|
podcat posted:I agree. HoI4 wont be going down the optional ai automatization route of hoi3. If a feature isnt interesting enough to deal with we can cut it or improve it. If a feature is too micro intensive we can redesign it. If you dont want to interact with something why would it be in the game. This is the best news.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Argh, Paradox once again SCREWING over their core FANS! I expected this from ZYNGA but not YOU! Guess who ELSE liked ARBITRARY limitations in his GRAND STRATEGY GAMES!? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
podcat posted:I agree. HoI4 wont be going down the optional ai automatization route of hoi3. If a feature isnt interesting enough to deal with we can cut it or improve it. If a feature is too micro intensive we can redesign it. If you dont want to interact with something why would it be in the game. Why do you continue to dumb down the game for the filthy casuals? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
This seems like a much better system than Hoi 3 because even if designing a Hoi 4 division takes longer than designing a Hoi 3 division, you only have to do it a couple of times in Hoi 4 compared to potentially every division ever in Hoi 3. Hell, it's almost as if it's going back to the old Hoi 2 model of standard infantry division, tank division, motorized division whole units except with a much more granular and customizable Brigade attachment mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Please apply more Sid Meier design lessons, thanks. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114402/Analysis_Sid_Meiers_Key_Design_Lessons.php
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Is there a minimal number of battalions that need to be in each division or can I theoretically have a single infantry battalion that only exists to babysit their attached support unit?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
podcat posted:I agree. HoI4 wont be going down the optional ai automatization route of hoi3. If a feature isnt interesting enough to deal with we can cut it or improve it. If a feature is too micro intensive we can redesign it. If you dont want to interact with something why would it be in the game. Just another step on the road to being an RTS! Casuals World of Tanks Simulation!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Guess who ELSE liked ARBITRARY limitations in his GRAND STRATEGY GAMES!?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This seems like a much better system than Hoi 3 because even if designing a Hoi 4 division takes longer than designing a Hoi 3 division, you only have to do it a couple of times in Hoi 4 compared to potentially every division ever in Hoi 3. Speaking of improvements to that part of Victoria, it would be nice to be able to sort generals by stats instead of traits or whatever. Hell, make the stats visible without hovering your cursor on them, I'm sure room could be made for that in the UI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
podcat posted:I agree. HoI4 wont be going down the optional ai automatization route of hoi3. If a feature isnt interesting enough to deal with we can cut it or improve it. If a feature is too micro intensive we can redesign it. If you dont want to interact with something why would it be in the game. Very pleased to hear this  I'm really surprised by the number of complaints in that dev diary thread directed at monarch points in EU4. To me those were a great way to bring together a whole ton of disparate mechanics. To others, they appear to be "like World of Warcraft".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
My thought about the monarch points is they should be a single pool, not three.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Riso posted:My thought about the monarch points is they should be a single pool, not three. Then there'd be even less to tell one king from another. You know what, it would be nice if kings had traits, a bit like advisors. So you might get "Great warrior - +10% discipline" on one king or "Mathematical genius - +10% trade income" on another. Gort fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jun 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
A lot of people seem to think of monarch points as some bizzare form of mana that has no place in a paradox game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Zeron posted:A lot of people seem to think of monarch points as some bizzare form of mana that has no place in a paradox game. But if there is the slightest bit of abstraction how am I going to pretend that I could have totally won the war for Hitler?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Gort posted:Then there'd be even less to tell one king from another. This would be good. Some sort of personality for kings - it doesn't need to be Crusader Kings level but a little bit more character wouldn't go amiss. In fact this would slot in perfectly to the game as it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Oh yes, those traits were regularily added in Eu3 mods. Makes them more interesting. The lack of ruler personalities is one of the reasons I can't stand playing the games anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Zeron posted:A lot of people seem to think of monarch points as some bizzare form of mana that has no place in a paradox game. To be fair, there are a lot of design issues with monarch points, this just isn't one of them. It's just that the problems are pretty abstract and hard to articulate in layman's terms, so (to give these people the benefit of the doubt) they lash out at the one thing they concretely object to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
