It's out.

>Very little progress has been made.
Progress on WHAT, if the game was finished in the release state? This is the exact thing I was talking about: people are b***hing about "lack of new content", missing the memo that all the content was there for the launch, in a finished and fully operational game. But since previous decade PDX both shifted its target audience entirely AND taught said new audience that the game should constantly receive new "fixes" and expansions (as the default is barren wasteland), then the morons are screeching now for "more content".

>this is your brain on a decade of slurping DLCs

>this is your brain on a decade of slurping DLCs

Obvious newhomosexuals.

I'm trying to imagine your face when being given EU2 or the original Victoria.

I can't tell what ethnicity this man is supposed to be. The jet-black moustache and swarthiness (beyond the typical mediterranean stuff) suggests he's some kind of Latin American, but perhaps this is just what Paradox thinks people who live in the south of France look like.

>i don't see anyone who's definitely mexican
>sees evidence
>ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL?? ARE YOU PRETENDING?? WHO CARES???
you care, moron

Aren't you the dude who starts sperging out about slavs and hispanics the moment anyone gives you an excuse?
Nobody asks for you to share your insights attained via your moron-tier bastardized racial ideology in the vein of Madison Grant’s work, but which would make Madison Grant puke.

every man had a moustache then

So you own a phone made by ESLs?

So you're even more subhuman then an ESL?

Do you think saying something enough times will magically make it true or something?

>The problem with Vicky 3 is that the core systems are fricking dogshit
same problem as in CK3
and no it won't get fixed with "just wait for next DLC"

having a good core mechanics isn't easy to implement, it requires time and skill
it's much easier to just hire minimum wage interns to implement yet another simple minigame on top of crappy mechanics or write 100 stupid events
and have the community to do alpha testing

If anything, food is massively underproduced. The trick for it to remain viable is to either never play as China or anything in South and South-East Asia or to prevent those regions from ever increasing their standards of living above 20, or even simply achieving high employment in other branches than agriculture and subsistence farming. And even then, everyone else can sell their food there, so it balances out
>b-but muh realism
We are overproducing food on global scale since 1820s and then the Haber process along with first mechanisation of agriculture (horse-drawn reapers and such) made it trivial. And then few other revolutions happened, meaning we are overproducing food for about 20-22 billion people without even trying and with both Europe, the US and Canada deliberately producing less than they could, simply to not collapse the agriculture due to absurdly low prices from oversaturating the market.
The issue is distribution, not amount of food produced. Malthus was wrong, the fact so many people can't wrap their heads around it for past 220+ years never cease to amaze me

>That doesn't change the fact that the game does not well simulate the economic conditions that lead to food being valuable regardless
You mean: the game starts when this is already a thing and thus can only go into absurdities of overproduction?
>Famines also just aren't a thing at all
Try playing anyone outside of Europe. Particularly in China. Good luck preventing famines. Even when focusing on agriculture.

Argentina was one of the wealthiest countries in the world in early 1900s, despite lack of heavy industrialization
it's just a sign of bad game design to force everybody to play in the same way

Russia didn't properly industrialize until the revolution and they were still a great power throughout the entire period. Argentina had a GDP per capita higher than the US or most of Europe until 1930 based solely on agriculture. America's rise to dominance after WW1 came not just from industrial output but also from being the primary food supplier of Europe.

I'm not saying you should be able to become the #1 great power just by building plantations but you should still be able to reach at least secondary power status. And agriculture should be an actually important part of the economy instead of being nearly completely irrelevant.

Yes, I'm not saying industrialization shouldn't be important. The problem is that how much steel you can make is practically the only thing that matters in Vicky 3 economics because there's absolutely no market for raw resources. Food is abundant and even cash crops and rare minerals are oddly plentiful. You can't create an economy based around agriculture or extraction with supplemental industry or even any sort of multi-sector economy at all because only heavy industry matters.

>based solely on agriculture
It's a bit more complex than that, since you talk predominately food production. Argentina's main source of income was wool. So yeah, agriculture, but not food.

