|
AnoHito posted:I guess maybe you just rolled exceptionally lovely? I mean, they also outnumbered you pretty badly and would presumably have full flanking on you at some point in the battle. A few really bad rolls early in the fight and I could see things going real bad real quick.
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
It could have been the rolls. If you roll a 0 and they roll a 9 you can get screwed pretty hard. Especially if that causes new problems like combat width and cav %.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Units are going to get their morale depleted and leave the field. Given that you got stack wiped, you were clearly losing a lot of morale; if you had more regiments they would have entered the field as depleted regiments rotated out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 16:28
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
skasion posted:I'm okay with this since the notion that the HRE could have been successfully welded into a fully functional unitary state where the emperor held sole authority by 1821 is completely ridiculous (probably more ridiculous than the Ming dynasty surviving to 1821 honestly) and the AI shouldn't be able to achieve it barring absolutely freak circumstances. Indeed the AI seems almost special-cased not to. In that Russia game I posted above where Commonwealth and France both joined the HRE, each of them had periods (right after they became Emperor and added all their provinces) were they had more than 50 IA and a support of the majority of electors, but for some reason chose not to pass reforms. Even if they had they still couldn't have gotten down to the privilegia, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
So I managed to beat Muscovy in a couple defensive wars (mostly by beating their armies in detail and taking advantage of the fact the AI didn't actually go after the wargoal and instead started taking over random bits of shithole Finnish territory) but I've now got the issue that the Nobility has too much influence and I can't seem to find a good way to lower it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:So I managed to beat Muscovy in a couple defensive wars (mostly by beating their armies in detail and taking advantage of the fact the AI didn't actually go after the wargoal and instead started taking over random bits of shithole Finnish territory) but I've now got the issue that the Nobility has too much influence and I can't seem to find a good way to lower it. Go to the Estates tab and mouse over their Influence. Very likely there are some timed modifiers that will expire before the disaster fires, it ticks pretty slowly. If not, revoke some land. This will piss them off and you might get a revolt but it's better than letting the disaster fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
You either wait for whatever modifier gave you increased Nobility influence to wear off (and hope that it wears off before the disaster fires) or if that's not possible, start removing Nobility estate until they're under 80% and deal with unrest as it happens. e;fb
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Also what's a good second idea pick after the usual Defensive first? Thinking Admin or maybe Innovative since I'm set up to get admin ideas rn, then Diplo or Influence once it comes time to go after the HRE
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Also what's a good second idea pick after the usual Defensive first? Thinking Admin or maybe Innovative since I'm set up to get admin ideas rn, then Diplo or Influence once it comes time to go after the HRE If you're gonna keep beating up the russians then take humanist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Also what's a good second idea pick after the usual Defensive first? Thinking Admin or maybe Innovative since I'm set up to get admin ideas rn, then Diplo or Influence once it comes time to go after the HRE Admin, Innovative, or Economic are all good options. You don't really need Humanist or Religious and the Deus Vult CB from Religious won't be very useful for Sweden's position. Then, yeah, either Diplo or Influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I filled the combat width so their numbers do not matter. Or at least I thought so. You filled the combat width for the first fire round, then their units killed some of your guys and you were no longer filling the combat width AND your infantry ratio slipped. You're not supposed to bring exactly the combat width to a battle Were any of your regiments below max strength?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You filled the combat width for the first fire round, then their units killed some of your guys and you were no longer filling the combat width AND your infantry ratio slipped. You're not supposed to bring exactly the combat width to a battle Yeah, you never want to bring exactly your cavalry ratio even as a horde. You want some padding because if your ratio goes too high you get a fat Tactics penalty. So in your scenario you're a miltech behind, you're not getting the horde shock bonus since you're defending, and you're right at your cavalry ratio so you're going to eat an additional Tactics penalty after the first combat tick or two. With a couple of good rolls from Muscovy that's an easy stackwipe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
 How am I not a great power?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
You're a tributary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
