Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›799 »

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

DrSunshine posted:

One more V2 thing-- what good does it do to have a country in your Sphere of Influence? Also, what's the benefit of having a country as your puppet? Do they pay tribute to you?

Sphere of Influence is basically one of the most important things when you're playing with the big boys. It means that you get first dibs on whatever goods that country produces, and any goods that your country produces will always be bought first by the sphere'd country.

Putting China in your SOI, for example, tends to supercharge your economy because on one hand you have this huge source of raw material to exclusively draw from, and at the same time the huge number of POPs in China guarantees consumption of everything you're making.

Puppeting a country in V2 just means you have an unbreakable military alliance with them.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 03:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 20:56

The Narrator: Aug 11, 2011; bernie would have won

DrSunshine posted:

One more V2 thing-- what good does it do to have a country in your Sphere of Influence? Also, what's the benefit of having a country as your puppet? Do they pay tribute to you?

If I remember correctly: having a nation in your sphere means that they are forced to buy their national imports from you (at least, you are their mandatory first option when purchasing goods, unless you cannot fulfill their order), and it also means you get first dibs on any resources of theirs you want to import. I don't really remember about puppets; it's been a while since I actually played V2 (before AHD even...)

edit: beaten, though with oddly similar "first dibs" language... get out of my head, gradenko!

# ? Mar 22, 2013 03:46

Wolfgang Pauli: Mar 26, 2008; One Three Seven

DrProsek posted:

Go back and do it again, leave soldiers in Mexico city so a counter-coup can't get rid of you.

This is a great idea for any nation in your control that you care about. Once a nation is under your protection, you have to protect them. Keeping that government in power is your responsibility.

DrSunshine posted:

Does it have to be done by revolution? Or is there any way to gradually foment more support for the socialist party and oust the Whigs in an election? I was hoping to accomplish a peaceful socialist reform, revolutions sound scary. The way I was going about was slowly getting the majorities required to pass political reform measures and encouraging membership in left-wing parties among high-density areas. The idea was to eventually work my way up to abolishing slavery and giving enfranchisement to all the poor, minorities, and women, who by then would hopefully vote Socialist.

Socialism is a product of the times. If you're boosting it with NFs you should have them in power in a decade or two. It depends on the nation, though. One thing I didn't realize in my Afghanistan game is that the Pashtun culture has high radicalism. I was pushing liberalism all the time I was westernizing, but once I did it was all I could do to keep my population Conservative enough to not rebel every six months.

DrSunshine posted:

One more V2 thing-- what good does it do to have a country in your Sphere of Influence? Also, what's the benefit of having a country as your puppet? Do they pay tribute to you?

You only get tax revenues from a satellite (does it have to be a dominion?). Being sphered means a guaranteed alliance and instantly accepted diplo options, access to natural resources, and a market for your goods. It's incredibly important for your supply chain. You do have to fight to keep them, though. Most of my Afghanistan game has devolved into watching the Sphere of Influence menu in the sidebar.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 03:47

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Yeah, but Russia should also be scary as gently caress if it does manage to get the whole factory business going, because it has a lot of potential. That potential was one of the reasons the Germans wanted a war in the period before WWI, so just opening the same potential up to the rest of the Great Powers seems to me to be a misstep.

Factories in the colonies also go against the whole logic of imperialism, which is all about sending wealth back to the center, not creating a viable local alternative. That's not to say that you shouldn't be able to do the whole settler business, but I certainly don't think it should be more than a limited effort in well-suited locations. Trying to make Algeria/Tunisia a part of the French/Italian metropole is one thing, doing it for Nigeria is quite another. The first two are something that was tried, and though it failed I don't think it's completely unrealistic. Stuffing most of the rest of Africa full of Europeans though, that's just silly. It's Sunset Invasion, but without the charm of turning history on its head and having Aztects kicking the European's teeth in.

Hmm, I suppose you have a point, once you allow for easy moving of Europeans to the colonies, players can go hogwild moving the entire population of the Netherlands to Malaysia, or even on a smaller scale building up enough factories in Africa so if Kongo ever sees independence they would have the industry score of Belgium, but at the same time it annoys me there is literally no way to encourage pops to move to these colonies; sure I shouldn't be able to turn all of North Africa into a second Italy, but something smaller scale would be nice, like integrating a coastal province or two, and right now I don't know any way to do it other than sit around and hope the game decides a bunch of Brits want to move to West Africa.

