13:15 Here's an idea to avoid early game wars: 1) give the AI a modifier (something like "Pax Britannica" or "Legacy of the Treaty of Vienna" that discourages it front intevening in wars. 2) Create a bonus that applies to major powers for resolving conflicts peacefully or diplomatically. This bonus would tick down over the course of the game and eventually become a malus. "Crimean War averted! People rejoice!" would turn into " People decry cowardice" or some similar thing. This could also be tied to ideological trends. A rise in nationalism or fascism would reward players and AI for being aggressive while early game a more "Pax Britannica" approach to diplomatic plays would be rewarded. The reward could be Prestige or a reduction in militancy, etc. This would only apply to majors.
22:22 while we're at the topic of national pride maybe they can add a "revanchism" mechanic where it would give you certain bonuses against a country if they took a homeland core province from you. Maybe push your primary culture to be more jingoist and hateful towards to the primary culture group of that country (if you have any in your country) idk influencing a rival country's internal politics indirectly through your actions sounds cool
thing is: you can, but they are edge case... you can send an agitator from one of your rivals back to their nation if they are in your country and you can stir up agitation of a nation who has your primary culture homelands if you have a domestically raised agitator in your nation
I think the best way to I've thought of dealing with the diplo plays is to treat it as 2 peaceful phases. First is like a haggling game. Show what you're willing to offer, see what they'll accept or demand in return, continue and repeat until you either come to an agreement, or escalation occurs to the next phase. Phase 2 is more like a game of poker, where you're both trying to bluff your opponent into backing down and agreeing. Maybe you preemptively mobilize a few thousand men or threaten them with a harsher peace if you do fight. That kind of deal. Move it from trying to make them agree with the carrot and shift to threatening the stick until the stick get's drawn and the fighting begins.
26:55 One thing to note is that they changed companies to basically own all new private buildings (Of your nation) in a state they already own buildings, making them much more powerful.
Definitely agree there should be a reason to focus or go down the maritime path. Bigger penalties for enemies sinking your convoys. More benefits from navy not simply more declared interest
If you want to go down and interesting rabbit hole of naval power in the 19th century, browse through some of the Lloyd's registers of ships from around the world over this period. At various times, a third to half of all of the world's shipping was British, right up until the 2nd World War. Furthermore, much of other countries' shipping was built at British yards. America's domestic capacity for shipbuilding only exceeded it during WW2. Want something from Africa shipped to California? There was a good chance it would arrive on a British ship. The currency of exchange only shifted from GBP to USD post-war as well. It would be very cool to see these types of dynamics reflected in game.
On autonomous trade, I would be disappointed on a fully (or close-to) autonomous system. But I would *love* to see: - stockpiles - trade routes only having one 'form' that fluctuates between import/export of the good, dependending on what's profitable - the ability to ban import/exports independently by good, target country, and route direction. - humongous increase in volume per convoy. - and maybe something like trade agreement activating trade routes for *every* profitable good between target markets automatically
Any system that makes supplies significant will make fighting GPs trivial unless they fix AI behavior. We'll be back to 1.3 where you could park a 100 stack navy in the western Mediterranean and fight the entire French army with 40 guys in Algiers
Companies as they are now are interesting. They just need to fix some issues and balancing and we need more companies, which can also go into competition with each other. Otherwise we will have just 2-3 megacorps owning all of their building types
A complete rework of this whole diploplay peacedeal system would be appreciated. A diploplay needs to be escalated by for example mobilization and depending on the extent of the war you need to be able to change the wargoals. The treaty of versailles wasnt fixed already in late 1914.
Honestly, taking a cue from HoI4 with the World Tension meter for the wars between Great Powers wouldn't be that bad an idea. I might spitball some ideas, but if one starts seeing tensions going up, they are likely to feel worried about the future, which is something that could bring out "fear" and "uncertainty" and "maybe I ain't gonna spend as much and 'stockpile' in case".
I assume that navy is still on the board because that's what they specifically opened their video with after 1.7. So perhaps the next DLC will resolve around navies and the military and trade reworks are linked to that. But because they specifically said this is about the free patches it's why they didn't devolve into navies in this dev diary.
