|
Beamed posted:
I quite enjoy it, personally. I think EU4's combat is really strong, actually. It's one of the main reasons I keep going back to to the game. The end game can be a bit of a slog but I honestly really do enjoy early and mid game combat. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Mar 31, 2019 |
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
I dislike combat in the non-hoi games because there isn't much you can do to influence the outcome of the battle. You could do everything right and get hit with several bad dice rolls and the game just says, gently caress you, you lose this war because gently caress you. At least in hoi4, the randomness is at a minimum and your actions and decisions can greatly affect the outcome. If you lose its because you hosed up, not because the rng decided that you should.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
Even something as simple as being able to tell an army to pursue another army, or take control of an area, or defend an area, would be a massive improvement. I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that there's really only one way of interacting with combat, and that's telling your army mans to move to a province. And if you don't tell them to, they do literally nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Even something as simple as being able to tell an army to pursue another army, or take control of an area, or defend an area, would be a massive improvement. I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that there's really only one way of interacting with combat, and that's telling your army mans to move to a province. And if you don't tell them to, they do literally nothing. Yeah this is my big frustration with army control in CK2. Often I just have a huge doomstack that needs to chase down an enemy army and manually clicking it around is a real pain. Just being able to say "chase this army" would be nice. Likewise in Victoria 2 a lot of the annoying micromanagement is just having your armies blanket siege an area then having to manually move them on when they're done. It'd be a lot better if you could just paint out the areas you want them to take and they'd just hit them one at a time and move on to the next automatically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
Yeah? Without it there wouldn’t be a reason to play the game. Like if you automate combat what are you left with? Occasionally pressing a button to increase your tech or build a building? That stuff is honestly more a chore than combat. I wouldn’t want it automated tho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yeah? Without it there wouldn’t be a reason to play the game. Like if you automate combat what are you left with? Occasionally pressing a button to increase your tech or build a building? That stuff is honestly more a chore than combat. I wouldn’t want it automated tho. If you honestly only play EU4 to paint your map and right click army mans, you're right. I've got nothing to say to you. If you're in it to nation build (or heck, even empire build), then this is just mindless tedium, especially because there's always a right way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Beamed posted:If you honestly only play EU4 to paint your map and right click army mans, you're right. I've got nothing to say to you. If you're in it to nation build (or heck, even empire build), then this is just mindless tedium, especially because there's always a right way to do it. I play the game how it’s designed yes. I’m sorry EU or paradox games in general will never ever be what you want them to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I play the game how it’s designed yes. I’m sorry EU or paradox games in general will never ever be what you want them to be.  Why come in here in a discussion on how people wish the games were designed to say "Hey, did you guys know the games weren't designed this way"? Least you admit you're wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
We are all wasting time, none of this means anything. They ain’t gonna completely change their design philosophy based on a dying forum. I gave my opinion on how I want it designed and you got prickly this time not me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:We are all wasting time, none of this means anything. They ain’t gonna completely change their design philosophy based on a dying forum. I gave my opinion on how I want it designed and you got prickly this time not me. Stellaris has undergone several major redesigns since it came out, partly based on complaints and suggestions from these very forums. The devs literally read these threads and even ask for suggestions sometimes. Not to mention all the goons who work on Stellaris and other paradox games. How do you know what paradox plans to do with their ~*design philosophy*~?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Stellaris has undergone several major redesigns since it came out, partly based on complaints and suggestions from these very forums. Not to mention all the goons who work on Stellaris and other paradox games. Yes Im sure they changed it based on goons opinions lol especially when you see goons still aren’t happy with it But I feel pretty confident yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
I'm personally taking full 100% credit for Shared Burdens being in Stellaris because I made a post in the Stellaris thread after the dev diary about overhauling how living standards worked that said "hey what about a communism living standard where all strata of pops have the same upkeep" and then it happened so 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
I don't think people are discussing the games they like and directions they'd like to see them go in because they're expecting a tangible return on their Posting Investment. We could all be emailing Paradox if we were trying to effect change and not just... have an enjoyable discussion about neato games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