As for integrating random far away regions, as I recall Portugal wanted to make Gao part of the Portuguese Metropole. I'm not saying "and therefore my Malaysia that is 100% Dutch makes total sense", but I should at least allowing the player to be able to have some impact on controlling what provinces my pops move to (like how in most of my games where I grab Morocco, I end up with Casablanca turning majority my culture while neighboring provinces sit there with not a single migrant).

Fister Roboto posted:

If by "go communist" you mean passing all the social reforms and have a communist party in power, then yes this is correct. But in order to become a proletarian dictatorship, you need a revolution. Otherwise you'll just have a democracy or HM government with a lot of social reforms.

Also encouraging party loyalty only makes POPs more likely to vote for a certain party, it does nothing to their reform desire.

I remember in my Assyria game, I had an HM monarchy and I just placed the fascists in power and a few months later I got an event telling me the fascists are in charge now and turned into Aramea with a fascist dictatorship. I think it may be a mod thing but I am pretty sure sitting around with a communist or fascist party in control will eventually turn you into a dictatorship.

Also, it is true your pops won't want reforms, but with a > 50% Socialist house, you can just pass them without any pop's approval.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 05:04

Spiderfist Island: Feb 19, 2011

DrProsek posted:

I remember in my Assyria game, I had an HM monarchy and I just placed the fascists in power and a few months later I got an event telling me the fascists are in charge now and turned into Aramea with a fascist dictatorship. I think it may be a mod thing but I am pretty sure sitting around with a communist or fascist party in control will eventually turn you into a dictatorship.

It happens with any "extreme" ideology while there's high militancy in Pop Demand, I think. I was playing a game as Colombia in PDM vanilla once, and reactionaries instituted a Presidential Dictatorship after they got in power. I'm not sure if Anarcho-liberals can do the same thing, but nobody votes for Victorian Ron Paul anyways so I've never been able to confirm or deny it.

Oh, speaking of which, I was feeling crazy enough to try and mod in Anarchism as an entirely new ideology with its own flag type (I'll prob make it so it can't come to power aside from in a Syndicalist or Anarchist Confederation govtype). I might get back to that after HoD comes out.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:09

Necroneocon: May 12, 2009; by Shine

Kenlon posted:

I'm working on a LP of HOI3 right now, actually.

Link? Is it a tutorial style one?

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:10

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

I've wanted to do a HOI3 LP, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to play a game through to completion. It'd just be for teaching the UI.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:21

SkySteak: Sep 9, 2010

Necroneocon posted:

Link? Is it a tutorial style one?

I'm sorry Hitler teaching you the game wasn't enough.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:33

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

Spiderfist Island posted:

It happens with any "extreme" ideology while there's high militancy in Pop Demand, I think. I was playing a game as Colombia in PDM vanilla once, and reactionaries instituted a Presidential Dictatorship after they got in power. I'm not sure if Anarcho-liberals can do the same thing, but nobody votes for Victorian Ron Paul anyways so I've never been able to confirm or deny it.

Oh, speaking of which, I was feeling crazy enough to try and mod in Anarchism as an entirely new ideology with its own flag type (I'll prob make it so it can't come to power aside from in a Syndicalist or Anarchist Confederation govtype). I might get back to that after HoD comes out.

Adding anarchists, or even just replacing the Victorian Atheist Ron Pauls of Victoria 2 would be fantastic. I always wanted to have my nation just say "gently caress all your extremist ideologies, we're going with nothing". I'm not sure how their politics would work but it'd be cool to at least see some cool anarchist flags :buddy:

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:37

V for Vegas: Sep 1, 2004; THUNDERDOME LOSER

Does anyone have TFH custom game setup save files? (With an outline of why they set it up that way?) In the lead up to the release I thought sharing of people's builds would be a big feature of the expansion but I've hardly seen any.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:41

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Spiderfist Island posted:

It happens with any "extreme" ideology while there's high militancy in Pop Demand, I think. I was playing a game as Colombia in PDM vanilla once, and reactionaries instituted a Presidential Dictatorship after they got in power. I'm not sure if Anarcho-liberals can do the same thing, but nobody votes for Victorian Ron Paul anyways so I've never been able to confirm or deny it.

