|
Sky Shadowing posted:I'm betting the DLC model will be one of two ways- LoR, buy to unlock features, or they lock nations unless you have the DLC. We already know everyone is playable from the start, and they're is no way they would retroactively lock off nations. People would rightfully go BALLISTIC if they patched the game and you were suddenly unable to play, say, China, even though you could play yesterday, just so they could sell the ability to play a "better" version back to you. I expect to see larger "feature" packs, maybe? Like one that enhances end game colonial revolts/Napoleonics. I dunno, it does seem a little trickier than CKII, but, on the other hand, CKII has unlocked nearly everyone now, and still has two years of DLC planned, so we'll see... EDIT: I expect a poo poo load of sprite packs, too. There's almost an unlimited number they could make, given the number of cultures and tech eras in the game. Fintilgin fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Aug 7, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Kainser posted:Uh, I don't see how the player not being able to defeat an empire 10 times as powerful as his is a "'gently caress you' option". That's just game balance/A.I and something that's present in many games! I am not saying it should be easy, but I do thing that a player who is good at a game should be rewarded for it. If you are able to pull off a Byzantine victory, you shouldn't be hosed over, just because it didn't happened historically. After all, Paradox makes games, not historical simulators were the same thing happens in each game. Otherwise, you might as well take Byzantine, and every other nation that was in a bad place historically, out of the list of playable countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Germany wins in '43, so the Yalta conference hasn't happened yet. The Soviet Union was ultimately unable to muster enough resistance to deal with the rapid German advance and most of its territory now composes the patchwork of petty German despotates that stretches from France to the Urals, ruling as vicious caricatures of petty feudal lords (if that were even possible). The Ukraine was pretty much ruled as a personal fief already IRL. The further you get from Berlin, the less its influence is. quote:In east Asia, the Soviet Union was no longer a threat to Japan. I wouldn't count the Soviets out in the long run. They still have significant industrial capacity from the relocation, and lots of natural resources in Siberia. What they really lack is manpower. quote:
The problem is Japan would get its rear end kicked by the US unless Germany can interfere somehow, and they barely can. I'd expect the region to look familar in many ways. quote:As part of the peace deal signed between the UK and Germany, the UK gave up its overseas colonies, technically, to Germany (France lost them in 1940). Unlikely, not only are both unable to enforce demands on the other, but Hitler would be more than willing to leave them alone. Status quo ante bellum. quote:In reality, the shattered, anarchic German government that arose in the wake of Hitler's death is de facto incapable of ruling its newfound colonial empire. Africa, the middle east and India are, at least nominally, free, although locked into bitter sectarian and ethnic strife as their power vacuums are filled by ruthless and ambitious people. The defeat robs the British/French of colonial appetites, and emboldens the locals, who will fight with greater ferocity to ensure their freedom. German arms shipments may be involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I expect to see larger "feature" packs, maybe? Like one that enhances end game colonial revolts/Napoleonics. The Byzantine DLC seems to be the way they're going: DLC which enhances the playing experience of certain countries/regions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
L0VE posted:After reading the AAR on the Paradox forums showing off Byzantium I have to say it really crushed a lot of my anticipation of the game. I realize that it's a powergamer abusing the AI to the fullest, but it really felt like he was just cruising through things because he just couldn't lose even if he tried. It only took him a few years from what should be a doomed start to eclipse the Ottomans. But what really got to me was when I finally saw him facing some form of adversity, when he had to fight the coalition of Austria, Ottomans, Hungary, Nepal AND Venice. He admits this is too much even for him and he's going to have to sign an unfavorable peace deal as soon as possible but... Pfft, beating the Ottomans as Byzantium is nothing. Try reading the Victoria 2 Krakow World Conquest AAR if you wanna see some crazy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
e X posted:I am not saying it should be easy, but I do thing that a player who is good at a game should be rewarded for it. If you are able to pull off a Byzantine victory, you shouldn't be hosed over, just because it didn't happened historically. After all, Paradox makes games, not historical simulators were the same thing happens in each game. Otherwise, you might as well take Byzantine, and every other nation that was in a bad place historically, out of the list of playable countries. Nothing about historical determinism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Beamed posted:The Byzantine DLC seems to be the way they're going: DLC which enhances the playing experience of certain countries/regions. Seems like a hard balance to me to keep them from being entirely cosmetic or, on the other hand, drifting into 'pay to win' territory. i.e.: fspades posted:That said, I agree blockading the Bosphorus is some obvious ahistorical bullshit. Ottomans had this and eventually this to counter exactly that. Now available in the Ottoman Glory DLC!