Even if paradox has never listened to a single word posted on these dead gay forums, they've still made a ton of major changes to their games over the years. Acting like the current way that warfare works is a sacred cow that will never, ever be changed is pretty unreasonably confident, to put it lightly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:i would unironically prefer to meticulously chart out mobilization orders down to the precise time at which the reservists are expected to arrive at a supply depot than ever move a single pixleman into an empty province. The fact that Victoria 2 doesn’t model mobilisation plans at all is a critical failing of its Great War system imo
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:The fact that Victoria 2 doesn’t model mobilisation plans at all is a critical failing of its Great War system imo You can tell mobilization speed tried to, but, yeah. Crazycryodude posted:I'm personally taking full 100% credit for Shared Burdens being in Stellaris because I made a post in the Stellaris thread after the dev diary about overhauling how living standards worked that said "hey what about a communism living standard where all strata of pops have the same upkeep" and then it happened so Hey, I came up with the idea of balancing Religious ideas to be Good Again by converting territories before the expansion that made it so you couldn't even came out  (And now you can, again, anyway. But still!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:The fact that Victoria 2 doesn’t model mobilisation plans at all is a critical failing of its Great War system imo A great thing for Vicky 3 would be if they imported the battle planner from HoI4. Then you could draw out frontlines and attack plans for mobilization, where as units are mobilized they will automatically assign themselves to those plans. The catch being that when you hit the "mobilize" button, whatever plans you had designated for mobilized units are now locked in and can't be changed until mobilization finishes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
After ~2300 hours of EU4 (got burnt out around the time of Mandate of Heaven, rolled back to 1.19 then lost interest), I am hyped for Imperator. I think it is going to be cool + good. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
Not only is this incredibly snarky, but you do realize that what you're suggesting would be a complete and fundamental overhaul of the entire game system? Or maybe you're suggesting to somehow just remove it completely and let the game do everything, honestly I've read all your posts and I'm not sure which idea you're trying to push. I think that a little more automation would be helpful, Fister Roboto mentioned something like being able to instruct your stack to follow that unit. That would be nice. I, personally, do not want the game so completely abstracted that I never have to move a unit around the map, and I am fine with saying that. And seriously cut it with the sass if you're just going to post a generic screenshot of the map, post "This is okay??", and when someone responds that, yes, it is, you post this. Beamed posted:If you honestly only play EU4 to paint your map and right click army mans, you're right. I've got nothing to say to you. If you're in it to nation build (or heck, even empire build), then this is just mindless tedium, especially because there's always a right way to do it. Bolded for emphasis. You literally think there's an objectively right and wrong way to do it, which is very silly on a number of levels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Not only is this incredibly snarky, but you do realize that what you're suggesting would be a complete and fundamental overhaul of the entire game system? Or maybe you're suggesting to somehow just remove it completely and let the game do everything, honestly I've read all your posts and I'm not sure which idea you're trying to push. trapped mouse posted:I think that a little more automation would be helpful, Fister Roboto mentioned something like being able to instruct your stack to follow that unit. That would be nice. I, personally, do not want the game so completely abstracted that I never have to move a unit around the map, and I am fine with saying that. trapped mouse posted:And seriously cut it with the sass if you're just going to post a generic screenshot of the map, post "This is okay??", and when someone responds that, yes, it is, you post this.  That was from a current game, where I was annoyed at having to pause the game, right-click a path that let me combat as many armies as it could, unpause, then have to pause, hit the split button for as many occupations as completed, then right-click each of those provinces individually, unpause, etc.trapped mouse posted:Bolded for emphasis. You literally think there's an objectively right and wrong way to do it, which is very silly on a number of levels. EDIT: also it's pretty bad form to come into a discussion the thread's move on from just to try and police people talking about ideas you don't like, just sayin'
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
Just want to point out that nobody got mad (that I'm aware of) when they added some basic automation functions for navies. All I really want is that, but for armies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
give me a dumb fandom simulator where I have to try and balance my videogame mechanics to satisfy eighty four different goons and their opinions where they will only accept their idea of fun as the only right one and then give me a button to gulag them all
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
HerraS posted:give me a dumb fandom simulator where I have to try and balance my videogame mechanics to satisfy eighty four different goons and their opinions where they will only accept their idea of fun as the only right one If you don't gulag them all by 38 Trotsky starts a civil war
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
They should give armies similar automation to what navies have and also make it so that occupying a fort gives you control of the provinces which that fort projects a zone of control onto (in eu4). Also make army costs increase exponentially regardless of force limit (or just in general make it so that armies don't balloon up to insane sizes).
