|
I conquered Nevada, Utah and California, but couldn't get Arizona because that put me over the war score (took New Mexico in the beginning of the game as a Texan cobelligerent). It's 1862 and no civil war yet. Just enacted low minimum wage dropping consciousness down about 3.5, militancy is a hair under 3. Dred Scott has fired but not John Brown's Last Ride. Any way to predict when it will happen?
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
So can you play as a single province carribean island in Victoria or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:So can you play as a single province carribean island in Victoria or what? Haiti is the only one that starts independent. You can play as Cuba if you release them as a dominion from Spain. Don't think you can play any of the smaller islands that the UK owns, though, no. They didn't gain independence in Victoria's timespan in real life, after all
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
I appreciate the enjoyment players get out of making a country like Austria-Hungary a multi-ethnic, liberal democracy but is there any reason not to reform as soon as possible? Every game seems to end the same way because the game encourages you down the same path. There are no tough decisions. As the United States, there's seemingly no consequences for ignoring the Missouri Compromise and making every state free. The slaveholders aren't going to revolt any earlier and the CSA will actually be weaker when the Civil War event does come around. As Japan, I can abolish the Chrysanthemum Throne and not expect my government to lose any legitimacy. For a few states, it is actually encouraged that you fall to rebels because the benefits they bring are much better a minor loss of prestige. Nasty decisions tend to be so obviously bad and so devoid of value that there's no reason for me to ever pick them. Reforming your state should be an uphill battle, not a downward slope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:I enjoy having my personal politics vaguely confirmed/defined by a video game. ...I usually end up with a Reactionary Party in charge by monarchical fiat and I never pass minimum wage or workplace safety laws. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I conquered Nevada, Utah and California, but couldn't get Arizona because that put me over the war score (took New Mexico in the beginning of the game as a Texan cobelligerent). It's 1862 and no civil war yet. Just enacted low minimum wage dropping consciousness down about 3.5, militancy is a hair under 3. Dred Scott has fired but not John Brown's Last Ride. Any way to predict when it will happen? In my last game it didn't happen until 1876.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:...I usually end up with a Reactionary Party in charge by monarchical fiat and I never pass minimum wage or workplace safety laws. Go communist or go home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Go communist or go home. Only if its a small nation, gently caress micromanaging 49 states worth of factories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Allyn posted:Haiti is the only one that starts independent. You can play as Cuba if you release them as a dominion from Spain. Don't think you can play any of the smaller islands that the UK owns, though, no. They didn't gain independence in Victoria's timespan in real life, after all New Nations Mod adds a couple of others; Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and Trinidad and Tobago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
This is a dumb question, but do any countries in Vicky II change colors with their government type? I know that Paradox added in Russia changing from green to  red if the communists take over in HoD, does NNM add any other countries that do the same? I kind of want to boot up the game and literally paint the map red.Ofaloaf posted:Go fascist or go home. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:This is a dumb question, but do any countries in Vicky II change colors with their government type? I know that Paradox added in Russia changing from green to I think the engine supports it, but only a few (like Russia -> Soviet Union) actually use it. Like I think the USA stays blue. But you could go in and define the change yourself for whatever country you're playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
I've definitely seen some mod that makes such changes more commonplace, at least for major powers (and I distinctly remember a fascist Mexico that was solid black on the map  ), but God only knows which. Some submod of PDM, at a guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
I don't think the human eye is particularly good at distinguishing shades of red, is it? An all-countries-red mod is going to be a readability clusterfuck
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
I think Germany goes grey or black if they go fascist too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:This is a dumb question, but do any countries in Vicky II change colors with their government type? I know that Paradox added in Russia changing from green to I play with this NNM colour mod in which every country I've seen go communist changed map colour to a hue of red. I wish I knew who the author of the mod is because it's a great colour mod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I don't think the human eye is particularly good at distinguishing shades of red, is it? An all-countries-red mod is going to be a readability clusterfuck It's an easy way for me to know exactly which countries are . Since we are all brothers in the revolution there is no need for discrete international borders.YF-23 posted:I play with this NNM colour mod in which every country I've seen go communist changed map colour to a hue of red. I wish I knew who the author of the mod is because it's a great colour mod. And that is exactly what I was looking for. Time to recreate the West's nightmare 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Greece and Crete change into a light shade of purple when you reform Byzantium
