i would say its been worth buying for a little while now. the problem with the paradox model is it always feels like these free updates are kind of expected because every release is always like barely a beta. its shocking because if they had any competent competition they would be screwed
@@jb04evanivichI wouldn't say paradox games late in their life cycle become unplayable. I would just say they become a lot more intimidating for people playing for the first time.
8:46 whilst Victoria's sentence is worthy of praise, there is room for improvement: the addition of a "Happy Thursday". redemption is possible at any time, Victoria.
As a utilitarian, I can't imagine trying to do any kind of moral prescription without an understanding of sociology. It's no wonder it was used to justify colonialism. Also no mention of rule vs act utilitarianism sadge.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the increased military goods cost listed on for military assistance just the opposite of the various decreased military goods cost modifiers, and hence not stimulating? Just a money sink, like the decreased cost is free money?
Military assistance feels very off, especially as the modifiers it provides seem rather arbitrary. Country A spends 10% more on its military goods, and country B now somehow fights 15% better? Is there any reason why country B couldn't just spend those 10% more to gain the same effect? What if both countries have up to date military on par with rest of the advanced world, country B would now have the strongest fighting force quality wise just from that, how? Say A gets to great power rank (or whatever status is required to use this diplo pact) through economic growth alone and some prestige events, completely disregarding military tech the whole game, should its military assistance be of any value? Regarding the way this feature was described, it gives the appearance of a band-aid fix in regards to being unable to join ongoing wars (excluding violating sovereignty). Now, I do hope there is more to it than that, and the DD writer just forgot to mention the requirements in the post. At least something like A needing to have more military tech than B...
There was some discussion about that in the Dev Diary itself, the response was that those modifiers are still WIP and subject to much change until release. Let's see the final version
I really like most of the Indian narrative content in British India, except one thing: Why is there no mention of the draconian nature of the British administration and its cracking down on free speech and public gatherings, which was one of the biggest points of contention for the early INC and the Indian intellegentsia? The British banned vernacular newspapers, banned public gatherings, banned any form of dissent and allowed the arrest of any suspected dissidents without a trial. And most of the so-called "positive" reforms made by the British were actually opposed by the vast majority of the British establishment, and were often passed through due to the support of native reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy (who got no mention in the diary even though the banning of Sati was mentioned and falsely attributed to the Governor-General). This, along with the lack of mention of the British involvement in scurrying up communal tensions and their lobbying for Jinnah along with the missing of Hume is a bit disappointing, but thats whatever I guess. Those the only real complaint I have of this, the rest is actually pretty spot on historically. Oh, and the military intervention thing sucks, its boring ass modifier stacking
Also, I think that Utilitarian ideology in government shouldn't automatically get a -1 ticking approval from the Indian populace. There were certainly conservative parts of society that didn't like the reformers, but the general legacy of the Utilitarians is very positive amongst historians, Indian reformers and educated society of the time. Most Indians who wanted change also realised how rotten Indian society had gotten by that point and wanted to make a considerable change, although not always in the same ways as those belonging to the Anglophone suggested.
Leader Ideologies percentages came out to 98%. Edit: I love the line about utilitarianism falling short of it's goals due to the contradiction between the desire for control and bigotry and whatnot because the way it was worded makes it sound a whole lot like a super esoteric, low key dialectical criticism. Or I've just been reading too much Lenin recently. This is also a possibility.
Excited for the new "Based" Ideology for agitators!
Very slowly vic 3 turns into an actual game
As someone who basically only plays paradox games, welcome to every single paradox game
i would say its been worth buying for a little while now. the problem with the paradox model is it always feels like these free updates are kind of expected because every release is always like barely a beta. its shocking because if they had any competent competition they would be screwed
Pdx game life cycle:
unplayable due to lack of content->barely playable->kinda fun->golden age->feature bloat->unplayable due to age and feature bloat
@@jb04evanivichI wouldn't say paradox games late in their life cycle become unplayable. I would just say they become a lot more intimidating for people playing for the first time.
