The 1.2 patch, a little bit on contents

[unmerged(221873)]

If such button is needed, than the game economy is clearly broken :-/

I am under the impression that subsidizing factories that work well and earn money costs nothing. Only the ones that are in red and need subsidizing actually draw money from the budget.

Is this correct?

If that's correct then there's nothing wrong in "subsidize all" button that Helmuth asks for. It just simplifies user interface.

 

[unmerged(25407)]

I have noticed another weird thing with combat....i have about 150k men in a battle. Approx half of those are guards and the other half are artillry.

Yet i have artillery units on the front line(combat width 10, all techs researched) and all of them are at near 100% org/strength since the battle just started? Why? Shouldnt my guards be on the front line and the artillery in the back?

 

[unmerged(75409)]

I have noticed another weird thing with combat....i have about 150k men in a battle. Approx half of those are guards and the other half are artillry.

Yet i have artillery units on the front line(combat width 10, all techs researched) and all of them are at near 100% org/strength since the battle just started? Why? Shouldnt my guards be on the front line and the artillery in the back?

Maybe your general wants to bring as much arty as possible to bear on the enemy...

 

[Biges]

I am under the impression that subsidizing factories that work well and earn money costs nothing. Only the ones that are in red and need subsidizing actually draw money from the budget.

Is this correct?

If that's correct then there's nothing wrong in "subsidize all" button that Helmuth asks for. It just simplifies user interface.

What I'm referring to is that subsidizing factories should be very rare thing. However with capitalist deciding broken in V2 this becomes quite common option, thus the demand for such button.
In other words there is nothing wrong with the demand itself, but there should actually be need for it :-/

 

[Andrelvis]

What I'm referring to is that subsidizing factories should be very rare thing. However with capitalist deciding broken in V2 this becomes quite common option, thus the demand for such button.
In other words there is nothing wrong with the demand itself, but there should actually be need for it :-/

Why should it be uncommonly used? Interventionism had a significant presence in the period, and industries considered strategic could be subsidized, for instance.

As for capitalist decision, it is functional. Not ideal, but still functional the way it is right now.

 

[Stonewall]

Not really; if he builds all his factories, and doesn't want to make any of them have a risk of failing, it makes sense for him to want that button.

Any factory built manually by the player will automatically have the subsidy box checked upon its completion.

 

[Andrelvis]

Any factory built manually by the player will automatically have the subsidy box checked upon its completion.

I understand; all I meant though was that him asking for such a button wasn't proof in any way that the economy is broken.

 

[unmerged(221873)]

What I'm referring to is that subsidizing factories should be very rare thing. However with capitalist deciding broken in V2 this becomes quite common option, thus the demand for such button.
In other words there is nothing wrong with the demand itself, but there should actually be need for it :-/

Well in most of my games it IS a rare thing, my last game as Chile perhaps one in five factories was in red (and needed subsidizing).

I like how this part of the game works very much, it makes real difference between laissez faire and interventionist models. Not to mention outright dictatorships - once I turned communist I was opening and closing and subsidizing factories all around. Eventually, I found which industries are good and which are bad for my economy, closed the bad ones, except for a couple heavy-employers that I decided to subsidize to keep people employed.

All in all - very nice game within a game.

 

[unmerged(216824)]

Any factory built manually by the player will automatically have the subsidy box checked upon its completion.

In my experience, *all* factories when built default to "subsidize" if the option is available.

I'd like to see a "turn off all subsidies" button, personally.

 

[Talq]

I am under the impression that subsidizing factories that work well and earn money costs nothing. Only the ones that are in red and need subsidizing actually draw money from the budget.

Is this correct?

If that's correct then there's nothing wrong in "subsidize all" button that Helmuth asks for. It just simplifies user interface.

You are actually incorrect. Even profitable factories draw subsidies. Don't know why, but they do and it is visible on the budget screen. (and they can all add up to a big number)

This can be annoying, because in some industries profit margins are so unstable factories still need to be subsidised in case some capitalists in the UK (or at home) decide they need another 5 artillery or paper factories and tank excess supply for a couple of years. This is because upgraded factories lose their additional levels if they close.

I understand; all I meant though was that him asking for such a button wasn't proof in any way that the economy is broken.

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing against, but what happens in game is that because capitalists take no note of oversupply, they will cheerfully build 10 fertiliser, artillery or luxury clothes factories, which are then all subsidied, fully employ people, aggravate the oversupply, and accordingly make huge losses (which go on the budget), and cause the pre-existing industries to make huge losses, which if that prexisting factory was upgraded and closes, will cause it to lose its upgrades. About the only industry not susceptable to this is cement. I've fallen into the practice of going through the industry panel every six months and killing every capitalist project barring the one or two that I want because of the negative economic effects of letting them complete. In a large late game economy this becomes time consuming. Not 'broken' but not fun either.

