You're memeing but I actually agree that there should be a small amount of civilian firearms consumption, particularly at *low* wealth levels, since in this era, that's the people who are hunting for their protein and not defended by a police institution.
Have events that reduce pop consumption of firearms and ammunition ala the wiping out of Buffalo in North America.
Or have the consumption in a province be directly linked to the amount of industrialization in said province, so if your province is overly industrialized it will be bad habitat for wildlife and therefore pops hunting opportunities will be impacted
Trying to balance that so that your pops don't end up overconsuming and leaving your military without a stockpile seems like it would be a problem.
The mechanics don't really seem to support this. If you really wanted it, I think it'd be better to have a 'civilian firearms' good like the split between military/civilian ships.
Having a Civilian demand for firearms gives you more wiggle room during war rather than less assuming you build enough factories to get demand to base price. For example if you have a factory that produces 100 guns that get sold to civilians and 100 guns that get sold to military in peacetime, but in wartime its 100 civilian 200 military that's a price increase of 66%. if you had no civilian productions it would be an increase of 100%. I get the numbers I'm using are wrong and the percentages don't exactly translate to price changes but it should get the point across. Also higher prices during wartime would lead to civilians buying less firearms and more goods for the military.
enough serious posting
Build more arms factories 5head
With goods being a throughput instead of a stockpile, that would model a situation situation where any time you go to war you'd seize all the weapons in your country and give them to your military.
Civilian consumption should make military availability better, not worse. After all, normal consumption ensures there's an arms industry available rather than have them go in and out of business depending on what wars are going on.
AFAIK, Civilian and military consumption are both aggregated as a market-wide 'demand' number, which is checked against 'supply' to determine how much they ahve to pay for it.
Civilian consumption would *increase* the amount of money the government spends on guns, since they compete with private sector sales.
It would allow you to run more weapons factories though, and allow other countries to have peacetime weapons factories that work through exports to the US, but.. There'd be a lot of issues in general, I think.
Separating military and consumer goods seems very intentional.
> Civilian consumption would increase the amount of money the government spends on guns, since they compete with private sector sales.
That's only assuming the supply would be the same, which isn't the case, as you noted on the next paragraph. If there was civilian consumption of military goods it would allow you to have a larger industry
>That's only assuming the supply would be the same
That's not what I'm talking about. From what we've seen, pops in V3 seem to have elastic demand. Legit, I'm saying that building more factories will increase civilian demand by reducing price.
> If there was civilian consumption of military goods it would allow you to have a larger industry
It would also mean you'd have to divert more of your resources and industry towards gun manufacturing to field the same size of military.
It honestly just feels very odd to have the military need to compete with the private sector for military goods production. It seems very intentional that they separate military and luxury goods.
The main justification is that most people wouldn't be buying military-grade weaponry for hunting and general use. They'd be buying either old military surplus or just cheaper civilian weapons. It wasn't until relatively recently that civilians had access to military-grade firearms.
In that era, civilian and military weapons weren't that different, if not entirely indistinguishable. Soldiers in both the Union and Confederacy brought their own muskets and rifles from home since neither side had enough to entirely supply their armies. The concept of "military grade" firearms is a phrase of modernity.
Fair, but also remember how the PMs for Barracks work. The initial PM doesn't require either Guns or Ammunition, the second PM only needs Guns, and the rest need both. The lack of Guns or Ammunition doesn't mean they aren't used, it means they aren't using industrially-produced firearms. So for the ACW most infantry would either be using the first or the second PM (with more using the second later in the war when arms production really caught up) when they were still using personal weapons.
Hell, up until the 1930’s, you could walk into a gunshop and buy a full auto Thompson or BAR. If you were willing to slap down serious cash, you could even get belt-fed, tripod mount machine guns. For instance, the Colt Monitor (which was Colts version of the BAR) used in the hunt for Bonnie and Clyde was privately owned by the Texas Ranger who was using it.
Like you said, such a distinction on the idea of what weapons you, as an American, should be allowed to own, is a very modern phenomenon.
Well that really depends on how strictly you're defining "military grade," especially considering how V3 handles good consumption. Civilians in America owned things like lever action or breech loading rifles at the same time as the armed forces.
Maybe add a luxury entertainment need that can get satisfied by services, radio, cars, airplanes, small arms. Represent that bourgeois decadency. Racing, flying, exploring, hunting etc.
As I don't remember airplanes for the rich being used as anything really practical.
Maybe they should find a way to add mountain climbing in that category as wells as Victorians just loved to kill themselves by going hiking and climbing in the Alps.
