|
Procedural Messiah generator
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
It's worth noting that Johan claimed in an interview at PdxCon that they have no intention of pushing the end date back unless he can think of way to make playing an inevitably declining and decaying nation fun, and in his whole career that hasn't happened and he doesn't expect it to happen now.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Fellblade posted:Pretty sure the only way you’ll ever get after Clausewitz is if paradox goes bust / stops making map games entirely. Really? I thought they would eventually go for a new engine (emphasis on eventually), guess I was mistaken Phlegmish posted:Like most Paradox players I am a devout church-going Christian and it would simply not do to have Jesus in this game lol, you are right, I meant in that awful "cultural Christian" sense that serves as fash bait: "SO YOU CAN KILL JESUS BUT NOT MUHAMMAD?", get it? aphid_licker posted:Procedural Messiah generator 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Radio Free Kobold posted:carthage ain't gonna salt itself The site of Carthage wasn't salted. That's a later story (I think much later, like 19th century). The Romans did however curse the ground, which to me is somehow even better, especially when you consider how religous and superstitious the Romans were (even remarked upon by many others, well mainly Greeks as they were mostly the ones writing) and how seriously they took that stuff. Sindai posted:It's worth noting that Johan claimed in an interview at PdxCon that they have no intention of pushing the end date back unless he can think of way to make playing an inevitably declining and decaying nation fun, and in his whole career that hasn't happened and he doesn't expect it to happen now. I would say it's highly debateable (even flat out wrong) whether Rome was decaying all the way throughout the Imperial period. Also the latter end of the Imperial period is chock full of civil wars and all kinds of chaos, even the early and middle parts really as Augustus kind of really screwed up the matter of the succession in Principate (well, and all his preferred heirs kept dying). Then there's the crisis of the third century, the Tetrarchy. There's a whole bunch of stuff happeneing in late anitquity, it's not at all just watching an "inevitably declining and decaying nation". Also Attila TW was fun. ExtraNoise posted:I enjoy Roman history but know next to nothing about the details. Are there any good books to read on the subject that aren't college textbooks? (Or maybe ones that are?) If you have an Audible account and don't mind listening to lectures rather than more traditional narrative history, then I recommend The History of Ancient Rome from the Great Courses series. It's really good and gives an overview of the actual historical events and the major players, as well as Roman society, and analysis and commentary on the nature of our sources for the history of Rome. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 17:52 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Procedural Messiah generator 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Jesus was a Populist
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:Really? I thought they would eventually go for a new engine (emphasis on eventually) Why would we though?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:Really? I thought they would eventually go for a new engine (emphasis on eventually), guess I was mistaken There's hooks and framework for map games specifically but it's general enough to not need to reinvent the wheel and most of the gains that allow province/agent count and interactive bits are in implementation.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
In a game like this the first several centuries of Christian history would not be difficult to model, as they were not major historical players. There was no "revolt" in Judea over Jesus or the spread of Christianity. At most if playing as a governor of the region or even as the Jews themselves, you'd get a dialog choice of what to do about a religious heretic/agitator. The Jewish revolt of the first century would be no different than a revolt triggered by an unhappy province, and would not necessarily even happen at all as it was unconnected to Christianity. The best way to handle it IMO would be to just have Christianity appear as a minority religion in regions spreading out from Judea. In a game like CK2 having a small number of Christian characters appear over time, similar to the handful of Jewish characters that CK2 has, would be the least intrusive way of dealing with it. Constantine onward would be more difficult, but that's so far past the already stated end date of the game that I don't think we have to worry about it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83FxSUjDvjc Johan's short talk from PDX con on Imperator.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I would say it's highly debateable (even flat out wrong) whether Rome was decaying all the way throughout the Imperial period. Also the latter end of the Imperial period is chock full of civil wars and all kinds of chaos, even the early and middle parts really as Augustus kind of really screwed up the matter of the succession in Principate (well, and all his preferred heirs kept dying). Then there's the crisis of the third century, the Tetrarchy. There's a whole bunch of stuff happeneing in late anitquity, it's not at all just watching an "inevitably declining and decaying nation". Attila is fun but it's also generally more fun to play as someone other than Rome. Plus it has the advantage of having Rome already on the decline as the starting scenario - it's much more difficult to have a game where you spend most of it as an ascendant Rome and then start to decline in a way that feels organic rather than forced.