|
Bouchacha posted:Why? Compared to all the other mods. It's actually balanced instead of just having tons of maybe decent ideas poo poo onto it.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
This is awesome!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Allyn posted:Well he's I do like the change overall, but perhaps some modifications should be made elsewhere to accommodate it? Either custom CB's associated with countries which need to expand rapidly, or a new level of claims (used for these nation forming decisions as well as perhaps if you fabricate claims on a province of your own culture/culture group against a country of a different one.) which last longer and have a greater effect. (Both in terms of peace cost, but also coring.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
It could go back to the EU3 way of granting cores instead of claims when you form the country. But yeah, EU suffers somewhat from not allowing the sort of massive conquests that happened historically as with the Qing or the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluks. But that's really not that bad, Paradox games are video games for us dumb idiot children to have fun with, not super-accurate academic history simulations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:It could go back to the EU3 way of granting cores instead of claims when you form the country. But yeah, EU suffers somewhat from not allowing the sort of massive conquests that happened historically as with the Qing or the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluks. But that's really not that bad, Paradox games are video games for us dumb idiot children to have fun with, not super-accurate academic history simulations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
Only 40 hours into CK2 and I already have a rudimentary grasp on how stuff works  Playing as Doge of Venice right now, how do you dislodge the mayors of the 2 cities and the castle barony in Venezia? I'd like to give those to the weaker houses so they actually start doing poo poo but apparently a Serene Doge can't revoke anything ever, and I can't seem to raise crown auth to medium either for some reason. I've tried making the mayors Muslim but not even that is reason enough to kick them  Only thing that might work is sitting a spymaster there for 200 years and hope he uncovers a corruption? sauer kraut fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:welp time to spend hours staring at a map. Please don't leak Paradox's new marketing slogans before they officially introduce them
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
I'm having some trouble getting Wiz's AzeriMod to work on my install of Victoria II. I've followed the instructions, and I have the unpacked file sitting in the mod folder in my V2 folder along with the .mod file. When I boot up V2 and select the AzeriMod checkbox, it takes me to a fresh install of V2 (I don't have any savegames or anything from my other install) but the map and the scenarios are the base V2 ones. I tried deleting my map cache, but that didn't help either. I'm not sure if I've done something wrong, so any help would be appreciated. There's a second AzeriV2 folder sitting outside the Mod folder in the V2 folder as well, and I'm not sure if thats meant to be there or something just unzipped wrong. It only has the gfx, log, and map folders in it instead of all the ones from the AzeriV2 folder in the Mod folder, and it had its own map cache that I also deleted but AzeriV2 still doesn't want to work. I am kind of afraid to touch it, but could that be what the problem is? Or is there meant to be a folder with the mod name in the regular V2 folder with some of the files in it? I'm running V2 3.03, if that helps any. Thanks in advance, I'm kind of at a loss here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
In EU4, is there any way to control the armies of my colonial nations? Kinda annoying that they just sit there when there are rebels to kill in my other colonies/colonial nations within walking distance. Edit: Also, why can't I select Castille as a rival when playing Portugal? I've already taken a bunch of provinces from them, so they hate me, but I can't make them my rival and they haven't chosen me as a rival either. Apoffys fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:In EU4, is there any way to control the armies of my colonial nations? Kinda annoying that they just sit there when there are rebels to kill in my other colonies/colonial nations within walking distance. Nope, but you should have mobile colonial marines + their own transport for that purpose. POR/CAS are historical friends which has some special works. I think its there so that AI Spain doesn't munch on Portugal every game and completely gently caress up the history of Portuguese exploration/colonization/trade. sauer kraut fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:It could go back to the EU3 way of granting cores instead of claims when you form the country. But yeah, EU suffers somewhat from not allowing the sort of massive conquests that happened historically as with the Qing or the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluks. But that's really not that bad, Paradox games are video games for us dumb idiot children to have fun with, not super-accurate academic history simulations. I'd probably do this in a fairly sneaky way by giving cores and then having