• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #64 - Post-Release Plans

16_9.jpg

Hello and welcome to the first of many post-release Victoria 3 dev diaries! The game may now be out at last (weird, isn’t it?) but for us that just means a different phase of work has begun, the work of post-release support. We’ve been quite busy collecting feedback, fixing bugs and making balance changes, and are now working on the free patches that will be following the release, the first of which is a hotfix that should already be with you at the time you read this.

Our plans are naturally not limited to just hotfixes though, and so the topic of this dev diary is to outline what you can expect us to be focusing on in the first few larger free patches. We will not be focusing on our long-term ambitions for the game today; we certainly have no shortage of cool ideas for where we could take Victoria 3 in the years to come, but right now our focus is post-release support and patches, not expansion plans.

However, before I start, I want to share my own personal thoughts on the release. Overall, I consider the release a great success, and have been blown away by the sheer amount of people that have bought and are now playing Victoria 3. I’ve had a hand in this project since its earliest design inception, and have been Game Director of Victoria 3 since I left Stellaris in late 2018, and while it certainly hasn’t been the easiest game to work on at times, it is by far the most interesting and fulfilling project I’ve ever directed. The overarching vision of the game - a ‘society builder’ that puts internal development, economy and politics in the driving seat - may not have changed much since then, but the mechanics and systems have gone through innumerable iterations (a prominent internal joke in the team is ‘just one more Market Rework, please?’) to arrive where we are today, at what I consider to be a great game, one that lives up to our vision - but one that could do with improvement in a few key areas.

V3-PostLaunch-ForLoc.jpg


The first of these areas is military: The military system, being very different from the military systems of previous Grand Strategy Games, is one of those systems that has gone through a lot of iterations. While I believe that we have landed on a very solid core of how we want military gameplay in Victoria 3 to function and we have no intention of moving back towards a more tactical system, it is a system that suffers from some interface woes and which could do with selective deepening and increasing player control in specific areas. A few of the things we’re looking into improving and expanding on for the military system follow here, in no particular order:
  • Addressing some of the rough edges in how generals function at the moment, such as improving unit selection for battles and balancing the overall progression along fronts
  • Adding the ability for countries to set strategic objectives for their generals
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts

The second area is historical immersion: While we have always been upfront with the fact that Victoria 3 is a historical sandbox rather than a strictly historical game, we still want players to feel as though the events unfolding forms a plausible alt-history, and right now there are some expected historical outcomes that are either not happening often enough, or happening in such a way that they become immersion-breaking. Again, in no particular order, some areas targeted for improvement in the short term:
  • Ensuring the American Civil War has a decent chance to happen, happens in a way that makes sense (slave states rising up to defend slavery, etc), and isn’t easily avoidable by the player.
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
  • Working to expose and improve content such as expeditions and journal entries that is currently too difficult for players to find or complete
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada doesn’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way

We're balancing cultural/religious tolerance laws by having more restrictive laws increase the loyalty of accepted pops, so there is an actual trade-off involved.
DD64 01.png

The third area is diplomacy. While I think what we do have here is quite good and not in need of any significant redesign, this is an area that could do with even more deepening and there’s some options we want to add to diplomacy and diplomatic plays:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, that is the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • The ability to expand your primary demands in a diplomatic play beyond just one wargoal (though this has to be done in such a way that there’s still a reason for countries to actually back down)
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action

While those are the major areas targeted for improvement, there are other things that fall outside the scope of either warfare, historical immersion and diplomacy where we’ve also heard your feedback and want to make improvements, a few examples being:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
  • Experimenting with autonomous private-sector construction and increasing the differences in gameplay between different economic systems (though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player)
  • Ironing out some of the kinks with the late-game economy and the AI’s ability to develop key resources such as oil and rubber
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style

One of the first mechanics we're tweaking is Legitimacy, increasing its impact and making it so the share of votes in government matters far more, especially with more democratic laws.
DD64 02.png


The above is of course not even close to being an exhaustive list of everything we want to do, and I can’t promise that everything on the list is going to make it into the first few patches, or that our priorities won’t change as we continue to read and take in your feedback, only that as it stands these are our plans for the near future. I will also remind once again that everything mentioned above is something we want for our free post-release patches. At some point we will start talking about our plans for expansions, but that is definitely not anytime soon!