shades of blue fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:is there a SA discord for hoi4 Yes! Well technically its for all map/grand strategy/paradox games but we have a weekly Hearts of Iron game ongoing currently https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3883522
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
Reading this argument I realize I play these games, especially Hoi4 very different from most of you. In hoi4 I never have the speed faster than 1, even pre-war. I make sure to nursemaid every building and unit construction bar. Once a war stops then it really slows down. I pause every hour then make a tour around the globe monitoring every unit and combat to see how it is doing that “turn”. I really hate that there are no message setting pop ups for “unit arrives in province” or the like or even an event log, so that is why I make sure to check in with each unit on the hour. When I realized that you lost plan prep for manually moving units instead of battleplan I had to make sure every unit is on a unique one province front one province attack plan to get the bonus that comes from plan execution. There are some negative results of playing so slowly, a multi-month naval invasion may take weeks of real-time, and although I have more than a thousand hours in hoi4 alone I have yet to complete it or any other paradox game, I still feel this is the correct way to play. Turtle Watch fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
is this a gimmick
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
No I am afraid not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
I sincerely hope so. If you've got to that point just play witp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
Maybe that dude is having fun playing videogames how he enjoys them  I am 100% behind EU4 army automation yeuuughh by 1650 the micro starts getting annoying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:49
|
|
|
the only way to play hoi4 is speed 5 no pausing ever trying to desperately finish rebuilding a OOB with the soviets before the war starts is a rush little else can reach
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
At least GreyHunter makes cool LP threads out of playing strategy games insanely slow. This is just madness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
I know I have sort of a problem but I kinda can’t help myself. If I play faster I end up forgetting a unit on an island or something for a month. I feel like I can’t keep the whole map in my head and remember to respond to things quickly enough like I used to, so turning it into a Turn-Based Strategy game is my workaround.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
The most exciting part of EUIV is when you unlock a tech that gives +2% production efficiency. Not being ironic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Well yeah, if your idea of not boring means always having something to do, then yeah, combat is extremely not boring. But doing something is what video game. Beamed posted:
The screenshot you posted alone contains several interesting decisions the player has to make! The way the armies are split up you have to decide how to handle the invasion, who to attack first with how many units, how to get the exiled unit back home without it getting slaughtered... And that's only one part of the map, there's another 180K troops doing stuff elsewhere. There is a near-immediate feedback to player action and that creates the kind of interactivity that you generally want in, well, a videogame.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 09:58
|
|
|
Turtle Watch posted:I know I have sort of a problem but I kinda can’t help myself. If I play faster I end up forgetting a unit on an island or something for a month. I feel like I can’t keep the whole map in my head and remember to respond to things quickly enough like I used to, so turning it into a Turn-Based Strategy game is my workaround. Is this how you got your username?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
I also dont think the combat is that bad. I much prefer the paradox way than almost all other grand strategy games. I mean, compare it to Civ, for example (post 5, specially)Fister Roboto posted:Even something as simple as being able to tell an army to pursue another army, or take control of an area, or defend an area, would be a massive improvement. I think a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that there's really only one way of interacting with combat, and that's telling your army mans to move to a province. And if you don't tell them to, they do literally nothing. Yeah, this. edit: also: I think all grand strategy games have this same problem: war always end up being the bulk of the gameplay, so it has to be interactive, and fun. If you would abstract war, make it less interactive, than you have to make sure there a lot to do in the game besides war, and those things have to be interactive and fun Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
make non-war stuff interactive and fun, please. please?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
While you're at it, make war stuff fun and interactive too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:The screenshot you posted alone contains several interesting decisions the player has to make! The way the armies are split up you have to decide how to handle the invasion, who to attack first with how many units, how to get the exiled unit back home without it getting slaughtered... And that's only one part of the map, there's another 180K troops doing stuff elsewhere. There is a near-immediate feedback to player action and that creates the kind of interactivity that you generally want in, well, a videogame. Uninteresting choices that eat player attention economy, without at least flavor to make it seem interesting, is roughly identical to not interesting at all. *of course if it were an invasion force of a size that required coordination, it might be interesting. The trouble here is the busywork.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 13:32
|
|