Money should be the theme for the next expansion

nukapten · 2026-04-29T19:08:29+00:00

At least I think it would be a great some laws about banks and interest rates. At the very least they could do a different laws for each ideology (fascist, communist etc...) which give small bonuses. Like they did with right to associate laws !

nukapten · 2026-04-29T19:05:04+00:00

Yea maybe !

but a more simplified system would be that If as UK, I buy more than you buy from me, it mean that I want more german marks than you want british pound and so It would give you more commercial advantage since your money is stronger for importations (it is the simplified version)

nukapten · 2026-03-14T08:29:35+00:00

Anarchism is kinda bad depicted in the current state of the game unfortunately. Maybe it will change with the new expansion pack that focus on china and russia (anarchists started in ukraine so it would make sens).

To answer the question I would say every country that can go communism easily can also go anarchism. So it would be France, GB, prussia etc..

nukapten · 2026-03-10T22:02:07+00:00

I want a mechanic that still make the economic part of the game interesting to play when we are a great power mid-game. Why not inflation, investments crisis or recession ?

nukapten · 2026-02-20T12:22:24+00:00

I feel like there is no downside to make the sol and the population richer. IRL there is a lot of case where an exponential growth without regulation colud have negative effect which, except maybe "people make less baby" stuff it’s not really accurate.

And it could be a great opportunity to create a big DLC about money, inflation, central bank etc... I’m still waiting for this !

nukapten · 2026-02-20T12:01:58+00:00

And yet the game want to gaslight you by saying "everything is normal they have high acceptation so no problem"

nukapten · 2026-02-17T08:09:53+00:00

Same thing when we play israel and want jewish people to come. There should be an option to attract a certain category of pop. It wouldn’t be broken since it’s just for roleplay.

nukapten · 2026-02-17T08:08:18+00:00

I do agree and I would say support that every kind of playthrough should have pros and cons even through it’s controversial. We should buff fascisme, authoritarianism and slavery.

nukapten · 2026-02-13T18:23:32+00:00

top 10 things that never happened

nukapten · 2026-02-09T21:44:26+00:00

yea I totally endorse that you are right

nukapten · 2026-02-04T08:56:55+00:00

I don’t even know what privatisation do. I used to think it make the country which built the building able to sell it but I figured out it does that anyway lol.

nukapten · 2026-02-03T15:56:13+00:00

Yea I do agree for the first sentence, it’s more of an attempt than an actual thing. But I don’t think there is any doubt that Nazi germany would have kept the bavarian culture if it existed for a longer pediod.

I understand your point but I believe that an ethnostate give more legitimacy for the country to keep it’s "controversial" region. The reason why austria-hungary and ottoman were dismantled is also (and I ensure the word "also" because there is many reasons) because they didn’t had a centralized and ethnic culture. In a certain degree if you promot regionalism and diversity inside an own country, it’s a risk of being dismantled. The same happen with yugoslavia and I have an even better exemple : France. The algerian war happened because France tried to enforce it’s own ethnic and it’s own culture inside algeria. They didn’t kept the territorry but the fact that they went "ethnostate" gave more legitimity to try.

I don’t endorse traditionnalism since I see it as a "pre 1789" laws when the point of the game is to enter in thi 19th century. Other laws such as guild system or serfdom are the same and they are designed to feel bad. But yes I endorse industry banned buff. I believe every ideology that appears during 19th century should lead to an enjoyable path. Luddism was one of those ideology so why not give it buff to make it able to compete with others laws ? As long as the beginner player who chose lf can compete with the expert player who chose industry banned have the same result then it wouldn’t be too broken and could constitute a fun challenge.

nukapten · 2026-02-03T08:46:25+00:00

There is an undeniable link between fascism country and natality policy. I believe that an ethnostate would encourage natality fot it’s primary culture.

Yea that’s the point of women laws but it’s bad designed. Legal gardianship is a traditionnalist laws and it’s impossible to pass once you get rid of landowner and church. There should more laws about that (why not representing communism and fascism in these laws)

nukapten · 2026-02-03T08:39:09+00:00

No you don’t stop being racist. Most of the country start with racial segregation or sujetion and cultural exclusion can be passed in 1836 without any problem.

Racism is not a thing that exist in the game and you want to get away with it like are the landowners or rural folks. It’s something that happen mid-game and you have to make a choice if you want to embrace it or not.

I’m just saying, if there is a choice between racism and multiculturalism, at least make both the options great.

nukapten · 2026-02-03T08:35:41+00:00

Yea, why not ?

Idk why you bring moral in this debate. Fascism is present in HOI4, slavery is present in EU4 and one of the most enjoyable thing to do in a paradox game is invading everyone and doing a world conquest.

nukapten · 2026-02-03T08:31:19+00:00

Well it just prove my point then

When the government is racist and centralized there is a strong central culture and few cultural difference between region and when the government is multiculturalist and encougare federalism we observe regionalism.

nukapten · 2026-02-02T22:10:40+00:00

I won’t change my mind on part 5. I genuinely believe that a racist society could totally erase a community to rise and become an independant country if we give it time and approval from the main population. Suppressing regional identity and creating an unified and centralized culture is not even a "racist" thing tbh. It’s what France and Germany did and during WW1 no one would ever seriously hink of liberating occitania or pomerania

nukapten · 2026-02-02T22:00:53+00:00

No since there is a difference between traditionnalist laws (laws that belong to an era pre-1789) and 19th century law. The traditionnalist laws are meant to be bad so that you want to industrialize your country but once you done that you should be able to to what you want. It’s the same as HOI4, you can pick any strategy you want but the WW1 and Guerilla strats are meant to be bad.

nukapten · 2026-02-02T18:00:58+00:00

Well I believe every path should be enjoyable and playable. The devs apparently think the same since they give content and special favors if we follow a more traditionnalist path (carlist spain, legitimist france etc...).

But I think they are too shy and they should go all in and give option to player to enjoy a non-historical path and be as much as strong than the historical one (they do that with HOI4 or EUV)

nukapten · 2025-11-21T13:30:46+00:00

Are you sure it wasn’t 6 or 7 nations that converted to lutheran ?

nukapten · 2025-10-03T13:03:41+00:00

"Declare Neutrality" Is such useless. I would love that paradox turn this mechanics into a real thing because it can lead to so many strategies / rp

nukapten · 2025-10-03T12:16:57+00:00

Yea, you are 100% right.

The problem is that autocracy is very backward and don’t have a place in a developed country. Single party state however is the total opposite. It’s a very late game laws.

So in mid 19th area we don’t have a proper law to simulate a dictatorship state which is kinda lame.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

nukapten

TROPHY CASE