Oh, speaking of which, I was feeling crazy enough to try and mod in Anarchism as an entirely new ideology with its own flag type (I'll prob make it so it can't come to power aside from in a Syndicalist or Anarchist Confederation govtype). I might get back to that after HoD comes out.

So if the Anarcho-Liberals stayed in power long enough, by that theory, they should turn it into... Anarcho-Liberal Dictatorship?

What is that?!

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:42

Spiderfist Island: Feb 19, 2011

DrSunshine posted:

So if the Anarcho-Liberals stayed in power long enough, by that theory, they should turn it into... Anarcho-Liberal Dictatorship?

What is that?!

It's the cleverly named "Bourgeois Dictatorship" government type. I think the POP Demand guys had a blurb when they take over about "temporarily suspending democracy to protect property rights. Temporarily."

Every mechanic and event associated with the Anarcho-Liberal ideology in V2 is both anachronistic and stupid on multiple levels. I'm pretty sure they were included just for an "extremist Liberal" ideology to mirror the Reactionaries and Communists being extremist Conservatives and Socialists, respectively.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 06:54

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

Yeah they also are supposed to be in a monarchy the Republican faction that wants to implement a democratic republic, but then in a democracy they want to implement a dictatorship. I wouldn't mind them so much if EVERY nation didn't have like 30k Anarcho-Liberals mobilizing for revolt at any given moment. Replacing them with Anarchists would go a long way to making them make sense; at least there you have the Anarchists pushing for a constant decentralization of power; going from a king to an elected leader to a anarchist society. I guess it'd be kinda weird to be playing the government of an anarchist nation, but you could just handwave it as your society having volunteers conduct extremely limited political functions like maintaining a foreign policy.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 07:03

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DrProsek posted:

As for integrating random far away regions, as I recall Portugal wanted to make Gao part of the Portuguese Metropole. I'm not saying "and therefore my Malaysia that is 100% Dutch makes total sense", but I should at least allowing the player to be able to have some impact on controlling what provinces my pops move to (like how in most of my games where I grab Morocco, I end up with Casablanca turning majority my culture while neighboring provinces sit there with not a single migrant).

Given what happened in Algeria, that's perhaps not completely unrealistic. IIRC, one of the problems of French colonial rule in Algeria was that the Pieds-Noirs believed the country was already French, because of the way they had concentrated in specific areas along the coast. (And hogged a significant majority of the good land, despite being a clear minority) This is the same period where we see people moving into the cities in Europe, why should they behave differently when moving overseas? People also have a habit of wanting to be among their own, so as a minority that means concentrating in cities. If you want to swarm the rest of a state, you're going to have to be more authoritarian I think, like downright Fascist. Can NF's be tied to the politics of the state?

# ? Mar 22, 2013 07:25

Wolfgang Pauli: Mar 26, 2008; One Three Seven

There's one thing I wasn't considering about NFs and immigration: I functionally disable assimilation in my games. There's a little bit of it, especially if you get assimilation techs, but I set the rate really low in the modifiers. That means if you want your primary culture in a colony, you have to transplant them. You can't just wait for a bunch of Igbo yam farmers to transmute into Swiss clockmakers or something.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 08:57

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

gradenko_2000 posted:

What the dev diary sounded like to me is that the Protectorate-to-Colony conversion is going to cause accepted culture POPs to move into the state just by clicking the conversion, so while you still need the Bureaucrats, you're guaranteed some number of accepted culture dudes to turn into Bureaucrats in the first place so you can do the Colony-to-full-State conversion.

Am I close, Darkrenown?

Actually, I am not sure how you got that from the DD. It is a neat idea though! With the CP cost I would like to make it a bit easier to make Colonies into States if you can afford it, but at the same time it's important it's not too easy for the UK to State all of India or they'll become (even more) unstoppable.