I'm still a bit sad to see that the way laws are enacted is still not a topic for them to change. The law enactement system is just way to frustrating and way to rng and could be so much more interesting. You could for example just change laws as you fix as an autocrat with the risk of having a civil war blowing you up or as a parliamentary democracy you could have to negociate with other IGs to get them into your boat (a bit like english parliament in EU4) and depending on how offensive you go in you could even add a new parameter like corruption, which would cause tax waste for example
20:00 a system like we have for the laws, but for diplomatic plays, with the set backs, sways in favor and sways agains, would be amazing, just make declaring war something separate, you should be able to diplomatically negotiate for ban slavery, investment rights and treaty ports, maybe even return states, with the possibility of not having to go to war in those cases
I'd really like to see command economy and cooperative ownership made more viable, laissez-faire have some form of diminishing returns as the "low-hanging fruit" investments dry up and capital consolidates, shedding more and more of the "benefits" of competition (depending on your perspective), and also see an end-game step for the capitalist track that takes the form of imperialist/finance capitalism that could allow for the private sector to invest in foreign buildings that you don't have foreign investment agreements in but also gives significant penalties to liberty desire in your subjects or something along those lines to represent the colonies you've more heavily developed and educated becoming less and less dependent on their overlord. I'd love to see the late/end game shape up into the historical sort of arrangement with the world splitting into imperialist (in the Leninist sense) and socialist "camps," with the two (or three if you want to really flesh out two different play styles for anarchism and socialism) systems actually having meaningful differences while still allowing for roughly equal outcomes depending on the material and historical conditions of your country. It'd also help if the mechanics of the game organically pressured things forward, as it actually seems to already do to some extent (what with running out of lands to colonize making confrontation with other colonial powers an inevitability), though I'm not 100% certain of how intentional it is.
I think the military issue would be fixed much more easily if the "military budget" would mean the military also spent more military resources (guns, ammo, etc) in times of peace for additional training. Like, if your actuation goes from 0.2x to 1x guns is much more disruptive than if it goes from 0.8x to 1x guns, thus making the military production much more stable.
I'm not shocked that 1.9 will be a huge update, if you are going to tweak the military then you also got to tweak interests because you changed the navy, and if you've changed interests and the military you might as well change diplomatic plays to work better with the new military systems since diplomatic plays already rely on mobilization levels as a measure for willingness to back down
Wow, the military changes sound great! I'm a bit worried about the supply changes; I just don't want to have to micro something way behind the lines due to some poor implementation of a feature while I'm trying micro the front lines. But that's probably just me being a bit jaded.
About free patches in the beginning. I feel like that they were talking about free stuff we get Avery patch. Regardless if it has DLC alongside it or not
I'm not close to 1k hours. I play the same exact country every time. Egypt. I recon this is the hardest start. Unavoidable war against your overlord in 4 years. No industry. The strongest aristocracy in the game.
I really want to learn this game but the learning curve is STEEEEEEP. I’ve watched several of your vids and still can’t string Japan together. Could you do another beginner vid for peeps like myself 👉🏼👈🏼
What are you struggling with? Btw, Japan is a hard country to start off - bad laws, strong Landowners, isolated market, large population - you're better off trying a country like Belgium or Sweden to learn the basics. Japan is good after the beginning because of the aforementioned difficulties.
Generalist, would you be willing to play Vicky2? I'd be interested in getting your impression between the mechanics of the two. Specially, the mechanics that were part of Vicky2 that never seem to have made it over to Vicky3. Thanks!
quick question boss: are pop saving PMs (specially the ones that use coal and tools) for buldings worth using when you have more workplaces than peasants in a state? and if yes: even if the balance of the bulding goes down when you turn the Pm on
Just a point about military access, they might add it for gameplay but historically it was not a thing. Germany invaded Belgium just because they wanted military access to France. In WW2 Germany needed military access to from Sweden to Norway but instead invaded through the sea so as to leave Sweden neutral. This was the time where military access basically meant invasion. Having another country’s army go through your lands basically nullifies your neutrality and drags you into the war.
