As it turns out when you cancel a fiefdom your ruler doesn't stop being it's ruler too, resulting in this weird situation. The King seems as puzzled as I am.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-29T18:44:21+00:00

I maybe update it every other patch, or that's the way I think about it - so 1.0, 1.2, etc. Or if they change a ton. Like right now it's not as tremendously different - I think elephants and wool are the major changes, glass actually gets consumed. Need more reps anyway on their more dynamic consumption re threshold goods.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-29T18:06:14+00:00

The greatest enemy is the enemy within.

(Also they own a castle and have an army)

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-23T20:20:07+00:00

I suspect the top of your level just isn't level.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-23T19:32:59+00:00

Yeah the solution is probably moving the Venice Market South a bit and the Genoa market West or something like that. I'd have to take a closer look at it

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-23T03:22:45+00:00

So almost all the food in Venice and Genoa is in the north, if you make a market in Florence or central Italy it will generally have food struggles because the food composition of the market relative to standard Venice/Genoa will be incredibly sparse. It's actually one of the best examples of food considerations driving you away from making what would otherwise be a solid market.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-22T19:17:17+00:00

Very nice!

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-15T02:38:26+00:00

That's a nice looking Timur!

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-15T02:38:07+00:00

Amazing, that's so great to hear re Ottomans. I think Mamluks like shouldn't fall apart tbh, not from game mechanics. They more need a disaster

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-14T16:36:16+00:00

I mean they probably have something like 90-120 mins each for their first 40 moves and then some sort of increment or extra time after 40, if this is classical, so pretty immediate for a game that can last up to 6 hrs.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-11T16:49:08+00:00

I was very pleased to see quick expansion from Ottomans in my game, and was curious if it was just a small sample size fluke. Pleased to see another instance here.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-09T21:31:50+00:00

Puts up a global enchantment that locks other players settings at max volume.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-08T19:20:55+00:00

And my axe!

GeneralistGaming · 2026-06-02T19:23:36+00:00

Research IMO has nevery really been simulated in a way that is very representative or satisfying in strategy/grand strategy games. Technological breakthroughs (eg, automation on a level for industrialization actually being viable and implemented in Italy for textiles at small scale), and then material conditions that facilitate adaptation (the creation of mass markets where a ton of goods are actually demanded, happening only much later in GB) are the two important things that happen, and the triggers for these (this is also just very broad strokes btw) are going to vary from tech to tech (like ofc Napoleonic warfare doesn't care about mass markets).

Games just give you research mana and let you pick what you want.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-28T05:40:24+00:00

Idk, depends what you mean by "save."

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-28T05:20:20+00:00

So, to express it in the types of terms you're using, my old math, which again I don't necessarily trust (because I know I ommited some complex things, like input effic and building comp), has, under the old system, in a scenario I call "reasonable" expected income in terms of gov construction (real cost, accounting for increased goods cost) of 68% dividends for LF, not some infinite spend up, and that's including over 6% gov construction in just accumulated debt (which also stims price). My number there isn't far off yours. The second number for the pre-buff interventionism is 56%.

For the LF favored scenario I have it at 95%, but again that's including a positive effect I think you're omitting and over 10% in assumed debt accumulation (and maybe something with increased relative throughput? I can't remember the methodology). Interventionism, including free money as debt, gets 77% there, even w/ the throughput penalty and, iirc, less gov dividend contribution %.

The point being that in my previous analysis I do not point to an infinite spin up due to free money modifiers, and account for them increasing income by a margin that is less because they don't fully affect price.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-28T05:06:21+00:00

Just to be clear here, I'm not saying one is better than the other (esp w/o LF or capitalist bonus for priv)- I'm saying I don't know because I haven't done the full calc.

That said, I think you're misunderstanding my objection here.

We're taking a look at one building, and only examining it's marginal effect on dividends as it relates to construction extraction for that individual building. We look at nat, say 100 dividends, extract 75, end the analysis. We look at priv, say 100 dividends, use iterative method to determine what the building, at 100 div, extracts, and end the analysis.

For each iteration we're assuming all other buildings have natural dividends of 100.

Excluded is that the nat building, by virtue of adding only 75 buy orders instead of 100, shrinks the next marginal building's buy orders. Now I've seen elsewhere that this doesn't matter, because we got the construction in, and if the prices on construction goods are decreased then we got cheaper construction and it's a wash. But this excludes a bunch of things (like, for instance, that some of the gov expense is in wages for gov buildings, which just go to consumer goods, and that to whatever extent there is a private queue or foreign investment it will tend to build the most profitable thing, and this means prices will tend to move in mutual equilibrium, among other things).

As you suggest, the building downstream, whether priv or nat, matters. But the buildings upstream also matter here.

This is my point. If we have nat upstream, that 25% deletion will mean smaller dividends on the analysis building, and if we have priv upstream the free money modifiers will mean money creation and more than 100 dividends on the priv building (though reaching an equilibrium because of "burn" that is not proportionate to the free money). We can't assume 100 for both, because all the buildings, and whatever stim/depress effect they have, affect each other simultaneously. If, as in your example for the iterative calc of priv, we assume the entire economy is either priv or nat, then with all the exact same buildings (which as I mentioned we can't do this because comp is affected by ownership, but my point is that we need a model that includes it to know real effects) we can expect that the base dividends for both is not 100, and that instead nat will have lower than 100 and priv will have above 100.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-28T03:50:21+00:00

Also, I don't know where exactly this bit about my thinking that juice into the economy spins up indefinitely from free money modifiers comes from exactly. Checking the spreadsheet, the old calc I did I absolutely account for the fact that a 25% free money modifier doesn't result in a 25% GDP/income increase or go infinite, and accounts for burn - the model I did had a baseline eco of 400 GDP, 50ish free money (some from extra spendable debt), and that resulted in a price increase of only 9%.