What I can promise you though, is that we’re going to strive to keep you informed and do our best to give you insight into the post-release development process with dev diaries, videos and streams, just like we did before the game was released. I’ll return next week as we start covering the details of the work we’re doing for our first post-release patch. See you then!
 

Attachments

  • V3-PostLaunch-ForLoc.jpg
    V3-PostLaunch-ForLoc.jpg
    4,7 MB · Views: 0
  • 372Like
  • 193Love
  • 33
  • 23
  • 19
  • 7Haha
Reactions:
Really glad about this list. However, the biggest thing this game is missing right now is definitely more differences between countries! I'm afraid we will have to wait for DLC if we want that.... Or do you envision the historical immersion tweaks also to make countries more different?
 
If you want a tactical game with micro and moving toy soldiers around on a map, those games are a dime a dozen. Paradox has not taken those games away from you, and you're free to also play those if you want. But until now there was nothing for people who didn't want that and instead wanted a game that actually revolved around the economic and societal part of strategy, without toy soldiers getting in the way and taking up the player's attention. So please don't try to take this away from people who want it just because one game finally exists that does not cater to the toy soldier crowd.

Agreed. You know what Paradox game has amazing tactical maneuvering in a pre-20th century historical grand strategy context?

Imperator Rome.

The map granularity and terrain complexity made tactical warfare extremely fun, while the levy system deeply interlinked with a culture rework was a really clever solution. Fighting a knife-edge defensive war in the mountain passes as severely outmatched Caucasian Iberia against an aggressive expansionist Seleucid Empire was one of the most enjoyable warfare experiences in a Paradox game.

As I'm still feeling that Imperator didn't get the credit it deserved, and salty that development was canned just as the game got really good and had a really promising future (think what could have been by building on the migratory tribal system and with the hinted-at subjects rework!), I have to chuckle and wonder where these war micro-loving fanatics were in February 2021 when the the Imperator Rome warfare system was really coming into its own.

For Victoria, keeping the front system and iterating on it, as they seem to want to do, makes a lot of sense.
 
  • 7
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Performance is less "an area of the game to callout" and more an area we are constantly working on. Developers are taking rotational shifts on performance to ensure all the changes done to the AI by myself and other developers doesn't cause too many problems.

We have a late game pop fragmentation fix, but it needed more testing before we felt comfortable putting it in the hotfixes.
Great to hear that it is on the radar! I am running the game on a SSD with an i7 7700K and a GTX 1070 16GB RAM. My PC is like 5 years old now so I know it is not in the best shape anymore. I just hope that my setup is good enough to have a somewhat normal late game with 20 fps for example.
 
Hello and welcome to the first of many post-release Victoria 3 dev diaries! The game may now be out at last (weird, isn’t it?) but for us that just means a different phase of work has begun, the work of post-release support. We’ve been quite busy collecting feedback, fixing bugs and making balance changes, and are now working on the free patches that will be following the release, the first of which is a hotfix that should already be with you at the time you read this.

Our plans are naturally not limited to just hotfixes though, and so the topic of this dev diary is to outline what you can expect us to be focusing on in the first few larger free patches. We will not be focusing on our long-term ambitions for the game today; we certainly have no shortage of cool ideas for where we could take Victoria 3 in the years to come, but right now our focus is post-release support and patches, not expansion plans.

However, before I start, I want to share my own personal thoughts on the release. Overall, I consider the release a great success, and have been blown away by the sheer amount of people that have bought and are now playing Victoria 3. I’ve had a hand in this project since its earliest design inception, and have been Game Director of Victoria 3 since I left Stellaris in late 2018, and while it certainly hasn’t been the easiest game to work on at times, it is by far the most interesting and fulfilling project I’ve ever directed. The overarching vision of the game - a ‘society builder’ that puts internal development, economy and politics in the driving seat - may not have changed much since then, but the mechanics and systems have gone through innumerable iterations (a prominent internal joke in the team is ‘just one more Market Rework, please?’) to arrive where we are today, at what I consider to be a great game, one that lives up to our vision - but one that could do with improvement in a few key areas.

