|
I think the Naval system should be replaced by Rule the Waves.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
ArchRanger posted:black box where you don't have any sort of input into the outcome other than number and type of ships But isn't that all HoI combat? I'm not being reductionist for a joke here, I don't see the functional difference between "okay these 30 ships will fight enemies" vs. "okay these 30 divisions will fight enemies".
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:But isn't that all HoI combat? I'm not being reductionist for a joke here, I don't see the functional difference between "okay these 30 ships will fight enemies" vs. "okay these 30 divisions will fight enemies". Pretty much, I just find it hilarious to talk about the second game's naval combat being better when four is functionally identical but with an interface that better shows what's happening even if the "why" is still hazey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:Pretty much, I just find it hilarious to talk about the second game's naval combat being better when four is functionally identical but with an interface that better shows what's happening even if the "why" is still hazey. HoI2 had carriers that were basically battleships with 200km range, HoI3 improved on that with CAGs but HoI4 is really cool for having CAGs made up of individual planes instead of being a blob of congealed IC days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
I think the most flawed part of HoI4's naval combat system is general combat length. Engagements should be over in hours, they shouldn't stretch on for days. I guess if you include the entire "search -> detect -> close distance -> actually have a fight" loop then you could stretch an "engagement" out that far, but it just looks silly when you see 57 submarines closing in on three merchant ships for a week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Gort posted:I think the most flawed part of HoI4's naval combat system is general combat length. Engagements should be over in hours, they shouldn't stretch on for days. I guess if you include the entire "search -> detect -> close distance -> actually have a fight" loop then you could stretch an "engagement" out that far, but it just looks silly when you see 57 submarines closing in on three merchant ships for a week. That's Paradox combat in general. Fights that should be over in a tick or two last for hundreds, so players and the AI can react to them before they're finished.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:Pretty much, I just find it hilarious to talk about the second game's naval combat being better when four is functionally identical but with an interface that better shows what's happening even if the "why" is still hazey. One was made in 2005 and costs 5 bucks while the other is from 2017 and costs 90. That's entirely the point of why HoI4 is kinda terrible. It doesnt do anything particularly good and it's expensive as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Mans posted:One was made in 2005 and costs 5 bucks while the other is from 2017 and costs 90. I played Darkest Hour for hundreds of hours and loved it, but you're deluded if you think Hearts of Iron 4 hasn't made it completely obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Mans posted:One was made in 2005 and costs 5 bucks while the other is from 2017 and costs 90. Mans posted:the naval combat is actually worse than in 2 doesn't make it "good relative to what came before". Yeah go ahead and move those goalposts man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
HOI4 is the first Hearts of Iron I actually have fun playing, as opposed to just watching the AI fight in Darkest Hour. I just don't have the patience to move all the individual units when I'm playing as even a moderately sized country
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
I'm always getting these turn-based strategy and grand strategy games and I can rarely ever figure out just what in the hell I'm doing and wind up either behind the curve militarily or turtling until I pull off some boring economic/scientific/cultural victory. Even in my one long-running winning campaign of EU3 I was only able to expand throughout the New World with minimal conflict because I was best buds with Burgundy (who had somehow annihilated France in the first few years and grew to be enough of a massive continental bully that everyone ignored me). Has anyone else had and successfully broken out of that habit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Meldonox posted:I'm always getting these turn-based strategy and grand strategy games and I can rarely ever figure out just what in the hell I'm doing and wind up either behind the curve militarily or turtling until I pull off some boring economic/scientific/cultural victory. Even in my one long-running winning campaign of EU3 I was only able to expand throughout the New World with minimal conflict because I was best buds with Burgundy (who had somehow annihilated France in the first few years and grew to be enough of a massive continental bully that everyone ignored me). Has anyone else had and successfully broken out of that habit? Ask questions, even what you think are dumb questions, either here or in one of the game-specific Paradox threads. People are happy to help. It's not that hard to get to a place where you are decent and feel comfortable playing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Meldonox posted:I'm always getting these turn-based strategy and grand strategy games and I can rarely ever figure out just what in the hell I'm doing and wind up either behind the curve militarily or turtling until I pull off some boring economic/scientific/cultural victory. Even in my one long-running winning campaign of EU3 I was only able to expand throughout the New World with minimal conflict because I was best buds with Burgundy (who had somehow annihilated France in the first few years and grew to be enough of a massive continental bully that everyone ignored me). Has anyone else had and successfully broken out of that habit? I've definitely got the habit of turtling and doing essentially pacifist runs after the early game in a lot of paradox games. Never broken out of the habit though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I've definitely got the habit of turtling and doing essentially pacifist runs after the early game in a lot of paradox games. Never broken out of the habit though. I treat most Paradox games - and 4Xs/Grand