal breakpoints are 10% min tariffs for protectionism, and 10% max tariffs for free trade. That's it.
Economic policy is key here, and something that makes most people really only choose one of two economic policy.
Laissez-faire is shit.
max_tax = 0.5
factory_owner_cost = 0.3
factory_output = 0.05
That's it. Well, plus the rules, but this is the stuff that matters, imo. If it were me, laissez-faire would be treated as a highly developed industrial nation economic policy. It should give great throughput bonuses, make factories cheap, and even encourage immigration into the nation, because anyone could make money. The downside would be the government can't tax you a whole lot, so underdeveloped laissez-faire economies would just collapse because there isn't enough revenue generating factories in the first place to get the whole capitalistic process to automatically roll. There are other things you could add as bonuses, as well as negatives, but I don't know all the modifiers, that'll be another topic.
Interventionism is like this sucky middle ground where you can say "well at least im not laissez-faire" but you don't get any of the great rules that state capitalism or planned economy gets. You just get a factory owner cost of 50%, so increased from the 30% that laissez-faire gets. You can build 3 facs, where the laissez-faire can build 5. It should stay the middle ground, but not be sucky. You get some neat bonuses, but you are really the bread and butter for developed nations, or developing nations.
State capitalism. Min tax of 25%, and fac cost of 60%. Great rules. Why.... wait why not make this a little bad, in terms of the capitalistic "hey people want money so they are incentivized to make money" but if the state owns everything, and operates capitalistically, there will be state officials who have no business running a company. Why not give that a fair shake?
Planned Economy.
Min tax of 50%, factory owner cost of -1 (aka can't build if you are pop looking to become bourgeoisie).
Wait.
factory throughput of 5%? In a planned economy? If anything, with all the rules, that number should be negative 20 percent. A planned economy is the state saying "well, we need more steel, so, uh, build more" and people aren't per se more willing to do something because the state says so, unless there is a monetary or otherwise incentive.
The facs might be shitty, maybe -10% throughput, but at least the labor is being used effectively and planned by the state. No more endless luxury furniture factories in coal and iron provinces. Bad news is you have to keep track of that. So, more of an endgame type of economic policy, similar to laissez-faire.
Now, for national_focus.txt
I have two gripes.
Immigration focus.
When was the last time you used it? Never? Farther back then never? I thought, hey, 20% ain't bad, but wait, if the province I'm trying to get the majority of my pops to migrate to is shit, then that 20% isn't going to do much....
Also, why not give a monetary cost to this immigration focus? Like, hey, we are paying money, or whatever, for people to move here. I'm not sure, I'd really have to make a complete list of all modifiers to say "hey, this would work great for modeling immigration pushes by the government!".
Party loyalty.
It doesn't do much. Let's make it 10x.
Last, we have static_modifiers.txt
So much here to use. Possibilities....
Here's just a list of defining items that do not contain ANY modifiers.
overseas
coastal
non_coastal
blockaded
no_adjacent_controlled
core
nationalism
Why not give a negative pop growth, or negative RGO eff. to blockaded provinces? Or non adj. controlled? Or nationalism?
Also,
bad_debter = 0.05
thats how much your loan interest is. I'm assuming to be a bad debter you have to fuck up a ton. Why not 10%?
total_blockaded just has war exhaustion. If my country was completely blockaded, people would die, realistically.
Finally,
in_bankrupcy
causes nothing.
Please talk about how this post is too long and how it's dumb to talk about almost every item from those lists that has a measure of "hey why not this number?"
Thanks in advance!
Basically I was spelunking. Diving into the files, looking through the numbers to answer some questions about how to change particular items to my liking, for my own games. And, it seemed like asking some questions about these items, and showing other people what I think would be nice, would promote some good discussion of gameplay and balance.
Really, there are four files I dove into, the defines.lua, issues.txt, national_focus.txt, and static_modifiers.txt.
max_bureacracy_percentage = 0.01
fairly simple, the maximum effective percent of bureaucrats in a state is 1%. Seems like this *should* go up over time... oh!
bureacracy_percentage_increment = 0.001
so, for every social admin reform, the max effective bureacrats percentage increases by 0.001. So, with two social admin reforms, the max eff. burea. percent is 0.012, or 1.2%. I mean, personally, I'd be more in line with having the bureaucracy_percentage_increment = 0.002, or 0.0025, because tons of people in real life are just bureaucrats... I guess I could actually identify and quantify a curve of the number of bureaucrats, dating back to 1836 through 1936, but that is a lot of work and this is basically the first item on my laundry list of items I want to discuss.... so....
min_crimefight_percent = 0.2
max_crimefight_percent = 0.99
Alright, so the idea here is pretty simple, you can probably infer what these mean. But wait, the minimum crimefighting percent in 20%, thats not too bad, especially when you consider the lawless wastelands that I like to populate by refusing to address it at all, by increasing admin eff. (I think). Why not set the minimum to 0? or 5%? 99% even seems a little high, it feels like having 95% is a good limit.
