|
yo how come in HOI3 I can't promote any of my army group HQs to theatre HQs? Germany 1936 start and I seem to be stuck with two theatres. More generally, is it worth making sure every level of the hierarchy is occupied? Like is it worth having an army group with only one army in? Or should that one army just be attached directly to the theatre? ps. I'm cautiously impressed by the current state of HOI3. I only just started but so far it's leaps and bounds from when I tried vanilla HOI3 on release.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry -- are you a graphic designer or something? The suggestion/idea images you've come up with look really slick and cool. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Every 1 skill of the Theater-level leader reduces the stacking penalty during combat by 1% Every 1 skill of the Army Group leader reduces the supply consumption by 5% Every 1 skill of the Army leader increases Organization by 1% Every 1 skill of the Corps leader increases the chance of a reserve division entering combat Every 1 skill of the Division leader increases combat efficiency by 5% If you skip a level, such as assigning a Corps directly to an Army Group, you miss out on the Army-level bonus completely It's generally a good idea to make sure that all of your units are part of the command structure, unless you lack leaders or you can't position the units/HQs such that they're in radio range of each other, since that means they can't get the bonus anyway. At worst you want to make sure that troops are assigned to an Army Group, since reducing supply consumption helps even if it's some division in Tahiti that's never going to see combat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Thanks re: creating theatres - I needed to detach the HQ I was trying to upgrade from its parent HQ first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:A Buttery Pastry -- are you a graphic designer or something? The suggestion/idea images you've come up with look really slick and cool. I'm an architect, and the processes we use early on in a project work pretty well for all kinds subjects, since half of it is basically figuring out how various things can best fit together. When you get down to it, there's not that much difference between a complex building project, and a complex game feature, it's just different contexts/constraints. And obviously being an architect involves some degree of graphic design too. (The rest is stealing from games I've played.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
fuf posted:Thanks I find the easiest way is to just detach all the Corps level HQs, scrapping everything below the theater HQs (you get your MP back if you disband an HQ) and recreating the OOB from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
double nine posted:Wait, seriously? I could have sworn EU4 was steamworks... It is, but "Steamworks" is a pretty big collection of tools and Steam's DRM(s) is(are) an optional switch that you can use or not. We don't. fuf posted:yo how come in HOI3 I can't promote any of my army group HQs to theatre HQs? Germany 1936 start and I seem to be stuck with two theatres. You can only have 1 theater HQ per theater. If you want more theaters, first detach your army group from it's current theater and you should be able to promote it, then assign the theater some provinces via the edit theater button. E: Oh, beaten
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
With all the passive-aggressive rebuttals to criticism of EvW by the devs, it's looking like even money that a particularly angry and/or drunk developer is either going to break his NDA or even leak the game like Ubik did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Kavak posted:With all the passive-aggressive rebuttals to criticism of EvW by the devs, it's looking like even money that a particularly angry and/or drunk developer is either going to break his NDA or even leak the game like Ubik did. In Ubik's case, he leaked the game under the delusion that he might someday release it as a full game for money, with a lock to prevent you from saving as all but four countries and even with those four countries cutting gameplay off in 1500. The fact that most people consider that the whole game is a testament to how The cases are a bit parallel in that there are things in both of the cancelled games that looked like they had promise, but (definitely in Magna Mundi's case, my suspicion in East vs West's case) they were horribly implemented and poorly-integrated with legacy systems from previous Paradox titles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:In Ubik's case, he leaked the game under the delusion that he might someday release it as a full game for money, with a lock to prevent you from saving as all but four countries and even with those four countries cutting gameplay off in 1500.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
The ultimate DRM is making a game no one wants to play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Making a Cold War game focus on WW3 is like making a WW2 game focus on central bankers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
double nine posted:I understand that you're coming from a production POV, but if given the choice, I'll always take the drm-free option (if pricing is the same). And steam is still a form of DRM. It's why until EU4 every one of my paradox purchases were gamersgate. Not sure why they even dropped other distributors - putting patches out there should be simple already. The binaries were the same for CK2, even though it has steam integration. It seems like the switch to steam-only is much more a political/business decision rather than anything related to making development or user experience easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It was easy to get around that lock though. Not that it mattered, as you said. I don't think the "you can't load saves as countries that aren't the four designated tutorial countries" thing ever was broken. The 1500 deadline was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Thumbs Up Dude posted:Not sure why they even dropped other distributors - putting patches out there should be simple already. The binaries were the same for CK2, even though it has steam integration. It seems like the switch to steam-only is much more a political/business decision rather than anything related to making development or user experience easier. Apparently they had to make two different patches for each distributor's version. There were also multiplayer issues that Steamworks helped with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Thumbs Up Dude posted:Not sure why they even dropped other distributors - putting patches out there should be simple already. The binaries were the same for CK2, even though it has steam integration. It seems like the switch to steam-only is much more a political/business decision rather than anything related to making development or user experience easier.  