View attachment 902219

The first of these areas is military: The military system, being very different from the military systems of previous Grand Strategy Games, is one of those systems that has gone through a lot of iterations. While I believe that we have landed on a very solid core of how we want military gameplay in Victoria 3 to function and we have no intention of moving back towards a more tactical system, it is a system that suffers from some interface woes and which could do with selective deepening and increasing player control in specific areas. A few of the things we’re looking into improving and expanding on for the military system follow here, in no particular order:
  • Addressing some of the rough edges in how generals function at the moment, such as improving unit selection for battles and balancing the overall progression along fronts
  • Adding the ability for countries to set strategic objectives for their generals
  • Increasing the visibility of navies and making admirals easier to work with
  • Improving the ability of players to get an overview of their military situation and exposing more data, like the underlying numbers behind battle sizes
  • Finding solutions for the issue where theaters can split into multiple (sometimes even dozens) of tiny fronts as pockets are created
  • Experimenting with controlled front-splitting for longer fronts

The second area is historical immersion: While we have always been upfront with the fact that Victoria 3 is a historical sandbox rather than a strictly historical game, we still want players to feel as though the events unfolding forms a plausible alt-history, and right now there are some expected historical outcomes that are either not happening often enough, or happening in such a way that they become immersion-breaking. Again, in no particular order, some areas targeted for improvement in the short term:
  • Ensuring the American Civil War has a decent chance to happen, happens in a way that makes sense (slave states rising up to defend slavery, etc), and isn’t easily avoidable by the player.
  • Tweaking content such as the Meiji Restoration, Alaska purchase and so on in a way that they can more frequently be successfully performed by the AI, through a mix of AI improvements and content tweaks
  • Working to expose and improve content such as expeditions and journal entries that is currently too difficult for players to find or complete
  • Ensuring unifications such as Italy, Germany and Canada doesn’t constantly happen decades ahead of the historical schedule, and increasing the challenge of unifying Italy and Germany in particular
  • General AI tweaks to have AI countries play in a more believable, immersive way

We're balancing cultural/religious tolerance laws by having more restrictive laws increase the loyalty of accepted pops, so there is an actual trade-off involved.
View attachment 901288
The third area is diplomacy. While I think what we do have here is quite good and not in need of any significant redesign, this is an area that could do with even more deepening and there’s some options we want to add to diplomacy and diplomatic plays:
  • ‘Reverse-swaying’, that is the ability to offer to join a side in a play in exchange for something
  • The ability to expand your primary demands in a diplomatic play beyond just one wargoal (though this has to be done in such a way that there’s still a reason for countries to actually back down)
  • More things to offer in diplomatic plays, like giving away your own land
  • Trading (or at least giving away) states
  • Foreign investment and some form of construction in other countries, at least if they’re part of your market
  • Improving and expanding on interactions with and from subjects, such as being able to grant and ask for more autonomy through a diplomatic action

While those are the major areas targeted for improvement, there are other things that fall outside the scope of either warfare, historical immersion and diplomacy where we’ve also heard your feedback and want to make improvements, a few examples being:
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
  • Experimenting with autonomous private-sector construction and increasing the differences in gameplay between different economic systems (though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player)
  • Ironing out some of the kinks with the late-game economy and the AI’s ability to develop key resources such as oil and rubber
  • Making it more interesting and ‘competitive’ but also more challenging to play in a more conservative and autocratic style

One of the first mechanics we're tweaking is Legitimacy, increasing its impact and making it so the share of votes in government matters far more, especially with more democratic laws.
View attachment 901289

The above is of course not even close to being an exhaustive list of everything we want to do, and I can’t promise that everything on the list is going to make it into the first few patches, or that our priorities won’t change as we continue to read and take in your feedback, only that as it stands these are our plans for the near future. I will also remind once again that everything mentioned above is something we want for our free post-release patches. At some point we will start talking about our plans for expansions, but that is definitely not anytime soon!