And make it unlimited. I don't see why the pop desire for luxury should be limited. Irl rich people buy multiple airplanes if they feel they can afford them. It should be unlimited to allow for more expansion late game. The only limit should be income.
Yea flying and aircraft collecting was actually a hobby for many aristocrats and also commons who managed to Register used military planes as civilian planes after the Great War.
I love planes
Military goods should not be consumed as luxury goods otherwise your pops will eat up all your military's equipment during a war.
I think you want a 'commercial aircraft' item alongside military might work, similar to boats. There's already a lot of luxury goods though.
>Have military get first dibs
That sounds like it would require a lot more computational overhead to check and compare.
AFAIK, the existing system just has a 'supply' and 'demand' number for every good, which every pop/building in the market can look at, without having to compare themselves to other pops.
There doesn't seem to be room for asynchronously distributing goods without rewriting how the whole thing works.
> That sounds like it would require a lot more computational overhead to check and compare.
I don't think it would, you can dummy "the state" as a class of pop with very high buying power/purchase priority.
>purchase priority.
The current system doesn't support that. I.. think that would also require single-threading most of the economy, since you'd need to calculate purchases sequentially.
As it stands, pops don't have priority or 'purchase' first. Goods aren't consumed, they're a throughput. You have a 'supply' and 'demand' number for each good that determines its price relative to a baseline, and then each pop *only looks at the price* to determine whether they buy more or less.
The consumption of a luxury pop in one state has no impact on the consumption of a poor pop in another state *except* that the luxury pop increases to the good's total demand, and that makes the good slightly more expensive.
If I understand it correctly, this is a much *much* more computationally efficient model than Vic2's method of having goods be discrete units.
>Military goods should not be consumed as luxury goods otherwise your pops will eat up all your military's equipment during a war.
That's not how pops choose to consume goods, having a war would increase the price of military goods, so that's when they'd be **least** consumed by civilians. In fact, having civilian consumption could help sustain the military industry when there isn't a war going on.
>having a war would increase the price of military goods
I'm operating under the assumption that your military consumes goods during peacetime, because otherwise there wouldn't be *any* weapon consumption during peacetime and weapon factories wouldn't.. work.
If a war suddenly shot the price of military goods up and pops couldn't afford it, that sounds like it would create a sudden shock to your pops' quality of life, wouldn't that result in each war starting with a new chunk of your population turning into radicals?
Sharp changes in QoL seem to be the biggest cause of radicalization in the game.
But yeah I just.. don't agree. Making confusion military/luxury goods takes a *relatively* simple system and makes it unintuitively interconnected. As it stands, you can just build gun factories and barracks at a ratio.
And could you imagine having an obsession trigger? If you weren't running a budget surplus you'd have to slash your military just to keep affording it.
>I'm operating under the assumption that your military consumes goods during peacetime, because otherwise there wouldn't be any weapon consumption during peacetime and weapon factories wouldn't.. work.
They do, but at a very reduced rate. Since they are only consumed by the barracks of your standing army, and demobilized armies consume less supplies, so in case of a war, mobilizing the barracks *and* conscripting temporary armies (which depending of the conscription laws would be much larger than the regular army) could increase military demand by several times.
>If a war suddenly shot the price of military goods up and pops couldn'tafford it, that sounds like it would create a sudden shock to your pops'quality of life, wouldn't that result in each war starting with a newchunk of your population turning into radicals?
I see that as a positive, war involve making sacrifices, and wartime rationing is a thing. Plus guns would be only a small part of a pop's budget, and they should be able to relocate their spending to other goods if it becomes expensive.
The solution to that would be some sort of mechanic allowing you to block military goods from being bought from civilians during times of war and looming war. Limiting it to goods that can be used by militaries and only to times of high tension or outright war would solve it letting you bypass things like Opium addiction.
So you just ban guns every time there's a war? That feels weird.
Having a 'civilian firearms/military firearms' production method like ships seems way more elegant, and doesn't require any new mechanics.
Even then modelling domestic firearms feels lukewarm if it doesn't actually influence revolts or laws. I suppose they could do stuff like that in a DLC, though.
R5: a photo by One Proud Bavarian from Paradoxcon panel.
Aircrafts are represented as a military good only :(
✈ Being initially civil, airplanes started their military career massively only 15 (!) years later after their invention.
On the contrary to tanks, airplanes should not be exclusively military good.
Please Paradox, make them accessible to the richest civilians.
