Paradox Interactive games

[Polycrates]

I'll take anything positive.

It tends to vary, though. I'll see something like fertilizer making decent enough money nowadays (around 2k profit with a level 1 factory) for months, then it plummets into negative world. I'm not watching closely enough to see if other nations are bringing factories online, etc. Fabric seems to be a great basic factory type, it's been profitable the whole game, but my dummy capitalists seem to like losing all their money on artillery and canned food instead.

I'm trying to go communist or fascist to get control over the political realm as well as the economics. Eff this freedom stuff.

I've been getting a handle on the factory stuff, so here's a few things I've noted (I'm certainly not an expert, you might have done all this already, and YMMV of course):

1) If you hover over the factory in the production tab, on the tooltip you can usually see why it's losing money - eg because imports are too expensive or they can't sell enough outputs or they can't buy enough inputs.

2) Have you got high tariffs? They can make the imported inputs too expensive for the outputs if they're too high.

3) Have you tried using a national focus to promote your favoured factory type in the relevant area? Seems to work reasonably well for me, and if you're interventionist you can then invest in it straight away to get it going quicker.

4) Factories are much better earners once you've got some efficiency techs - NOT the throughput techs, but the input/output techs in the commerce tab. The right-hand side of the commerce tech page has a whole bunch of really amazing techs, and the middle tree (I think) has good ones too. Small differences here seem to make a big difference to profitability and stability of profits.
Railroad I'm pretty sure is just about throughput, so won't help you so much if there's a glut.

5) Lumber mills are cheap and always seem to do well (perhaps because you can only build them in a region with timber rgo?), and I've had huge profits from then piggybacking furniture factories on top of that. If you've got iron, it's pretty hard to go wrong with a steel factory as well, it seems (plus it's damn useful).

6) If you've got multiple factories in a province, setting a high hiring priority on a more profitable one during a downturn will send a lot of your workers over there and reduce the losses you take from the bad earner. If you've got low tariffs and low taxes on your rich pops, the capitalists seem to build factories like wildfire, so you can easily pick and choose. And with interventionism, you can still expand your better earner.

7) The military goods are pretty variable just because it relies on army buildup and stockpiling for demand, whereas the consumer goods are always going to stay more constantly in demand because they're just bought by the population. I think they're more a better bet if you use them for your own military ends rather than just profit. On the other hand, steamer convoys have been ludicrously profitable for me.

8) If you're a great power, having countries in your sphere will make them buy from you first, so you've got a better market for your goods.

9) EDIT: if you're having trouble reliably getting a needed input, you can set your country to manually buy the good up to a huge stockpile amount, and then check the box for allowing pops/factories to buy from stockpile (might need your national stockpile slider set to a decent percentage first). Helps keep a bit of a buffer for when supply is unreliable, but it can make your balance sheet shoot sharply into the negative all of a sudden if you're not careful.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Strictly speaking, France shouldn't grow all that much. Their population figures were fairly stagnant in the 19th century. They addressed this by slapping a negative pop growth modifier on France, not sure if the immigration mechanics are taking too many people out in your game. I didn't check the other majors' populations, I should do that to see how historical it was.

Interface is definitely smoother, and the economy seems like it is working (no obvious shortages). I just have to get the hang of it.

Yes I suppose that makes sense, but on the other hand Germany and Italy have pretty tiny populations at game start and they should be getting positive growth. The Old World shouldn't be completely stagnant.

By the way where's the best place to download the CK2 demo?

 

[Antilogic]

I figured out a few of your notes through trial and error. As Sardinia-Piedmont starting out, I had the Military-Industrial Complex school, which meant I was focusing heavily on the Industrial techs. Recently, I've started tacking on the Commerce techs, and that's been helping. I fooled around with the NFs, but if I remember vanilla, they basically didn't work back then. If they are more effective now, I'll try using those if I go back to a liberal government after the next election. Italy doesn't have too many places for steel and lumber mills, though, so I'm out of luck on that one. Fortunately, I've invented other profitable factory types that can be built anywhere, so that's not a problem.

I've been using the overall trade screen to identify which factories to build--if there is more than a 100 unit shortage in demand, I figure it's a good investment because anything I produce will definitely get sold. I need to check individual factories to see how they are operating, I haven't done that recently since I have so many. Next time I start up the game, I'll check if its inputs or spoilage on the non-profitable factories.

One thing I haven't experimented too much with is tariffs--they are usually at zero, I just tax the lower classes heavily to make up the cash. I'm certain this won't cause any long-term problems in the future.

Also, I finally got to great power status and #1 in prestige, my earlier posts were written while I was under the French SoI, which has its own problems, and right after unification, but when my prestige was still low so I wasn't able to get priority on the world market. Seriously, the prestige from colonization is awesome.