Not entirely true. Major powers did in fact use military access during multiple times in the time period Vic 3 happens. Some examples: 1 - Crimean war Austria gave military access to Britain and France. Technically, serbia wasn't in the war despite being a suzerain of the otomans and gave military access too.More informally, sweden-norway did as well. 2 - British-Afghan war Sindh was forced to allow British troops to move through. 3 - Austrian-Prussian war 1866 Many German minors were forced to provide access to Prussia. Some like Hanover refused and were forcefully invaded. But many thuringian states just outright gave it to prussia while formally staying neutral
@ So what would’ve happened if the war carried into those lands? Would’ve they allowed Crimean style devastation in Sindh? No matter how you slice it, during those time allowing military access is breaking neutrality. Whether you mobilize or not.
@ernimuja6991 the countries frequently didn't have a choice. But in the case where they did like Austria in the Crimea war they positioned troops to prevent Russians from coming in but Russians to keep Austrians outside of the war never entered austrian territory. You can claim it wasn't neutral but fact is no war was ever declared and no austrian died because of it
@@gigiobb Russia didn't want to escalate but they definitely would've punished a much weaker nation for allowing enemy troops to cross. I really don't think EU4 style military access was a thing back then.
@@ernimuja6991 If your argument is that Military access didnt exist at the time and therefore it is unrealistic then that has been proven false by the multitude of examples that did happen in history. If your argument is that it cant work like EU4 military access then it isnt a history fidelity problem but a gameplay mechanic one
I'm not sure if I like the 'national pride' idea .... different groups have different ideas of what the 'true nation' is, so what does 'national pride' mean eventually.
MAPI was a mistake. I don't quite like other free money modifiers (like capitalists should invest more of their money, not shadow money), but MAPI is just the worst. It deletes money, it encourages really weird play patterns e.g. you just don't want to build in small states, like the ones in new england, or "reworked" russia (they split the existing ones in half for whatever reason). Maybe make mapi region wide(like in the interests) so that it doesn't suck that much? Although small states will still suck due to throughput. Or due to them splitting regions in half too (first russia, now india). Furthermore it's really hard to build ports when they cost like a mine but give basically nothing, the numbers are just too low
I think MAPI should: be influenced by infrastructure buildings (ports and railways increase it, and the introduction of river infrastructure that also increases MAPI), and; an adjacency bonus for neighbouring states. I do like that it encourages you to build relevant industries in states.
@@antorseax9492 Yeah I do like that it encourages building relevant stuff close to eachother, but I don't like that it 1) forces to build in ONE state 2) deletes money completely. Now that I think about it, my idea of MAPI being region-wide is just stupid, it works for some countries eg. US, Russia, India, as they have enough regions to make it viable, but don't work for others like China, UK, Germany, France, as their mainland consist only of 2 regions, or even smaller ones like Persia or Italy who have only one region, making MAPI highly irrelevant, so I'm out of ideas
On replayability and country content: why not just make certain cultures better at certain things? I mean, it's not like that isn't historical, though it does kind of slap the Marxism simulator aspect of the game in the face and would probably incite controversy. I'd still rather see construction treated as a consumable good on the market with different economic systems interacting with its production/ownership rather than a capacity as it currently is, to more accurately reflect real life construction.
Seeing both Autonomous Trade and Frontline system rework on the table for 1.9 is a Feels Good Man moment
Generalist has been shaming all paradox employee into starting every dev diary with Happy Thursday, pretty funny that it worked
It is not I, but rather their own guilty conscience which brings them to the light.
13:15 Here's an idea to avoid early game wars:
1) give the AI a modifier (something like "Pax Britannica" or "Legacy of the Treaty of Vienna" that discourages it front intevening in wars.
2) Create a bonus that applies to major powers for resolving conflicts peacefully or diplomatically. This bonus would tick down over the course of the game and eventually become a malus. "Crimean War averted! People rejoice!" would turn into " People decry cowardice" or some similar thing. This could also be tied to ideological trends. A rise in nationalism or fascism would reward players and AI for being aggressive while early game a more "Pax Britannica" approach to diplomatic plays would be rewarded. The reward could be Prestige or a reduction in militancy, etc. This would only apply to majors.
22:22 while we're at the topic of national pride maybe they can add a "revanchism" mechanic where it would give you certain bonuses against a country if they took a homeland core province from you.
