|
DrSunshine posted:What happens afterwards? HoI2 had weather as well. Did HoI1?
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What happens afterwards? 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
The entire point the loving conflict was to not go to nuclear war.  I know that the threat of nuclear war was always at hand, but everyone knew that one missile would be the end to all things, not just a country.I really hope that after launching a nuke and facing retaliation the world just slowly dies off so you know how stupid of a choice that was.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Crameltonian posted:The EU4 one is pretty cool- Paradox seem to have realised that they hosed up with Japan in Divine Wind so they've completely reworked it, you can now play as one of 20 daimyos. They've also added a V2-esque scoring system where you gain points each month for one of the top 10 nations ranked by administration, diplomacy or military. The EU series has never really been able to implement a proper scoring system and while it's not really necessary it's quite a nice feature. It'll be pretty funny if playing Japan in EU4 is more fun than playing Sengoku.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Leaderboards!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
JGBeagle posted:The entire point the loving conflict was to not go to nuclear war. Well, they might write the AI in such a way as to allow for limited exchanges and gradual escalation with a strong chance of one side backing down (especially in proxy wars). If they go with the historical MAD doctrine, they might as well replace every 'launch nuke' button with a 'lose' button.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Nevets posted:Well, they might write the AI in such a way as to allow for limited exchanges and gradual escalation with a strong chance of one side backing down (especially in proxy wars). If they go with the historical MAD doctrine, they might as well replace every 'launch nuke' button with a 'lose' button. I don't think that'd be a bad way to simulate nuclear warfare, honestly.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:So, I finally had the time to play a full game of The Imperialist Adventures of Srbja & Friends, I've made a few tweaks based on it. Oh, that reminds me - when I was playing before, Germany ended up releasing Prussia from western Switzerland, which seemed to be the result of a single Swiss province having a Prussian core on it. Was that intended?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
EU4 Japan has +25% discipline as its base NI  I have to say I don't like how the scoring system works because it means that starting as a major power naturally gives you more time to accrue score which seems weird. I guess if you imagine it as being how much impact your nation has had on the entire period as a whole then it makes sense but I would have preferred something more dissimilar from CK2. RabidWeasel fucked around with this message at 19:30 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Oh, that reminds me - when I was playing before, Germany ended up releasing Prussia from western Switzerland, which seemed to be the result of a single Swiss province having a Prussian core on it. Was that intended? Hmmmm... Definitely not. I'll look into it.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:EU4 Japan has +25% discipline as its base NI I belong to the camp that thinks 'score' is weird and out of place, but if they're going to do it, it might be nice to have some 'meta' score data in the main menu, like a little screen where you can see the highest score in a game you've achieved and what country it was as, or stuff like that. Although, I guess modding could screw that up by adding removing tags.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Hmmmm... Definitely not. I'll look into it. It seems to be a residual thing from the Vanilla 1836 start, since Neuchatel was a Prussian holding until 1848. There's an event that cedes the province to Switzerland, though I don't know if this issue is only in PDM/NNM or also in Vanilla V2. Spiderfist Island fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
JGBeagle posted:The entire point the loving conflict was to not go to nuclear war. I don't want to get into the details of nuclear exchange i've been to too many cold war conferences in the last few months, but the bigger problem for a paradox game is that the governments involved would be almost immediately dismantled. People just aren't committed enough to stay loyal to a government that got them nuked, that's beyond the pale even for the pretty hardcore, so it wouldn't so much be a "clean everybody die" or a "WWII but BIGGER" scenario so much as the superpowers devolve into Mad Max/STALKER hell-holes with no government. Which is basically the same as "the nuke button is the resign button" from a gameplay perspective. Though it's possible that an exchange wouldn't escalate. For a long time in the Cold War some USSR strategists just thought of nukes as bigger artillery and some US ones as just bigger bombs. Those strategists clearly did not wind up with history on their side, but hey, who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Tried playing a game as Hungary in EU3+. I don't think it's possible to do anything, not with Poland around. I snapped up some Balkan territories only for the pink army's 60k troops to march into my borders, even as we were on good relations. Hungary always get the raw end.