|
Baloogan posted:I like all the little question marks. Initially I thought they were going to annoy the HELL out of me but drat paradox please make the little questionmarks standard. Sara will be happy to hear that, they were her idea afaik (along with the !s).
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Wiz posted:There should be some pictures up on Facebook. I'm in one or two of them. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Sara will be happy to hear that, they were her idea afaik (along with the !s). Best feature of MotE. It's >really< snazzy that you can turn them off individually instead of en masse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Yeah, a bunch of us went down to get wraps for dinner about an hour before it started, there was a bunch of people there and I was all "wait, we actually have a queue?".
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Sara will be happy to hear that, they were her idea afaik (along with the !s). What do you guys call those things? Are they in EU4? Paradox makes complicated games and anything to help people learn them is great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Did you guys pull a crowd that was mostly Perfectly Normal? I'd be worried about the guys who defended One White Man with a Machinegun showing up and getting uncomfortably drunk.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Best feature of MotE. It's >really< snazzy that you can turn them off individually instead of en masse. YES OH MY GOD YES Generally only when I'm 100% sure I got what the questionmark-exclamationmark-glyph-help-click-thing do I turn the individual off. Does Sara post here in somethingawful land? MOTE is a relatively simple paradox game compared to EU3 or V2; and there must be at least 150 of those helper-things. EU4 is going to need piiiiiles of them too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Did you guys pull a crowd that was mostly Perfectly Normal? I'd be worried about the guys who defended One White Man with a Machinegun showing up and getting uncomfortably drunk. What they should really worry about is that next year we'll start a kickstarter to raise funds to send this threads very 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Obviously this guy waiting two hours before the start isn't you, but still goon.jpg: Hiking boots. Glasses. Neckbeard. EVERYTHING BLACK. Laptop. Laptop bag. Yeah. That is pretty drat goony.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:What do you guys call those things? Are they in EU4? I don't know that they have a name other than ?s and !s, and I can't really comment on whether they are/will be in EU4, other than that I'd personally be for it. Wolfgang Pauli posted:Did you guys pull a crowd that was mostly Perfectly Normal? I'd be worried about the guys who defended One White Man with a Machinegun showing up and getting uncomfortably drunk. It was pretty nerdy (obviously) but it was a lot of fun and everyone I talked to were reasonably socially adjusted. The free beer probably helped. And no, Sara doesn't post here but I'll let her know that Something Awful loves her question marks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Huh, that sure sounds like me. How odd Mystery solved. (The Victoria II Heart of Darkness presentator, right?) Baloogan posted:Hiking boots. Ha, I was standing offscreen. (Already got my ticket) You can see the glorious back of my head in one of those queue pictures. Good thing too, so you can't see my beard. 
Boar It fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Wiz posted:And no, Sara doesn't post here but I'll let her know that Something Awful loves her question marks. BUT WE'RE SO CHARMING!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:So, has any definite how-to-win LP emerged for MotE already? Play Russia, use your 450k starting manpower and massive economy to steamroll your way clockwise around the map. Or at least it worked for me, and I'm terrible at this game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:*edit* It does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:Play Russia, use your 450k starting manpower and massive economy to steamroll your way clockwise around the map. I wish I'd realized I was at war with Persia at the start of the game. I was just puttering around, getting myself organized in the west, and suddenly I'm getting messages about loosing battles WHERE?! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Given that EUIV is coming out some time in the near future is it worth buying EUIII and the attendant expansions? I play the gently caress out of CK2 but it's always good to have variety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Drop your e-mail and I'll just send you a key.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Was there ever any doubt? These are the guys who rejected Macau out of hand because it was small and not of significant military importance. I think nuanced political machination might be beyond their systems programming capabilities. Pray tell, what's a fun way to play out the Vietnam war? Or any counter-insurgency for that matter? Jagged Alliance style? Because right now that's the only way I can see a 'cool' COIN campaign working, and it's not exactly grand strategy. e:typo Koesj fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
I want to consript 50 thousand americans put them into one corps called the Conscript Corps and paradrop them on hanoi