negative events fire taking away admin and diplo points after conquering those free cores. This would allow really fast conquest and make it easy to hold onto the provinces but would force a rest period where you can't afford to conquer anything else. Ideally it would give a reduction to monthly admin + dip point income for a fixed period but unless they added that recently there's no way to mod it in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:It's a pretty valid complaint for a country like Qing, which gains claims on a huge area with expensive provinces. In my most recent game, I fed a northern Chinese vassal the provinces in the north it had cores on, which is about half of China, before integrating it and turning into Qing. I still did not have enough time to conquer the remaining provinces in the south before the claims ran out, since I could only take like 4 provinces at a time. In real life of course, the Qing (mostly) conquered the place in about 15 years and that was starting in the north, not halfway through China. Well, the whole "x year peace treaty" system is pretty euro-specific. Qing and Ming didn't do peace treaties. Maybe they should just get a special annex = yes CB against each other? Also, for at least the first 200 years of Ottoman history, the Ottoman-Christian status quo was war, with peace treaties sometimes being signed pre-emptively, but otherwise all parties were assumed to be in conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Well, the whole "x year peace treaty" system is pretty euro-specific. Qing and Ming didn't do peace treaties. Maybe they should just get a special annex = yes CB against each other? In the grim darkness of the Balkans, there is only war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Ethiser posted:In the grim darkness of the Balkans, there is only war. Not just the Balkans. The Ottomans were assumed to be at war with Poland (later the Commonwealth), Muscovy, many of the states in the Balkans (when they weren't busy being on again / off again vassals), Venice, the Pope, France, Castile (later Spain), and so on. France was nominally at war with the Ottomans until 1536 (when France actually allied the Ottomans for some operations in Italy). Basically during this time period, being in a state of war was actually pretty common. The logistics of actually waging that war were so crippling that this didn't actually lead to as much conflict as one would assume. I don't think that the game would actually benefit from trying to implement this (you are always at war but you'll go bankrupt in 3 months if you actually build an army; have fun!). But I would like to see the treaty system re-visited and expanded. It's one of the stronger, more unique parts of EU4 anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
   lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
u mad johan? That said, I have enjoyed the renewed focus on building a fun multiplayer game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Maybe that guy shouldn't be allowed to talk to the pdox forum people perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Maybe that guy shouldn't be allowed to talk to the pdox forum people perhaps? If I was Johan, I would have goatse'd the paradox forums by now. The amount of poo poo developers put up with is insane. Even here there will be massive arguments about all kinds of dumb things, and this place is tame compared to the official ones. The truce timer change is pretty minor, I've had mine modded to be longer for ages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Maybe that guy shouldn't be allowed to talk to the pdox forum people perhaps? That is the only way you should talk to people on the Paradox Forums.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Qing and Ming didn't do peace treaties. More like it was a pretty much incessant 30 year campaign to end the Ming (plus an epilogue of hunting down Ming loyalist pirates in Taiwan that brought Taiwan into the Chinese orbit). There weren't multiple wars, just one long one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Johan's posts are part of the charm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
KoldPT posted:Johan's posts are part of the charm. When the devs post, it makes browsing through the casual racism and PC Master-raceness of the Paradox forums worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
It's pretty dumb to balance a primarily singleplayer game around your office multiplayer games, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
How is it any more 'primarily singleplayer' than any other game with both single player and multiplayer? I know lots of people who play multiplayer EU4 all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
And I know no one who plays EUIV multiplayer, my anecdote cancels out yours!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
I find the idea of a lead designer using the words "then develop AI to work the same as humans" to be horrifying. I really hope that means "develop AI to play by the same rules as the human player" as opposed to "make AI that's as good as humans", but even that is pretty hard to swallow as something that might be in a design doc somewhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Purely anecdotal, but game balance and general amounts of personal fun have gone up massively since Johan has taken a backseat and others have taken lead dev spots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