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Seems like a hard balance to me to keep them from being entirely cosmetic or, on the other hand, drifting into 'pay to win' territory. I don't disagree, I'm just explaining Paradox's apparent philosophy on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Riso posted:The problem is Japan would get its rear end kicked by the US unless Germany can interfere somehow, and they barely can. I'd expect the region to look familar in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I don't disagree, I'm just explaining Paradox's apparent philosophy on the matter. It's tricky, because no one is going to want to pay for the privilege of installing the 'Time of Troubles' DLC, but having event packs be lots of positive events or cool missions that gives you strong bonuses would be kinda sketchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:It's tricky, because no one is going to want to pay for the privilege of installing the 'Time of Troubles' DLC, but having event packs be lots of positive events or cool missions that gives you strong bonuses would be kinda sketchy. I mean, if you think about it, it's the same question as asking what future EU4 expansions would hold, just on a smaller scale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Kainser posted:That wasn't what he was talking about, he was saying that if a nation is in a sufficiently bad position for whatever reason so shouldn't it be possible to comeback since the AI really should be able to finish you. Being reduced to one city in Civilization with a 20-city antagonistic empire surrounding you etc. Just because you have that huge neighbor near you doesn't mean it should immediately attack you. The way I see it, Byzantium should be hosed against if they go to war at the beginning of the game, but if there's maybe a decade before that happens, they should be able to make allies and perhaps expand elsewhere or destabilize the Ottomans. It should be a constant battle for breathing room before the Ottoman invasion. I assume Byzantium has lots of diplomats by virtue of being an empire, and maybe they should have some discounts on whatever the equivalent of spy actions are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Japan was built up quickly to act as a pacific ally against the soviets and emerging chinese, if Germany won we're assuming Russia is not a threat to the west so the rebuilding wouldn't have been such a priority. Was also one of the reasons a lot of their war-crimes got swept under the rug and the emperor kept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Kainser posted:That wasn't what he was talking about, he was saying that if a nation is in a sufficiently bad position for whatever reason so shouldn't it be possible to comeback since the AI really should be able to finish you. Being reduced to one city in Civilization with a 20-city antagonistic empire surrounding you etc. And all I am saying is that if you are a good enough player too pull of such a feat, it shouldn't be impossible 'just because'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
fspades posted:That said, I agree blockading the Bosphorus is some obvious ahistorical bullshit. Ottomans had this and eventually this to counter exactly that. Oh, that's interesting. Reading the AAR I was wondering why they didn't just do that in real life. Maybe they need to add some sort of special building to protect straits...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
e X posted:And all I am saying is that if you are a good enough player too pull of such a feat, it shouldn't be impossible 'just because'. This is kind of a strange argument. The very problem being discussed is that the AI may not do what is best for it "just because". We're not talking about some kind of arbitrary limit on the player preventing his victory, we're talking about an arbitrary limit on the AI preventing them from doing what the human would regularly be doing on a regular basis. To be clear here, the argument being advanced is that if the AI is enormously stronger and larger than the player and the player happens to be extremely small and right in its natural path of expansion, the AI should not stay its hand "just because." We're not talking about the AI deliberately setting out to gently caress the player, and we're not talking about a situation where "Oh, well, the player COULD win if it weren't for bullshit AI bonuses." We're talking about "God himself would not be able to stop the AI from annexing us if they wanted to and they have every reason to want to."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:12
|
|
|
That is not really what I got from Weasel's or Kainser's posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Well, it's what I meant at least 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Japan was built up quickly to act as a pacific ally against the soviets and emerging chinese, if Germany won we're assuming Russia is not a threat to the west so the rebuilding wouldn't have been such a priority. Was also one of the reasons a lot of their war-crimes got swept under the rug and the emperor kept. The emperor was kept because they were afraid the Japanese people would rise up. The main differences I expect in the region are a unified Korea, and a KMT victory. Without the Berlin distraction the USAF can supply Chiang; without the Soviets he can capture tons of Japanese military equipment, plus all of Manchuria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Yeah that's exactly what I was getting at too. A human-controlled OE would almost never allow Byzantium to take a single additional province and would almost certainly annex them within the first decade, because they hold a province with immense strategic value (not the mention the fact that it's a 14 tax province with huge trade power) and have the potential to be a threat if they manage to get their naval force large enough (probably by reclaiming cores from the few nearby greek minors). The AI can't really analyse the situation in this way, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Well, it's what I meant at least Eh, I just wrote a long winded explanation, but I guess it was a dumb misunderstanding on my part. Of course, the game deliberately letting you win would not really be a good mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