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I wish I'd realized I was at war with Persia at the start of the game. I was just puttering around, getting myself organized in the west, and suddenly I'm getting messages about loosing battles WHERE?! Yeah, that was a bit of a surprise when I loaded the game, but my plan was to start with them anyway. Fighting through those mountains took forever, especially because I was still learning how battles and sieges worked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:Yeah, that was a bit of a surprise when I loaded the game, but my plan was to start with them anyway. Fighting through those mountains took forever, especially because I was still learning how battles and sieges worked. Heh, scrub, I sent a small army down the valley, smashed the Persian armies and seized three fortresses before...uh...before I noticed the Ottomans had taken the rest of the country and that was where most of Persia's armies had been fighting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
I was like "gently caress you, small fry", white peaced them and stabbed the Ottomans in the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Drop your e-mail and I'll just send you a key. Edited out if you're so inclined. YouTuber fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:It does. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Oh, it turns out my code was used, but I forgot about it. Sorry. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Was there ever any doubt? These are the guys who rejected Macau out of hand because it was small and not of significant military importance. I think nuanced political machination might be beyond their systems programming capabilities. Welp, any hope I had of the game's political machinations not being craptastic just went spiraling into the ocean. Seriously, if they're going to include Hong Kong, why aren't they including Macau?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Welp, any hope I had of the game's political machinations not being craptastic just went spiraling into the ocean. Seriously, if they're going to include Hong Kong, why aren't they including Macau? Eh, I get that it's a bit of an oversight to leave it out, but it's still possible the game can have a large political focus while still leaving out Macau for whatever reason. Personally I'm "worried" about the game insofar as I have seen stuff about warfare and nukes but little about spreading your influence via peaceful ways. If I see a stream of the game where the devs do a pacifist run I'll probably get it but honestly direct Nation VS Nation warfare is the part I am least interested in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Eh, I get that it's a bit of an oversight to leave it out, but it's still possible the game can have a large political focus while still leaving out Macau for whatever reason. Personally I'm "worried" about the game insofar as I have seen stuff about warfare and nukes but little about spreading your influence via peaceful ways. If I see a stream of the game where the devs do a pacifist run I'll probably get it but honestly direct Nation VS Nation warfare is the part I am least interested in. Yeah, I was relatively confident about EvW until this diary. The ammount of detail given to naval warfare... Well, it is a bit much for a game treating a period that wasn't famous for naval battles. Were there even any large naval engagements after WW2 that would call for all this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
I have to agree; while I do think that ship customisation is neat and interesting, it does make me worry they'll overreach with their features a la MM. And also, the main reason I'm interested in a Cold War game is that it would essentially be a modern era country-building game, not so much because of war and so. This DD moved EvW quite solidly away from my list of games I'd certainly buy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
There was some really scary/neat/awesome (depending on your perspective) submarine stuff going on under the poles. Don't forget a lot about the cold war was deterrence and trying to maintain technological parity. Maybe this sort of thing ties into that? A Nimitz-class carrier has huge balance of power implications. I don't know obviously what the real answer is but I don't think they're making Gary Grigsby's East vs. West.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
To be fair, given a reasonable starting date, you could plunge the world into eternal war that never reaches critical nuclear mass. Then stuff like that becomes important. Indeed, the depth of it also ties into "Oh no, the world ended". Cant supply your ships without operational ports afterall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Yeah, I was relatively confident about EvW until this diary. The ammount of detail given to naval warfare... Well, it is a bit much for a game treating a period that wasn't famous for naval battles. Were there even any large naval engagements after WW2 that would call for all this? The largest naval engagement during the Cold War was the Falklands... so yeah, this really sucks. Maybe instead of simulating the ammunition on single guns on single ships in your fleet which you will never care about, they should be working on simulating the geopolitical effects of parking your carrier off the Iranian coast. That's actually interesting, whereas pouring time into a hot Cold War is a massive waste. A real shame they didn't just go with a nuclear war ending the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Yeah, I was relatively confident about EvW until this diary. The ammount of detail given to naval warfare... Well, it is a bit much for a game treating a period that wasn't famous for naval battles. Were there even any large naval engagements after WW2 that would call for all this?  