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Attila is fun but it's also generally more fun to play as someone other than Rome. Plus it has the advantage of having Rome already on the decline as the starting scenario - it's much more difficult to have a game where you spend most of it as an ascendant Rome and then start to decline in a way that feels organic rather than forced. I guess what you do in a game is to play up the elements of Roman decline and fall that make for more fun gameplay such as increasing difficulties with succession and the loyalty of the military, that is civil wars should be difficult to avoid in the long run and nasty. As well as the external threats such as massed migrations and the Huns. In reality many of those were probably as significant as for instance the general population decline that the Empire suffered from around the 3rd century or somewhat (and which really continued all the way down into the early middle ages)*, which may have come about from factors totally outside human control such as climate change (at the time not due to humans) and (related probably) epidemic diseases. * Reminds me of what I've read in more than a couple of books on the High Middle Ages. If you ask someone who knows their stuff when it comes to Medieval history what the most important event or development of the High Middle Ages was, they are pretty likely to say something like this: "between the years 1000 AD and 1300 AD, the population of Western Europe roughly doubled". Randarkman fucked around with this message at 18:12 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Since the populations are modeled they could definitely do it in organic ways, with migration of non-accepted groups into your empire making things less efficient, and plagues ravaging everything. Then you just need some hellwars with one or two AI empires that have become ascendant at the same time as you and are near-peers, topped off with a united nomadic empire delivering the crippling blow. From what we know it definitely seems like they have the tools to make some interesting threats and mounting inefficiencies etc, it's just whether people will find that kind of thing fun I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
One thing it would need is some kind of way to "survive" a collapse of the empire - like maybe having the ability to continue on as a successor state, or something like the historical division of the empire where you could play as the eastern half while the western empire falls apart. Having the empire naturally decline would be interesting but it wouldn't be very fun if it just leads to an inevitable "game over" screen.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Some of the most interesting and dynamic parts of CK2 are the devolutionary parts and are basically a hurdle for most players to reflexively jump past and never want to consider again. Like everyone tries to get out of gavelkind and imprison any count looking at you funny and get viceroys to keep your empire sperg garden perfectly trimmed and ever growing. It's hard to do devolution when our brains are wired entirely for number-go-up.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:One thing it would need is some kind of way to "survive" a collapse of the empire - like maybe having the ability to continue on as a successor state, or something like the historical division of the empire where you could play as the eastern half while the western empire falls apart. Having the empire naturally decline would be interesting but it wouldn't be very fun if it just leads to an inevitable "game over" screen. I think a good way to do this is to, as I said, play up elements of the decline and fall that players can influence, cause and combat, rather than model a more realistic decline (you can feature the more realistic and scholarly elements as well, but it'd probably be a mistake to make them insurmountable and the decline inevitable).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Miles McCloud posted:In a game like this the first several centuries of Christian history would not be difficult to model, as they were not major historical players. There was no "revolt" in Judea over Jesus or the spread of Christianity. At most if playing as a governor of the region or even as the Jews themselves, you'd get a dialog choice of what to do about a religious heretic/agitator. The Jewish revolt of the first century would be no different than a revolt triggered by an unhappy province, and would not necessarily even happen at all as it was unconnected to Christianity. The best way to handle it IMO would be to just have Christianity appear as a minority religion in regions spreading out from Judea. In a game like CK2 having a small number of Christian characters appear over time, similar to the handful of Jewish characters that CK2 has, would be the least intrusive way of dealing with it. I think given the role religion plays in the mechanics of crusader kings, and the way the reformation ties into the game mechanics of EU4, paradox would definitely be able to handle modelling the