EDIT:

Yes I suppose that makes sense, but on the other hand Germany and Italy have pretty tiny populations at game start and they should be getting positive growth. The Old World shouldn't be completely stagnant.

By the way where's the best place to download the CK2 demo?

Oh, I completely agree with you, just pointing out that France shouldn't grow like it did in vanilla. Depends on your reference for comparison. As Italy, I've been getting decent growth, although I really wish I could pass the healthcare reforms to improve it.

My big pet peeve with the game is the "leveling" of the population--you have big population centers early in the game, but very quickly the population migrates around the country until all the states have roughly equivalent populations. It would be great if regional capitals or particular regions had their life-ratings adjusted so that populations would congregate in fewer metropolitan areas.

 

[Maniacal]

By the way where's the best place to download the CK2 demo?

Wherever is fine. I posted this link on the previous page.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Oh, I completely agree with you, just pointing out that France shouldn't grow like it did in vanilla. Depends on your reference for comparison. As Italy, I've been getting decent growth, although I really wish I could pass the healthcare reforms to improve it.

My big pet peeve with the game is the "leveling" of the population--you have big population centers early in the game, but very quickly the population migrates around the country until all the states have roughly equivalent populations. It would be great if regional capitals or particular regions had their life-ratings adjusted so that populations would congregate in fewer metropolitan areas.

Yeah, ideally it would be great to have liferating increased in regional capitals relative to the rest of a state with certain inventions. Maybe with an RGO-style system with a set number of spots that increases with tech, so there's some impetus for migration to the colonies. Remember France didn't have emigration to the Americas like other Western European countries but they did have hefty settler populations in Algeria, for instance.

 

[Antilogic]

Yeah, ideally it would be great to have liferating increased in regional capitals relative to the rest of a state with certain inventions. Maybe with an RGO-style system with a set number of spots that increases with tech, so there's some impetus for migration to the colonies. Remember France didn't have emigration to the Americas like other Western European countries but they did have hefty settler populations in Algeria, for instance.

I figured that was supposed to be represented by the immigration NF (I set it in North Africa in the conquered Ottoman territories to "Italicize" them ). However, it seems weird that France would have to forfeit one of their NFs to reflect something that isn't necessarily an advantage. I think once you have African territories, your people are more likely to move there than to the New World--I've kind of seen that as Italy, I'd figure it would work for France as well, but their people are still going to America by the truckload. Something else is going on there.

I understand the need for internal migration (i.e. people moving to places where there is an opportunity to make a living), but it's all backwards from what it's supposed to be. Instead of people moving from the farms to the cities for better wages, the cities are depopulated as people move out to the farms for the first 20 years! Then, each region has roughly equal population, so everything is kind of decentralized.

Speaking of which, I need to experiment with the party loyalty NFs, haven't done so yet, but I want to see if I can get some reliably liberal or conservative regions. Probably will fool around with that more in a later USA game.

 

[ZeletDude]

I cannot wait to get AHD, I especially like the all the new map-modes, but of course I am also going to enjoy the new start date!

 

[Antilogic]

I cannot wait to get AHD, I especially like the all the new map-modes, but of course I am also going to enjoy the new start date!

I took one look at the Union and CSA in that start date and decided if I were to play either, it would be from scratch. The USA doesn't even have muzzle-loaded rifles in 1861, while the CSA has literally all the military techs available.

I'd have to look at the other countries to compare their technologies in 1861 v. a world evolved from 1836.

 

[ZeletDude]

Oh, well hopefully PDM will fix many of those flaws

 

[Antilogic]

Oh, well hopefully PDM will fix many of those flaws

Yeah, hope so.

I mean, I kind of understand what they were going for. They wanted the Union to have a disadvantage early in the war against the Confederates, and then have them catch up later on. But to research all those army techs would take something like a decade. And it doesn't accurately represent the war at all--the Union had poor commanders early on, and organizational problems (so, say, the 4th column and 5th column wouldn't be as good as the Confederates). But the artillery and small arms were virtually identical on both sides at the beginning, and the Union pulled ahead in the end.

It's really difficult to model the rapid technological developments in this war. The Union would have to research the Iron Steamers tech and get Monitors, Breech-Loaded Rifles, probably Military Logistics to get the upgrade to mobilization size mid-war, and at least two techs in the first column to represent the upgrades in fortifications and entrenchments throughout the war. Five techs in roughly 5 years... I guess it can be done. The Confederates would be in about the same position.

EDIT: What the game really needs are multiple mobilizations--after your first one, you can summon additional conscripts after a certain length of time. I don't know what happens if you mobilize then discover a tech that increases your mobilization size, though. Do you get more conscripted troops?

