|
Westminster System posted:226668 Crusader Kings II: Sparkly Vampires Unit Pack (226668) Depot Unused Do a Ronald Reagan Time Travels to Save Medieval Europe one.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
Too American. I suggest Thatcher instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
W-wait, you can rotate units out of battle in Vicky2?! How do you do that?! I've been able to retreat, but that loses the battle so I typically don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:W-wait, you can rotate units out of battle in Vicky2?! How do you do that?! I've been able to retreat, but that loses the battle so I typically don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
Dauntasa posted:I dunno about CK2. CK2's easily my favourite Paradox game and it's certainly a contender for favourite game, period, but here's the thing about CK2's combat: There's all kinds of deep poo poo going in terms of troop types, army composition, tactic selection, general assignments, trait bonuses and all that, but you've got very little control over it. You basically can't do anything about army composition unless you're willing to drop enormous fortunes on retinues and even then it's impossible to pick anything except a few presets and a cultural retinue. You can have very minor effects on it through what buildings you build but with the way CK2 works you'll be getting most of your soldiers from vassals and you have no say in what they build. Assigning generals is a little deeper but going into that isn't particularly necessary. You can get by with not assigning any at all, and even if you do bother with it for big fights it basically boils down to "Pick the guy with the biggest number unless he's got the Craven trait or you need a terrain specialty". And during actual battles there are loads of different tactics that give different bonuses and have different effects and you have zero control over that. Even if you're personally leading the army, you can't tell them what tactic to pick, which recently lead to me losing over 100,000 men, many of whom were from very expensive heavy infantry retinues, to a stack of Mongols that I greatly outnumbered. All of the guys I assigned to lead it decided to pick cavalry tactics despite the fact that the entire 150,000 strong army contained 42 heavy cavalry and less than 500 light cavalry. The Mongols all picked the horse archer tactic and it was an absolute slaughter. I agree with most of this, but leader assignment really cannot be neglected. Cultural tactics are incredible, and extremely regular so long as you have halfway-decent (16+) generals. Battle results like this:  are pretty regular with Schiltron. (actually, I think at least one of my flanks spent a period in Hesitant Commander in that fight, and I still managed to pull it off  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
A hybrid of CK2 and Victoria 2's combat systems would be great: CK2 has a ton of detail, but is actually rather limited in terms of how much control the player has of those details. Victoria 2 has that detail, but the army management is rear end because you still have to create brigades one by one and merge and organize them manually (EU4 also suffers from this. Despite the marginally better army creation interface, you're still creating them one by one and splitting them into army "blocs" manually). It'd be great if the military leaders had as much influence and personality as CK2's leaders and if you could create a template of "10 infantry, 10 artillery, 2 hussars, 2 engineers" and queue up the whole thing in one go to be built by the next 24 provinces that have an available brigade to be recruited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
I had no idea combat tactics was even a thing before the whole discussion on them. So much stuff that you wouldn't even know unless you watch battles you have no control over its really weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Personally, I think CK2 is fine when it comes to combat and unit composition and things like that. I don't really feel like those are things you should have a lot of control over. What I wish had more depth is the strategic levels of warfare. As it is, campaigns rarely get more complex than figuring out the optimal conditions for engaging the enemy army and how to siege provinces most efficiently (and that's already when one side doesn't have a great enough numerical advantage to render it all moot). There are really very few interesting decisions to make, because there are no real limitations or trade-offs to worry about. In particular, it is ludicrously easy for armies to march anywhere and everywhere without regard for supplies or terrain. I remember thinking about this while reading about the history of various Holy Roman Emperors campaigning in Italy, for example. The fact that you couldn't march an army through the Alps in winter was an ever-present concern for them, and wintering in Italy was always difficult at best. There are other even better examples - crusades tend to be far too easy (and crusader kingdoms too easy to maintain) because none of the logistical problems they faced are really modelled. Now, Crusader Kings isn't Hearts of Iron - it's not supposed to revolve around warfare, and I wouldn't want it to. But I don't think that would preclude adding a little bit more strategic depth to warfare. And most importantly, I feel that adding some of that depth would ultimately help make the rest of the game more interesting, because things like dynastic politics would become more important as just conquering everything became less so. Of course, I recognize that it's still not particularly likely to happen, though maybe I can hold out hope for CK3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:I remember thinking about this while reading about the history of various Holy Roman Emperors campaigning in Italy, for example. The fact that you couldn't march an army through the Alps in winter was an ever-present concern for them, and wintering in Italy was always difficult at best. There are other even better examples - crusades tend to be far too easy (and crusader kingdoms too easy to maintain) because none of the logistical problems they faced are really modelled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:Personally, I think CK2 is fine when it comes to combat and unit composition and things like that. I don't really feel like those are things you should have a lot of control over. What I wish had more depth is the strategic levels of warfare. As it is, campaigns rarely get more complex than figuring out the optimal conditions for engaging the enemy army and how to siege provinces most efficiently (and that's already when one side doesn't have a great enough numerical advantage to render it all moot). There are really very few interesting decisions to make, because there are no real limitations or trade-offs to worry about. In particular, it is ludicrously easy for armies to march anywhere and everywhere without regard for supplies or terrain. Honestly I'd settle for being allowed to choose tactics in battles that my character is personally leading, with a chance of loving up and picking the bad version of the tactic if they've got low Martial skill. There's a big chunk of depth there that you have literally zero control over. In terms of supply, it's really only relevant when you're fighting unreformed pagans. Many of them get a nasty attrition bonus which combined with the fact that unreformed pagan provinces tend to have low supply in the first place can cause your armies to starve. It's especially notable if you reform Norse or Slavic paganism early and try to push into Finland. You'll be getting upwards of 15% attrition even in small armies. Any other circumstance, though, and you can basically ignore it. And while I don't know if I want CK2 to get into that sort of thing since it is, at heart, a political game, it gets a bit silly when you can get called on Crusade and have it be perfectly easy to just have your giant crusading army walk to the Holy land from Scandinavia. Historically I think one Crusade went completely off the rails because the Pope couldn't afford to pay for ships for the Crusaders and they were only starting from Italy. The idea of walking all the way there is absurd and yet the concept of supply and attrition in CK2 is simple enough that it's basically just as easy as sailing. It just takes longer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Apropos of nothing (except exams coming up, maybe) I started thinking about Paradox games again recently. I realised I haven't played EUIV for a while now; probably since a few weeks after it came out. It's probably because it's still early in the game's lifespan, but I just don't find it too engaging anymore. CK2, however, I can see myself coming back to quite often. There's still so much I haven't done yet - I don't own The Old Gods so I haven't even tried the early start/playing as a pagan. In all honesty, most of the time I just play as the same few rulers, really. I think I find CK2 much more engaging because of the personal aspect - having traits up there on the screen lets me roleplay in my head a little bit, having new dickhead rivals pop up every generation is great for picturing history as a personal affair. While I tend to RP EUIV to a lesser extent (in the same way as an LP, in my mind I give certain rulers a background and motivations, etc), it's just not as engrossing as seeing my King's favourite son assassinated by my younger brother. Unbelievably, Vicky 2 is my most played game on Steam. Part of it, I think, is that my computer tends to chug in the later years which probably spreads out the hours a bit. I still would put Vicky 2 at #2 on my list anyway. As a politics nerd, I love how defined the politics system is (compared to most other games, anyway) and it's fascinating watching Communism spread its way across the globe or seeing great wars kick off over some little podunk country's claims. The only criticism I'd have is that the game gets a little samey after a point - having variable event chains like Pop of Darkness/whatever would be great for the oddball stuff for storytelling (like the Commie USA event chain someone posted a few pages back). I'd love to see Paradox take another stab at EU: Rome. I never really played the first much, but on paper it sounds like the best of both worlds for me - character-driven politics and intrigue. TL,DR: Keep doing what you're doing, Paradox. Also, what's everyone's favourite game and why I guess? Unfortunately I don't really have much to say that people probably haven't said before, but I felt like writing down why I love the Paradox games I love anyway V  V