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

Why is Encourage Immigration even New World only, anyway? Why does it have any limitations?

I, uh,...huh. I am not sure, will check.

Drone posted:

Is this actually moddable, if HoD doesn't change it, or is it hardcoded? I always felt it was rather dumb to not be able to simulate, in game terms, my government going all "a better life awaits you in the COLONIES."

Easy to mod: common/national_focus.txt

code:

immigration_focus = 
{
	immigration =
	{
		immigrant_attract = 0.2 #increases attactiveness to immigrants by 20 %
		icon = 3
		limit = { 
			OR = { 
				continent = north_america
				continent = south_america
				is_overseas = yes
			}
		}
	}
}

can just remove the continent = x lines.

Spiderfist Island posted:

Every mechanic and event associated with the Anarcho-Liberal ideology in V2 is both anachronistic and stupid on multiple levels. I'm pretty sure they were included just for an "extremist Liberal" ideology to mirror the Reactionaries and Communists being extremist Conservatives and Socialists, respectively.

Pretty much.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 10:11

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Darkrenown posted:

Actually, I am not sure how you got that from the DD. It is a neat idea though! With the CP cost I would like to make it a bit easier to make Colonies into States if you can afford it, but at the same time it's important it's not too easy for the UK to State all of India or they'll become (even more) unstoppable.

But if I'm wrong, does that mean that getting accepted culture POPs to move into colonial states is the same as it is now in V2:AHD where you just set Attract Immigrants and hope for the best?

VVVV Thanks for clearing that up!

gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Mar 22, 2013

# ? Mar 22, 2013 10:19

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

Yes.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 12:06

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

"Scientists in our country have discovered Terrorism!"

:stare:

... Okay! That's good. Keep it up, 19th century mad scientist chaps!

# ? Mar 22, 2013 15:25

Mister Bates: Aug 4, 2010

DrProsek posted:

Adding anarchists, or even just replacing the Victorian Atheist Ron Pauls of Victoria 2 would be fantastic. I always wanted to have my nation just say "gently caress all your extremist ideologies, we're going with nothing". I'm not sure how their politics would work but it'd be cool to at least see some cool anarchist flags .

In gameplay terms they'd probably play similarly to the Communists - anarchism is a radically anti-capitalist ideology, so most of the anarchist 'parties' would be Planned Economy. Politically, they should probably function as sort of a hybrid between a Proletarian Dictatorship and a normal Democracy - high political reforms and social reforms, free party representation in the abstracted 'legislature', but the anarchist 'party' is always the party in power in the government.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 15:30

ZearothK: Aug 25, 2008; I've lost twice, I've failed twice and I've gotten two dishonorable mentions within 7 weeks. But I keep coming back. I am The Trooper!

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2021

EUIV DD: Heir of Rome.

Ottomans sound nice.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:12

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

DrProsek posted:

Yeah they also are supposed to be in a monarchy the Republican faction that wants to implement a democratic republic, but then in a democracy they want to implement a dictatorship. I wouldn't mind them so much if EVERY nation didn't have like 30k Anarcho-Liberals mobilizing for revolt at any given moment. Replacing them with Anarchists would go a long way to making them make sense; at least there you have the Anarchists pushing for a constant decentralization of power; going from a king to an elected leader to a anarchist society. I guess it'd be kinda weird to be playing the government of an anarchist nation, but you could just handwave it as your society having volunteers conduct extremely limited political functions like maintaining a foreign policy.

Well, it's not exactly an ideal situation, is it? How likely do you think it would be, after a bloody revolution, for there to be an ideal anarchist society? You'd almost definitely have some kind of charismatic leader step up to the plate and say "hey guys, things are kind of a mess right, so I'm gonna start cleaning things up and when that's done I'll totes relinquish my office powers and we'll have a super awesome anarchist/voluntarist/libertarian society!" and everyone else would be all "a hurr durr OK!" Kind of like how a communist revolution doesn't result in a utopian socialist anarchy, you get a proletarian dictatorship. Because that's what happened in real life.

e:

quote:

Ghazi is a title given to great Muslim warriors, analogous to Khan or Caesar or Johan.

