|
Beamed posted:This is actually another User Experience regression Paradox decided to introduce, actually. This worked fine in EU3 and later EU4. Did the devs just really hate the team that created so many good UI improvements? My working theory was nobody could tell what wasn't on the list for inclusion because Johan had decided that actually it'd be better without it vs Johan just straight up forgot about it.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Walh Hara posted:I'm not sure I agree. It's historically accurate that you can conquer tons of land in one war, it's holding on to it afterwards that's was historically always the problem. I feel like, even though it's just out of scope, the game should be able to handle Alexander's conquests.  That would be my design target: make that work. Which I think means conquest should be even easier? Blobs are definitely far too stable, though. The Maurya in particular are absurdly resilient, which I think is a consequence of culture penalties being almost the only serious source of interior frictions and their culture group covering the entirety of northern India. e: reignonyourparade posted:My working theory was nobody could tell what wasn't on the list for inclusion because Johan had decided that actually it'd be better without it vs Johan just straight up forgot about it. They made a lot, prerelease, about there being a major overhaul of their core engine tech in this game, which I think may be a factor- if their codebase has changed sufficiently that a lot of this stuff had to be rebuilt from scratch then it's no wonder that we're missing most of the QoL features we've become accustomed to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Another Person posted:stop letting players get over a century ahead of tech. at one point i was something like 150 years ahead while everyone bar egypt was on tech 3. it is a bit too much of an advantage for singleplayer adventures.  I have no idea what you're talking about >.>
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:I feel like, even though it's just out of scope, the game should be able to handle Alexander's conquests. maurya has exploded in all my games thus far
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:I feel like, even though it's just out of scope, the game should be able to handle Alexander's conquests. I dunno dude. I think having it model more conventional stuff really well is more important than being able to simulate the exceptional events like that in history. You can't really do a full Napoleon in EU4 either. Would be kind of neat for the occasional ridiculous conquest to happen to shake things up though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I dunno dude. I think having it model more conventional stuff really well is more important than being able to simulate the exceptional events like that in history. You can't really do a full Napoleon in EU4 either. Maybe some type of "great conquest" casus beli that lets a nation take over absurd amounts of territory in single wars?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:I feel like, even though it's just out of scope, the game should be able to handle Alexander's conquests. You say "make that work," but it's not like Alexander's conquests actually worked in real life, either. His empire almost immediately fell apart. So it should work how? In that it's technically possible to do, but is a tremendously bad idea that is doomed to end in a game over? But then... why? The design target being Rome's conquests seems much saner to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Maybe some type of "great conquest" casus beli that lets a nation take over absurd amounts of territory in single wars? The mod Imperatium Universalis for EU4 had a kind of similar idea, where monarchs with exceptional stats unlock some stupidly powerful CB to simulate that kind of thing. Not sure how well it worked but it seems like a neat idea on paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:You say "make that work," but it's not like Alexander's conquests actually worked in real life, either. His empire almost immediately fell apart. So it should work how? In that it's technically possible to do, but is a tremendously bad idea that is doomed to end in a game over? But then... why? I mean it fell apart because Alexander made literally no attempt to keep it together. Alexander fell apart for the same reason a lot of kingdoms fell apart. No succession plan leads to civil war. It’s not special.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:You say "make that work," but it's not like Alexander's conquests actually worked in real life, either. His empire almost immediately fell apart. So it should work how? In that it's technically possible to do, but is a tremendously bad idea that is doomed to end in a game over? But then... why? "Make it work" purely in the the sense of "yeah you can take all that land at once". The peace system is not set up for that, at current. I'd rather see soft limits on the scale of conquest via economic and logistic constraints and a more complications in consolidating and administrating these massive empires than the hard limits of the warscore system, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
I just see that causing all sorts of other potential issues for what's really a super unusual situation. I'd much rather they balance a more robust system around saner kinds of expansion, even if it does sideline the occasional exception.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean it fell apart because Alexander made literally no attempt to keep it together. I dunno where you're getting that impression. Alexander absolutely intended for his empire to hold together after death and made preparations for it; hence founding all those Alexandrias, encouraging intermarriage between Persians and Macedonians, etc. It was the speed of his death and the fact that Roxanna hadn't yet given birth that set the stage for the Diadochi to tear themselves to pieces. Not trying to jump on you, people just take the "Alexander was a brash hothead who couldn't think beyond his next conquest" thing a little far KOGAHAZAN!! posted:"Make it work" purely in the the sense of "yeah you can take all that land at once". The peace system is not set up for that, at current. yeah hard agree with this. This is like, the era of map painting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean it fell apart because Alexander made literally no attempt to keep it together. My point was more that no rapidly conquered empire has ever stood long. It's possible that Alexander's empire's downfall would've been less sudden if his child was older, but he wasn't. And so my point is basically that if such a feat has never been successful in history, then the developers' time is better spent designing towards more realistic goals that don't also come with huge gameplay/balancing complications.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
