|
Darkrenown posted:I am, yeah. But are you a true Scotsman? Also, does this mean political power is no more?
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:But are you a true Scotsman? This looks a lot more interesting than the national goal system from the politics post, but I'm wondering if the rest of the politics DD is still current or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:HoI4 devs explain yourselves. Podcat is Missing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Also, does this mean political power is no more? Well, presumably you need to spend a resource to advance through the various focuses. Not sure how you get it, maybe it just accumulates with time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Are there any decent grand strategy games set in the cold war or later? I saw that Supreme Ruler Ultimate is on sale on Steam, but apparently that game isn't very good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Kaiserreich question - has anybody been noticing the Japanese AI going full retard during a war against the Qing? I was involved in a throwdown as the united Indian Empire after joining the Japanese alliance (since Germany already got blown the gently caress out of Europe alongside the rest of Mitteleuropa) involving Germany (well, what was left of it, that being Mittelafrika and Vietnam), the Qing (who had taken over the AOG territories) and Ireland (who somehow managed to survive being under fire from the entirety of Syndicalist Europe and Entente America - including 500 effective IC monster USA that avoided the civil war) vs. Japan and their puppets Fengtian and Mongolia, the Indian Empire and my puppet Indochina and the Australasian Confederation. There was a land connection between Mongolia and me through which the Chinese could attack, but I figured they wouldn't make it that far and instead redeployed most of my forces to the Indochina front. I invaded the defenseless Vietnam territories and made my way into south China, where I met heavy Chinese resistance, requiring some finagling, using the MOT I had to encircle divisions in provinces like Macao and Hong Kong to gain an advantage. Eventually, I got to the point where progress wasn't really possible - there were about sixty Chinese divisions dug in on the front versus about fifty Indian divisions, and I couldn't make any headway. So I looked up to see what the gently caress the Japanese were doing, and I drat near had a heart attack, because there were about seventy Japanese divisions in three provinces around Beijing, and they were doing NOTHING. In fact, the Chinese were one concentrated MOT assault on a single province (at the time being defended by a few MIL divisions, nothing that could have held) away from pulling off a monster encirclement and crushing about 75% of the Japanese army. Thankfully, the AI never figured that out. So while I was reinforcing my front with the defense forces I left in Tibet (since the Chinese weren't making any progress in Mongolia) and newly built divisions, I kept looking up to see if those seventy divisions were going to make any moves. They never really did. Instead, the Japanese made a naval landing involving about fifteen divisions somewhere around Nanjing, which diverted just enough of the Chinese army for me to make enough progress to fire the peace event. Then Fengtian got to annex the entirety of China, I used acceptall to get the southern half of China and released the RoC, because I got loving cheated. I did most of the work on that war. Was still fun, though. Well, mostly fun. Wasn't fun when I had to reload an earlier save because 30-division Delhi thought it would be better to stab 40-division Indian Empire in the back than help them against 60-division Syndicalist India. Stupid Brits. That's one of the problems with DH - there's no way for the AI to decide events based on "can we actually take these guys based on the information we have" rather than "let's roll a die and see where it lands".
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:King was Scottish, I think some of the other devs are Scottish too. Is DR Scottish? I can't remember.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
So I've logged in probably dozens of hours worth of observer games in Darkest Hour and there's something I've noticed again and again with the AI that's starting to bother me. The AI absolutely never attacks pockets, even if the pocketed forces are out of supply and down to one strength and zero organization per division. Worse and especially so in large fronts, the AI will move a huge percentage of their forces to defend the provinces around the pocket, which I guess makes some sense if it's a huge cluster of troops they have to starve out, but coupled with never attacking it makes for a lot of strangely lopsided wars where the side on the offensive creates a number of pockets and inevitably loses them when they fail to attack. Strangely, I've only really seen this behavior crop up in the AIs of the Axis countries.
zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Parallax Scroll posted:Are there any decent grand strategy games set in the cold war or later? I saw that Supreme Ruler Ultimate is on sale on Steam, but apparently that game isn't very good. The last good one was Shadow President, and that's in the MS-DOS era and has an end-game bug where everyone's perceived quality of life goes down for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:The last good one was Shadow President, and that's in the MS-DOS era and has an end-game bug where everyone's perceived quality of life goes down for no good reason. drat. Shadow President is what got me into Paradox games in the first place when I was looking for something with a more modern UI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:But are you a true Scotsman? No, although the only cost of NFs is time invested, PP is still around. You don't get to invest it into goals anymore, but you still use it to buy ideas etc. and it'll be used for some unannounced stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
marmaduke1979 posted:Anyone played March of the Eagle? I'd like to get into a decent Napoleonic strategy game. I haven't played a lot of it but I think it's generally considered good. It's basically a wargame with CK2-like combat but more control over the tactics chosen during battle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
I quite like what I've played of MotE, even if I still haven't had a chance to sit down and play a full campaign of it yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
So demilitarized zones are a thing now? I wonder if that's an option for making peace. If so, I'm going to enjoy demilitarizing the whole world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:At least the German paths seems pretty open to divergences from history, given the limited time frame, assuming poo poo like befriending Poland means you can essentially turn WW2 in Europe into a single front war against the USSR. And that Germany ending up in a war against the USSR means Britain and France would be better able to respond to Japanese encroachment in the Pacific, even while possibly reinforcing their militaries in case of German aggression against them. The overall Germany goal, and that of all the major powers really, is probably going to be the same as it was historically, but the actual approach seems to have quite a lot of flexibility. Actually, thinking about, it seems like the National Focuses are a way to add additional options to the player which the regular systems used by the game can't reasonably model, plus give the player a sense of narrative to their campaign. I agree in a way, but I can't really see how the other trees would really change up that much. I am very curious to see, say, Britain or the US's to see what they go down, but Germany definitely sells the idea. The "instigator" has plenty of paths to take history down, but at face value it also looks like Germany has most of the choices for how the game will go, narratively speaking. I assume Russia and Japan will have some friendship options they can opt out of, as well as things concerning China, but.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I agree in a way, but I can't really see how the other trees would really change up that much. I am very curious to see, say, Britain or the US's to see what they go down, but Germany definitely sells the idea. The "instigator" has plenty of paths to take history down, but at face value it also looks like Germany has most of the choices for how the game will go, narratively speaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
1. Expand the New Deal 2. Contract the New Deal 3. FULL COMMUNISM
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:1. Expand the New Deal
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
I'd be especially interested in seeing France's national focus tree, and what kind of long term goals it'd have in a war where it avoids occupation early on. EDIT: Also because I think I want my first game to be France just for MAXIUM AHISTORICITY™. Empress Theonora fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:1. Expand the New Deal Sounds accurate to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, Germany, and to some extent Japan and Italy, seem like the they would be the source of the most major divergences by sheer virtue of being the more belligerent powers. Who's to say that the Axis needs to be the belligerent powers this time around? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
A Germany game where Hitler befriends everyone and brings democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 11:11
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:A Germany game where Hitler befriends everyone and brings democracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 13:31
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:FDR and Stalin team up to take over the world. The Earth is nearly lost to the evils of socialism and social security, but a plucky band of free market loving patriotic objectivists travel back in time to stop their evil plot. Their secret weapon? Hitler. Gay Black Hitler, of course.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
I pick the "Einstein builds a time-machine" and "Stalin listens to Kane" options to open up the Red Alert scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Someone please make a mod when HOI4 comes out that changes every national tree so that every country on Earth rapidly becomes a communist paradise and no wars ever break out (advertised as something else naturally), and then when people on the Paradox forums question why the game is so boring just respond very earnestly along the lines of "Why would you want to go to war with everyone when the whole world is a communist utopia?  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
