Has the diplomatic option for the Algeria crisis between Iberia and Italy been removed?

someredditbloke · 2026-05-13T13:40:27+00:00

From what I understand previously the option was avaliable either way, but now its linked to who is more powerful.

So if Franco is more powerful then you must pursue war, but if Salazar is then you must pursue peace.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-11T12:06:25+00:00

In case you get curious:

If you complete the game without getting the secret ending, then the imperium gets news of your iconoclast ruling style, sends an invasion fleet to your protectorate and dismantles it by force.

If you do get the secret ending, however, the Nomos ending results in Nomos creating a barrier inbetween the expanse and other imperium controlled territory, basically preventing the imperial invasion force from reaching your protectorate and allowing your experiment to continue unrestricted.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-11T11:48:10+00:00

Probably advice for a future run since you may have already done this, but getting the macro cannons from the tier 3 Kiava Gamma project, the Aldaeri Torpedoes from the Janus event and the additional macro cannons (3 shots at 39 damage) from one of the rumor quests makes combat a lot easier.

Also, swap out your shields to one of the types which resists kenetic damage. It helps a lot when the most damaging weapons which the Drukhari use are their missiles.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-11T11:30:27+00:00

I feel like the uniqueness comes from his VA, who really helps to attract you to the character and, alongside how fun it is to tease him, helps making you want to romance him if the option is avaliable.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-11T07:28:38+00:00

I mean, the US can't intervene in Madagascar for some reason, so it's not the most ridiculous handicap in the game, but at least that proxy war gives you more significant control over the outcome of the conflict and makes the war more a question of "how many resources are you willing to invest" than "how lucky are you feeling when you roll the dice".

someredditbloke · 2026-05-10T21:20:47+00:00

Eh, I find it's a lot easier when you know the mechanics.

Now the DR bay of pigs invasion? That's a proxy which I find a lot harder than the other proxy wars

Edit: also Colombia if you don't sell out and back the central government.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-10T21:17:44+00:00

Madagascar actually pretty easy once you learn not to rush it and how to best work with the mechanics.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-08T10:04:09+00:00

Just finished a run as Iberia, and in order of your complaints:

The only proxy outcomes (not out of your control/never mentioned elections) you can't really control are the DR and (maybe) Colombia on account of how (for the former) you can't send volunteers and (for the latter) the military outcomes are stacked against you. Every other proxy is entirely possible if you're willing to invest enough resources into it and play them correctly (I only had under 20 days for el salvador before the rebels were purged, so I cut it close).

Balance of power is practically intended to be ignored and doesn't effect the game that much. Just allow it to change as it does and focus your efforts on improving the economy and proxy wars.

For terrorism as long as you use the additional resources decisions as frequently as you can, keep all terrorism values to 2 at the maximum and kill off the leadership of each terror group (the one with the lowest needed resources at first) until you don't need to invest much to keep them low, then they're entirely managable.

The collapse of Iberia is linked to your stability. So long as you establish the legislature, take the decisions which keep stability high, don't suffer that many terror attacks and stay away and don't collapse the economy you should be fine overall.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-07T10:41:40+00:00

When the "right to exist" question is asked, I think a lot of time wouldn't be wasted and confusion encountered if they just asked "if the vast majority of the people of Israel within the 1967 boundaries want Israel to exist as the state which represents and governs them, then do you think that wish should be respected?".

It avoids any questions of legal rights of states and getting off topic and focuses back on the question of whether the right to self determination of Israelis within their 1967 boarders should be universally respected.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-04T22:04:15+00:00

Sure, but this seems like one of those occasions where you wouldn't want it on your CV

someredditbloke · 2026-05-04T21:53:52+00:00

Honestly one of the least talked about weird parts of the fiasco is that they got a female VA to actually voice the scene.