So much of the game is unfinished. Not like not fleshed out, just forgotten about. I thought some cool political machinations were in the works when I, major power byzantion, had the heir to the Macedonian throne [M 30], appeal to join my court. I accepted and the event tooltip said this might lead to some interesting decisions. It didn't. Nothing happened. I gave the heir citizenship and he became another annoying family. And how about those favors? Looks like the powerful populist faction is going to maybe call a coup and a civil war with all the favors they racked up. Oh wait there's only one event where favors are called in and they just get more seats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I dunno where you're getting that impression. Alexander absolutely intended for his empire to hold together after death and made preparations for it; hence founding all those Alexandrias, encouraging intermarriage between Persians and Macedonians, etc. It was the speed of his death and the fact that Roxanna hadn't yet given birth that set the stage for the Diadochi to tear themselves to pieces. Literally none of those things matter to keep the empire together. It’s not like his empire fell back to the natives or old dynasties. Post Alexander was still ruled by Greeks, just many Greeks instead of one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Literally none of those things matter to keep the empire together. It’s not like his empire fell back to the natives or old dynasties. Post Alexander was still ruled by Greeks, just many Greeks instead of one. I think I'm just failing to understand your thesis here. 'Multiple feuding kingdoms ruled by Macedonian elites' is pretty qualitatively different than 'united empire ruled by one Macedonian royal house.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
There are so many other things that need to be fleshed out before we get to modeling 30-year-olds drinking themselves to death after conquering half the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I think I'm just failing to understand your thesis here. 'Multiple feuding kingdoms ruled by Macedonian elites' is pretty qualitatively different than 'united empire ruled by one Macedonian royal house.' My point is that his empire really didn’t fall apart do to size or cultural differences. It fell apart the same reason a lot of kingdoms fell apart, with no succession plan the generals stepped into the void. The intial argument was that Alexander’s kingdom fell apart because of how big it got and how quickly it happened. I don’t think that is particularly true
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:My point is that his empire really didn’t fall apart do to size or cultural differences. It fell apart the same reason a lot of kingdoms fell apart, with no succession plan the generals stepped into the void. Ahhh okay, then I agree with you
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Is there a compelling reason to integrate my subjects? They give me a maintenance free stack of 38k troops and only have like 4 provinces in the middle of nowhere on the Adriatic. I'm thinking the 38k troops is worth more?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Is there a compelling reason to integrate my subjects? They give me a maintenance free stack of 38k troops and only have like 4 provinces in the middle of nowhere on the Adriatic. I'm thinking the 38k troops is worth more? Pretty borders, events if you're Rome and unifying Italy/Greece/Illyria/etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Yooper posted:Is there a compelling reason to integrate my subjects? They give me a maintenance free stack of 38k troops and only have like 4 provinces in the middle of nowhere on the Adriatic. I'm thinking the 38k troops is worth more? I think best practice is to keep them until all the nearby threats have been neutralized. Then as your borders expand beyond, integrate them and convert that stack of troops into money/research. Uncontrollable subject armies in Italy aren't that useful when the frontier has been pushed to North Africa or Gaul.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Conquest SHOULD be easy. Holding it should be the hard part. Even more so than any other time in history, you should be able to point at land and go, I want that, it's mine, and the trouble is having to hold it. Of course even the game's base UI doesn't make that easy, as there's no easy way to see provincial breakdown of culture. As well to parallel other games, I think culture should be a bigger driver of that rebellious nature than religion, and there should be incentive to spread out conquered pops to other areas of your empire, essentially splitting up the cultural block. The ability for this to be in the game, and even the ability to manage it, are present, albeit very obtuse. Senor Dog posted:sounds like you want to be playing ck2 instead tbqh In a way, yeah, I wanted to play CK2 with stuff appropriate to this time period. Our history of this era is very 'character' driven, just by virtue of how it was left to us, we know the names of Phyrrus, Marius, Sulla, Scipio, and so on. The EU nation approach is a rather odd framework to view things from. And in the case of everything but Republics things, sort of function as in CK2. If your ruler loses a civil war, you're out. You're just not out if the dynasty dies out. As well a feature from CK2 that I like is the ability to play as a proper subject