Strategies in general - as SimCity for some reason. I've always been more interested in building complex things and watching them work while occasionally having to slap someone around instead of doing the bare minimum to get a function military and steamroll the world/galaxy. I hate it when most of a game's depth revolves around war. I can go outside and shoot something now if I wanted to, give me something interesting to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Meldonox posted:I'm always getting these turn-based strategy and grand strategy games and I can rarely ever figure out just what in the hell I'm doing and wind up either behind the curve militarily or turtling until I pull off some boring economic/scientific/cultural victory. Even in my one long-running winning campaign of EU3 I was only able to expand throughout the New World with minimal conflict because I was best buds with Burgundy (who had somehow annihilated France in the first few years and grew to be enough of a massive continental bully that everyone ignored me). Has anyone else had and successfully broken out of that habit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:I treat most Paradox games - and 4Xs/Grand Strategies in general - as SimCity for some reason. I've always been more interested in building complex things and watching them work while occasionally having to slap someone around instead of doing the bare minimum to get a function military and steamroll the world/galaxy. This is the main reason why I enjoy Victoria 2 so much. It's the most suited of any of the Paradox games for that kind of thing, and if they ever get around to a Victoria 3 I hope they keep that focus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:This is the main reason why I enjoy Victoria 2 so much. It's the most suited of any of the Paradox games for that kind of thing, and if they ever get around to a Victoria 3 I hope they keep that focus. i unironically want vicky 3 to have not only the army planning system that hoi4 has, but a complex mobilization planning mechanic where you plan out where your draftee's go at what time and you cant change it once active to simulate the chaos of ww1 better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:i unironically want vicky 3 to have not only the army planning system that hoi4 has, but a complex mobilization planning mechanic where you plan out where your draftee's go at what time and you cant change it once active to simulate the chaos of ww1 better. This, plus pops, plus CK2 character system for the heads of states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:i unironically want vicky 3 to have not only the army planning system that hoi4 has, but a complex mobilization planning mechanic where you plan out where your draftee's go at what time and you cant change it once active to simulate the chaos of ww1 better. I actually want this too, but more for the reason that it would take the fiddly micromanagement out of warfare. I rarely ever use mobilization when playing Vicky 2 just because it's such a pain trying to organize the hundred lovely irregulars that pop up all over the country. Just let me like, toss them all into an army, assign them to a front line, and have them distribute themselves evenly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I actually want this too, but more for the reason that it would take the fiddly micromanagement out of warfare. I rarely ever use mobilization when playing Vicky 2 just because it's such a pain trying to organize the hundred lovely irregulars that pop up all over the country. Just let me like, toss them all into an army, assign them to a front line, and have them distribute themselves evenly. It would also make the AI fight better since they'd have actual artillery support for their armies instead of just tossing infantry only conscript armies into my troops who are dug into the mountains
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
I need more ways to be a petty rear end in a top hat. Let me specifically sell weapons to the losing side of a war so I can turn every little conflict into a hell war that fuels my economy, gunboat diplomacy my way to economic hegemony without having to worry about moving my armies all the way to Vietnam, or some way to encourage "adventurers" to go to other countries and ferment revolutions. What I'm saying is that I don't feel evil enough playing Vicky II and that needs to change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:HOI4 is the first Hearts of Iron I actually have fun playing, as opposed to just watching the AI fight in Darkest Hour. I just don't have the patience to move all the individual units when I'm playing as even a moderately sized country The planning tools are really great for this, it will control the general front for you and give you nice bonuses. This frees up your hands to manually handle your special divisions like armor to move in and create pockets. Abusing the speed of armored/motorized troops to cut behind lines and encircle enemy troops is very satisfying and wins you wars. Alternatively we could have a system where we have to control everything manually, including the mess tents, guard dogs and morale cats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:It would also make the AI fight better since they'd have actual artillery support for their armies instead of just tossing infantry only conscript armies into my troops who are dug into the mountains I'll be honest, I quite enjoy watching hordes of German peasants evaporate on contact with my regulars. It's cathartic after a game of EU, at least. These days it feels like AI always has a quality advantage over me, no matter what I do. It's insanely unfun. Class Warcraft posted:This, plus pops, plus CK2 character system for the heads of states. You mean heads of states, political parties and all rebel factions, right?  Hell, major corporations too. Go mad. Meldonox posted:I'm always getting these turn-based strategy and grand strategy games and I can rarely ever figure out just what in the hell I'm doing and wind up either behind the curve militarily or turtling until I pull off some boring economic/scientific/cultural victory. Even in my one long-running winning campaign of EU3 I was only able to expand throughout the New World with minimal conflict because I was best buds with Burgundy (who had somehow annihilated France in the first few years and grew to be enough of a massive continental bully that everyone ignored me). Has anyone else had and successfully broken out of that habit? I have, actually! The trick was to train myself to see large stockpiles of resources as a cue to find something for those resources to do. And I mean any sort of resource- money, manpower, mana, agents, vacant overextension/badboy capacity- if it's sitting idle it's not doing something for you, and if it's not doing something for you you're falling behind the curve.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I'll be honest, I quite enjoy watching hordes of German peasants evaporate on contact with my regulars. It generally does, which is one of the more frustrating aspects of EU4. The AI gains army tradition much faster than players, meaning that they can poo poo out 5/5 generals like crazy while you're lucky to get 3+ in one category.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
