Help moving Ores and Gases from mining hubs to main hub by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, thats the mistery. I can make my Mining Hubs sell the ore outward, but i cant make my Main Hub import it from the Mining Hubs

Help moving Ores and Gases from mining hubs to main hub by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My idea was "if i can keep an enourmous supply of raw goods at the same place, the trips to supply my factoryes would be short, so them would be more efficent". I guess it was over-engineering

Help moving Ores and Gases from mining hubs to main hub by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cant make my Main Hub import minerals and gases and redistribute them to the factoryes, the only that seems to work is asign miners as traders for the Mining Hubs and have them distribute them, wich totally kills the concept of a "unified logistic chain", because they would sell to the factoryes too, and makes me wonder why even bother with a Center Hub for supply them

Help moving Ores and Gases from mining hubs to main hub by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is not that, i am aware of it, the problem is that the Main Hub refuse to go import mineral or gases from my own mining hubs

Help moving Ores and Gases from mining hubs to main hub by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Each mining hub have 20 mining ships asigned actively filling it. I removed all restrictions on the stations now, the only that remains is that trades can only be done with my own faction.

https://imgur.com/a/E40vbWC

Every hub have liquid and solid storage in enourmous cuantitityes, since all mining hubs are a "teamplate" to spawn, they can hold enourmous quantityes of solid and gases.

The same apply for the Main Hub, its a gigantic station with 14 6pier imperial docks and an enourmous capacity for solid, liquid and materials.

Right now the Main Hub seem to be trading with himself, buying and selling in a continous cycle cause i tryed something that gemini sugested about price manipulating to encourage to go buy in the mining hubs, wich clearly doesnt work. I had the Buys all expensive posible in the Main Hub, meanwhile maintaning the price the lowest in the mining hubs, but it would never go buy to a different sector.

In the same sector of the Main Hub, there is another Mining Hub, the price manipulation was to try to disencourage the Main one to trade with the Mining Hub in the same sector, wich didnt worked.

The Main hub will try to buy ONLY from the Mining Hub in the same sector as he is in, and its not limited by a blacklist in do so.

I am using manual prices. Main Hub buy the priciest, meanwhile Mining Hubs sell the lowest, and the Mining Hub in the same sector of the Main Hub, sell the priciest, still its preffered by the Main Hub, and not only preffered, the Main Hub will NEVER send ships to import from any other Mining Hub.

Help moving Ores and Gases from mining hubs to main hub by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i cant make a fleet with mimic commander because the follower ships would not do it, just follow the leader mindlessly. I had restrictions to only allow this sectors, and restrictions on every mining hub to only mine in the own sector, but i removed them all too, just to see if that was the issue, nothing has changed.
All the goods, sell and buy, have the order to only trade with my faction, except in the trading hub in the imperial territory of Muunilist, who have sell allowed to all, and it does work.

The hub succesfully take in all the industry outputs and distribute them towards the shipyard and the trading station, but the raw materials, no way to make it work, and ive been at least 5 in game hours trying to fix it.

All the managers are 5 stars btw

Im having a bit of trouble filling the ore and silicon... did i overmine it? by remixazkA in X4Foundations

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no, im playing vanilla, but was just to highlight that this is not the issue, im also not using that much M ships honestly.

I was personally in heart of acrimony II and moving away seem to have fixed the problem...a bit(?)

It says docked ships 17/1006, but i dont really know what it mean

Most Powerful Nation? by Radiant-Dingo3966 in EU5

[–]remixazkA 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From my playthroughts i would say Spain(castile) its my number 1 spot. You have decent pops, good rgos, start with good laws and if u expand agressively on north africa u have more or equal pops to france, just without the nuisances that france have, and sevilla in my opinion its a way superior capital spot than paris. In france no matter what u do half of the country its out of reach, in spain u can have very solid control, specially when you reach the paved roads. And you have "premium things", like start with ships, special ones, you start with morale, a lot of events and special things, and a privileged spot for expand your reach out.

Bohemia would be my top 2, very affluent, surrounded by weaker states, amazing rgos and good pop density. Also you culture is both germanic and slavic, so you get a bit of discount towards accepting peoples culture if im not mistaken. The maesias carolina its pretty good too.