conservative_increase_after_reform = 0.25
...I mean, I understand, having it set to 0 would be bonkers. Oh, this reform? Passed. Next reform, passed. You still have to deal with minimum time before another reform can be passed, but 25? 20, or 15, really, seems like a good limiting snowball factor. Eh. Not a hill I'm going to die on.
ai_support_reform = 0.05
So, when a percent of the population supports a reform, then the ai will support passing the reform, assuming it has the UH seats to do so. But 5%? Really, as far as my limited experience sits, 7.5% seems more appreciable, or even just a flat 7%. There, you have enough were not pursuing it would mean a very likely rebellion, but not just a rubberstamp reform of "oh shit all of scotland wants public shitters, better heed that call" every time 5% wants something. Kind of low, imo.
base_monthly_diplopoints = 0.3
So, this is really slow. I'll take 0.5.
diplomat_travel_time = 14
14 days! I'll take 7, or even 10. But 14? Agonizing.
noncore_tax_penalty = -0.05
5% tax penalty? For non-core? 25%, seems, imo, the *minimum* for non-core penalty. I mean, you don't really *own* own it, y'know?
base_tariff_efficiency = 0.2
Similar to the crimefighting argument, sure, the government can *set* tariff levels, but if a tariff were placed and no bureaucrat were there to enforce it, would there actually be a tariff?
created_cb_valid_time = 12
I'm interested to hear arguments on both sides. Look how long it takes to burn off 10 infamy. Long time. 0.1 infamy per month, 10 months for 1 infamy, and 100 months for 10. 8.3333 years to burn off 10 infamy. Yet, the CB stays for barely an eighth of that time. 18 months? On the other hand, lets shorten it to 6 months, so that you have a higher risk-reward, in case you aren't ready, and sometimes your ally will decide to refuse joining in a war...
investment_score_factor = 0.005
0.5%. That's how much a percent of industrial score you get from building a whole factory in another country. To compare, you'd have to build 200 factories to compare, assuming I'm doing my math right. Why not 25%? I understand not having 100%, because, hey, it isn't your factory, bud. 25%, sure, it isn't in your country, but hell, you've spread your McDonalds into a whole country, regardless of who uses it, you are the one who bankrolled it. That takes industrial power. That, should give you score. You've run out of places to put factories in your country, but hey, this bozo isn't using his coal/iron state right, but he has very little money, or is just dumb. Let me just... woaaah, 25%! Heck yeah.
tech_factor_vassal = 0.5
I mean, 25% seems more appropriate. 50%? That's just nuts. I'm not sure how you could scientifically say "well x% is actually a good number to rest on" but 50% is kind of high. Based on.... well nothing but what my common sense says.
naval_base_supply_score_base = 10
naval_base_supply_score_empty = 2
naval_base _non_core_supply_score = 0.3
Alright, this just seems silly. So, the first is how much supply score you get from a naval base. Easy.
The second is the supply score you get from a province that is coastal, that has... no naval base.
2? I mean, if you compare a complete unciv, who have no naval bases, but tons of coastline, and a civ that has a naval base, but very little coastline, you are telling me that the unciv just needs 5x the coastline to match the supply score? At this point I don't remember what supply score is, but I will fight to deny just lots of empty coastline the naval supremacy of an actual naval base. Hey, naval bases should cost money, so should forts, like maintenance wise. Sorry.
But the most bonkers: naval bases in non-cores give you 3/10ths the supply score of naval bases on cores. Look, if I build a naval base, regardless of where in the world it is, I have very little reason to believe that a non-core naval base, that I paid for, will be 3/10ths as useful in generating supply score. At that point, it is just 50% better than normal coastline. Nah. I'll take 9/10ths, or even 8/10ths, but 3/10ths?
loan_base_interest = 0.02
2% interest. I mean, money keeps flooding into the market with precious metal mines, therefore creating "inflation", so what is this inflation rate? I mean, the easiest way to find out is to mod in a complete world conquest, and keep all RGO's the same. This is our control. You find out, exactly, how much money is pushed into the system. Simply set the tax, etc... values so that you make money, and let the game run for 10, 25, 50, 100 years. Keep those values in mind.
Well, now just mod those precious metals out of the game, and absorb those provinces and pops into another local province, and use those same stats. I think. Just figure out the difference, in terms of generated wealth. That difference will tell you where the inflation rate is, I think. Is that inflation rate 2%? Probably not, I have no idea, I haven't done that test. But, let's raise it to like 5%. I'm going to make money loaning money to other people.
bankrupcy_duration = 2
So, this measures the number of years until all loans cancel. Let's raise it to 10.
trade_cap_low_limit_naval = 0.3
Armies, and Construction, can be set to 0. I can just decide not to pay my clergy, like some sick twisted luddite who believes that france is better as an unciv. But, I can't decide to just not pay my navy. Why not? If I want to torpedo my ruling of the waves, let me. Also, let the AI.
soldier_to_pop_damage = 0.20
So, for every soldier killed in battle, 0.20 soldiers from that pop die. I don't think this makes sense. Do I just not understand what is happening here? I mean, I understand soldiers getting injured, but where does this 0.20 come from? I would like to run a test game at 1.00. Another fun game would be setting it to higher than 1, like 10, but I could very easily see that becoming a complete joke game. A soldier dies, and another 9 die from grief. Sad.
naval_low_supply_damage_supply_status = 0.25
Basically, if a navy has 25% or lower supply status, it takes damage. Or, begins to register that it should take damage. Because...
naval_low_supply_damage_days_delay = 30
Uh... I mean, supply variance over a few days, I understand. But 30 days? I can understand a week.
