|
Optimus Prime Rib posted:I'd love it if HoD had some sort of way of automatically customizing stacks when I'm creating armies. AHD's rally point system was a great step in a right direction, but I hate having to spend 15 minutes splitting the rally point doomstack into smaller armies every time I train troops. It'd be great if there was some option to tell the game "create stacks of 6 guards and 4 artillery" so I didn't have to do it all manually. This is a great idea, do this.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Sold!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Any hints at all for the the release date of the old gods will be? The wait is killing me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
HoD Dev Diary #2 is up: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?671441-Heart-of-Darkness-DD-2-The-Crisis-System.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:HoD Dev Diary #2 is up: The crisis system looks like a fantastic addition to the game, and I really appreciate the added transparency in the AI's reasons for making diplomatic decisions. Pinterest Mom fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Feb 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:HoD Dev Diary #2 is up: I really hope they can pull this off. The premise sounds incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Optimus Prime Rib posted:I'd love it if HoD had some sort of way of automatically customizing stacks when I'm creating armies. AHD's rally point system was a great step in a right direction, but I hate having to spend 15 minutes splitting the rally point doomstack into smaller armies every time I train troops. It'd be great if there was some option to tell the game "create stacks of 6 guards and 4 artillery" so I didn't have to do it all manually. This would be grand, I completely gave up on organized armies when yet another Communist/Fascist/Reactionary/Jacobin uprising wiped out half my army leaving the remainder a disorganized clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:HoD Dev Diary #2 is up:  Imperial Russia supporting the Ottoman Empire over Monarchist Greece is really something that never should happen  e; also, who becomes the initial Crisis Attacker if the crisis is in a core for a nation that doesn't exist? Kainser fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Feb 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
From reading that it sounds like if the attacker gets GP support and the defender doesn't then nothing happens. Shouldn't this result in a forced transfer of territory or war? It doesn't seem to make much sense that if you're not a GP then you can avoid being affected by crises simply by not having GP support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:From reading that it sounds like if the attacker gets GP support and the defender doesn't then nothing happens. Shouldn't this result in a forced transfer of territory or war? It doesn't seem to make much sense that if you're not a GP then you can avoid being affected by crises simply by not having GP support. No, if both sides don't gain the support then it fizzles. It unfortunately missed out the above scenario.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Imperial Russia supporting the Ottoman Empire over Monarchist Greece is really something that never should happen I do wonder if they should code in some 'bias' modifiers. Maybe using religion, which is otherwise pretty much cosmetic right now. Like a power is less likely to back another power who is not the same religion. Or maybe it could run a check, like the population of the Greek provinces is Orthodox, and the religion of Russia is Orthodox, so it naturally favors Greece as the defending crisis power is Islamic. Maybe base it off the religious policy of the government, so a Orthodox state religion Russia would favor Greece, but a atheist Soviet Union would have no bias. But yeah, it sounds pretty cool. Definitely going to get me to give V2 another try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Kainser posted:This sounds really cool, but: I'd mentioned that to Wiz a few days ago when the screenshot was first posted on facebook; that's an early screenshot and the AI won't work like that on release.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
quote:Fence-sitting powers may chose to declare themselves for one side or the other on their own, or the Leader of either side may attempt to bribe them into supporting their side by offering them war goals Vs the opposing leader It is a shame it is designed this way, please reconsider this restriction. The crisis system can't represent the Pact of Plombières if Sardinia-Piedmonte can't offer to give Savoy and Nice to France.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This would be grand, I completely gave up on organized armies when yet another Communist/Fascist/Reactionary/Jacobin uprising wiped out half my army leaving the remainder a disorganized clusterfuck. That's the most annoying thing about rebellions. I can't quite figure out how the game decides which divisions are rebel sympathizers, although I guess it has something to do with their home region's leanings. It's kind of silly when all my artillery brigades rebel, and are wiped out instantly by the infantry they're attached to because artillery can't go solo. There needs to be some sort of check for that, because the only thing it accomplishes is annoying me by leaving behind massively disorganized armies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
wukkar posted:It is a shame it is designed this way, please reconsider this restriction. The crisis system can't represent the Pact of Plombières if Sardinia-Piedmonte can't offer to give Savoy and Nice to France.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
