• 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.
Well the changes are a good thing, of course we expect more, now I would like to know what modes are considered basic and that can be combined to achieve a game that is as objective as possible, because I am confused with the amount that already exists, I am not referring to cosmetics, I I mean modes and sub modes that adjust game errors please thank you.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't think many people argue that we should have "perfect population in 1936", they are arguing that pop growth should be more plausible than it is now. You could say that the game in its current state is "railroaded" to create Russian Hokkaido, US bordergore in Alberta, stagnating russian population, exploding french population etc. As those results seem to happen in the majority of the games (all games I played this far). But its not railroaded, its the game mechanics that consistently creates those results. And the game mechanics should be better balanced to create more plausible results. There is no reason to believe this will not get better as the game gets patched, just like there is no reason to believe it will ever be perfect (whatever that would be).

And I agree with Al-Khalidi that the current pop-growth balance is a major problem as it is very immersion breaking. But that is of course subjective.

EDIT: But yes, rebalancing pop-growth should be the subject for a major patch, not a hotfix.
I also like plausable outcomes. I just don't understand the focus on France as an example. France being nr 1 is not a big deal honestly(most of the times Britain is still nr 1 of you include their subjects stats, because that's what everyone does when thinking about Britain at this time period). France together with Britain and Germany were far away the biggest powers in this period by ww1. Russia became hopelessly behind due to their inefficient system and humilated several times over in this time period before it's collapse, so far that's pretty much what's happening. So pop number says something different, meh , it's just number , it's actual effect is what means something.
If you want to talk about failures that's immersion breaking it's the United States which AI can't utilize their own oil resources which led to no powers being able to build cars or planes in my game, that's immersion breaking. Even more immersion breaking is that even the most powerful nation is still garbage tier compared to what the player achives with a minor nation on autopilot, that is immersion breaking because I'm actually playing a game here and not being AFK on some other nation watching the AI play against eachother. I want the great powers to feel like great powers in relation to the player the most.
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
We have a fix for the circular trade issue but it’s not properly tested yet.
Isn't the underlying issue a conscious (and as we now see, a wrong) decision to buff trade to make it more fun? As I understood, the ability to create profitable trade loops is only a consequence of trade creating money from air (so there would be more trade), and preventing the loops themselves is just covering the problem a bit, not solving it.
Am I wrong?
 
  • 7
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Isn't the underlying issue a conscious (and as we now see, a wrong) decision to buff trade to make it more fun? As I understood, the ability to create profitable trade loops is only a consequence of trade creating money from air (so there would be more trade), and preventing the loops themselves is just covering the problem a bit, not solving it.
Am I wrong?
This. We had a couple of very good, in-depth threads about trade and it became clear trade loops are just a side-effect of the main problem: how the trade formula works and that it creates money out of nowhere; allowing nations to overimport goods and make profit doing so, despite the price of the imported good being way lower in the importing country than in the exporting one. That's what needs adjustments and fixes, not the loops themselves.
 
  • 10Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I just wanted to say good work to the developers. Some interfaces/lenses are still FPS killers, but even on an old save the patch gave me a good 20-30 years more of gameplay. I'm still hoping you'll pull a couple more FPS from something, but the patch is an instant 5-stars for the performance on my system.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I've seen it noted here and there by individuals, but I'm not sure if it's a vocal minority or a wide problem really. [...] My PC is also only about 10 months old.
The problem is that this
Recommended:
  • Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-6600K or AMD® Ryzen 5 2600X (AVX support required)
  • Graphics: Nvidia® GeForce™ GTX 1660 (6GB) or AMD® RX 590 (8GB)
is a bit older than a 10 month top of the line PC, and a significantly bigger amount of audience for a niche game. And, really, it's just getting ahead of the curve before adding more stuff, while getting a better grasp on how to do it, because it is *hard*.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem is that this

