|
As ahistorical as randomized new world geography would be, I would love it so hard just for the mystery of not knowing what's over there... what it looks like, what the political map looks like, hell have randomized tech groups and you might land in the New World just to find soldiers better armed than you are! It would be fantastic  .
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Phlegmish posted:That's...actually a surprisingly cool-looking world for a mod that you'd expect to be completely broken. Yeah, it's improved lately. Particularly the province shapes. Some are still wonky, but it's a lot better. catlord posted:Holy crap, that looks awesome! Edit: They changed how maps work for CK2, right? You couldn't port this thing over? The source code is open, so if you know how to program... DrProsek posted:As ahistorical as randomized new world geography would be, I would love it so hard just for the mystery of not knowing what's over there... what it looks like, what the political map looks like, hell have randomized tech groups and you might land in the New World just to find soldiers better armed than you are! It would be fantastic Seriously, right? I MEAN, HOW loving COOL IS THIS poo poo? THAT'S NORTH loving AMERICA:  I loved this stuff in old games (like Merchant Prince). Do this Paradox. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty stunned that the mod seems to give good results, I've seen it floating around and assumed it would be one of those deals that was awesome in theory but just didn't work because Paradox modding. I just loving wish someone would update the Vicky 2 randomizer mod, I had a stupid amount of fun with it before AHD but it never got updated for it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
I seem to recall a mod that randomized trade goods in the Americas on the premise that the player has a massive advantage of knowing where the gold etc. are in advance. It's a good idea: people can mock the English for thinking that there was gold in Virginia but they had no way of knowing in advance. Who knows, the gold might be in Virginia this time around!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
catlord posted:Holy crap, that looks awesome! Edit: They changed how maps work for CK2, right? You couldn't port this thing over? *edit* I still say that it'd be fairly straightforward to randomize provinces in CK2 while keeping the terrain map static. By the time TOG lands, I should be way better at Python and file IO. I'll see if I could do it then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 06:22
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:I seem to recall a mod that randomized trade goods in the Americas on the premise that the player has a massive advantage of knowing where the gold etc. are in advance. It's a good idea: people can mock the English for thinking that there was gold in Virginia but they had no way of knowing in advance. Who knows, the gold might be in Virginia this time around! This may have been a mod, but it is also in the latest patch. When colonizing new territory it is randomized from a set of possible trade goods. Once when playing as Russia I had like 6 Gold mines out in Siberia, another I had none.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
So, my read of peoples' opinions of MOTE so far seems to be that the game has a lot of cool concepts and is pretty fun but also has a lot of mild bugs and just-plain-silly design oversights (in other words, a typical release-day Paradox game). Is this about right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:So, my read of peoples' opinions of MOTE so far seems to be that the game has a lot of cool concepts and is pretty fun but also has a lot of mild bugs and just-plain-silly design oversights (in other words, a typical release-day Paradox game). Is this about right? That's what it seems like - that and a fear that the game might get too repetitive with 8 powers, a handful of years, and a set way to win. But if so, it's not a bad deal for $20.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
I could go for a map that instead of having America, goes straight for Asia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:So, my read of peoples' opinions of MOTE so far seems to be that the game has a lot of cool concepts and is pretty fun but also has a lot of mild bugs and just-plain-silly design oversights (in other words, a typical release-day Paradox game). Is this about right? Has the term typical release-day paradox game changed that much? It was not that long ago where one of their games on release was a miserable pile of bugs that hardly ever ran.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
Totally mean that in a good way. Its fun, worth the $20. Just do not go in expecting EU/CK/HOI replayability or polish.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
I like it ! Certainly worth 20bux!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Are some goons setting a short MP campaign for MoE ? I don't have much time to play during the week, but on weekend I'd be interested, even if I'm not very good at the moment. I don't think the game is going to be very interesting in single player but in MP could be fun, especially since there's no dull years sending merchants anywhere you can like in EU.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Wow, it's like long island took its vitamins. I believe you've mentioned the random new world as DLC before and I feel like echoing it. Would be great for replay ability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
PhantomZero posted:This may have been a mod, but it is also in the latest patch. When colonizing new territory it is randomized from a set of possible trade goods. Once when playing as Russia I had like 6 Gold mines out in Siberia, another I had none. That isn't what they're talking about. In vanilla each "region" has a certain chance to end up with a certain kind of good when colonised, so for instance the mesoamerican provinces have a chance to end up with cocoa, sugar, etc., but not, say, naval supplies or wine. In your case you didn't get Gold but it was among a few select possible tradegoods you could get. What Patter Song said was tradegoods being completely randomised; no specific pools that each region draws its goods from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:Yes, that is exactly what my several posts on the subject have been about - demanding people stop playing MOTE. Glad you cracked the code; some people might have mistaken them as a series of posts letting those without the game and who don't go to IRC/Skype in on what people were feeling about it. Also a good thing you didn't include the edit in that very post, else it might not appear like a black and white condemnation of the game! I quoted exactly what you said duder, you have not edited that post. I know it's hard to keep track of what you're writing when you're so keen on making a snarky reply, so I have made this handy image to help you out:  Anyway, I found it funny that there was a string of positive posts and then just "Wait no, IRC has declared it to be poo poo. As predicted" (paraphrased), both because of the "as predicted" part, and because it seemed like you were proclaiming judgement passed. Finally, I am not sure how the "poo poo" rating could not be taken as a recommendation not to play the game, I don't know, perhaps your "code" defeated me after all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