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Tulip posted:I don't want to get into the details of nuclear exchange i've been to too many cold war conferences in the last few months, but the bigger problem for a paradox game is that the governments involved would be almost immediately dismantled. People just aren't committed enough to stay loyal to a government that got them nuked, that's beyond the pale even for the pretty hardcore, so it wouldn't so much be a "clean everybody die" or a "WWII but BIGGER" scenario so much as the superpowers devolve into Mad Max/STALKER hell-holes with no government. Which is basically the same as "the nuke button is the resign button" from a gameplay perspective. *Or something in between a rebel controlled province and a colonizable one. Tulip posted:Though it's possible that an exchange wouldn't escalate. For a long time in the Cold War some USSR strategists just thought of nukes as bigger artillery and some US ones as just bigger bombs. Those strategists clearly did not wind up with history on their side, but hey, who knows. E: Even if the crisis could be stopped by the trading of cities like that, I would suspect dissent to go through the roof, especially on the side that let the other have a free shot. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:E: Even if the crisis could be stopped by the trading of cities like that, I would suspect dissent to go through the roof, especially on the side that let the other have a free shot.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Man I'd love to play a HoI4 with a map converter from V2 that included a mildly realistic MAD level nuclear exchange possibility and the ability to keep playing afterwards. Could even have a "what if the cuban crisis went hot" sort of start date in the game.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
It's looking more and more like the goal of EvW is to win World War III rather than to win the Cold War.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Absolutely. I don't necessarily agree with Tulip that a country hit by a nuke would immediately have its government dismantled by its own citizenry (that doesn't really sound like typical human behavior whatsoever), but if the nuclear strike was allowed and invited, that's a recipe for disaster. Oh no, no no, i apologize for any lack of clarity, i'm pretty under the weather. It's more like "if there was a full doomsday nuclear exchange" type scenario rather than "merely" getting hit. The problem is as much the launching as the getting hit. Governments run on trust and a government that not only fails to prevent but is actively complicit in The Apocalypse On Earth is not one that people trust. Of course, i work with nearly-failing states and so that might color my perception (the idea that people will simply be OK with their government no matter what it does is utterly and absurdly baffling to me). A Buttery Pastry posted:It would be awesome if provinces could just fall under an Anarchy designation, effectively turning them into the uncolonized provinces of EU3/Vicky II*, with major effort required to make them into anything more. It would take the focus quite a bit off what should be the meat and potatoes of the game, but it would be pretty interesting seeing the world fall apart while you try to maintain control of your own state. Especially if you were just a poor little post-colonial state, your former masters now blocking out the sun. I totally forgot about the trading cities thing, it really doesn't come up much among the people i talk to because nobody thinks that the US government would follow through on that at all (and probably not the USSR either). The Paradox Game that most closely follows how i think of governments is Mount & Blade. Which would be kind of cool - nukes fly and it turns in to M&B: DC.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Tulip posted:The Paradox Game that most closely follows how i think of governments is Mount & Blade. Which would be kind of cool - nukes fly and it turns in to M&B: DC. You have conquered Kiev! President Eisenhower awards it to himself and invites you to a feast. You have five days to arrive at his camp.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Beamed posted:HoI2 had weather as well. Did HoI1? All of the Hearts of Iron games had weather. HOI3 is infamous for it because its simulation of weather was (is?) very processor-intensive.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:You have conquered Kiev! President Eisenhower awards it to himself and invites you to a feast. You have five days to arrive at his camp. I had originally been somewhat tongue in cheek but gently caress it now i want a M&B/Fallout mashup.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