is a bit older than a 10 month top of the line PC, and a significantly bigger amount of audience for a niche game. And, really, it's just getting ahead of the curve before adding more stuff, while getting a better grasp on how to do it, because it is *hard*.
Exactly. I have an i5-7600k in a six year old machine. Despite its age, it is still a better chip than the recommended system specs. Nevertheless, this is the worst performing paradox game I have played. The 1.06 patch significantly helped with performance, but there is still a ways to go.
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I'm pretty sure it doesn't need to be "top of the line" even at recommended levels. I opted for a midline model with an i7 instead of the available but yowza pricey i9s. What I did do is make sure I was purchasing a PC made for gaming. I went with the Lenovo Legion series. I would bet anything that even their cheapest model with the oldest and cheapest components will still run Victoria3 fine. I'm not sure why list only selective bits of the system requirements:
  • MINIMUM
    OS: Windows® 10 Home 64 Bit
    Processor: Intel® Core™ i3-3250 or AMD® FX 8370 (AVX support required)
    Memory: 8 GB RAM
    Graphics: Nvidia® GeForce™ GTX 660 (2GB) or AMD® R7 370 (2GB) or Intel® HD Graphics 630 or AMD Radeon™ Vega 8
    Storage: 10 GB available space
  • RECOMMENDED
    OS: Windows® 10 64 Bit or Windows® 11
    Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-6600K or AMD® Ryzen 5 2600X (AVX support required)
    Memory: 16 GB RAM
    Graphics: Nvidia® GeForce™ GTX 1660 (6GB) or AMD® RX 590 (8GB)
    Storage: 10 GB available space
--

Someone actually disagrees with the system requirements? RotFL
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
I can't get Navies to build whatsoever anymore.. any ideas why?

Edit: Added screenshot. Been waiting for hiring to begin for ~4 years
 

Attachments

  • 20221114173154_1.jpg
    20221114173154_1.jpg
    407,7 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
I had no single crash. I am guessing I was lucky. Also does not see noticeable slow down,but still some years to go (not so many though). As Sweden had almost 2 bilion PKB and over 100 mln of population and already discovered all tech.
Also confirming situations where I had to fight countries impossible to make front. It was rebellion supported by very small country inside Germany. Rebels capitulate but I still have war with supporting country and I can not send army there, also it is impossible to end it by diplomacy.
If the rebels have already capitulated and the supporting team has no wargoals against you (because the rebels are gone), you can capitulate to get out of the war. It's definitely a buggy state of affairs to be in a war where neither side has wargoals to enforce, but capitulating out of it will do no harm (despite the big scary popup saying so).

Any chance the immortal monarch bug got fixed or will get fixed in the near future?

I'd like to see fewer kings and leaders living into their 80s and late 90s.
They've mentioned on reddit the monarch age fix is coming in 1.1.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Chicos, terminé mis prácticas solo con vainilla, ahora quiero incorporar algo para corregir errores en diferentes esferas, lo que sería una buena combinación de modos que no alteran el contenido principal del juego para seguir jugando más profundamente.¿Qué modos recomiendas?
 
This is a super stupid thing, but if the devs are going to put a great big banner on patch posts saying "AI" or "Balance" to categorize their changes (which is fine, to be clear), they should have a different portrait for each banner. Rather than having the same two guys looking at the same wheel four times in a row.

I don't even care if the banners have anything to do with what they list, it'd just be a bit more visually fun.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Esto es algo súper estúpido, pero si los desarrolladores van a poner un gran banner en las publicaciones de parches que digan "AI" o "Balance" para categorizar sus cambios (lo cual está bien, para ser claros), deberían tener un retrato diferente para cada banner. En lugar de tener a los mismos dos tipos mirando la misma rueda cuatro veces seguidas.

Ni siquiera me importa si los banners tienen algo que ver con lo que enumeran, solo sería un poco más divertido visualmente.
Compañero, ¿qué mods recomiendas para mantener la originalidad de la vainilla y evitar errores como los que todo el mundo se queja?
 
What I did do is make sure I was purchasing a PC made for gaming.
Same thing as far as many as concerned, but also the requirements. I'm not even annoyed, because I really need to and will upgrade soon anyway, but what it is sold is what is supported.

I'm not sure why list only selective bits of the system requirements
That should be fairly clear, because they're the only relevant components to whether it should run fairly well that are too optimistic, at the moment.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
They've mentioned on reddit the monarch age fix is coming in 1.1.
Thanks.

That seems a long time to wait for what seems to be an issue with the defines (death age is defined as 90 I think).