|
Tomn posted:This is arguably true, insofar that a Hitler who wasn't trying to micromanage every aspect of the war would indeed make for a much different war.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Micromanagement revolts if your leader has too much Micromanagement score.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Well if that's where we're headed we need to have pretty borders leaders who will go AWOL and declare war on minor powers just to fix ugly borders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Micromanagement revolts if your leader has too much Micromanagement score. Hitler is doomed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:Well you see, if Hitler hadn't personally intervened to make the BF-109's wingspan two feet shorter, the war would have been TOTALLY different. Tomn posted:This is arguably true, insofar that a Hitler who wasn't trying to micromanage every aspect of the war would indeed make for a much different war. Sheng-ji Yang posted:Hitler is doomed. Honestly, every WW2 game needs a certain level of cornball-ness. Hitler's Germany was less powerful, relative to its surroundings, than Wilhelm II's army was. Part of what makes the drama of the war tick is that outrageous string of successes in the West in the early phase of the war. If you just mash the numbers against each other repeatedly, you end up with a WW2 game where most of the time Germany gets shot down right away. You have to leave a bit of room for the game to fudge what was honestly just ineptitude on Hitler's part and let him pretend that he's not a syphilitic meth-head so you can get the war started.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?831464-EU4-El-Dorado-Development-Diary-1-Nahuatl-Exploration-amp-Treaty-of-Tordesillas Aztecs are metal as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Nahua religion sounds like the first religion in EUIV to actually be fun. EDIT quote:Killing prisoners (or whole population), mechanic, or even discussion about it is not against forum rules:>? EDIT EDIT quote:Sad to see how paradox work in things like "doom" instead of improving Political, diplomatic and economical aspects of the game (basically more things to do in peace times). quote:This completely. Funky Valentine fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
quote:Please add ethnic cleansing as a way to culture convert but with military power. The dev diary thread  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
GSD posted:The dev diary thread Isn't that "attack natives"? e: "attack natives" should kill some of them but redistribute the others to neighbouring provinces. Also native populations should rise over time. Basically one thing I liked about Imperialism II was that even though the initial conquests were generally pretty easy, survivors would retreat to other provinces and build up, militarily. So you'd start the game mowing down archers and spearmen but by late game you'd be facing off against formidable federations with tons of cavalry armed with rifles. Dibujante fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Not from the dev diary, but from the announcement thread:quote:My favorite aspect of Europa Universalis IV is that it is Eurocentric, and that it preferentially views the world from the perspective of Christendom. This is it this is paradoxplaza.txt
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
I think the doom thing looks entertaining. And a 0/0/0 ruler isn't that bad, because you can always just sacrifice him and see what the rng gives you next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:I think the doom thing looks entertaining. And a 0/0/0 ruler isn't that bad, because you can always just sacrifice him and see what the rng gives you next. The gods don't give you much for a 0/0/0, though; even they don't want him/her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
drat, that looks sweet as hell. I take it the Aztec religion from the CKII import will just be a reformed version now?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:drat, that looks sweet as hell. I take it the Aztec religion from the CKII import will just be a reformed version now? Only if you reform it in CK2, I would imagine. Or wait can you, I forget
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:20
|
|
Allyn posted:Only if you reform it in CK2, I would imagine. Or wait can you, I forget I don't think so, also, I thought the point of Sunset Invasion was that the Aztecs and such are much further advanced technologically and poo poo, so it would probably go to follow that they would be reformed.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:The gods don't give you much for a 0/0/0, though; even they don't want him/her. Yeah, I think you just reset to another 0/0/0 if you do that. If you can even willingly sacrifice your own guy without hitting 100 doom. Sounds like the Aztecs will be... interesting. Also, finally a mild bonus for England if you decide to stay Catholic. You ought to be able to get Papal Claims to the Thirteen Colonies and Canada region 100% of the time, if you want to go for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:Not from the dev diary, but from the announcement thread: I honestly don't care if fleshing out areas other than Europe is a good idea from a gameplay standpoint, the mere fact that it pisses off people like him should be reason enough to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, I think you just reset to another 0/0/0 if you do that. If you can even willingly sacrifice your own guy without hitting 100 doom. Sounds like the Aztecs will be... interesting. I guess I misread that dev diary, I didn't realize it was vassals only that you could sacrifice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Honestly, every WW2 game needs a certain level of cornball-ness. Hitler's Germany was less powerful, relative to its surroundings, than Wilhelm II's army was. Part of what makes the drama of the war tick is that outrageous string of successes in the West in the early phase of the war. If you just mash the numbers against each other repeatedly, you end up with a WW2 game where most of the time Germany gets shot down right away. You have to leave a bit of room for the game to fudge what