|
Fintilgin posted:XCOM 2 is pretty drat good dude. No it isn't, and that horrific business model you described is why Firaxis strategy games fell off a cliff after Civ 4. If you are happy with their games please keep buying and enjoying them, Firaxis makes them and they've got you covered. Really hoping Paradox doesn't copy anything from Firaxis these days.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
I got bored before I finished Xcom 2. Beyond Earth was what I had in mind when I posted though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Poil posted:Imagine the meltdown on the Paradox forums if EUV is announced and it doesn't contain absolutely every last feature from all the EUIV dlc at launch. This is a really weakass excuse of Firaxis's apparent policy of "release a bad game and have people pay more money to make it good".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
I'm just gonna say it, XCom 2 probably would have been okay if Invisible Inc hadn't come along and blown all expectations out of the water
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Has anyone had any luck playing as Wurzburg? I took Oberpfaltz from the Palatinate in a defensive war and just sat on my rear end for 30 years as to not go overboard with the agrressive expansion penalties. I had 4 allies: Alsace, Ravensburg, Frankfurt, and Nassau. Then, while defending Alsace from aggressors, Bohemia declares war on me, Bavaria declares war on me, and Thuringia declares war on me. Bavaria just took money from me, Bohemia took Oberpfaltz, and Thuringia decided that taking my last two provinces was the best move. I can't imagine the type of coalition I would get against me if I annexed a two-province elector of the HRE, but there it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
For starters you need better, bigger allies than a bunch of free cities Every game inside the hre should start off with sucking up to austria
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It would be really nice if, like estates, autonomy was reset when you acquire a province. The AI tends to go nuts with raising autonomy, and with the way it interacts with the territory autonomy floor, you usually end up getting a totally worthless province. Autonomy reduces the warscore cost of taking a province, so if a province is at high autonomy, that's already priced in at the negotiating table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I'm just gonna say it, XCom 2 probably would have been okay if Invisible Inc hadn't come along and blown all expectations out of the water
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Autonomy reduces the warscore cost of taking a province, so if a province is at high autonomy, that's already priced in at the negotiating table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
XCOM 2 was by no means a Bad Game. It could have been better and I personally didn't finish it but it's not even close to Beyond Earth tier
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:For starters you need better, bigger allies than a bunch of free cities I wish I could observe the game after Game Over just to see how badly Thuringia would have gotten reamed by everybody around them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:So what is the issue with XCOM2? illectro's LP makes it seem pretty fun, at least. Don't ask me. I had a blast.  I mean, it's not perfect or anything, but it's a big step up from the first Firaxis XCOM, which was already a ton of fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:XCOM 2 was by no means a Bad Game. It could have been better and I personally didn't finish it but it's not even close to Beyond Earth tier Yeah, Beyond Earth was staggeringly bad. Civ5 was not good at all, and BE made it abundantly clear that Firaxis had learned nothing in the interim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, Beyond Earth was staggeringly bad. Civ5 was not good at all, and BE made it abundantly clear that Firaxis had learned nothing in the interim. it might have been decent if the ai, uh, existed
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah, Beyond Earth was staggeringly bad. Civ5 was not good at all, and BE made it abundantly clear that Firaxis had learned nothing in the interim. Civ 5 was frustrating, in that they made a horrible choice for every good, which was ruined in the end by them doing everything in their power to stop players from enjoying multiplayer, let alone modding. The presentation was ridiculously good, from the sound cues, to its music and shiny colours, and this was without making it feel like a drat PopCap game mechanically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Only at 1/3 the autonomy though, so a 75% autonomous province costs only 25% less than one with 0% autonomy. Also, if the autonomy is already over 75%, you dont get the option to raise it further to deal with revolt risk (despite the autonomy already having been raised once or twice by the previous owners). Either the autonomy should reset when the province changes hands, or the effects of raising/lowering it should carry over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Civ 5 was good but flawed. EU IV is good but they keep adding flaws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Eej posted:Civ 5 was good but flawed. EU IV is good but they keep adding flaws. eu4 at launch, of course, was a flawless jewel
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:it might have been decent if the ai, uh, existed Yeah. One time an enemy of mine was trying to trade with a faction on the other side of my territory. I just parked one unit on the trade route, and it just ran convoy after unescorted convoy into it over and over again. Come the gently caress on. All they had to do was port SMAC to a new engine, and then teach the AI how good forests were, and they would have had the perfect game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:eu4 at launch, of course, was a flawless jewel Nah it peaked with Common Sense. At launch there was too much EU3 left in it. The major features they've added since then are fine, but there have been so many small changes in those patches that have been essentially punitive against non-Europeans/non-monarchies/other non-traditional starts that it's hard to argue they've been a net improvement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:Civ 5 was frustrating, in that they made a horrible choice for every good, which was ruined in the end by them doing everything in their power to stop players from enjoying multiplayer, let alone modding. Civ V became good eventually, but my favorite part about Civ V multiplayer at launch was the fact that it was impossible to manually save the game. You had to rely completely on autosaves and make backups of the autosave files elsewhere if you didn't want them to get overwritten by autosaves from other playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Just bought Cossacks and Mare Nostrum and I've put in a refund request already. Seems to me like Paradox just tacked on more mechanics without integrating them into the existing mechanics. Do Estates interact at all with Stability and the Parliament system? Does Stability even need to be a thing when Estates are represented?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Do Estates interact at all with Stability and the Parliament system? Does Stability even need to be a thing when Estates are represented? Yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
A bit late on the dev diary but having a perma CB on rivals to basically just gently caress with them and humilate them and make them poop out vassals is a great idea 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