wukkar posted:It is a shame it is designed this way, please reconsider this restriction. The crisis system can't represent the Pact of Plombières if Sardinia-Piedmonte can't offer to give Savoy and Nice to France. I'm surprised the defending power just doesn't become the crisis leader (and lose that position if a Great power does come on board). If you're some third rate power with three GPs telling you to do XYZ, chances are you're going to back down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:HoD Dev Diary #2 is up: I would have been a lot more enthusiastic about East vs West if we knew that their game was going to have something like this or other non-combat soft factors of the Cold War, than throwing us DDs about how you can sperg over the placement of the Phalanx CIWS on your supercarrier. That said, HOD is definitely on my must-buy list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Imperial Russia supporting the Ottoman Empire over Monarchist Greece is really something that never should happen I just finished a book on the Crimean war and entirely hypothetically this could have happened if the Porte all had a collective stroke and signed over their sovereignty early in the crisis like the Russians wanted. Granted that would have caused an all out war between Russia and the rest of Europe but hey at least Belgium is backing up the British this time!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I'm surprised the defending power just doesn't become the crisis leader (and lose that position if a Great power does come on board). If you're some third rate power with three GPs telling you to do XYZ, chances are you're going to back down. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'd mentioned that to Wiz a few days ago when the screenshot was first posted on facebook; that's an early screenshot and the AI won't work like that on release. That screenshot is from BEFORE the Crisis AI was written. I wrote it, so I'd know. RabidWeasel posted:From reading that it sounds like if the attacker gets GP support and the defender doesn't then nothing happens. Shouldn't this result in a forced transfer of territory or war? It doesn't seem to make much sense that if you're not a GP then you can avoid being affected by crises simply by not having GP support. This will change, if attacker gets support and defender doesn't war will break out (possibly with the option for defender to just fold).
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
wukkar posted:It is a shame it is designed this way, please reconsider this restriction. The crisis system can't represent the Pact of Plombières if Sardinia-Piedmonte can't offer to give Savoy and Nice to France.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:That wouldn't happen anyway because S-P wouldn't be the side leader (that would be France). To model Plombières in the game, the offer of Savoy and Nice should be part of the initial process of trying to get France on Piedmont's side. It's really not possible to create a crisis system that could accurately model every historical diplomatic crisis. I believe the emphasis is more on creating a fun and well-functioning gameplay mechanic that feels appropriate to the game's era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Will it be much harder to get CBs through non-crisis means?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Will it be much harder to get CBs through non-crisis means? I wouldn't think so, since GPs themselves can't really get much through crises, and even involved parties seem to mostly get cores and poo poo. I think it's more of a way to make things interesting/give smaller powers a chance to do more through GP backing than it is a way to allow wars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
The Crisis System sounds like it could be a really good addition to the gameDefeatist Elitist posted:I wouldn't think so, since GPs themselves can't really get much through crises, and even involved parties seem to mostly get cores and poo poo. I think it's more of a way to make things interesting/give smaller powers a chance to do more through GP backing than it is a way to allow wars. Maybe more interesting, yeah, but I was getting the impression that it's designed to model the tendency of major countries to stick their nose into everyone's business and end up in large, involved wars for no great reason
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
I'm really glad that Paradox is adopting the CK2 method of diplomacy (ie yes/no based on factors which are explicitly stated to the player) in the rest of its games. And of course, the crisis system is looking amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
^^^ You can thank Wiz for the Diplo reasons here, we told him it was crazy, but he went ahead and made it good.Cyrai posted:Maybe more interesting, yeah, but I was getting the impression that it's designed to model the tendency of major countries to stick their nose into everyone's business and end up in large, involved wars for no great reason Kinda, yes, but you do get a decent prestige boost for winning a crisis, or if you go to war you can always tack on a WG or two to cover your expenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
HoD looks like an instant buy for me. But I'm wondering, does it do anything to help the economy? Namely fixing it so capitalists don't overvalue small arms factories that shut down the moment they finish it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
