|
Darkrenown if you're still reading this thread, for April Fools, force-release a patch that gives your games ugly borders. I would get much joy from the anger.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
DStecks posted:Because "Just increasing the attrition of armies" does absolutely gently caress all to stop the player from splitting their armies in half but keeping them in the same province, getting all the benefit for none of the penalty. oh my god, I meant regiments. DStecks posted:Completely reversing my argument, then using "micromanagement" as a dirty word for "any army management more complicated than just click the enemy" is a pretty convenient way to argue, huh? What the hell are you talking about? How is it army management to make armies smaller so they could go faster, when the end result is exactly the same as it is now? You are literally advocating making the system require more work so that the result is the same, but people who don't want to loving click "Create new army" until they have achieved ~*~optimal army number-attrition-speed balance~*~ don't have to because it's a dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Darkrenown please save us from shitposts with more quotations of idiot flamewars from the other forums 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Beamed posted:oh my god, I meant regiments. At this point I have literally zero idea what in the gently caress you're saying, so I'm just going to throw up my arms and say "gently caress it". I was wrong, combat in Paradox games is flawless and perfect and cannot be improved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
DStecks posted:You missed the part where I said that armies would have their attrition footprint increased for each additional friendly army in the same province. It's fun arguing with people who don't even read what I'm saying. Attrition rolls at the end of the month so just pause the game on the 30th of every month and recombine every army to reduce attrition. Then on the 1st you can go around the map and split every army down to regiments again
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
DStecks posted:At this point I have literally zero idea what in the gently caress you're saying, so I'm just going to throw up my arms and say "gently caress it". I was wrong, combat in Paradox games is flawless and perfect and cannot be improved. My very first post was saying that EU4's combat isn't very great, but you're seriously advocating pretty bad things and getting mad when people criticize you for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Necroneocon posted:edit: Often times I check the LP subforum on HOI3 for a tutorial LP and it's just... well people roleplaying. I always wanted to really give HOI3 a try but there aren't any tutorial LPs with the latest expansions, whereas you have good ones for CK2, EU4 and Vicky2. I was trying to convince rask to make a good hoi3 LP, but I don't play tanks with him anymore so I can't hound him about it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
DStecks posted:At this point I have literally zero idea what in the gently caress you're saying, so I'm just going to throw up my arms and say "gently caress it". I was wrong, combat in Paradox games is flawless and perfect and cannot be improved. Yeah guy that's exactly what people are saying. Boy it sure does suck your solution and status quo were the only choices huh Busywork is not what you reward players for, planning things in advance and efficiency are. That's why it would be stupid to give the player 50 more morale to every unit for playing the whole game from command prompt. You suck at game design and taking criticism (hint: pulling the "welp you guys think my idea sucks, guess you think the status quo is perfect  " card is a good sign you suck at taking critisim), learn to do both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
The only thing ive gathered from this is that Victoria 3 needs to use March of the Eagles combat system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:The only thing ive gathered from this is that Victoria 3 needs to use March of the Eagles combat system. This, and EU5 too possibly, if starting armies already have their generals assigned decently. Not like historically accuretally but simple 'good generals start off already assigned to large units' kind of way. One thing that made playing MotE hard for me was assigning the dozen or so generals you have to assign at the start as France. E: That or do it like CK2/EU:Rome and have more unit types; heavy infantry, light infantry (maybe regular infantry, or skirmishers?), cavalry, heavy cavalry, archer cavalry, and artillery. It's more busywork sure, but it's optional since spamming heavy infantry and heavy cav and artillery would work fine, it wouldn't be able to compensate for certain weaknesses, and it's busywork involved in choosing army composition instead of constantly breaking up and reforming units every battle. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Busywork is not what you reward players for, planning things in advance and efficiency are. Tactics are not busywork. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:This, and EU5 too possibly, if starting armies already have their generals assigned decently. Not like historically accuretally but simple 'good generals start off already assigned to large units' kind of way. One thing that made playing MotE hard for me was assigning the dozen or so generals you have to assign at the start as France. Thats the good part about it, victoria 2 already has the auto assign generals function, so that issue is already solved! I already accumulate a ton of leadership points, and by extension generals I never use anyway, so they can finally be use for something other than cluttering up the military screen. Also the descriptions in march of the eagles make battles cooler, especially if they can put in blurbs about your generals traits affecting combat somehow. General Smith (Alchoholic, School of the Bayonet) got shitfaced and ordered a disastrous charge against a machine-gun nest!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Tactics are not busywork. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. "I will split my army to move them around so they go faster, then re-unite them before they engage the enemy" is not tactics and it is busywork.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Tactics are not busywork. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. DStecks posted:"Do I want to do this busywork?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to balance against. Is busywork not busywork  Also it really is in your case, this isn't tactical planning you're talking about, it's splitting up your doomstack into 2 microdoomstacks, attacking as normal and then merging them later. It's not tacitcal at all, in every battle no matter where it is, I will respond to anything the same way; doomstack walks in, split into 10 smaller units, walk to enemy province.