I really wish I could decide how much money to borrow. Having to pay off 4-500 worth of interest just because I went half a buck into negative is just silly. It would require changing the loan system to also take into account the maximum amount you could borrow, based on your monthly income (as it already does?) when checking for the relevant disasters and of course the wonderful bankruptcy.Enjoy posted:Does Stability even need to be a thing when Estates are represented? RabidWeasel posted:A bit late on the dev diary but having a perma CB on rivals to basically just gently caress with them and humilate them and make them poop out vassals is a great idea
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Poil posted:I really wish I could decide how much money to borrow. Having to pay off 4-500 worth of interest just because I went half a buck into negative is just silly. It would require changing the loan system to also take into account the maximum amount you could borrow, based on your monthly income (as it already does?) when checking for the relevant disasters and of course the wonderful bankruptcy. Agreed, it's stupid having to take a huge loan because I'm 2 gold in debt at the end of the month because of some random event. To keep it relatively simple they should just make it so that if you're still netting a monthly profit you won't have to take a loan, or maybe just enough to get you back to 0.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
They could just make it so that going negative gives you penalties and taking a loan is entirely voluntary. Make them stiff enough that it's not something you want to be doing regularly or for extended periods of time, but something you'd do in a pinch. It's not like anyone ever goes bankrupt anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
I kind of like how loans work, most games don't have anything comparable. It's a really forgiving mechanic that basically gives you free money when you need it; the prospect of getting a really poo poo loan and having to scramble at the end of the month to try and prevent that is part of what balances it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:So what is the issue with XCOM2? illectro's LP makes it seem pretty fun, at least. There's nothing really fundamentally wrong with XCOM2, it's got everything that you'd expect in an XCOM game. The problem is that Invisible Inc showed that you could remove or soften many of the frustrating elements in the XCOM formula without losing any of the fun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah. One time an enemy of mine was trying to trade with a faction on the other side of my territory. I just parked one unit on the trade route, and it just ran convoy after unescorted convoy into it over and over again. Come the gently caress on. I think, creatively speaking, it's a bit unfair to expect an established AAA game developer to wholesale copy another game from a franchise they no longer own, made by designers who have mostly left the company. They decided to revive an old franchise with a new take (because of new developers) and it worked for XCOM and it didn't for Beyond Earth. That's honestly better than just aping what someone else did years ago because you're never actually going to reach or surpass it and it just kills the creative drive of your team. The magic of PC gaming is that you don't need an Alpha Centauri HD Remix because the original is still playable on your current computer!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Just bought Cossacks and Mare Nostrum and I've put in a refund request already. Seems to me like Paradox just tacked on more mechanics without integrating them into the existing mechanics. Do Estates interact at all with Stability and the Parliament system? Does Stability even need to be a thing when Estates are represented? I don't think they're refund-bad but I found it frustrating that the DLC/patches add so many new features that are not integrated with old ones in a fun way. Missions don't reference Estates at all, for instance. Sailors are just kind of there without making the game more interesting. The Cossacks' diplomatic favors and trust system is like Civ-lite. I'm finishing up a Bohemia campaign but my feeling on EU4 is I'm really excited for Stellaris to come out, because I need fresh ideas in my map-painting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
EU4 needs less tacking on and more refining. The decisions and missions are still awkward and EU3 ish. Prestige is borderline useless trait. Legitimacy is nearly impossible to increase. I think some of these things could be revisited or scrapped.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
Eej posted:I think, creatively speaking, it's a bit unfair to expect an established AAA game developer to wholesale copy another game from a franchise they no longer own, made by designers who have mostly left the company. They decided to revive an old franchise with a new take (because of new developers) and it worked for XCOM and it didn't for Beyond Earth. That's honestly better than just aping what someone else did years ago because you're never actually going to reach or surpass it and it just kills the creative drive of your team. The magic of PC gaming is that you don't need an Alpha Centauri HD Remix because the original is still playable on your current computer! Yeah the issue with BE wasnt that it wasnt SMAC, it was that it was really bad like everything about SMAC except the writing
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
That's a hot take that I'm not ready to handle
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
i was very surprised when i invaded ming and discovered their total army size was... 5. apparently some combination of 'raising autonomy across their entire empire to try to avoid rebel hell' and 'bankruptcy increasing autonomy by 0.2/month' left them with 100% autonomy everywhere but their capital, which seems like a pretty inescapable death sentence for a country. Question: why does the celestial empire government type (a) give a bunch of extra states and (b) enforce a 50% autonomy floor on all provinces? It seems like those two effects are working against each-other. Why not just give no extra states, no autonomy floor, and let the periphery of the ming empire be governed as territories? It'd make expansion difficult, make it harder to recover from enemies conquering peripheral territory (since territorial cores just vanish when conquered), and it'd be a simplification, rather than extra mechanics. paradox, hear my plea...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Why not just give no extra states, no autonomy floor, and let the periphery of the ming empire be governed as territories? It'd make expansion difficult, make it harder to recover from enemies conquering peripheral territory (since territorial cores just vanish when conquered), and it'd be a simplification, rather than extra mechanics. This is a pretty good idea imo. I do think though that patch 1.17 is probably going to have a lot of this refinement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
I don't have the favors and designating areas of interest poo poo. Is that Cossacks or Mare Nostrum? Is it helpful and worth pursuing, or is it lovely and I should avoid it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Cossacks. And honestly probably not. Threaten war is the only worthwhile addition of Cossacks and even then it's not used that much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
If it's on sale, sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
They made the more sensible alliance system a DLC bonus, but made States mandatory?  I wish they'd take a break for a few months and just focus on polishing things down, yeah. Like making Corruption not terrible. This game is pretty solid as it is, but they're really milking it and it starts to show. I used to like their DLC system, but I'm not buying a €15 DLC when the only feature I want from it is game replays.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 15:10
|
|