Never change, paradox :allears:

Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Mar 22, 2013

# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:22

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

E:^^^^^^
Yeah true, there would basically have to be a leader or at the very least a small planning committee that oversaw the party before it was elected. My problem is making anarchist at least feel different than playing a communist nation because if they play the same and have the same policies it will just kinda be pointless to add them. I think Mister Bates' idea of giving them elections is a good place to start making them feel different.

ZearothK posted:

EUIV DD: Heir of Rome.

Ottomans sound nice.

Aww westernization still needs you to border Europeans

. I totally get why that has to be for gameplay and "realism" reasons, don't get me wrong but I just wish it could be possible for me to westernize without giving a colonial European nation a free CB against me. Overall the DD was fantastic though, especially like that the AI will westernize now sometimes.

Mister Bates posted:

In gameplay terms they'd probably play similarly to the Communists - anarchism is a radically anti-capitalist ideology, so most of the anarchist 'parties' would be Planned Economy. Politically, they should probably function as sort of a hybrid between a Proletarian Dictatorship and a normal Democracy - high political reforms and social reforms, free party representation in the abstracted 'legislature', but the anarchist 'party' is always the party in power in the government.

My problem with giving them Planned Economy is that it implies and plays like a highly centralized state. I know to some degree you would have to hand wave some things, and anything other than PE starts to make less and less sense as you get closer to LF, but it still kinda rubs me the wrong way. I do like the other ideas though, I think a democracy with maximum political rights is a great plan. For citizenship policy I'd say all anarchist parties need full, religious I would say secularized (although in the mouseover text for atheism it says it's a total separation of church and state, which would make sense, but in elections when you're arguing for certain religious policies, the options that argue for atheism say things like "God is dead!" versus Secularized's "Religion is not a political matter"). Religious policies don't do anything in vanilla anyway though so it's not a huge issue. For trade policy I could see it either way.

Also looking at governments.txt it seems that anarchists would be fairly easy to add, and there's even a "flagType" parameter you can use to set new anarchist flags.

Darkrenown posted:

Easy to mod: common/national_focus.txt

When I was looking to mod NFs, I totally missed the NF.txt file in the common folder. This is great though, now I can try my hand at adding new NFs. Would I need to do anything else after defining it in NF.txt?

burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Mar 22, 2013

# ? Mar 22, 2013 16:39

binge crotching: Apr 2, 2010

DrProsek posted:

Aww westernization still needs you to border Europeans . I totally get why that has to be for gameplay and "realism" reasons, don't get me wrong but I just wish it could be possible for me to westernize without giving a colonial European nation a free CB against me. Overall the DD was fantastic though, especially like that the AI will westernize now sometimes.

I was disappointed to see that too. One of the first changes I'll make is mod it from any_neighbor_country to any_known_country.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 17:01

RabidWeasel: Aug 4, 2007; Cultures thrive on their myths and legends...and snuggles!

SeaTard posted:

I was disappointed to see that too. One of the first changes I'll make is mod it from any_neighbor_country to any_known_country.

In reality it should really require a friendly (or at least non-hostile) western power that you're trading with, but I prefer the any_known abstraction to any_neighbour.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 17:50

burnishedfume: Mar 8, 2011; You really are a louse...

I think at least in EUIII there's already a way to set the potential so you need a western nation with 150 relations; that's what the arms trade modifier needed, so unless it goes away in EUIV, it should be doable.

But yes at the very least SeaTard's idea will be easy to mod in and will make it so you don't need to pray the AI doesn't just stomp your poo poo in before you get the chance to westernize.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 18:28

binge crotching: Apr 2, 2010

I'm guessing it's using the new lua syntax, but yeah it should still be possible to add a relations requirement. In eu3 I also put a special AI-only decision in that only required 3 stability + tech difference with no slider or leader requirements, which lead to the AI westernizing in basically every single game.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 18:39

Beamed: Nov 26, 2010; Then you have a responsibility that no man has ever faced. You have your fear which could become reality, and you have Godzilla, which is reality.

These dev diaries are becoming tortuously tantalizing.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:00

RabidWeasel: Aug 4, 2007; Cultures thrive on their myths and legends...and snuggles!