Maybe push your primary culture to be more jingoist and hateful towards to the primary culture group of that country (if you have any in your country)
idk influencing a rival country's internal politics indirectly through your actions sounds cool
thing is: you can, but they are edge case...
you can send an agitator from one of your rivals back to their nation if they are in your country and you can stir up agitation of a nation who has your primary culture homelands if you have a domestically raised agitator in your nation
I think the best way to I've thought of dealing with the diplo plays is to treat it as 2 peaceful phases. First is like a haggling game. Show what you're willing to offer, see what they'll accept or demand in return, continue and repeat until you either come to an agreement, or escalation occurs to the next phase.
Phase 2 is more like a game of poker, where you're both trying to bluff your opponent into backing down and agreeing. Maybe you preemptively mobilize a few thousand men or threaten them with a harsher peace if you do fight. That kind of deal.
Move it from trying to make them agree with the carrot and shift to threatening the stick until the stick get's drawn and the fighting begins.
26:55 One thing to note is that they changed companies to basically own all new private buildings (Of your nation) in a state they already own buildings, making them much more powerful.
Definitely agree there should be a reason to focus or go down the maritime path. Bigger penalties for enemies sinking your convoys. More benefits from navy not simply more declared interest
If you want to go down and interesting rabbit hole of naval power in the 19th century, browse through some of the Lloyd's registers of ships from around the world over this period. At various times, a third to half of all of the world's shipping was British, right up until the 2nd World War. Furthermore, much of other countries' shipping was built at British yards. America's domestic capacity for shipbuilding only exceeded it during WW2. Want something from Africa shipped to California? There was a good chance it would arrive on a British ship. The currency of exchange only shifted from GBP to USD post-war as well. It would be very cool to see these types of dynamics reflected in game.
Truly in shock, never thought the DOUBLE Happy Thursday would ever come. 2024 Christmas might have peaked on this day
On autonomous trade, I would be disappointed on a fully (or close-to) autonomous system.
But I would *love* to see:
- stockpiles
- trade routes only having one 'form' that fluctuates between import/export of the good, dependending on what's profitable
- the ability to ban import/exports independently by good, target country, and route direction.
- humongous increase in volume per convoy.
- and maybe something like trade agreement activating trade routes for *every* profitable good between target markets automatically
Any system that makes supplies significant will make fighting GPs trivial unless they fix AI behavior. We'll be back to 1.3 where you could park a 100 stack navy in the western Mediterranean and fight the entire French army with 40 guys in Algiers
WOW, I would never have thought such a day would come where we would get a Double Happy Thursday.
6 views in 1 minute? Big daddy Genny-wenny has fallen off folks.
Noooooo generalist noooo
genny-wenny 😭😭😭
its the beginning of the end for generalist gaming
@@pelayla it's already Joever
Might as well call it tarkover.
Companies as they are now are interesting. They just need to fix some issues and balancing and we need more companies, which can also go into competition with each other. Otherwise we will have just 2-3 megacorps owning all of their building types
Press F for one of the last car sounds we got to witness on this channel.
A complete rework of this whole diploplay peacedeal system would be appreciated. A diploplay needs to be escalated by for example mobilization and depending on the extent of the war you need to be able to change the wargoals. The treaty of versailles wasnt fixed already in late 1914.
I would love a logistics system where supply isn't routed from the capital but instead from each building that produces the necessary item(s).
I wpuld love this too but i think it would be too laggy to implement
Could make like military depots or something that draw their costs from the local prices
We need stockpiling back it'll change the whole economic system easily too.
Honestly, taking a cue from HoI4 with the World Tension meter for the wars between Great Powers wouldn't be that bad an idea. I might spitball some ideas, but if one starts seeing tensions going up, they are likely to feel worried about the future, which is something that could bring out "fear" and "uncertainty" and "maybe I ain't gonna spend as much and 'stockpile' in case".
I assume that navy is still on the board because that's what they specifically opened their video with after 1.7. So perhaps the next DLC will resolve around navies and the military and trade reworks are linked to that. But because they specifically said this is about the free patches it's why they didn't devolve into navies in this dev diary.
