Victoria 3

[Tamas]

1.1.1 coming tomorrow. I am excited to see what fresh things will be broken.

[Syt]

With the public holiday tomorrow, I was hoping to spend the week playing some V3 1.1, but after the initial disappointment of Monday's patch ...

Anyways, I've spent the time updating my CK3 modlist in the meantime; 1.8 patch fixed some issues that were causing some mods not to play nice with each other, and I even got More Bookmarks to work, and almost all mods I use have been updated since release last week (plus an unofficial 1.8 bugfix mod to erase some bigger issues the patch had on launch).

[Syt]

Hello Victorians!

Today we released a minor patch to correct some issues, and we're planning to follow it up with 1.1.2 next week for some additional adjustments.

Please report any issues in our bug report forum or submit a support ticket. Thank you!

AI
- Fixed a bug where AI breaks off pacts to save Influence even when they're not the ones paying


Localization
- Fixed a few unlocalized Russian custom loc strings (RU_CL...)


Major Bug Fixes
- Fixed a bug where the Capitalists, Shopkeepers and Bureaucrats had no default Interest Group attraction value, causing them to be Politically Inactive unless they worked in a Trade Center
- Fixed a bug that caused regressive political movements to be much more common than progressive ones
- Fixed a bug that caused Morale Loss to scale negatively with the number of troops in battle
- Fixed random crash on startup when reading in game data

[Tamas]

- Fixed a bug that caused regressive political movements to be much more common than progressive ones

I am eager to see this fix, I was noticing that I seemed to be only getting reactionary political movements.

[Tamas]

- Fixed a bug that caused regressive political movements to be much more common than progressive ones

I am eager to see this fix, I was noticing that I seemed to be only getting reactionary political movements.

Quickly showed up (and I suspect this has been a bug/issue since 1.0), starting Austria the first political movement was for enacting racial segregation (which of course is progressive in Austria). I don't remember ever seeing that as a movement.

[grumbler]

Politics is still fucked up. 

I started a game as the USA, because that's the nation I had played more than a few years.  Andrew Jackson was president, as usual.  What was not usual was that he and the Farmers IG were governing alone, with 0 perent legitimacy.  Both the Whigs and Democrats were in opposition.

I fixed that by brining the Whigs into government, where the Farmers joined.  The Whigs had received 77% of the vote in the 1832 election, so legitimacy shot up to 75% and I could start passing laws.  For those not familiar with US elections, the Whigs historically got 37% of the vote in the 1832 election, and Jackson was a Democrat, not a Whig).

In June, though, legitimacy collapsed to 7% when the Farmers, for no reason, decided to leave the Whig Party.  The government was exactly the same except for the Farmers leaving the party.  On the cusp of passing Dedicated Police Force, which they very much endorsed, the Farmers (happiness 16, the highest of any IG) decided to sabotage everything.  I had to kick them out of government to avoid the -61 "Government Ideology Penalty" (whatever that is).  So Jackson is president but his IG is in opposition. 

Did the devs even bother to test this stuff?  I fucking hate it when some devs make a game that is 90% Bavarian Layered Chocolate Cake but is unplayable because the other 10% is diarrhea frosting.

[Syt]

- Fixed a bug that caused regressive political movements to be much more common than progressive ones

I am eager to see this fix, I was noticing that I seemed to be only getting reactionary political movements.

Quickly showed up (and I suspect this has been a bug/issue since 1.0), starting Austria the first political movement was for enacting racial segregation (which of course is progressive in Austria). I don't remember ever seeing that as a movement.

Playing as France I got a movement to install presidential republic in the 1840s (the landowners got a Republican leader). Of course pretty much everyone and their dog threatened revolution over this when I tried to enact it, so it didn't go anywhere. Also got a movement to enact right to assembly (I have Censorship).

[Tamas]

I mean, setting aside how much it does not represent US party affiliations at the time, it sounds like just political shifts to deal with. The coalition of IGs collapsed and the government was an ineffective mess until the uppity IG was kicked out of the government.

[Syt]

Politics is still fucked up. 

I started a game as the USA, because that's the nation I had played more than a few years.  Andrew Jackson was president, as usual.  What was not usual was that he and the Farmers IG were governing alone, with 0 perent legitimacy.  Both the Whigs and Democrats were in opposition.

