|
YF-23 posted:Yeah but that is not a fun system to play with, again. "Don't do X and you'll be fine" is not a good or engaging system. So you are addicted to landing your family?`It's not the game's fault then. You shouldn't land your family members as a merchant republic either, is that also bad? I really, really don't understand the problem. There's a lot of things you shouldn't do, like giving newly conquered territory to already powerful families, or hire a spymaster with a really high intrigue stat who is also amoral and hates you, etc. Not landing your dynasty is hardly a burden. And in return, aside from decadence Muslims are fun to play with. There's the jostling between your wives, the choice of A'shari vs. Mu'tatelite (most of my vassals are A'shari, but the most powerful are Mu'tatelite, what do I chose?  ), you can play with fatwas, the haji is one of the better event chains, etc.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
I'd rather they just save map expansions for CK3 or whatever successor title they have. That way they can focus their work on refining what's already there and putting out a badly needed optimization patch/dlc/whatever the hell out of there so there's a chance people can run it beyond speed 3 after 200 years ingame. These days CK2 is turning into Sins of a Solar Empires in that for it's time it was great, but after so many features added it simply became unplayable past a certain point in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEUssXywjno
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:So you are addicted to landing your family?`It's not the game's fault then. You shouldn't land your family members as a merchant republic either, is that also bad? I really, really don't understand the problem. There's a lot of things you shouldn't do, like giving newly conquered territory to already powerful families, or hire a spymaster with a really high intrigue stat who is also amoral and hates you, etc. Not landing your dynasty is hardly a burden. None of that make decadence engaging in a fun way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Groogy posted:But no you are right, we abandon the features forever and never touch it again. Not to be "that guy", because yeah a lot has changed over time, but for me the most glaring holes that have never/barely been expanded upon or improved are Heresies and Not-Norse Pagans. Heresies could be so much more, like the Manicheans who were once a major influence. The Slavs don't have a lot that's special for them, let alone the finnish pagans... And then there's the "West Africans"...Eesh, talk about ignored. ...Oh yeah, almost forgot, Hellenism! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
There's a big difference between "I have a pet peeve I want you to do" and what Larry was saying. And Heresies got improved in Sons of Abraham, heck they were completely blank before Sons of Abraham. But of course we can always make more stuff and better. Just because you can see "Here's an area we can improve" doesn't mean we never improve those things at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Decadence is just a ham-fisted way to balance Muslims against Christians. You get to have four wives, a hundred kids and free casus belli for expansion. But it comes at the cost of frequent civil wars and breaks up your empire with every generation, except that players found ways to game the system. CK2 isn't really supposed to be a game where you unite the entirety of Europe under your vast empire, it's about your dynasty, but most people play it the other way around with a big empire and a tiny family so they don't lose control.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
That's because EU4 is the best game ever released and even CK2 nerds end up playing EU4 without realizing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:And in return, aside from decadence Muslims are fun to play with. There's the jostling between your wives, the choice of A'shari vs. Mu'tatelite (most of my vassals are A'shari, but the most powerful are Mu'tatelite, what do I chose? I like it too, and being caliph is awesome. But decadence is unfun and shia could get a little more flavor IMHO (you dont even have the A'shari vs. Mu'tatelite thing)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
A quick way to tell if a mechanic is good or bad is to ask yourself, "would it be better if I didn't have to deal with this mechanic at all", and decadence flatly falls in the "no" category. If you had the choice of playing as a Muslim with decadence and a Muslim without decadence, you would pretty much always prefer the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
I think decadence is too micro to really be fun. If decadence was cumulative across the whole faith, that, weighed by rank, started to decay moral authority and cause net unrest across the Muslim world. Instead of having straight up decadence revolts, have different strains/heresies jostle for moral hegemon. If anything, decadence should pose administrative issues, like factional activity and lowering vassal caps as your ruler becomes for pre-occupied with their wealth and power. This is a good way of breaking up caliphates and keeping the game fresh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Yeah that's part of my biggest problem with decadence. Instead of the greatest enemy of Islamic Expansion being heretics trying to dumpster you, it's faceless not-Seljuks from nowhere. WTF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:A quick way to tell if a mechanic is good or bad is to ask yourself, "would it be better if I didn't have to deal with this mechanic at all", and decadence flatly falls in the "no" category. If you had the choice of playing as a Muslim with decadence and a Muslim without decadence, you would pretty much always prefer the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Yeah that's part of my biggest problem with decadence. Instead of the greatest enemy of Islamic Expansion being heretics trying to dumpster you, it's faceless not-Seljuks from nowhere. WTF. Yes, exactly. The ruin of caliphates should be internal divisions or apathy (leading to outside conquests). Managing decadence should be fun if you can make some calculated decisions on how to manage it. Investing in subject's holdings should buy you loyalty/moral authority is one route. Obviously this has diminishing returns if you have to invest in more and more subjects the bigger the empire, and the cost gets more and more prohibitive the longer the game, but if you have nomads coming in and raiding/taking over far corners of your empire then you begin the cycle of conquest > plunder > reconquest > investment until you can handle your enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Actually, in your own words, you'd prefer the former. I don't get the joke.  Is this about Torrannor telling me I have an obsessive reaction to land my kinsmen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I don't get the joke. YF-23 posted:A quick way to tell if a mechanic is good or bad is to ask yourself, "would it be better if I didn't have to deal with this mechanic at all", and decadence flatly falls in the "no" category.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