@ eu4 became genuinely unfun around 2020
8:46 whilst Victoria's sentence is worthy of praise, there is room for improvement: the addition of a "Happy Thursday". redemption is possible at any time, Victoria.
Give her a break, it's not easy having a game named after you
As a utilitarian, I can't imagine trying to do any kind of moral prescription without an understanding of sociology. It's no wonder it was used to justify colonialism. Also no mention of rule vs act utilitarianism sadge.
Utilitarian doctor joke was too good. I have no idea why I haven't heard that before. Great video as always Generalist!
Glad you liked it!
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the increased military goods cost listed on for military assistance just the opposite of the various decreased military goods cost modifiers, and hence not stimulating? Just a money sink, like the decreased cost is free money?
You're right, the implementation they have atm looks like a money deletion modifier
thats what it looks like
14:50 the percentages add up to 98% so that implies a 2% chance for something else
That's just typical parodox math tho, there are definitely fractions there that the UI just cuts off
Jesus that DD was SO long. Not that I'm complaining lol
This game suffers from only considering flows and not stocks. Surely saving grain in famine prone states should be allowed
Lot of cool things coming this patch
Military assistance feels very off, especially as the modifiers it provides seem rather arbitrary.
Country A spends 10% more on its military goods, and country B now somehow fights 15% better? Is there any reason why country B couldn't just spend those 10% more to gain the same effect? What if both countries have up to date military on par with rest of the advanced world, country B would now have the strongest fighting force quality wise just from that, how? Say A gets to great power rank (or whatever status is required to use this diplo pact) through economic growth alone and some prestige events, completely disregarding military tech the whole game, should its military assistance be of any value?
Regarding the way this feature was described, it gives the appearance of a band-aid fix in regards to being unable to join ongoing wars (excluding violating sovereignty). Now, I do hope there is more to it than that, and the DD writer just forgot to mention the requirements in the post. At least something like A needing to have more military tech than B...
There was some discussion about that in the Dev Diary itself, the response was that those modifiers are still WIP and subject to much change until release. Let's see the final version
@@lcc1258 Indeed, hopefully we'll get something more interesting and sophisticated than modifier spam, though I wouldn't bet on it.
I really like most of the Indian narrative content in British India, except one thing:
Why is there no mention of the draconian nature of the British administration and its cracking down on free speech and public gatherings, which was one of the biggest points of contention for the early INC and the Indian intellegentsia? The British banned vernacular newspapers, banned public gatherings, banned any form of dissent and allowed the arrest of any suspected dissidents without a trial.
And most of the so-called "positive" reforms made by the British were actually opposed by the vast majority of the British establishment, and were often passed through due to the support of native reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy (who got no mention in the diary even though the banning of Sati was mentioned and falsely attributed to the Governor-General).
This, along with the lack of mention of the British involvement in scurrying up communal tensions and their lobbying for Jinnah along with the missing of Hume is a bit disappointing, but thats whatever I guess.
Those the only real complaint I have of this, the rest is actually pretty spot on historically.
Oh, and the military intervention thing sucks, its boring ass modifier stacking
Also, I think that Utilitarian ideology in government shouldn't automatically get a -1 ticking approval from the Indian populace. There were certainly conservative parts of society that didn't like the reformers, but the general legacy of the Utilitarians is very positive amongst historians, Indian reformers and educated society of the time. Most Indians who wanted change also realised how rotten Indian society had gotten by that point and wanted to make a considerable change, although not always in the same ways as those belonging to the Anglophone suggested.
Generalist lore just dropped
Great dev diary this week. Also, are you drinking orange jello?
devs said in the comments that the effects of military assistance are currently wip
Leader Ideologies percentages came out to 98%.
Edit: I love the line about utilitarianism falling short of it's goals due to the contradiction between the desire for control and bigotry and whatnot because the way it was worded makes it sound a whole lot like a super esoteric, low key dialectical criticism. Or I've just been reading too much Lenin recently. This is also a possibility.
We need better pm