|
Stairmaster posted:Yes.... and then we can move vicky 3s start date back On one hand I would love to play as the USA from their founding, but on the other I would really miss the historical nations in the rest of the Americas and their real world history.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Chickpea Roar posted:On one hand I would love to play as the USA from their founding, but on the other I would really miss the historical nations in the rest of the Americas and their real world history. Just imagine all the different ways the Thirteen Colonies could go if they actually functioned as 13 distinct subjects of the British Crown rather than a unified colony. Making the a unified America could actually become something of an achievement, and how you went about that would also influence what kind of America you were left with - an America imposed on some of the colonies would be quite distinct from one freely joined to one united around an exiled king from French-occupied England. Turning America into the powerhouse it'd be at the end of the period could feel quite a bit more satisfying if you started the game as like, Rhode Island.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This is honestly backwards. HoI4 is EU4's model moved to a Hearts of Iron game, and told to play itself. Say what you will about EU4, but at least it still works as a game. This is a nonsense statement
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
Can't wait for HoI4 to have more counters than BlackICE by patch 1.10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
Is Victoria 1 worth giving a go at all? I was thinking of picking up V2 in GoG's sale, but they only have the first one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Not without the expansion and even still you better have a high tolerance for tedium. It was a dang good game in its time though
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Is Victoria 1 worth giving a go at all? I was thinking of picking up V2 in GoG's sale, but they only have the first one. If you enjoy that era of Paradox games (CK1, EU2 etc) I think you'll like it. Otherwise I wouldn't bother, there's a big learning curve to get past the UI and I feel V2 really improves the formula. I would just wait for a V2 sale on steam. Remember it's from the CK1/EU2/HOI1 era of Paradox, so it's extremely janky and un-intuitive to play but fun once you get past that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Is Victoria 1 worth giving a go at all? I was thinking of picking up V2 in GoG's sale, but they only have the first one. I feel like there's nothing Vicky 1 does better than Vicky 2. V2 improves on basically every system, adds a bunch more, and only really does away with two systems I can think of (trading provinces/technology between countries and manual upgrading of pops) but both of those systems are really not that interesting and just add a lot of micromanagement (though the trading provinces system could be exploited hilariously because the AI was dumb).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Victoria 1 is only fun if you get a kick out of exploiting janky mechanics to turn Uruguay info a Great Power without ever fighting any wars. Otherwise yeah honesty there's nothing V2 doesn't do better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 09:13
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This is honestly backwards. HoI4 is EU4's model moved to a Hearts of Iron game, and told to play itself. Say what you will about EU4, but at least it still works as a game. HOI also works as a game, and is currently a drat sight more cohesive than EUIV (though doubtless that'll change when they add ninety three different types of fuhrermana).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
I never bought V2, but I'll still go play V1 Revolutions every once in awhile even though I know the systems like the back of my hand. Russia is a ton of clicking but it's a fun sandbox, and in my most recent game I missed making Argentina a great power by just a few points because I refused to accept liberal parties the whole run. Portugal and Spain colonized all of Africa. I've never played as the UK, figuring it would be too easy with too much clicking. I've also never modernized China, though Japan is fun too. France is probably my favorite country since it has a good mix of events, political parties, and starting strength. It's usually just me seeing how much of Germany I can eat in 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
spectralent posted:HOI also works as a game, and is currently a drat sight more cohesive than EUIV (though doubtless that'll change when they add ninety three different types of fuhrermana). Speaking of EUIV, I don't have Mandate of Heaven nor Cradle of Civilization and imho it works better as a game without those. Way less meters to fill up everywhere, and the other DLC features I don't really miss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
So one thing I'm worried/concerned about for Imperator is the combat itself. Every other Paradox game (save HOI) it's just "biggest stack wins" with no real concern about any tactics. HOI is a little more nuanced but it's still fairly simple. But in the ancient world your tactical skill really mattered. Will we be able to re-create Roman idiocy at Cannae and Carrhae? Can we also handle Hannibal's genius in his Italian campaign? Or Caesar at Alesia? These are battles that I think the Paradox-style of combat doesn't work since the victory was more due to tactical genius/blunder than any sort of strategic advantage/disadvantage. Or what about army composition? Phalanxes vs the Roman Maniple vs Parthian horse archers vs Gallic cavalry are all very different kind of fights and would've seen different sorts of outcomes just in terms of casualties. What about terrain and surprise attacks? The Romans may have prevailed at the Teutoburg Forest if there wasn't all that swamp and bad terrain for a Roman Legion to fight in. They also may have fared better if they hadn't been constantly harassed and ambushed, making them unable to get organized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Will probably be CK2 style modifiers and tactics based on terrain, units and/or commander traits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
It's almost certainly going to work exactly like EU4 combat only with a poo poo ton of modifiers to make it more dynamic. No separate 'wings' to combat a la MotE / CK2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:It's almost certainly going to work exactly like EU4 combat only with a poo poo ton of modifiers to make it more dynamic. No separate 'wings' to combat a la MotE / CK2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Doesn't tactical skill matter a whole lot in EU4? A sick general can absolutely wreck poo poo if not countered by an equally sick general. Which is not to say I wouldn't mind seeing combat improved, but the strategic level kinda seems like the weaker part to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Maniples will be the gunpowder of rome