rise of Christianity. I don't think there's any major religions started by individual people within the timeframe of the game, either - Manichaeism and Christianity appear after the end date and Zoroastrianism and Buddhism both appear before the start date. Depending on the character and trait system within the game, I don't think it'd be super hard to set some qualifiers (X many christian provinces or characters in the world, head of state becomes christian, etc) and trigger an event where religious persecution between christians and pagans becomes widespread, and then characters start getting opinion maluses toward characters/states of the opposite religion, things like that. If you have Jesus and the original set of apostles and disciples appearing in events rather than as characters ("we have captured the Christian, Peter. crucify him? y/n/upside-down") and then after that, you're just working with whatever RNG characters are running around in the game anyway. With the pops system too it's way easier to manage the spread of a new religion because now the game wouldn't suddenly say that everyone in X province/city has become christian, it would just be a slow spread of christian pops through the roman empire.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
I think being able to combat it is the key thing. A plague that kills half your people with absolutely no recourse is obviously infuriating, but if you could have built a bunch of baths and hospitals, and cut off trade ties with parts of the world it's coming from maybe it wouldn't be so bad. A lot of people would probably disagree and I assume it's something Paradox has thought a bunch about in the past though. I think external threats are always fun though, even when they're sort of artificial. You get to build a massive empire, what's the point if you don't get to test it against an existential threat? Test what you've made while it's at the height of its power. Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:36 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I think being able to combat it is the key thing. A plague that kills half your people with absolutely no recourse is obviously infuriating, but if you could have built a bunch of baths and hospitals, and cut off trade ties with parts of the world it's coming from maybe it wouldn't be so bad. A lot of people would probably disagree and I assume it's something Paradox has thought a bunch about in the past. CK2 has this actually, if you didn't know. I personally find it kind of annoying as it's a fairly hefty money sink into what is effectively a blackbox, but I also don't usually play into the eras were it's plague'o'clock as opposed to normal saturday night fever.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
If the game retains some of the sacrifice and omen mechanics of EU:Rome then a pagan empire should possibly suffer some ill effects from having too many Christians running around it it, apart from them just representing a revolt risk (Christians never really rose up in against the Roman Empire in any serious way). The thing is that many pagans actively thought that the Christians imperiled the well-being of the state and its people with their beliefs alone, to them the Christians were atheists* who denied the existence of the gods, and the gods do not look well upon a society that fails to offer proper worship. Thus the presence of monotheistic religious groups in strongly polytheistic societies should probably have a negative effect on stability costs ("sacrifice to the gods") and the succes rate and power of omens (to stick with the EU:Rome example). It's a complete side note, but Zoroastrianism during the game's time fram really was nothing like what it became during the later Sassanid Empire. It is somewhat debated but it seems that zoroastrianism as a kind-of monotheistic organized religion was only really built up by the Sassanids in response to the threat posed by the new evangelizing religions of Christianity and Manicheism. Before that Zoroastrianism wasn't really anything like that, Ahura Mazda was the supreme god in a sense, and definitely the patron of the Achaemenid kings, but other gods were worshipped just as readily throughout Persia and by Iranian peoples in general. The mobeds don't really appear until later, under the Sassanids. And even under the Sassanids, in the east, "Zoroastrianism" kind of retained its old form, some peoples even seemed to have favored some gods above Ahura Mazda, Anahita for instance was really popular among the Sogdians and Bactrians, and the Parthians always had a special reverence for Mihr/Mithra above other gods. *The Jews were really the same, but they didn't really actively seek converts in any way close to how the Christians operated. Also Judaism was old, very old, and the Romans respected that enough to make Judaism legit in their eyes. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 18:44 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