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 10:20
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:CK2, however, I can see myself coming back to quite often. There's still so much I haven't done yet - I don't own The Old Gods so I haven't even tried the early start/playing as a pagan. In all honesty, most of the time I just play as the same few rulers, really. I think I find CK2 much more engaging because of the personal aspect - having traits up there on the screen lets me roleplay in my head a little bit, having new dickhead rivals pop up every generation is great for picturing history as a personal affair. While I tend to RP EUIV to a lesser extent (in the same way as an LP, in my mind I give certain rulers a background and motivations, etc), it's just not as engrossing as seeing my King's favourite son assassinated by my younger brother. I'd say the Old Gods is worth getting even if you don't want to play as a pagan just for the rebels and tech mechanics(is the new tech system in the base game? I bought Old gods right away) and the new start date. Although if you don't want to play pagan and you only buy the Old Gods you may find that Christendom in the 867 start date is an extreme clusterfuck, and it's all the fault of the loving Karlings. There are so many of them and they control pretty much all of Western Europe. They're like termites. The bastards are everywhere and never stop getting into things and messing with them. I remember sacking a castle in West Africa that was owned by some vassal of a big Shia empire and one of the fellows they dragged out was an African man who was the brother-in-law of some Sheikh or something and he was a loving Karling. I wasn't even surprised, I just chucked him into the dungeons to hang out with the other dozen or so Karlings in there. I'm sure they all had a nice little family reunion down in the Oubliette. It is a great start date if you want to play Byzantium on easy mode or really anything other than a Catholic although I would suggest saving West African Pagans and Zoroastrians until you're overcome by intense feelings of masochism and self-loathing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 11:50
|
|
|
Tech differences have been introduced to the non-Old Gods game. What changes for the rebels? I remember reading they were improved or personalised somehow, but I forget exactly what happens. And yeah, I'm definitely interested in getting Old Gods when I've got some spare time and loose change. No doubt it'll go on sale come Christmas time so I'll get it as a long-overdue present to myself. edit to avoid double posting: a little thing I love doing is introducing bizarre new lines of genetics/family into my royal tree. Playing as the Sultan of Africa/Maurentiana/Andalusia once, I ended up with a few generations of West African sultans after some royal marriages. I like to think it's recorded as a little interesting note of history, the three Black Sultans who oversaw the realm at its largest extent  before an rear end in a top hat son, hated by his vassals, saw it all collapse because he got greedy and put conquest over his vassals' opinions 
The Narrator fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Oct 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
To be fair, we've discussed replacing the wallpaper before with actual books, but that turned into a book chest that's filled with titles that have Fabio on the cover.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
A_Spec posted:To be fair, we've discussed replacing the wallpaper before with actual books, but that turned into a book chest that's filled with titles that have Fabio on the cover. I'm not seeing the problem here? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Dauntasa posted:I'd say the Old Gods is worth getting even if you don't want to play as a pagan just for the rebels and tech mechanics(is the new tech system in the base game? I bought Old gods right away) and the new start date. Although if you don't want to play pagan and you only buy the Old Gods you may find that Christendom in the 867 start date is an extreme clusterfuck, and it's all the fault of the loving Karlings. There are so many of them and they control pretty much all of Western Europe. They're like termites. The bastards are everywhere and never stop getting into things and messing with them. Asking as somebody who has never gotten more than a hundred years into an Old Gods start, do the Karlings ever go away?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Asking as somebody who has never gotten more than a hundred years into an Old Gods start, do the Karlings ever go away? If you make it so, or the Muslim conquests never stop, then yeah. Otherwise not really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Asking as somebody who has never gotten more than a hundred years into an Old Gods start, do the Karlings ever go away? One of four things happens. 