DrProsek posted:

I think at least in EUIII there's already a way to set the potential so you need a western nation with 150 relations; that's what the arms trade modifier needed, so unless it goes away in EUIV, it should be doable.

Yeah I knew this but my point was that in EU3 you could just diplomat spam someone who you knew existed and get good relations with them, whereas in reality you should require a long term relationship between two countries for westernisation to take place; EU4's relations system will likely be better for this sort of thing, since you could require both parties to have good relations with the other.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:00

Wolfgang Pauli: Mar 26, 2008; One Three Seven

DrSunshine posted:

"Scientists in our country have discovered Terrorism!"

... Okay! That's good. Keep it up, 19th century mad scientist chaps!

Yeah. I had to stop for a second when I saw Activated: Anarchist Bomb Throwers. I dug through the military menu wondering if PDM added a unit where a bunch of no good mugs go around firebombing pubs to occupy a province quicker.

I'm still not a fan of EU's tech groups. It's trying to cover so much and cram so much into such tiny little boxes that it feels empty and meaningless. I mean, technology is such a fickle term. If a Western nation that has discovered firearms opens up trading relations with an Indian nation, the Indian should get firearms regardless of tech level. But what's still left to be discovered is how to use them effectively and to organize their armies in a European manner to be more effective outside of guerrilla situations. I think a mix of Vicky 2's Westernization (now that I think about it, why isn't this called modernization in the Vicky 2 time period?) and HoD's colonization would be fantastic.

I also think tech groups are incredibly arbitrary. Case in point: the South/Central American native empires are in the same group as the North American native nations. It's not like the Shawnee could have just teched up to Aztec level, there were significant differences in resources and society.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:34

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Not to mention the fact that Europeans got firearms from the Middle Easterners, who in turn got them from the Indians, who got them from the Chinese back in the 12th or 13th centuries.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:41

KittyEmpress: Dec 30, 2012; Jam Buddies

DrSunshine posted:

Not to mention the fact that Europeans got firearms from the Middle Easterners, who in turn got them from the Indians, who got them from the Chinese back in the 12th or 13th centuries.

I sorta just plan that in Paradox games, it's an alternate history where everything is Eurocentric and only Europe gets cool things.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:45

Kavak: Aug 23, 2009

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

Yeah. I had to stop for a second when I saw Activated: Anarchist Bomb Throwers. I dug through the military menu wondering if PDM added a unit where a bunch of no good mugs go around firebombing pubs to occupy a province quicker.

You know what I'd loving love in Heart of Darkness or a hypothetical final expansion for Vicky 2? The ability to be a corrupt bastard- to leave any Machine Politics or Rotten Buroughs alone to gerrymander the poo poo out of your country. Militancy should shoot up, of course, but it's a small price to pay for the perverse thrill of destroying democracy.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:45

Wolfgang Pauli: Mar 26, 2008; One Three Seven

DrSunshine posted:

Not to mention the fact that Europeans got firearms from the Middle Easterners, who in turn got them from the Indians, who got them from the Chinese back in the 12th or 13th centuries.

That's why tech is so stupidly hard to implement in strategy games. There are so many vectors to account for that even *trying* for an accurate model ends up in a horrible design with a huge micro burden on the player. The only strategy game tech screen I've ever thought really captured what it's about was HoI2. You fund a specific team to a general project and they have to discover the various bits and bobs that need to be discovered on the way to the goal. Nevermind society's technology, you're just a government giving out contracts and grants to science and industry.

Kavak posted:

You know what I'd loving love in Heart of Darkness or a hypothetical final expansion for Vicky 2? The ability to be a corrupt bastard- to leave any Machine Politics or Rotten Buroughs alone to gerrymander the poo poo out of your country. Militancy should shoot up, of course, but it's a small price to pay for the perverse thrill of destroying democracy.

Have POPs actually go on strike or demonstrate or march on the capital. And then you get the natural option to send in the troops or hire Pinkertons and corrupt it from the inside.

More and more I tend to see rebel as less whack-a-mole and more of an Arab Spring situation. They're not armed rebels, they're just protestors peacefully marching on your capital and swaying local governments to their side. It only becomes a bloody riot when you send in the troops.

