|
Having some form of automated mission like navies to do in an area wouldn't go amiss, but it would probably be very clunky in practice. No one actually owns the sea (except Britain ofc) so it's static in that regard, while most missions in fact are really awful for how wide spread they are. (like patrolling the entire loving med and taking attrition ugh) So you're still prompted for more manual control, but whatev that fixes itself in the long run. That said, if you find bossing armies around boring and tedious then... honestly you're probably just bored of Eu4 at this point? Push comes to shove it plays the same no matter where you are, you just have a slightly different statblock. You're doing the same thing with war and mashing dudes together and the AI is probably not putting up an existential fight on you and so on. But if wholesale abstract war away then you're left with a kind of skinnerbox game. Now, Europaclick might be pretty neat as an April Fools game, but
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:The most exciting part of EUIV is when you unlock a tech that gives +2% production efficiency. Not being ironic. The most exciting part of EU4 is reorganizing your trade routes to optimize income
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
You should let your vassal swarm do the busywork.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:You should let your vassal swarm do the busywork. Or be the HRE and let your vassal swarm do all the work
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
The most exciting part is restarting 50 times at the start until you have the right alliances
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I agree instant feedback is good, but the feedback here is very boring and uninteresting* - the 30k army, for example, easily outnumbers each of the enemy armies, so it's trivial to just bring it in and begin sieging. I wouldn't be entirely too certain about that; the player is the Mongols and fighting against France, so if the armies in the north are able to move southwards to link up with the lonesome 17K stack it could be less of a certain victory. But even if it is a certain victory, there's still things to be done, like managing to link up with the exiled stack in a safe way and dividing the forces in a good way between freeing the occupied territory and going on the offensive so that you can win the war as best as you can and get the most out of it that you can. Your complaints here are more focused on what happens after the player has managed to snowball to the point where there's no challenges, at which point you might argue that the player has already won. And I kind of agree, it's the kind of reason why I could never possibly do a world conquest. It's the reason most players' games end a good century or two before the end date. But that is its own can of worms, and not a question of "is warfare in EU4 interesting".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
When I see that screenshot I just think of all the annoying poo poo I have to deal with to "solve" it. Like already there's a problem of the armies being split up into a few dozen single stacks, and the AI can do that easily because it has unlimited attention and infinite APM. If I move one of my armies to try to attack them, they'll all move out of the way with perfect timing, so I have to keep my attention on my army to keep following them. If I ignore any of those tiny stacks they might occupy one of my provinces and raise a small army of mercs from it. It's also not the whole picture - there are enemy armies to the south, east, and west that I'd have to pay attention to as well. And not to mention all the other non-war things that might require your attention. I don't see any meaningful decisions to be made here, just tedious clicking and babysitting. The overall problem for me is that mid to late game warfare requires fighting on multiple large fronts, and your only real tool for dealing with it is "select army -> click province". I've said it before in the EU4 thread, but it's like trying to exterminate an ant colony by crushing each ant one by one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
In the simplest form: Why can't I just give another army as a target for my movement instead of a province? Why do I have to keep repeatedly clicking the places the army moves to? Then I get to either stare at the map as they close in ignoring whatever other fights are going on or accept them dodging out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
I’m gonna straight up say that if you think EU4 war is fun, you are a crazy person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
See also: why can I not choose between 'fastest route' and 'whatever weird routing preferences this game tries to use by default' when moving armies? There's a definite weighing for preferring your own country and minimizing attrition, which is fine I guess, but sometimes I just want them my army to walk directly there without having to shiftclick a dozen times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:23
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Close wars in EU4 are extremely fun, especially if there's interesting terrain. It would be nice to have some automation options for when the outcome is virtually certain, but I can't complain too much about those wars, they're kind of boring by definition. Sorry if I committed any thoughtcrimes in this post
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Magissima posted:Close wars in EU4 are extremely fun, especially if there's interesting terrain. It would be nice to have some automation options for when the outcome is virtually certain, but I can't complain too much about those wars, they're kind of boring by definition. Sorry if I committed any thoughtcrimes in this post
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
i think most people in this thread who don't like war want optional automation features instead of removing war from the game entirely
