Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Victoria 3 | Monthly Update #3 | September

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Victoria 3 9047 Bug Reports 5237 User Mods 385 Multiplayer 44 Suggestions 2284 Tech Support 532 After Action Reports (AARs)
Show only dev responses
Mr. Wiggles said:
Still weird, the malus should be net and not global.
My reasoning: the bonus of a train track built between Milan and Venice and Bologna should not be reduced by 15% because there is a mountain range 200 km up north.
As I said, Austria does not have it despite having a much more impervious geography overall.
Click to expand...
Oh you’re right, I didn’t even notice it was a percentage modifier and not a fixed number like rivers are.

That is weird.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Jamaican Castle said:
No explicit penalties, but the costs are their own drawback - higher costs make pops less able to hit higher SoLs and buildings less able to hit high employment. Spot shortages probably aren't so bad but you shouldn't plan on running shortages all the time.
Click to expand...

For sure. But it does mean that something like an undersized arms industry can be 4x smaller than demand without hurting your armies as long as the government can pay the bill, which would only be 50% higher than if the arms industry were correctly sized. On the other hand, if the arms industry were correctly sized, the money the government threw at it would be cycling through the economy again, rather than being thrown into the void.

lachek said:
The impact of even small changes is greater than one would expect, since building expenses and revenues are both based on goods and the wages they're able to pay affect the Pop consumption and thereby demand for goods and thereby goods prices, etc etc.
Click to expand...

That's something I am starting to infer even looking through the keyhole as it were. Keep up the good work!
 
Spartakusbund said:
Oh you’re right, I didn’t even notice it was a percentage modifier and not a fixed number like rivers are.
Click to expand...
I wonder if, for inland mountains and the like, it would be more appropriate to have a malus to Infrastructure Usage by certain buildings?

In this case your urban buildings are mainly out of the way of the mountains and can enjoy good access to the water, but if you're building say, mines or forestry, you should expect to have to pay a premium to deal with that headache. (Maybe a lesser penalty for e.g. farms and factories, representing that you'll try to position them in accessible spots, but there's only so many of those so some of your industry has to draw the short straw.)

Or is this too much nit-picking? I guess it remains to be seen how much of an impact it really has in practice.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Palna Thoke said:
The capital hasn't been moved to Tokyo yet.
Click to expand...
You think this is what the star in Oosaka means? That got me confused and if it means to mark the capital it feels really wrong to me. For starters, Oosaka itself wasn't the capital, I guess Kyoto and Oosaka are too close together so it is better for the game to consider as a single city? But if so it should be named Kyoto, because that is the name of the capital. Oosaka is bigger, but Kyoto is the capital, so that feels more important to me to carry the name.

More importantly, though, if this is pre-Meiji Kyoto wasn't the capital, not really. In practice, during the Edo era (1603-1867) the capital was Edo (Tokyo) which gives the era its name. It is where the Shogun, the de facto leader of Japan, resided and where the political power resided. The role of Kyoto as the imperial capital is mostly ceremonial and it doesn't feel accurate for the game's purpose to be set as the capital. The moving of the capital should be an event that change Edo's name to Tokyo but it shouldn't be an actual change in political set up (the government change, of course, but not the capital move itself). The reason the imperial capital changed when the Emperor rose to power was precisely because it was there the political power had been for almost 3 centuries. On a similar note, I find dubious the idea of using the Imperial symbol for the flag, the Tokugawa emblem or even the regular Japanese flag would be better for Shogunate Japan.