Does this mean that there can only be one crisis at a time? The menu name shouldn't be plural unless there can be multiple ongoing crises at any given time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Well at least it looked like I've called one of the new games correctly. When EU4 comes out as an awesome game I'll be 2 for 3! Note for DR: I am referring to me being apparently (on good authority) mistaken about MOTE in several regards from back when I made my predictions earlier this year, and how EvW just keeps looking worse and worse. This is not an attack on you, though I am technically "King of the Thread". This section of my post is also mostly in jest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Yeah, I was relatively confident about EvW until this diary. The ammount of detail given to naval warfare... Well, it is a bit much for a game treating a period that wasn't famous for naval battles. Were there even any large naval engagements after WW2 that would call for all this? The Falklands War is the only one that comes to mind for me. In depth modeling of military units isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as there's a robust diplomacy and peacetime game to back it up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:But is that fun to play? If the Vietnam War is nothing more than a series of province modifiers in your Cold War game then you should probably pack up your game design and work on something else. The biggest problem grand strategy games have ever had is finding the right interface between simulation and interactivity. We've already killed off railroaded historical events (except in MotE), now we need to kill off behind the scenes simulation that could just as easily be represented by gameplay mechanics. I think a "quagmire" penalty modifier might not be a bad idea. If warscore doesn't go up for the aggressor after x months or if a war drags on past x years, the aggressor takes more attrition in the defender's core provinces. It should be a slow, subtle thing, but eventually you have to either cut your losses with a bitter peace or just keep dumping more men into the province for diminishing military returns and spiraling war exhaustion/dissent. There might have to be a variable power modifier or something (so the Russo-American war doesn't hit you with this when your tanks have been driving through Siberia for three straight years). Plus Vietnam and Afghanistan are in terrains that should have higher attrition anyway (jungles and mountains, respectively).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
So I was playing A Sjrb Divided, and I loaded a save and when I did I got 3 alliance offers... Apparently, that northern region is somehow (not so) Great Britain... Also the game still has the "recognize the CSA" decision which doesn't really make much sense for the German Confederation of America. In effect it gives you prestige and makes the Konfederation of America like you more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
uPen posted:The Falklands War is the only one that comes to mind for me. In depth modeling of military units isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as there's a robust diplomacy and peacetime game to back it up.  And unless BL-Logic has some seriously good AI programmers, all this detail won't mean a thing. FadingChord posted:I think a "quagmire" penalty modifier might not be a bad idea. If warscore doesn't go up for the aggressor after x months or if a war drags on past x years, the aggressor takes more attrition in the defender's core provinces. It should be a slow, subtle thing, but eventually you have to either cut your losses with a bitter peace or just keep dumping more men into the province for diminishing military returns and spiraling war exhaustion/dissent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
While the game will most probably focus on the Hot War, unfortunately, I actually see the point of modelling the navies that way. Representing modern warfare by simply massing ships into one province doesn't really cut it and I expect the system to be in place to allow for all sorts of radar and cruise missle shenanigans. I expect some of the inventory slots being a no-brainer upgrades representing technological progress (I've unlocked +2 turbines, yay!) and some being specific and important stuff like "does this sub have nuclear missles on it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Maybe if there was a way to interact with this beyond parking a stack on a province and going to do something else. Set It and Forget It is not good design when you're talking about the most crucial moments of your game. Even if you kept moving your armies around, if it's hitting every province in a country (assume that North Vietnam has cores on all of South Vietnam here, or think of Afghanistan) you'd still take the attrition in your stack every month, wouldn't you? If I'm not mistaken, the only way to get around this (besides cheesing transports or sticking all your troops in Cambodia or Tajikistan) would be to engage the enemy. The real problem is that this game probably won't be able to model things like not sending foot soldiers into North Vietnam or Congress forcing Nixon to cut Lon Nol off. It would still be neat if you could annex/puppet Afghanistan, but the quagmire modifier persisted for a while so your troops would either get eaten by attrition or forced to sit outside the country to recharge while rebel stacks pop up outside Kabul every two months. I'm definitely with you on the greater problem with boiling strategic situations down to stack-on-stack staredowns, but I feel like some sort of quagmire modifier for actual hot wars between disproportionate sides would be a decent way to model guerrilla warfare (as opposed to 20-unit stacks in every province insta-crushing 4-unit rebel stacks every two months). edit: To be clear, the constant attrition of forces would mean that you could still park enough troops to quash the occasional rebel stack, but when a widespread revolt (think a Paradox version of the Tet Offensive) happens, it'll knock you on your rear end if you don't do everything right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 00:50
|
|