Oh, well, obvious mistype on my part. I'm dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Oh, well, obvious mistype on my part. I'm dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
CK2 is it cross purposes with itself at varying points of the timeline and decadence is just one example of a general problem with big blob decay and devolution. Like the AI needs a safety valve to prevent France alternately falling to a caliphate or the HRE. But the player doesn't want to be told no to expansion, its better if they come up with that idea on their own. Some of its just a huge psychological barrier to hurdle. Like if I take a second to look back objectively, pagan gavelkind generational churn is some of the most fun I've had in the game, but gavelkind just kind of hurts the part of your brain assigned to borders so I can't avoid the feeling I should be killing off sons I don't need and beelining toward religious sites for reforms. Maybe Conclave will bring in the x factor to make sectarian strife fun enough to not want to make the biggest empire every game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
I don't know; I see a lot of stuff in Conclave that looks like it will prevent blobbing, or blobs from growing out of control, but not much to break up or diminish blobs which already exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I don't know; I see a lot of stuff in Conclave that looks like it will prevent blobbing, or blobs from growing out of control, but not much to break up or diminish blobs which already exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Thing that bugged me the most in the last HoI4 stream was that the battle plan stuff wasn't really shown off since the player of Germany said he likes to just put everything in one group and give it one basic order and then micro everything. I still want to see the battle plan stuff put to good use outside of a lopsided fight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
While I'd like to know more about the battle planner as well, I'm one of those people who liked to manually control everything in HOI3 (and other games) and I don't know if I'd trust the system to fight intelligently or any better than I would. Like, how does it know how to match up your forces with your opponents the best way to counter them (i.e. so you're not trying to drive your tanks across a river at AT guns fortified on the other side) or when to push, when to fall back or flank? Does it just randomly distribute forces along the line you've drawn? And how does it deal with pockets and other flanks? When they were marching on Stockholm it looks like half the forces just race past it and let the British breakthrough in the south without any resistance. It honestly strikes me as a semi-automated system that I'm going to have to fight with and won't trust to leave it to run on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:While I'd like to know more about the battle planner as well, I'm one of those people who liked to manually control everything in HOI3 (and other games) and I don't know if I'd trust the system to fight intelligently or any better than I would. Like, how does it know how to match up your forces with your opponents the best way to counter them (i.e. so you're not trying to drive your tanks across a river at AT guns fortified on the other side) or when to push, when to fall back or flank? Does it just randomly distribute forces along the line you've drawn? And how does it deal with pockets and other flanks? When they were marching on Stockholm it looks like half the forces just race past it and let the British breakthrough in the south without any resistance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
But I mean is that the intended meta-game of the battle planner? That it's a trap to actually use it and you have to fight it rather than rely on it? I doubt it since this this is a game and that would be a bad design. If it works poorly I think that'd be a failure of design rather than what they were aiming for
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This is what's known as immersive gameplay. No other game comes anywhere close to really putting you in the mindset of Hitler.  You just can't help but micro-manage, then you forget the economy and whoops there goes France.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
You know, I'm deeply curious. How much of CK2's revenue came from just DLC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Kersch posted:But I mean is that the intended meta-game of the battle planner? That it's a trap to actually use it and you have to fight it rather than rely on it? I doubt it since this this is a game and that would be a bad design. If it works poorly I think that'd be a failure of design rather than what they were aiming for Probably the intended meta is that both are viable options - you get a planning bonus for using the battle planner apparently, which probably offsets any sub-optimality, or you can do it manually where you don't get a planning bonus but you do get to do all the micro and eke out advantages that way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:You know, I'm deeply curious. The vast majority probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Kersch posted:But I mean is that the intended meta-game of the battle planner? That it's a trap to actually use it and you have to fight it rather than rely on it? I doubt it since this this is a game and that would be a bad design. If it works poorly I think that'd be a failure of design rather than what they were aiming for I don't think it's a fair comment. It's designed for battlegroups of generals making small, planned pushes and for field generals to poop out troops along a border or, in a risky sense, just paint a big line somewhere in deep. It lets you spread a selected force out in some tangibly balanced manner, but you can't just paint a line half way up in the world and say "alright go here and kill everyone without further management."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I don't think it's a fair comment. It's designed for battlegroups of generals making small, planned pushes and for field generals to poop out troops along a border or, in a risky sense, just paint a big line somewhere in deep. It lets you spread a selected force out in some tangibly balanced manner, but you can't just paint a line half way up in the world and say "alright go here and kill everyone without further management." I agree with what you're saying its for, I'd like to see more examples of that shown off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I don't think it's a fair comment. It's designed for battlegroups of generals making small, planned pushes and for field generals to poop out troops along a border or, in a risky sense, just paint a big line somewhere in deep. It lets you spread a selected force out in some tangibly balanced manner, but you can't just paint a line half way up in the world and say "alright go here and kill everyone without further management." From Berlin to Vladivostok: A Battle Planner success story