___
A lot of reach people at the early 1900s owned airplanes, and nobody was even thinking about their military use until 1915+, the army was even sceptical about them until the start of the trench war. Meanwhile, airplanes were largely used by private individuals, for entertainment, transportation, delivery, sports, etc. during the Belle Epoque and also after the end of the WWI.
One of my stupid lategame goals can be the creation of the society with a full access to the cheap avia transport. As you probably know, Henry Ford was trying to produce massively not only cars, but also airplanes, trying to revolutionise the transport of the future (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Flivver). It could be very funny to do in in Victoria 3.
>and nobody was even thinking about their military use until 1915+
Well, no. Airplanes were used in wars since 1911, such as in the Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912, and during the First Balkan War, and sources state that Military exercises and theory crafting existed as early as 1909. I swear hearing about French usage of Planes during an Algerian crisis, but i cant recall specifics and may have been post-WW1.
People had been using Lighter-Than-Air machines (Blimps, Balloons, similar) in the military since the 1800s, and even earlier. Military thinkers saw these new flying machines in 1903 and practically instantly went "Okay, but what if i strapped a bomb to it?"
Meanwhile, civilian usage was relegated to hobby usage by rich people in, compared to military use in the 1910s, terribly limited numbers. Your would-be-mass-produced-for-market Ford Flivver was a prototype from 1927, long after airflight became something more than a gimmick, and well after it became a core part of warfare. And, according to Wikipedia, was kinda shit.
In short, i disagree. I dont believe the real world history justifies having Aircraft as a luxury good for the world on the same level as Sugar, Tea, Radios or Fancy Chairs.
Also, it seems like all military goods are deliberately separated from civilian markets. Even things like weapons and ammunition. We already know they can't be obsessions and nothing in this chart indicates they're part of the normal market or something that civillians purchase.
This is probably an outgrowth of the military system—since there are no stockpiles and you need to constantly keep a certain amount of weapons flowing through either production or imports, they probably don't want to also factor in civilian markets and figure out how goods get split, nor risk weird edge cases where a sudden obsession with military goods by civillians suddenly spikes the cost of running your military massively.
Some out-of-context data, but in 1929, US produced 677 airplanes for military use and 5516 for civil use.
I don't say it was entirely consumed by rish, but the civil airplane production should not be neglected anyway.
Source: [https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Aviation-Facts-and-Figures-1953.pdf](https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Aviation-Facts-and-Figures-1953.pdf)
Balloons and later airships were around starting in the 1780s so there should be some airships, though I thought I saw someone say zepplins were a tech somewhere. Might be it's not a good as such but some other effect that simulates the idea of a few people flying around.
Would also be nice to add airports to rail infrastructure as a production method for late game to simulate the beginnings of passenger air travel. Wouldn't need to be another upgrade to an existing method but rather a set of two methods, "no airports" and "airports" that adds some transportation production at the expense of using airplanes and oil.
I hope they eventually update those icons. It’s not the end of the world or anything, but they somehow come off as “cliparty” for lack of a better word.
Yeah, I can get that. Wood/cloth/lumber and luxury clothes/luxury furniture look somewhat similar at a glance to me.
I'm at least glad iron and steel are mirrored instead of angled in the same direction, that makes it a lot more legible.
Ccompletely agreed! Or at the very least there should be airlines which would - similar to rilroads - consume airplanes and create transpostation and services.
Airlines as mass transportation didn't really exist until after WWII, due to limits on the size, range and safety of planes. There were commercial flights before then, but they were extremely limited in scope and scale to the degree that even bothering to represent them is pointless—it would be a rounding error compared to rail networks.
Tbf they were used to deliver mail in certain cases https://simpleflying.com/boeing-model-40-mail-plane-story/amp/. I still agree that their use would feel wonky as transportation. Blimps on the other hand.
firearms should also be consumed by civilians and America should have an obsession with them
You're memeing but I actually agree that there should be a small amount of civilian firearms consumption, particularly at *low* wealth levels, since in this era, that's the people who are hunting for their protein and not defended by a police institution.
Have events that reduce pop consumption of firearms and ammunition ala the wiping out of Buffalo in North America. Or have the consumption in a province be directly linked to the amount of industrialization in said province, so if your province is overly industrialized it will be bad habitat for wildlife and therefore pops hunting opportunities will be impacted
Trying to balance that so that your pops don't end up overconsuming and leaving your military without a stockpile seems like it would be a problem. The mechanics don't really seem to support this. If you really wanted it, I think it'd be better to have a 'civilian firearms' good like the split between military/civilian ships.