1: One particular Karling comes out on top as the next Charlemagne and unites all the Karling holdings and reforms their giant Empire and then for whatever reason literally every time I've seen this happen eventually a woman ends up ruling Francia and she always marries the Byzantine Emperor and then there's just one giant loving blob covering half the map and gently caress you karlings ugh 2: No Karling comes out on top and Europe shatters into 10,000 little pieces and becomes a constant never-ending clusterfuck of feuding Karlings forever. 3: There's a big successful rebellion against one of the Karlings that boots them out of that kingdom forever and installs someone with a different last name for once. Hopefully this happens halfway through thing 1 and the Karlings are reduced to jerkbag dukes forever and Francia shatters again. This is the best case scenario. 4: 2 happens and then Muslims/Norse/Tengri arrive and Catholicism gets destroyed and split between them and all the Karlings get sacrificed to Odin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Dauntasa posted:4: 2 happens and then Muslims/Norse/Tengri arrive Is there a good changelog for CK2+ since the very beginning? All I've been able to find is the most recent updates. Also, where does that "When Paradox announced their new DLC..." joke come from? I thought it was a SA thing, but somebody quoted it on the Paradox forums.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
Dauntasa posted:One of four things happens. Hidden 5th outcome I've seen is that rebellion to replace the Karlings (often in France) works, France is ruled for a small time by a non-Karling, until the former king finds his way to his relative's court in Germany, and then the German Karling and the Italian one team up and put their kinsman back on the throne. Repeat ad nauseum forever. Meanwhile, Spain becomes Muslim, and England becomes Norse. That's not to say the game is static in the 867 start, you just sometimes have to poke and prod it to really get the CK2 crazy train going  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
I find it helpful to start assassinating karlings purely out of spite. It might take 150 or so years to really take effect, but with a bit of luck and an imbecile in line for a throne you can cause some nice havoc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
I like how before TOG my most enjoyable game was a Karling count in France, reclaiming lost glory for the house! Now i cannot even stand the loving cockroaches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Hidden 5th outcome I've seen is that rebellion to replace the Karlings (often in France) works, France is ruled for a small time by a non-Karling, until the former king finds his way to his relative's court in Germany, and then the German Karling and the Italian one team up and put their kinsman back on the throne. Repeat ad nauseum forever. Meanwhile, Spain becomes Muslim, and England becomes Norse. To be honest, an EUIV game where you have the Norse Scandinavians and Britons and the Muslim Sultans of Africa, Middle East, and Iberia face off against the Karling Christian Kings of West & East Francia, accompanied by their Byzantine Orthodox allies. Dunno what's happening in Eastern Europe/Russia. Probably mongols.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Dunno what's happening in Eastern Europe/Russia. Probably mongols. Every time I think about playing a game in Russia, I then remember what my future holds. I've seen mongols.jpg, and I know I don't want any of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:I had no idea combat tactics was even a thing before the whole discussion on them. So much stuff that you wouldn't even know unless you watch battles you have no control over its really weird. Paradox has a real problem with designing complex, intricate systems the player has little to no control over. See: Vicky 2's economy; CK2's combat (which, for a period before the release of Old Gods, was broken in such a way that a martial 4 leader was better than a martial 16 one); and EU4's combat, which, ever since the release of 1.2, has been completely broken. And no one noticed, because it's so opaque that neither the developers, the testers, or the players were able to figure out "why are combat casualties so high in the early game and so low in the late game?" until one crazy player decided to run empirical tests, a month after release, and figured out the shock and fire stats no longer did anything. (Discipline is half-broken too, iirc.) Oh, also EU4's economy, which I'd forgotten about since it was so awful. The whole 'supply and demand' system in EU3/4 (same system) should never have existed. It models nothing and adds no benefit to gameplay. I'm hopeful that they're starting to wean themselves off simulation-masturbation; the monarch points system is a very nice, and very game-y system, and though it's imperfect, it's a good sign for the future. We'll see what they do next, I guess. The Narrator posted:Tech differences have been introduced to the non-Old Gods game. What changes for the rebels? I remember reading they were improved or personalised somehow, but I forget exactly what happens. The rebels were 'improved' by returning to the old EU/vicky rebel setup. They have peasant 'leaders' now, which never matters because they never have no chance, but to waste more of your time, they retreat now, instead of vanishing on defeat! Did you miss the old paradox rebel ping-pong? I hope so! God, I really wish they hadn't done that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Kavak posted:East vs. West has introduced the man responsible for their utterly baffling ship building system! Seems like he's actually done some decent work for Hearts of Iron 3, though. Was East vs. West ever released? What happened to the Xbox version of HoI3?