To be fair, the thread/IRC has a standard Paradox release cycle which starts with everyone being excited and enthusiastic because it's a new game with new features, and then there will come a point where someone will notice that something is broken (in HOI it was supply/weather, in Vicky2 I think it was pricing) and the mere knowledge that that thing is broken is enough to ruin the fun because you can't unsee how it moves the game away from what it 'should' be. Then there's a steady process of rationalising and working out whether or not the broken thing is fixable/unfixable ruins the game/is actually not a big deal. So while I don't recall CK2 having this moment, there's still an expectation that at any point someone could go "wait a minute-"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:To be fair, the thread/IRC has a standard Paradox release cycle which starts with everyone being excited and enthusiastic because it's a new game with new features, and then there will come a point where someone will notice that something is broken (in HOI it was supply/weather, in Vicky2 I think it was pricing) and the mere knowledge that that thing is broken is enough to ruin the fun because you can't unsee how it moves the game away from what it 'should' be. Then there's a steady process of rationalising and working out whether or not the broken thing is fixable/unfixable ruins the game/is actually not a big deal. Sometimes people scream broken when something isn't really broken. Gorgo was being silly by just posting the instant mood swings of IRC without any context or explanation. The particular post in question stemmed from people complaining while not fully understanding the territory control system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 12:04
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Anyway, I found it funny that there was a string of positive posts and then just "Wait no, IRC has declared it to be poo poo. As predicted" (paraphrased), both because of the "as predicted" part, and because it seemed like you were proclaiming judgement passed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
I think the game is worth the 20$, it's not as deep as other PI games but it's generally fun to play. The timelimit means you'll actually finish games too. There are a couple of things that annoyed me yesterday, the "evade" mechanic in particular can make for some terribly tedious gameplay. Army Pingpong is also in the game, but due to the evade mechanics it's actually harder to kill a full stack. Attrition seems way over the top (unless I don't get how supply works), as England I sieged Antwerp - I controlled the sea lanes from England to Holland - I could only supply 13k troops, given France's 80k stack that made for weird gameplay. Hopefully they patch in the retreat mechanic from EU4. And something I learned the hard way, if you got a Fort lvl0 province (they get insta occupied by enemies passing trough) with something under construction the construction gets cancelled if it's occupied..... Game has its flaws but it's fun enough to buy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
There's not much to build in a non-city province anyway. You can build forts but...the only thing that does is stop them from using that province in a supply line. And development/depots and such won't give you any manpower/tax in that province cause they give multipliers. Roads increase movement in that province a bit which can be helpful in getting around but..most armies move fast enough anyway and it'd take some pretty heft development to get any use out of them. Ports are pretty much the only useful thing because you can build more ships at once...which is great unless you're fighting GB in which case no amount of ships will help you because even with equal/superior numbers, great admirals, and all the helpful ideas they'll still slaughter you wholesale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 12:41
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I quoted exactly what you said duder, you have not edited that post. I know it's hard to keep track of what you're writing when you're so keen on making a snarky reply, so I have made this handy image to help you out: He was making fun of the flippant nature of IRC mate, chill. (Note that "as predicted" is referring to IRC's judgement, not the game)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
You probably should not be ganging up on DR over this, I also got the same impression from Gorgo's post, that he was commenting on the game and not on IRC's mood swings. It could have certainly been phrased better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
In any case, devs should chill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I took his "as predicted" as a comment on the nature of IRC reviews -- implied to be flippant and mercurial -- rather than an expression of his opinion on the game. It was ambiguous but either way don't take it so personally, man. Not sure why you think a little "whelp, pack it up guys" joke implies I am flipping out, I answered one silly comment with another. The only thing that slightly bugged me was his claiming I misquoted him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
Carver posted:Wow, it's like long island took its vitamins. Yeah, I think it's a fantastic idea, and one that fits the new modular DLC model really well. Of course, I figure the likelihood of it actually happening to be somewhere between slim and none, but hey, I can dream, right? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