What I can promise you though, is that we’re going to strive to keep you informed and do our best to give you insight into the post-release development process with dev diaries, videos and streams, just like we did before the game was released. I’ll return next week as we start covering the details of the work we’re doing for our first post-release patch. See you then!
great dev diary, looking forward to it.

almost all of my major issues are actually adressed, great stuff. in particular about the mentioned changes in germany I had a few suggestions however I will make a thread about.
 
  • Making it easier to get an overview of your Pops and Pop factors such as Needs, Standard of Living and Radicals/Loyalists
Feedback: One major pet peeve I have atm is I cannot deep dive to figure out why the pops are radicalizing due to standard of living. For example, as Brazil the lower pops average standard of living was Impoverished, their expectation was Struggling, and they were only paying 4% higher costs for goods than normal, but they were still radicalizing like crazy from Standard of Living. Obviously a disconnect somewhere, but no way for me to discover it even looking at individual pops.
  • Experimenting with autonomous private-sector construction and increasing the differences in gameplay between different economic systems (though as I’ve said many times, we are never going to take construction entirely out of the hands of the player)
Gameplay idea: FWIW I felt it's unrealistic for the "government" (or player) to keep building stuff. It's effectively Interventionism, but I assumed you'd done this for gameplay reasons. What if a player is required to decide which industries to build/kick-off in a state and are required to pay for and choose the first building constructed, but then it expands based on the cash reserves of the company itself (so it'll be more organic). but if a player wants to manually expand it, they are required to subsidize it until the cash reserves stabalize. That way you won't have a player sitting on shed tons of cash, but it'll potentially feel more organic as businesses expand as things are going well. Also, companies could exit the economy if conditions are right and the player doesn't intervene to subsidize it. And you're country's ability to see organic growth would depend on your economic policy - so it would only work in Lassie Faire or Free market style economies and would be limited in Interventionist ones and maybe non-existent in agrarian economies. I could go way more in-depth with this, but hopefully that gives something to chew on :)

Military wouldn't work this way of course. It would always be in the government purview to build or reduce.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I mean the top positive review atm is a review admitting it can barely recommend the game meanwhile reviews are nearing margin-of-error with Imperator Rome.

But hey, spend half a dev-diary telling us you think all the systems are good and just need a little fine-tuning.
 
  • 13Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I mean the top positive review atm is a review admitting it can barely recommend the game meanwhile reviews are nearing margin-of-error with Imperator Rome.

But hey, spend half a dev-diary telling us you think all the systems are good and just need a little fine-tuning.
what is "margin-of-error" for reviews? thats a term used for estimations based on measurements with random errors. reviews tend upwards ususally and while there is a lot of legitimate cristicism, the dev diary does a good job of addressing the issues that are most prominent (at least judging from the forums).
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
what is "margin-of-error" for reviews? thats a term used for estimations based on measurements with random errors. reviews tend upwards ususally and while there is a lot of legitimate cristicism, the dev diary does a good job of addressing the issues that are most prominent (at least judging from the forums).
They mean that there's 5% difference between overall score of positive reviews (58 and 63)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I mean the top positive review atm is a review admitting it can barely recommend the game meanwhile reviews are nearing margin-of-error with Imperator Rome.

But hey, spend half a dev-diary telling us you think all the systems are good and just need a little fine-tuning.
Uh the top positive review says nothing.
Also Imperator went post release below 50% and recovered later. Victoria 3 will see the same development.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the player retention. If they can keep a stable playerbase post release above 10k... that is an excellent result.
For comparison, Imperator went below 1000, which made further development no longer viable.

Leaving a bad recommendation on Steam is actually scoring an own goal if you want the game continued to be developed. Bad reviews = less sales, less likely continued development.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You need to be somewhat aggressive with Austria early and grab Lombardy to become a major power then be friendly to Italian minors to do they’ll join your customs union and unify. Afterwards it’s a fairly straightforward.
Interesting. In your experience how do you rope in other great powers to fight Austria? Do they generally accept to side with you for anything at all?
I admit I haven't tried that and felt like Austria was a bit of a Italy final boss, and getting people's help to fight the two sicilies often required to offer tradeports that would just invite a powerful rival in Italy.

