Theres another (winning) strategy in vic3 beyond the egalitarian society? ( I tried a new one!)

[macroma]

I think it's already clear to everyone that the best strategy currently in the game is to increase your population's SoL as quickly as possible, which we achieve by distributing the money as fairly as possible.

So I tried to play a slightly different strategy and see if there is a possibility of success in another way. My idea is slightly different: to develop it is necessary to increase the demand and of course, this is done through the SoL, but instead of trying to improve the standard of living of the whole population is it possible to choose only a specific class and, just improving the quality of life of this class, guarantee the progress of the country?

My chosen class were the merchants (they are those with the greatest propensity to success since in the late game their productivity can be very high).

You can see the result of my game in the pictures below. As you can see, my country has become extremely specialized in luxury items, it has a very low GDP, but it still generates a lot of revenue, as its market is huge.

Was that a success or a failure? Give me your opinions (Note: I used two mods for this gameplay, Arcbald AI and unlimited ports)

 

[MfgLuckbot]

Well, I think increasing SoL isn't necessarily the best strategy ever depending on your goals.

For example if your goal is a strong military then focusing on high SoL for everyone actually harms your prospects. Yes you'd have more total money circling your country, but a huge portion of your workforce is spent on maintaining that luxury life for everyone, leaving less people to build guns and die in the trenches.

If you want a big economy yes you can't get around increasing domestic demand, but a big economy isn't worth much for other areas of the game if it's mostly spend on itself.

 

[BPZ1941]

For example if your goal is a strong military then focusing on high SoL for everyone actually harms your prospects. Yes you'd have more total money circling your country, but a huge portion of your workforce is spent on maintaining that luxury life for everyone, leaving less people to build guns and die in the trenches.

All you need for a strong military is beelining Shrapnel Artillery and Chemical Weapons. And SoL helps with research.

 

[paulxiep]

Duh, it's a sandbox game. If your goal is SoL, then increasing SoL is the best strategy, surprise surprise!

My goal as Formosa was to conquer all of China, and I did it, and surprise surprise SoL was not my strategy. Rather, I taxed them high and kept them miserable (12 SoL) almost the whole game, to use the tax to fund heavy industries and war. It was necessary as I had to elevate my nation from an isolated island with 7 units of wood. Conquering anywhere was out of the question first 30 years as I had to raise my rank first before I could declare interest in other regions. Fighting Qing with wooden weapons and 3 million pop is definitely not the correct strategy.

Only in the last 5 years that I changed to graduated tax and taxed them at the lowest rate. I had almost the whole world at that point.

 

[macroma]

Duh, it's a sandbox game. If your goal is SoL, then increasing SoL is the best strategy, surprise surprise!

My goal as Formosa was to conquer all of China, and I did it, and surprise surprise SoL was not my strategy. Rather, I taxed them high and kept them miserable (12 SoL) almost the whole game, to use the tax to fund heavy industries and war. It was necessary as I had to elevate my nation from an isolated island with 7 units of wood. Conquering anywhere was out of the question first 30 years as I had to raise my rank first before I could declare interest in other regions. Fighting Qing with wooden weapons and 3 million pop is definitely not the correct strategy.

Only in the last 5 years that I changed to graduated tax and taxed them at the lowest rate. I had almost the whole world at that point.

wow amazing gameplay! That is a fun challenge!
Of course you can set any goal and measure your sucess with your own standard, you are 100% right in this one. Maybe I should point out that Im measuring sucess with the "output" variable. (so, just to emphasize: Im asking how much output I should have if a had followed the basic strategy against that I did)

 

[macroma]

All you need for a strong military is beelining Shrapnel Artillery and Chemical Weapons. And SoL helps with research.

Well, I think increasing SoL isn't necessarily the best strategy ever depending on your goals.

For example if your goal is a strong military then focusing on high SoL for everyone actually harms your prospects. Yes you'd have more total money circling your country, but a huge portion of your workforce is spent on maintaining that luxury life for everyone, leaving less people to build guns and die in the trenches.

