|
Faffel posted:Paradox music is overly bombastic and totally at odds with the mood of the games. Nah HOI4 plays it really well.
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 11:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
PederP posted:Absolutely, playing Stellaris is a meditative experience for me. Mods?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:This is an entertaining post. Have a screenshot of what your nation looked like by the end of the game? Sure, here you go. Hellenic League, the nice shade of purple.  Please note that Phrygia is STILL huge. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
PederP posted:Yes, that was perhaps a bit too flowery praise from my side. The UI is indeed a travesty - and not even at a stage where polish makes sense. I just got ticked off by the "game plain sucks" and "game is early access" comments. At release there were also quite a few broken events, that you didn't notice unless you looked in the logs and saw the error message spam. By polished I meant the game as a whole - there's lots of awesome details like the animal icons for tactics, more events than Stellaris had at release, culture-specific unit names, a large variety of trade good effects. Many games release with barely healed wounds from cut content and unfinished features. Imperator: Rome has some rough parts, true, but at least for me it feels like I'm playing a game which was refined over several iterations, and not just crunched into a barely functional mess as release got close. I'll admit that may be a bar lowered due to cynicism and past disappointments. Since you mentioned it Battle Brothers is a loving great game and one that I wish more strategy games would take a long look at purely because of the level of asymmetry in the gameplay making it stay challenging while also letting you get that sweet, sweet feeling of constantly getting more powerful. I'd love a GSG where there were some factions which simply aren't designed to be playable by a human (Atilla Universalis when?)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
Well if we're going that way I recommend anyone who liked Battle Brothers to try Fell Seal. They themselves advertise each other. Fell Seal is like Final Fantasy Tactics and has a somewhat unique not-quite-pixel-art presentation. It's all about creating a very diverse characters through switching classes and combining class abilities. Like BB it has asynchronous gameplay as well as enemies who are just like your own combatants. The campaign is linear but with a freedom to revisit places you've been to for harder challenge or grinding. Unlike BB it's a high fantasy setting so abilities are much more diverse (magic attacks, teleports, potions, that kind of thing) and in general the game is more forgiving - by default it's not iron man and there's no permadeath (there are permanent injuries but they're rare).
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Well if we're going that way I recommend anyone who liked Battle Brothers to try Fell Seal. They themselves advertise each other. Fell Seal is like Final Fantasy Tactics and has a somewhat unique not-quite-pixel-art presentation. It's all about creating a very diverse characters through switching classes and combining class abilities. Like BB it has asynchronous gameplay as well as enemies who are just like your own combatants. The campaign is linear but with a freedom to revisit places you've been to for harder challenge or grinding. Unlike BB it's a high fantasy setting so abilities are much more diverse (magic attacks, teleports, potions, that kind of thing) and in general the game is more forgiving - by default it's not iron man and there's no permadeath (there are permanent injuries but they're rare). The Fell Seal story is bloody terrible though. Really like the mechanics and the difficulty settings but man it just doesn't make sense. Battle Brothers has a nice narrative that for me was ruined by having to fight Orcs/Goblins. It's a perfect game for someone who wants to roleplay though. PederP posted:more events than Stellaris had at release, That's just straight up not true at all.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Taear posted:The Fell Seal story is bloody terrible though. Really like the mechanics and the difficulty settings but man it just doesn't make sense. I think BB is more narrative agnostic as in you can ignore all the text and only concentrate on who you need to kill or where you can get a well-paid work. Fell Seal tries to be a JRPG so it has cutscenes, a lot of them. I don't find them offensive. But I see a problem in that you shouldn't just skip them (even though you have an option to skip everything): during those cutscenes new characters join or leave you, new classes and items become available and so on. It's not like you have to get deep in the story, there are no story choices or secrets there. So someone who doesn't like pulp fantasy fiction might get irritated, yes. Same goes for the art style: I can imagine it can be repulsive for some. The reason I'm mentioning that game is that it's surprising. As you say mechanics and options are great in this game. But it looks like something made in RPG Maker so I'm afraid many people may see the trailer, look at screenshots and think that it's a simple unimaginative game while in reality, it's great fun if art and story do not irritate you. Taear posted:That's just straight up not true at all. Johan said only CK2 had more events than IR on release. So it probably has roughly the same number of events as Stellaris. I guess that Johan counted DLC events in there.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I think BB is more narrative agnostic as in you can ignore all the text and only concentrate on who you need to kill or where you can get a well-paid work. I've not skipped anything. And I like pulp. It's just not well written, it doesn't tie together. Feels like it was made in bits with large gaps in between the writing so they'd forgotten stuff they'd written previously. The team is really small though, I guess that might be the reason behind it. I've got like....30 hours in IR now and I've seen maybe 10 events? They're always the same few over and over and over. Maybe that's my punishment for being tribals?