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Spakstik posted:Greece and Crete change into a light shade of purple when you reform Byzantium That's just because they become Byzantium. That's a whole different TAG. Russia/Soviet Union is the same TAG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:That's just because they become Byzantium. That's a whole different TAG. Russia/Soviet Union is the same TAG. Oh, whoops!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
I've decided I have 'Conversionitis'. Which is a disease where you constantly talk yourself out of playing various CKII starts based entirely on if they'd make a good conversion to EUIV. 'Oh, that one's too easy to blob up with' 'I can't make a good colonial power with that start' 'Can't play a republic, because it would be sad to have my family elected again and again for all of CKII and then promptly kicked out of power forever after the first election in EUIV' 'No point in playing a heresy, it just converts to the parent religion' Yes, I know all the logical reasons why this is dumb. I'm sick. Sick in the head. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Are they updating the save converter so that it'll work with the new EU4 map or is that planned for later? I never really used it much since it always felt kinda janky, and generally boring to bring over my superblobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Tamerlame posted:In my last game it didn't happen until 1876. Hmm... I have a feeling it might be quite late for me as well. I conquered Cuba after enacting the Ostend manifesto and I made Oklahoma and New Mexico slave states. I wish there was a treaty of Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo event like there was in Vicky 1, it's ridiculous that they won't cede all your cores (103 war score) when I occupy every province in the country and blockade its ports, especially since I managed to annex New Mexico early. It's only going to encourage me to beat up them more to punish them for their stubborness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:It's an easy way for me to know exactly which countries are
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I conquered Nevada, Utah and California, but couldn't get Arizona because that put me over the war score (took New Mexico in the beginning of the game as a Texan cobelligerent). It's 1862 and no civil war yet. Just enacted low minimum wage dropping consciousness down about 3.5, militancy is a hair under 3. Dred Scott has fired but not John Brown's Last Ride. Any way to predict when it will happen? Check the event files?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 11:04
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Hmm... I have a feeling it might be quite late for me as well. I conquered Cuba after enacting the Ostend manifesto and I made Oklahoma and New Mexico slave states. I'm fairly sure that if you occupy Mexico City thats exactly what happens. Though that might be a mod as it hasnt happened for you. Probably NNM/PDM if so. Or I'm imagining it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
I launched another war and I can't seem to add Sonora as a war goal. I have enough jingoism to click on the add wargoal button, but when I choose Aquire State: Sonora I can't click proceed. Any idea why? ^^^ Maybe I should have waited longer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
I'm working on my gay_spergy_HOI_thoughts.txt file and I'm trying to figure out- are there any benefits you gain from having a high neutrality? If I remember correctly there's nothing about having a high neutrality that keeps someone else from attacking you, it doesn't help you do anything more in the diplomacy screen (including secure trade agreements) nor are any good policies accessed by having high neutrality. Are there some country events/decisions that happen from high neutrality that are absolutely positive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:'I can't make a good colonial power with that start' "Is there any other reason why my character would move the court to Brittany?" "How can I justify conquering an Atlantic-facing province as a German Baltic state?" "Could I still have fun as Jerusalem if I just conquer Sinai, and then skip the American game completely in EU4 and go straight to India?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:I'm working on my gay_spergy_HOI_thoughts.txt file and I'm trying to figure out- are there any benefits you gain from having a high neutrality? If I remember correctly there's nothing about having a high neutrality that keeps someone else from attacking you, it doesn't help you do anything more in the diplomacy screen (including secure trade agreements) nor are any good policies accessed by having high neutrality. Are there some country events/decisions that happen from high neutrality that are absolutely positive? I'm guessing this is about DH? Anyway, as far as I know neutrality is basically an inverse badboy. Instead of countries declaring war if it's too high, they declare war when it gets too low. And really the only reason you want high neutrality is if you don't want to break event chains, In one of my vanilla DH Germany 1933 games I started a little too early with the rebuilding of the Wehrmacht in like 1935 or something and out of the blue the UK declared war, I think without France even. So instead of another 4 years of building IC I had pretty much no manpower, no army, no air force and no navy against a surprisingly strong Britain. One of my shortest HOI games ever!