and rule the nation from the inside. Rome's start date has some super powers from the start that playing a minor can be very hard, and having the ability to swear fealty/client status/what have you, to eventually emerge as the ruler is satisfying gameplay. You could even differentiate say clients and vassals, client behaving as marchers from EU, military vassals that you cannot integrate but that add some military power on your border. If you played as one you couldn't interact much with the internal politics of your master, as you're still different states. Meanwhile vassals could be integrated, but would impact internal politics of the kingdom/republic they are subject to. Playing as a family rather than a nation could also introduce some incentive for you to care about the personal wealth of your character. I saw a holding 0/1 on some provinces, and while I have no idea what role that serves, I think it would be a neat layer of gameplay if each prominent family was aiming to control those holdings, setting up villas, latifundiia, and all the various other things that the mega wealthy did in their spare time. This would incentivize you to give governorship's to family members, and maybe even encourage corruption when you ruled, because no siphoning away the state coffers could confer some benefit to you. Ultimately, I guess i'm frustrated because it's a time period I massively love, and unlike EU4, there's some effort put into characters, emergent narrative, and the rp aspects, it's so close to being what I want, but what I want is ultimately not what the game is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
I think making the character ambition system a bit more prominent could work best as the mission system. Strengthens the character aspect and could allow for those rolling conquests from particularly ambitious characters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
I disagree with CK fitting this period better than EU. CK's period is very decentralized, so the character focus works well there; states didn't really get larger or more consolidated over its period. This game by comparison sets out to follow the establishment of an empire that ended up ruling most of the map, and largely irrespective of any individual dynasty. I'd definitely like to see the characters doing even more (and iirc that's a stated goal?) but the fractiousness family-play allows would feel kind of out of place I think. That said I kind of agree that playing sub-national powers would be nice, although if you can't as a family I'm not sure how it'd work. I have to say I've actually ended up pretty disappointed with the setting; the ancient world is my favorite period by a mile, but the setup is strikingly limiting in this format compared to how varied the CK2 and EU4 start dates are; it's basically 4 huge blobs on one side of the map and a mass of interchangeable OPM barbarians on the other half, with just a handful of regions with anything much different in between. It'll get better once there's more to set the barbarians apart more I hope, but being able to play as a part of one of the massive successor kingdoms would definitely add more variety. Eimi posted:Conquest SHOULD be easy. Holding it should be the hard part. Even more so than any other time in history, you should be able to point at land and go, I want that, it's mine, and the trouble is having to hold it. This would make for really boring gameplay if you can just squash your rivals irrecoverably after one big war though, wouldn't it? Expansion being slow enough for them to regain strength/change alliances between wars is important I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Koramei posted:This would make for really boring gameplay if you can just squash your rivals irrecoverably after one big war though, wouldn't it? Expansion being slow enough for them to regain strength/change alliances between wars is important I think. There was a real question if the Empire would survive the Julio-Claudines. And the interplay between various patrician families was huge in the development of the Republic. As an argument for why family/characters should matter more. As for that, you'd basically have taken your rival inside you. They should basically be working to ruin you as much as they can, until you can mollify them. Your conquests should be stopped as you have to spend time and resources pacifing the newly conquered population. Integration should be a big struggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
To be honest conquest shouldn’t be easy but holding historical wasn’t that hard before nationalism became a thing. You saw some rebellions, but regions didn’t have the communal ideal that started popping up in the 18th century. So you could conquer a foreign people and they mostly just accepted it. Because who cares which rich dudes are collecting your taxes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Folks kept jonesing for more internal conflict in EU and etc but the family/loyalty system in this is definitely not the way to go, it sucks if only on account of not really having much in the way of influencing it. "oh no they mad at you!! gonna stir trouble!!" well that sucks, have a bribe "we'll be back!!" poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
hosed up civil war mechanics means you don't want them to rebel ever, but if they get fixed you can just do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
After playing a game as Thrace it would be nice if I could choose somewhat where slaves were sent from conquest. By the end of the game I had well over 250 slaves in my capital and it was just too much of a pain in the rear end moving them out because you can only move them a few provinces away. Also please make it so the player gets military access if the enemy has it. The AI is able to come into your lands from some crazy rear end places where you cant actually follow them into.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
DurosKlav posted:Also please make it so the player gets military access if the enemy has it. The AI is able to come into your lands from some crazy rear end places where you cant actually follow them into. Maybe always allow access but with severe relationship negatives if you cross into them without officially granted access , though I think the AI would always eat the cost in that case and auto use it constantly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