Uh isn't that just what Vicky2 did? Why are you trying to play the colonization industrialization game without taking part in either

Industrialization of agriculture largely happened AFTER urban industrialization. You did not have large scale agricultural industrialization until around 1910s, after Haber-Bosch process was invented

>but state has the monopoly on construction, no one can build anything, not even a lumber camp without the state
>construction queue is fully booked for a decade
no this isn't how it works

>do private investments get their own construction queue
yes and the construction capacity is split between the state queue and private queue with the exact split between the two being determined by your laws
the construction capacity used by the private queue is then compensated to you

an issue i do have with this is that the allocation to the state queue isnt 0 if you have Laissez Faire, probably because of all the whining about LF in vicky 2

>especially since there ARE things that your government has to build on its own regardless of anything.
They removed barracks in the latest update, so that leaves only Government Administration building basically.

>Nta, but WHY would or should it be 0?
>I never understood this moronic logic, especially since there ARE things that your government has to build on its own regardless of anything.
yes except the state can build everything on LF in game

They have their own queue, but it's still constrained by state construction capacity. Highest it can go is 75% of total construction under laissez-faire law. Under interventionism it's 50%. Shill are lying to you as usual btw.

The reason is pretty simple: if there were separate investment pools for either, the AI would got completely bogged down. It's not as much as intended mechanic, and more of a shitty compromise so AI can still handle construction, rather than being perpetually stuck with just building private constructor sector. They've tried that in beta builds, and AI just couldn't wrap its head around it.

you still had a traditional family structure in the USSR, it wasn't laterally Sodom and Gomorrah like some morons like to claim

TradCon land for the 19th century obviously in the context of game mechanics.

>tradcon for the 19th century
>men being head of the family and religion being influential
what are you smoking anon

>legalize same sex marriage
yeah you know nothing

>what are you smoking anon
The game mechanics you baiter.

As opposed to going backwards?

>gayman meme

>He doesn't know why it's called gayman
New?

The main issue is assuming that you can only do one or the other, some level of railroading is required to get the ball rolling because overwise the AI just sits around doing a whole lot of not much.

Black person, this is wrong on so many different levels, I don't even know where to start, but one thing is for sure: you are literally shouting at clouds about things that are in the game, and you are too fricking stupid to use them.
> but you cant decide WHICH cultures are actually considered primary ones
Those laws I've talked about literally affect that
>you cant simulate 19th century without it.
More like: you have no idea how those settings work, so complain about them, because it's a different system than the one from EU4. I mean shit, I guess I've been doing something wrong, persecuting Poles and Balts as Russian, but integrating Belarussians and Ukrainians. I guess the game does it wrong, because there is no "Persecute Poles" button and you have to set the correct set of laws instead.

The issue is that you only have 4 options:
>Everyone we share Ancestry and Culture with
>Everyone we share Ancestry with
>Everyone we share Culture with
>Everyone
More granularity in the system would be nice, like giving the US the ability to accept all Western Europeans and Basketball Americans but nobody else.

>For the sake of historical simulation?
Again, we tried that and it was an absolute slog to deal with. It's the classic KC:D dilemma: you either make a fun game to play, or you go full historical immersion. You can't have both in most cases.
>Imaginary issues like racism and discrimination?
And that relates to the fact that neither Victoria nor Victoria 2 had any sort of settings for those issues at fricking all and operated with hard-coded elements... how? I mean you have the very first Vicky in the series that actually allows you to control the matters of minorities, but anon is too stupid to use them, so somehow the game is bad due to his stupidity.

>And that relates to the fact that neither Victoria nor Victoria 2 had any sort of settings for those issues at fricking all and operated with hard-coded elements
Victoria 2 has seccessionist rebels, which is something I haven't seen in Victoria 3 despite the fact that one of the era's most well-known conflict originated from an act of secession.

I just minimized the game to say that the universal construction queue might be the worst idea PDS has ever had for a game mechanic. Shit's more moronic than mana
I don't know what the resident shills think blatantly lying about how it works will accomplish

It's fine in HoI4 since a simple system makes sense for a wargame, but for Victoria it doesn't since the game is too heavily focused on industrial development to use such a gamified construction system.

in the early 1900s i switched from tenant farmers to collectivized agriculture and my surplus cash went from like 20k to 400k which enabled me to switch to lowest taxes. i ignored that law for a long time because i thought it didn't matter much.

why does switching that law have such a big effect? i'm playing sweden and went council republic and coop btw.