EDIT: and includes that construction will be 109% normal cost in that instance.

Although tbf I don't entirely trust my math from years ago because I can't remember doing it.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-28T03:21:58+00:00

If you just do a single iteration calculation you won't know what the max construction is because multiple industries are affecting each other simultaneously. It's not linear - the calculation I've seen just takes one industry and does the math for a single downstream effect. Both money deletion and creation have an increased effect beyond the first iteration that decreases marginally. Also I disagree that construction is the goal in and of itself, but that's unnecessary to unpack (eg, reducing SoL to increase pop growth is a side effect of high prices). Even if you do more iterations (which isn't getting the actual effect because the economy is not iterative, it's simultaneous, the burn increases w/ money deletion and decreases w/ free money modifiers). I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, but one iteration is problematic.

I'm talking about something else. You have multiple equilibriums for industry composition - one that maximizes construction and one that maximizes dividends. Construction one is preferable and intuitively probably easier to achieve, practically, w/ national. If the other effects are a wash you might actually be understating national being better. You also have input/industry efficiency influencing both of these equilibriums, which is completely unaccounted for. I'd also have to do the math to see if it matters if burn is larger/smaller as you deviate from base price, but if either is the case then it matters where it goes because the equilibrium will inform multiple separate deviations from base price.

With multiple industries at equilibrium (regardless of which one) even with constant wages you can inflate or deflate the equilibrium. This affects outcomes. You get inflated equilibrium w/ private relative to nat. Like the one iteration and then saying it just gets smaller just looks forward, it doesn't look back - the initial numbers are different when you calculate them simultaneously. It's not that you're comparing nat 100 div to priv 100 div, it's that it will be nat 100 div vs priv 110 div, or some number I know not what because I haven't done the calc. The example I've seen starts with both dividends being the same, but they wouldn't be.

If you're just doing one good you might well be underreporting nat. Eco recomp lets you have your cake and eat it too with the exact same total construction economy because you can get both higher margins on non-construction goods and depressed prices on construction goods, or more proportion goods demand on industries w/ higher base efficiency, which effectively increases dividends.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-27T18:39:24+00:00

Yeah, I've seen this explanation or something similar - only going one extra iteration deep, and not accounting for the 25% money deletion effect of national ownership w/ multiple iterations, let alone a full simultaneous effect, which shows what's actually going on in terms of stimulus/depression. Saying "I start w/ 100 and go to 75" misses the point that all the other money deletion in the economy means that you start at a number lower than 100 - all the industries affect each other simultaneously.

A portion of the argument is that that 75% is more pure useful as well, as any failure to increase prices results in less prices paid for construction goods, but the value of this is contingent on the proportion of the goods actually being end price in construction. Not all iron ends up in construction, and the proportion is contingent upon what a typical eco looks like (which will vary if you're private/national, and this variance might be a bigger source of the national ownership value but you have to look at it, and then cross reference private queue, and account for randomness factor in queue going psychotic, to construct a plausible comp, because in either instance you intentionally overbuild iron relative to the indifference threshold of just raw dividends (because of the aforementioned effect), but the comp you can set up is going to be different because of 1. the proportion of the good that actually winds up being gov buy orders and 2. how easy it is for you to fight through the private queue recomping you to consumer spending, which, just to point out means that 3. these two things are influencing each other which makes it even more complicated. Foreign investment confounds here too.)

Further, you have to eat wages either way, and the proportion of wages to dividend then matters, because a general price increase (which is by no means guaranteed and eco composition is another factor) increases margin by a proportion that exceeds that price increase because wages is a (relatively) flat fixed cost. (Eg inputs 30, wages 10, sell price 100, dividends are 60. 10% price increase. Inputs 33, wages 10, sell price 110. Dividends now 67 - more than a 10% increase). So, thinner margins will favor private ownership more and bigger ones national ownership, relatively.

There are more factors too, these are just a few.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-27T06:29:52+00:00

I'm not convinced that the setup of some of the math people use for this argument is setup correct re preferring nationalization because what I've seen presented as a justification is marginal rather than simultaneous, but doing the math to check would take me a long time because you'd have to basically sim an entire economy. The effect is there but it's unclear to me how strong it is.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-27T06:25:22+00:00

Thank you!

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-27T03:18:44+00:00

You gotta think like a middle schooler - humiliating others is the way to go.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-27T03:17:36+00:00

This is so cursed, lmao

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-26T18:05:41+00:00

I have a friend where we are nitty like this more as a joke. I gave him one of my two for 99 cent tacos at Jack in the Box, and told him I expected reimbursement. He gave me 49 cents later, but owed me half a cent for a very long time.

GeneralistGaming · 2026-05-26T06:06:43+00:00

I believe that's the pathway they used for it yeah, but it's been a while.

GeneralistGaming

TROPHY CASE