I'm still a bit sad to see that the way laws are enacted is still not a topic for them to change. The law enactement system is just way to frustrating and way to rng and could be so much more interesting. You could for example just change laws as you fix as an autocrat with the risk of having a civil war blowing you up or as a parliamentary democracy you could have to negociate with other IGs to get them into your boat (a bit like english parliament in EU4) and depending on how offensive you go in you could even add a new parameter like corruption, which would cause tax waste for example
I think law changes should just be a mean time happen sort of thing. Like sieges in ck3
Would be interesting your ideas for changes of systems (like the diplomatic plays)
20:00 a system like we have for the laws, but for diplomatic plays, with the set backs, sways in favor and sways agains, would be amazing, just make declaring war something separate, you should be able to diplomatically negotiate for ban slavery, investment rights and treaty ports, maybe even return states, with the possibility of not having to go to war in those cases
I'd really like to see command economy and cooperative ownership made more viable, laissez-faire have some form of diminishing returns as the "low-hanging fruit" investments dry up and capital consolidates, shedding more and more of the "benefits" of competition (depending on your perspective), and also see an end-game step for the capitalist track that takes the form of imperialist/finance capitalism that could allow for the private sector to invest in foreign buildings that you don't have foreign investment agreements in but also gives significant penalties to liberty desire in your subjects or something along those lines to represent the colonies you've more heavily developed and educated becoming less and less dependent on their overlord.
I'd love to see the late/end game shape up into the historical sort of arrangement with the world splitting into imperialist (in the Leninist sense) and socialist "camps," with the two (or three if you want to really flesh out two different play styles for anarchism and socialism) systems actually having meaningful differences while still allowing for roughly equal outcomes depending on the material and historical conditions of your country. It'd also help if the mechanics of the game organically pressured things forward, as it actually seems to already do to some extent (what with running out of lands to colonize making confrontation with other colonial powers an inevitability), though I'm not 100% certain of how intentional it is.
Whatever they do, they need to make it so navies can actually block transporting armies.
I would love to seeyour thoughts on general improvements in a stream or a separate video
Double Happy Thursday, Mr. Generalist.
I think the military issue would be fixed much more easily if the "military budget" would mean the military also spent more military resources (guns, ammo, etc) in times of peace for additional training. Like, if your actuation goes from 0.2x to 1x guns is much more disruptive than if it goes from 0.8x to 1x guns, thus making the military production much more stable.
I'm not shocked that 1.9 will be a huge update, if you are going to tweak the military then you also got to tweak interests because you changed the navy, and if you've changed interests and the military you might as well change diplomatic plays to work better with the new military systems since diplomatic plays already rely on mobilization levels as a measure for willingness to back down
Wow, the military changes sound great! I'm a bit worried about the supply changes; I just don't want to have to micro something way behind the lines due to some poor implementation of a feature while I'm trying micro the front lines. But that's probably just me being a bit jaded.
Such excellent syntax in the greeting should sustain us for the long winter
your idea on diplo play sounds so cool
Regarding negotiating a settlement during diplo plays, I think split-states should be creatable
About free patches in the beginning. I feel like that they were talking about free stuff we get Avery patch. Regardless if it has DLC alongside it or not
So I do not feel like dlc is delayed and that you Generalist going too deep with reading between the lines)
Happy Thursday
I'm not close to 1k hours. I play the same exact country every time. Egypt. I recon this is the hardest start. Unavoidable war against your overlord in 4 years. No industry. The strongest aristocracy in the game.
согласен пусть делают дольше но качественно
Let's go! ❤Happy Thursday
They could use the movement mechanic as the boiling point in wars but then would have to find a way to have popular opinion in wars
the front line system and escalation system seemed like they were heavily based off of ww1
I really want to learn this game but the learning curve is STEEEEEEP. I’ve watched several of your vids and still can’t string Japan together. Could you do another beginner vid for peeps like myself 👉🏼👈🏼
What are you struggling with?
Btw, Japan is a hard country to start off - bad laws, strong Landowners, isolated market, large population - you're better off trying a country like Belgium or Sweden to learn the basics.
Japan is good after the beginning because of the aforementioned difficulties.
