A few beginner's questions

[Amphisbaena]

I have been playing Victoria 2 for some time, but I am increasingly dissatisfied with some of the game's mechanisms. Pride of Nations seems like a great alternative, in terms of its level of detail and historical flair. I have played through the tutorial, watched a few videos on YouTube, and read a long strategy guide I found online. I would like to try out the 1880 grand campaign first, to learn the game. Before I embark on 900+ turn-campaign, a few beginner's questions:

1. What nation would be a good choice for a realy beginner? I am thinking about starting with the USA.

2. How does the economic game compare to Victoria 2? Does the economy 'work' across the campaign, or does is it inherently unstable - thinking about Victoria 2's late-game economic crises here.

3. How does the colonial game compare? A lot of what I have read online suggests that colonial expansion should best be handled slowly, and that a large colonial empire is not necessary to do well in the game.

[Durk]

I too came to Pride of Nations from Victoria 2 but also loved Pax Britannica: The Colonial Era 1880 to the Great War. It is such a great board game. I still play it and prefer it as its production is much simplified. But Pride of Nations in my view is the master of all games of this era. It is complicated, but so deep in its design and playability.
Games with this focus are really nice to explore. It is a very good game and has a better pace than Victoria 2.
The 1880 game is a great place to start as the 1850 start is much more complicated.
Starting with a nation/faction you enjoy is a good place to start. If you really wish to explore the colonization feature, then Britain and France are best, definitely France for a beginner. Or if you are really uncertain, Belgium is a good colonial nation for just learning the colonial play.
The USA is a good choice for a new player, but your colonial war in the 1880 start is mostly a war with Spain, still a good nation to play. Russia, similarly to the USA is mostly concerned with internal development, especially when using the 1850 start.
2. The economic game will feel like it has some similarities, but in reality, it is hard to compare. Pride of Nations is actually modeled upon economic theory so it is much more realistic. Also, your role a economic manager will require you to pay attention to individual production sites. It does take planning.
3. The colonial game is predicated upon historical colonialization. So if you follow history, mostly, you will find the colonial game plays very well. This does not mean you cannot do colonial actions contrary to history, but those in keeping with history play better. The size of your colonial empire ought to match your faction's history. So if you play as Britain, you need to develop a large empire, but as Austria or Germany, you have other goals. So that advice that colonial size is not too important is correct, but all is grounding in how your nation earns prestige.

This is an interesting game to play versus AI, but when playing solo, I usually play all major factions or at least five of them. PBEM play is fun, but as most players want to play a war game and not a colonial game, it often runs off the rails into incessant war unless players agree to keep the game mostly historical.

[Amphisbaena]

This makes things a lot clearer. Thank you. I am playing Pride of Nations concurrently with To End All Wars. I expect that the former will take a lot more time to fully understand, and I look forward to the experience.

[loki100]

you might find this helpful:

viewtopic.php?f=326&t=28767

starting nations, I'd mildy disagree with Durk, France is tricky from the 1860s as the instabilty of that decade is fairly hard wired into the game design. That can be frustrating and its not easy handling endemic unrest. After 1870, its a good choice.

If you want to carve out your own future but equally start small, Prussia is an excellent choice. You can do things early on as you have industrial and military power and then post-1880 you get full access to the colonial options. Austria is interesting - a bit more challenging but you can stabilise things. if you do this, I'd personally add all the post-1880 colonial options that Germany gets - on the assumption that a dominant Austria would have tried to reach outside Europe?

For Industry, best advice is: (a) work out the shortage good and manage that carefully - this will be coal after 1880 but maybe faction specific early on (b) trade rather than produce and (c) don't do autotarky/mercantalism. You gain if your rivals are economically strong enough to buy your production and sell to you (or in other words the state you warred with last year is now your trading partner again)

Colonies, yes its a slow frustrating business. Things to watch out for are how to build colonial penetration and the impact of detection levels. Some formations are hard to find, so what can happen in an extreme is not just that you can't bring them to battle but you can't even see they are there. So you can't get CP/MC in a region and its not obvious why.

Building an army for colonial work takes some care. Those weak brigades are suddenly world beaters while a corps of your best Guards shed so much cohesion when they move that they ae useless in battle. Go carefully over your force pool for units with high detection value (some leaders will improve on this) and/or have a small supply footprint. Expect a lot of frustration.