True, the UI side might need clarification of what goes where. Programming-wise, it's more about design, since it's not hard to specify the order of operations correctly and what modifier goes where. It would almost certainly be best to first sum every additive modifier together, before dealing with multipliers.
Only if you want to be fighting tanks with sticks in the 20th century, on a fully agrarian economy, I imagine.
I agree, but it may be the case of them wanting to avoid negative numbers for the sake of good game design.
Not necessarely, my 24th century authoritarian xenophobe slaver empire was the most powerful empire on galaxy, with huge fleets, supported with huge industries pumping alloys and consumer goods.
Fun fact, Stellaris is a video game, and wants you to have fun playing [insert evil space empire]. It is not a good indication for how to model a hypothetical 20th Century society.
Is it really big deal? I always think paradox games is about roleplay and making your country the way you want it to look, and not the way metaphysical meta dictates.
And Vic3 is not video game, and it's don't want player to have fun?
Stellaris also basically, or rather almost completely, lacks the internal simulation that is so crucial to Vicky 3. Of course there aren't any Jacobin rebels in your fantasy universe, the game can barely handle the pops as they are now. Adding the internal instability systems Vicky has would melt your CPU.
If your definition of fun is enslaving (simulations of) real people in the (simulated) real world in a "xenophobic slaver empire" I have some bigger questions, but everything we have seen about Vic 3 has billed it as a "society builder", and for that aspect to function properly it needs to show poular resistance to slavery, both from slaves and abolitionists, which means your slaving empire is going to be crippled from internal dispute, see the USA. Not to mention that slaves aren't actually good for an industrial economy, but that's a different discussion.
Cannonfodder doesn't need to be literate, and you can always buy the guns in Russia.
I did answer your question. Victoria is not the same game as Stellaris, and they exercise different principles. Stellaris is about being a bootleg version of the Imperium/Federation/Galactic Empire/Borg/whatever and crushing your foes on the galactic stage, and so any idiosyncratic empire can "work" because it's not about modelling internal politics. Victoria meanwhile, is about managing competing influences within your country that may be for or against your agenda. If you want to create a slave-based empire, you are going to spend most of your time managing internal dissent which will stunt your growth, because you can't allow your pops to get educated/independently wealthy, since that will make their uprisings all the more potent. Managing that is the fun in Victoria, and just letting the player do awful things with no consequences "because they want it that way" would destroy the principles the game is based on.
Well, now you answer my question somehow. Personnaly i can't care less about slavery, i can't remember even one my empire/country in paradox game where it was allowed. I agree what action must have consequensience but they should be based on logical justificatioт, and not on "muh good" or "muh evil" methafthisical things.
raping, pillaging, massacring and subjugating is not everyone's idea of fun.
There's a reason it was done so often when people wanted rapid change
The next response from Wiz: "Voting rights don't directly increase the wealth of pops, but they do give them the ability to push for social reforms that benefit them, which in turn may mean the player is able to get those reforms passed."