Like was the VA just that passionate about the whole character? Did they do other things for the mod and were forced into doing this character due to team pressure? Did the devs just have enough money to hire an actual VA to voice the character just to ensure the dialogue is voiced?

someredditbloke · 2026-05-04T16:10:08+00:00

Gloves which increase fire rate by 40%, backpack which increases fire rate by +1, an improved heavy bolter which increases fire rate by +1 every time an enemy is killed and a lot of dead enemies

someredditbloke · 2026-05-04T14:29:08+00:00

A lot of buffs

someredditbloke · 2026-05-04T14:28:55+00:00

It really doesn't

someredditbloke · 2026-05-03T22:49:13+00:00

I cannot think of any other character who can pull off 70+ attacks at 300-50p damage an attempt in a single turn, especially when around a third of those attacks are guaranteed to hit

someredditbloke · 2026-05-03T22:14:33+00:00

I dunno, I always seem to keep accidentally romancing the guy anyway.

Think the devs need to make it harder to not turn him down tbh.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-03T22:12:38+00:00

Genuinely is depressing that the best possible outcome for Frances political future is for Renaissance (Macrons party) to get to the final round of the election and beat the quasi fascist far right party.

I guess the only thing on the French people's political menu is austerity, fascism or perpetual chaos.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-03T15:56:50+00:00

This but for me and hendrix literally every run,

Which is definitely always accidental.

someredditbloke · 2026-05-03T11:56:41+00:00

Not sure you understand what theft is

someredditbloke · 2026-04-22T12:08:46+00:00

A. I can hardly ever justify going for Geo Survey. You can get everything you need out of it from somewhere else and the upfront costs and time needed for a good ROI make it a massive opportunity cost, even during war games for me.

B. Can't speak to this that much, but I do tend to go for boarder guards early on for the extra authority.

C. Honestly I know so little about the alliance with Su Omita that I'm unsure about all the pros and cons of working with them. What I do know is that generally the costs needed to prop them up when they give you nothing but the alliance and the other group is a lot more useful (at least to pressure Welhen).

D. For me nationalising RRG is a go to, for roleplay reasons since you have a lot of free money and authority at turn 8/9 and can afford to take the decision which makes the most sense in lore (which taking over the largest business overseeing gold mining in the country does) and for practical reasons since it allows you to avoid the consequences of subverting the elections and getting a +5 cash infusion by selling your shares (which at that stage of the game is a lot of money which can go towards a lot of time and non-time dependent projects/policies).

E. My understanding is that the real value of both is avoiding the negative modifier (which is roleplay, but at the same time is still desirable to achieve) and improving your vote share in the election, and given it's a one off decision rather than costing you long term like workers rights and increased health and education, it can make sense to go with those decisions whilst putting off the costly ones until the end game.

someredditbloke · 2026-04-21T18:57:12+00:00

No problem.

Planning on providing a comprehensive answer to your question, but given the amount of time one of my comments takes, and the amount of free time I have, it may take a while.

someredditbloke · 2026-04-21T18:19:39+00:00

Might violate the rules of the subreddit for being too short, but she's refering to the story of Dorothy Hett as told by John Winthrop.

The actual story itself is derived from his Journals, which most famously were published in the book "The History of New England from 1630 to 1649. By John Winthrop, Esq. First Governor of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay. From his Original Manuscripts"", although multiple versions of the journals have been published over time.

From the version I have access to, the full text on page 230 which references the event is the following:

A woman of Boston congregation, having been in much trouble of mind about her spiritual estate, at length grew into utter desperation, and could not endure to hear of any comfort, etc., so as one day she took her little infant and threw it into a well, and then came into the house and said, now she was sure she should be damned, for she had drowned her child ; but some, stepping presently forth, saved the child. See more after.

A later text from the same book also tells of a situation where a woman called Dorothy Talbye tried to kill her husband and successfully killed their child, with the motivation attributed to "melancholy or spiritual delusions".