The italian minors are actually relatively simple to get with a good economy and inviting them in a custom union (when you do they offer annexation pretty quickly) but the two sicilies has always sizeably bigger army and often strong ties with both the ottoman and the Prussians so even with allies of my own have been a hard nut to crack (fortunately they also subjugated Tunis which allowed me to rope in spain and france promising ports there rather than pieces of Italy)
 
I'm both excited and disappointed. Thank you for Victoria 3! Been looking forward to it. This should have been delayed and more work put into it. That's how I feel after looking at this roadmap. Maybe this should have been marked as early access.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Uh the top positive review says nothing.
Also Imperator went post release below 50% and recovered later. Victoria 3 will see the same development.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the player retention. If they can keep a stable playerbase post release above 10k... that is an excellent result.
For comparison, Imperator went below 1000, which made further development no longer viable.

Leaving a bad recommendation on Steam is actually scoring an own goal if you want the game continued to be developed. Bad reviews = less sales, less likely continued development.


I completely agree that the game is doing better than imperator and will be worked on.

However, I really hate this mentality. I'm sorry but the idea of we have to give good reviews so they'll fix the game is really messed up in my mind. Yes it makes sense but it completely goes against any sort of honesty principle. I dislike the game and want it to be better so I'm expected to lie, say it's great! So more people will buy it and maybe it'll be fixed because of this.
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
One thing that I find extremely annoying is the changing of production techniques. You don't want to make only luxury furniture, and not only normal furniture. Now it is extremely easy to change the production of all factories to producing one of the two, but it is extremely hard to understand how much of each you have and even harder to balance after your preferences. One way to fix this could be a "slider" instead of a "switch" when choosing the production technique. Another possible solution is that there could be two different kinds of furniture factories, but you could have the factories switch between the two kinds.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hello Everyone and welcome to my first ever post in the pdx forums (after playing a long time) ^^
First of all:

Comment towards release state and DD:
Victoria 3 is a great game. The release Version isn´t perfect, its partly flawed and full of things the playerbase didnt want, or want to modify badly. Hell, even the developers want to change parts of it already.
The aspect that makes V3 great is mainly the fact, that pdx know about the most basic and simple fact: a grand strategy game with this great ambition can never be perfected by a small group of individuals.
Thats most possible the reason, why they made V3 a highly modular game and spent a lot of development time on mod support.
Talking from (small) experience with designing projects for a big and wide audience: There are so many things u just cant make perfect in development, u need people to play the game, love or hate aspects of it and give productive and rational feedback.
A game like V3 can be in early access for all its lifespan, tweaking around on mechanics, adding flavor, expanding mechanics, etc. . Whats the point of early access then ? It will always be, like a lot of pdx games, a work in progress, a ever-changing simulation.
The Devs are willing to fully switch from fresh development to reworking the product, taking in the productiv feedback, shortly after release. Thats a very good and sometimes very rare thing in the gaming industry.
If anyone playing the game wants to change something and make the game "better", just try to make a clear assessment of the "problem" or the aspect u want to be improved and state the reason and possible Improvments. I believe, i did not pay full money for a finished and never changing game on release. I paid the money for someone to listen to the players and take inspiration from the community (even from the crazy modding guys :p ).
Whoever experienced the full amount of changes in games like stellaris (for example) can relate, i guess. Personally i "wasted" more money on games, that didnt care afterwards, but all my pdx investments have "paid back" over the years and thousands of hours playtime.