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Taear posted:That's just straight up not true at all. It felt that way to me. Imperator has about 1050 events. Not sure how many Stellaris had at release. Comparing the current event script files - Stellaris (including expansions and patches) is twice the size in bytes. I know that's a terrible metric, but it does give some idea of the amount of event content for each game. Where Imperator does very poorly is in the number of bugged event scripts (look at the error.log after a game). It's better now than at release, but there's still a decent amount of error messages. That's one point where they should have given the game extra time or been more stringent on QA.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I think calling a game which actively reverted a bunch of UI improvements (and MP chat lmfao) and openly is missing things talked about in dev diaries "polished" is ambitious, but this is the most active this thread has been since launch so at least this debate is the most lively the game's community looks What things were these? They've added more than was in the dev diaries if anything, and improved on a few things in later diaries that people didn't like. I agree on the UI and how there still doesn't feel like there's a lot there anyway, but I think it's pretty unfair to claim Paradox was being misleading. Also yeah, a couple of days ago this thread, for a like 2 week old game, got like 3 posts over the course of an entire day or something. I hope it'll bounce back over time but jeez PederP posted:I guess my point is that even the best of strategy game AI isn't at the level of chess AI, where it is able to beat human at playing the game proper. I mean yeah, no kidding, and chess is probably like 3 or 4 orders of magnitude simpler than a strategy game like Paradox's. Don't get me wrong I'd love it if the AI could play by the rules and be properly challenging, but that people hold that as though it's the standard devs should be able to achieve right now is ridiculously unreasonable. I can appreciate wanting that kind of fair play but honestly I think people's obsession with having the AI never cheat is really harmful to making the games better too; I'd so much rather have a cheating but challenging or interesting AI than one that plays by the same rules as me and falls flat for doing so. Your comment about how the asymmetric starts don't tickle your strategy itch is really interesting though, I love them and I think they provide a great challenge and are one of Paradox games' bigger strengths, but I guess I can see why it's not something everybody would want. IMO it kind of sounds like Paradox games just aren't for you though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Also yeah, a couple of days ago this thread, for a like 2 week old game, got like 3 posts over the course of an entire day or something. I hope it'll bounce back over time but jeez I do like the game but there really isn't much to talk about at the moment, the AI isn't able to play the strategic part of the game well enough (which is a shame because the army AI actually feels quite good with a couple of minor though occasionally crippling exceptions) to get the sort of "bastard loving Ottomans" narratives that you get out of EU4 and there's not enough flavourful events to produce CK2-style hilarity. I guess it just isn't very exciting? You make lot of decisions but none of them are really that big of a deal unless you end up going to war with too many tribes (the fact that a random chunk of gallic tribes is scarier than the Seleucid Empire etc is kind of a big problem imo). Like, the AI is great at dogpiling you but then you beat their 1 or 2 armies and they have zero manpower and you annex them
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
Koramei posted:What things were these? They've added more than was in the dev diaries if anything, and improved on a few things in later diaries that people didn't like. I agree on the UI and how there still doesn't feel like there's a lot there anyway, but I think it's pretty unfair to claim Paradox was being misleading.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Ill come back for a rome playthrough once 1.1 drops and see how I feel about things after that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Yeah I'm starting to get bored of this game already. I'm neither a complete noob to Paradox games nor a 1000's hour fanatic. It just... isn't interesting. It sells itself as a CK2/EU4 blend but it really doesn't do either very well. As an narrative game, it's just not there. There is no attachment to families or characters in anything approaching CK2. And don't give me some bullshit about years of development because most of my CK2 experience was in it's first year. As a strategy game, it might be alright for multiplayer but in SP it's just slow and boring. The wars themselves are ok mechanically but just not particularly engaging, and there's nothing there to shake things up after the early game. It suffers from the Total War Effect before they implemented things like Realm Divide and the Chaos Invasion, but even worse. And there is little to do during peacetime except shuffle and manage pops, which is the opposite of fun and interesting, especially with the cumbersome UI. I'm not gonna say it's trash or unfinished, because it's neither of those things. But... I wouldn't recommend it! For stories/roleplay, CK2 is still far superior. For engaging strategy, either stay with EU4/Stellaris or seek a different developer. Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 17:03 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:Ill come back for a rome playthrough once 1.1 drops and see how I feel about things after that. Right, and I'll go ahead and ask this - the earlier article by strategygamer about this game's negative reviews was ultimately asking, if everyone is going to be waiting for the potential of this game to be unlocked, but this is a great start to unlocking it, does the game deserve Mostly Negative on Steam? If yes, why? A game like this that has the potential to be really good that Paradox insists they'll continue supporting to do, that's hardly a mostly negative game. Will reviewers go update their reviews as the game gets more and more support? Should they? If no, why not? It's boring and shallow right now. Missing UX stuff from previous games. Intentionally not providing varied gameplay within tribes/monarchies/republics. I dunno, I don't really pay attention to Steam reviews (and Paradox doesn't really need to either), but it's worth talking about.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Steam shows recent reviews. If it mostly gets positive reviews when 1.1 release, you can tell. The idea that you can't review a game in its current state, but have to wait for some nebulous future release to review it needs to be taken out back and shot. Same goes for betas and early access games going for years and years, dismissing any negative review with "Well it's beta/early access". If you're selling the game to people, people can tell other people what they think of how the game currently plays.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