For EU4 they switched to steamworks for multiplayer (which is perfectly sensible, writing your own robust networking code is a pain in the rear end) so that was that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Apparently they had to make two different patches for each distributor's version. Why did file hashes match for versions of the game patched from GG and ones from steam then? Kavak posted:There were also multiplayer issues that Steamworks helped with. A server browser is hardly important, and it would be trivial to give the user a steam key and tell them to activate it if they want to access the steam-specific features.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Johan said multiple times that supporting CK2 both on and off Steam was a lot of extra work for them technically and it really annoyed him. CK2 is getting Steam Workshop and such with RoI so that's another reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Wiz posted:CK2 is switching to steamworks for MP with RoI so that's a big reason as well. Does that mean CK2 will be getting improvements to the netcode all around then? It has a lot of issue with desyncs and crashes and such as it is now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Does that mean CK2 will be getting improvements to the netcode all around then? It has a lot of issue with desyncs and crashes and such as it is now. Here's the dev diary on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Here's the dev diary on the subject. That reminds me - is Tibet in this expansion now? One of the livestreams said that they didn't want to bother integrating Tibetan Buddhism and feudal arrangements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:That reminds me - is Tibet in this expansion now? One of the livestreams said that they didn't want to bother integrating Tibetan Buddhism and feudal arrangements. No
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Thumbs Up Dude posted:Why did file hashes match for versions of the game patched from GG and ones from steam then? They did match, yes. However me and a friend tried to do MP, he had steam i had GG, we could not get it to work
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:I don't think the "you can't load saves as countries that aren't the four designated tutorial countries" thing ever was broken. The 1500 deadline was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Here's the dev diary on the subject. I didn't see the answer to my question there, but it sounds like they're will be a full changelog next week that should answer it either way, so thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Thumbs Up Dude posted:Why did file hashes match for versions of the game patched from GG and ones from steam then? That's actually a new thing, for the longest time the different versions had different checksums.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Making a Cold War game focus on WW3 is like making a WW2 game focus on central bankers. Given how many of Germany's decisions (especially in the pre-war period) were driven by their import/export imbalance and currency crises, this would probably be one of the most realistic WWII games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
So back when East vs West was still going to be a thing, a lot of people here were saying that a Cold War game featuring nuclear weapons should have their use be an automatic game over. I wasn't comfortable with that at the time and I've done some thinking and came up with the reason why.hypothetical posted:Hypothetical: 1960, Britain pulls out of Cyprus. Greece sends in troops for enosis to take Cyprus, Turkey declares war on Greece. Both are NATO allies. Turkey has used its espionage actions (this is a Cold War game, there's going to be espionage) to steal the blueprints of a primitive Soviet nuclear device and has spent massive amounts of resources developing it. Turkey is losing the war, drops its weapon on Athens, turns the tide and takes Cyprus. You're playing as USA, mostly ignoring the war between your two allies, doing well otherwise, and GAME OVER. There were many problems with East vs West's concept, but having nuclear war be a possibility that wasn't a game ender doesn't strike me as one of them, especially if it's one that doesn't involve USA or USSR and doesn't seem to risk turning the Cold War hot. Especially since a Greek/Turkish inter-NATO all-out hot war over Cyprus was a real possibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
But that's a really weird reason to use nukes though. France using nukes because the Soviets have crossed all of Europe and are closing in on Paris? The U.S. has started a full scale invasion of East Germany? Cuban, Nicaraguan and North Korean paratroopers have taken control of the coastal areas of the United States? Those are life threatening things that might justify a "gently caress you" atomic bomb run. Losing part of an island without any conflict anywhere near Istanbul really shouldn't trigger an atomic bombing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Mans posted:But that's a really weird reason to use nukes though. France using nukes because the Soviets have crossed all of Europe and are closing in on Paris? The U.S. has started a full scale invasion of East Germany? Cuban, Nicaraguan and North Korean paratroopers have taken control of the coastal areas of the United States? Those are life threatening things that might justify a "gently caress you" atomic bomb run. When I said losing the war I meant it becoming a hot war and Greek troops occupying Thrace and parts of the Anatolian coast and the government in Ankara panicking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