DStecks posted:To be fair, there are a lot of design issues with monarch points, this just isn't one of them. It's just that the problems are pretty abstract and hard to articulate in layman's terms, so (to give these people the benefit of the doubt) they lash out at the one thing they concretely object to. They're just like World of Tanks and World of Warcraft apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:They're just like World of Tanks and World of Warcraft apparently. Way to completely ignore what I said, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Way to completely ignore what I said, I guess. My point with that post was that these people should not be given the benefit of the doubt, hence the bolding. I am interested in what you think the flaws with monarch points are though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Gort posted:My point with that post was that these people should not be given the benefit of the doubt, hence the bolding. It shifts a lot of the focus away from gameplay and onto bookkeeping
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:It shifts a lot of the focus away from gameplay and onto bookkeeping That sounds like a statement you could make about any game element, though. Ammo count in a shooter? Bookkeeping, not gameplay! Managing a resource is gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Gort posted:I am interested in what you think the flaws with monarch points are though. - No significant way to change your income beyond hiring advisors, which in the early game can be impossibly expensive. - Low variety of things each pool of points can be spent on, so it's less "management" and more "wait for a bar to fill". - Entirely decouples technological development from economic development. A potentially valid design choice, but historically it's deeply questionable. - Creates bizarre situations where actions that should be unrelated are mutually exclusive (Just researched that Diplomacy tech? Hope you weren't planning to finish any wars soon!). - Inhibits specialization by forcing the player to allocate resources in a rigidly defined way. Those are the ones that come to mind immediately. Just for an illustration, let's compare monarch points to money: on the surface, you could say that waiting for enough money to spend is "waiting for a bar to fill", but you don't see anybody complaining about that. That's because there's a variety of ways players can increase their money, and an even greater variety of things they can spend it on. Now, monarch points aren't terrible, but they're far from perfect. While I wouldn't go so far as Riso's suggestion to make just one monarch point pool, but I think the system could be immediately improved if you could exchange one form of monarch points for another. You'd then very likely have to rebalance the cost of everything around that, but I think it would be a dramatic improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Gort posted:That sounds like a statement you could make about any game element, though. Ammo count in a shooter? Bookkeeping, not gameplay! I meant in that it's a minigame largely detached from the main game. Like suppression points and influence points were in the Victoria 2 expansions. Treating it as a resource is one thing when you can interact with it in some way in the game world, but when it's a number ticking up without any decisions on your part you can't really call that play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:They're just like World of Tanks and World of Warcraft apparently. I'd sure hate it if HoI4 was a flop like WoT or WoW  Design vision: Like Monopoly, but with guns and Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Now, monarch points aren't terrible, but they're far from perfect. While I wouldn't go so far as Riso's suggestion to make just one monarch point pool, but I think the system could be immediately improved if you could exchange one form of monarch points for another. You'd then very likely have to rebalance the cost of everything around that, but I think it would be a dramatic improvement. What you could do though, would be to allow the player to modify which point they gain in the first place. This could start out pretty limited, but as you tech up you would be able to gain more freedom to delegate tasks to subordinates, which would build up over time. Basically, an organic way for the player to evolve either towards absolute rule or constitutional rule. If you're kicking rear end all over the place, and don't have a real problem getting enough monarch points, then you can just coast along and remain an absolute monarch. If you have a succession of bad kings, or things just generally aren't going your way, you might have to compromise to dig yourself out of that pit. Obviously this would/should probably mean some sort of gameplay consequences for sharing power, but I really do think it could make sense. Never going to happen though I don't think, Paradox for some unfathomable reason seem completely opposed to the idea of internal politics and anything to do with royals besides acting as glorified diplomats, despite this period being the perfect setting for such gameplay. Like, it loving boggles my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I'd sure hate it if HoI4 was a flop like WoT or WoW Go to France. Do not pass Belgium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:While monarch points don't represent some actual specific thing in reality, I think being able to just exchange them for other types is going to bring us way into game territory. Like, what, is Gustavus Adolphus going to draw up a bunch of battle plans, then give them to his administrative corps in exchange for plans on how to integrate his conquests? It's a reinterpretation of monarch points. In an exchangeable system, they'd represent monarch focus, rather than monarch skill, or anything really concrete. Your monarch can only focus on so many things at once, and the points represent their ability to manage the government. Exchange also wouldn't be 1:1, you'd either lose some in the trade, or spend some money, or both. So if you've got a naturally militarily skilled monarch, you'll get the best usage out of them by focusing on the military; you still have the option to focus on administration, but you'll be able to focus on less things than if you'd played to your strengths. As for what you propose, honestly, there are lots of ways you could "fix" monarch points, but I like mine because it's the simplest (and pretty trivial to mod in).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
