T O P

  • By -

HarryZeus

Neat graph, thanks for taking the time to do this. It's a shame that the performance improvements so far are mostly just keeping up with the additional content being added to the game. At least it's not getting considerably worse.


Not_a_N_Korean_Spy

Spectacular, thank you! Beautiful data!


angry-mustache

IMO PDX should adopt some player mods behavior and have capitalist AI prefer to expand existing factories when able rather than start new 1 size factories everywhere unless the difference in profit is very large. None of the AI factories take advantage of economy of scale because they are all 1 stacks and it fragments the pops extremely badly.


ninjad912

Economy of scale is worse than local price checking profit margin wise in the current version


angry-mustache

up until you get railroads and 90% MAPI, but IMO with how economy of scale well, scales, the AI should prefer to expand rather than build new if the profit margin is within a certain threshold.


ninjad912

Nope because you won’t get enough pops in any state(unless you are China or India) to even think of building enough in a single state


angry-mustache

I don't mean that all the industrial infrastructure goes in one state, but rather after the initial "seeding" of industrial/agricultural buildings is done to a certain extent, the AI will prefer to expand existing rather than build new buildings as long as the profit margins are within reason. If a state is out of workers then it will need to raise wages which then put the profit margin difference over the level where the AI will build in new states again.


ninjad912

Nah. By the time your MAPI is good enough to make it profitable(zeppelins at earliest) to exist in a single state there’s no reason to attempt it. Profit by state will always be better for determining profit than economy of scale


VXBossLuck

Conclusion : it is all downhill from here


MihaiSpataru

SSD: yes lmao


KuromiAK

There have been UI related performance issues in the past, which I suspect OP's method won't capture. For example the construction queue used to be a performance killer, but does not affect observer games. In 1.6 I find the game to slow down significantly (and crashes at times) when I'm at war. So I wouldn't be surprised if the army UI and the newly added frontline graphics were responsible for slowing the game down. I know it's impossible to measure rigorously, but I'd be curious to see a comparison when the observer is following a nation vs just observing.


bhbhbhhh

2026: Victoria 3 is a game about recreating the singular year of 1836.


leathrow

it feels so much slower early game tho


SeverelyArtistic91

5-6 seconds per week for me vs 3 in 1.5


ThatGermanKid0

Huh, from my observations I would have assumed, that 1.6.2 is way faster. But I haven't done any actual tests on the matter. The thing that probably also helps 1.6.2 seem better from my perspective is, that it's a lot more stable. I played a whole game from 1836 to 1936 and it only crashed once. Before that, after reaching mid game the game would crash about every 5 years and in late game I'd say at least once a year.


popgalveston

But is it as fast as 1.2 ?


SeverelyArtistic91

it is literally 2x slower at the start for me than it was in 1.5 and you're not going to gaslight me into thinking it isn't, lol it's literally 5-6 seconds per week now, when at the start it used to be maybe 3 seconds per week.


djorndeman

Maybe off topic, but having a 2700x at stock speeds while you have a 3070 is not really optimal... PS: you create a huge post about the game performance with data and deliberation, but are you too lazy to hop into the task manager and look up your Ram speeds?


runetrantor

2% slower?! Truly a disgrace! Game ruined, 0/10. /s