|
Barbelith posted:You may be thinking of Secret Denmark. that's the one, thanks!
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
idhrendur posted:See also this.  mother of god that must have taken forever to write.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:1. Development Eh. My feelings about these are pretty similar to my feelings about estates and parliaments, to be honest. I'd definitely want to see these concepts reappear in 5 in some manner... but fairly radically overhauled? The way dev works incentivises perverse and unlikely patterns of development and institutions just spread far too fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Eh. My feelings about these are pretty similar to my feelings about estates and parliaments, to be honest. I'd definitely want to see these concepts reappear in 5 in some manner... but fairly radically overhauled? The way dev works incentivises perverse and unlikely patterns of development and institutions just spread far too fast. The EU4 Manas are pretty much the EU3 Magistrates redone and not bad. Though now buildings no longer costs mana, boy times have changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Eh. My feelings about these are pretty similar to my feelings about estates and parliaments, to be honest. I'd definitely want to see these concepts reappear in 5 in some manner... but fairly radically overhauled? The way dev works incentivises perverse and unlikely patterns of development and institutions just spread far too fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Groogy posted:The EU4 Manas are pretty much the EU3 Magistrates redone and not bad. Though now buildings no longer costs mana, boy times have changed. No groogy not you too!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Barbelith posted:You may be thinking of Secret Denmark. I'm a big fan of Secret Kingdom Of. Wouldn't you like to know??
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Groogy posted:The EU4 Manas are pretty much the EU3 Magistrates redone and not bad. Though now buildings no longer costs mana, boy times have changed. I may be opposed to the ever-growing number mana pools over time but the three monarch points was a very good idea that has gotten a bit out of hand. It was a decent throttle on player expansion that also made you carefully consider how to spend your resources, thanks to them being a limited slow trickle. I feel like these aspects have been lost over time though with all the new ways to generate points and how few of the systems rely on them these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I'm a big fan of Secret Kingdom Of. Unfortunately, they may not survive. Their enemy is Mighty and will soon own all Land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
EU4 just has way too many resources. Monarch points, gold, prestige, PP, splendor, institution influence and loyalty, and so forth. There are not a lot of interesting decisions to be made for most of them, because they are usually poorly integrated into the overall gameplay and have very little influence outside of their specific niche. How to solve it, I have no clue, but I am eagerly awaiting an EU5 to streamline and improve EU4 the same way it iterated on EU3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
I'd rather have too many than too few. Stellaris and Hoi4 still need more of them. Get on it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Pooned posted:I'd rather have too many than too few. Stellaris and Hoi4 still need more of them. Get on it! Stellaris has the right amount now i.m.o., they just need to make strategic resources more actually strategic and less of a joke
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Barbelith posted:You may be thinking of Secret Denmark. I love how the first picture looks messy, but fairly normal, until you look just a little closer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:EU4 just has way too many resources. Monarch points, gold, prestige, PP, splendor, institution influence and loyalty, and so forth. There are not a lot of interesting decisions to be made for most of them, because they are usually poorly integrated into the overall gameplay and have very little influence outside of their specific niche. How to solve it, I have no clue, but I am eagerly awaiting an EU5 to streamline and improve EU4 the same way it iterated on EU3. I love getting into a game and realize I have to keep track of 9358 different counters, of which half are generally irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Stellaris has the right amount now i.m.o., they just need to make strategic resources more actually strategic and less of a joke I feel like there should be one more rare mineral type resource that you can use to build megaprojects or powerful ships / upgrades. Influence makes sense as the territory thing, unity for perks, minerals and energy, I think one more like rare materials would be cool.