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Asking as somebody who has never gotten more than a hundred years into an Old Gods start, do the Karlings ever go away? To be fair, the crowns of France and Germany remained in direct Carolignian hands until around 1000, and the Capets/Salians were blood related to the Carolingians. They didn't just disappear so much as their massive dynasty got swallowed up by extended families
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
So how does converting your game to EU 4 with respect to horde conversions go? The Illkanate spawned and decided to head north and conquer all of the map east of Kiev. The Golden Horde spawned on top of them and swiftly got annihilated. The Illkanate then decided to convert to Orthodoxy. Will all the hordes east of the CK2 map also be orthodox or will they still be muslim?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:What happened to the Xbox version of HoI3?  This wasn't ever really a thing was it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:
It is a thing and it actually got released iirc. Cyber Front did the port. e: 
uPen fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Oct 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:To be fair, the crowns of France and Germany remained in direct Carolignian hands until around 1000, and the Capets/Salians were blood related to the Carolingians. They didn't just disappear so much as their massive dynasty got swallowed up by extended families That's basically what I mean. I understand that bastard dynasties are a thing in the game, but is there any way for branches to split off into their own dynasties?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Was East vs. West ever released? It's still in development. Pretty sure on that one. Due for release in the first quarter of 2014.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 03:41
|
|
|
uPen posted:It is a thing and it actually got released iirc. Cyber Front did the port. Every attempted to search for it implies it never actually came out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Yeah, Xbox HoI died somewhere along the line, as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 08:46
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Yeah, Xbox HoI died somewhere along the line, as far as I know. Judging by the screenshot, it was for the better. I can't even begin to imagine trying to play HoI3 with a controller.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
Related: I hope the Steam controller somehow works well in Paradox games. I think I remember seeing EU4 in one of the Steambox reveal pics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 10:00
|
|
|
In Darkest Hour, how do I stop the AI from bullshit annexing stuff? I'm playing Kaiserreich as Mongolia and trying to take Shaingquing Tenguo or whatever that nation between Mongolia and Qing is called. Qing declared war on them separately after I won several battles and as soon as I take the single victory point province, Qing annexes them without having done poo poo in the war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 10:07
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:EU4's combat, which, ever since the release of 1.2, has been completely broken. And no one noticed, because it's so opaque that neither the developers, the testers, or the players were able to figure out "why are combat casualties so high in the early game and so low in the late game?" until one crazy player decided to run empirical tests, a month after release, and figured out the shock and fire stats no longer did anything. (Discipline is half-broken too, iirc.) Wait, what? Do you have a link?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:In Darkest Hour, how do I stop the AI from bullshit annexing stuff? I'm playing Kaiserreich as Mongolia and trying to take Shaingquing Tenguo or whatever that nation between Mongolia and Qing is called. Qing declared war on them separately after I won several battles and as soon as I take the single victory point province, Qing annexes them without having done poo poo in the war. Get to the capital first.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
If I could a make a movie about any one action I've made in a Paradox game, it would be about the Race to Denver between my CSA forces and AUS forces. I don't know how I would explain that capturing Denver magically turns most of the continent into my territory but hey whatever there were some tense moments around Omaha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2013 11:03
|
|