I liked playing the Romes in Attila, but that's because I really like the idea of revitalizing a decaying empire, reforming its economy and army, throwing scarce resources at flashpoints, plugging the various gaps as they appear, stabilizing the situation and eventually going on the offensive to retake lost territories. Coincidentally, I usually get bored around the point when everything's stabilized and running smoothly. I think the key point is that empires in decline are kinda boring, because decline usually happens because of long-term systemic problems and the solutions to those problems are usually boring bureaucratic stuff which if implemented turns a smooth downwards curve on a map into a smooth upwards curve instead.. Empires in crisis, on the other hand, are interesting because they present a clearly defined problem (or even multiple such problems) to solve and usually come with dramatic shocks to the system one way or another. I'd love to see a Paradox-style game one day that explicitly puts you in the role of a troubleshooter - guide a nation to greatness, and then the player goes to sleep and the simulation runs on autopilot until something goes horribly wrong and the player is woken up again to take command of the nation in crisis. And after the problem is fixed, back to sleep the player goes until the next alarm. Edit: Gamerofthegame posted:CK2 has this actually, if you didn't know. I personally find it kind of annoying as it's a fairly hefty money sink into what is effectively a blackbox, but I also don't usually play into the eras were it's plague'o'clock as opposed to normal saturday night fever. My heavily developed hospital in my capital county was able to prevent the Black Death from ever affecting it and some of the neighboring counties, allowing them to remain thriving, prosperous cities in the midst of depopulation and death. That being said the hospital represented thousands upon thousands of gold worth of investment, and my more basic hospitals in my other countries did all of jack and poo poo. Tomn fucked around with this message at 18:43 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'd love to see a Paradox-style game one day that explicitly puts you in the role of a troubleshooter - guide a nation to greatness, and then the player goes to sleep and the simulation runs on autopilot until something goes horribly wrong and the player is woken up again to take command of the nation in crisis. And after the problem is fixed, back to sleep the player goes until the next alarm. They should call it Cincinnatus Mode.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:CK2 has this actually, if you didn't know. I personally find it kind of annoying as it's a fairly hefty money sink into what is effectively a blackbox, but I also don't usually play into the eras were it's plague'o'clock as opposed to normal saturday night fever. Oh right, I heard about that but hadn't played CK2 since it got added. I think it'd actually work better in this period though--the world was a lot more connected in antiquity than it was in the middle ages, and with you playing as the government you could take on a more active role in the trading; plagues would act as a counterweight to that. You'd be able to establish trade links, setting up outposts in India and tapping into the silk road, and get inordinate amounts of money from all of it--but, simultaneously, invite plagues. The richer you get off trading, the worse the risk of plagues coming from those same lucrative regions becomes. This way the plagues would only start to become a major thing once your empire was already reasonably established and you had the funds (from the trading) to actually be able to combat them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I think being able to combat it is the key thing. A plague that kills half your people with absolutely no recourse is obviously infuriating, but if you could have built a bunch of baths and hospitals, and cut off trade ties with parts of the world it's coming from maybe it wouldn't be so bad. A lot of people would probably disagree and I assume it's something Paradox has thought a bunch about in the past. I think a major factor, maybe even the most important factor in whether a crisis/disaster is fun or not is what happens next. Even wiping out everything a player has built is not necessarily frustrating if something new comes after, the frustrating thing is having to do the same gameplay again after the disaster has happened, because it's no longer challenging or interesting, just a repeat of last time. If the disaster represents a fundamental shift in the gameplay, dealing with a disaster stops being a chore and becomes this new challenge of "how much of my prosperity from stage 1 will I manage to carry through into stage 2". The issue with this idea is that, obviously, it requires way more gameplay systems, so it would be very expensive to develop. Your idea of facing a huge crisis when your empire is at the height of its power is a good one, and part of the appeal is that it's the final part of the game - you don't need to go through the same motions rebuilding after the crisis, it's just the end, and whatever is left after the crisis is your score.