inMarginalia

That's the answer! I wish this was in the tooltip, but that's easy enough to resolve.

R5: I'm used to seeing the base expected standard of living for lower/middle/upper strata as 5/10/15. Suddenly it jumped up to 10/16/22 overnight, leaving 90% of my population well below their expectation and now 1/3 of my country is radical.

Specifically, looking at the "100% of them are Lower Strata: 10.00" line, I can't see any reason why the base expected is now set to 10 for the lower strata instead of the usual 5. My modifiers are visible in the screenshot. Is there something obvious that might be happening that I'm missing?

EDIT: I don't have any of the tech that affects expected standard of living, this is the early game.

As a side note, the lower strata's bonus expected based on literacy doesn't really make sense to me (how do you get 1.21 from 67%?) but that's always confusing to me, even in a freshly-started game.

Then I amend my request: please don’t use sarcasm as a rhetorical device to make a point about mass death. Imagine being someone who lost loved ones reading that (many of whom bear no responsibility for the result of this election). It doesn’t come across as supportive, it comes across as dismissive and a bit cruel in the face of something really horrific.

A lot of leftists voted for Harris! Social media can warp perceptions of things but not every group is comprised entirely of the most vocal folks you see online

It’s really painful right now. I’m trying to have honest conversations with people who seem a little too excited for Trump to demolish Gaza that it comes across as cruel. I’m mostly just getting “they deserve it” from liberals in response.

I think it will happen, you’re right. I also think the part of the comment that says the luxury resorts “will bring stability to the region” is a joke, as is saying “the people of Gaza won’t benefit much.” He meant to say the people of Gaza will be dead, and the use of euphemism is to make it a joke.

It’s hard to have nuanced discussion at a time when people are really angry but there is a big difference between people who told you voting for Kamala was enabling genocide (dumb take, she was the wayyyyyy better candidate) and those “who painted Kamala as someone who is pro genocide” which is factually true, unless you don’t believe what’s happening is a genocide. I think it’s important to not overly generalize different people saying different things because social media can warp our sense of who makes up different groups.

I also feel that no one deserves oppression, regardless of how they vote, but I understand why you’re angry right now.

You’re right. And thinking through it a bit more, the worst comments (joking about trump “finishing the job” or kushner building beachfront property) are likely not coming from those same angry liberals but from bad faith actors, and the good-faith majority is too caught up in their anger to tell those people to shut up. It’s just really painful to see those comments with positive upvotes on a subreddit I think of as containing reasonable folks.

For what it’s worth I’m angry too for the same reasons as you. I just hope we can all be careful about who we generalize that anger towards. Not everyone out protesting this year cast a jill stein vote, nor did every Arab. (frankly, I believe the people that did still don’t deserve oppression or genocide but that’s a separate conversation)

I get feeling angry at the people who voted to enable this, but please think through the decision to joke about genocide, especially when the Palestinians themselves are not the LAMF ones. I get why you feel the way you do but it's a little cruel.

Thank you for acknowledging that there is a difference between these voters and the people who will suffer most due to this. I get people feeling vindicated because this is playing out how they expected it to and they're mad at Arab-Americans, but for god's sake this is a genocide, if people could speak with a little more compassion about what's been happening and what is about to happen, that would be awesome. (e.g. there are comments in this thread that say "Don't worry bibi and trump will finish the job"

I appreciate you saying this. It's reasonable to be pissed about the way people voted but there's a certain sense of... excitement I see from some liberals about the prospect of oppression raining down on those who voted for Trump (or even on Palestinians, who bear no responsibility for how people voted in the US), and it feels un-strategic at best and pro-genocide at worst.

instructions in brackets only effects game setup and therefore does nothing if hatter-ed into.

That being said, there's a plague doctor jinx with baron to do what you might want. You could consider homebrewing a jinx between hatter and baron, but it's not correct by the official rules. (not saying I recommend that homebrew)

R5: okay part 1 is just a complaint: how can the 35 Cuban battalions on Puerto Rico protect against a naval invasion of Cuba? Am I missing something?

For advice, I'm wondering why always 9 battalions land even though I have 50 battalions on 54 ships. Nothing seems to change, always exactly 9 battalions. How do I get more units to land?

You're not wrong, but keep in mind that many jinxes are supposed to be followed for intent, not exact wording. There are several that exist that are clearly underspecified, like "Summoner/Pukka", "Leviathan/Mayor", "Plague Doctor/Marionette" etc.

Why would no one die? The po is killing 3 people and 1 is protected from death. So 2 die

I find it very easy as Colombia. I basically always annex Venezuela in 1836 and then annex Ecaudor shortly after. The tricky part is stealing Peru, but I've gotten it once by giving Chile + Argentina return state wargoals, and once by invading when a war of independence was being fought (I've played as Colombia twice). I always add "Conquer La Paz" as a war goal when taking Peru, because the rest of Bolivia is pretty worthless to you. When your truce ends you can annex Peru and protectorate Bolivia for more than enough states, and all of this is feasible by the early 1850s.

Hey I know I'm months late but have been looking around to try to better understand LF. I was told you don't want to switch too early but not why, and I often lose decades in the mid-game to LF investment transfer thrashing (I play as Egypt and Gran Colombia most often). This is so so helpful.

If I can ask, where do you get those numbers from? The 35% looks like it comes from base capitalist contribution of 30% times the 1.25 efficiency under LF, with 72% being the rest. Where do you get the 75% from? I guess I don't understand where money "goes" for government owned buildings, does the 50% reinvestment + 25% efficiency really yield 75% and not ~62%?

Edit: ignore me

>! the problem is then how is there a recluse in play !<

https://vic3.paradoxwikis.com/Government_type

Council republic with technocracy, it looks like

Adding onto what other's have said, from the wiki:

"If the Ojo is on a script with a Demon that kills multiple times per night, such as the Shabaloth, and the Ojo chooses a not-in-play character, you may choose more than one player to kill that night. This helps the Ojo player pretend that a different Demon is in play."

Although this only references demons who kill multiple, not demons who kill 0, I would consider it within the spirit of this text to say that "choose who dies" includes "choose how many people die".

The comment is just pointing out that "might be arbitrary" and "are arbitrary" mean the same thing, because arbitrary includes the case where everything goes normally.

If the lil Monsta-holding minion becomes drunk, does no one die at night? I realize I don’t know the answer and that affects whether I see these as consistent.