e X posted:And all I am saying is that if you are a good enough player too pull of such a feat, it shouldn't be impossible 'just because'. There were always some nations in Paradox games where surviving with them was virtually impossible barring some extreme luck and cheap exploits. Tripolitania in Vicky 2. Granada in EU3. Albania in HoI games. All people are asking is that Byzantium should be in a more similar position but Paradox disagrees because they are ~~the glorious Roman Empire~~...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
I would honestly be satisfied if Byzantium doesn't end up surviving 50% of the time thanks to the Ottomans never finishing them off or collapsing to Greek rebels and that the Ottomans at least occasionally reaches their historical extent. I guess the 1444 start date helps here with no Timurids.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
The problem is that if it is possible to do a world conquest with Byzantium or Tibet or whatever then that means playing countries like France and Spain or the Ottomans may well not just be easy, which compared to other countries they're always going to be, and that's fine, but downright boring. I can't judge it until I've played it so I won't, but I feel that's where the fear comes from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
You have to remember that the guy doing the Byzantine AAR almost managed to succeed in an Iroquois world conquest playthrough for EUIII, and the only reason he failed to do so is because he hit the end date with only ~80% of the world controlled. In contrast to Quill, he's an expert at the system-mastery style of playing Paradox games. He's not a typical player, for better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Eh. If the Byazantine AI manages to survive on its own in any significant number of games then there's a problem, but a talented player is always going to be able to break the AI over his knee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
fspades posted:There were always some nations in Paradox games where surviving with them was virtually impossible barring some extreme luck and cheap exploits. Tripolitania in Vicky 2. Granada in EU3. Albania in HoI games. All people are asking is that Byzantium should be in a more similar position but Paradox disagrees because they are ~~the glorious Roman Empire~~... Maybe on the Paradox forums it's because of their Roman Empire fetish but I just think having nations that are impossible to play is rather annoying, especially when in real history that nation survived quite a bit longer than is possible in the game, like Granada in EUIII or Ethiopia in CK2, or making Byzantium impossible in EUIV. Troipolitania is sort of unavoidable since it starts the game in a war it loses in history that results in its annexation, but I actually would be happy seeing Granada and Byzantium at least be able to survive until their historical annexations, and I wouldn't really consider it a problem if in 10 years the player is able to do something that discourages the Ottomans from attacking them like buddying up with Hungary, or becoming Venice's vassal, or something of the sort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Seems like a hard balance to me to keep them from being entirely cosmetic or, on the other hand, drifting into 'pay to win' territory. Good idea!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The problem is that if it is possible to do a world conquest with Byzantium or Tibet or whatever then that means playing countries like France and Spain or the Ottomans may well not just be easy, which compared to other countries they're always going to be, and that's fine, but downright boring. I can't judge it until I've played it so I won't, but I feel that's where the fear comes from. Of course the game also has to be interesting despite you being limited in your ambitions, but I kinda feel like that's the point sometimes, that the ability to outdo history and conquer like crazy is shoring up limited internal/diplomatic gameplay. DrProsek posted:Maybe on the Paradox forums it's because of their Roman Empire fetish but I just think having nations that are impossible to play is rather annoying, especially when in real history that nation survived quite a bit longer than is possible in the game, like Granada in EUIII or Ethiopia in CK2, or making Byzantium impossible in EUIV. Troipolitania is sort of unavoidable since it starts the game in a war it loses in history that results in its annexation, but I actually would be happy seeing Granada and Byzantium at least be able to survive until their historical annexations, and I wouldn't really consider it a problem if in 10 years the player is able to do something that discourages the Ottomans from attacking them like buddying up with Hungary, or becoming Venice's vassal, or something of the sort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:We already know everyone is playable from the start, and they're is no way they would retroactively lock off nations. People would rightfully go BALLISTIC if they patched the game and you were suddenly unable to play, say, China, even though you could play yesterday, just so they could sell the ability to play a "better" version back to you. I can definitely see them making DLC to flesh out minor nations, like giving them special events or decisions or non-generic NIs. That's basically what the LOR DLC was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:Good idea! I'll send you my Steam id so you can send me kickbacks! