-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I see. I was thinking about it but never found out, what is that/are those improtant aspect(s) that is/are not included in the current version? That prevents smaller nations to have historical wealth?OHgamer said:
Just curious.
jadam said:
Basically it would require a complete overhaul of the cost of daily expenses so that smaller nations, on drastically reduced income potentials, would still be able to afford things like building army units, paying for reforms, importing goods to keep factories running, education and crime payments etc. The gradiated system means that it is easier for smaller nations to pay the same price as larger nations and retain the potential to be competitive in game. Since the root of all state income is taxation and tariffs based on pop income derived from exports, if you go to linear correlation you drastically cut the amount of revenue a nation can generate.
keep in mind, a 20K pop produces at 75% the efficiency of a full 100K pop in the current system. Strictly linear wpid reduce this to 20%, or cutting the output, and thus export revenue of this pop, by almost 75%. The revenue produced under the current system by this POP in one day will now take almost 4 days to produce the same amount. That means you will cut daily income for the state from this POP to about 1/4 of what it was, meaning it will take 4x as long for the state to produce the income from this POP needed to create a new soldier unit, pay for a social reform, or pay for imports from overseas (which will be higher in price because reduced production will raise demand relative to supply ratios unless completely overhauled).
So for smaller nations, what is currently a challenging gap to keep up and play with the big boys becomes almost impossible, since you are going to dramatically slash the revenue potential of small states. Nations like Belgium, Sweden, the various Latin American nations, would never have the potential to rise under human player leadership to the top ranks, since those nations with the largest POPs would have an even greater advantage than currently.
Now of course, is it more realistic to have it linear. Sure. but would it be more fun for the average gamer. Absolutely not in the slightest. Players like to be able to turn 2nd tier powers into great powers, that is one of the best things about this game. It's a challenge to do now based on the graded production system. It would be impossible to do under a strictly linear system. The only other way you could get around this would be to scale costs of things to the size of the nation you play, and that would 1) be a major nightmare to program, requiring a lot more processing to adjust prices as nations rose and fell in population and 2) seems a lot less fair from a gameplay standpoint. Why should Belgium pay less than Prussia to build an army just because it is smaller? At least with the current system, everyone operates under the same production rules.
Right, but what in reality (historically) even belgium had an army that was fair for its size. Belgium had education, social/defense spendings, and navy and so on. Still a gun or artillery piece's cost was nearly the same as it was for prussia. So my question was not aimed to game mechanics, rather than what was missed from the game that prevents the realistic outcomes with linear production efficiency? Since education/social reform/defense costs are all tied to population, number of soldiers, they should scale with country size. Of course military equipment should not. That leaves income as the sole aspect that is not correctly represented in Vic:R.OHgamer said:
What am I missing?
Question: does the AI ever split pops?
It certainly doesn't split all pops over 40,000. I've got factories through conquest that had 50k+ craftsmen pops in them. So the human player who splits all the time really has an advantage over the AI, which is why I tend to avoid splitting. It's an exploit, unless the pop is already 95k+ big. France with its low population growth rate is much easier to indutrialize if you split.
It certainly doesn't split all pops over 40,000. I've got factories through conquest that had 50k+ craftsmen pops in them. So the human player who splits all the time really has an advantage over the AI, which is why I tend to avoid splitting. It's an exploit, unless the pop is already 95k+ big. France with its low population growth rate is much easier to indutrialize if you split.
I guess I don't see what the fuss is about. You can very easily look up your POPs in the ledger page, click on the "size" column once or twice to put all the large ones either at the top or the bottom. Then you can go to those huge ones and split them once or twice if you wish. Even if you're playing the largest country possible, it's something that will take a couple minutes at the most.
Then you just check it every now and then to see which ones are getting big and do it again, etc.
I understand the issue of making their production graduated vs. linear. The problem with a linear system is that all the AI decisions, scenarios, etc. would have to be recalculated. The game has been balanced so that it functions reasonably well. Changing something as critical as this would likely unbalance it with very unpredictable results. It would affect virtually everything in the game.