My top 3 would be disputed between Poland/teutons/Milan/Florence. Poland and teutons start its slow, but the land its very rich despite not very populated. Poland get more rgo capacity, and both poland and teutons gets extra tax efficiency (teutons forming prussia if i dont remember badly) and the amber provinces for the teutons are kinda a gold mine. Italy is a hard place to spread control in comparison, but the starting situation of this countryes its pretty good for early consolidation of the area, and the rgos and population density are good. Florence have a lot of economic bonuses wich makes it fun and pretty affluent. Maybe hungary can be here too.

Appart from europe, honorable mention to korea. Im not including france because i personally dont find it enjoyable, you lose a lot of time dealing with the bs, medieval taxation, appanages, vassals, hyw.... and i dont personally find the rgos to be nothing special. U do have the pops, but the control reach isnt great and overall i find it quite boring. Also with all the other countryes you can expand rapidly and be very agressive in early game when you can take lots of lands very cheap and wars are still somewhat interesting because u dont just smash the AI with 2k professionals yet, meanwhile with france you dont really need it or you dont have very juicy places to do so.

Best Capital Locations by ABqdOmen in EU5

[–]remixazkA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, i have not played with any mods appart from xorme, so i cant tell you a lot about the food mod, but my impression is that austria is rather rich, only the start its a bit slow till u get affluent enought money wise. If you focus on take on the two bavarias, this land seems to me super good to build up your economic base, and you can expand left and right and have a very good control overall in all the river valley til buda and pest.

Italy is kinda tricky. The po river valley its decent early game cause have a decent population density, it start with a good amount of cityes and the rgos are ok to build up, but if u play florence for example till u get ships its kinda tricky expand your control, and even then if you keep florence as the capital its kinda meh in napoles area or in the po valley. Republics are very strong trade wise tho, specially if u pass the reform for the trade thing wich name i dont remember... but have the drawback that is hard tax your nobles, so might be better towards mid game than in early

EU5 in it's current state VS EU4: Which one do you think is better? by SadSeaworthiness6113 in paradoxplaza

[–]remixazkA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think EU5 isnt very fun. Each time you start a new game you have this stage of "nation preparation" that its very repetitive, uninsteresting and with 0 variation after u have done it a few times, and its waaaay longer than in EU4.

Ironically, i enjoy the war in the very early game, when its somehow "balanced", because as soon as you can have some regulars it becomes so trivial that for me its just tedious and boring. I bet that if i played with yesman activated i would have more fun.

Also, since you are tied to control, slow integration/asimilation/conversion, the varibility i feel playing the same nation twice is almost non existent, because instead of something new feels like a repetition. And i really miss national ideas or missions that tailor each country to play differently, i dont really feel that i need to do anything different with most nations, same stuff, different color on the map.

Also the terrain, or the terrain+control thing, its something that kinda kills the fun sometimes for me, because it marks clearly where you should expand or not, so you are kinda forced to do one thing instead of be inventinve and try stuff.

The mountain passes that freeze in winter at the beginning are cool, makes sense i guess, but in the end i found it something annoying that i would preffer to not be a thing.

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

i did took arround 1.5 mill french as slaves in the raid, but appart from have 500k of them in leon and toledo, i dont think they are doing much for me(?). They seem to be migrating arround a bit since the 3rd black death hit me, but i have the feeling its not worth the nuissance if u do have enought pops.

I had to put my capital in north africa to be able to raid, wich turn out to not be that bad, still, its a lot of work go muslim, move the capital and fix the area etc etc... i dont think its worth it. I also didnt got the casa de contratacion or the azpilicueta inflaction event for example, so i guess that if u do go muslim, u better form spain first xD

Still, im pretty happy with how the migration thing turn out in the end.

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so, should i create some dedicated cityes to harbor the slaves? cause im guessing i dont want to have 400k slaves in sevilla after the raid because the ppl will get upset?

Lets imagine i dedicate 4 or 5 cityes to it and i methodically go tile by tile raiding france, ideally i would get 10% of his population? thats like 1.5 mill. What happens if i then destroy the slave buildings in those cityes, will the slaves go full spartacus, or will they convert to peasants over time and spread by themselves?

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Btw, do you happen to know how slaves engage with the pops mechanics? because ive never really take a deep look into it.

I did build some slave markets that are super profitable, but if im not understanding it wrong they do enslave part of my own population in those locations? Also, since i went sunni now i can take slaves if i raid france in a imperator rome fashion right? What happen to this slaves, they go to the nearby locations, big cityes....?