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:I'm guessing this is about DH? Anyway, as far as I know neutrality is basically an inverse badboy. Instead of countries declaring war if it's too high, they declare war when it gets too low. And really the only reason you want high neutrality is if you don't want to break event chains, In one of my vanilla DH Germany 1933 games I started a little too early with the rebuilding of the Wehrmacht in like 1935 or something and out of the blue the UK declared war, I think without France even. So instead of another 4 years of building IC I had pretty much no manpower, no army, no air force and no navy against a surprisingly strong Britain. One of my shortest HOI games ever! It was more about 3, but I kind of figured there wouldn't be much difference. I guess that gets to my point/frustration with neutrality as a mechanic- it exists mostly to keep 'what actually happened' on track- but from a play perspective all it does is keep you from playing the war game that HoI really is. If there was some robust economy or diplomatic game like Vicky in there as well then maybe high neutrality would allow you to more there and less in the military front? But HoI is just a war simulator, and neutrality (along with unity and some other political values) keep you from playing that by slowing down your ability to build units and get in alliances. It maybe lets you progress through the massive tech tree a little faster? And to me it seems like the AI doesn't really care about neutrality. Germany is always going to Blitz in 39 because of an event, and their targets are clear. Russia is probably always going to accept M-R pact. The Spanish Civil War always happens. This is because it seems like almost all of the AI's history scripting is really driven by events/decisions they always take. So if you can rely on events to generally keep the actual history on track, why include an entire mechanic that is just about getting in the way of the player warring in a war game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:It was more about 3, but I kind of figured there wouldn't be much difference. Well, that's what happens when you start a WW2 wargame in 1936. You pretty much have to include something to keep the buildup/war in control and prevent Allied DoWs on Germany in 1936. One of the problems with making a ww2 wargame based around playing individual countries is that you have to make a generic mechanic to stop ww2 from happening in 1936 and neutrality is it. Axis Empires, a board wargame with similar scope uses a system of Allied policies that prevents a huge dogpile of Germany. For example, until the Allied minors are under "Guarantees", german demands of territory will never start WW2, and guarantees shows up fairly late. It isn't the only Allied policy alignment available, though(the Franco-Russian entente is the other option for the Allies, but it excludes Britain, which will keep Britain out until total war). Honestly, I think the Paradox philosophy is really at odds with creating a plausible WW2.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:"I could try to snag Gibraltar or Tangiers before the end date, but that'd just be too obvious." Yup, you know how it is. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yup, you know how it is. "I should stop expanding now, or EU is going to be a joke." And then Poland formed the Wendish Empire and I had the hardest game of EU I have ever had. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
I never really used the converter but it sure changes CK2 just by existing. The fleet-in-being of game features.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yup, you know how it is. My two current schemes for this are, in CK2, to form a (Visi-)Gothic realm in Greece starting as the Count of Mallorca (so I have a western-ish port come EU4, but still am primarily oriented towards the east for CK2), and forging an Italo-Sicilian Africa, creeping westwards until the EU4 date comes around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, that's what happens when you start a WW2 wargame in 1936. You pretty much have to include something to keep the buildup/war in control and prevent Allied DoWs on Germany in 1936. One of the problems with making a ww2 wargame based around playing individual countries is that you have to make a generic mechanic to stop ww2 from happening in 1936 and neutrality is it. Axis Empires, a board wargame with similar scope uses a system of Allied policies that prevents a huge dogpile of Germany. For example, until the Allied minors are under "Guarantees", german demands of territory will never start WW2, and guarantees shows up fairly late. It isn't the only Allied policy alignment available, though(the Franco-Russian entente is the other option for the Allies, but it excludes Britain, which will keep Britain out until total war). Honestly, I think the Paradox philosophy is really at odds with creating a plausible WW2. Well I think there's a difference between trying to make sure a world war happens and the WW2 that we all know and love happens- which I think your examples get at. Like Red Alert pretty much gave nerds a template for how you have a world war w/o out Germany, and dog-piling Germany in 36 would probably be about the same as Einstein using his time machine (AND BTW WHERE IS THAT TECH IN THE RESEARCH SCREEN, PRARDOX??). There's also the issue of player vs. NPC perspective and playing as one country. The AI doesn't care if their game is 10 years of sitting in central asia waiting to see if Russia or Japan is going to stomp the 2-3 divisions of militia I can afford to create, or playing as 3 years of France only to be stomped in ~3 months by Germany. But as a player I kinda want to be doing something active and rewarding for that decade. I do think playing on an alliance level is one way to solve that problem (and probably a few other problems). Another would be to try and build the diplomacy/politics around some core tensions that generally seemed to drive that period and try to let those tensions tell the AI to go to war. I know that's a pretty ambitious concept to try and wrap up in a sentence- which is I guess what my dumb_baby_HOI_ideas.txt is about... edit: I actually haven't played KR, but I suspect there's a lot there where by role-reversal you can see some underlying historical tensions that give you a sense of world at war without needing to replicate the exact history of WW2 Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Oct 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yup, you know how it is. 