I'm sorry that I'm the one to bring this up again, but I am genuinely wondering who at Paradox thinks the whole 'stare blankly directly at the camera and talk in monotone from the shadows' is a good look. It's clearly deliberate direction at this point because Jake and Wiz are great on stream but actively make me stop watching the expansion promo videos. The whole point of putting people in these things is to help people connect and relate to them, nobody sits down, turns out the light and stares at somebody while talking in a monotone voice for 5 minutes and holds attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
It's what the big pants companies does innit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I have, actually! The trick was to train myself to see large stockpiles of resources as a cue to find something for those resources to do. And I mean any sort of resource- money, manpower, mana, agents, vacant overextension/badboy capacity- if it's sitting idle it's not doing something for you, and if it's not doing something for you you're falling behind the curve. Hey, that's a pretty good idea, thanks! I usually amass a ton of gold or energy or whatever but come in light on a bunch of other stuff. I guess I should be cutting it closer, trying to keep closer to military cap if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Meldonox posted:Hey, that's a pretty good idea, thanks! I usually amass a ton of gold or energy or whatever but come in light on a bunch of other stuff. I guess I should be cutting it closer, trying to keep closer to military cap if nothing else. Well, depending on the game this is sometimes just the way things happen. In those cases it's less about trying to use something to consume all that currency, and more that you've probably over-invested in generating it in the first place. As I said, it depends on the game, since sometimes it's pretty easy to just build everything and the way the game is balanced you just naturally end up waiting on one critical currency while others just pile up with nothing to use them on. In a game like EU4 there's almost always something you can spend an excess of one currency on, though - This Video out of a short series about how to do a world conquest run in EU4 has a nice breakdown near the beginning of how to convert various things between each other, and thus how to use whatever you have available to push forward. A lot of other games have similar mechanics so it's a good thing to look out for - even basic stuff where you trade at a loss like "exchange 4 wood for 1 sheep" is still a worthwhile trade if you have way too much wood and no sheep.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Nice, I could use a video series like this. I haven't played EU4 in forever. I'm missing a ton of DLC, but I've also probably gotten and not played enough DLC that it's going to be like a whole new game for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Not sure where else to post this, but has anyone heard word about At the Gates since Jon Shafer joined Paradox? I was really looking forward to it, but there hasn't been a new post in a year, besides the Paradox press release promising it wasn't abandoned. EDIT: just to clarify - not Paradox's fault or anything, this is just the only thread I can think to ask this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Not sure where else to post this, but has anyone heard word about At the Gates since Jon Shafer joined Paradox? I was really looking forward to it, but there hasn't been a new post in a year, besides the Paradox press release promising it wasn't abandoned. It's never coming out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
uPen posted:It's never coming out.  Kickstarter'd again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
never trust a video game pitch that relies on one dudes name as a mark of quality lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
I backed La-Mulana 2 and the dude posts weekly updates, for awhile from his hospital bed. Shafer cut and ran years ago. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
Jon Shafted
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
This is a real stretch, but maybe someone can help. Several years and several iterations of this thread ago, a goon was posting screenshots of their Victory II USA run, in which, among other things, he went communist, had a counter-revolution, got into a lengthy civil war in which gas attacks were regularly used, and ended up with the US split into three or four different countries. The most memorable part of it for me was after the final update someone posted "sorry about your drop from first to fifth place, but that map is rad as hell." Does anyone else remember this, or even better have a link to the post or saved the screenshots?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
I still play Vicky 2 whatever I'm not afraid to admit it fight me
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
disjoe posted:I still play Vicky 2 whatever I'm not afraid to admit it fight me There are thousands of us Paradox! Hear our cry!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
vikky 3 will only have 2 pops (rich and poor), the pops won't actually mean anything except random bonuses and maluses, and there will be no RGOs or production and almost everything will be turned into mana there will be no factories, only factory mana there will be no mobilization, no modernization, no industrialization
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
It'll be like stellaris but instead of little animated alien portraits, it's little people in funny hats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:53
|
|