podcat posted:I agree. HoI4 wont be going down the optional ai automatization route of hoi3. If a feature isnt interesting enough to deal with we can cut it or improve it. If a feature is too micro intensive we can redesign it. If you dont want to interact with something why would it be in the game. This is literally the single most reassuring thing I've read about HoI4, including the dev logs. It seems almost all of my posts in this thread are about how much I hate HoI3, even with as much time as I spend playing other Paradox games. I'm still gonna hold off on getting it launch, but I'm actually kinda looking forward to four now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:While monarch points don't represent some actual specific thing in reality, I think being able to just exchange them for other types is going to bring us way into game territory. Like, what, is Gustavus Adolphus going to draw up a bunch of battle plans, then give them to his administrative corps in exchange for plans on how to integrate his conquests? Make one pool, but have monarch attributes affect how it is spent. So if a monarch has 3 mil, then spending 1 milpoint on miltech gives you 1 point of progress. If they have 6 mil, then you get more points (2 points of progress?) if they have 0 mil, then you get less (0.5 points of progress?), etc. You could apply this to everything - monarchs/leaders with good stats in certain areas let you do actions in those areas for less. Then we might see substantially more strategy turnover from monarch to monarch. For example, maybe Peter the Great has really good Admin, so he spends his reign throwing down admin-based buildings and researching admin tech because it's cheap; his successor may not have that high admin score, though, so those projects will stop abruptly when the monarch changes. Gustavus Adolphus, similarly, will be able to get cheap generals, men, miltech, wardecs, and military buildings, but if he has a low admin score he will struggle to use his points for coring. Dibujante fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Riso posted:Please apply more Sid Meier design lessons, thanks. I know this gets invoked a lot, especially with regards to the black box that is the Victoria 2 economic simulation, but an AI that's having as much fun as the player is arguably a key element to what makes CK2 work so well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I know this gets invoked a lot, especially with regards to the black box that is the Victoria 2 economic simulation, but an AI that's having as much fun as the player is arguably a key element to what makes CK2 work so well. But those really aren't the same at all. CK2 isn't an example of the computer having more fun than the player, it's just a game with like a thousand players, only one of which is human.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Make one pool, but have monarch attributes affect how it is spent. So if a monarch has 3 mil, then spending 1 milpoint on miltech gives you 1 point of progress. If they have 6 mil, then you get more points (2 points of progress?) if they have 0 mil, then you get less (0.5 points of progress?), etc. You could apply this to everything - monarchs/leaders with good stats in certain areas let you do actions in those areas for less. Absolute Ruler Karl X Gustav: ADM: 3 (49% cost reduction) DIP: 1 (19% cost reduction) MIL: 6 (84% cost reduction) Karl X Gustav with a medium strength parliament/cabinet (shifts any stat 1 point towards 3 for cost reduction purposes): ADM: 3(+0) (49% cost reduction) DIP: 1(+1) (36% cost reduction) MIL: 6(-1) (75% cost reduction) In this example, the military genius of Karl X Gustav is strongly curtailed, but diplomatic costs see a decent reduction of costs in return. This system would basically be a way for players who get really annoyed with poo poo rulers to even out their luck, in exchange for getting less use out of god kings. I think the basic cost reduction idea sounds good on its own, just to be clear, but dealing with grievances such as the extremely random nature of monarchs by allowing the player the option of dealing with it in-game seems like a good idea too. Plus it could be added as part of a larger system of internal management. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
This is actually the first I've heard of HOI4 coming out. What's the release date? I am definitely interested.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Q1 2015. I've bought every Hearts of Iron game and expansion since 2 came out and this one looks like it might be the best one yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I think being able to just exchange them for other types is going to bring us way into game territory. Yeah, because making tech dependent on how well your ruler personally understands the field is realistic and not an abstraction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
Gort posted:Then there'd be even less to tell one king from another. just make every game use the CK2 character system
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:just make every game use the CK2 character system I really don't want every game to be a family management sim. I hate that crap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I really don't want every game to be a family management sim. I hate that crap. Yeah well your in the minority there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Yeah, because making tech dependent on how well your ruler personally understands the field is realistic and not an abstraction. It represents how good your ruler is at appointing administrators etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2014 13:05
|
|