You know this Sarmatian Revolt tag still sticking around twenty years after I ate Sarmatia is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Conquest SHOULD be easy. Holding it should be the hard part. Even more so than any other time in history, you should be able to point at land and go, I want that, it's mine, and the trouble is having to hold it. Of course even the game's base UI doesn't make that easy, as there's no easy way to see provincial breakdown of culture. As well to parallel other games, I think culture should be a bigger driver of that rebellious nature than religion, and there should be incentive to spread out conquered pops to other areas of your empire, essentially splitting up the cultural block. The ability for this to be in the game, and even the ability to manage it, are present, albeit very obtuse. Personally, I would like if each paradox game was unique instead of ck2 but in a different time period. Maybe you think this game is too much like EU4, but I don't think the solution is to instead make it too much like CK2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6-TdYfRerU Yeah, they gotta fix the names thing. (Yes I know my stats are nuts. I'm cheating.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Is there any strategy to building other than having all of one type of pop in a city and all of one corresponding building?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 06:24
|
|
|
slaves are your money, citizens are your research. but research has a cap so the rest are freemen, build to taste. the buildings are all good across the board to have, tho early on a fort and otherwise granaries are top picks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
I just don't understand populations in cities at all. Like I get what they each do, but am I trying to specialize a city as best as I can? Like do I want all slaves in one city, and all citizens in another? If that is the case, is there a way to see if a city is better suited to making it a research city, or a tax city?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
You basically want as many citizens as possible in your capital, and then slaves wherever you can get them up to 15 for a surplus good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Zotix posted:I just don't understand populations in cities at all. Like I get what they each do, but am I trying to specialize a city as best as I can? Like do I want all slaves in one city, and all citizens in another? If that is the case, is there a way to see if a city is better suited to making it a research city, or a tax city? In general, specializing individual cities isn't too terribly important. It's technically optimal to have all your freemen in cities with the manpower buildings. But honestly? I always end up with loads of manpower without ever specializing or focusing on it anyway, so I don't really see the need. Citizens and tribesmen have no city-specific modifiers, as far as I know. (edit: actually, capital cities have happiness bonuses which directly affects output, so stacking your capital sounds appealing, but keep in mind that more pops = higher growth penalty. and if the growth penalties outweigh the positive modifiers, your city starts starving) When promoting pops, however, you do want to pay attention to provincial modifiers and stack certain pop types in provinces with modifiers that benefit those pops. In provinces where you have or are importing precious metals, dyes, and/or papyrus, for instance, promote almost all of your tribesmen and freemen to citizens. Also do this in your capital, and then try to get those resources there too (due to the happiness bonus stated above). And don't promote above freemen in provinces with good freemen modifiers. Same with tribesmen in provinces with good tribesmen modifiers. (it may be theoretically optimal to promote those tribesmen eventually, but in practice you'll always have better pops to promote). Everything I've said here doesn't really apply to slaves, however. You will want to move slaves around much more than any of the other pop types. The reason for this is not to maximize money output with markets, but instead to maximize the production of key resources. In your capital province, identify the resources that would give you the most beneficial capital surplus bonuses, then make sure you have 15 slaves each in the cities that produce those resources. That will give you extra copies of those resources and give you the capital bonus without trading for it. As you get more slaves, you can try to move them to resources the AI often wants like wine in order to get more commerce income. This is something you'll want to spend a lot of oratory power on in the early game, actually (or civic power? I forget). You tend to start out with your slaves scattered about, with 5 to 10 of them here and there. Reach that extra resource threshold in as many places as possible, and you'll get some nice capital bonuses and trade money out of it. edit: The poster above basically said everything I just said in one sentence instead of three paragraphs. Go figure. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Apr 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I think making the character ambition system a bit more prominent could work best as the mission system. Strengthens the character aspect and could allow for those rolling conquests from particularly ambitious characters. I was expecting something like this too. You occasionally see characters with ambitions like "conquer <region>" so it just needs a tiny bit of tweaking for rulers to get these kinds of missions as well, add a few more other interesting ambitions for rulers, and tie ruler ambitions more directly into government with some special bonuses. Ambitions feel like one of the most "they're just there" parts of the game. They barely do anything and the game makes it pretty awkward to even see if someone has an ambition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2019 07:39
|
|