^^ yup someone else posted in that thread saying that johan said only 15% or so of people played the mp so yeah sp should really be the focus
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:I find the idea of a lead designer using the words "then develop AI to work the same as humans" to be horrifying. I really hope that means "develop AI to play by the same rules as the human player" as opposed to "make AI that's as good as humans", but even that is pretty hard to swallow as something that might be in a design doc somewhere. What that's referring to is that when there's a choice between making the AI act like a human playing a game or a historical ruler, it generally acts like a player. Sindai fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:And I know no one who plays EUIV multiplayer, my anecdote cancels out yours! ... it wasn't meant to be an argument from anecdote. It has fully supported multiplayer. People play it. Why is it 'primarily singleplayer' other than that you don't want to play mp with it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Sindai posted:like navel attrition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:... it wasn't meant to be an argument from anecdote. It has fully supported multiplayer. People play it. Why is it 'primarily singleplayer' other than that you don't want to play mp with it? The majority probably play singleplayer. I personally only play single player (though I did play multi a couple of times) and don't see why they should get preference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?789135-Some-playing-statistics-July-2014&p=17717447#post17717447 there it is, 15% of peeps play mp
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
also here's the thread where johan says he doesn't give a gently caress about the ai http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?789400-Basis-for-Truce-Time&p=17730111&viewfull=1#post17730111 if you want to read the regulars over there freaking out. everything about it is pretty lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:26
|
|
Sindai posted:Why? The EU4 AI does mostly play by the same rules as humans, except for a couple of places where Wiz just didn't have the time to do things properly and had to let it cheat, like navel attrition. To me it sounds like a resignation that you're not going to be able to create an AI that will challenge the player (because you're not going to make an actually "smart" AI in a game like this, that's structurally impossible) but you're also not going to be giving the AI any real boosts to make up for the gap in skill, so instead you're going to attempt to somehow keep the balance in a different way, which usually manifests itself in increasing the tedium (since AIs have no problem with tedium but humans do). There's not a lot you can do in a strategy game to keep the AI challenging while having both sides play with the same rules. I guess they did go in the other direction with lucky nations and AI bonuses, but even then the AI needs to be kept on a very short leash lest it completely crap itself - and a strategy game gives the AI plenty opportunities to crap itself. CharlestheHammer posted:The majority probably play singleplayer. Johan actually released some statistics. 15% of the playerbase plays multiplayer. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?789135-Some-playing-statistics-July-2014
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:
Yeah so its primarily singleplayer, unless just having multiplayer negates that. Which would mean Battlefield 2 wasn't primary multiplayer. Which would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:... it wasn't meant to be an argument from anecdote. It has fully supported multiplayer. People play it. Why is it 'primarily singleplayer' other than that you don't want to play mp with it? I think the reasoning in general is that when faced with a decision between something that'll work better in SP vs something that'll work better in MP, it's better to choose the former because the MP base tends to be much smaller in everything but the most MP-dedicated of games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Only 40 hours into CK2 and I already have a rudimentary grasp on how stuff works You can't raise Crown Authority to Medium because you're a Republic, it says that right in the requirements if you hover over it. And yeah, you can't revoke it. Gotta murder barons until they have no heir and you automatically inherit it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Yeah but when its something that is a minor problem in single player but makes multiplayer unfun the decision is easy 15% is two big a customer base to just throw under the bus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:08 |
|
|
TheMcD posted:To me it sounds like a resignation that you're not going to be able to create an AI that will challenge the player (because you're not going to make an actually "smart" AI in a game like this, that's structurally impossible) but you're also not going to be giving the AI any real boosts to make up for the gap in skill, so instead you're going to attempt to somehow keep the balance in a different way, which usually manifests itself in increasing the tedium (since AIs have no problem with tedium but humans do).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:42
|
|