|
quote:Loki, the Trickster, the Chaos god, Odin's blood brother, is bound to stone slabs with the entrails of his son Narfi and he must be released in order for Ragnarök to happen. The Norse mythology paints Loki as a troublemaker, a trickster, the chaos god that can both help the gods but also put them in difficult positions. Loki stands for Change and sees the truth of the worlds - that the gods favor some races and ignores the plight of the rest. The new world is a chance to change the current order and shape it so that every being is equal, in both gods’ and other’s eyes. Ragnarök is necessary, and inevitable. All you can do is accept Change, for better and for worse. The death of many gods during Ragnarök will leave the races able to determine their fate without the gods meddling. Ragnarök is a metaphor for the proletarian revolution, Loki is the proletarian class, chained to the land by the forces of reaction.
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I tried the colonial_migration thing in a separate NF and the tooltip showed no effect. I'm assuming colonial_migration only applies on a nation-wide scope (some inventions have it) but doesn't work on a state scope. Right, well, can you add a clause to pop_types checking whether the country is running a migration NF? That would be one way to do it, I think. Destination-choosing logic is done per-POPtype in the /poptypes folder. Fiddle with that, see what happens. DrSunshine posted:Seriously guys, this is way worse than D&D-style debating about the representation of Westernization in EUIV. Could be worse. We could be arguing ERE/Byzantium/Basilea ton Rhomaion 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Ragnarök is a metaphor for the proletarian revolution, Loki is the proletarian class, chained to the land by the forces of reaction. Someone put Supermechagozilla on this.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Right, well, can you add a clause to pop_types checking whether the country is running a migration NF? That would be one way to do it, I think. Destination-choosing logic is done per-POPtype in the /poptypes folder. Fiddle with that, see what happens. Is there even a variable for that? does "has_national_focus = immigration" exist?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Is there even a variable for that? does "has_national_focus = immigration" exist? I don't think so, I think focuses (or foci, if you will) are pretty much self-contained from the rest of the engine. http://www.victoria2wiki.com/List_of_conditions
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Is there even a variable for that? does "has_national_focus = immigration" exist? Not a clue! Have fun!  Meanwhile: http://store.steampowered.com/app/295220 Oh my...  quote:What If? The Anthology of Alternate History
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I don't think so, I think focuses (or foci, if you will) are pretty much self-contained from the rest of the engine. Oh well I'll just have to make a flag that I can trigger with a decision or something. quote:(or foci, if you will) 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Not a clue! Have fun! To clarify, I originally believed this was an awesome, rad as hell, gently caress-yes collection of alternate history scenarios DLC that would have instantly had my wallet thrown at it. It is not that.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I don't think so, I think focuses (or foci, if you will) are pretty much self-contained from the rest of the engine. Well, there is a flag for it in EU3 ("has_national_focus"), that was added in Heir to the Throne (which came out before V2), so try it and see? http://www.eu3wiki.com/List_of_province_scope_triggers Alternately, is there an appropriate has_province_modifier?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Beamed posted:To clarify, I originally believed this was an awesome, rad as hell, gently caress-yes collection of alternate history scenarios DLC that would have instantly had my wallet thrown at it. I don't get why they don't release a scenario pack to go alongside it. Seems like it would have been an obvious thing to do, even if it was just 'here's a bunch of interesting saves' and not modded or anything.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Zohar posted:I don't get why they don't release a scenario pack to go alongside it. Seems like it would have been an obvious thing to do, even if it was just 'here's a bunch of interesting saves' and not modded or anything. Yeah, the first thing I thought after seeing it was "They should totally do a scenario for each".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not too interested in the short stories, but if Paradox made a  DLC with the new scenarios and some new events/decisions for each one, I'd totally get it (and probably the short story DLC for the background on the scenarios).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
What's the weirdest DH you've had happen to you? I just had one where Germany invaded Canada  Edit: Send help! I am Mexico! I have no army and yet I must fight. God dammit they're going to push all the way to Manitoba
Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 00:42 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
I don't really understand why a short story anthology series is DLC released through Steam.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