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:EU4 just has way too many resources. Monarch points, gold, prestige, PP, splendor, institution influence and loyalty, and so forth. There are not a lot of interesting decisions to be made for most of them, because they are usually poorly integrated into the overall gameplay and have very little influence outside of their specific niche. How to solve it, I have no clue, but I am eagerly awaiting an EU5 to streamline and improve EU4 the same way it iterated on EU3. Paradox just needs to stop creating currencies that only interact with one specific system. It makes for some very linear gameplay where you do the one obvious thing to get the points and then you use the points on the obvious buffs. Compare to monarch points where there are many different things you can do with them and at the game launch most systems tied into those three point pools. Those feel open-ended while something like professionalism+drill feels very narrow and linear. Splendor had more potential because you had various ways to get it and various things to spend it on, but the rewards were all pretty obvious depending on what country you picked and the goals to gain splendor were things you were pretty much doing already. And it still has the problem where splendor doesn't interact with any other system. Ultimately, these systems don't change your decision making much throughout the game and thus add very little strategic depth. Yes, they are useful in that they allow you to squeeze more out of your army and other resources, but the satisfaction of min-maxing your nation feels empty when it happens through such a shallow process. edit: A dlc feature I did like, for comparison's sake, was the revamped diplomacy in Cossacks. I enjoy the favor/trust system and how it affects diplomacy as a whole. I like being able to mark territory as being of strategic interest and having that affect diplomatic relations (in addition to the obvious benefit of the AI granting you that land in peace deals they make). And its effect on diplomacy ripples through the whole game. It added a great deal to your decision-making. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Apr 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
The trouble is that "narrow use" currency issue is kind of a consequence of the DLC model. They can't make DLC that REQUIRES another DLC to use, so every DLC kind of lives in its own little space with its own mechanics that only interact with the game via the stuff that's available in the base game. Sometimes if they make a big enough change they'll just roll it into the base game itself (like development - although you still can't CHANGE development without a DLC), but most of the time it's just "here's one more weird thing yo can use to get some bonus monarch points or cash or marginally improve your army"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Stellaris has the right amount now i.m.o. I think I'd kinda like to see a distinction drawn between raw minerals and industry, so you could differentiate dependant areas/resource rich backwaters from industrial hubs. But that's something I want in every empire building game, Stellaris in its current state isn't really harmed by the lack of it (and shipyards kiiind of synthesise the concept?). HoI's got more than enough. I'm sitting here looking askance at phone mana, frankly. The Cheshire Cat posted:The trouble is that "narrow use" currency issue is kind of a consequence of the DLC model. They can't make DLC that REQUIRES another DLC to use, so every DLC kind of lives in its own little space with its own mechanics that only interact with the game via the stuff that's available in the base game. Sometimes if they make a big enough change they'll just roll it into the base game itself (like development - although you still can't CHANGE development without a DLC), but most of the time it's just "here's one more weird thing yo can use to get some bonus monarch points or cash or marginally improve your army" The only way out I could see would be to obsolete DLCs on a regular schedule. Roll all of their features into the base game a year or two after their release. But the optics on that aren't great and long tail sales are probably why Paradox is so buoyant these days, sooo...
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
The one thing HoI 4 really needs is to overhaul fuel to be an actual concern, but that's not really adding new resources as much as making what's already there work better. Stellaris could probably use some kind of more in-depth industrial layer but then again my suggestions for most Paradox games basically always boil down to "turn it into Victoria" so take that with a mountain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The one thing HoI 4 really needs is to overhaul fuel to be an actual concern, but that's not really adding new resources as much as making what's already there work better. Stellaris could probably use some kind of more in-depth industrial layer but then again my suggestions for most Paradox games basically always boil down to "turn it into Victoria" so take that with a mountain of salt. The funny thing about Victoria is that even though it's way more complex than something like Stellaris, it still doesn't really feel as "bloated" as EU4, because it doesn't have the "100 different disconnected systems" issue. I wouldn't mind if games like Stellaris or HoI4 reached that level of complexity if they also maintained that level of cohesion (although they don't HAVE to be that complicated to be good - I'm just saying that I feel like it wouldn't really feel like as much of a problem as EU4's bloat does). I think the thing about having a cohesive design is that it allows you as a player to focus on the areas you're most comfortable with, and because everything is tied together, you can affect the overall game indirectly. With EU4 it's more like you have to keep a dozen different plates spinning in order to get the most out of your resources and if you stop paying attention to any one of them you'll now be playing sub-optimally because you can't just make up for it by being "better" at another part. I feel like CK2 is an interesting counter-example because it has a lot of stuff too but the overall design feels more cohesive than EU4. I think part of it is that a lot of expansions focused on just adding new playable characters to the game with their own unique mechanics, rather than stacking more and more mechanics on to the base game. If you're playing a Pagan you don't need to worry about Muslim decadence or establishing trade posts or anything. And ultimately a lot of the more "general" content like Reaper's Due or Way of Life is basically just "more narrative events", so they don't really do a lot to change the core gameplay, they just add variety. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:The funny thing about Victoria is that even though it's way more complex than something like Stellaris, it still doesn't really feel as "bloated" as EU4, because it doesn't have the "100 different disconnected systems" issue. I wouldn't mind if games like Stellaris or HoI4 reached that level of complexity if they also maintained that level of cohesion (although they don't HAVE to be that complicated to be good - I'm just saying that I feel like it wouldn't really feel like as much of a problem as EU4's bloat does). I think the thing about having a cohesive design is that it allows you as a player to focus on the areas you're most comfortable with, and because everything is tied together, you can affect the overall game indirectly. With EU4 it's more like you have to keep a dozen different plates spinning in order to get the most out of your resources and if you stop paying attention to any one of them you'll now be playing sub-optimally because you can't just make up for it by being "better" at another part. Not emptyquoting. Victoria really is a more streamlined, cohesive game than EU now. What a world. EDIT: man I miss Ricky guys 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The one thing HoI 4 really needs is to overhaul fuel to be an actual concern, but that's not really adding new resources as much as making what's already there work better. Fuel's on the todo list, I think? It was brought up in one of the recent DDs. The Cheshire Cat posted:The funny thing about Victoria is that even though it's way more complex than something like Stellaris, it still doesn't really feel as "bloated" as EU4, because it doesn't have the "100 different disconnected systems" issue. I wouldn't mind if games like Stellaris or HoI4 reached that level of complexity if they also maintained that level of cohesion (although they don't HAVE to be that complicated to be good - I'm just saying that I feel like it wouldn't really feel like as much of a problem as EU4's bloat does). I think the thing about having a cohesive design is that it allows you as a player to focus on the areas you're most comfortable with, and because everything is tied together, you can affect the overall game indirectly. With EU4 it's more like you have to keep a dozen different plates spinning in order to get the most out of your resources and if you stop paying attention to any one of them you'll now be playing sub-optimally because you can't just make up for it by being "better" at another part. Any devs reading this: this guy has just said Victoria is a more cohesive game than EU and it's probably true. I'm scared. The Cheshire Cat posted:I feel like CK2 is an interesting counter-example because it has a lot of stuff too but the overall design feels more cohesive than EU4. I think part of it is that a lot of expansions focused on just adding new playable characters to the game with their own unique mechanics, rather than stacking more and more mechanics on to the base game. If you're playing a Pagan you don't need to worry about Muslim decadence or establishing trade posts or anything. And ultimately a lot of the more "general" content like Reaper's Due or Way of Life is basically just "more narrative events", so they don't really do a lot to change the core gameplay, they just add variety. CK2 had it easy in a lot of ways, because from the start there was a whole lot of stuff the player was locked out of, and there was a lot of uncovered time/space for the game to push into. EU was a more complete game by default, and there weren't a lot of easy options for growth. CK3 is... not going to have that luxury, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:CK2 had it easy in a lot of ways, because from the start there was a whole lot of stuff the player was locked out of, and there was a lot of uncovered time/space for the game to push into. EU was a more complete game by default, and there weren't a lot of easy options for growth. True, I'm not sure how they'll be able to make a CK3 that would feel like a worthwhile upgrade at this point (assuming they even attempt it). They'd have to at the very least include a ton of content in the base game that was released as DLC for CK2, since I don't know if CK is big enough as a franchise to be able to pull off the same kind of poo poo that EA does with The Sims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:Fuel's on the todo list, I think? It was brought up in one of the recent DDs. Vicky2 is the best game ever made. Do not be scared, friend, just embrace this fact.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:Vicky2 is the best game ever made. Do not be scared, friend, just embrace this fact. Vicky 2 is a janky mess combining a black box of an economy with an in depth political system that simultaneously is both too detailed and doesn't give the player nearly enough control and has a UI that is designed to make new players scratch their heads in wonder. It's also my favorite Paradox game by far and I think the crisis system is one of the best ideas they've put in their games, especially if it had a bit more detail put into it to better represent the era as well as make being on the losing side of a crisis more costly so the AI doesn't just white peace all the time,