 

[madviking]

I can't play either AHD nor CK2 until I get back home for spring break!

 

[Polycrates]

My experience with the NFs is that it might take a while but eventually the capitalists start building the relevant industries (though not necessarily exactly the factory you wanted...I can't seem to get luxury clothing for some shiny new guards regiments). Maybe check the projects tab as well - they might have started it but haven't got the funding, and you can inject some cash yourself.

Just had a semi-related thought: it's strange, but under interventionism you can't build a new factory at home but you can in a foreign country..........I wonder if it wouldn't be worth it as a GP to just build a factory for a badly-needed good in a country in your sphere instead so you've always got access to it, with the side advantage that they eat the losses in the downtimes.

And I think with tariffs that they're great to have high in the early game, since they'll (on the whole) mostly increase the cost of everyday and luxury goods rather than life goods, so that it's easier for your poorly-earning pops to scrape by than under high-tax-no-tariff. And efficiency is so low early that you probably want tax and tariffs both high anyway just to make do. It should also make your artisans tend to switch to making goods out of local, more affordable raw materials. Also good with the more state-controlled governments, where you can better plan out factories that use your own domestic products as inputs and keep all the money at home.

But high tariffs seem to be a killer once you industrialise a lot with the more liberal governments, keeping your capitalists from having enough money, and making any foreign imports for your more...errrr...diverse....factories extremely expensive. Though if you keep a modest(!) manual stockpile of a needed good and let factories/pops buy from it, they don't pay the tariffs on it so it makes a neat loophole if it's only for a couple of goods during early industrialisation.

 

[Antilogic]

I've finished off 4 electrical component factories in the last 3 years. Interventionism rocks.

I'm also brutalizing my lower classes intentionally in the hopes of provoking a communist uprising--I want to experiment with the unique spread-the-revolution commie CB. So far, there are about 340k members of the party, but they aren't anywhere close to revolting. I'm hoping I discover the 'Vanguard Party' soon to increase their rate of organization.

 

[Dachs]

The USA doesn't even have muzzle-loaded rifles in 1861,

paradox hates america volume VII

 

[Synobun]

Is the EU series in any way similar to Victoria 1? If so, which one would be the most alike?

 

[Tee Kay]

The EU series is much simpler than Victoria (that's "simple" by Paradox standards).

If you want to try one, get EUIII Chronicles (which has got all the expansions).

 

[Synobun]

The EU series is much simpler than Victoria (that's "simple" by Paradox standards).

If you want to try one, get EUIII Chronicles (which has got all the expansions).

Oh. Maybe I should just stick with Victoria then... Is Victoria 2 a significant improvement over 1 or is it just a better eye sore?

 

[Luckymoose]

I am in the group that found Vicky 1 to be superior in everyway to Vicky 2.

 

[Antilogic]

paradox hates america volume VII

It varies from "hey, let's lump South Carolina with Georgia instead of with the other Carolina, which would make wayyy more sense" to "hey, let's make an expansion focused on the 1861 start and ACW but let's not add any new decisions for the two sides and eff up the technologies"!

It gives the illusion they care, but beneath it is a steaming load. I guess it's marginally better than them not caring at all (case in point: Taiping Rebellion). Maybe?

Oh. Maybe I should just stick with Victoria then... Is Victoria 2 a significant improvement over 1 or is it just a better eye sore?

Depends on what you are looking for. I think the biggest difference between the two is the combat system. V1 has a HoI-style system where attack is movement, it allows flanking, etc. In V2, you have an EU-style combat system, where troops have to arrive in the same province, then a battle begins.

Other than that, V1 is a little more polished than V2 at this point. However, PDM greatly improved vanilla V2, and I got high hopes for PDM over AHD. V2 prevents some cheesy exploits you could pull in V1, especially with regards to purchasing land, and the AI seems to handle the game better, so I still prefer V2 despite its faults. If we could take a HoI-style combat system and import it into V2, I might explode... in my pants.

 

[Synobun]

Depends on what you are looking for. I think the biggest difference between the two is the combat system. V1 has a HoI-style system where attack is movement, it allows flanking, etc. In V2, you have an EU-style combat system, where troops have to arrive in the same province, then a battle begins.

Other than that, V1 is a little more polished than V2 at this point. However, PDM greatly improved vanilla V2, and I got high hopes for PDM over AHD. V2 prevents some cheesy exploits you could pull in V1, especially with regards to purchasing land, and the AI seems to handle the game better, so I still prefer V2 despite its faults. If we could take a HoI-style combat system and import it into V2, I might explode... in my pants.

Hm. I'll stick with V1 then. Thanks guys.