|
Other then the obvious(new techs, elimination of volkssturm), does anyone know if the land doctrines in darkest hour were changed from vanilla HoI2? I haven't played for years and I wouldn't want to pick a tree that's not the best
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
The german/blitzkrieg tree is still the best with the soviet/manpower one being second.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Is the EUIV "No Pirates in my Caribbean" achievement bugged? I've got them all under the Spanish West Indies and the achievement still hasn't shown up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
I had to do some account finagling because reasons, and so I got these messages from paradox during account activation.  I love you too paradox. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Riso posted:You sound like a grog. Groggy would be going back to the old system  I'm not opposed to changing it, it has some problems (e.g. not enough to spend military points on), nor do I dislike things based on simplification. I disagree with anything that simplifies things so much that it removes differentiation. Europa Universalis already suffers from a lack of variety in countries. It's been said that every country is exactly the same, just changes the color you paint the world. After the first few years (obviously, starting an OPM is quite different from starting as France) this is pretty accurate and I don't like that. As it stands, on paper, the fact that some rulers are better military and some are better administrators, I like that. It reflects how certain rulers would enact really important reforms in a countries history based off their talents and education. The idea of a single pool would remove any differentiation between one heir to the next other than "this guy is really good/bad". At least now there's different shades of good/bad rulers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:Is the EUIV "No Pirates in my Caribbean" achievement bugged? I've got them all under the Spanish West Indies and the achievement still hasn't shown up. Yup, it got broken by CoP. Fixed in beta patch but no achievements because it's a beta patch
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The german/blitzkrieg tree is still the best with the soviet/manpower one being second. The manpower tree is only good if you don't plan on getting into any large scale wars before 1943
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
DerLeo posted:It's basically a generic version of Peter the Great's reforms: standardizing the alphabet, adopting European sciences and philosophy, importing architects for cities and military advisors, etc. nutranurse posted:Then give the non-Europeans something to do while they wait for western enlightenment. Screw it, I'm relaunching tech parity before anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Why not just make a mod that makes every nation in the world Western? It'd be really really simple, like a matter of just "find and replace".
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Why not just make a mod that makes every nation in the world Western? It'd be really really simple, like a matter of just "find and replace". ahahah I can only imagine how pissed off that would make the Paradox forums.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Why not just make a mod that makes every nation in the world Western? It'd be really really simple, like a matter of just "find and replace". Most of the nations outside of Europe seem to always take the same Ideas (Religious, Trade, and one military Idea), and then do nothing of interest, even if you give them tech parity. Besides Japan, I don't think any Asian/SE Asian nation ever takes Exploration or Expansion, either. I could be completely wrong, but that's what I have observed so far.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Why not just make a mod that makes every nation in the world Western? It'd be really really simple, like a matter of just "find and replace". I've played like that a few times in eu3, the only real downside is that after a few decades the entire world knows about everyone else, which makes for very early colonization. I preferred to just make it trivial for the AI to westernize after certain arbitrary dates, while also not hampering their tech rate nearly as much as the default does. It gives you the everyone in the Western tech group game eventually, but not until the 1650s or so, instead of 1450.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
I wonder how it might shake out if someone modded it so that the base research rate was the same for all tech groups, but then fiddled with those 'trading in' bonuses so that access to basically any amount of a good granted the bonus, and then the bonus reduced tech costs a bit. Or maybe trading in the right combinations of goods would reduce costs. So you could have an abundance of a valuable good and still be a wealthy trading nation on say tea or spices, but having access to an abundance of a variety of goods would give faster tech growth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Why not just make a mod that makes every nation in the world Western? It'd be really really simple, like a matter of just "find and replace". El Pollo Blanco posted:Most of the nations outside of Europe seem to always take the same Ideas (Religious, Trade, and one military Idea), and then do nothing of interest, even if you give them tech parity. Besides Japan, I don't think any Asian/SE Asian nation ever takes Exploration or Expansion, either. I could be completely wrong, but that's what I have observed so far. Kersch posted:I wonder how it might shake out if someone modded it so that the base research rate was the same for all tech groups, but then fiddled with those 'trading in' bonuses so that access to basically any amount of a good granted the bonus, and then the bonus reduced tech costs a bit. Or maybe trading in the right combinations of goods would reduce costs. So you could have an abundance of a valuable good and still be a wealthy trading nation on say tea or spices, but having access to an abundance of a variety of goods would give faster tech growth. Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:I've played like that a few times in eu3, the only real downside is that after a few decades the entire world knows about everyone else, which makes for very early colonization. This is an issue with same tech-group sharing maps right? Why not just keep them all as different, but identical, groups?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:You don't even know how much money I would throw at Paradox if they made a Yuri's Revenge DLC. If only to see the tears on the forum as Paradox lights history on fire. From a couple pages back, but Clausewitz modding is (AFAIK) so much easier than Europa engine modding that one of the big things I'm looking forward to in HOI 4 is more Kaiserreich-quality mods. Command and Conquer Red Alert would definitely be one of those: A powerful Soviet Union invading the Western Allies through a democratic Germany in the 1950/60s but nukes have not been invented yet and won't be for at least a year or so. Hell, I bet the map you'd get between C&C (and really, also Dune) missions probably played a subconscious part of why I fell in love with Paradox games. Spreadin' the Soviet Red across Europe before Hearts of Iron was ever a thing 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
The level of betrayal I felt when paradox announced its tesla tank divisions dlc tore...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
grancheater posted:This is an issue with same tech-group sharing maps right? Why not just keep them all as different, but identical, groups?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:This is scripted. A weighted list of idea groups is in the country file, along with what units they get. I gave exploration to any nation with Naval Ideas (which most coastal nations do actually take) and it turned out pretty well. Europe still gets a bit of advantage because of its valuable provinces (which doesn't make much sense anymore given that this can now be modeled with trade), but things turn out much more interesting. Most games usually ended up with Japan taking California, Mali taking Brazil, and the Iroquois duking it out with the Aztec. It's stuff like this that confuses me when you (and others) complain about Paradox's Eurocentrism. I mean, it's totally fine to me that you prefer playing this way, but can you really not understand why not everyone wants wildly ahistorical things becoming the norm? That's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms you can make of things like the Westernization system, but it seems very strange to argue on one hand that EU4 is unrealistically punishing toward non-Europeans and then go on about how it's much better when AI Mali consistently colonizes Brazil. You realize there were good reasons that that did not happen historically, right? I mean, again, if you want to play that way I have no problem with it at all, but it seems like there is a bit of a weird disconnect between different statements you're making here. Maybe you can clarify. Personally, I am okay with Paradox's Westernization system (broadly speaking - I actually haven't played a non-Western nation since the patch that changed the system, so I can't speak for the exact details). No, it's not perfect by any means, and could certainly be improved, but it's an extremely tricky thing to model in an interesting way, so I'm willing to cut them some slack. I do agree that a lot of the "double-dipping" penalties are unnecessary, however. It feels like a lot of people just want it to be a lot easier, which is understandable, because nobody likes the perceived message that certain people are just inherently worse and it's a great struggle for them to achieve what is simple for others. But ultimately I feel like this ends up trivializing what the system is really meant to represent - and worse, it removes one of the challenges to overcome playing somewhere outside of Europe. It should be a huge challenge for the Shawnee or the Kongolese to catch up to the Europeans in technology. There are very good reasons that they were not really able to do this historically, none of which had anything to do with inherent inferiority - but neither did they have to do with random flukes that would have been trivial to change. I respect the desire to make non-Europeans more interesting - they are somewhat lacking in many regards at this point, although hopefully some of the problems will eventually be addressed over time in patches and DLC (or failing that, mods). But the idea of effectively turning them all into Europeans seems very misguided - to me that makes them less interesting and fun to play, not more. Where's the fun in colonizing North America as Japan if I know that I'm not overcoming anything in doing so?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:That's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms you can make of things like the Westernization system, but it seems very strange to argue on one hand that EU4 is unrealistically punishing toward non-Europeans and then go on about how it's much better when AI Mali consistently colonizes Brazil. You realize there were good reasons that that did not happen historically, right? Could you please tell us what those "good reasons" are? fuck off Batman fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