>>why does switching that law have such a big effect?
It means that you own the farms, so you're taking the profit directly.

>some level of railroading is required to get the ball rollin
I already covered it in

I get the idea, but my point is that those days are gone. Journals can't get shit done, because they are guidelines for human player. AI is utterly clueless about them, has zero urgency to finish them and also doesn't get any guidance toward finishing them.
The solution is very simple, all it takes is adding a bunch of weighted modifiers for AI to do bunch of things, BUT this being nu-PDX, they won't do that and instead eventually either implement the moronic mission trees (so the AI will be 200% railroaded) OR some other stupid railroad system, that will both gimp AI even more and provide bunch of broken features for players to abuse (along with knowing AI behaviour beforehand).
Believe me, I wish I could see the clusterfrick in South America. But I know that other than having human players manning all the post, it's not going to happen

And from the other side of the argument, there is always the thing that annoys me with historical events since about IN came out for EU3: they railroad you no matter what. Early events had set of requirements to happen and chains of them had requirements to stick. This meant that MOST of the time you get a historical outcome, but there was a room for other choices, and the more factors had to pile-up, the more wiggle room there was. Of course this required back in the day enormous effort to script it all, so it was abandoned eventually and by IN, they just had general events for historical situations that fired virtually on their own, no matter what, which got worse over time.
With their current engine and scripting, it is perfectly possible to return to early days of events without forcing a railroad... but PDX isn't interested, and vast majority of modders do the "hardcore historical outcome", which leads to boring slog to play, as you know the outcome of events already and there is no room for deviation.
Shame, really. I know already that expecting a Vicky 3 mod that does "historicals" is bound to be a railroad, so meh

, so no point repeating myself. You read that, and apparently decided to ignore it.

As for "muh ebic minority dog-kicking":
>Everyone we share Ancestory with
plus abolishing slavery has the exact effect you described. African-American is added to your accepted, while you still only consider Western Europeans as the only real people.

And I honestly have no idea how ACW is weighted now and what's the cause, since they change that every major patch, so I can't comment, still didn't try US run with 1.5. But b***hing about the game not having "secessionist rebels" as a specific label is the type of nit-picking that invalidates whatever argument you actually had, when ACW does happen. Is it moronic? Yes. Does it require specific rebel type? No. So what's even the issue at hand?

>And so far not a single one of you was capable of saying WHY the construction model is bad, beyond repeating like a mantra that it's bad and unrealistic
And yet somehow we managed to understand each other well enough to discuss it
You have genuine autism if you're not able to follow what we're talking about

>Victoria 2 has seccessionist rebels, which is something I haven't seen in Victoria 3 despite the fact that one of the era's most well-known conflict originated from an act of secession.
They do exist and the ACW is one, but you can also get them dynamically any time you own the homeland states of unaccepted cultures. They're just very rare because the game is badly designed.

It's way too easy to accept most cultures so e.g. Russia never has to worry about a Polish revolt because they'll pass Racial Segregation 10 years in and then the Poles are perfectly happy. And even if they aren't accepted, Polish radicals are much more likely to join a political civil war over tax laws than a nationalist rebellion because of how the radicalism and IG systems work. Very rarely do you have a local surplus of radicals, it's usually a nationwide problem so you only get national civil wars instead.

>It's way too easy to accept most cultures
And that's a problem... how?
Imperial Russia is a great example of state being its own biggest enemy. They had zero real reason to push various non-Russians and non-Slavs living in the empire, but decided to do so anyway, because, well, why shouldn't they? So the end result was an ever-worsening situation, uprising, mutual resentment and all sort of dodgy shit, simply because bunch of top wigs had the bright idea that people that are kicked down and trampled over are going to be more loyal.
Also: everyone hates the globohomosexual setting of your acceptance laws now, and it's like that since at least 1.3, so it's not even some sort of woke shit being pushed with the game at this point. And it's like that not due to political reasons, but because it re-created the ancient problem of OG Vicky, where with the right set of party and population size, you could get monoculture nations by 1870, completely assimilating everyone into your primary.