I guess these days Steam is kind of just an "any gaming-related media" platform, since they've got some documentary movies and whatever you call the "Titanfall- the Final Hours" thing, plus all the non-game software up there.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Seriously guys, this is way worse than D&D-style debating about the representation of Westernization in EUIV. that's the only good thing that happens in this thread so
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Samog posted:that's the only good thing that happens in this thread so I think it's been fairly settled by this point, so far as it can be. Westernization's a lovely system, but it's hard to simulate the factors involved when people can't even agree what those factors were. While I'd personally prefer a system tied to economic growth rather than proximity to white people, that has major major drawbacks on its own. Ultimately, it's hard to suggest a different system that is less broken than Westernization, because it's hard to abstract a concept like "the progression of history". And ultimately, the biggest problem with a tech system that the player's choices can accelerate is that it's hard to not turn that into a positive reinforcement loop, with exponential gains. If you tie technology to economic strength, i.e. tech level X costs Y gold, then that will likely lead to the strongest economies snowballing into invulnerability. And the problem with that is that this is an EU game, ergo not all countries begin equal, which means that certain countries will be predestined for dominance even more than they are currently. Maybe you could have tech growth tied to GDP per capita? That way China could be accommodated, since it's huge and full of peasants, but a Luxembourg or a Singapore could keep pace.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
I would make tech progression linked primarily to participation in trade with other advanced countries (to keep Europe in the lead once it gets it), secondarily to maintaining internal peace (revolt risk equates directly to slower tech growth) and least importantly to waging war (so you don't get left too far behind if you decide not to pursue the first two). Then the progression elsewhere is controlled by applying penalties to internal stability in certain circumstances like having a large empire which allows trade with outsiders (so China and Japan can't quickly advance, they have to close themselves off to stay intact, and the colonial empires stagnate or fragment like the Iberians and England, respectively).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Creating a system that simulates the real-life development and spread of technology and organisational ideas &c is hard. So I can understand flat modifiers. But there's not much excuse for the modifiers (and in particular, the effect they generate when combined with unit groups) being as large as they are.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Maybe you could have tech growth tied to GDP per capita? That way China could be accommodated, since it's huge and full of peasants, but a Luxembourg or a Singapore could keep pace. Well, that's kinda what they had in EU3. Hence why small wealthy trading nations tended to out-tech everyone by a large margin (and Europe tended to benefit from that due to neighbour bonuses).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
When is Wealth of Nations coming out?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Munin posted:Well, that's kinda what they had in EU3. Hence why small wealthy trading nations tended to out-tech everyone by a large margin (and Europe tended to benefit from that due to neighbour bonuses). Not really though, as long as you're Free Trade and only own Western European provinces and high basetax colonies, you can still be leading in tech with 200 provinces.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Not really though, as long as you're Free Trade and only own Western European provinces and high basetax colonies, you can still be leading in tech with 200 provinces. Yeah, if you take steps to keep you income per province high then a human player can keep up or outstrip the tech rate of a wealthy trading OPM. That is however achieved by maximising your income by province, so working within an approximation of a GDP per capita framework. In general Western trading OPMs are the tech leaders in EU3 due to the design of the overall system where your tech cost increases with the number of provinces you have (with the penalties being especially steep for the first few provinces which disadvantages small to medium size powers tech wise). In EU3 the size penalty to tech cost is also compounded by a trading system which allows an OPM with the right sliders and NIs to generate as much money through trading as a sizeable empire can. Now due to time ahead penalties the OPMs (or the player) can't totally run away with things but they will maintain a tech edge.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Has anyone tried out the Kaiserreich mod for V2? I've never played KR myself but it looks like it was/is pretty popular so I'm wondering if this mod is a good ersatz version of the original.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:Has anyone tried out the Kaiserreich mod for V2? I've never played KR myself but it looks like it was/is pretty popular so I'm wondering if this mod is a good ersatz version of the original. This doesn't appear to have much to do with Kaiserreich, unfortunately, it seems to be someone else's Germany-wins-the-war alt-history scenario given the same name. And said scenario appears to be hilariously lopsided in Germany's favour, like, the US in HOI lopsided. I'm not seeing a lot of potential here for KR-style "everybody has something to do"-ness. Speaking of Vicky, does anyone know what sort of proportion of Europe's population goes overseas in the course of a typical game?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