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Tactics are not busywork. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The "tactics" you're proposing are brainless and boring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Tactics are not busywork. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Splitting and rebuilding armies vs an omniscient AI is busywork. I already feel like tearing my hair out playing against the AI since it's impossible for me to tell how long it will take to get from province X to Y, that would be 10,000x worse if units changed speed based off the size of the army. Armies moving at different speed based on size doesn't really make sense anyways. Tactically sure, but in the EU timeframe armies are limited by the speed of their baggage trains, not by the speed of individual regiments tactical speed. There's a reason cavalry moves at the same speed strategically as artillery. e: Seriously I play WitP for fun and what you're proposing is crazy. uPen fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
I'm loving done. My fundamental problem is that I'm not adequately communicating how I'm visualizing the mechanic, and getting worked up and upset sure as hell won't help that. So I concede defeat. Genuinely, this time. The idea I proposed wouldn't do what I proposed it to do, the way that I proposed it. It would need a shitton of overhaul to the combat system to work, when I explicitly said that it would work just fine without any overhauls. Given the opportunity, I'd significantly overhaul how the combat works on a strategic level, to make it more interesting than "click on the enemy until they're dead". But that isn't what I said my idea was to do. So I was wrong. I stand by the core idea being sound (that of smaller armies moving faster), but the issues you all raised about implementing that into the current system are all on the mark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Personally I'd like the ability to just relinquish control of my armies over to the AI. It's grand strategy, not grand tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Personally I'd like the ability to just relinquish control of my armies over to the AI. It's grand strategy, not grand tactics. I'd be down for this. Just let me give them some general strategy and let the AI handle things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Also, sorry Riso, but I guess I'm not planning on contributing to Sengoku any more. DrProsek was right, I'm a dumbass and bad at game design and should just kill myself. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Also, sorry Riso, but I guess I'm not planning on contributing to Sengoku any more. DrProsek was right, I'm a dumbass and bad at game design and should just kill myself. Ya know, you kinda suck at this whole "dropping it" thing. And your hyperbole really doesn't work when people can go back and read my old posts. I said you suck at game design, and you take criticism like a giant baby and I really don't see how proving the latter point scores you any internet points or whatever it is you are trying to do...
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Personally I'd like the ability to just relinquish control of my armies over to the AI. It's grand strategy, not grand tactics. Yes please. I mean, it's possible to let the AI take control of all your armies in the wargame of the series, why can I not do the same in the less combat-focused games?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Personally I'd like the ability to just relinquish control of my armies over to the AI. It's grand strategy, not grand tactics. Isn't this one of the features that a lot of people complain about when talking about HoI3? On top of the ahistorical WW2, the thousands of provinces, the extreme complexity etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Is Victoria 2 + the 2 expansions playable and/or better than VIP + Revolutions? Cause Paradox wanting $30 for 2 expansions to make a game remotely interesting is stretching it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Also, sorry Riso, but I guess I'm not planning on contributing to Sengoku any more. DrProsek was right, I'm a dumbass and bad at game design and should just kill myself.  You should really calm down and think things over a while, dude. I like your passion and your modding ideas, but it sounds like you're getting way too riled up here!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Also, sorry Riso, but I guess I'm not planning on contributing to Sengoku any more. DrProsek was right, I'm a dumbass and bad at game design and should just kill myself. The level of betrayal I felt when I was criticized by goons tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to design anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Darkrenown please save us from shitposts with more quotations of idiot flamewars from the other forums From the Darkest Hour forums: quote:Is there any mod that makes it possible not to implement New Deal but instead make free-market reforms? I would love to audit the FED and create a healthy economy instead of the one Roosevelt did. quote:What's so bad about the New Deal? quote:That I am a liberal and in my point of view it was a mistake and that the whole Great Depression was to much extent the cause of both FED and government's failed policies? quote:The 'New Deal' created cartels and monopolies further harming US recovery. The 'New Deal' was one of the worst economic decisions made in 20th Century USA since the first slump causing the Depression. quote:The Austrian school believes that the Great Depression was caused, and exacerbated, by the Federal Reserve and federal intervention in the economy, so that throw your assertion right out the window, unless you don't think the Austrian school is "reputable," which itself is complete nonsense and only shows your bias. You can code anything you want into the game, but people will protest your unfair and biased representation of history and economics. If you do decide to code an economic reform chain for the Great Depression, you should do it in a similar way to Kaiserreich. They represent 3 methods (central planning, free market, and mixed) equally, with each being more likely to get events that resulted from their policy. The way you seem to want to do is just blatantly anti-free market. Regardless of the history or game design or whatever, it's just intolerant to dismiss an entire school of thought just because you don't agree with it. Johan/Darkrenown please put in Cryptocurrency as a Secret Tech tech in HOI4 TIA eXXon posted:Is Victoria 2 + the 2 expansions playable and/or better than VIP + Revolutions? Cause Paradox wanting $30 for 2 expansions to make a game remotely interesting is stretching it. Yes, Victoria 2 + the expansions are excellent games in their