All in all that screenshot made me concerned they will portray Japan as if it is governed by the Emperor from Kyoto at the game start. If I am not mistaken Vic2 had no way to represent the situation and even EU4 kinda railroads the event to unite Japan as the "Emperor", which is not very accurate for the time period. On game start Japan should be governed from Edo by the Shogun, not the Emperor in Kyoto. Of course, since this screenshot is not of game start maybe this is just a Japan who took a different path to Imperial rule, never moving to Tokyo, so that is fine. I still argue the capital should probably still be Kyoto, though, if the Emperor never bothered moving to Edo would he really move to Oosaka instead? It is so close to Kyoto already that keeping the historical capital seem to make more sense to me.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
National Markets 1.png shows trade routes passing right through the Sargasso Sea, which was famously avoided by sailors for its lack of strong currents. There was even a legend that ships would get stuck in the weeds that accumulate there. The preferred route before the trans-Atlantic steam ship was north when going to Europe, following the Gulf Stream and westerlies, or south of it going to America, following the trade winds.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Man that map is freaking gorgeous! I noticed the on map logging camps, really nice touch there. Are there plans for most/all of the buildings to be represented on map?
 
Mr. Wiggles said:
A state wide negative infrastructure modifier in Lombardy? Really?
Just because the whole region is 40% mountainous it doesnt mean a good half of it is basically flat (more than 10'000km2) and perfect for infrastructure and industry.
The fact "Austria" does not have the same modifier despite being mostly a mountainous region is even weirder.
Click to expand...
u spot it right, that s what i mean these modifiers dont work.. better stages of roads and rails and u have a nicer element of construciton...
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
take your time and dont rush this game, u might built a magnus opus

but listen to the comments, get rid of unrealstic modiffiers, make money more real as such gold exploration and storing and handling of goods! not to mention hygiene, plz dont scrw this 1 up
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A lot of the screenshots on goods mention base price, is base price just there to see how expensive/cheap something is (plus for calculating pop needs)? I know in Victoria 2 the base prices were kind of sticky, even with lots of demand or very little the prices tended to stay around the base price, is this the case for Victoria 3? Thanks!
 
Caesar15 said:
A lot of the screenshots on goods mention base price, is base price just there to see how expensive/cheap something is (plus for calculating pop needs)? I know in Victoria 2 the base prices were kind of sticky, even with lots of demand or very little the prices tended to stay around the base price, is this the case for Victoria 3? Thanks!
Click to expand...

When supply and demand is balanced, a good will trade for base price. There seems to be a limit for how far above base price it can get when demand exceeds supply. Right now that limit seems to be +50%, which seems rather low to me. Not sure if there is a price floor.

Anyway, the basic exchange of goods is very different in V3 since there is no storage. I recommend reading the national markets DD and the dev responses.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
EntropyAvatar said:
When supply and demand is balanced, a good will trade for base price. There seems to be a limit for how far above base price it can get when demand exceeds supply. Right now that limit seems to be +50%, which seems rather low to me. Not sure if there is a price floor.

Anyway, the basic exchange of goods is very different in V3 since there is no storage. I recommend reading the national markets DD and the dev responses.
Click to expand...
no stockpiling and storage capacity etc. wil be detrimental to the game. the screenshot with the sugar is so unreal. if increasing the infrastructure a bit will change a couple of extra tons of sugar pro week.. prdx misses my drift

better categorize througput this way preferred even slightly more granular +/- 15 things

- natural barrier
- no road / forest
- dirt road
- lightly paved road
- metalled /tarmac road
- railway/river/handmade canal

to get more sugar i dont know if colonies are needed, if so u must make trade ships or transport ships, im getting worried now see to much unstitched unconnected elemetns
 
Last edited:
  • 6
Reactions:
Bradley Hutson said:
I have noticed in the screenshots that there appears to be a maximum of 1 market per country. I think this would be fine for smaller countries, but I wonder if this would be wise for larger countries, especially countries with colonial empires.
Click to expand...
This is something the team looked into earlier, but their testing was not encouraging:

Wizzington said:
In earlier versions of the internal build we actually had countries split into multiple markets, trying out a variety of design solutions for this, but none of them resulted in satisfying gameplay as keeping track of all your markets and managing goods flow between them felt more like a chore than anything else and made it very difficult to understand the overall economic situation in your country. Moving to a single national market basically just made for a better game as it allows the player to focus their efforts and have a far better understanding of the consequences of the actions they're taking in that market. That said, we haven't completely ruled out having special cases like separate colonial markets if we can get that working in a way that doesn't create the problems I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back