Speaking of this, I need to look up what the different levels are for the POPs - obviously there are some optimum numbers that I need to consider when converting/upgrading farmers and laborers, etc.
Also, while we're on the topic, why would you want to upgrade POPs to the upper classes (clergy and (can't remember the other one...))? They can't be put in factories and don't work, all you can do is tax them. Why not keep them as craftsmen and clerks where you can tax them as well as put them to work? I suppose you could try to create an economy with a tax structure where that would work...
Then you just check it every now and then to see which ones are getting big and do it again, etc.
I understand the issue of making their production graduated vs. linear. The problem with a linear system is that all the AI decisions, scenarios, etc. would have to be recalculated. The game has been balanced so that it functions reasonably well. Changing something as critical as this would likely unbalance it with very unpredictable results. It would affect virtually everything in the game.
Speaking of this, I need to look up what the different levels are for the POPs - obviously there are some optimum numbers that I need to consider when converting/upgrading farmers and laborers, etc.
Also, while we're on the topic, why would you want to upgrade POPs to the upper classes (clergy and (can't remember the other one...))? They can't be put in factories and don't work, all you can do is tax them. Why not keep them as craftsmen and clerks where you can tax them as well as put them to work? I suppose you could try to create an economy with a tax structure where that would work...
James Mason said:
If you are playing Revolutions :
1) capitalists not only build things if their reserve income rises high enough, but provide an output bonus to the factories in the state they live in (which was the reason for promoting them in pre-Revolutions Victoria as well).
2) if you want to increase the production of generals and admirals, you need to have more Officer POPs
3) if you want to increase RP generation but don't want to create a default-liberal POP, clericalize your nation. Clergy pops produce the same RP as clerk pops of the same size until the Darwin event, when they lose 25% of their RP generation power (and clerks gain 25%). They also help reduce consciousness among farmer/labourer POPs (though raise it for aristos and other upper class). If you are trying to keep your nation conservative, having extra clergy POPs can aid that process.
DietMar1982 has modified Gotkiller's POP splitter utility just lately. It has become one of those "gotta have it" utilities for Vicky/Ricky. You can read all about it right here.
Saves on all that nasty micro-management some of you hate.
If it seems gamy to you, then just let the game engine split for you when POPs reach 100k in size.
Now, as for upgrading POPs into clergy and, would it be capitalists you are thinking of?, there are good reasons for upgrading POPs DEPENDING on your situation.
If you are trying to play an ultra-conservative monarchy or ConMon until late game, then clergy is invaluable in keeping your poor POPs in line, as it lowers their consciousness while raising the consciousness of your aristocrats. If you are playing Ricky, then you want capitalists to help you build your early game infrastructure, so you will want at LEAST one POP of capitalists in one of your states. This, along with Laissez Faire, will help you get railroads built along with possibly a few factories in the state where the capitalists are located.
Trust me, there is more than one way to play this game, and all POP types have a purpose.
Came in behind OHgamer. But I'm used to that now.
Saves on all that nasty micro-management some of you hate.
If it seems gamy to you, then just let the game engine split for you when POPs reach 100k in size.
Now, as for upgrading POPs into clergy and, would it be capitalists you are thinking of?, there are good reasons for upgrading POPs DEPENDING on your situation.
If you are trying to play an ultra-conservative monarchy or ConMon until late game, then clergy is invaluable in keeping your poor POPs in line, as it lowers their consciousness while raising the consciousness of your aristocrats. If you are playing Ricky, then you want capitalists to help you build your early game infrastructure, so you will want at LEAST one POP of capitalists in one of your states. This, along with Laissez Faire, will help you get railroads built along with possibly a few factories in the state where the capitalists are located.
Trust me, there is more than one way to play this game, and all POP types have a purpose.
Came in behind OHgamer. But I'm used to that now.