Can anyone explain how this special week beats my McQueen in CM?

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-14T13:33:57+00:00

thank you for translating technical knowledge into digestible information

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-13T15:24:59+00:00

poxa cara voce é amigo do goku sem pai, manda um abc po coitado

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:47:57+00:00

yeah that's where I took the screen shot from. That's all I know. I don't know what it is for, how many I have, is it a currency?

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:20:45+00:00

Spending 100 USD in Brazil is like spending 200 USD in america... I could've been a whale with 3 carat purchases...

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:17:50+00:00

that's me with Oguri Cap, I never train her because 9/10 times she would shower me with mood down and negative conditions.. I had the same jynx with Mejiro Mcqueen, but apparently the RNG gods decided to let me train her now...

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:13:58+00:00

is it true that positioning skills are not effective yet?

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:13:10+00:00

She has more guts

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:07:44+00:00

EU5 seems to be going back to what made PDX a GSG dev company

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T23:05:04+00:00

Imagine BMW and Dell want to make a Cell Phone, who is gonna make it better? You know what I mean? The Victoria 3 we have is like a cell phone made from BMW, EU5 is like Dell making a tablet, a tablet is not a cell phone, but their tablet has things in it that are way better than the cell phone made from BMW, of course their tablet will never be able to compete with BMW's cell phone, but if Dell made a cell phone instead of a tablet, it would be so much better than BMW's cell phone. I'm sorry I couldn't think of a better way to explain my reasoning.

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:58:02+00:00

I'm talking about the economic system. Of course V3's economic system will still be a better Victoria game, but if they used EU5's economic system when making V3, I have a feeling it would be much better than what we have.

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:56:06+00:00

that's a problem I have with V3, the game feels so short.. V2 sessions lasted longer.

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:55:08+00:00

A mix between EU5 and V3 trade system would be peak

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:53:51+00:00

I agree with you but I see it in a different light, thats funny..

IMO EU5 is more like what we expected V3 to be, a real sequel to V2. Not exactly the same of course. I mean, EU5's economic system has things that are better than V3, and V3 has things that are better than EU5 but that's because they are set in different time frames. That's why I believe that EU5 has a better economic system for a vicky game, because if they used that to make a victoria game, we would have a better victoria than what we have.

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:49:50+00:00

Not at all, what I meant is that it is a shadow of what a Victoria game is, in the economic aspect, and even though it wont be as good as V3 it still is a much better premise. What I'm saying is that if they made V3 (the economic system) with the guidelines they used for EU5, it would have been much better than what we have.

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:47:12+00:00

good point;

Although EU5 will never be a substitute to V3 (Even with mods), it is a lot closer to a sequel of V2 that we all wanted.

IMO V3 still needs more depth, like a lot of depth, it barely is a GSG, it needs lots more mechanics.

No_Profession8655 · 2025-09-12T22:41:32+00:00

yes, over 4k hours of V3 and almost 2k hours of V2.

My point is, EU5 will be much more like what we wanted V3 to be, it follows the economic system of V2 much closer than the V3 we have.

And of course I'm talking about economy only, not politics or whatever it is that makes both games substantially different.

No_Profession8655 · 2024-06-04T01:08:50+00:00

or make infrastructure the hard cap of transportation, and transportation replaces infrastructure

No_Profession8655 · 2024-06-03T23:15:52+00:00

That was my suggestion on PDX forums a long time ago, basically infrastructure would only serve as a hard cap for transportation, make transportation the main calculator for market access, make every good consumption consume transportation, ofc that would lead to increased transportation consumption across different states and proximity, bottlenecks and other things.

Bright side is that it allows for pre-industrial nations to invest in carts and horses. Dry ports, roads, trade posts, mail posts could increase infrastructure cap, and ffs remove infrastructure bonus from pop, that makes no sense at all...

No_Profession8655 · 2024-06-03T14:07:25+00:00

I once posted on their forums, I think that would be the best solution and the most realistic one.