What's the deal with the huge mass of negative steam reviews complaining about DLC? Especially for EUIV, I thought Paradox's DLC policy is pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:What's the deal with the huge mass of negative steam reviews complaining about DLC? Especially for EUIV, I thought Paradox's DLC policy is pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:What's the deal with the huge mass of negative steam reviews complaining about DLC? Especially for EUIV, I thought Paradox's DLC policy is pretty drat good. What the goon above me said. Also Steam reviews suck, If the overall is positive it might be worth reading them, if it's negative it's mostly angry nerds. The DLC policy is for the most part really really good, but I mostly play PdX games so im happy about getting new content every few months. Zombiepop fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
I think there are some major issues with Paradox's DLC policy but they're almost never what people are actually whining about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Yeah, it's weird that it's always "Buying all the DLC is too expensive!" and seem to be selectively deaf to the phrase "Then don't buy the DLC if you don't think it's worth it." I mean, the base game is still good on it's own. Source: I didn't have Art of War or Common Sense for a pretty long time and still had plenty of fun with the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
I think hiding quality of life improvements behind DLC is poor form. It's not like it's "new content"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I think hiding quality of life improvements behind DLC is poor form. It's not like it's "new content"
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
So what exactly should they be selling? Quality of life stuff, i.e. things you can still totally play without, seem like a perfect thing to sell to me. They do need to actually get money for their dev time, and they already take a ton of flack for the DLC being overpriced because they give so much stuff out for free. Stripping more out is just gonna make that worse. There are a couple of cases where it gets murkier, like transferring subjects, but I don't think things like that should mean all quality of life stuff should be free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Reman has a pretty good breakdown of the issues and some proposed changes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJCE6GHAI9I&t=1s Personally I think it's about time to start thinking about EU5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Koramei posted:So what exactly should they be selling? Koramei posted:They do need to actually get money for their dev time, and they already take a ton of flack for the DLC being overpriced because they give so much stuff out for free. Fister Roboto posted:Personally I think it's about time to start thinking about EU5.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Reman has a pretty good breakdown of the issues and some proposed changes. Just curious, has anyone at Paradox seen/commented on this video at all? It basically lays out all of the problems I have with the DLC in a much better way than I've attempted in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Just curious, has anyone at Paradox seen/commented on this video at all? Yeah it's a well done analysis and I like his suggestions. Basically, his idea is to strictly separate global game mechanics from nation/region/religion specific flavor, and allow global mechanics DLC to be integrated into the base game after a period of 6-24 months. So basically you'd have three types of DLC: Expansions that introduce new global mechanics like development or institutions. To make the game more accessible to new players (both in terms of $$ and confusion over which DLCs they need), roll expansions into the base game after a period of time. A year would be good imo. That way, new players would only need to buy the base game + most recent expansion or two. Immersion packs like Third Rome or Mandate of Heaven (mostly) were. These add mechanics and events specific to a region, religion, or nation. They're fun if you want to play those nations but not necessary. Cosmetic packs like units and music. A lot of the problems with the current DLC system is each DLC is a hodge-podge of features.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
I'm sure it's a long way off until an actual release, but I hope they'll at least start thinking about and considering what they're gonna do for EU5. From Johan's presentation it sounded like he wanted nothing to do with it, but it's gotta happen sometime.A Buttery Pastry posted:Separate cheap Quality of Life Packs, so you can buy the content you want and the basic functionality improvements you want. Given how many "well Russia doesn't interest me so I'm not buying Third Rome" posts there've been, I don't see this (or Reman's idea) being anywhere near as viable as having something enticing for everybody included in a given DLC. quote:I don't think that's the sole reason. For them taking flack? No, of course not. For people saying DLCs launch overpriced? I think those people have a really crap perception of how much stuff should cost. I think there've been some clear misses (the plant thing for stellaris, Mare Nostrum, bundling in cosmetics to Third Rome) but on the whole Paradox is pretty fair about releases unless you're comparing them to complete behemoths like Blizzard or Valve, which everyone does of course. Sure maybe something's not worth it to you (general "you" here, not specifically you Buttery Pastry) at $20, but you can wait for a sale then. The game doesn't "need" all the DLC, and for the newest ones there isn't even the issue of "back paywalling" them by obsolescing certain features, since they're still so new.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