was honestly just ineptitude on Hitler's part and let him pretend that he's not a syphilitic meth-head so you can get the war started. Disregarding the small post-Versailles German army, the country itself was in a much stronger strategic position because the big empires to the east and south were gone and the French significantly weakened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Riso posted:Disregarding the small post-Versailles German army, the country itself was in a much stronger strategic position because the big empires to the east and south were gone and the French significantly weakened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:I guess I misread that dev diary, I didn't realize it was vassals only that you could sacrifice. What happens if you're the emperor, have revoked the privilegia, and you get flipped by religious rebels? I'm assuming the empire disappears, but if it doesn't, then this is DDRJake's chance to take the Aztecs into the Emperorship and then farm sacrificial vassals forever. Does this DD mean that vassals can actually be pushed far enough to rebel now? I know that this religion has unique vassal mechanics so maybe it could have a unique vassal rebellion type that allows it to ally with a European colonial power  Maybe it would be best accomplished through a kind of "support independence" that gives the supporter a cb for territory and not just independence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Riso posted:Disregarding the small post-Versailles German army, the country itself was in a much stronger strategic position because the big empires to the east and south were gone and the French significantly weakened. Last I checked, the big empire to the east got replaced with a stronger one and the big empires to the south were on Germany's side the first time round.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:Last I checked, the big empire to the east got replaced with a stronger one and the big empires to the south were on Germany's side the first time round. They didn't have to fight a two front war the second time around. Not until '44 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
So where the original German army could win one front of two simultaneous fronts, Hitler's couldn't even manage to win one front alone.  Basically what I'm saying is Germany is a clear underdog in WW2. You need to pull some strings to keep the math from snuffing out the war before it starts in most games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
I've seen this repeated a lot, but I still think it has to have been something more than a string of extremely unlikely coincidences. Didn't they inflict much more casualties on the Soviets than the other way around, for example?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
They sure did, especially in the beginning, but the Soviet Union was much, much better prepared for Total War than Germany was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Phlegmish posted:I've seen this repeated a lot, but I still think it has to have been something more than a string of extremely unlikely coincidences. Didn't they inflict much more casualties on the Soviets than the other way around, for example? That in particular has more to do with the situation than anything else. The most common casualty figures include prisoners executed by Germany, among other things. Not to mention that after the early successes Germany was on the defensive for years. edit: obviously there were other factors, but if you want to compare casualties the western front 1944-45 looks pretty bad for the Nazis when you consist that they were defending. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Also the whole myth about German efficiency and craftmanship was just that, a myth. German industry was dated, used inefficient methods and standards, and its management was corrupt and incompetent as gently caress. So many of their tank and plane designs were poo poo, many of their small arms were poo poo, pushed for political reasons rather than good design. But the whole myth of german efficiency and quality was pushed by both sides. It helped the allies paint germany as a scary over-dog, and the nazi's were all about the myth of Prussian discipline and efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've seen this repeated a lot, but I still think it has to have been something more than a string of extremely unlikely coincidences. Didn't they inflict much more casualties on the Soviets than the other way around, for example? The real issue is the early years of the pre-war and war period: 1936: German troops have orders to retreat if the French do anything about them reoccupying the Rhineland, and the German military is laughably pathetic compared to the French military. However, due in large part to British influence, the French do nothing about it. 1938: The Allies sell out Czechoslovakia despite significant military superiority. (I'm also skipping some lesser instances where things went surprisingly well for the Germans because they probably don't lead to instant game overs in HOI terms) There's a strong argument that these weren't luck so much as preordained due to the personalities involved, and they're not WWII proper, so lets move onto the big one: France - if the German attack plans don't get changed due to getting captured when a plane crashes or if Hitler listens to his senior generals, the sickle cut never happens- possibly the superior German operational skill and doctrine gets them some victories, but the French army almost certainly wouldn't have disintegrated like it did. If the French generals listen to their reconnaissance about large forces moving through the Ardennes (players with hindsight certainly will) and reinforce the Meuse, the Dyle forces probably don't get cut off. If anything goes wrong and a large portion of the French army doesn't get destroyed, the opposing forces are fairly equal and the French learned quickly - even in real life, they defended much better against the second phase of the German attack with the leftover, lower-quality forces remaining to them. WWII looks a lot more like WWI, and if the Soviets even get involved then it will be as part of an attack on Germany (with an army that's started recovering from the purges and is prepared for a war) rather than the other way around. Basically, pre-1941 involved a great deal of things going right for Germany - no one wants to play the game I described above though, so France generally gets extremely underrated so that it doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