quote:When this happens all GPs on the same continent will be invited to take part, with a prestige penalty if they refuse. And can someone in PDS please change Crises to Crisis. There's only one active at any given time, yes? *edit* Don't get me wrong, the system sounds great and I love how the AI factors who it picks (from what you've described in the Paradox forums), but continent-only sounds like such a huge restriction on a really good mechanic. Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:This won't work at all if it uses the existing V2 continent system. I wonder if this counts colonies and overseas territories and satellites as being present in that continent? If not then most crises will be Europe only and practically every big interventionist conflict of 19th century China can't take place. It'd basically mean "You get this fun new feature if you're in Europe. Sorry, other fun nations. Your crises will be one-sided steamrollers." Powers from other continents can be interested as well, but they don't have the prestige penalty for ignoring the situation. At least from what I read. Heart of Darkness can't come soon enough. I'm wondering how Srbja will react to that, since the mod starts with three GPs in Europe, three in Asia and one each in South and North America, with a tendency for new powers to rise from Asia, I can envision some interesting things going on, specially with the clusterfuck around China.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
I think you CAN join a crisis anywhere in the world, it's just if it's on the same continent there is additional pressure for you to take a side. So the USA can still side with the Greeks in the example scenario, but there is no penalty for them staying out. Whereas France will take a prestige hit if they stay out altogether.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:This won't work at all if it uses the existing V2 continent system. I wonder if this counts colonies and overseas territories and satellites as being present in that continent? If not then most crises will be Europe only and practically every big interventionist conflict of 19th century China can't take place. It'd basically mean "You get this fun new feature if you're in Europe. Sorry, other fun nations. Your crises will be one-sided steamrollers." They can still choose to take part in distant areas, they just have no penalty for ignoring it. It is a fairly Europe-focused game though, and I don't think the Chinese interventions are the kind of thing our crisis mechanic covers. On the diplo tab? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
It will be made so that they can happen for other countries within their region however if you are a Great Power correct? Suppose Japan is a Great Power (easily attainable in either SP or MP), the Russo-Japanese War (notwithstanding the earlier Boxer Rebellions in China, or the German potential intervention in the Philipines) are all perfect shoe ins for the system. The requirements seem to be should be: 1. Is your capital in that region. 2. Are you a Great Power? With special exceptions like Russia and having a direct land connection from their capital to the region in question to allow for a China-Russia-Japan three way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
So, once the northwest is settled, the United States is free to laugh as Europe rips itself apart with crisis after crisis? Sounds good to me.   
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It will be made so that they can happen for other countries within their region however if you are a Great Power correct? Suppose Japan is a Great Power (easily attainable in either SP or MP), the Russo-Japanese War (notwithstanding the earlier Boxer Rebellions in China, or the German potential intervention in the Philipines) are all perfect shoe ins for the system. Well, the Russo-Japanese war could be modelled as just a regular war, or an intervention war possibly. But yes, if Russia took a bit of China, like port Arthur, I suppose China could start a Crisis to get their land back, which a GP Japan could choose to back. I'm less sure about the Philippines/Germany one though, in theory Germany could choose to back nationalists there against Spain, but it's one of those cases where it's historical, but hard to make a good AI rule for Germany to be interested there, and there's no way to have the USA grab it out from under them. If I had to describe it in terms of V2 mechanics, it would be more The Philippines revolt away from Spain while they are fighting the US, Germany and the USA have a brief influence battle over it, and the USA wins then adds them to their SoI. Kavak posted:So, once the northwest is settled, the United States is free to laugh as Europe rips itself apart with crisis after crisis? What? No! You should go full Team America - world police, and intervene in every possible crisis!
Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
It's cool that you integrated it into the current systems, but I would have liked a (comprehensible and properly implemented) mini card game played for high stakes international diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I would have been a lot more enthusiastic about East vs West if we knew that their game was going to have something like this or other non-combat soft factors of the Cold War, than throwing us DDs about how you can sperg over the placement of the Phalanx CIWS on your supercarrier. Pretty disappointing to see the entire EvW paradox subforum obsessed with military minutiae rather than, y'know, the actual cold war. Well, I guess if that's what the customers want...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:43
|
|
|
Until proven otherwise, it's a safe bet to consider EvW as Arsenal of Democracy with nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
Wiz posted:That screenshot is from BEFORE the Crisis AI was written. I wrote it, so I'd know. Please tell me you're also writing improvements to the war-goal system. I really don't wanna see Ottoman Brittany ever again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
Someone made the hilarious mistake of asking about Ireland's place in the crisis system. Holy poo poo so much   ThePutty posted:Please tell me you're also writing improvements to the war-goal system. I really don't wanna see Ottoman Brittany ever again. Is there any way to mod hyper-aggression into the V2 AI?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 03:17
|
|