'I could easily press a claim for this Kingdom, but wont it just make me blob more?' This happened in my CK2 Byzantium game (1204 start) where both the Kingdom of Castille and Jerusalem both had female monarchs, with primogeniture succession, who were open to a regular marriage. It was the cruelest temptation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Well I think there's a difference between trying to make sure a world war happens and the WW2 that we all know and love happens- which I think your examples get at. Red Alert doesn't give you much of the chain of events between Hitler dying and the war between the Allies and Soviets, though. A WW2 game that accommodates that particular WW2 has to simulate a 1937-1945 in which a war starts between East and West. We have a framework by which we can see an aggressive, instigating Germany can end up at war with some combination of other countries with a few satellites of its own(This is how Axis Empires does it, there's a lot of latitude within the framework of 'Hitler Starts WW2', things like Poland being a German Ally in a 1939 invasion of the USSR which results in a settlement before Hitler turns west.) I think the problem is that you have to really "hand-carve" the mechanics to get a ww2 starting from 1936 that makes sense. It's a lot worse with a 1933 start where people really will feel hugely railroaded. Honestly, I think the game would probably be better assuming the notional framework of "Germany and Japan are going to be instigators along with a collection of satellites and will end up at war with some combination of the rest of the world." There's some leeway within that and you could make a good war game out of it, and you could hand-craft mechanics to get that feeling right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Red Alert doesn't give you much of the chain of events between Hitler dying and the war between the Allies and Soviets, though. A WW2 game that accommodates that particular WW2 has to simulate a 1937-1945 in which a war starts between East and West. We have a framework by which we can see an aggressive, instigating Germany can end up at war with some combination of other countries with a few satellites of its own(This is how Axis Empires does it, there's a lot of latitude within the framework of 'Hitler Starts WW2', things like Poland being a German Ally in a 1939 invasion of the USSR which results in a settlement before Hitler turns west.) Yeah I think that could work, although I still suspect you could probably write a few 'instigator' scenarios and as long as you provide a little context for the players you could probably get some mileage out of that. For example, it may not hold up to the scrutiny of someone doing their masters in European history but saying 'in this scenario Soviet annexation of the Baltics, Finland and Poland kick off Germany and Japan going to war as the 'defenders of stability' against Stalin. France can be influenced to either alliance and England/USA are prone to sitting this one out' seems like it'd pass the smell test of giving me a reason to play a war game w/ WW2 style tactics. Or 'The US's '30s isolationism is replaced by their own interest in empire, leading to attempt to take a number of SE Asia territories from England and France. Japan may get involved, Germany and Russia fight over Poland on their own.' Both of those scenarios feel like they kinda replicate some of the broad strokes of forces that drove WW2 at least to the point that it justifies me building a bunch of T-34s to run around Europe...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Yeah I think that could work, although I still suspect you could probably write a few 'instigator' scenarios and as long as you provide a little context for the players you could probably get some mileage out of that. For example, it may not hold up to the scrutiny of someone doing their masters in European history but saying 'in this scenario Soviet annexation of the Baltics, Finland and Poland kick off Germany and Japan going to war as the 'defenders of stability' against Stalin. France can be influenced to either alliance and England/USA are prone to sitting this one out' seems like it'd pass the smell test of giving me a reason to play a war game w/ WW2 style tactics. Or 'The US's '30s isolationism is replaced by their own interest in empire, leading to attempt to take a number of SE Asia territories from England and France. Japan may get involved, Germany and Russia fight over Poland on their own.' I think the tricky thing is trying to find the game balance to make these scenarios work. The good thing about the historical scenario is that we know Germany and Japan lose. You can change the minor countries up a bit and it doesn't really upset the balance because WW2 was not really a war about little countries. Knowing these countries lose allows you to craft victory conditions that make these countries fun to play despite what happened. It'd be a lot of design work to make other scenarios work, particularly if they are one of several possibilities for how the war plays out in any given game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:44
|
|