rolling some dlc into the base game after x amount of time would make people feel like real chumps for buying those dlc IMO (and yes, I know that financially this isn't much different from buying them at full price and then having them go massively on sale a year later or whatever, but psychologically "you bought this thing, it's now worthless" is a very bad feeling) e: that said I do think there is a problem with the current system where some of the stuff in DLC feels like fixes to problems in the base game as opposed to "additional content", and it's pretty reasonable that people get annoyed about that. you can say the game doesn't "need" those fixes, but people tolerate a lot of flaws in the release versions of these games on the assumption they'll get fixed later Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:rolling some dlc into the base game after x amount of time would make people feel like real chumps for buying those dlc IMO (and yes, I know that financially this isn't much different from buying them at full price and then having them go massively on sale a year later or whatever, but psychologically "you bought this thing, it's now worthless" is a very bad feeling) He brings this point up and I agree with him that it's not actually that bad of a feeling in practice. As long as they know that the DLC has a set expiration date, people will happily pay money to get at it as soon as possible. JOTUN was just made free this weekend and how many people complained about having paid for it previously? edit: Basically, what they pay for is the ability to get it x months before everyone else, not for the DLC itself, and I'm pretty convinced that the market in general wouldn't mind that approach at all and would support it about as much as they support the current DLC model.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
People whined and whined about TF2 going free to play back in the day but they got over it in the end. I'm sure there'd be pushback at the start but people'd get used to it. I think a year is too soon though, heck even I'd probably wait out some expansions in that case. But then there still being no good bundle and even 3+ year old DLC not being lower in price is more than slightly ridiculous, there needs to be something done for sure.Jeb Bush 2012 posted:e: that said I do think there is a problem with the current system where some of the stuff in DLC feels like fixes to problems in the base game as opposed to "additional content", and it's pretty reasonable that people get annoyed about that. you can say the game doesn't "need" those fixes, but people tolerate a lot of flaws in the release versions of these games on the assumption they'll get fixed later This is a good point. I've made that argument before ("we played with it like this for years") but you're right that it was sorta under the assumption things would improve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:rolling some dlc into the base game after x amount of time would make people feel like real chumps for buying those dlc IMO (and yes, I know that financially this isn't much different from buying them at full price and then having them go massively on sale a year later or whatever, but psychologically "you bought this thing, it's now worthless" is a very bad feeling) People don't like it when their purchases surprisingly become worthless, if you make it clear up front that the content will be made free in 12 months then there shouldn't be an issue. I don't think that it's going to work well as a business model but the community shouldn't mind
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Koramei posted:People whined and whined about TF2 going free to play back in the day but they got over it in the end. I'm sure there'd be pushback at the start but people'd get used to it. I think a year is too soon though, heck even I'd probably wait out some expansions in that case. But then there still being no good bundle and even 3+ year old DLC not being lower in price is more than slightly ridiculous, there needs to be something done for sure. And that's a worst-case; people didn't know that TF2 was going to become free when they originally bought it, and a major publisher simply making an older game free was still kind of a new idea. Whereas when Starcraft became free people largely celebrated the change, but this represents the other extreme (the game was 15 years old by that point)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:People don't like it when their purchases surprisingly become worthless, if you make it clear up front that the content will be made free in 12 months then there shouldn't be an issue. I don't think that it's going to work well as a business model but the community shouldn't mind Yeah, I do think people are underestimating how many people would just wait it out. That's been a big thing with MMO launches lately right? So many people expect them to go F2P these days that they don't even bother buying them anymore; I'm sure there'd be a bigger financial impact than Reman etc is expecting. And likewise I think (like with what I was saying for Third Rome), a shitload of people are just not gonna buy DLCs that don't interest them if you part out the features like that. Right now the DLCs are kind of jumbled in features sure, but I almost think that's intentional- there's something for almost everyone. Mandate of Heaven has ages, El Dorado has the nation designer etc. Even DLC that broadly doesn't interest you has some hook- Paradox does want to make money after all. I do think they should integrate at least some old features though- most notably development and estates, that are to an extent holding back the game- but I don't think it necessarily needs to be widespread beyond a few individual things like that. And for those you could do it on an individual basis- flag those store pages with "in 6 months we're integrating a feature from this DLC, here's a forewarning", then dock $5 off the price at the end. DLC integration is a big problem with some things, but I don't think it's so totally endemic that all of Reman's global features need to be free.