quote:The consensus among mainstream archaeologists, anthropologists, ethnohistorians, linguists, and other modern pre-Columbian scholars is that there is no evidence of any such voyage reaching the Americas, and that there are insufficient evidential grounds to suppose there has been contact between Africa and the New World at any point in the pre-Columbian era.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
Megadyptes posted:yeah that sure showed him. Never reaching America =/= Not outfitting an expedition of around 200 ships. The second part is not contested. And once again, what are those good reasons? fuck off Batman fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Are you arguing that Mali sending 200 ships out to vanish in the ocean is basically the same as colonising Brazil?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Viscardus posted:It's stuff like this that confuses me when you (and others) complain about Paradox's Eurocentrism. I mean, it's totally fine to me that you prefer playing this way, but can you really not understand why not everyone wants wildly ahistorical things becoming the norm? That's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms you can make of things like the Westernization system, but it seems very strange to argue on one hand that EU4 is unrealistically punishing toward non-Europeans and then go on about how it's much better when AI Mali consistently colonizes Brazil. You realize there were good reasons that that did not happen historically, right? I mean, again, if you want to play that way I have no problem with it at all, but it seems like there is a bit of a weird disconnect between different statements you're making here. Maybe you can clarify. Besides which, historical determinism is all kinds of wrong since it assumes that, since things happened this way, they must happen this way. If anything, the purpose of these games is to exploit history and change it. There are valid historical reasons for European hegemony, but the way the game mechanics represent this is as ridiculous as anything that Jared Diamond has ever said, either because it'd be too hard to represent ingame or because more nuanced ones are still relying on the vestiges of old generalizations (CoP is the first time that units have been significantly changed since probably Napoleon's Ambition). quote:It should be a huge challenge for the Shawnee or the Kongolese to catch up to the Europeans in technology. quote:There are very good reasons that they were not really able to do this historically, none of which had anything to do with inherent inferiority - but neither did they have to do with random flukes that would have been trivial to change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
I think it's a sad day when ostensibly liberal arguments come out as badly researched and argued as any balklands nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Are you arguing that Mali sending 200 ships out to vanish in the ocean is basically the same as colonising Brazil? Nope! I'm arguing that they had the means and ambition to try it! They failed of course, but they could have succeeded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Nope! I'm arguing that they had the means and ambition to try it! They failed of course, but they could have succeeded. Then why didn't they?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Rumda posted:Then why didn't they? I don't know, that's why I asked about those good reasons. I know it seems like that, but that question wasn't entirely hostile in nature. I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:That's what I want: mechanics that represent actual historical processes, not mimic deterministic outcomes without interrogating what is really going on. These things are hardcoded in the game, and really we can change very little about how the game itself operates. This is a tall order considering that historians, anthropologists, evolutionary theorists and all the rest who are interested in the topic still don't have a consensus on even the basics of how to explain the west/rest question. I really don't think there is going to be a non-deterministic solution that will generally seem realistic or credible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
Well according to this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Farewell-Alms-Economic-History-Princeton/dp/0691141282 It's due to genes, and downward social laddering particularly in the UK. How can we make sure this replaces Monarch points as a historian vouched historical process explaining technological advances in a grand strategy game?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Are you arguing that Mali sending 200 ships out to vanish in the ocean is basically the same as colonising Brazil? Rumda posted:Then why didn't they? Zohar posted:This is a tall order considering that historians, anthropologists, evolutionary theorists and all the rest who are interested in the topic still don't have a consensus on even the basics of how to explain the west/rest question. I really don't think there is going to be a non-deterministic solution that will generally seem realistic or credible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