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I do agree that it should be possible for the player to somehow survive, but it should be tough. The example you posted here is also kinda funny, since I really doubt either of the two would give the Ottomans much pause. Especially in the long run, which is really the problem. Byzantium is up against the wall, and the Ottomans are going to keep on coming. Just discouraging them isn't enough, Byzantium needs to end the threat eventually, otherwise the Ottomans are going to get their shot when the Austrians inevitably invade its allies. Oh, true that Venice especially shouldn't really make the Ottomans cower in fear of invading glorious Byzantium. I meant more like "become a vassal of Venice or ally Hungary, increase your life expectancy to 20 years as the Ottomans grab up a few easier targets before coming back and ending your poo poo!", and in turn those 10 additional years might give the player time to come up with something else. Surviving 100 years should really require either the Ottomans to collapse due to internal factors, Muscovy to expand rapidly to border the Ottomans, a huge drawn out war with a resurgent Timurids, etc. Basically, allying Venice or Hungary should less guarantee your survival, but more make you a more annoying to fight target than Trebizond until the Ottoman treasury gets a bit more gold in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I can definitely see them making DLC to flesh out minor nations, like giving them special events or decisions or non-generic NIs. That's basically what the LOR DLC was. They could do DLCs with an earlier start date, like Old Gods, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Oh, true that Venice especially shouldn't really make the Ottomans cower in fear of invading glorious Byzantium. I meant more like "become a vassal of Venice or ally Hungary, increase your life expectancy to 20 years as the Ottomans grab up a few easier targets before coming back and ending your poo poo!", and in turn those 10 additional years might give the player time to come up with something else. Surviving 100 years should really require either the Ottomans to collapse due to internal factors, Muscovy to expand rapidly to border the Ottomans, a huge drawn out war with a resurgent Timurids, etc.  (Which seems like it should be possible, given that the Austrians can apparently take Venice without conquering all of the Venetian lands.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
If the CKII ~ EUIV converter does well, maybe we'll see an official EUIV ~ VII converter...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Even if that solution ends up being conquering Naples and going into exile. Wiki posted:Alfonso the Magnanimous KG (also Alphonso; Catalan: Alfons; 1396 – 27 June 1458) was the King of Aragon (as Alfonso V), Valencia (as Alfonso III), Majorca, Sardinia and Corsica (as Alfonso II), Sicily (as Alfonso I) and Count of Barcelona (as Alfonso IV) from 1416, and King of Naples (as Alfonso I) from 1442 until his death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:You have to remember that the guy doing the Byzantine AAR almost managed to succeed in an Iroquois world conquest playthrough for EUIII, and the only reason he failed to do so is because he hit the end date with only ~80% of the world controlled. In contrast to Quill, he's an expert at the system-mastery style of playing Paradox games. He's not a typical player, for better or worse. Are this guy and PrawnStar the same guy? Or is there a different Iroquois near-WC game I'm not aware of? I too just worry that the Ottoman AI will never bother to attack Constantinople and they'll survive for forever. It should be the #1 target for the Ottoman AI. A Buttery Pastry posted:Byzantium is up against the wall, and the Ottomans are going to keep on coming. Just discouraging them isn't enough, Byzantium needs to end the threat eventually, otherwise the Ottomans are going to get their shot when the Austrians inevitably invade its allies. Especially since the Romans aren't just some neighbor to the Ottomans, like say Albania. The Ottomans had basically spent the last 150 years trying to bring Rome down and replace them. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Aug 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:27
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
BYZ has no special rules, it's a not-terribly-poor 3 province minor. If every 3 province or less nation near a large power is just irrefutably doomed then a whole lot of nations would be unplayable. The OE can't annex all the nations it borders at the same time, and there's no special "DESTROY THE PLAYER BEFORE HE CAN DO ANYTHING!" code, so if the OE doesn't kill you first a good player has a chance to survive. As Wiz says, it would be easy for him to put in something like that, "Oh, you're a player? gently caress you! *Annex*", but we think that would suck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Wasn't the deal that Constantinople is incredibly rich and has a high defensiveness rating, which is both historical and something most minors don't have?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:BYZ has no special rules, it's a not-terribly-poor 3 province minor. If every 3 province or less nation near a large power is just irrefutably doomed then a whole lot of nations would be unplayable. The OE can't annex all the nations it borders at the same time, and there's no special "DESTROY THE PLAYER BEFORE HE CAN DO ANYTHING!" code, so if the OE doesn't kill you first a good player has a chance to survive. As Wiz says, it would be easy for him to put in something like that, "Oh, you're a player? gently caress you! *Annex*", but we think that would suck. Have you guys given any thought to making the Gallipoli strait unblockable via. Navy, for balance reasons? The Ottomans just completely flail when they're split in half like that. EDIT: And even if the AI has improved such that that won't be the case, it still hurts the AI unreasonably, and it's not that hard for a player to overcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2013 20:39
|
|