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Wouldn't an obvious way to expand the game into the decline of Rome be to make the challenge NOT to have your state decline, but entrench itself in the minds of both your people, and the minds of all your neighbors? Essentially, the China model. Even if actual territorial expansion of the state would be limited at this point, I think the above would open up for another type of map-painting - spreading your "civilization". In terms of gameplay and creating a challenge for you, the whole thing with you spreading the idea that your civilization is pretty sick would be that your neighbors start to want some of that - basically, the more successful you are the greater pressure you'd be under from the proto-civilized tribes on your borders until you finally manage to civilize them enough that they stop being such a huge threat. What happened to Rome in this scenario would then be a failure state, too successful at enticing barbarians but not strong enough to keep them out - though obviously the fact that Rome remained such a big deal for later generations would speak to it not being a complete failure. Koramei posted:Oh right, I heard about that but hadn't played CK2 since it got added. I think it'd actually work better in this period though--the world was a lot more connected in antiquity than it was in the middle ages, and with you playing as the government you could take on a more active role in the trading; plagues would act as a counterweight to that. You'd be able to establish trade links, setting up outposts in India and tapping into the silk road, and get inordinate amounts of money from all of it--but, simultaneously, invite plagues. The richer you get off trading, the worse the risk of plagues coming from those same lucrative regions becomes. e1: Not saying it's necessarily an easy thing to make fun and engaging at the level of empire building and conquest, but I do think some gameplay that actually has the player build on their successes rather than merely defend them should be possible even in a scenario that historically was a decline. e2: Then of course there are the barbarians themselves. Maybe make it so that when a proper barbarian invasion is triggered against them, the player is given the option of taking control of it and now having to take on the empire they've spend the game building up? I mean, if you want a final boss for your game, then the empire a human player has created is probably a pretty decent choice. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 18:58 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
The thing is that you'd need interesting enough internal gameplay to make that worthwhile and Paradox games historically have not done a great job at making "tall" play fun.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Why would a player-run Rome even need to collapse? Sure, throw some realistic poo poo at the player, but it doesn't need to be pre-ordained. HOI doesn't end in 1944 because "it was too hard to make playing germany interesting during the phase of history when they were losing" Playing as not-rome and watching them collapse while you carve out your own kingdom would be fun. Playing as rome and avoiding collapse would also be fun.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Sindai posted:It's worth noting that Johan claimed in an interview at PdxCon that they have no intention of pushing the end date back unless he can think of way to make playing an inevitably declining and decaying nation fun, and in his whole career that hasn't happened and he doesn't expect it to happen now. This is dumb as hell. Of course it's not fun to decline and fall. The object of an expansion would be to successfully stave off stagnation and collapse.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
The Roman Empire didn't hit its peak until a century later, anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
I just hope they put in an expansive tech system that can effectively cover the scope of Rome's engineering achievements.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Johan's remark probably wasn't entirely in reference to history. Ya'll need to think about where the player will be at 30BC or whatever the end date is. Like, generally, the player in these games conquer more rapidly than historical nation, and historically Rome was pretty goddamn big. So, a decent player will have most of the world by 30BC? Would there be anyone even half of your power level left to oppose you? What do you do to make extending the timeline by hundreds of years fun? You can't just look at it from a historical perspective and be like "Rome wasn't in decline! Atilla TW was fun! It should be fine!" Most players already don't play to the end date in paradox games. You would need to overhaul so many game systems and introduce so many new systems to make the imperial era interesting, and almost nobody would even get there. You're basically asking them to add Vicky 3 as an expansion to EU4. Not only would that be way too much work, but the game world would never even be in the right place to model that correctly. Really, if paradox does ever tackle that era in history, it would have to be in an entirely new game, not as an expansion to Imperator. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Wonder how Maurya and the Seleucids will be balanced.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
I keep wanting to say that I think imperial decline could be interesting if handled properly. Have scaling upkeep costs of some sort (but these were bad in the older Total War games where it was just an arbitrary "distance from capital penalty" that scaled with distance; yeah it was there for a reason but also kinda sucked) / limited capable manpower to administer the Imperial Holdings (e.g.have CKII-esque characters with varying traits and skill levels that you have to assign as administrators or governors of your provinces; only some will be good, other will be bad and others will eventually rebel) and more pressures from the outside than you can handle. But then I think about how I would like that and I think it would just end up being tedious busywork, especially if it was built to force you to fail at some point. Making