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Vicky 2 is a janky mess combining a black box of an economy with an in depth political system that simultaneously is both too detailed and doesn't give the player nearly enough control and has a UI that is designed to make new players scratch their heads in wonder. Hmm, so I have my own critiques of Victoria 2, but they're..kind of the opposite of yours, haha. The political system is trivial to manipulate with national focuses, and the economy just..sort of happens. You don't really have any control over it. Just research the right techs and money stops being a problem. Industrialization is explicitly a setback, for some reason, unlike Ricky. But I don't really have the solution to these problems. Victoria 2 at least "feels" right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:True, I'm not sure how they'll be able to make a CK3 that would feel like a worthwhile upgrade at this point china
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
a poo poo ton more character interaction, probably make it a lot more rpg-y. maybe less reliant on the event system to drive everything. bring back canonisation and saints. maybe they'll go with an earlier start date even though I'm not fond of the charlie start. maybe they'll do some poo poo to model the migration period and better nomadic stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
imo they should remove india or failing that make it more fleshed out instead of just "european feudalism, but with more religions"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
agreed
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Koramei posted:china Chinese Kingdoms, 3? Crusader Kings: 3 Chinese Kingdoms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:imo they should remove india or failing that make it more fleshed out instead of just "european feudalism, but with more religions" Medieval india actually fits ck2's feudalism mechanics much more than, say, the Islamic empires, Byzantium, nomads, etc. I think when you get down to it most people jist don't know anything about the period and that makes it feel bland
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Medieval india actually fits ck2's feudalism mechanics much more than, say, the Islamic empires, Byzantium, nomads, etc. I think when you get down to it most people jist don't know anything about the period and that makes it feel bland To be honest even most of feudal Europe doesn't fit CK2's feudalism mechanics. They had to keep things relatively simple for the game to be playable - real life feudalism is why medieval maps are such a nightmare of border gore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Medieval india actually fits ck2's feudalism mechanics much more than, say, the Islamic empires, Byzantium, nomads, etc. I think when you get down to it most people jist don't know anything about the period and that makes it feel bland going through and fleshing out regions to make them more distinct sounds like what they should do for ck3 then (along with removing india)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
They should just bite the bullet and have all of Eurasia in there. They've already decided to go down the road of nonfeudal societies with CK2's DLC so might as well go all the way and do it right from the start. Designing a system to represent a centralized, bureaucratic empire like China could in turn make places like Byzantium and the Caliphates better represented as well. Beyond that, the main thing I would want out of CK3 is a better sense of location. Your character only really travels "on map" while leading an army and everything else is really abstracted. It would be nice if your character had more of a physical presence, distance mattered more, etc. Kind of like how its done in Koei's ROT3K games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:eu4 was more complex than eu3 from the outset. the trade revamp totally changed how you relate to the world and where you choose to expand, and is a lot more complicated than eu3's trade even though it's also much less fiddly. I'm pretty sure for a lot of people what they really meant when they complained about simplification was the Gamification of systems that had previously been extremely Simulationist. Probably an objectively good business mood but still going to rub the wrong way those who had been fond of EU3 as a simulation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Sliders and Agents are pretty game-y too. Besides provincial population, which never really worked right, I don't know how EU3 was more of a simulation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Ck3 should have a fully 3D rendered castle hub world that I can walk around in; all the menus should be maps in a map room or dialogue trees with advisors and courtiers. You cannot leave the castle. Also it's VR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Imagine all the porn mods
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 11:29
|
|