We've had this debate like three times and nothing conclusive has come of it. The core problem is that since a nuclear war has never happened, we have no idea how to simulate it beyond WWII city-busters. When should the AI decide to hit The Button? How are we going to represent nuclear winter? What is playing a thoroughly nuked country going to be like? Can Paradox make a Post-Apocalyptic Grand Strategy Game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
The game turns into a paradoxified version of DEFCON where you get to watch your population get reduced to statisics, ending when every side is out of nukes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
The Soviets genuinely had plans to 'win the war' after 'all nuclear weapons were depleted' using NBC protected vehicles commanded from extensive underground bunker networks and so on. I don't know how it would be simulated, but it definitely should be, since a 'what if the cold war went hot' is most of the reason I'd actually want to play a Cold War game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Kavak posted:We've had this debate like three times and nothing conclusive has come of it. The core problem is that since a nuclear war has never happened, we have no idea how to simulate it beyond WWII city-busters. When should the AI decide to hit The Button? How are we going to represent nuclear winter? What is playing a thoroughly nuked country going to be like? Can Paradox make a Post-Apocalyptic Grand Strategy Game? I think there should be a limit to the extent of a nuclear exchange rather than a full ban, but at the same time I don't think a Cold War game would be able to also support the utter devastation of a post-nuclear world along with the diplomatic skullduggery that the actual Cold War was about. Let's say that there are effectively three "eras" in a Cold War game: Early (1945-1965) Mid (1965-1980) and Late (1980-1995). These aren't hard and set things but based on relative technology available and gameplay options, much like EUIV has a Late Medieval -> Exploration/Reformation -> Imperialism -> Revolutions trend in Western European countries. In the Early Cold War era, Nuclear warfare was still seen as a viable thing– bombs have to be dropped by bombers, or later submarines. As such, two nuclear powers could, in the game, drop nukes on each other without the threat of a Game Over, though with other severe consequences. However, this won't last due to technological and military buildup. So, say that there's a kind of meter your nation builds up called a Mutually Assured Destruction Meter, or MAD Meter. Once you research and develop ICBMs, you can start building up a missile stockpile that increases this MAD Meter. If it gets filled, congratulations! You can enforce MAD! The good news is that the AI won't even try to launch or drop nukes on you unless you start escalating. The bad news? If you nuke a nation with a full MAD meter, or nuke their satellites, you play Global Thermonuclear War. The game ends, cut to CK2 save import. How many nukes you need to fill the MAD Meter would depend on the number of nuclear powers and THEIR missile stockpiles, up to a maximum MAD amount that the average player wouldn't get to until, say, the 70s. After that point, you have so many nukes that any "Missile gap" issue is pointless since you could unilaterally destroy the world several times over and MAD is now assured, in the most part*. The end game, if it hasn't been won yet, is then about staving off armageddon and winning economically. It's a bit gamey and requires the major nuclear power AI to be programmed to never press the button without you doing so first, but it allows for low-level nuclear exchanges between minor powers, or even early game major power wars, while still encouraging the players of major powers to stockpile as many nukes as possible to counter The Bolshevik Menace / Capitalist Imperialism. I could go on about my ideas for an Orthodoxy/Tenet system for ideologies and a Bloc Power victory system, but Idea Guys are a dime a dozen and this game doesn't even exist. *Maybe losing very badly in a conventional ground war would drop your MAD rapidly to allow you to nuke enemy troops near or in your borders without incurring MAD. If the game's gotten to that point, then you need all the help you can get. You could even research army doctrines that allow for the casual use of nuclear weapons in major engagements near bloc borders like the Soviets did. Still, there's a limit to how many nukes you can fling, and using them would fill the MAD meter back up to full rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
 Missed good old World Stage, so I decided to play around as Lubeck for a bit. Check out the section "One of the following must be true:" on that decision. EDIT:  Um...good for you, Thuringia? Patter Song fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
The last pic in that DD has Tibet in it, so I dunno if they changed their mind. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:The last pic in that DD has Tibet in it, so I dunno if they changed their mind. That's a still from EUIV showing that the CK2->EUIV converter now includes the new regions and Jainism when porting over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
 Say what you will about World Stage, the battles are dramatic as hell. EDIT:  I'm not even sure why this happened. I had 4k men to Holstein's 3k and Holstein had a better general. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
No wonder Paradox isn't licensing their engine anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
And I thought the requirements for some of the DHEs in EU4 were bad. Jesus Christ. What's this "complete tooltip" stuff? Is there even more? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 08:18
|
|