 

[Tormodius]

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing against, but what happens in game is that because capitalists take no note of oversupply, they will cheerfully build 10 fertiliser, artillery or luxury clothes factories, which are then all subsidied, fully employ people, aggravate the oversupply, and accordingly make huge losses (which go on the budget), and cause the pre-existing industries to make huge losses, which if that prexisting factory was upgraded and closes, will cause it to lose its upgrades. About the only industry not susceptable to this is cement. I've fallen into the practice of going through the industry panel every six months and killing every capitalist project barring the one or two that I want because of the negative economic effects of letting them complete. In a large late game economy this becomes time consuming. Not 'broken' but not fun either.

Ahh, seems they made this part of the game slightly complex, but didn't get it all right at the first try. I understand the ambitions to make a realistic economy was high when they made this game, which is great. Also what you say indicate so too, so then I suppose this is one of the things they are working on in the patch?

It would be nice with some explanation from the devs on the design on this, because there was not much about it in the dev-diaries. I mean, how does this really work? and what is not working ?

 

[b9AcE]

A side effect of this would be that we can do some real nice economic warfare if our country has a stronger economy with more commodities involved than another country we want to cause problems for.
By oversupplying the world with all the commodities the other country depends on for their entire industrial profit, while financing it with good incomes for our country from other commodities, we can make them real weak financially.
That in turn of course would mean less manpower and more problematic population for them.
At least I hope it has this effect, as that is how I am managing my finances already.

Economic warfare has tended to be oversimplified in all the games so far in my opinion as there is a lot more to it in reality than to embargo or not and the results are huge.
If course such strategies would not be known during the early/middle Europa Universalis timeframe, but towards late EU and during all of Victoria times intentional price dumping, differential tariffs, preferre trade partners and such did become more and more common as a part of low intensity or overt warfare.

 

[Baleur]

I will not whine and try to bring you guys down (devs), but the fact is, i've grown tired waiting for the fix-patch for V2 now.. I mean, its been weeks.. Nothing. Yet we have modders who have made huge changes, a dozen different mods, bugfix mods, tons of stuff. Some of it is even very well balanced at the lategame...

And other games, even small indie games, have had 3-6 patches the first 1-2 weeks since release, and no small patches at that, huge patches with no doubt as many bugfixes as the V2 patch has had (only 1 example to go by here..).
I'm just wondering whats taking so long.. Its nice to try to balance it and such, but when there are bugs like a ( instead of a { in a critical rebel modifier, why is it taking so long to release a fix?
I paid for the game, and dont get me wrong, i love it. But it feels like being ripped off when i must resort to mods to even finish the game without having half of all the AI factions be crippled by 80% conquered rebel territory in their lands.

Thats just what i had to say. Stop trying to make 1 perfect patch, it wont happen. Just get the critical gameplay-breaking bugfixes to us ASAP. Deal with balance later. I can deal with rebels being nerf-fixed too hard so they are nearly useless, at least i'd have an actual game to play and a challenge vs the other ai nations. I could even deal with the economy being nerf-fixed to such a degree that most nations swim in income. Whatever, i just want quick fixes now, so i can just play the game without being hindered by broken gameplay like (oh we cant get any life needs, fruit doesnt exist on the planet) or (oh usa has 80% of their territory captured by rebels, and are now virtually a worthless nation that cant do anything).

See what i mean? Balance can be tweaked later, to perfection. But game-breaking bugs MUST be fixed asap.. Sigh.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I will not whine and try to bring you guys down (devs), but the fact is, i've grown tired waiting for the fix-patch for V2 now.. I mean, its been weeks.. Nothing. Yet we have modders who have made huge changes, a dozen different mods, bugfix mods, tons of stuff. Some of it is even very well balanced at the lategame...

And other games, even small indie games, have had 3-6 patches the first 1-2 weeks since release, and no small patches at that, huge patches with no doubt as many bugfixes as the V2 patch has had (only 1 example to go by here..).
I'm just wondering whats taking so long.. Its nice to try to balance it and such, but when there are bugs like a ( instead of a { in a critical rebel modifier, why is it taking so long to release a fix?
I paid for the game, and dont get me wrong, i love it. But it feels like being ripped off when i must resort to mods to even finish the game without having half of all the AI factions be crippled by 80% conquered rebel territory in their lands.