I think the brigading is pretty stupid though and that makes up a good chunk of the reviews. The game definitely doesn't deserve to be at mostly negative, although yeah conversely I'm gonna wait until how 1.1 turns out before I want to actually recommend it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Imo the game deserves a solid "mixed"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I think the brigading is pretty stupid though and that makes up a good chunk of the reviews. The game definitely doesn't deserve to be at mostly negative, although yeah conversely I'm gonna wait until how 1.1 turns out before I want to actually recommend it. What separates brigading from a bunch of people having negative reviews and choosing to post them? I thought the divider was when people who don't own the game or product post negative reviews for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Communist Walrus posted:What separates brigading from a bunch of people having negative reviews and choosing to post them? I thought the divider was when people who don't own the game or product post negative reviews for whatever reason. It's brigading because he doesn't agree with the reviews.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
e^ I dunno, I think it goes farther, especially with lots of the DLCs. Things like last year when every Paradox game got review bombed because of whatever that controversy was, or when there's a bad localization and so on. Honestly I mostly agree with the complaints against Imperator, and I wanted to like it, even. Still don't think it deserves the rating it has on steam though. People like that dude who bought 5 copies just so he could leave more negative reviews. Although yeah I guess it's kind of murky. I would disagree with a lot of the complaints people get vocal about (e.g. the mana stuff) and think people get way too angry about them, but then I guess it's not like they're invalid opinions, you're right. Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:47 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Koramei posted:People like that dude who bought 5 copies just so he could leave more negative reviews. How are people taking this seriously. How. Why.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Have you seen Paradox reviews? It's 100% believable. Not like it's even logistically particularly difficult. The "took away my ability to feel human" thing is one thing but there absolutely are people like that 5 reviews guy.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Your comment about how the asymmetric starts don't tickle your strategy itch is really interesting though, I love them and I think they provide a great challenge and are one of Paradox games' bigger strengths, but I guess I can see why it's not something everybody would want. IMO it kind of sounds like Paradox games just aren't for you though. Oh, I do like asymmetry in some forms, and I think I also mentioned my favorite way to play CK2 is to pick some obscure culture and bring it to greatness. I don't like "brains vs brawn", where challenge is created by forcing the player not just optimize, but try to find mechanics that can be abused. I agree that Paradox games are rich in the right kind of asymmetry, which is why I like pretty much all of them. There's a good mix of not-awful AI (in most cases), good mechanics and unfair random stuff. I am not too fond of punitive mechanics, but those are pretty reasonably tuned in the other games (maybe except launch Stellaris which was supremely frustrating when it came to the colonized system cap). Not sure why you'd surmise I don't like Paradox games just because I don't care much about "winning" them via map painting. I like them exactly because they're great games to play without caring about winning. I also like Imperator, but I miss the breadth of supported playstyles from the other games and am somoewhat grumpy about how the design pushes me to expand and conquer. But on the other hand, it's actually fun to be forced into this change of pace. But when I put the game down, I am also looking forward to updates and mods giving me more of the elements I prefer (I'd love expanded culture mechanics, more complex internal politics, developing the infrastructure of provinces, etc.). My original point was that the very focused design is probably a big reason many players are upset about the game (not that I myself was upset at it). They expect a mix of EU4 and CK2, but find something that's much more like the older EU games. Those who enjoy map painting will probably be completely puzzled at why people are complaining. But there's a lot of players who really just want to dick around with a weird minor nation amd roleplay; or fulfilll some objective (create a buddhist republic in Scotland before the game ends, migrate from Kush to the euroasian steppes, etc.); or focus on playing tall. I remember seeing someone who was worried about this being Johan's passion project. I was extremely puzzled at the time - why would he consider this a problem? But I think I understand now. It's a throwback to an era of Paradox games that had a somewhat different design focus than recent games. A key difference is that Imperator is supremely open to modding, but a lot of players got really angry when Johan mentioned this as a way for people to get some of the design elements they wanted.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:How are people taking this seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Paradox tore away my ability to roleplay...