... again, why is this a problem?
Do you realise their real-life issues were about NOT passing said laws or passing them way too fricking late? And usually for some moronic reason in tune of "because just no".
>Also cultures should be able to just choose to become secessionist when they're mad even if they're legally accepted like Serbs in Austria-Hungary or the CSA.
Which is a thing in the game, you know. The big problem is that economical and political issues have much greater draw for pops than nationalistic ones, especially when a culture is accepted (which offers a massive malus to the importance of the issue, just as intended). CSA meanwhile rebels entirely over economic thing, which is perfectly fine if you ask me.

>It makes the game too easy
... because?
Consult

[...]
Besides, acceptance on its own does frick all. It just placates the "foreign" pops so they aren't beaten for just existing. Assimilating them is handled by completely different set of mechanics, which are barely interacting with the acceptance system (essentially anything but the most extreme segregation is meaningless), and so is conversion. You can run an ethnostate just as fine as you can run an unitarian nationalist one and a multicultural mosaic. The consequence is purely on how your pops react to the level of persecution the face, which might trigger mass migration and/or revolt if they have a formable for themselves.
So all in all, you can have "accepted" random cultures, and that doesn't mean they just magically convert overnight from the fact alone. This is a big change from previous two games.
Speaking of assimilation, I'm still mad they've wasted opportunity of implementing a scaling to represent OG limits: where a pop was simply too fricking big to assimilate it. But rather than blocking it entirely after arbitrary decided size, all it took was introducing a scaling debuff to the ability, eventually turning it into a crawl. This could also allow to play on pops easier assimilating if you chip down the blocks (since 50k subsistence farmers is not the same as 30k labourers, 10k clerks, 5k machinists and 1k of various other professions)

Accepting cultures does nothing. Unaccepting them does nothing. So why it's such a big issue that you can pass the law to increase (or decrease) the number of accepted cultures?
Have you played the game, or just theorycrafting on the effect of this decision?
>There was no magic law that would of caused people to not be racist you stupid troony
Oh, yeah, I guess when one is moronic Amerifat and sees everything through the prism of fricking race, they will have very hard time grasping the concept of not being c**t to Poles as a Russian. After all, everything has to be about Black folk.

Black person, Russia abolished serfdom with a single signature on a single piece of paper, effect immediate, and you are complaining that passing laws (which your population can overrule somehow, even in an absolute monarchy with nobody else having executive powers) is "too easy".

It's like you don't understand why those systems are in place, what they are doing and what they represent. Why an accepted culture should want to frick off? For what purpose? Hungarians were plotting for good 150 years how to frick over Hapsburgs, then suddenly got their "dual kingdom" and instantly shut the frick up, with zero interest of splitting off. In fact, they've became the biggest advocates for cohesion of the empire. Same shit with Poles - they've tried various independence schemes, then the Austrians simply allowed their elite to the political cake and they became loyalists - to the point Franz is still fondly remembered in Poland, unlike any other monarch ruling Polish clay. And the list goes on and on. Hell, even "Austrian Italians" were die-hard loyalists, and didn't want anything to do with the Kingdom of Italy, seeing it as even bigger failure than Austo-Hungary.
So maybe not kicking people and trampling over them is a recipe for a success, rather than doubling down on it or creating artifical limits on acceptance, just because you failed both 101 19th century history and also 101 of gameplay design.

Besides, acceptance on its own does frick all. It just placates the "foreign" pops so they aren't beaten for just existing. Assimilating them is handled by completely different set of mechanics, which are barely interacting with the acceptance system (essentially anything but the most extreme segregation is meaningless), and so is conversion. You can run an ethnostate just as fine as you can run an unitarian nationalist one and a multicultural mosaic. The consequence is purely on how your pops react to the level of persecution the face, which might trigger mass migration and/or revolt if they have a formable for themselves.
So all in all, you can have "accepted" random cultures, and that doesn't mean they just magically convert overnight from the fact alone. This is a big change from previous two games.
Speaking of assimilation, I'm still mad they've wasted opportunity of implementing a scaling to represent OG limits: where a pop was simply too fricking big to assimilate it. But rather than blocking it entirely after arbitrary decided size, all it took was introducing a scaling debuff to the ability, eventually turning it into a crawl. This could also allow to play on pops easier assimilating if you chip down the blocks (since 50k subsistence farmers is not the same as 30k labourers, 10k clerks, 5k machinists and 1k of various other professions)