Thats just what i had to say. Stop trying to make 1 perfect patch, it wont happen. Just get the critical gameplay-breaking bugfixes to us ASAP. Deal with balance later. I can deal with rebels being nerf-fixed too hard so they are nearly useless, at least i'd have an actual game to play and a challenge vs the other ai nations. I could even deal with the economy being nerf-fixed to such a degree that most nations swim in income. Whatever, i just want quick fixes now, so i can just play the game without being hindered by broken gameplay like (oh we cant get any life needs, fruit doesnt exist on the planet) or (oh usa has 80% of their territory captured by rebels, and are now virtually a worthless nation that cant do anything).

See what i mean? Balance can be tweaked later, to perfection. But game-breaking bugs MUST be fixed asap.. Sigh.

The game was released not even 3 weeks ago. Have some patience.

Also what you might not consider 'important things' others will call 'gamebreaking'.

 

[Alyosha]

I agree with those who've said earlier that there needs to be a bit more balance in the Warscore system. Playing as Belgium I managed to occupy all of the Dutch European territory, however, due to some colonial battles/occupations won on their part the war balance remained around 0 (it was in fact in their favor until I captured their West Indian islands). It seems strange that Amsterdam is valued at around 4% in the warscore screen whereas one of my colonial provinces, Johor, is valued at 1.9%, which is equal to Rotterdam in warscore!

I occupied their territories for over 5 years and was barely able to get the warscore in my favor. In addition, I've noticed that V2 has retained one of the more frustrating aspects of V1 naval combat: namely that the AI can offload troops from transports that are under attack by my vessels. I never understood this convention; I've had naval battles where my warships sink every one of the AI's transports but somehow they've managed to land 3 brigades. Needless to say this made the war more even more frustrating as even when I stationed ships to stop the Dutch from landing its Javan troops they were able to land. Then I have to pull off another one of my armies to stop the occupation of some far off island that is dragging down my warscore. What's the point of naval supremacy when unguarded transports can land troops?

I think if the home states warscore were increased it would encourage the AI to better protect its economic engine as opposed to the peripheral colonies.

 

[Krautkopf]

I never understood this convention; I've had naval battles where my warships sink every one of the AI's transports but somehow they've managed to land 3 brigades.

Maybe the AI has researched "swimming" technology for her soldiers?

 

[Kriegsspieler]

I just want to register a vote for King to tweak the economic balance to slow down the rate at which the player accumulates money. (this was one of the first things I noticed about V2, how much money there is in the game.) I've now played as a host of different countries (Russia, the USA, Serbia, Sardinia-Piedmont, Central American Republic and Argentina) and in no case have I had any trouble at all in raising money, at least up through the early stage of social reforms (i.e., the 1870s or so). I understand why you don't want the early part of the game to be so difficult that it simply alienates anyone less than hard-core addicts. But as things stand now, the player is not forced to make any difficult choices in terms of where to devote his resources.

 

[Raen]

There's a small problem with getting troops home after wars (I can't remember whether this happens in EUIII as well):

After a peace treaty, if your troops are in country A, who you were at war with, but they have to go through country B, who you were also at war with, to get home, they can't because now they need military access, which of course your former foe is damned if he's ever going to give you. So they rot.

 

[JScott991]

I just want to register a vote for King to tweak the economic balance to slow down the rate at which the player accumulates money. (this was one of the first things I noticed about V2, how much money there is in the game.) I've now played as a host of different countries (Russia, the USA, Serbia, Sardinia-Piedmont, Central American Republic and Argentina) and in no case have I had any trouble at all in raising money, at least up through the early stage of social reforms (i.e., the 1870s or so). I understand why you don't want the early part of the game to be so difficult that it simply alienates anyone less than hard-core addicts. But as things stand now, the player is not forced to make any difficult choices in terms of where to devote his resources.

You have to be very careful about doing this. Early builds of Vicky 1 made money so scarce it was hard to do anything until the last half of the game (which was the opposite of history, when most of the action in this period was in the first half). I enjoy that I can actually build an army and navy in the 1840s and 50s in Vicky 2.

That being said, there is too much money in the world and not enough demand for goods. I'm not really even referring to government money; but if you look at your national bank, you can see that your POPs (certain of them anyway) have just oodles of cash throughout the game period.

Let me also say I'm a little disappointed that we didn't get a hotfix-type patch on the bureaucrat and rebel missing bracket issue. I understand the rest of the game needs balancing so nothing breaks, but those are simple fixes and they make vanilla unplayable (15% bureaucrats by 1890 regardless of your slider is a bit broken).

 

[Al. I. Cuza]

There's a small problem with getting troops home after wars (I can't remember whether this happens in EUIII as well):

After a peace treaty, if your troops are in country A, who you were at war with, but they have to go through country B, who you were also at war with, to get home, they can't because now they need military access, which of course your former foe is damned if he's ever going to give you. So they rot.

Should get fixed, yes.