Speaking of that, I would love for an option to disengage from fighting rebels that doesn't involve being forced into battle for a week and having to retreat across provinces. Rather than a unit defecting to rebels, you -- or even the troops themselves -- could just say, "No, we're not fighting our neighbors and countrymen." They remain as troops, but you can't get them to fight against rebels. They just sit there. Or just give us a button to meet rebel demands, like you can in EU3. I mean, if I want the Jacobins to win, do I really need to see my army crushed, my factories disintegrate under occupation, and my country locked down with rebels for half a year?

Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Mar 22, 2013

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:48

Pimpmust: Oct 1, 2008

Of course, the flaw there was that the tech team never got better (outside of rare events), and the tech progression was entirely dependent on their general skill and static subskills, so once you funded a project is was a determined time before the project finished.

Adding some Swords of the Stars 1 design there could make for a nice system, as well as the HoI3 tech skill improvement things.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 19:58

WhitemageofDOOM: Sep 13, 2010; ... It's magic. I ain't gotta explain shit.

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

Have POPs actually go on strike or demonstrate or march on the capital. And then you get the natural option to send in the troops or hire Pinkertons and corrupt it from the inside.

More and more I tend to see rebel as less whack-a-mole and more of an Arab Spring situation. They're not armed rebels, they're just protestors peacefully marching on your capital and swaying local governments to their side. It only becomes a bloody riot when you send in the troops.

"Sire the health care movement has risen up in protest, they stand united with their fellows and refuse to return to work until their demands are granted."

gently caress YES, i want that.

Your options, give them some loving health care, wait it out, send in the troops.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:03

YouTuber: Jul 31, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

I wish revolts would be a far lower percentage based chance in EUIII but be more dire. I'd love it if they spawned a decent sized stack of maybe 10 units in a country the size of France/Britain but when they capture a county it adds about half of the total number of troops to the stack to make it a rolling threat. That way it'd be prudent to have troops actively in recently captured areas prone to revolt but minimize the whack a revolt nonsense that gets annoying.

I'd love for someone to tell me how to automate my revolt suppression for island colonies consisting of 100 population that get sent into revolts by spies.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:25

DrSunshine: Mar 23, 2009; Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

That's why tech is so stupidly hard to implement in strategy games. There are so many vectors to account for that even *trying* for an accurate model ends up in a horrible design with a huge micro burden on the player. The only strategy game tech screen I've ever thought really captured what it's about was HoI2. You fund a specific team to a general project and they have to discover the various bits and bobs that need to be discovered on the way to the goal. Nevermind society's technology, you're just a government giving out contracts and grants to science and industry.

It's why I brought up the idea of having it based on connections to other countries instead. Science and technology thrives on one's connections to neighbors. Venice, Constantinople, Baghdad, Alexandria-- historically, all of these places were centers of great thriving in science due to being situated at centers of trade and connections to other peoples. Europe was a place where there were many small countries all jostling up against each other, connected to each other by their borders and the movements of people along roads and waterways. In that context, technology and innovation proliferated, because to lag behind would have meant certain death at the hands of one's neighbors, and you could not prevent ideas from spreading even if you tried. Conversely, nations that were historically isolated or land-locked, such as China and Japan, were easily able to isolate themselves and shut out the destabilizing flow of foreign ideas by closing their borders. Thus, they stagnated. We see this in modern-day North Korea, the most isolated country in the world, which has stayed at a 1950's technological level while the rest of the world is in the 21st century.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:31

binge crotching: Apr 2, 2010

YouTuber posted:

I'd love for someone to tell me how to automate my revolt suppression for island colonies consisting of 100 population that get sent into revolts by spies.

Modify adjacencies.csv, add straits between all the drat West/East Indies islands.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 29, 2024 20:56

A Tartan Tory: Mar 26, 2010; You call that a shotgun?!

So I am debating with myself whether my United Balkans Empire (started as Croatia and have everything from Wallachia to Morea to Constantinople) should advance up into Europe or go full crusader mode on the Ottomans in Asia Minor. I still have another 200 years of holy war, so I'm pretty sure I could hit India, but that just seems cliche.

# ? Mar 22, 2013 20:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›799 »