Is it likely that Paradox will do more of a EU style game covering, say, 1930-2030? One not focused on a single defined conflict, but rather trying to model the underlying political movements and ideologies that might lead to similar or analogous conflicts, but in a much less deterministic way than HoI typically has been? I note that each game (CK2>EU4>Vicky2) covers shorter and shorter time-spans as time progresses, and assume a part of this is the increasing rapidity of political and ideological change making it difficult to design single systems which stay plausibly relevant after a given date? I think a hypothetical 20th to early 21st century game could be based around conflicts of political economy with nations trying to export their chosen economic system, government form (democratic, autocratic, etc) religion and legal system as a package ideology, with each individual aspect able to be advanced in different ways and independently. That might be able to represent pretty much everything from WW2 to the Cold War and on to recent conflicts to (supposedly) bring democracy in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:I pick the "Einstein builds a time-machine" and "Stalin listens to Kane" options to open up the Red Alert scenario. Is Kane even in the same timeline? I thought the Red Alert and Tiberium games were separate. Oberleutnant posted:Is it likely that Paradox will do more of a EU style game covering, say, 1930-2030? One not focused on a single defined conflict, but rather trying to model the underlying political movements and ideologies that might lead to similar or analogous conflicts, but in a much less deterministic way than HoI typically has been? Yeah, Cold War game will definitely happen. Paradox just killed EvW so they could bring out their own game without competition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Is Kane even in the same timeline? I thought the Red Alert and Tiberium games were separate. Kane is Stalin's advisor in Red Alert 1. In the Soviet Campaign ending to that game he murders Stalin and reveals that the Brotherhood of Nod will get rid of the USSR and come out of hiding sometime around the 1990s, leading to Tiberian Dawn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Is it likely that Paradox will do more of a EU style game covering, say, 1930-2030? One not focused on a single defined conflict, but rather trying to model the underlying political movements and ideologies that might lead to similar or analogous conflicts, but in a much less deterministic way than HoI typically has been? All those games have very different design directions and focuses, and I don't know if a modern game would be recognizable as realistic while being a focused and good game design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:HoI4 devs explain yourselves. Its the team trolling me with coder art  Its a toggle button for seeing allied plans or not :P
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
This cropped up in a discussion about the "Women in the military" decision for Kaiserreich:Guy on Paradox forums posted:This decision has always bugged me actually; its consequences should be far greater than the minor dissent hits it has now. Is this a valid criticism? I've always thought it was meant as a kind of desperation measure, since it requires a really low manpower total in wartime. Almost nobody's going to take it if they have to spend more IC for supplies on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Kavak posted:This cropped up in a discussion about the "Women in the military" decision for Kaiserreich: Women poo poo in a hole in the forest like everyone else. If you're conscripting women as a last ditch they're gonna be in the field, not in bases or barracks. I'd say the biggest hit would be the workforce, women took up a lot of factory jobs during WW2 while the men fought so this would be reflecting in IC efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Israel: Well known nation with unlimited resources. Any military that allows women to serve in any capacity already needs to provide these facilities. Even in WWII there were female nurses, ferry pilots, clerks etc. in the US military. Nevermind that in desperate times, clothing and housing standards can probably be eased. I guess from a gameplay perspective it makes sense to have it be a tradeoff, because otherwise every nation on Earth would run with full female conscription since its just free manpower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Its not a valid criticism at all. If you conscript three million women into your armed forces you would need to build more lodgings, washrooms, uniforms, and the like. However, the same would apply if you conscripted three million more men. "Simply because it costs too much" is nothing more than poorly veiled sexism and socially reactionary thought. How many schools have gone bankrupt because they went from boys-only to both sexes? Its an especially ridiculous claim because we are talking about military structures of an era which were even more stratified than today. You would absolutely be able to expect that there would be different bathrooms for different ranks, and quite possible, different social castes/races/colonial groups. The logistical elements of employing women alongside men are minor if the society which is doing it isn't ridiculously backwards about social norms and demands full separation of the sexes (but even then, it wouldn't be crippling). I mean I guess you should add a 0.00000000000001 supply consumption per day for army-supplied tampons or whatever 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
That's such a minor cost that it would be absurd to represent it in a game of this scope. I do think the dissent hit should scale with the direness of the nation's situation, if you've lost half your VPs then I think putting women out on the front wouldn't really ruffle any feathers because everybody is too busy trying not to die. But if you're doing it in peacetime or when you're not in any particular danger, then maybe it should have a greater dissent hit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
I don't have a loving clue how the "women in the military" decision reflects reality, but it needs to cost more. Dissent is just a temporary thing, and 50% manpower growth boost is loving sweet and permanent. Have you ever done that as the Soviet Union? Oh god, the manpower. Or how about full-feminist Union of Britain (i.E. allowing women to serve during the election events, then doing the same through the decision for 100% growth boost)? poo poo's nuts. There is basically no reason not to do it if you can.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Didn't the Soviet Union historically have a fair whack of women on the front lines?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Kavak posted:This cropped up in a discussion about the "Women in the military" decision for Kaiserreich: Let's ask the CNT-FAI in Catalonia in the '30s: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
Tomn posted:Didn't the Soviet Union historically have a fair whack of women on the front lines? Yes, the night witches are the most well known example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 00:23
|
|