JGBeagle posted:The entire point the loving conflict was to not go to nuclear war. Reminds me of Balance of Power, one of the best Cold War games ever made (hell, one of the best strategy games ever made, period). You can press your luck as far as you want to, get one day away from the nukes flying, and keep playing...but if at any point, either you or the other superpower launch nukes, it's an instant game over and the game yells at you. E: Also, I would play the gently caress out of a post-apocalyptic Mount and Blade-style game (or even just a total conversion mod). I put more time into the old 'World War 2 in China/Civil War in China' mod than I did into the actual base game.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
I'm kind of impressed how much the EvW Devs appear to be misinterpreting the Cold War. Then again, they appear to be taking a page from Victoria's industrial mechanics now, so there may be something playing in there (After it's been vetted by the thread and is on sale, of course  )Ofaloaf posted:You have conquered Kiev! President Eisenhower awards it to himself and invites you to a feast. You have five days to arrive at his camp. I would so play this. On sort of the same topic, there's a Chinese Civil War mod for Mount and Blade- it's for multiplayer and quick battle right now, but it seems like they're experimenting with a single player mode. Tulip posted:I had originally been somewhat tongue in cheek but gently caress it now i want a M&B/Fallout mashup. There's this thing, but it appears to have died 4 years ago. Kind of surprised no-one else has tried something like it- someone made an extensive and awesome Star Wars mod after all.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Kavak posted:I'm kind of impressed how much the EvW Devs appear to be misinterpreting the Cold War. Then again, they appear to be taking a page from Victoria's industrial mechanics now, so there may be something playing in there (After it's been vetted by the thread and is on sale, of course Honestly, I just wish that for every game made by milspergs who obsess about modeling the horsepower values of 800 different types of tank and cream themselves over hyper-accurate ORBATs, there would be equivalent games with attention paid to social movements, politics, tradecraft, soft power, and diplomacy. Those people play games too, right?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Honestly, I just wish that for every game made by milspergs who obsess about modeling the horsepower values of 800 different types of tank and cream themselves over hyper-accurate ORBATs, there would be equivalent games with attention paid to social movements, politics, tradecraft, soft power, and diplomacy. Those people play games too, right? If you check out the EvW subforum, they do. Its just that the developers ignore them. One of the topic there talked about new power blocks emerging like having Islamist successfully emerge in the 70s and then forming a new power block against both NATO and the Warsaw pact.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If you check out the EvW subforum, they do. Its just that the developers ignore them. One of the topic there talked about new power blocks emerging like having Islamist successfully emerge in the 70s and then forming a new power block against both NATO and the Warsaw pact. You don't need a bloc system with the Clausewitz Engine. Each alliance should have its victory points and such calculated independently, so you can have a NATO/Warsaw Pact/Pan-Arab/Pan-African/whatever competition to be top dog. CharlieFoxtrot posted:Honestly, I just wish that for every game made by milspergs who obsess about modeling the horsepower values of 800 different types of tank and cream themselves over hyper-accurate ORBATs, there would be equivalent games with attention paid to social movements, politics, tradecraft, soft power, and diplomacy. Those people play games too, right? East vs. West: A Victoria Game.  Oh, what might have been...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
I could imagine a system of MotE-esque coalitions that sort of apply for ideology. I guess as a member of a specific ideology (communism, NATO/capitalist allies, Islamists, etc.) there would be an urging for you to join that particular coalition, which perhaps could be a pain for the player but *shrug* I'm not sure on that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:I could imagine a system of MotE-esque coalitions that sort of apply for ideology. I guess as a member of a specific ideology (communism, NATO/capitalist allies, Islamists, etc.) there would be an urging for you to join that particular coalition, which perhaps could be a pain for the player but *shrug* I'm not sure on that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I don't think that'd be a bad way to simulate nuclear warfare, honestly. I've said it before, that's an awesome thing for simulating the feel of the cold war, both sides with a shiny red button that makes everyone lose. It captures the paranoia perfectly when the other side can just declare you the loser in exchange for losing itself.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Tulip posted:I totally forgot about the trading cities thing, it really doesn't come up much among the people I talk to because nobody thinks that the US government would follow through on that at all (and probably not the USSR either).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 09:08