I'm so excited they're balancing out the units across tech groups. That's something I've wanted since EUIII. 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
It's Kasierreich, the guy just decided to make an earlier scenario in the timeline for some bizzare reason. Why anyone would want that instead of the standard KR startdate is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
How much can the US get screwed in KR? I'm feeling very screwed right now.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:How much can the US get screwed in KR? I'm feeling very screwed right now. You could be at war with 3 breakaways + Canada + Mexico simultaneously if you get really unlucky. War with any 3 of the 5 is pretty common.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
ulmont posted:You could be at war with 3 breakaways + Canada + Mexico simultaneously if you get really unlucky. War with any 3 of the 5 is pretty common. I have never seen a war between Canada and the Yanks that the Yanks didn't start.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:I have never seen a war between Canada and the Yanks that the Yanks didn't start. I actually just had one . Playing with President Huey Long, when the syndacists rebelled, Canada demanded New England or war, and so I went to war. I then got the Pacific States to rebel, couped Long and then got the south to rebel, and then save, quit, loaded and started playing as South Africa  .
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
ulmont posted:You could be at war with 3 breakaways + Canada + Mexico simultaneously if you get really unlucky. War with any 3 of the 5 is pretty common. Well I'm at war with 4 out of 5. How does Mexico join? 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Top Hats Monthly posted:Well I'm at war with 4 out of 5. How does Mexico join? Depending on their regime, they can attack California or you because their leaders are just drunk enough to think they can retake and hold territory they haven't controlled in 90 years (And which was more Comanche than Mexican at the time anyway).
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Depending on their regime, they can attack California or you because their leaders are just drunk enough to think they can retake and hold territory they haven't controlled in 90 years (And which was more Comanche than Mexican at the time anyway). In fairness, a lot of the time the central government is hosed enough that they can pull it off. Also they manage to core huge territories full of Dixies in about five minutes, but that sort of thing's par for the course in Kaiserreich.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I went 5 for 5 gently caress you guys you let this happen
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Please tell me you're The US and went for maximum democracy with a Curtis presidency.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:I actually just had one That part always bugged me. Didn't New England have like twice the population of Canada in 1930-1940? Even giving New York City to the Syndicalists, that's really stretching things.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
dublish posted:That part always bugged me. Didn't New England have like twice the population of Canada in 1930-1940? Even giving New York City to the Syndicalists, that's really stretching things. The best explanation I could think of is the people of New England might be opposed to the far right authoritarian government in place, but is also unwilling to join the Syndicalists and so maybe they would be willing to accept Canadian invasion as an alternative to the two, but 1) even then, independence might still make more sense than to join a pretty solidly monarchist state, and 2) Canada has no reasonable claim to the land so without an extremist government, why would Canada just be doing nonsensical landgrabs? If possible, I'd support changing it to a New England succession movement, and Canada will demand the USA let it go without a fight if the USA has poor relations with Canada, or if the USA has an extremist government (left or right wing), since a far right USA might invade Canada, and a far left USA might ally with Britain and make it impossible for the ruling family to ever take back their throne.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
My understanding from the ingame events is that New England allows itself under Canadian rule mostly for protection(population doesn't automatically give you an organized standing army and the Canadian one is rather good) while the US crisis carries on. It's almost entirely dependent on New England's will in the long run, which is why typically they are free from Canadian rule shortly after. If they stay...I guess they just didn't mind the new system.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Please tell me you're The US and went for maximum democracy with a Curtis presidency. Yes I feel like a better way of handling the new American Civil War would be that Canada 'demands' New England, and New England becomes a puppet that automatically gets National Guard divisions, then after a while as a puppet the Canadians can make a plebiscite for New England to join Canada (that's totally rigged), let them be free, or hand them back over to the United States
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 05:08
|
|