|
The current github of concert of europe isnt crashing for me and no major bugs https://github.com/Victoria2CoE/concert-of-europe/commits/Development
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
pdxjohan posted:It is kind of funny that he gets credit for Art of War, considering it was mostly my design, and he was a great PL for it. Common Sense was my design, while he did most of Cossacks and El Dorado. Wiz gets the (public) credit because he's a fantastic communicator. Paradox is generally really good at communicating with the fans, but Wiz nails that 'here's the issue, here's how I want to solve it' bit that takes the interaction with fans to a level above 'here's a screenshot with a cool thing'. Also video game fans like to fixate on the 'one great mind' model of a game developer because despite that being a bit true in the 80's and 90's all the current people who get that title (Sid Meier, Jake Solomon, Chris Avellone etc) would say that's a terrible way of viewing things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
I like Paradox games and I think the devs are cool people. I also think it's pretty understandable that the forum Wiz came up in and where many people have been interacting with him for *checks his regdate* fourteen years is particularly fond of Wiz.  e; Plus he's making Victoria's Secret so e2; Also the Stellaris thread is currently staging a revolt over how pops will grow in Le Guin Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
This really is a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Rename it Martin Anward's Stellaris
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Magissima posted:Rename it Martin Anward's Stellaris And make it a long running franchise that keeps the name years after he's moved on to something else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
Whoever at Paradox pushes for Vicky3 should become the new hero of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1033617854187356160 I know the populists are supposed to be the "gently caress you, player" faction, but it makes no sense for them to be against a law like this. It's socialists being against legalizing unions all over again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
Pakled posted:https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1033617854187356160 This isn't even that populists are anti-establishment and therefore anti-player, this is them just being nonsensical game abstractions. Even presenting populists in a negative light there's no reason for them to oppose that law. On a related note, I guess if the populists are the dedicated opposition then there's no way for a player to be a populist tyrant, leveraging popular support from the masses against established elites. That was kind of a thing in classical times, and it'll be weird to govern that way and still have the "populists" at your throat. They should probably just be called the opposition party, flavor be damned, so they can represent the elites if you're a populist shaking things up, and the people if you're an elite strengthening the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
I do so love the civic faction of all people being for an anti-corruption law. E: And mercantiles too. The literal poster children of corruption. Rynoto fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
Pakled posted:https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1033617854187356160 Because uhh, unions are not something that the latter supports at all, for what I'd hope was obvious reasons. (Reform, not revolution)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 12:45
|
|
|
Yeah even I think I'd have a hard time figuring out how to justify a No vote against that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Socialists or Communists? Unions (including, hilariously, socialist trade unions) are considered a political reform in Victoria 2. Socialists, to make them not the best choice ever forever, oppose political reforms without militancy (similar to liberals opposing social reform without the same). It literally allows for a scenario where a fully socialist Senate in a stable country will vote against allowing unions identifying as socialist. (Or unions at all if theyre currently banned) E: Vanguardist fucks in Vick2 want to roll back political reforms so they're fitting really. StealthArcher fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Socialists or Communists? Yeah, as StealthArcher said, I was referring to Socialists in Vicky 2, who are explicitly separate from Communists. Pakled fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
I guess they took that time that Tiberius Gracchus decided to veto everything that wasn't his land bill and extrapolated.Eiba posted:On a related note, I guess if the populists are the dedicated opposition then there's no way for a player to be a populist tyrant, leveraging popular support from the masses against established elites. That was kind of a thing in classical times, and it'll be weird to govern that way and still have the "populists" at your throat.quo. Well, it was already essentially impossible to make that sort of thing work when they decided to model Rome as a simple unicameral system without any assemblies. Without those, the only real way to go against the senate is hijacking some legions, as Caesar did after Sulla basically took all power away from the assemblies and to the senate. Takanago posted:Yeah even I think I'd have a hard time figuring out how to justify a No vote against that. There was that law back in Crete that required every position to have the character for the best stats for the position, and it led to a bunch of incredibly corrupt characters in high positions with nothing Wiz could do about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Rome is looking weird because they have said becoming Emperor is a thing, but every mechanic shown seems to make it basically impossible to do in even a vaguely historical way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
Takanago posted:Yeah even I think I'd have a hard time figuring out how to justify a No vote against that.  I oppose this bill.Typical populist response, Senator Takanago. Whatever honeyed words you use now, we all know you'd abuse this law to enact a dictatorship at the earliest possible moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Will becoming the Emperor result in getting stabbed by senators and/or praetorians?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Will becoming the Emperor result in getting stabbed by senators and/or praetorians? The populari will stab you no matter what you do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The populari will stab you no matter what you do. Even with panem et sirkus?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Will there be an option in the new Rome game to lock my Senatorial enemies in the Senate chambers, then have hired thugs throw stones at them through holes in the roof? Can I publish proscription lists? How much murder is there in this game?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Here's the full DD. Eight government offices: quote:Censor - Each Charisma gives +0.2 Senate Influence for the Censor’s party. And eight types of laws: quote:Anticorruption Laws : Impacts Corruption & Unrest
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Will becoming the Emperor result in getting stabbed by senators and/or praetorians? As they should, you rexist motherfucker!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
If you see a rexist you probably should stab him
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Especially in Rome, with its general law of "stab any idiot who ever calls himself king."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
GO gently caress YOURSELF posted:Will there be an option in the new Rome game to lock my Senatorial enemies in the Senate chambers, then have hired thugs throw stones at them through holes in the roof? Can I publish proscription lists? How much murder is there in this game? I swear if I can't throw a fool down the Gemonian Stairs...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