Tech trading from OG Vicky was cut, because it was OP as all frick. Especially in the "block research of others via negative points" department.
The fact that Vicky 3 has "tech spread" and yet you can't fricking interact with your own subjects, so maybe BIC isn't wasting time on researching naval tech you already know for past 20 years is annoying as all frick
Speaking of which: can we fricking please separate naval research from military research? Nothing like land-locked countries getting "spread" of naval tech or being forced to research 10 different land techs, so you can finally get better ports without a penalty that will make the research lag for 1.5 the time it will take to clean half of the tree just to remove the debuff.

You don't really have to memorize them you just need basic irl knowledge.
I always start the game by invading Venezuela.

He could still be a Slav, cleaning toilets and all. Maybe even an offspring of the original "open borders" immigrants, to make it all that worse

If you have time to b***h at random strangers on the internet for asking questions then you also have time to answer those questions properly, especially when you claim to be such a god gamer. You must be fun to be around irl.

Except your supposed solution doesn't work because I've implemented it in the game.

Besides, consider the following:
In the past 2 hours, you could easily find the answer to your problem, if you only wanted to. After all, you have a keyboard and internet connection.
Instead, you are throwing a temper tantrums at random people for not spoon-feeding you.
So I guess you must be fun to be around irl, you dumb fricking homosexual.

Yeah and you know what I found? Multiple reddit threads with the same question left without an answer.
Just stop fricking replying to me you dumb motherfricker.

I am literally importing and exporting all I fricking can from/to Egypt. Their trade volume is fricking tiny, it doesn't change anything. I've had it like that for several years and the population has actually decreased.
It just doesn't fricking work and I've been saying this all this time. You have not even explained how greener grass works when I asked for it.
Just don't fricking bother man, you're wasting your and my time.

Besides, consider the following:
In the past 2 hours, you could easily find the answer to your problem, if you only wanted to. After all, you have a keyboard and internet connection.
Instead, you are throwing a temper tantrums at random people for not spoon-feeding you.
So I guess you must be fun to be around irl, you dumb fricking homosexual.

Am I wrong or are fleets completely unsinkable?

Two Sicilies collapsed after Garibaldi's invasion, something that doesn't happen in V3 for some reason. It's accurate when states like Parma, Tuscany and so on, join you, but the rest...not so much.

I've seen my fleets lose manpower so i'd assume you do lose them
[...]
I can't play without ironman and i wasn't saving in the cloud

>I've seen my fleets lose manpower so i'd assume you do lose them
They're also instantly repaired, so what's the point?

>Both your points on construction and persecutions are invalid
You can demote and promote primary cultures in EU4
You cant here for some reason

You can set laws like racial segregation or national supremacy or whatever but you cant decide WHICH cultures are actually considered primary ones. If you dont think this is important then you are moronic because you cant simulate 19th century without it.

>but integrating Belarussians and Ukrainians.
Who historically were persecuted and discriminated against but ok, i guess that didnt happen.

>You can't selectively persecute people!
>Anon provides an example that you can
>HURR THOSE PEOPLE WERE PERSECUTED HISTORICALLY TOO!
Jesus frick man, there is a limit on how stupid one can be before it starts being just annoying.

>Scripting = Game design
Maybe the real moron here is you

>Construction system bad!
>Why?
>IT'S BAD!

Frick off wiz

Is the wiz you are talking about in the room with us now?

But I don't need to cope about anything. I'm perfectly fine with the fact the economic model of the game is about supply and demand. There are many features that I would have in the game (where are the fricking foreign investments?!), but stockpile being gone is ok in my book. It served no real purpose in Vicky 2, and the reason it was in OG was due to it being easier to code the game like that.

>Like a soup made from whatever leftovers you had in the fridge and spices added after youve already cooked it to mask the rancid taste instead of deliciously prepared dish that you planned ahead by buying right produce and using right recipe
Yeah. Now that I think I've figured out the absolute clusterfrick of an interface, the new war system feels like it could've been really good if it'd been built as something like this from the start instead of being hacked together from the moronic non-system the game launched.