it rewarding/interesting/fun somehow would be really hard. Having AI that would be reasonable, so if, using an example from what I said above, you have a governor who wants more autonomy and if you get reasonable options for "yeah sure you get autonomy but I'll kill you if you revolt and declare independence"; the governor could be loyal and you find out later that he used that extra autonomy to make some sort of improvements or gains. But I can see myself just saying "ah fuckit" and starting a new game when enough of those events start to pop. edit: If there are mechanics forcing armies to be local/have a "home base" that they can only march so far from without penalties, interesting decisions with long-term ramifications. Things like "irrigation/aqueduct proposal" costs a shitload but will help a province...if you pay it helps keep it growing and happy; if you say no the province gets unstable as people move away and growth stagnates. I think a number of events like that are in EU4 an CKII but they are hard to balance around a player's ability (therefore income, stability, ect). edit2: Some sort of Imperial Inertia mechanic could be interesting. Have it built so the player knows ahead of time that the farther you push it the harsher the long-term costs. Make it so you have to invest in inertia if you want to expand quickly and investing in it comes with costs; if you stop investing it can let you settle and organize a while but then it is expensive if you want to get the inertia going again. If you push it to keep your inertia going it could strain your resources more and more (you have a limited pool of competent administrators, soldiers, and other things like that) buuuut it just may let you cripple a rival, though in doing so it may come back to bite you when you didnt spend more time crushing a tribal rebellion or something like that. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 20:32 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Game balance and players outdoing history Mans posted:Wonder how Maurya and the Seleucids will be balanced. e: Roads seem to be a significant building in terms of your military capabilities, and might serve as a sort of roadblock to your expansion - expanding into or through poorer regions would increase the demand for a decent road network to ensure you can move your troops around, but perhaps that eats up most or all of the gains from the territory you've taken? In which case yeah, you might have outdone the Romans, great, now you're running a huge deficit trying to defend a bunch of territory that's worth almost nothing. Garrisons would be another thing that could drain your coffers, and the cost could even encourage pretty borders if you saved gold by keeping your borders shorter. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 21:48 on May 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, that's kinda the thing isn't it - for the game to actually work these huge empires actually need to have breaks on them in a way they don't in EU4. I wonder if this is the game that's gonna make your ability to project power a real issue - so you might on paper look massively favored, but because you're at the edge of your ability to support armies you can't properly prosecute a war in the region. This would certainly put a damper on the usual snowballing, and encourage the formation of "fronts" between great empires rather than one effortlessly gobbling up the other.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
To stop people from always blobbing all the time you'd have to decouple the numbers they want to make go up from the blob, ie they are a dynasty that can jump ship to a new country, maybe even, hold on to your pants, remove the map. Like you bought a sick new painting for their family seat and a son just got promoted to a juicy position in embezzlement central and the patriarch prefers hunting and drinking to his duties as state governor, all the stuff that historically distracted people from serving the state perfectly, and your province changes owners and you just roll with it. No idea how this would work as a game. Maybe make a map of your mind, like a stylized room where your rear end in a top hat son and that hot piece from court and a big ole bottle of porter are huge things you can click on, and your duties to the state are tucked into a corner somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Go on The Pythagoreans were essentially mathemagicians. They believed that numbers were the fundamental basis of all reality and that studying mathematics would reveal the true nature of the universe.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Tomn posted:I'd love to see a Paradox-style game one day that explicitly puts you in the role of a troubleshooter I too would love to see Paradox take a crack at the Paranoia setting.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:The Pythagoreans were essentially mathemagicians. They believed that numbers were the fundamental basis of all reality and that studying mathematics would reveal the true nature of the universe.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:14 |
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:The Pythagoreans were essentially mathemagicians. They believed that numbers were the fundamental basis of all reality and that studying mathematics would reveal the true nature of the universe. Hell yeah can I play as these guys?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2018 00:52
|
|