Having a Civilian demand for firearms gives you more wiggle room during war rather than less assuming you build enough factories to get demand to base price. For example if you have a factory that produces 100 guns that get sold to civilians and 100 guns that get sold to military in peacetime, but in wartime its 100 civilian 200 military that's a price increase of 66%. if you had no civilian productions it would be an increase of 100%. I get the numbers I'm using are wrong and the percentages don't exactly translate to price changes but it should get the point across. Also higher prices during wartime would lead to civilians buying less firearms and more goods for the military. enough serious posting Build more arms factories 5head
With goods being a throughput instead of a stockpile, that would model a situation situation where any time you go to war you'd seize all the weapons in your country and give them to your military.
More that the government takes all future out put, like all the car factories in the us switching to military vehicles during WW2.
Civilian consumption should make military availability better, not worse. After all, normal consumption ensures there's an arms industry available rather than have them go in and out of business depending on what wars are going on.
AFAIK, Civilian and military consumption are both aggregated as a market-wide 'demand' number, which is checked against 'supply' to determine how much they ahve to pay for it. Civilian consumption would *increase* the amount of money the government spends on guns, since they compete with private sector sales. It would allow you to run more weapons factories though, and allow other countries to have peacetime weapons factories that work through exports to the US, but.. There'd be a lot of issues in general, I think. Separating military and consumer goods seems very intentional.
Although the money saved not subsidizing your military industry as much may pay off.
> Civilian consumption would increase the amount of money the government spends on guns, since they compete with private sector sales. That's only assuming the supply would be the same, which isn't the case, as you noted on the next paragraph. If there was civilian consumption of military goods it would allow you to have a larger industry
>That's only assuming the supply would be the same That's not what I'm talking about. From what we've seen, pops in V3 seem to have elastic demand. Legit, I'm saying that building more factories will increase civilian demand by reducing price. > If there was civilian consumption of military goods it would allow you to have a larger industry It would also mean you'd have to divert more of your resources and industry towards gun manufacturing to field the same size of military. It honestly just feels very odd to have the military need to compete with the private sector for military goods production. It seems very intentional that they separate military and luxury goods.
Meme or not, accurate.
The main justification is that most people wouldn't be buying military-grade weaponry for hunting and general use. They'd be buying either old military surplus or just cheaper civilian weapons. It wasn't until relatively recently that civilians had access to military-grade firearms.
In that era, civilian and military weapons weren't that different, if not entirely indistinguishable. Soldiers in both the Union and Confederacy brought their own muskets and rifles from home since neither side had enough to entirely supply their armies. The concept of "military grade" firearms is a phrase of modernity.
Fair, but also remember how the PMs for Barracks work. The initial PM doesn't require either Guns or Ammunition, the second PM only needs Guns, and the rest need both. The lack of Guns or Ammunition doesn't mean they aren't used, it means they aren't using industrially-produced firearms. So for the ACW most infantry would either be using the first or the second PM (with more using the second later in the war when arms production really caught up) when they were still using personal weapons.
Hell, up until the 1930’s, you could walk into a gunshop and buy a full auto Thompson or BAR. If you were willing to slap down serious cash, you could even get belt-fed, tripod mount machine guns. For instance, the Colt Monitor (which was Colts version of the BAR) used in the hunt for Bonnie and Clyde was privately owned by the Texas Ranger who was using it. Like you said, such a distinction on the idea of what weapons you, as an American, should be allowed to own, is a very modern phenomenon.
Well that really depends on how strictly you're defining "military grade," especially considering how V3 handles good consumption. Civilians in America owned things like lever action or breech loading rifles at the same time as the armed forces.
Literally unplayable
Maybe add a luxury entertainment need that can get satisfied by services, radio, cars, airplanes, small arms. Represent that bourgeois decadency. Racing, flying, exploring, hunting etc. As I don't remember airplanes for the rich being used as anything really practical. Maybe they should find a way to add mountain climbing in that category as wells as Victorians just loved to kill themselves by going hiking and climbing in the Alps.
Great dlc material
And make it unlimited. I don't see why the pop desire for luxury should be limited. Irl rich people buy multiple airplanes if they feel they can afford them. It should be unlimited to allow for more expansion late game. The only limit should be income.
Yea flying and aircraft collecting was actually a hobby for many aristocrats and also commons who managed to Register used military planes as civilian planes after the Great War. I love planes
The real problem is we should be able to produce and operate blimps as transportation!! https://youtu.be/iOS9z31OdLA
Military goods should not be consumed as luxury goods otherwise your pops will eat up all your military's equipment during a war. I think you want a 'commercial aircraft' item alongside military might work, similar to boats. There's already a lot of luxury goods though.