The French did have a feeeew issues like having one radio per 5 tanks or whatever, planning on the war being more WWI-esque with trenches, and the Germans were using superior czechnology built tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:That in particular has more to do with the situation than anything else. The most common casualty figures include prisoners executed by Germany, among other things These other things include 9 million directly killed civilians and another 4 million who died as a result of destruction wrought by the war. So it's not exactly military superiority here... A lot of early Soviet losses can be attributed to Soviet incompetence (especially Stalin's). However, German military doctrine was also pretty formidable. That's probably the only advantage Germany had - they used
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Bonus points for Lend-Lease supplies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
So it's easy to talk about German tanks being technically junk with the benefit of hindsight, but the fact remains that in 1939 the MkIII and MkIV were the best tanks in the world at doing the job tanks do. The German army entered the war with an understanding of modern mobile warfare far beyond anything the Allies or Soviets possessed. That's the great part of their initial success.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Well yeah, they kinda planned to have those kind of tanks by 1939, of course they'd have better tanks for that task in that year. The French had pretty decent tanks for what they believed would be their goals (not racing through Poland) and the Soviets had time to And the Matilda proved in Operation Compass that it was one of the best tanks of that time period.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Not to be picky, but that was the Matilda II. The original Matilda (designation A11?) was a two-man predecessor which was as tough as the II that eventually became known as the Matilda, but it ... wasn't too hot outside of armour plating. There's a reason why they only built c.200 of the things before they gave up on the design and went with the Mk. II. (The fact most of them were lost in the Fall of France helped, I guess. Funny thing is, I actually only learned this when trying to do a bit of contextual research on the '40 campaign in Panzer Corps of all things...)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:So it's easy to talk about German tanks being technically junk with the benefit of hindsight, but the fact remains that in 1939 the MkIII and MkIV were the best tanks in the world at doing the job tanks do. No, the T-34 was the best tank in the world in that regard. But the T-34 wasn't produced in large numbers. It wasn't deployed intelligently. Its crews were green. It didn't have enough radios, or munitions. It still impressed the Germans, but they rolled right over it because the operational context surrounding the T-34 was completely inadequate compared to German practices. This underscores how important German doctrine was, though. No other country was practicing tank warfare in the same way, which allowed Germany to overcome enemies with more tanks (France) and enemies with better tanks (USSR, at first).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Alchenar did say best tanks in 1939, when there were barely any Matilda IIs and the T-34 was still in the design phase. Also I'm not sure the Matilda II was that great. It faired well against Italian tanks but that's not saying much. Cross country the thing went like 10 mph and 15 mph on roads. That's super slow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:No, the T-34 was the best tank in the world in that regard. But the T-34 wasn't produced in large numbers. It wasn't deployed intelligently. Its crews were green. It didn't have enough radios, or munitions. It still impressed the Germans, but they rolled right over it because the operational context surrounding the T-34 was completely inadequate compared to German practices. Yeah that whole 'not having radios, or correct ammo, or a turret the commander could see out of' were all reasons the T34 at the start of the war was not a very good tank to actually use. e: your tank is better by default if your army uses it to beat the enemy army. Tanks that are designed to fight wars that don't actually happen are not good tanks. You also can't separate doctrine from the tank. German tanks were designed in line with the German army's expectation of how they would be used (and practical experience from driving round Austria/Czechslovakia), which is why they show up in 1939/40 with radios and motorised infantry and it works. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Tomn posted:This is arguably true, insofar that a Hitler who wasn't trying to micromanage every aspect of the war would indeed make for a much different war. Hidden stats that measures how micromanagey your leader is and how occupied they are with running the state at the moment. If the ratio goes bad the ai starts changing your unit production and war plans randomly and you have to spend political mana to put them back(but still losing some production/war bonuses!).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:e: your tank is better by default if your army uses it to beat the enemy army. Tanks that are designed to fight wars that don't actually happen are not good tanks. You also can't separate doctrine from the tank. German tanks were designed in line with the German army's expectation of how they would be used (and practical experience from driving round Austria/Czechslovakia), which is why they show up in 1939/40 with radios and motorised infantry and it works. But by this logic the M4 Sherman and Tank Destroyer doctrine are superior to anything Germany ever fielded or did which is not something I'm willing to accept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 06:10
|
|