|
|
|
I'm trying to acclimate myself to Victoria 2 with a Brazil game, and I have a pile of questions. Regarding pops: What should my priorities be when it comes to promoting my pops? From what I've seen on the last few pages, it looks like I should try to promote bureaucrats in order to get high admin efficiency in all my states, and then clergy for literacy - but how much clergy? Also, what's a good percentage of capitalists to aim for in each state? And do I need to promote pops to craftsmen and clerks prior to factories being opened, or wait until my capitalists decide to build something before promoting those. From what I saw on a wiki, it sounds like you want to have about 80% craftsmen and 20% clerks per factory - is that accurate? National focus: Is there a 'no-brainer' option you'd want to set your national focuses (foci?) to if you don't have an immediate need to promote any particular pops? Should they just be set to promote whatever political party you're aiming for in your most populated states, or is it more worthwhile to promote specific industries? Factories: Oh also, does the location of your factories matter in relation to a particular state's RGO? So if my country has several states that produce wood, do I want to put furniture factories out there in the wilderness, or would they have the same operating costs or efficiency no matter where they're built in my country?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
Kersch posted:I'm trying to acclimate myself to Victoria 2 with a Brazil game, and I have a pile of questions. A percentage of capitalists per state improves the state's factories' input efficiency by up to 2%. I'm not sure what the % of capitalists needed for that is, but it's smaller than the bonus. Usually I personally go for a few hundred capitalists at first to get a class that can start projects, then as my country grows I may promote more. I promote craftsmen when a factory's being built/almost has been built in order to have a starting pool for the first factory in the state. I don't think it does anything if you promote them earlier though, since they'll just demote over time if they're unemployed. The clerk:craftsman ratio is 1:4 (so 20:80 as you read); I usually promote clerks once my factories have been established and making a profit with a sizeable number of craftsmen in them. quote:National focus: quote:Factories: Of course if a state produces a factory's inputs AND is populous, going for it makes sense (provided the good won't sell at a loss; otherwise you'd just be building factories that make 25% greater losses!).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 12:18
|
|
|
Kersch posted:I'm trying to acclimate myself to Victoria 2 with a Brazil game, and I have a pile of questions. Pops: You have it mostly right - first get 100% admin efficiency (use the budget screen to check, NOT per-state Bureaucrat numbers) and then go for Clergymen. 2% Clergymen country-wide maxes out research point, but you really want 4% Clergymen per state to max out literacy gain. You want very very few Capitalists, maybe even less than 100, total. Any income a factory makes is distributed among all the Capis, so having lots of them dilutes their income and slows down their rate of investment into factory and railroad projects. You don't need to promote Craftsmen before factories are built. In fact, sometimes you don't need to promote Craftsmen at all: The whole point of getting your admin efficiency and literacy up to snuff is so that your pops can promote to Craftsmen on their own. Yes, the 80/20 split between Craftsmen and Clerks is optimal. National Focus: If you've already hit your Bureaucrat goal, your Clergymen goal, and have a few Capitalists, I usually fall back on promoting Clerks or Soldiers directly, depending on whether I'm going a-conquerin' or if I just want to build up my industry. Craftsmen will come of their own accord eventually, but Clerks are valuable enough to specifically spend NFs on. I don't think I've ever really used the industry-type or party-loyalty NFs. With regards to the former, it's far better to try and get a Planned Economy or State Capitalism party in power to build the factories you need, rather than trying to convince your Capitalists to build the "right" ones. Factories: There are a couple of factors to consider where to place factories: * Some factories require that the input RGO exists where you build it - the state has to have a Lumber RGO for you to be able to build a Lumber Mill there * Even when factories don't require the above, if the state has an RGO that produces the input of the factory, it