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Magissima posted:Close wars in EU4 are extremely fun, especially if there's interesting terrain. It would be nice to have some automation options for when the outcome is virtually certain, but I can't complain too much about those wars, they're kind of boring by definition. Sorry if I committed any thoughtcrimes in this post Right and playing well and hitting the inflection curve means you'll probably be spending 2/3 to 3/4 of the game having those kinds of wars instead of the wars that you just defined as fun, so automation options for (by your criteria) boring wars that encompass >50% of the game, would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Right and playing well and hitting the inflection curve means you'll probably be spending 2/3 to 3/4 of the game having those kinds of wars instead of the wars that you just defined as fun, so automation options for (by your criteria) boring wars that encompass >50% of the game, would be nice. I guess you're a lot better at the game than me. In the last two games I finished (Poland and India) I had megawars with the Ottomans right up till the end of the game, and I count the Caucasian front of that Poland-Ottoman war as one of the most challenging and fun experiences I've had in EU4. aardvaard posted:i think most people in this thread who don't like war want optional automation features instead of removing war from the game entirely There has been more than one person arguing for complete AI control of all unit movement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Magissima posted:There has been more than one person arguing for complete AI control of all unit movement. Some not even automating unit movement, but removing units entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Magissima posted:I guess you're a lot better at the game than me. In the last two games I finished (Poland and India) I had megawars with the Ottomans right up till the end of the game, and I count the Caucasian front of that Poland-Ottoman war as one of the most challenging and fun experiences I've had in EU4. I mean, there are two different posters in the EU4 thread last few days that accomplished World Conquests, there are lots of skilled players in EU4 that hit the inflection curve and spend much of their time having wars that are real straightforward because they have a bunch of allies / vassals / know how to work the war and diplomacy systems. It would be really nice to be able to click enemy armies as a destination and have the AI route to them semi reasonably. I get that not everyone will agree, I'm not sure I grasp what's scary about that concept  Maybe it can be admin tech gated or mil tech gated to the midgame like force march?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Sure, but I don't think optimizing the game for those who have already totally mastered/broken it is particularly valuable use of dev time. I don't have any issue with your suggestion and it sounds helpful (though I suspect it might not work well in practice), just the ridiculous insinuation that wars are totally broken or always boring.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Magissima posted:There has been more than one person arguing for complete AI control of all unit movement. Who? Fellblade posted:Some not even automating unit movement, but removing units entirely. I don't think this is something that will realistically happen, but it's something interesting to think about. Why are armies as discrete units such an essential feature? I think it's entirely possible that you could make a fun, interesting war game that's based around directing manpower at various fronts, rather than mashing your counters into each other. That's basically what HOI4 is, while still giving you the option to control individual units. Literally everything is abstracted to some degree. You don't have to tell your merchants what goods to trade. You don't have to tell your builders what architectural style to build your temples with. You don't have to tell your diplomats how polite they should be to foreign dignitaries. So why is directly controlling your armies as discrete units such a fundamental necessity for the game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Putting counter moving directly into ai hands, even for player nations, would make paradox games a lot more fun and be much more true to “grand strategy.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I’m gonna straight up say that if you think EU4 war is fun, you are a crazy person. i can't decide between  or  so you get both
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
wars in paradox games have always worked inspite of clicking pixelmans around a map and growing annoyed with them after a hudred hours when the shine of the good parts wears off and the flaws grow more annoying due to exposure is natural remove pixelmans and create a manpower/material assinment system that uses technology, modifiers from events representing intense debate about military doctrine, and personality traits of assigned generals to instead create gameplay that takes your countries character into account more while also introduce a narrative element that's super popular with casual players. As everything I post about this is for Vicky 3 it would also allow for greater integration of the games theme of industrialization by having the player worry more about industrial management and wide scale labor disputes among pops than boring old carpet sieges
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Fair enough. Are they wrong though? You might subjectively not like it, but you could definitely make a fun game where you give your armies more general orders like "defend this region" or "hunt down the enemy forces" and the AI handles the micro, rather than just "go to this specific province and await my direct orders". Like I said, everything gets abstracted to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
I mean it would be interesting if they took out counters in favour of a sort of HOI 4 style front painting system. You as the presumed demonic being possessing the monarch tell your generals to paint this bit of the map your colour, and you will give them x thousand men to do it with. Flesh generals out to be more interesting than a single die roll and have it be more about managing your generals and their personalities than about counter pushing, with jealousies, dis loyalties, personal ambitions ect all getting in the way. Have a few buttons you can press to override your generals and order an offensive or hold a position. Maybe have the likelihood of this working out the way you want it to be related to your current ruler's stats and your relationships to the generals you appointed. Have the make ruler a general button still there which will remove any possible penalties from giving direct orders but make it so the front calculations are taken from the ruler's stats rather than the general's, and carries the risk of the ruler dieing early. Maybe your heir could also take direct command like this but with a chance of the armies and generals on the front deciding they like him better than you and starting a civil war if he preforms well and is ambitious. Do I think this is ever going to happen? No. Should I be sent to the gulag for daring to think about it? I hope not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