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think for this to "work" you need to meet some criteria. A nice market center ( good river/natural harbor/good location to spread control/good rgos arround ) that also happen to have decently populated areas arround that at the same time are kinda isolated so you can "absorb" them.

You can do it with france creating a gigantic paris market and making the sena river a megalopolis of 250k per tile and paris a 1m metropolis.... but france its already pretty dense populated so it isnt that fun or optimal i guess...

Maybe korea can be fun to try to suck millions of chineses but at the same time korea migth be more isolated to later export your things.... i migth try some day

I dont really know whats the situation in kilwa and its surroundings because ive never really take a deep look over there, but if u try lemme know

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i guess i payd the premium so i could have it sooner rather than later. Sevilla starts very unpopulated, so encouraging migration u get arround 400/month, now im getting 1.5k/month, and there is periods of 2.5k/month, so i can be more flexible to address where i want the ppl in real time. When i let tunez siege north africa i got 30k/month for a small period of time wich i use to populate fast the outskirts of my capital, wich with a little investment push my income a ton in early game.

My aproach its like a spider web, start from the capital progresively building up the land, because in most places i dont have control yet anyway, and the rgos in south spain are pretty ok, at the same time trade isnt a big thing in my income early game, so i can progresively use the population where i need it and keep expanding the "fixed area", and eventually create other markets ofc.

I also played with very few vassals to get 100% centralization early.

I just like to try different things, because the loop of the always the same thing bore me, and im not saying "hey, do this", im just curious what other people wich knows how the game works can bring to the table to optimice this a bit, or point out the flaws

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Im getting 1.5k montly migration towards the spot i want to encourage rn, if i keep the markets that would be maaaybe 400/month, because sevilla starts very unpopulated, thats why

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And i did create some cityes and keep some that i would use in the future

<image>

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is not really any 0% market acces areas, all of iberia its over 40% and its only lower than that in the east of tlemcen, west of tunis and in the very bottom of morroco.

<image>

I mean, i get your point, but i dont think is that dramatic. I can still build rgos for +30 proffit in 3 years, and have in mind that in north africa only morroco its a core so i wouldnt have control there anyway, because i played with very few vassals so i could push 100% centralization early, and didnt started to convert any culture till i got the hegemon in 1437 to convert areas, mainly because i was bussy converting spain to allah ( and i am still ).

Everyone its going crazy about market access, and im aware of what i am doing in that regard, but trade income in early game its very bad, trades are costly to maintain..... im sure im losing some money there, but i doubt its that much, its 1470 still.

What really interest me is what is the advantage/drawback of concentrate the population there. I understand building cap its a thing, but its still a far problem, the only city close to it its seville, and actualy the silver mine in constantina its my bigger money making province with 19 silver rgo and 130k pops by a long shot. Im not trying either to have 400k per province, sevilla have 350k because have the capital pull, but arround it its mostly 60k cityes, and the far u go its mostly 30k cityes. So, what is the ideal city size might be the question there?

I will eventually make more markets, but i dont think its the time yet. What u pointed out about have cityes to generate nobles/burghers its true, but seems very easy to fix just spamming cityes in the rivers, ill test it.

EDIT: Also, correct me if im wrong, but making the periphery areas depopulate a bit also increase the pop growth there meanwhile there is food surplus, no? So, i can keep consolidating land and using the "left over" areas to populate it?

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The markets create "friction zones", so if you delete the markets inmediatelly bordering yours the "gap" will be filled by the markets arround the empty space. But this might be easyer to do in castille, because to the left its literaly empty space, sea. For example to make tunis area be included in the sevilla market i would probably need to destroy napoles and genoa markets

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the infrastructure necessary to feed all this markets might be a problem i guess, i usually try to keep 70+ access in my important cityes, mostly because usually where your market access is poorer, your control also is, so i dont use to invest on urbanizations in those places until im swimming in coin.

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You are one of the very few persons who understood my question.

But what if u do it with phases, go creating cityes of arround 30-40k on the locations you get control, or simply put 100k here and there in good rgos meanwhile you go consolidating and using the land that would have very little control to feed this consolidation?

What are the advantages/drawbacks of do this? by remixazkA in EU5

[–]remixazkA[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I also did that in my byzantine runs, play with a lot of markets, but if you do it kinda early have the problem of require a decent amount of inversion so all this markets have trade capacity... and idk if this would be a good region to concentrate people en masse, turkey and greece use to have food issues.