gets a 25% throughput bonus. This can become a chain of industries where you have an Iron RGO, so you build a Steel factory for the bonus, and then you build a Tank factory in the same state because Tanks need Steel. * Railroads/infrastructure act as a throughput bonus. Since rough terrain reduces the max level of railroad in a province, a factory built in flat terrain is going to be more productive than a factory built in the jungle, because the latter factory isn't going to have a railroad bonus early on, and then is still going to lag behind in railroad level even at high tech levels. EDIT: To explain the difference between an input bonus, a throughput bonus and an output bonus: The amount of material consumed by factory to produce a certain good is Base Value * Input * Throughput The amount of goods produced by a factory is Base Value * Throughput * Output Input gets REDUCED by techs and the number of Capitalists in a state, allowing you to produce more without needing as much raw materials Throughput gets INCREASED by techs, the number of Craftsmen and infrastructure from railroads. If a factory requires 100 craftsmen to produce 100 goods a day, then throughput bonuses allow you to hit that mark with less craftsmen. Output gets INCREASED by techs and Clerks, allowing you to produce more with the same amount of raw material and craftsmen. gradenko_2000 fucked around with this message at 12:38 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Cool, I now have HoD and AHD and a Steam version of Victoria II. Played a full Prussia/Germany game when the game first came out, enjoyed it but it was pretty rough. Thought it had promise, excited to see how far they've come with it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:* Railroads/infrastructure act as a throughput bonus. Since rough terrain reduces the max level of railroad in a province, a factory built in flat terrain is going to be more productive than a factory built in the jungle, because the latter factory isn't going to have a railroad bonus early on, and then is still going to lag behind in railroad level even at high tech levels. On this note, stay aware of the flattest states in your country. Some nations have an abundance of flat land, making the question moot, but others have a lot of odd bits that must be worked around. (Plains, forests, and deserts all get full rails. Hills -1, jungles and swamps -2, an mountains a -3 to max rail level.) These states will get the most benefit from rails, and so are your ideal sites for factories. Prioritize getting 4% Clergy/Max Literacy in these states, as Literacy helps drive pops into factory work. From 10-30% a farmer or labourer will start to naturally convert to craftsmen, and at 50% or more craftsmen will start naturally promoting to clerks. Clerks will naturally move to Capitalists if they're getting their luxury needs.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:I've said it before, that's an awesome thing for simulating the feel of the cold war, both sides with a shiny red button that makes everyone lose. It captures the paranoia perfectly when the other side can just declare you the loser in exchange for losing itself. If I've learned anything from the Forums Balance of Power threads, that is really not an awesome thing.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Honestly, I just wish that for every game made by milspergs who obsess about modeling the horsepower values of 800 different types of tank and cream themselves over hyper-accurate ORBATs, there would be equivalent games with attention paid to social movements, politics, tradecraft, soft power, and diplomacy. Those people play games too, right? Everyone would say it was boring, just like people here used to complain Vicky 2 was boring.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Pops:
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Kersch posted:Is there any particular reason why you wouldn't want to raise admin efficiency to 100% in every state as well? Several reasons. One, state admin efficiency only affects crime fighting in that state, which has a very minor impact on your nation. Two, for core states you get a 20% bonus to state admin efficiency on top of a flat 5% bonus, so you only need 0.75% bureaucrats to max out efficiency - while even with no social reforms passed, you need 1% bureaucrats throughout the nation to max out efficiency. In other words, you don't have to actually worry about state efficiency because you'll max out it naturally. It's definitely better to get 1% bureaucrats in each state though, because POPs promote to bureaucrats a lot faster when they're under the amount needed for 100% efficiency, and promote much slower when they're over it. In any case, getting 100% efficiency is crucial. Not only does it double POP promotion rates throughout your nation, it also makes your budget more manageable. At 0% efficiency, you pay twice as much as you should to your bureaucrats and clergy, and constructing buildings and units cost twice as many resources.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 14:15
|
|