maev posted:I think it's a sad day when ostensibly liberal arguments come out as badly researched and argued as any balklands nationalism. Yeah that will be a sad day. Not here yet tho. Though I guess neither side is really researched at all, if you want to get technical. Edit: It is interesting how westernization turns this thread all paradox formy though. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Of course it is, but that doesn't mean the specifics of implementation can't be criticized. There may not be absolute consensus, but there's a wealth of thinking that can better justify it besides stacking the deck. Besides which, we do have a very good idea of how capitalism works, and that's really what we're talking about here. We're not discussing the development of Europe, we're talking about the development of capitalism as a complete economic system. That's the period this game is trying to model and the period in which Europe emerged as a colonial and imperial power. There's certainly a wealth of thinking, but my point is that the different schools of thinking on the subject often have only slight overlap or are even mutually incompatible, so you would have to at least make a decision to plump for one model. Your concrete suggestion is to have the game model a realistic history through emergent behaviour based on given underlying parameters, but if you don't stack it to produce favourable outcomes from the start then you're basically demanding a real scientific accomplishment from the devs beyond what most historians etc. have been able to manage -- a mathematical model that can accurately predict plausible avenues for how history unfolds, even if in a very broad brush. I'm not even sure we do have a good idea of how capitalism works on a macrohistorical scale either, given that there are plenty of different competing theories about the nature of capitalism, whether or not it was inevitable, and so on. Again, simulating this non-deterministically, without any loading of the dice, seems very difficult to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
All that this tells me is that someone ought to make a cool flavor event mod for Mali, because between the dude setting off over the horizon with a thousand ships and Mansa I crashing the economy of most of the Islamic world just by going on hajj and giving gifts everywhere, Mali seems to be one of the more badass medieval realms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Why are people so angry that the about the merest possibility of a medieval west african empire financing a large scale expedition to south america? Why is discussing this possibility somehow the equivalent of being an insane nationalist? I'm honestly quite confused. edit: Also, as far as the overly ahistorical argument goes, we're talking about a grand strategy game in which the Byzantine empire can successfully survive the Ottoman invasion, conquer Ireland, and then go on to colonise North America. I feel this context makes the concept of Mali attempting to colonise the east coast of South America actually quite plausible. El Pollo Blanco fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Why are people so angry that the about the merest possibility of a medieval west african empire financing a large scale expedition to south america? Why is discussing this possibility somehow the equivalent of being an insane nationalist? I'm honestly quite confused. Nobody is angry about the possibility of that happening. The point was if your solution for the way EU4 handles non-Europeans is just to slap European mechanics on top of everyone and make Mali colonize Brazil every single game while Japan grabs Mexico, then you can't very well complain that the original is unhistorical. Nobody minds if you want to play that way, but the outcome of doing so is decidedly less historical than any game of vanilla. El Pollo Blanco posted:edit: Also, as far as the overly ahistorical argument goes, we're talking about a grand strategy game in which the Byzantine empire can successfully survive the Ottoman invasion, conquer Ireland, and then go on to colonise North America. I feel this context makes the concept of Mali attempting to colonise the east coast of South America actually quite plausible. A Byzantine Empire in player hands can do those things, just like Mali in player hands can definitely colonize Brazil. It shouldn't be the norm (in vanilla) for how the AI plays that country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
What is the closest anyone's seen to historical outcomes in CK, EU, and/or HoI anywho?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
I agree that the norm should not be a sub-Saharan nation grabbing half of South America, or Korea colonising the entirety of the South Pacific every game, and, as you say, giving every nation on earth tech parity would be extremely ahistorical to the point of absurdity. However, making it an absolute impossibility for a non-European nation to achieve similar levels of tech to Europe without western influence feels like an equal cop out to that of Mali colonising the Americas every single game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:What is the closest anyone's seen to historical outcomes in CK, EU, and/or HoI anywho? From my last Panjab game in Vicky II using New Nation Mod:   It was surprisingly close to history, excluding India forming in the 1870's, a communist revolution in India in the 1900s, no WWI and Austria-Hungary only losing that little chunk to Yugoslavia instead of dissolving. Oh, and if you ignore Asia entirely because I don't know what happened with Mongolia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:What is the closest anyone's seen to historical outcomes in CK, EU, and/or HoI anywho? Not very close. Realistically, the only thing that gets close to the historical outcome is the western group thing and that is way, way, way off. Hell from a mechanical point of view most things that happened are downright impossible to happen. Which is understandale you can only do so much without it just becoming a railroad game. Which makes all this  about my historical accuracy really funny. The paradox forum is coming from inside the thread!
CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Feb 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 16:54
|
|