I imagine most of the significance of changing government types and overthrowing the old order is lost when you mostly have control over the old order and the new order. I imagine there's a lot of interesting things that can be done with how they show revolts or modelling regional loyalties that may be in contention with centralized power, but I don't know if they're planning on doing anything weird or outside the normal Paradox model of absolute unity with ephemeral revolt percentages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Especially in Rome, with its general law of "stab any idiot who ever calls himself king." It worked out remarkably well for a remarkably long time, to be fair. Loads of prospective emperors. Loads of gladii. A worryingly declining amount of denarii.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:It worked out remarkably well for a remarkably long time, to be fair. Loads of prospective emperors. Loads of gladii. A worryingly declining amount of denarii. It was doomed when they got rid of the triarii.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I imagine most of the significance of changing government types and overthrowing the old order is lost when you mostly have control over the old order and the new order. Well the old EU:Rome actually had pretty good civil wars and revolts. It worked on the basis of each region having a governor who might or might not be loyal and therefore might or might not revolt, the same went for generals who could get units that were loyal to them and would desert to them if they started or joined a revolt, it was actually pretty cool and one of the few things that were interesting about that game. I'm pretty sure they're keeping at least that system, they're keeping plenty of others or only slightly modifying them, so I see no reason why they would do away with the most interesting thing about the original EU:Rome. On the topic of the dev diary I'm kind of surprised that they didn't go for a kind of compromise abstraction when it comes to the consul thing and instead just went with the one leader to represent the country and for other countries to interact with thing. I'd have gone with something like the board game Republic of Rome, where you have the two consuls, but they are distinguished as Rome Consul who has priority on legislature and senate proceedings and a Field Consul who has priority for military commands, despite the differences in function the two are equal in the amount of influence they give to your senators in that game to represent the two consuls in reality being equals. Though I wouldn't necessarily have gone with those names for Imperator I think something along those lines would have worked well, have one consul who works as the country's leader and face outwards, like they've done, and another who gives benefits based on his abilities (perhaps primarily his martial attribute going off the board game) and since he won't be the diplomatic face outwards give him some bonuses when leading an army perhaps. They should both get the same amount of prominence for holding the office. Also to represent the collegial nature of Roman offices and their veto powers over each other make the relationship between these two characters important, for instance if their relationship is poor that translates into increased power costs and a morale penalty for armies (think of arguing consuls refusing to cooperate with each other when on campaign), for a good relationship give a morale bonus and perhaps something other than a reduction in power costs. Something like this will probably be possible to mod in much easier than the two mechanically equal consuls that I think alot of people expected, but it mgiht be a bit more finicky for a mod to set up there being two candidates chosen each time the consuls' term is over, and it would also perhaps be best if it worked so that if the Rome Consul (using the board game names to distinguish now for simplicity) dies then the Field Consul would vacate his office and take his place, and if the Field Consul dies then the office remains vacant until a new pair of consuls are elected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:On the topic of the dev diary I'm kind of surprised that they didn't go for a kind of compromise abstraction when it comes to the consul thing and instead just went with the one leader to represent the country and for other countries to interact with thing. I'd have gone with something like the board game Republic of Rome, where you have the two consuls, but they are distinguished as Rome Consul who has priority on legislature and senate proceedings and a Field Consul who has priority for military commands, despite the differences in function the two are equal in the amount of influence they give to your senators in that game to represent the two consuls in reality being equals. Johan mentioned on Twitter that he's played the game Republic of Rome (apparently decades ago, even) so I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly how the game ends up being modeled, especially with the backlash on the Plaza over the single Consul announcement. At the very least, I would anticipate it being a part of a future update to the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
but if you have a rome consul and a field consul, how could you possibly model the roman army falling apart when the two consuls disagreed on strategy and/or one consul was a greedy/lazy/childish jerk
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
Will i be able to have an army with daily swapping consul commanders, and thus be able to beautifully Cannae myself? Also itd better be called the consul, i want to cheat with consul commands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Rome will have zero consuls once it’s conquered
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:but if you have a rome consul and a field consul, how could you possibly model the roman army falling apart when the two consuls disagreed on strategy and/or one consul was a greedy/lazy/childish jerk Well, my solution would be to abstract it by having both their traits, attributes and personal relationship have an impact on the morale and discipline of your armies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
The only use for two consuls is civil wars and yanking an army around like Hannibal. Personally, I'm fine with skipping over some of the more specific eccentricities of the Roman system because if I ever get the game, I'm barely ever going to play Rome. I'd rather have systems that are more broadly applicable and can more easily work with politics on the grander scale.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The only use for two consuls is civil wars and yanking an army around like Hannibal. Well also more accurately reflecting the political system of probably the most important country in the game. Though I'm not suggesting a true two-consul portrayal, rather one that designates one of them as the nominal head of state that others will interact with and such on the diplomatic layer, but who is partnered with another who holds a similarly named title and gains just as much prominence as the leader from his office. The interactions between these two consuls and their effects can then be abstracted in the game by modifiers based on each of their traits and their persoal relationship and could for an example also influence how hard it is to pass laws (maybe it'd even be impossible if the other consul hates your guts, to represent the consular veto). It will also mean more characters in Rome will be gaining prominence and thus potentially becoming dangerous, which I think is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Keep Rome at 1 Consul but give Carthage 2 Sufets or w/e, tia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The only use for two consuls is civil wars and yanking an army around like Hannibal. Those two thing sound insanely important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 18:50
|
|