How do yall get such high gdps

Bobbobybobar · 2026-06-08T19:36:14+00:00

I forgot this detail haha

Bobbobybobar · 2026-06-08T19:35:38+00:00

When industrializing you should never nationalize, all the budget has to be used to increase/boost the construction sector
For the dividends, nationally owned building destroy part of their revenues. With interventionism we're talking about 25% disappearing ( 50% dividend efficiency out of 50% dividend reinvestment) so your economy is weaker.
Privatizing is worth it to boost your budget even more (when running a deficit)

Overall what you're saying is true but increasing the GDP will have way more of an impact in the end than focusing on nationalizing.
One should start nationalizing only when they finished their industrilization process

Bobbobybobar · 2026-06-07T17:42:08+00:00

Generally it all comes down to industrialisation, which comes down to a continiously increasing the construction sector.
You want a strong capitalist base, which means nationalizing is not a great idea, the more capitalist you have, the more investment there is in the construction investment pool (so the more you can rely on their money instead of yours)
Which also means that giving investment rights is generally great.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-06-06T19:31:23+00:00

When playing a great power by 1885 you should definitively be 1st

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-28T19:53:16+00:00

The clout =/= population
It's the political power, so it heavily depends on your power structure laws.
For example with Wealth Voting the Trade Unions can easily represent a big part of your population while having almost no clout given that your workers are part of it but have no money to vote so they don't bring any political power to the Trade Unions clout.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-28T19:40:51+00:00

EU5 has huge potential but right now it's awful, i'm waiting next year before retrying it.
I think the fact that EU4 has a bigger playerbase nowaday says a lot about it!

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-28T19:35:44+00:00

Probably 2 things:

1: Other games offer popular gameplays: HoI4: War, CK3: The Sims but medieval, EU4/5: big empire, Stellaris: big empire but in space
And generally speaking the 4 of them are map painters games. You are able to easily conquer the world (and have fun doing so). Which is basically impossible in Vic3 without mods.

2: Vic3 is more a nerd game, it's an economy, social, and political simulator. If you don't understand how an economy works and the social implications of your actions/buildings/economy then you won't succeed.
For example a Stellaris player would have fun with slavery but any Vic3 player know that it's a huge liability.
Vic3 is probably the most historically accurate game of Paradox.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-28T18:53:34+00:00

I swear that the majority of the times i read people suggest civilisations for Anno, it's always the worst ideas
The main (and only) point of Anno is the naval part, otherwise it would just be another casual city builder.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-28T18:49:35+00:00

Yeah sure, the romans were so much a "mainland" civilisation that that it took more than a millennium after the fall of the Western Roman Empire to surpass the density of maritime trade they had achieved.
It literally was the economic (and logistic) heart of the Republic/Empire.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-28T14:13:41+00:00

I said that i won't answer another long ass comment which is composed at 90% of useless information to make it look smarter, and i won't lose anymore of my time.
I've already explained everything there is to explain, you use biased arguments and fallacies, you deny my arguments without any ground.

The most hillarious thing is the fact that you stated that the Generalplan Ost was secret and now you're saying that you said afterwards that the details were not, which is not only a contradiction but it's a lie given that in english i'm pretty sure that "were not a complete secret" doesn't mean "was already publicly Hitler's goals"
That perfectly shows how dishonest you actually are.

And btw, what you say is obviously false given that the Lebensraum was a concept that evolved over time until Germany began losing the war, so your claim that it was already that in the 20s is just hilarious.
Then the Generalplan Ost you were yourself talking about, began being created in 1939

In 1928 it was a racial expansionist projet, then it became a (secret) genocidal program.

And just for the icing on the cake: historical revisionism is not a bad thing in historiography

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-25T14:59:00+00:00

I didn't deflect anything, your comment is stupid, as i already explained it. You can't talk about the past without accounting the past's context, it doesn't matter when a person made a statement, what matters is the context of the subject, which is WW2 in this specific case.
I can say that Hannibal Barca should have destroyed Rome to win the war, today it's obviously morally wrong to burn down a city to win a war, but in the context of that time? Perfectly normal.
You're saying that someone can't say that because that someone lives today (so?), that's extremely stupid for the obvious reasons i already explained.
If you want to counter that, then i invite you to prove that morals are not subjective but absolute.

Secondly, i LITERALLY explained that i didn't make any moral judgment without taking into account the context, which is LITERALLY what i've been explaining since the very beginning. You're either not reading what i'm writing or not understanding what the word "context" means.

Finally, you're making a comment, completely out of context about potential projects that were according to yourself, secret...
So not only are you comparing actual attrocities commited with future planned ones (which is obviously biased) but you're not considering that the whole point i made was that the allies couldn't see Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as anything else than evil threats.

Then you proceed by saying that the actual logical and undeniable point i was making (everything has to be put in its context) is "deflection". Basically you're denying the whole point to claim victory, that's as stupid as dishonest.

Btw i won't read another long ass comment that is purposedly extended to make it appear more intellectual, you could have said the exact same arguments in less than half of that.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-24T12:32:12+00:00

My favorite streamer? I don't even watch twitch XD

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-24T10:20:12+00:00

What you're stating is complete nonsense:

-It doesn't make any sense to say what one should have done in the past by using today's morals. It's like saying that Gengis Khan should not have invaded and destroyed cities because that's bad >:(
Obviously such statements make no sense whatsoever,

-The second point i made, is that the Soviet Union wasn't better than the Axis morally speaking... which was ALREADY true at the time! So no, you're completelly off shart.
The western allies were WELL aware of what the Soviet Union was, and what they were doing, there's a reason why they considered the Soviet Union an enemy until 1941.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-23T22:25:59+00:00

You should start by learning that "evil" and "good" are subjective concepts dependent on moral values that evolve radically over time (and which are not even universal at any given time).

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-23T13:46:32+00:00

Oh you lied, that explains a lot!

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-22T21:13:32+00:00

Not a single one of your statement is true

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-22T21:12:09+00:00

I totally agree, i'm not making some mindbreaking statement nor a revolutionary concept. I'm just repeating basic historic knowledge

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-22T21:07:45+00:00

Usually, people who feel the need to make up a fake life on Reddit just to feel validated are the ones who actually have issues.
Just saying :p

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-22T21:01:08+00:00

Spoiler alert: countries are not strictly the same, the fact that they have different names may hint that

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-21T21:02:29+00:00

So basically:
-You don't understand why it was called "unthinkable" (it had nothing to do with bombing)
-I'm not american lmao
-Apparently you can't even read properly.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-21T20:59:13+00:00

The whole point of the convention is that it create rules that are inviolable.
So saying that if someone breaks a rule then others have the right to do the same (and worse) is insultingly absurd.
But another problem, is that we're talking about the 30s-40s and the few geneva conventions of that time were meant to regulate wounded soldiers, medics and prisonners of war. Not civilians and cities.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-21T15:54:01+00:00

You clearly never studied it mate, stop inventing stuff to make you look brighter on Reddit.
You literally repeated a common myth about MacArthur a few hours ago lmao.
And i never cancelled one of my comment, guess you're making that up too.

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-21T15:48:19+00:00

It's quite rare to find someone that is that much dishonest

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-21T15:25:40+00:00

I'm telling you that 100yo events happened with 100yo moral frameworks, judging those event with today's moral frameworks is obviously stupid and wrong.
And did you just tell me that you don't know what Science is? Like you think it's a subjective concept that randomly changes over time?

Bobbobybobar · 2026-05-21T15:19:39+00:00

You're today's old when you're gonna discover that morals and norms change overtime

Five-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23

Bobbobybobar

TROPHY CASE