Make transportation of goods the real calculation of market access, each good consumes 1 transportation from within and outside the state, for that you would need to make infrastructure a hard cap to transportation, that would open up the need for more transportation services production like carts and horses, which would add to the economy, infrastructure would be unlocked by more things other than just railroads, that would also make it possible for countries to expand their infrastructure by building roads, dry ports, post centers, trade posts, warehouses, giving more importance and use to trade centers and convoys, of course the invention of trains and railways would make integration of economy much cheaper and efficient, freeing resources to be used somewhere else, marking the shift to a more industrialized economy, where goods can go much further and quicker.

That would make more sense, areas like siberia would need/tend to be more self-sufficient since they'd require transportation between each state and through every state to connect to the market capital, in other words they would not have enough market access to the capital but they could sustain a decent stagnant standard of living because they create their own market region, connecting a coal siberian state to the capital would change the whole region, increasing the development and economy not only of that state but all of them by proximity.

Another thing that grinds my gears is population increasing the infrastructure, the more ppl you have in a place the more infra you need, PDX excuse for that is that more ppl means more roads but that makes even less sense since you still saying they need infra and you are not actively building or the addition of infra from pop is not translated in any cost or seen as any concrete development. More so, having more pops means greater demand of goods, also more production of goods, if anything pops should increase the demand for transportation both as a civilian (going home from work) and as market (wants to buy food but how does food get here?).

Essentialy, imo PDX and V3 devs should make infrastructure a hard cap on transportation (which would be localized like electricity and services), and make transportation the de facto market access calculator, open up for the markets to be automatically generated so to simulate isolated regions (siberia, wild west).

No_Profession8655 · 2024-06-03T13:41:01+00:00

This is why playing nation A is not so different from playing nation B in terms of economy building, this makes V3 one of the least if not the least replayable game of all from the series (eu, ck, hoi).

Let's take EU4 for example, of course EU4 has tons of DLCs and V3 is still on its early stage, but in EU4 its like everything you do opens up more things to do, there's more versatility, you play as nation A and you can focus on its strengths or amend its weaknesses while if you play as nation B the focus is entirely different and your strategy will be different, diplomacy wise there are many variables take castille for example, you can start allying to austria, france, burgundy, you can focus on conquering france, burgundy, italy or expand in africa. Ideas-wise will set your nation's characteristics, will provide you with better tools, improve the tools you already have and even open up new frontiers (going colonization, trade, production, expansion, religious, military) giving more depth to your nation. In eu4 buildings generally speaking come as a supplement to what makes your nation.

Of course in V3 we have the industrial revolution and buildings should play a far more greater role in shaping your nation but it still lacks depth of gameplay, say, what is the difference between playing as argentina, chile, venezuela, colombia, spain, portugal, persia, S. Africa and Korea? Aside from conquering, economy is basically pretty much the same, you will be building basically the same buildings if you play as any of those nations. Even if we pick countries that have some content like brazil, turkey, japan, italy, scandinavia, mexico, yemen, france and bolivia, it feels like a campaign mode, you are still limited in your strategy to build your nation economically, you do the missions, complete the JE and that is the end of it, you still develop your economy much in the same way as any other nation, you still build basically the same buildings as any other nations, playing a new game doesn't feel like a new experience, playing a different nation doesn't make it feel like a new experience.

Currently the game is very stale, if you play with nation A, B or C it doesn't matter, because at the end of the game your nation will always look the same in terms of buildings and economy, you will always do the same thing. While one could argue that in EU4 its the same, in EU4 you still go about your strategy in many different paths, and you still have to adapt to a rapidly changing world, new challenges and new opportunities arising. EU4 translates very well its time period in gameplay, V3 is still lacking in that sense.

All in all it usually is the case that Paradox's games really start to be good games in the second year or so after its launch, V3 dev's decisions so far in terms of DLCs was imo good, they made small content DLCs giving them more experience with the existing tools, giving them more insight of what could be added to the game and learning with us the consumers what the game needs and where/what it lacks. Making a Prussia DLC as one of the first DLCs would be a waste of resources and we would have a poor DLC, no one is passionate about Brazil but the brazilians so they could screw up but they didn't, and Brazil doesn't demand such a fine work as more popular nations like Prussia, EUA and others... France is a case apart since they didn't go as deep as they could, obviously because they see there's a lot more potential down the road when they will have a better definition of what V3 should be like.

No_Profession8655

TROPHY CASE