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
axeil posted:So one thing I'm worried/concerned about for Imperator is the combat itself. Every other Paradox game (save HOI) it's just "biggest stack wins" with no real concern about any tactics. HOI is a little more nuanced but it's still fairly simple. quote:Battle Tactics: Choose your approach before battle to counter the stratagems of your foes. You can see the selectable tactics at the top left in this screen, quite a few are greyed out presumably from culture/tech. I don't think they'd put that kind of system in if it wasn't meaningful. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I'm really hoping we see something really innovative and creative than this. In Johan I Trust. It's EU: Rome 2 (which worked as I just described; I'm guessing that we will not see a further iteration of combat events) and I'm p sure that Johan will think that the combat stances and multiple unit types are enough of a differentiation from EU, but I'd be glad to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
spectralent posted:HOI also works as a game, and is currently a drat sight more cohesive than EUIV (though doubtless that'll change when they add ninety three different types of fuhrermana). Setting aside the fact HoI is a game designed to have no interaction from the player, the naval and air mechanics are wholly divorced from the rest of the game, with the air mechanics literally "set a mission, no longer interact with that piece, enjoy map popups to know what happens". That's..not really fun, or engaging. Compare to EU4, where new mechanics, if boring and divorced from other parts of the game, are actually engaging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Battles in Paradox games are awkward because on a grand strategy level they're far too tactical for the player to be exerting major influence, but the impact of a single doom-stack collision will often decide an entire war, which has grand strategic implications that you can't expect the player not to be allowed to influence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Battles in Paradox games are awkward because on a grand strategy level they're far too tactical for the player to be exerting major influence, but the impact of a single doom-stack collision will often decide an entire war, which has grand strategic implications that you can't expect the player not to be allowed to influence. I actually think this is a somewhat interesting problem - DDRJake in his streams notes that the optimal way to have battles is to micromanage your stacks so that the fullstrength ones arrive to battle first, then weaker ones, etc., sometimes you want cavalry in the frontlines so you make sure they get to battle first. He noted that he wants to make it so you don't have to micromanage to do that, but apparently other designers too strongly feel you shouldn't be able to manipulate the battles to that degree. To me, that's the opposite of Paradox's recent trend of streamlining systems to remove micromanagement. But there's talks about this in respect to EU4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Setting aside the fact HoI is a game designed to have no interaction from the player, the naval and air mechanics are wholly divorced from the rest of the game, with the air mechanics literally "set a mission, no longer interact with that piece, enjoy map popups to know what happens". That's..not really fun, or engaging. yeah i often win games by loading up france, hitting speed 5, and then doing literally nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
The amount of micromanagement required to play EU4 past the first 100 years or so is quite frankly insane. Having to control every single one of my armies manually is just not fun. I'll take HOI4's system over that any day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The amount of micromanagement required to play EU4 past the first 100 years or so is quite frankly insane. Having to control every single one of my armies manually is just not fun. I'll take HOI4's system over that any day. Err, what? Don't you usually only have two or three armies in the first 100 year? And often only one for the first 30-50? With some stack splitting granted when laying siege to enemy territory, granted, but it's not that bad. The amount of micromanagement required to play optimally and the amount required to win generally are very different. A couple years ago you could've seen me in the EU4 thread complaining about how absurdly awful the combat system was, but I've really come around on it and I think EU4 now has my favorite warfare in any paradox game. I think what changed for me was figuring out both AI behavior and the extremely unintuitive fort zone of control system. I'd take EU4 over HoI4's warfare any day, lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Uh yeah, but past that is when it starts to get ridiculous. I've never taken a game all the way to the end date because it's just so tedious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I actually think this is a somewhat interesting problem - DDRJake in his streams notes that the optimal way to have battles is to micromanage your stacks so that the fullstrength ones arrive to battle first, then weaker ones, etc., sometimes you want cavalry in the frontlines so you make sure they get to battle first. I like to think that all of the really bad old mechanics in EU4 which still exist are for nostalgic legacy reasons and will eventually get replaced once Johan gets mad about them, probably because someone abused something to beat him in a MP game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Uh yeah, but past that is when it starts to get ridiculous. I've never taken a game all the way to the end date because it's just so tedious. You bring it up a ton so I get that it’s an important issue for you, but I’ve also never really had a problem with army management in EU4. Unless you’re practically doing a world conquest (which is imo tedious in innumerable other ways too), the only time I think it’s a big issue is doing a couple of colonial wars simultaneous with some major poo poo going down back home, or that those brief few months of carpet sieging after you’ve already won anyway. Otherwise, how many armies are you constantly having? Because mine tend to be consolidated into at most, what, six or seven? And I do play until 1800 not irregularly. It’s really not hard to manage that many at all and it’s also one of the deeper parts of combat really. I’d like to see a button that carpet sieges everything in a given area for you for sure, and I wouldn’t be against automation or anything, but I disagree about it being especially important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Uh yeah, but past that is when it starts to get ridiculous. I've never taken a game all the way to the end date because it's just so tedious. Oh, sorry, misread your post. There's more micromanagement after that, but you still generally don't have that many stacks. I think it's an exaggeration to call it insane. By the end game, you'll have what, like five to eight armies, depending on how big your stacks are? RabidWeasel posted:I like to think that all of the really bad old mechanics in EU4 which still exist are for nostalgic legacy reasons and will eventually get replaced once Johan gets mad about them, probably because someone abused something to beat him in a MP game. I wouldn't mind a simple "tactics" menu that let you configure your front line based on a few presets. That's probably the kind of change Jake wanted to make and ran into resistance on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