I fixed that by brining the Whigs into government, where the Farmers joined.  The Whigs had received 77% of the vote in the 1832 election, so legitimacy shot up to 75% and I could start passing laws.  For those not familiar with US elections, the Whigs historically got 37% of the vote in the 1832 election, and Jackson was a Democrat, not a Whig).

In June, though, legitimacy collapsed to 7% when the Farmers, for no reason, decided to leave the Whig Party.  The government was exactly the same except for the Farmers leaving the party.  On the cusp of passing Dedicated Police Force, which they very much endorsed, the Farmers (happiness 16, the highest of any IG) decided to sabotage everything.  I had to kick them out of government to avoid the -61 "Government Ideology Penalty" (whatever that is).  So Jackson is president but his IG is in opposition. 

Did the devs even bother to test this stuff?  I fucking hate it when some devs make a game that is 90% Bavarian Layered Chocolate Cake but is unplayable because the other 10% is diarrhea frosting.

My game as France at the moment is not quite as bad. However, I've very much empowered the military, who joined in a party with church and petite bourgeoisie, so not much social modernization going on.

I admit I pay little attention to whether characters are attached to the right parties any more because it usually makes little historic sense. (Funnily, that kind of alt-hist stuff is what I dislike about HoI4, but I find I'm a lot more forgiving in this game.)

Legitimacy mostly makes sense in the governments I've had (the ruling party got 70% of the vote and the parties "fit" well together, so I have full legitimacy). I tried the exploit(?) of putting everyone into government a few times but it never jumped up to full legitimacy again after the new patch. Maybe they fixed it, maybe I've been "lucky".

Not playing very seriously at the moment (don't want to get too invested in a game on current patch). As France I mostly go warmongering while managing infamy. I'm gobbling up Italy very slowly and North Africa with a little colonizing. Because I'm at war every few years (and occasionally have to call up conscripts) my economy, while doing not too terribly, is still lagging behind the UK in 1858, and my SoL is also not doing too hot. Most of the world is not happy with me, so expanding my market "softly" through protectorates is not happening at the moment.

[Tamas]

I finally had the 1848 event chain fire in the mid-1860s. And I am thinking.. those events kind of make it easier to enact major progressive reforms without triggering a civil war - although there'll be lots of turmoil. This is due to the events turning IG leaders Radical.

Now I guess this is probably good - there's an explosion of popular support for those ideas, so why not.

But to better simulate how these movements were channelled into national independence movements in Austria, I'll probably return to my mod of requiring only 30-ish percent Turmoil to start secession movements, instead of the vanilla 50 (which makes it next to impossible for them to happen).

[Syt]

I'm thinking that Nationalism in incorporated states should give a big (bigger?) raise to radicalism for POPs who are not primary culture. Radicalism should be higher if they're in their homeland and/or if they're discriminated against.

With pan-nationalism you could give a similar raise (making unaccepted non-primaries even unhappier), but this time include unincorporated states (i.e. colonies) to give a base radicalism there as well.

[Syt]

I did get the 1848 events, actually. Not much happened in other countries, though, I think (and I went moderate instead of embracing it).

[Tamas]

I think performance for me is now worse than before 1.06. Definitely way, way worse than with 1.06. IIRC Paradox acknowledged they are looking into it.

[grumbler]

I mean, setting aside how much it does not represent US party affiliations at the time, it sounds like just political shifts to deal with. The coalition of IGs collapsed and the government was an ineffective mess until the uppity IG was kicked out of the government.

If actual countries had these kinds of "political shifts" where the legitimacy of the government were to collapse by 70% only sixth months after being installed, when nothing else had happened and the IGs were all agreed on the law under consideration, we'd call them all "Italy."

I don't mind the idea of shifting politics.  That happens in real life and is what causes even long-term parties to move in and out of power.  What I mind is moronic shifting politics for no reason at all, and the assumption that all democracies are parliamentary coalitions, with parties and IGs freely able to join or leave the governing coalition.  In the case of the US, an election was six months away, and parties could wait for the results before acting.

The market system works.  The diplomatic system works.  The military system sort-of works if you just ignore the fact that no professional 19th C army was purely territorial.  But these are all shackled to the corpses of the building system and the political system.  One corpse can be forgiven among friends.  Two is a corpse too far.

[The Minsky Moment]

the assumption that all democracies are parliamentary coalitions, with parties and IGs freely able to join or leave the governing coalition.

This has been a problem from the beginning.  The game does not attempt to model presidential systems.