own right now, at the very least competitive with Ricky while having an easier interface and mechanics to deal with, albeit more black-box-ish. Wait for a sale if you want, I think it's been as cheap as 10 USD for the base game + expansions. BBJoey posted:Yes please. I mean, it's possible to let the AI take control of all your armies in the wargame of the series, why can I not do the same in the less combat-focused games? Agreed. Victoria could definitely profit from a Civ 4-esque approach to warfare in which the one with the most production (and manpower) will win, plus-or-minus colonial shenanigans in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:The level of betrayal I felt when I was criticized by goons tore something from me that I'll never be able to recover. They tore away my ability to design anything, and they tore away my ability to feel human. You know, I generally appreciate the SA rules against memes, catchphrases and image macros, but on some very rare occasions nothing could express my emotions better than a gif of Michael Jackson eating popcorn. Oh wait, yes they could:  Anyway, I've been spending some time recently thinking about alternatives for tech group based penalties in EUIV. One idea that's sort of stuck with me is a set of generic Events, Decisions and Modifiers based around stability and stagnation. The basic idea would be that countries that had some combination of lack of stronger neighbours, lack of stronger regional powers, lack of advanced neighbours/regional powers, long periods of peace, etc, would be hit by events that gave an option for either stability/ducat/whatever loss (some sort of major immediate loss), or an increased tech cost, decreased stability cost modifier, with the AI skewed toward taking the latter. I really have barely hammered anything out on it other than the basic idea, but wanted to ask if anybody knows if it has been tried before/been successful in the past? Defeatist Elitist fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Discussion from the last page, I just want to chime in re: historical railroading that EU2 with historical event mods were the only reason I manage a 5 on the AP Euro History test in highschool. Without EU2, I'd have had to pay an extra $1,500 in tuition during undergrad, so thank you historical railroading.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Well definitely one option that's USUALLY popular is just setting everyone's tech rate to 100% and then having it all basically be neighbor bonus based. With the tech system change I don't know EXACTLY how well it would work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Defeatist Elitist posted:Anyway, I've been spending some time recently thinking about alternatives for tech group based penalties in EUIV. One idea that's sort of stuck with me is a set of generic Events, Decisions and Modifiers based around stability and stagnation. That's basically Magna Mundi right there, except it would have to be both a stability hit and an increased stability cost modifier at the same time. And lots of pirates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:That's basically Magna Mundi right there, except it would have to be both a stability hit and an increased stability cost modifier at the same time. And lots of pirates. Yes my intention is to hopefully make it it edit: Also the idea is it would replace tech group tech rate differences. And the events would be fairly infrequent and unlikely to trigger in, say, normal European circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Defeatist Elitist posted:You know, I generally appreciate the SA rules against memes, catchphrases and image macros, but on some very rare occasions nothing could express my emotions better than a gif of Michael Jackson eating popcorn. Oh wait, yes they could: Comedy posts aside, I think he's right in perhaps the military area in these games (aside from HoI) needs more depth, just in a more meaningful purpose without it going in same sort of way the Steppe Horde system did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:01
|
|
|
HoI is the game that needs more depth and options the most since it's all about war and for the most part the warfare in HoI is pretty dull.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
uPen posted:HoI is the game that needs more depth and options the most since it's all about war and for the most part the warfare in HoI is pretty dull. I remember the combat in Vic 1 being a pretty decent compromise between complexity and simplicity, I might be wrong though. As far as EU4 goes, it's pretty fine, but I think games like Vic 2 really should have had a more expanded combat system. oh wait you mean in HoI, sure why not, as long it doesn't have 7000 provinces again
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
On the war side of things I'd like to see Victoria's combat get fleshed out a bit more. I mean, we're talking about the period in which the Great War occurred - when I think WW1 I think lines of trenches, defence in depth, human wave attacks and a contiguous frontline manned by both sides. Victoria 2's combat system where the best way to bring an enemy to the peace table is to force a single pitched battle in one specific province with all your dudes in it is just completely incapable of representing WW1. Of course I have no idea how you would actually go about crafting a combat system that can accurately represent both 19th century and 20th century combat, but it's still my dream~ e: while I'm going on about my dreams, I really hope the next Victoria game has some sort of Conference system, where the great powers can assemble and carve up dying states like the Ottoman Empire or China or mark out territorial boundaries in Africa for example. Mods like NNM are able to kinda represent events like the Berlin Conference or the Convention of Peking through events, but they're a bit heavyhanded and having a dynamic system would be neat. BBJoey fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Jan 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Counters. Lots and lots and lots of counters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
Well yes I'm a huge  who actually enjoys loving around with the HoI 3 order of battle to cleanly and efficiently organise my army structure and I'd love it if V2 had a system with counters that detailed, but at the same time I understand that not everyone would enjoy Spreadsheet Simulator 1836 edition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
I'm sorry for freaking out, guys. I'm... unwell... right now. I should have dropped it as soon as I started getting mad. I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
DStecks posted:I'm sorry for freaking out, guys. I'm... unwell... right now. I should have dropped it as soon as I started getting mad. I apologize. It's okay man, happens to us all 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 07:29
|
|