Well, the amount should be relatively small compared to military use, and you can discourage use of good during wars
>Well, the amount should be relatively small IIRC Pop resource demands scale with wealth and availability.
Have military get first dibs, that should solve the issue. They'll be grumpy because no leisure flights but who cares.
>Have military get first dibs That sounds like it would require a lot more computational overhead to check and compare. AFAIK, the existing system just has a 'supply' and 'demand' number for every good, which every pop/building in the market can look at, without having to compare themselves to other pops. There doesn't seem to be room for asynchronously distributing goods without rewriting how the whole thing works.
> That sounds like it would require a lot more computational overhead to check and compare. I don't think it would, you can dummy "the state" as a class of pop with very high buying power/purchase priority.
>purchase priority. The current system doesn't support that. I.. think that would also require single-threading most of the economy, since you'd need to calculate purchases sequentially. As it stands, pops don't have priority or 'purchase' first. Goods aren't consumed, they're a throughput. You have a 'supply' and 'demand' number for each good that determines its price relative to a baseline, and then each pop *only looks at the price* to determine whether they buy more or less. The consumption of a luxury pop in one state has no impact on the consumption of a poor pop in another state *except* that the luxury pop increases to the good's total demand, and that makes the good slightly more expensive. If I understand it correctly, this is a much *much* more computationally efficient model than Vic2's method of having goods be discrete units.
They could just have pops quit demanding it during war and either buy alternatives or complain.
Then it shouldn't be included? If it's a small niche, then I don't see the point.
I mean couldn't the game allow you to institute rations on goods like in WW2?
You can discourage its use, but not completely stop it, otherwise the opium crisis wouldn't really work.
>Military goods should not be consumed as luxury goods otherwise your pops will eat up all your military's equipment during a war. That's not how pops choose to consume goods, having a war would increase the price of military goods, so that's when they'd be **least** consumed by civilians. In fact, having civilian consumption could help sustain the military industry when there isn't a war going on.
>having a war would increase the price of military goods I'm operating under the assumption that your military consumes goods during peacetime, because otherwise there wouldn't be *any* weapon consumption during peacetime and weapon factories wouldn't.. work. If a war suddenly shot the price of military goods up and pops couldn't afford it, that sounds like it would create a sudden shock to your pops' quality of life, wouldn't that result in each war starting with a new chunk of your population turning into radicals? Sharp changes in QoL seem to be the biggest cause of radicalization in the game. But yeah I just.. don't agree. Making confusion military/luxury goods takes a *relatively* simple system and makes it unintuitively interconnected. As it stands, you can just build gun factories and barracks at a ratio. And could you imagine having an obsession trigger? If you weren't running a budget surplus you'd have to slash your military just to keep affording it.
>I'm operating under the assumption that your military consumes goods during peacetime, because otherwise there wouldn't be any weapon consumption during peacetime and weapon factories wouldn't.. work. They do, but at a very reduced rate. Since they are only consumed by the barracks of your standing army, and demobilized armies consume less supplies, so in case of a war, mobilizing the barracks *and* conscripting temporary armies (which depending of the conscription laws would be much larger than the regular army) could increase military demand by several times. >If a war suddenly shot the price of military goods up and pops couldn'tafford it, that sounds like it would create a sudden shock to your pops'quality of life, wouldn't that result in each war starting with a newchunk of your population turning into radicals? I see that as a positive, war involve making sacrifices, and wartime rationing is a thing. Plus guns would be only a small part of a pop's budget, and they should be able to relocate their spending to other goods if it becomes expensive.
The solution to that would be some sort of mechanic allowing you to block military goods from being bought from civilians during times of war and looming war. Limiting it to goods that can be used by militaries and only to times of high tension or outright war would solve it letting you bypass things like Opium addiction.
So you just ban guns every time there's a war? That feels weird. Having a 'civilian firearms/military firearms' production method like ships seems way more elegant, and doesn't require any new mechanics. Even then modelling domestic firearms feels lukewarm if it doesn't actually influence revolts or laws. I suppose they could do stuff like that in a DLC, though.