Party In My Diapee fucked around with this message at 22:38 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:
I haven't bought the game, but I've been watching a ton of lets plays while I wait for the 1.1 patch and I think this kind of hits on a big thing I noticed. Once the mid/late game comes around you really dont have much pressure in you apart from waging external wars against empires of similar size. Thats not bad but it leaves the game kind of hallow, especially for the time period. I think they need more ways to ramp up the pressure on you to make choices to balance your empire size vs the realities of ruling a large area considering that was a constant source of headace for ancient empires (be is Persian satrapts or Roman proconsuls). This kind of ties into an observation I had that despite the game having 3 governments/ways to play, only the tribal ones really feels like it has some mechanical meat to it. I think it'd be beneficial to really model more difficulties for the player/ai to overcome with the governments. For example with Republics, there doesnt seem to be a whole lot to it. Sure you need senate approval for stuff and have to balance the factions, but it seems half cooked. If the populists (  ) gain control you just take an efficiency hit for a couple years and they're out. It'd be cool if they could implement more features to really model why republics at this times didnt want populism triumphing, maybe make it so if they get elected you're stuck having to fulfill an expensive grain dole for a long period of time (either acting as a sink to money or a trade route), or maybe be stuck having to wage a war against someone the drat plebes think is a threat.On top of that, have charaters who get money have the ability to have their own private forces. Rome and Carthage both had massive private armies running around (hell Hannibal basically used his personal fortune to raise his invasion and until the Marian reforms and even after Legions would be raised and funded by private citizens), this can add another dimension to the concern about civil wars so its not just playing juggle commanders to dodge popularity hits. For the factions you can even have them sibdivide by issue (kind of like Stellaris) so that maybe you can have prominent citizens backing with their wealth and private armies issues they care about (like Cato yelling "Carthago delenda est" every senate session). I'm not saying we need massive mechanical complexity, but having more ways to interact with and having more potential issues we have to deal with internally could really spice up the game and help it mechanically find a more solid footing. I have a whole wishlist of stuff I wouldnt mind seeing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Azuren posted:How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right? Pronounce how your heart tells you to
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:Pronounce how your heart tells you to "loving bastards guaranteeing everyone in Greece while I'm over here trying to Make Sparta Great Again"
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Azuren posted:How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right? Μακεδονία, hth
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Azuren posted:How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right? It was originally spelt with the Kappa thing which is the hard K, yeah. This stands in contrast with Seleucid, which is pronounced with a soft C, but the dynasty founder was actually Seleukos, which is.. weird.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Azuren posted:How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right? Correct, C in classical Latin is always a hard consonant. The process of turning it into a sibilant happened as Latin transitioned into the Romance languages. Also G is always a hard consonant. And Ph is the Latinization of Greek Φ, which in ancient Greek is an aspirated plosive, so it doesn't sound like F at all it sounds like a hard P with some air exhaled along with or right after it. So Phrygia is sort of like "Pehh-ree-gee-uh'. English doesn't have any aspirated plosives so this is an awkward thing to say for English speakers, and this rabbit hole is very deep and you may as well give up and pronounce it however sounds best because this isn't a linguistics class and we're never going to get anything truly authentic. Just don't say Fergia, that's stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
Family Values posted:English doesn't have any aspirated plosives so this is an awkward thing to say for English speakers, Not quite true; English does, we just don't distinguish between them. The /p/ in "pin" is aspirated, but the /p/ in "spin" isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
lol at some of those steam reviews. "After binging the game for 60 hours I have finally decided it is bad and not worth it." If I play a game for 60 hours before I finally give up out of boredom then that sounds good to me. For a $40 game that means less than a dollar for an hour of entertainment. I haven't played the game yet but it seems fun from the videos I've watched of it. I don't care if the game has a thousand hours of content in it. The map is really pretty and I love the artwork and it seems like it would be fun to just paint the map in a setting like that. There were also like 9,000 reviews on there. If only a small fraction of players who bought the game left reviews then Paradox must have made a lot of money on this game already. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 05:35 on May 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Jimmy4400nav posted:I haven't bought the game, but I've been watching a ton of lets plays while I wait for the 1.1 patch and I think this kind of hits on a big thing I noticed. Once the mid/late game comes around you really dont have much pressure in you apart from waging external wars against empires of similar size. Thats not bad but it leaves the game kind of hallow, especially for the time period. I think they need more ways to ramp up the pressure on you to make choices to balance your empire size vs the realities of ruling a large area considering that was a constant source of headace for ancient empires (be is Persian satrapts or Roman proconsuls). I do think there should be more tension between the noble families and the state, because I guess if you had to boil down internal issues for a lot of the big players, the dynamic between people supporting the state and themselves drove a lot of that tension. That's why many societies developed as they did, trying to herd the nobles into making what's good for them good for the state, and the one's that imploded couldn't manage those tensions. I'd prefer CK style playing as a family, so that you are directly in that role, of perhaps not wanting to do what's best for Rome, but do what's best for your family, siphoning off funds, incurring tyranny by taking out rivals, that sort of thing. Or they could code the AI doing that, however if it wasn't an act you were in control of that would be insanely annoying. Or pointless, as all interactions that use a character's personal wealth do now. I thought things like managing loyalty and different cultures would at least fulfill that desire to have meaningful peacetime mechanics but right now the balance on them is really off. Culture is incredibly binary, either they are your culture and are happy, or they aren't and are useless and should be converted. There's no middle ground of working through a mixed culture empire, it's all about making them your culture asap, and the game has tools so you can do this instantly if you so wish. Loyalty as well is something you basically have to try to have an issue with. Your tools for managing it are incredibly powerful and the drops to it don't really occur if you are playing decently.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Correct, C in classical Latin is always a hard consonant. The process of turning it into a sibilant happened as Latin transitioned into the Romance languages. Also G is always a hard consonant. And Ph is the Latinization of Greek Φ, which in ancient Greek is an aspirated plosive, so it doesn't sound like F at all it sounds like a hard P with some air exhaled along with or right after it. So Phrygia is sort of like "Pehh-ree-gee-uh'. English doesn't have any aspirated plosives so this is an awkward thing to say for English speakers, and this rabbit hole is very deep and you may as well give up and pronounce it however sounds best because this isn't a linguistics class and we're never going to get anything truly authentic. I'm gonna keep calling it fridgia and you can't stop me
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 07:58
|
|
|
Azuren posted:How the hell do you pronounce Macedon, anyway? I've seen it Anglicized as "Makedon" before (Europa Barbarorum what up!) Hard K, there was no soft C right? It's pronounced the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Northern Macedonia, and I'll fight any UN peacenik who says otherwise
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 10:41
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:It's pronounced the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Northern Macedonia, and I'll fight any UN peacenik who says otherwise that's a funny way to spell Srbija  Eimi posted:I do think there should be more tension between the noble families and the state, because I guess if you had to boil down internal issues for a lot of the big players, the dynamic between people supporting the state and themselves drove a lot of that tension. That's why many societies developed as they did, trying to herd the nobles into making what's good for them good for the state, and the one's that imploded couldn't manage those tensions. I'd prefer CK style playing as a family, so that you are directly in that role, of perhaps not wanting to do what's best for Rome, but do what's best for your family, siphoning off funds, incurring tyranny by taking out rivals, that sort of thing. Or they could code the AI doing that, however if it wasn't an act you were in control of that would be insanely annoying. Or pointless, as all interactions that use a character's personal wealth do now. That is something I really wish to see, more ways to interact with the families; like having to balance them to either be happy and influential, or unhappy and not influential, and also more ways to please them rather than a flat "do we have X% of employed people/nation wealth Y/N", and also a bit less randomness - sometimes I found myself without people to actually cover offices for very long stretches of time, then when a "new generation" comes of age I have a ton of unemployed people losing loyalty and becoming populist because there's literally not enough positions to go around to keep even half of them happy
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
TorakFade posted:That is something I really wish to see, more ways to interact with the families; like having to balance them to either be happy and influential, or unhappy and not influential, and also more ways to please them rather than a flat "do we have X% of employed people/nation wealth Y/N", and also a bit less randomness - sometimes I found myself without people to actually cover offices for very long stretches of time, then when a "new generation" comes of age I have a ton of unemployed people losing loyalty and becoming populist because there's literally not enough positions to go around to keep even half of them happy One way I was musing on to fix the employment issue was to turn government/research positions, or even governorships, into "departments," where characters can find employment in order to boost the department's bonus even more at the cost of more wages. Maybe even make it automatic, with the department head being the only one you have to choose manually. That way you won't have to make multiple tiny stacks of light infantry just so Joeus Schmolius won't feel like he's being neglected or have nothing to do. And then you can have the actual political part be departments bickering with each other, or department members fighting each other for your ruler's favor.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2019 11:29
|
|