"Fronts" in Europa and Crusader Kings wouldn't make any sense historically. Wars were fought in giant battles with a shitload of guys, not in big lines along your frontier. That came later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Yeah I know, but neither did the king choose which town the battle would take place over, usually, unless he was leading himself. I just said front because the HOI 4 is the closest to this system we have so far. Actually it would probably work more like the aerial battles bucket system in practice, but with the ability to define the coverage of the bucket instead of it being fixed. I was more thinking from the King's perspective he tells his dude to go and conquer lower Silesia, here's 25k men, off you go. So you as the player would paint over half a dozen provinces or whatever, and the game would calculate where the battle would actually occur based on how many men, how many men opposing you, ect. How far away from your own province you can paint would depend on your logistics tech, buildings present ect. Your opponent would see a warning as soon as you commit troops, (with estimated troop numbers improving over time maybe?) and could then paint his own provinces and appoint an army to defend, I don't know, I]m not trying to say this is a fully thought out idea but this whole conversation is about design philosophy not detailed system design.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Fair enough. Are they wrong though? You might subjectively not like it, but you could definitely make a fun game where you give your armies more general orders like "defend this region" or "hunt down the enemy forces" and the AI handles the micro, rather than just "go to this specific province and await my direct orders". No one is saying that games with abstracted combat wouldn't work. They're saying that Paradox' warfare simulators ain't it and won't become it unless something drastic happens. Just like they most likely won't go the other way and implement Panzer General levels of detail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:No one is saying that games with abstracted combat wouldn't work. They're saying that Paradox' warfare simulators ain't it and won't become it unless something drastic happens. Just like they most likely won't go the other way and implement Panzer General levels of detail. Problem is that it's just looking at people discussing something they find interesting and demanding they stop having fun. no I will not, eat it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
The frustrating thing I find about EU combat is the game is absolutely built around it, but you have so little input to affect the outcomes, unless you micro the gently caress out of it. Like you have exact control over every 1k man stack, but as soon as an actual battle breaks out its just a d10. I don't know, it just feels like the system has had it's day, it hasn't really changed at all since EU2 after all, maybe even EU1, I don't know I didn't play 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Gort posted:"Fronts" in Europa and Crusader Kings wouldn't make any sense historically. Wars were fought in giant battles with a shitload of guys, not in big lines along your frontier. That came later. Field of Glory is doing a thing where battles in their upcoming grand strategy game will be playable in their turn-based wargame if you own both. Minor battles you can let the game resolve normally, but particularly important ones you can choose to export to the tactical game, play them out and import the results into the GSG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Not gonna lie, I am considerably more hype for FoG:E than Imperator, AEGOD jank and all. Apart from the battles I'm really looking for to their culture/decadence system, sounds like a more interesting and interactive take on aggressive expansion than just a plain modifier in the dev diaries at a least, will be interesting to see how it actually plays. I really like their attitude to buildings too, a huge variety overall but a system of weighted cards to decide what is available to build in different provinces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Yeah I know, but neither did the king choose which town the battle would take place over, usually, unless he was leading himself. I just said front because the HOI 4 is the closest to this system we have so far. Actually it would probably work more like the aerial battles bucket system in practice, but with the ability to define the coverage of the bucket instead of it being fixed. I like that
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I like that
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Is this how you got your username? Ha that would be funny  but it is just the name of a random province in good TBS game Dominions 3 that I liked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
I’ll amend my previous post to say that EU4 wars can be fun, but it’s in spite of the current system, not because of it, and also you are not a literal insane person if you have enjoyed it. Paradox makes fun games. If CK2 had production lines and battle plans, and HoI4 had retinues and a “summon the levies to Moscow” button, they would be fun. The current nonsense like standing armies in 1444 and soldiers who are immortal unless you kill them is also fun. But it could be more fun. The meat of paradox games to me is getting invested in your janky shitcountry/dynasty/nation and seeing what happens. 4x games are done better elsewhere. Real time wargames are done better elsewhere. Full grog counter movers are done better elsewhere. Paradox games somehow synthesize them into a really cool, fun thing that we all like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Hoi5 will keep the strategic layer but they will use the engine from graviteam to determine combat results
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
I don't know what game mechanics Hoi5 will have but Hoi6 will be played with sticks and stones
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:I don't know what game mechanics Hoi5 will have but Hoi6 will be played with sticks and stones 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:I don't know what game mechanics Hoi5 will have but Hoi6 will be played with sticks and stones It's a shame this is too long for a thread title.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted: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. Next weeks dev diary for Imperator will be good for you then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2019 07:57
|
|