Feedback to the current state of warfare:
Two aspects are currently problematic:
(1) the way how Generals/admirals gets specific troops to command
(2) the amount of control over the execution of warfare/fronts

(1) Troops and generals
  • the player can decide the quality and type of troops in a building inside a HQ and manage the economy behind
  • the player cannot directly decide which general can lead these troops, making makro-strategy very clumsy and mostly impossible
Possible Solutions:
a)
  • specialized regiments/battalions or atleast different troop training under command of a specific general are historical and make for interesting gameplay
    • Example: Development of imperial german Stormtroppers in WW1
  • Ingame: set troop preference for a General: high off or high defense, possible even a prefered production method
    • possible drawbacks: way higher admin cost (real war needs a lot of organisation), more command cap use, slower mobilisation
b)
  • just make it possible to switch around troops, but the nation needs a specific army law, representing a military organisation/high command to manage this
    • Example: its not possible to switch this with peasant army law (the nobles are in charge of their underlings anyway). maybe not even with national guard.
(2) Fronts
  • throwing generals at the enemy is ok, but we need to be able to get more options to prepare (in advance),to get a military advantage, as stated by previous DD
  • the option to give orders on strategic (not tactical !) level, give the player more relevant decisions: expent ressources to push a strategic goal in a opportune moment ?
possible solutions:
a)
  • refering to (1): we can get specialised generals prepared in advance and use them accordingly for better effect on the field.
b)
  • ability for the player to flag provinces as offensive targets: increasing the possibility of battles happening there =more battles=more death and focused conquest. This leads to many effects: dropping the morale of troops rapidly, making supply more difficult in target area, leaving less army for the rest of the front, making it vulnerable for counterattack. This minimal change will already make things very interesting for bigger fronts.
    • there are plenty of examples:
    • take the race to the sea in WW1, where so many troops are avaiable and everyone is trying to flank even further towards the sea ^^
c)
  • basically hoi4 battleplans, with a hefty cost in time and burocraty, making it slow to prepare and hard to manage big plans and a negative battle modfier for starting it early
    • Example: the Kaiserschlacht was opportunistic, desperate and not fully planned: it kinda worked (a bit) but it was really to costly and therefore a bad strategic decision
  • this will make trench warfare very realistic: there is no wounderous micro strategy at this scale

Conclusion & Extra
All of the above ideas may be integrated to the politic and cultural mechanics by following tradeoffs:

  • a lot of burocratic cost
  • IG´s being not to fond of other IG´s generals getting a special treatment (in terms of better tropps)
  • binding military organisation to specific laws (no planned offensives with the nobles! Looking at austria.......)
  • making a high command institution, controlled by the armed forces: investments in ur military staff makes this IG stronger, but expands ur strategic control
    • this one would be my personal favorite, giving highly militarized nations a corresponding society impact and a distinctive edge on the field.

Sorry for the long post, i guess this will get moved/removed from the DD anyway :D
Greeting from (re)unified Germany ;)

 
  • 6Like
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I dislike the game and want it to be better so I'm expected to lie, say it's great! So more people will buy it and maybe it'll be fixed because of this.
Prisoner's dilemma is an infinitely more interesting (and horrifying, when you can't stop the cybernetic(1) corner of your brain considering real life as basically a Massively Multi-Player Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma) game when it is played over multiple rounds with more than two players.

(1) In the sense "interested in how systems work" rather than "made of nonbiological components integrated into a biological whole".
Sorry for the long post, i guess this will get moved/removed from the DD anyway :D
It's not abusive or insulting towards the developers or other players, and it offers valid critique, politely worded, with useful suggestions on how improvements might be made. You'll be fine.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
One thing that I find extremely annoying is the changing of production techniques. You don't want to make only luxury furniture, and not only normal furniture. Now it is extremely easy to change the production of all factories to producing one of the two, but it is extremely hard to understand how much of each you have and even harder to balance after your preferences. One way to fix this could be a "slider" instead of a "switch" when choosing the production technique. Another possible solution is that there could be two different kinds of furniture factories, but you could have the factories switch between the two kinds.
Yep, this needs a solution in updates asap!
My lower class was in constant need of simple clothes and furniture, but if I put everything to "simple only" now my higher class doesn't have access to luxury and factories are far less profitable. But if I put all of it to luxury then I might have a defficit of some rare good that is needed for production.
In theory it's possible to find a balance in economy by putting 70% of factories to one thing and 30% to the other, but with current UI with dozens of factories across dozens of states this is too micro-intensive
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions: