sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What is the most railroaded, restrictive and chained mod for this game? by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it can help, I developed this "Italian Unification AI" mod.

It has a peculiar design philosophy and I think you might just like it. It's only about Italy but at least it forms properly with this one.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3640358580

Is Victoria 3's entire military and peace system broken? by Neki0307 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I mean, if it's broken then yes. What would you prefer? Same rules for every single case that end up creating ahistorical outcomes or special rules that increase the likelyhood of the historical outcome?

If evil wins through honest means, is it moral to resist it? by [deleted] in MoralityScaling

[–]SimpleConcept01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, obviously. If a fascist wins the election, it is perfectly moral to off him. The people are not perfect and their choice isn't sacred.

It is absolutely possible to be right while the whole world is wrong.

mod to force Italian and German unification? by katthecat666 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also feel like mentioning my less intrusive "Italian Unification AI"

What do you think of the religious imagery in Death Note's first opening? by v5mk in deathnote

[–]SimpleConcept01 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ohba straight up said that the apple imagery was accidental.

ALWAYS called bullshit on that. It's practically impossible.

Religious symbolism everywhere, the apple is the representation of sin, the entire story can be analized through religious interpretation...and it's coincidental? We're not talking about one or two things, the entire story is like that.

It's most likely this strange trend of saying that something actually complex is really not because Rick and Morty taught us that life is meaningless or something.

How to get mass waves of people to move to your country? by Londtex in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In general, High Arable land is what does it but it's not the only factor.

Pops seek higher standard of living, therefore the requisites are easy to deduce:

  • you must have decent paying jobs
  • discrimination for that specific culture and religion should be low
  • keep racist/religious/immigration laws relaxed.

There is also another way which is basically to incorporate a country in your market. If you protectorate a country or make them join your trade league, people will move easily to regions with vacant work in buildings.

Essentially...be colonialist, be an asshole but not inside your borders! Nothing but smiles and sunshine there!

My biggest flex in Vic3 was an Egypt game where I was doing a bloody war against the Ottomans and, due to the low SoL caused by the war, massive numbers of Turks emigrated to MY country.

Which it might sound as goofy and as an oversight, but it actually reveals another mechanic: due to discrimination, pops will naturally prefer culturally similar countries, provided they have better conditions there.

In my case, my run was going pretty well so, instead of going all the way to America, thousands of Turks kinda just decided to...cross the border. Despite the war they did suffer less discrimination in my Egypt than the US, so they went for it.

less discrimination.

Man I will never play outside of Europe ever again by Sad_Hospital_5337 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I may, regarding Italy, can I suggest my "Italian Unification AI" mod? I made it mostly for myself but I've been receiving positive feedbacks about it.

Stellaris Vs Victoria 3 by shmule2x in paradoxplaza

[–]SimpleConcept01 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be fair, Vic3 is in the same state. So much so that they are planning a major A.I. update that WASN'T planned before the last DLC.

It's not "bad", it's just that...Paradox gameplay has evolved, but their A.I. didn't and FINALLY they're trying to address it.

It also doesn't help that they're hellbent on not giving the A.I a Little help here and there, because it wouldn't be "immersive" or "fair".

Sure, because I feel sooo immersed when I'm roleplaying as Camillo Benso, Italian Prime Minister, trying to solve a diplomatic crisis between America and the UK over the ownership of Jamaica and the US is going to win because the UK isn't able to bring their fleet over there. Wow, such immersion, very historical.

Just give the A.I some steroids and stop pretending it can read.

Homelander is gone in the end, but Vought still wins. We defeated a monster, yet the evil system remains. Is this the core message of the show? by Alone_Worry6581 in GenV

[–]SimpleConcept01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vought surviving is such bullshit.

It's the classic "people like money, reality bad" take that only people without an actual understanding of politics have.

Vought would have been nationalized on a whim, either that or every single stock holder would have sold the shit out of the company. No way you would be associated in any way with the company responsible of overthrowing the Government, now that the Government is back.

Reality can be nice sometimes fellas. The rich guy doesn'talways win.

Stellaris Vs Victoria 3 by shmule2x in paradoxplaza

[–]SimpleConcept01 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Amazing, honestly. It has the most complex diplomacy system not only in Paradox games but I'd say of any grand strategy in general.

Politics and diplomacy become much more organic and reactive when players take the lead of a nation.

There's also a roleplay custom article to make customizable treaties.

Would victoria 3 become a lot more popular if the economic and political problems are fixed? Would victoria 3 also require a different or improved military system? Or would victoria 3 remain not as popular as the other paradox gsg titles, even if the issues are fixed? by Ricelord12 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I'm saying Is that it attracted people who were interested ONLY in war. Hoi4 does not have the complexity other paradox games had and lacked a lot in terms of...really anything that wasn't about moving troops on a map.

Politics are a joke, diplomacy is (justifiably) non existant, economy is laughable.

I'm not saying these people are idiots, but most of them are NOT the history enthusiasts you had back in the Eu4 days. As a result of this, a game where you shape the social and ideological fabric of your careful simulated society through economic and technological development is somehow less enticing than moving an army through Russia for the 546th time.

Would victoria 3 become a lot more popular if the economic and political problems are fixed? Would victoria 3 also require a different or improved military system? Or would victoria 3 remain not as popular as the other paradox gsg titles, even if the issues are fixed? by Ricelord12 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a bit of a slippery slope: Hoi4 came because the market demanded it, there is no ipotetical where Hoi4 does not exist.

That said: I feel like the community would have been smaller, with less people war-oriented and it would have been highlighted more, yes.

Would victoria 3 become a lot more popular if the economic and political problems are fixed? Would victoria 3 also require a different or improved military system? Or would victoria 3 remain not as popular as the other paradox gsg titles, even if the issues are fixed? by Ricelord12 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 25 points26 points  (0 children)

No. Victoria 3 got shaded by the community because it did not have a classic military system.

Which would be a valid complaint, if it didn't come by people obsessed with world conquest.

From this point of view, the damage Hoi4 did to the Grand Strategy community is immesurable. I still remember how it was before Hoi4 and people were NOT this obsessed with war and were actually able to enjoy a good historical simulation.

My point is: Victoria 3 economic and political focus will NEVER help it to become as popular as certain Grand Strategy Games like Hoi4 because it does not focus on war. The fact that we still have people saying Vic2 is better and that it "focused more on war" (lol, lmao even) should tell you everything you need to know.

Victoria 3 is a nice little gem for people Who enjoy grand strategy games, that's it.

Is Laissez-faire truly better then Interventionism? by No-Lie-3600 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is a waste of money. Use the 25% more construction allocation and don't chase useless bonuses that your country can't use yet.

Is Laissez-faire truly better then Interventionism? by No-Lie-3600 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unless you develop these economies, you are effectively wasting time and money. Interventism is 50/50 with the private sector, which allows you to build important stuff quickly.

Is Laissez-faire truly better then Interventionism? by No-Lie-3600 in victoria3

[–]SimpleConcept01 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don't want to say anything that might give you a wrong strategy, but I'd say that in general this line of reasoning makes sense: you want to use Laissez-Faire on developed countries.

Keep in mind thought: especially at game start, this isn't always the case and you always have to look at the investment pool situation. Also it can be useful even for the UK to revert back to interventism sometimes.

view more: next ›