I guess I just have a lower tolerance for it than others 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
In EU4 you need twice as many soldiers as your opponent, half to siege them down and half to run back and forth to stop their constant attempts to run around and siege down your undefended areas. Their maphacking allows them to always run away before you get close too, with a 90% chance of them running into a third nation they have access to but you don't (doesn't matter if they are only in one war at all). In my last game I was warring around in northern Italy when suddenly freaking Wurzburg was carpet sieging my holdings in former-Tunis from the east. Because they always have land access everywhere and knew that I didn't have any armies over there. I can't even stand doing late game wars against large nations at all unless the front is small with little to no other land access. I am angry. Angry about army AI. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
EU4 tactical warfare isn't great. The AI reacts very granularly to what you do so if you wanna catch an army or save one of your armies you gotta pay attention to the little lock symbol changing, which can happen any tick, and if that's going on in two seperate places, once around Astrakhan and once around Königsberg, then yeah, gently caress that. Generally the game doesn't give a poo poo whether or not you do something a week earlier or later, so you can't say ok speed up but pause a week from now, but in chasing armies it's vital, so you stare at that army for a week on slow speed so you can pause at the exact tick you need to give your order in. And while you're doing this one of your sieging stacks around Cairo is wiped and you ragequit for today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Poil posted:In EU4 you need twice as many soldiers as your opponent, half to siege them down and half to run back and forth to stop their constant attempts to run around and siege down your undefended areas. Their maphacking allows them to always run away before you get close too, with a 90% chance of them running into a third nation they have access to but you don't (doesn't matter if they are only in one war at all). In my last game I was warring around in northern Italy when suddenly freaking Wurzburg was carpet sieging my holdings in former-Tunis from the east. Because they always have land access everywhere and knew that I didn't have any armies over there. I can't even stand doing late game wars against large nations at all unless the front is small with little to no other land access. Yeah this. Honestly all I want is a toggle on the army UI to hand control of the army over to the AI, so that I don't have to actively pay attention to all of my armies just to keep them from sitting on their asses doing nothing. We already have automated rebel suppression and nobody complains about the game playing itself for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
confession: i hate war in all paradox games
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
The AI slipping an army halfway across the world behind your lines is a huge pain in the rear end for sure, especially since 90% of the time it doesn’t actually help them much, just annoys you. But if you automated your armies to counter that, wouldn’t they...do the exact same thing, and make the same kinds of stupid errors that you’ll have to manually correct? Honestly I never trust AI automation in most strategy games which is probably part of my mindset on this; I always manually build everything in Civ and poo poo too. The AI just makes catastrophically stupid decisions regularly enough that I don’t trust it, and if there’s gonna be a strategic gently caress up like that it might as well be my own error. I can understand others differing on that though for sure. As for the “needing two armies” thing, I kind of disagree. In a normal situation where they don’t slip behind you into Siberia or whatever, placing your armies to stop them killing your carpet sieges is imo a big part of the combat’s depth. Honestly wanting to automate everything sounds really boring to me, that distills combat (a huge part of EU4 in general) into being all about tech and composition, for which there’s always a 100% right choice. Without mistakes and frantic micro from time to time, what’s the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I like to think that all of the really bad old mechanics in EU4 which still exist are for nostalgic legacy reasons and will eventually get replaced once Johan gets mad about them, probably because someone abused something to beat him in a MP game.  That patching process at least remains unchanged from EU2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
One thing I definitely think Paradox needs to fix is nations getting military access through a dozen different countries and going on a 3000 mile journey just to siege down a province of little strategic value somewhere annoying. The most common example of this is the game of ring around the rosie the AI will play with the black sea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:The most common example of this is the game of ring around the rosie the AI will play with the Mediterranean. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Koramei posted:The AI slipping an army halfway across the world behind your lines is a huge pain in the rear end for sure, especially since 90% of the time it doesn’t actually help them much, just annoys you. But if you automated your armies to counter that, wouldn’t they...do the exact same thing, and make the same kinds of stupid errors that you’ll have to manually correct? Honestly I never trust AI automation in most strategy games which is probably part of my mindset on this; I always manually build everything in Civ and poo poo too. The AI just makes catastrophically stupid decisions regularly enough that I don’t trust it, and if there’s gonna be a strategic gently caress up like that it might as well be my own error. I can understand others differing on that though for sure. For me, having my AI armies sometimes doing something stupid or suboptimal is better than them literally doing nothing at all unless I control them directly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 20:14
|
|