But back to our original question, 25% or lower, and you take STR damage. I think it should be 75, or 70 percent. You look at a bunch of people on a boat, and if they only get 26%, they're fine? The ship doesn't start taking damage? We've got about a quarter of the supplies, guys, but we can still make do. Nah. Wait...
naval_low_supply_min_str = 5.0
So, if I don't fund my navy, by choice or by finances, or by other ways, they can only go down to 5.0 strength. Nope. 0 STR. Can't buy the stuff? Boats go bye-bye and sink. But, how long till they go bye-bye?
naval_low_supply_damage_per_day = 0.25
Lets lower this. Lets cut it in half, because adding the dangerous threat of mothballed fleets (or unfunded fleets) just sinking because the engineers ran out of tape should be offset by the ships sinking... slowly. Rusting away, slowly.
Now, on to issues.txt
Party issues seem important. You've got protectionism and free trade. My ideal breakpoints are 10% min tariffs for protectionism, and 10% max tariffs for free trade. That's it.
Economic policy is key here, and something that makes most people really only choose one of two economic policy.
Laissez-faire is shit.
max_tax = 0.5
factory_owner_cost = 0.3
factory_output = 0.05
That's it. Well, plus the rules, but this is the stuff that matters, imo. If it were me, laissez-faire would be treated as a highly developed industrial nation economic policy. It should give great throughput bonuses, make factories cheap, and even encourage immigration into the nation, because anyone could make money. The downside would be the government can't tax you a whole lot, so underdeveloped laissez-faire economies would just collapse because there isn't enough revenue generating factories in the first place to get the whole capitalistic process to automatically roll. There are other things you could add as bonuses, as well as negatives, but I don't know all the modifiers, that'll be another topic.
Interventionism is like this sucky middle ground where you can say "well at least im not laissez-faire" but you don't get any of the great rules that state capitalism or planned economy gets. You just get a factory owner cost of 50%, so increased from the 30% that laissez-faire gets. You can build 3 facs, where the laissez-faire can build 5. It should stay the middle ground, but not be sucky. You get some neat bonuses, but you are really the bread and butter for developed nations, or developing nations.
State capitalism. Min tax of 25%, and fac cost of 60%. Great rules. Why.... wait why not make this a little bad, in terms of the capitalistic "hey people want money so they are incentivized to make money" but if the state owns everything, and operates capitalistically, there will be state officials who have no business running a company. Why not give that a fair shake?
Planned Economy.
Min tax of 50%, factory owner cost of -1 (aka can't build if you are pop looking to become bourgeoisie).
Wait.
factory throughput of 5%? In a planned economy? If anything, with all the rules, that number should be negative 20 percent. A planned economy is the state saying "well, we need more steel, so, uh, build more" and people aren't per se more willing to do something because the state says so, unless there is a monetary or otherwise incentive.
The facs might be shitty, maybe -10% throughput, but at least the labor is being used effectively and planned by the state. No more endless luxury furniture factories in coal and iron provinces. Bad news is you have to keep track of that. So, more of an endgame type of economic policy, similar to laissez-faire.
Now, for national_focus.txt
I have two gripes.
Immigration focus.
When was the last time you used it? Never? Farther back then never? I thought, hey, 20% ain't bad, but wait, if the province I'm trying to get the majority of my pops to migrate to is shit, then that 20% isn't going to do much....
Also, why not give a monetary cost to this immigration focus? Like, hey, we are paying money, or whatever, for people to move here. I'm not sure, I'd really have to make a complete list of all modifiers to say "hey, this would work great for modeling immigration pushes by the government!".
Party loyalty.
It doesn't do much. Let's make it 10x.
Last, we have static_modifiers.txt
So much here to use. Possibilities....
Here's just a list of defining items that do not contain ANY modifiers.
overseas
coastal
non_coastal
blockaded
no_adjacent_controlled
core
nationalism
Why not give a negative pop growth, or negative RGO eff. to blockaded provinces? Or non adj. controlled? Or nationalism?
Also,
bad_debter = 0.05
thats how much your loan interest is. I'm assuming to be a bad debter you have to fuck up a ton. Why not 10%?
total_blockaded just has war exhaustion. If my country was completely blockaded, people would die, realistically.
Finally,
in_bankrupcy
causes nothing.
Please talk about how this post is too long and how it's dumb to talk about almost every item from those lists that has a measure of "hey why not this number?"
Thanks in advance!