Generalist, would you be willing to play Vicky2? I'd be interested in getting your impression between the mechanics of the two. Specially, the mechanics that were part of Vicky2 that never seem to have made it over to Vicky3. Thanks!
quick question boss: are pop saving PMs (specially the ones that use coal and tools) for buldings worth using when you have more workplaces than peasants in a state? and if yes: even if the balance of the bulding goes down when you turn the Pm on
There should be good bonuses for nations but hard to achieve.
Just a point about military access, they might add it for gameplay but historically it was not a thing.
Germany invaded Belgium just because they wanted military access to France. In WW2 Germany needed military access to from Sweden to Norway but instead invaded through the sea so as to leave Sweden neutral.
This was the time where military access basically meant invasion. Having another country’s army go through your lands basically nullifies your neutrality and drags you into the war.
Not entirely true. Major powers did in fact use military access during multiple times in the time period Vic 3 happens. Some examples:
1 - Crimean war
Austria gave military access to Britain and France. Technically, serbia wasn't in the war despite being a suzerain of the otomans and gave military access too.More informally, sweden-norway did as well.
2 - British-Afghan war
Sindh was forced to allow British troops to move through.
3 - Austrian-Prussian war 1866
Many German minors were forced to provide access to Prussia. Some like Hanover refused and were forcefully invaded. But many thuringian states just outright gave it to prussia while formally staying neutral
@ So what would’ve happened if the war carried into those lands? Would’ve they allowed Crimean style devastation in Sindh?
No matter how you slice it, during those time allowing military access is breaking neutrality. Whether you mobilize or not.
@ernimuja6991 the countries frequently didn't have a choice. But in the case where they did like Austria in the Crimea war they positioned troops to prevent Russians from coming in but Russians to keep Austrians outside of the war never entered austrian territory. You can claim it wasn't neutral but fact is no war was ever declared and no austrian died because of it
@@gigiobb Russia didn't want to escalate but they definitely would've punished a much weaker nation for allowing enemy troops to cross.
I really don't think EU4 style military access was a thing back then.
@@ernimuja6991 If your argument is that Military access didnt exist at the time and therefore it is unrealistic then that has been proven false by the multitude of examples that did happen in history. If your argument is that it cant work like EU4 military access then it isnt a history fidelity problem but a gameplay mechanic one
Is it possible they don't mean 1.10 will only be a free update patch, but more the free update that comes along with 1.10 and it's expansion?
hitting the algorithm o7
Based
I'm not sure if I like the 'national pride' idea .... different groups have different ideas of what the 'true nation' is, so what does 'national pride' mean eventually.
They should take a leaf from HOI4 to fix their silly warfare mechanics
Which leaf?
fourth
MAPI was a mistake. I don't quite like other free money modifiers (like capitalists should invest more of their money, not shadow money), but MAPI is just the worst. It deletes money, it encourages really weird play patterns e.g. you just don't want to build in small states, like the ones in new england, or "reworked" russia (they split the existing ones in half for whatever reason). Maybe make mapi region wide(like in the interests) so that it doesn't suck that much? Although small states will still suck due to throughput. Or due to them splitting regions in half too (first russia, now india). Furthermore it's really hard to build ports when they cost like a mine but give basically nothing, the numbers are just too low
I think MAPI should: be influenced by infrastructure buildings (ports and railways increase it, and the introduction of river infrastructure that also increases MAPI), and; an adjacency bonus for neighbouring states. I do like that it encourages you to build relevant industries in states.
@@antorseax9492 Yeah I do like that it encourages building relevant stuff close to eachother, but I don't like that it 1) forces to build in ONE state 2) deletes money completely. Now that I think about it, my idea of MAPI being region-wide is just stupid, it works for some countries eg. US, Russia, India, as they have enough regions to make it viable, but don't work for others like China, UK, Germany, France, as their mainland consist only of 2 regions, or even smaller ones like Persia or Italy who have only one region, making MAPI highly irrelevant, so I'm out of ideas
On replayability and country content: why not just make certain cultures better at certain things? I mean, it's not like that isn't historical, though it does kind of slap the Marxism simulator aspect of the game in the face and would probably incite controversy.
I'd still rather see construction treated as a consumable good on the market with different economic systems interacting with its production/ownership rather than a capacity as it currently is, to more accurately reflect real life construction.