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Some interesting Stellaris tidbits in this article http://explorminate.net/2016/01/25/stellaris-qa/
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Hate to say it since I really loved CK2 but I haven't even played more than 10 hours in total since Rajas came out. Horse Lords did a lot of good stuff but IMO it's still suffering from Old Paradox Disease where they don't have an end goal for the game in sight so it begins to suffer from all the addon features like a cancer patient. EU4 seems like its starting to go that way too but it's not bad right now. Feature bloat does seem to be a thing with Paradox. Even if you don't have any DLC or expansions, EUIV seems to morph into a different game every six months. It's good that they keep working on their games, but stability would be nice too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Feature bloat does seem to be a thing with Paradox. Even if you don't have any DLC or expansions, EUIV seems to morph into a different game every six months. It's good that they keep working on their games, but stability would be nice too. Ah cool throwing in your lot with Larry. Yeah videogames that change are real scary, I wish these developers would stop developing their game. Reverting to a previous patchlevel? Total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
I'm usually a bit bored with the game by the time a major game-changing DLC comes out. If the new changes are good it re-kindles my interest, if it's not so good then no loss, I was already mostly done with the game. Mods can help with some of the more questionable additions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I don't think it's a fair comment. It's designed for battlegroups of generals making small, planned pushes and for field generals to poop out troops along a border or, in a risky sense, just paint a big line somewhere in deep. It lets you spread a selected force out in some tangibly balanced manner, but you can't just paint a line half way up in the world and say "alright go here and kill everyone without further management." Yeah the idea behind it is to reduce micromanagement by building a hierarchy. You tell your generals what to do, and they manage the details. And you get a (presumably large) planning bonus for not trying to micromanage each individual division. It sounds like a win/win to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Yeah the idea behind it is to reduce micromanagement by building a hierarchy. You tell your generals what to do, and they manage the details. And you get a (presumably large) planning bonus for not trying to micromanage each individual division. It sounds like a win/win to me. You should still be able to stay up for an entire week on a steady stream of methamphetamine, pushing imaginary divisions around the map, though. For verisimilitude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Ah cool throwing in your lot with Larry. Yeah videogames that change are real scary, I wish these developers would stop developing their game. Reverting to a previous patchlevel? Total bullshit. Three minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
I don't know if anyone read the interview I posted but I wanted to talk about some of the points that were new (to me). I understood there was going to be some sort of CK2 style system to limit your direct micro over your empire and I'm liking it more and more the more they talk about it. I think this is a very good idea to not only balance micro-management but also "infinite city(colony) sprawl" found in just about every 4X. I do hope though it isn't just a hard limit through the game of "you can only ever directly manage 5 planets" and maybe something you can push a little if you so choose, at some sort of cost. Perhaps I love micro and want to play a very centrally planned empire so I can put points into something that lets me micro 12 planets, while someone else decides to try to make his colonies happier by putting everyone outside his home system in a sector, plus he hates micro managing planets. When you colonize you pick a specific pop to use as the base. This lets you of course keep your colonies "pure" and spread certain ideologies. I wonder on the flip side if there will be mechanics to use colonies to also get rid of groups you don't like. Maybe you really want to create a brutal empire based on militaristic jingo and racism, but a minority of your population are pacifist xenophiles so you build a colony ship, select the pop you don't like, and then add certain carrots and sticks (mostly sticks) to get them off your important homeworld and off to some out of the way colony. I'd love to see forced migration as a way to make your homeworld/core systems more "pure", but of course at the cost of upsetting the people forced to move away and really setting your self up for future independence movements. I wonder what tools we'll have to encourage/discourage certain ideologies and groups. The lack of any sort of espionage doesn't sound great, I hope there's still at least HoI style "intel" funding. I usually hate spying in 4X games, it's either something useless, or you need to micro manage not only your attack but defense or suddenly all your tech is being stolen and key facilities exploding. If they can make it fit and be fun could be a cool DLC. Interesting bit about terraforming. Terraforming costs a limited resource so you can only terraform a "few" planets in the course of a game. I never like such hard limits, but at the same time it's usually ridiculous in these sort of games how by end-game every rock and gas giant has been terraformed into some little earth. I'd rather they had just made terraforming realistically ridiculously hard or downright impossible than it being based on some rare collectible terraforming tokens. The combat DD had me feeling slightly less excited, but all Paradox needs to do is talk about cool CK2 style vassals and rebellions and POPs and events and poo poo and I'm back on the hype train.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 19:46
|
|