I have to say, I really, really like MOTE (I'm biased, though, since I LOVE the Napoleonic period). Everything except for war being barebones suits me just fine, as the real focus and labor of love here is the combat system, which is brilliant - as deep as HOI's, probably, but MUCH more transparent. I am absolutely in love with the ability to set tactics for your leaders and flanks, I'm having plenty of fun sperging out setting up strategies for my armies to use in battle. And historical setups work! That said, I feel I have four major issues with the game, all related to the strategic layer. One: People are complaining about ping-ponging, but I don't think it's as big a problem as described - armies did not end up completely obliterated in battle in the Napoleonic Wars. The sole example of this is the Battle of Ulm, where an Austrian force was surrounded by numerically superior French, and surrounding should probably be the only way to accomplish this. However, armies often retreat through their enemies and into enemy territory, which is ridiculous, makes the war MUCH more chaotic than it should be, and needs a patch to fix. Two: Big battles aren't worth enough warscore. This is THE period where destroying the enemy in the field counted for more than occupying territory, especially pre-1812, but the game doesn't really reflect that. If we look at the Wars of the Third, Fourth and Fifth Coalition, in each case it was Napoleon beating the everloving poo poo out of the main army of an enemy, upon which they faced a long, arduous retreat with deadly casualties from cavalry harrassment - and thus sued for peace. Instead, though, to win a war you have to actually go through with the entire campaign, which will usually take two or three years. Of course, this is at least partially a limitation of the AI, since it can't consider operational factors like "my troops have like zero morale and a billion angry Frenchmen behind them". Three: the AI sucks at manoevering, largely due to the "retreat through enemy lines" issue above. The fronts of AI-vs-AI wars tend to become clusterfucks of tiny units chased down over and over by slightly larger ones. Honestly, tiny 1-3K units roaming around everywhere is both extremely against the flavor and really unfun; it detracts from enjoyment of the overall awesome combat system that's clearly designed for large engagements and does them well. They can be beaten with a decent cavalry reserve, but that shouldn't be necessary. This could be fixed in one of two ways: 1) Give very small units a lower overrun threshold, so a single brigade beaten in combat by even a minor detachment should scatter to the wind; and/or 2) Give the AI a preferred minimum army size, like NOMINAL_ARMY_SIZE in defines.lua, and have units below that size always seek out friendly armies to combine with. Four: Britain is literally unbeatable at sea. Sure, they should be the predominant naval power, but so far it seems there's literally nothing anyone can do to even measure up except run from their stacks. I'm pretty sure even if France puts everything into naval power it's just impossible to even compete. That's... too much. They need to be scaled down a bit. Guildencrantz fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Not sure why you think a little "whelp, pack it up guys" joke implies I am flipping out, I answered one silly comment with another. The only thing that slightly bugged me was his claiming I misquoted him. "Pack it up guys" usually implies an air of "oh Mister high and mighty thinks his opinion is fact so guess we should just admit it's poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:"Pack it up guys" usually implies an air of "oh Mister high and mighty thinks his opinion is fact so guess we should just admit it's poo poo". Take the drama to PMs or something. Can't we get back to posting funny things happening in paradox games?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:"Pack it up guys" usually implies an air of "oh Mister high and mighty thinks his opinion is fact so guess we should just admit it's poo poo". Well yes, because that's exactly how he posted in the post I quoted. Although I thought the "whelp" in both our posts added an air of comical resignation. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: A critical analysis of Devposts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
Less bitching, more telling steam that they didn't push button properly on releasing the demo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: A critical analysis of Devposts. The dev brings the posters face to face with their own preconceived hierarchy of cultural values and assumptions of gameplay worth. Each post imaginatively propels its viewer forward into the seemingly infinite progression of possible reproductions that the dev's practice engenders, whilst simultaneously pulling them backwards in a quest for the 'original' source or referent that underlines Darkrenown's oeuvre.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
With MOTE as my first Paradox game ever on Steam, what's that thing you have to do to make it stop trying to install MS .Net every time you launch it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:With MOTE as my first Paradox game ever on Steam, what's that thing you have to do to make it stop trying to install MS .Net every time you launch it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Less bitching, more telling steam that they didn't push button properly on releasing the demo. Oh Steam In other news, I posted a little thing on the V2 facebook page. Edit: Tomn: <3 Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Feb 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
Hey Darkrenown do you reckon that it would be possible for EU IV to have a DLC with a randomised new world? It seems like everyone here would be really on board with buying it but judging by the response that Sunset Invasion got being ahistorical may not be high on your priority list. Was the response to Sunset Invasion seen in sales, did it sell significantly less than the others?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
I wish this would fit The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: posters face to face with their own preconceived hierarchy of cultural values and assumptions of gameplay worth edit: so is it podcat and you behind vic2 expansion dr? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Vodos posted:I was gonna say "delete the installscript.vdf" in the game's folder but mine is also doing it and the file isn't in the folder. I'm pretty sure that's how it worked for CK2. There's one in March of the Eagles\_CommonRedist\DotNet\4.0 Client Profile
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Destroying the last of Franco's army in 1937, while bombing him with captured Condor Legion planes as the Spanish Internationale blares in the background, has already made this SU run amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:so is it podcat and you behind vic2 expansion dr? Yes, plus another guy, but he doesn't post on forums. Captain No-mates posted:Hey Darkrenown do you reckon that it would be possible for EU IV to have a DLC with a randomised new world? It seems like everyone here would be really on board with buying it but judging by the response that Sunset Invasion got being ahistorical may not be high on your priority list. This is stuff I can't answer in detail, but a bunch of us think the randomised new world idea is cool, and SI did well enough not to rule out further ahistorical DLCs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 15:39
|
|