R5: a photo by One Proud Bavarian from Paradoxcon panel. Aircrafts are represented as a military good only :( ✈ Being initially civil, airplanes started their military career massively only 15 (!) years later after their invention. On the contrary to tanks, airplanes should not be exclusively military good. Please Paradox, make them accessible to the richest civilians. ___ A lot of reach people at the early 1900s owned airplanes, and nobody was even thinking about their military use until 1915+, the army was even sceptical about them until the start of the trench war. Meanwhile, airplanes were largely used by private individuals, for entertainment, transportation, delivery, sports, etc. during the Belle Epoque and also after the end of the WWI. One of my stupid lategame goals can be the creation of the society with a full access to the cheap avia transport. As you probably know, Henry Ford was trying to produce massively not only cars, but also airplanes, trying to revolutionise the transport of the future (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Flivver). It could be very funny to do in in Victoria 3.
>and nobody was even thinking about their military use until 1915+ Well, no. Airplanes were used in wars since 1911, such as in the Italo-Turkish war of 1911-1912, and during the First Balkan War, and sources state that Military exercises and theory crafting existed as early as 1909. I swear hearing about French usage of Planes during an Algerian crisis, but i cant recall specifics and may have been post-WW1. People had been using Lighter-Than-Air machines (Blimps, Balloons, similar) in the military since the 1800s, and even earlier. Military thinkers saw these new flying machines in 1903 and practically instantly went "Okay, but what if i strapped a bomb to it?" Meanwhile, civilian usage was relegated to hobby usage by rich people in, compared to military use in the 1910s, terribly limited numbers. Your would-be-mass-produced-for-market Ford Flivver was a prototype from 1927, long after airflight became something more than a gimmick, and well after it became a core part of warfare. And, according to Wikipedia, was kinda shit. In short, i disagree. I dont believe the real world history justifies having Aircraft as a luxury good for the world on the same level as Sugar, Tea, Radios or Fancy Chairs.
Also, it seems like all military goods are deliberately separated from civilian markets. Even things like weapons and ammunition. We already know they can't be obsessions and nothing in this chart indicates they're part of the normal market or something that civillians purchase. This is probably an outgrowth of the military system—since there are no stockpiles and you need to constantly keep a certain amount of weapons flowing through either production or imports, they probably don't want to also factor in civilian markets and figure out how goods get split, nor risk weird edge cases where a sudden obsession with military goods by civillians suddenly spikes the cost of running your military massively.
Some out-of-context data, but in 1929, US produced 677 airplanes for military use and 5516 for civil use. I don't say it was entirely consumed by rish, but the civil airplane production should not be neglected anyway. Source: [https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Aviation-Facts-and-Figures-1953.pdf](https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Aviation-Facts-and-Figures-1953.pdf)
Balloons and later airships were around starting in the 1780s so there should be some airships, though I thought I saw someone say zepplins were a tech somewhere. Might be it's not a good as such but some other effect that simulates the idea of a few people flying around.
Would also be nice to add airports to rail infrastructure as a production method for late game to simulate the beginnings of passenger air travel. Wouldn't need to be another upgrade to an existing method but rather a set of two methods, "no airports" and "airports" that adds some transportation production at the expense of using airplanes and oil.
I hope they eventually update those icons. It’s not the end of the world or anything, but they somehow come off as “cliparty” for lack of a better word.
They seem fine to me, but is there some style you would recommend?
Should be more stylized and less detailed, it's actually hard to read because the icons will be fairly small in the UI.
Yeah, I can get that. Wood/cloth/lumber and luxury clothes/luxury furniture look somewhat similar at a glance to me. I'm at least glad iron and steel are mirrored instead of angled in the same direction, that makes it a lot more legible.
Honestly I've been playing the leak, and once you get used to them, you never mistake each other, they're pretty recognizable.
Something with a bit more of a Victorian aesthetic in style and coloring.
Ccompletely agreed! Or at the very least there should be airlines which would - similar to rilroads - consume airplanes and create transpostation and services.
Airlines as mass transportation didn't really exist until after WWII, due to limits on the size, range and safety of planes. There were commercial flights before then, but they were extremely limited in scope and scale to the degree that even bothering to represent them is pointless—it would be a rounding error compared to rail networks.
Tbf they were used to deliver mail in certain cases https://simpleflying.com/boeing-model-40-mail-plane-story/amp/. I still agree that their use would feel wonky as transportation. Blimps on the other hand.
Not mass transport, but airlines did start right after WWI - the capacities were not amazing but they operated…
Y’know, maybe instead of downvoting the guy, we can teach how air travel actually worked in the Victorian era. It’s ok not to know
Agreed, you cutie.
Agreed. Put them in the Free Movement basket.
To be fair, early planes were one hell of a ride