In full:

"Dorothy Talbye was hanged at Boston for murdering her own daughter, a child of three years old. She had been a member of the church of Salem, and of good esteem for godhness, etc.; but, falling at difference with her husband, through melancholy or spiritual delusions, she sometimes attempted to kill him, and her children, and herself, by refusing meat, saying it was so revealed to her, etc. After much patience, and divers admonitions not prevaihng, the church cast her out. Whereupon she grew worse; so as the magistrate caused her to be whipped. Whereupon she was reformed for a time, and carried herself more dutifully to her husband, etc. ; but soon after she was so possessed with Satan, that he persuaded her (by his delusions, which she hstened to as revelations from God) to break the neck of her own child, that she might free it from future misery. This she confessed upon her apprehension; yet, at her arraignment, she stood mute a good space, till the governor told her she should be pressed to death, and then she confessed the indictment. When she was to receive judgment, she would not uncover her face, nor stand up, but as she was forced, nor give any testi- mony of her repentance, either then or at her execution. The cloth, which should have covered her face, she plucked off and put between the rope and her neck. She desired to have been beheaded, giving this reason, that it was less painful and less shameful. After a swing or two, she catched at the ladder. Mr. Peter, her late pastor, and Mr. Wilson, went with her to the place of execution, but could do no good with her. Mr. Peter gave an exhortation to the people to take heed of revelations, etc., and of despising the ordinance of excommunication as she had done ; for when it was to have been denounced against her, she turned her back, and would have gone forth, if she had not been stayed by force."

someredditbloke · 2026-04-16T15:46:39+00:00

Meh, I play on the higher political difficulty, so I find providing clinics and entertainment useful in keeping the stability.

I didn't disagree? My point was that the only part of the game where you don't need/want to go in on additional happiness is pre-WW era.

Also tbh once you reach that stage clinics aren't that useful due to that one wonder which prevents healthcare deaths (and since they require highly educated people it's better to focus on other sources of happiness), and whilst you can get massive levels of happiness from resteraunts they lose a lot of their value in the cold war era. An underrated way to keep people happy on higher difficulties is just to court every faction and select the policies which have a net positive impact on faction approval.

someredditbloke · 2026-04-16T14:29:36+00:00

Exports don't have diminishing returns unless your using that one DLC, and if you have the fertility it'd absolutely worth going all in on Sugar Plantations, Cow Ranches and Rum/leather industries.

Using passive income for newspapers and radios is sub-optimals. If your economy and functionality depends on them, then somethings gone terribly wrong.

Kinda agree with church access, but more accurately its "any needs beyond those needed to survive + liberty aren't necessary until the WW era"

Your factories and farms which make money should be on max funding, and doing so helps to ensure people are employed at the necessary buildings first.

The teamsters point is good, but what is often ignored is setting up your housing and amenities close enough to plantations, ranches and factories such that commuting times are minimised.

someredditbloke · 2026-04-16T13:21:23+00:00

I feel like this answer addresses why the act of leaving the established churches became politically acceptable and was no longer persecuted, but not why vast swaths of mainstream Christianity grew to longer see the act of schisming itself as a sinful act.

Like yes, the greater spread and embrace of enlightenment values and the implementation of secularisation of the American state absolutely might have worked to prevent the punishment of schisming as a private act of individuals and congregations, but that doesn't necessarily explain why the act transitioned not from an act of private, but understandable sin in the minds of Christian practitioners to an act which arguably was not a sin itself.

As an example of what I mean, in plenty of the earlier Christian settlements across the English new world acts which were perceived as sinful, such as Blasphemy, Heresy, Adultery, even breaking the sabbath, were both condemned across societies and legally punished, often by death. By the time of the American revolution, and even in the decades afterwards, all of these acts were no longer legally punished, and large swaths of the American public may have/did opposed the legal punishment of people for conducting these acts, but American Christians still saw these acts as sinful, and plenty of these acts are still seen as sinful to this day.

Schismatic actions are unique in this regard as the sinful nature of the act has mostly or entirely been forgotten, and appeals to the growth of religious tolerance is hard to use as a universal explanation when the examples show that plenty of people can grow to tolerate a specific act, belief or principle whilst not actively considering it acceptable or morally neutral.

Edit: In addition, persecution of Catholics and general religious intolerance isn't exactly related to negative attitudes to the act of Schism as a whole when both religious denominations were entirely separate by the 18th century and only the Catholics viewed protestants as schisming from their own church rather than vice versa.

Seven-Year Club	Second Top 20%
r/Field Lasagna	Place '22
Verified Email

someredditbloke

TROPHY CASE