If you want a big economy yes you can't get around increasing domestic demand, but a big economy isn't worth much for other areas of the game if it's mostly spend on itsIm

Im not sure if I agree with you in this one... its not the country with higher GDP the strongest in the battlefield? At least with you give 5 years to preparation?

 

[Less2]

Debating the "best strategy" in a game where Belgium can trivially abuse the broken war system, front system, etc to win a war vs. China and have 45 million pops before 1840 is kind of making me LMAO.

Like yeah, sure, tell me all about your SoL strategy that is going to lead to 2% more literacy in 1860 which by 1880 will let you finish the tech tree 6 months before anyone else just spamming universities. Nothing matters by that point, everyone can dominate the world by 1900 at the latest.

 

[macroma]

Debating the "best strategy" in a game where Belgium can trivially abuse the broken war system, front system, etc to win a war vs. China and have 45 million pops before 1840 is kind of making me LMAO.

Like yeah, sure, tell me all about your SoL strategy that is going to lead to 2% more literacy in 1860 which by 1880 will let you finish the tech tree 6 months before anyone else just spamming universities. Nothing matters by that point, everyone can dominate the world by 1900 at the latest.

but I think we can discuss the best strategy anyway! Just think: I'm the manager of a small football club and I'm playing against Barcelona twice next week. Of course, anything Barcelona does will result in success, but either way you can tell if they've chosen a good strategy or not. If they are 20-0 on one day and only 2-0 the next, it means that something is not quite right for the Barcelona of I did something very good (despite having lost).

Or are you telling me I need to wait 20 year to the game be 100% to discuss "the best strategy"?

Anyway I think you did not read my post. I never said my strategy wasjust to increase SoL

 

[Less2]

If you can conquer the world as a minor power quite easily without even knowing what SoL is, I don't think discussing SoL is relevant for strategy. High SoL frankly does very little for you, it's a measure of your success, not a source of it.

 

[Sbrubbles]

"Best strategy" for what? What does "(winning) strategy" even mean?

Yes, for a lot of people the main objective is some sort of "maximize GDP" but you should be upfront about what goal you're trying to achieve

 

[BPZ1941]

Im not sure if I agree with you in this one... its not the country with higher GDP the strongest in the battlefield? At least with you give 5 years to preparation?

Yeah, but to grow GDP you need investment. For investment, you need taxes. The more the better. But to increase taxes, you need to make sure the money changes hands many times, since you get a cut every time. To increase money flows you need to increase SoL, because factories don't pay Consumption Taxes.

And frankly, Shrapnel Artillery and especially Chemical Weapons are so absurdly overpowered when you have them and the enemy doesn't you can punch several times above your weight with them.

Chemical weapons in particular give you +50 offensive, +50% morale damage and +50% kill rate for a cost of 1 oil and 1 artillery. Chump change, literally - 100 extra base cost per Barracks with it.

With those bonuses you can basically flatten anyone and everyone at a 5 to 1 numerical disadvantage offensively, and unlike tanks it's bloody cheap too. It also only has one technology needed before researching - Automatic Machine Guns - which is later in the same tree from Shrapnel Artillery.

If you can conquer the world as a minor power quite easily without even knowing what SoL is, I don't think discussing SoL is relevant for strategy. High SoL frankly does very little for you, it's a measure of your success, not a source of it.

High SoL > High consumption > High tax output.

 

[Less2]

High SoL > High consumption > High tax output.

Not really, Strong Economy -> High income. You can spend multiple decades trying to improve SoL or 6 months conquering 10M pops to get that economy, one of these solutions is better than the other.

You also really don't need that much income to support an effective army in this game once the industry to do so is up and running. All you need to support is ~100 regiments to win any number of wars vs. AIs. 90% of player expenses in most games end up being on an absurdly massive construction sector for the purposes of winning more on economy when you've already won.