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, I do think people are underestimating how many people would just wait it out. That's been a big thing with MMO launches lately right? So many people expect them to go F2P these days that they don't even bother buying them anymore; I'm sure there'd be a bigger financial impact than Reman etc is expecting. There is a gigantic list of reasons as to why people don't buy paid MMOs anymore and I doubt this one is particularly high up on that list. I think it's more that 1) WoW outcompeted everyone else to an insane degree, creating a hostile market for competitors, and 2) With the existence of f2p MMOs, you have to offer something truly special if you want a traditional paid experience. This isn't the same thing as people waiting for them to go F2P, but them simply preferring freemium payment models. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jul 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
As for me, I would strongly prefer a few now paid features to be released into the base game. Like developing provinces and the diplo and building macro. I'm fine with everything else being behind a paywall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
I think an alternative would be, you know, reducing the price of older expansions, like basically every other developer does. Maybe make a nice "Starter Bundle" with a bunch of old expansions in it at a fraction of what they'd cost normally. Also, I really don't understand why people would think they got ripped off if something they got one to three years ago became free. Just don't get that mindset. If you weren't going to wait for it to go on sale in the first place, why do you care about someone getting it free, unless you're an rear end in a top hat? As Reman mentions in the video, a lot of the stuff he suggests would pretty much have to be implemented in the next iteration of EU. They could take the approach that Stellaris is trying where they focus as much as they can on improving a single area each time around. Separating features into "core/global" and "regional" also seems like a good idea for the next game. They really need to work on making these games more friendly to new players--like by maybe keeping the tutorials up to date, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
So I got a game started as Nepal, things are going pretty well (ate up a couple minors, took two provinces from bengal, conquered Assam and became Ming tributary to avoid that moment where jaunpur decides they want my land more than they care about our alliance, anyway I will have to betray them sooner or later) It's now 1475 and the Renaissance is far from spreading, should I be kickstarting it in some of my new farmland provinces or wait for natural spread? It's not like my neighbors are going to get it much sooner than me and I have been using all my monarch points for coring and miltech
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
seed it somewhere good, I bet there is a guide online. Natural spread is gonna take forever. Edit: Regarding DLC, a starter pack with the most vital/well received/popular dlc at a reduced price 15-25%(whatever), would be nice for new players, If older players feels like they got ripped off, who cares? whiny people already thrash PdX in the steam reviews but keeps on buying dlc. If I were buying the game today I would have a hard time navigating what dlc to buy, having to tab over to some wiki or poo poo. But in the end it's about what makes the most money. It bizznizz. Zombiepop fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, I do think people are underestimating how many people would just wait it out. That's been a big thing with MMO launches lately right? So many people expect them to go F2P these days that they don't even bother buying them anymore; I'm sure there'd be a bigger financial impact than Reman etc is expecting. And likewise I think (like with what I was saying for Third Rome), a shitload of people are just not gonna buy DLCs that don't interest them if you part out the features like that. Right now the DLCs are kind of jumbled in features sure, but I almost think that's intentional- there's something for almost everyone. Mandate of Heaven has ages, El Dorado has the nation designer etc. Even DLC that broadly doesn't interest you has some hook- Paradox does want to make money after all. For EU5 they can just not let you play outside of europe unless you buy the right DLC. That's the only kind of regional DLC that works IMO
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
In EU5 the gameplay itself will be region locked, you can only play a country if you turn on location services and are actually there. Enjoy playing some native OPM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 03:00
|
|
