|
CK2 has a little of that with piety and prestige, but there are ways to generate more and half the time you don't really make use of either and it's just a bit of a high score kinda thing. Tradition sounds like technology counting up in most Paradox games. Weren't missionaries/diplomats/merchants also a bit like a mana system in Europa Universalis? From the sound of people's complaints, the game gated enough actions behind spending points that it could leave players unable to do much. A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, direct manipulation feels wrong to me. The national focus system alternative definitely needs a boost though. Like, make it interact with other parts of the game. Take the "Encourage Immigration" focus. That could be a multi-faceted focus, with different effects based on who uses it. In the ancient period, there were straight-up settlement programs of conquered tribes or retiring soldiers, as well as more voluntary colonies. If you're talking about Victoria, there was definitely a ton of voluntary immigration to have subtle influence over, but there were also a bunch of penal colony scenarios, although that wasn't as reliable at providing a workforce as slavery. It'd also be neat to have some kind of land sales program, both for selling land in the frontier (possibly selling land that is already occupied and creating some kind of conflict) and selling confiscated land after some kind of reform breaks the old order or screws over some people. SlothfulCobra fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jul 4, 2019 |
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
I honestly didn't have a problem with the mana (although I'm realizing I'm happy to see it go) but the instant reaction time around everything really bothered me. It does not feel right to convert the culture and religion of hundreds of thousands of people overnight. Even from a gameplay sense I'm not really convinced at all that it's better; it wasn't some integral part of EU4, but weighing out which province to convert because there's an imminent rebellion / it might get sieged down a bunch in a way etc was a genuine thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:good news is, they're literally scrapping all of this as we speak. There's a beta patch available that does away with most of that, if I understood it correctly no it's still bad news, cuz they took "wow we did this system that was pretty solid in eu4 and really loving beefed it huh" as "poo poo no mana ever then"
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Paradox took a hard turn away from the simulationist bits of Vicky 2 with EU4 and HOI4 and those games are all the better for it. I think there can be a happy medium. A semi-mana, semi-simulation-of-economy system could be really great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not sure I'm getting what you're referring to here. Sure, Vicky 2 is more simulationist than EU4, but EU4 is also more simulationist than EU3. It's simply also a better put together game than EU3. EU4 is absolutely not more simulationist than EU3? Look at culture conversion for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:no it's still bad news, cuz they took "wow we did this system that was pretty solid in eu4 and really loving beefed it huh" as "poo poo no mana ever then" using mana for literally everything and having processes that should be lengthy be instant, which just makes mana actually feel like magic, those things are bad. but abstract points to represent things that are otherwise hard to represent is not an inherently good or bad concept. the thing is that players are really good at perceiving that there is a problem with a game, but really bad at proposing solutions, on average. a cry to eliminate mana, or implement x radical change, shouldn't necessarily be taken literally - you need to figure out what it is about the system that is provoking those feelings and aim your rework to not evoke the same feel. maybe that's what they're doing and they just determined that mana is an overall bad fit for imperator, which i wouldn't necessarily disagree with considering i really wanted it to be more simulationist when the dev diaries showed off the game's details. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
Saving up my clipper mana.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:EU4 is absolutely not more simulationist than EU3? Look at culture conversion for example. How was EU3 more simulationist based on culture conversion? Not counting pagans and colonies, it was done by a totally random Cultural Assimilation event. I mean I guess randomness can give the appearance of a simulation? But this feels a bit far fetched grab. I'd rather like point at something like population, sure it didn't really do much in EU3 and gameplay wise development is a better system. But it felt I guess more tangible? It was enjoyable to see "Oh my capital is so large now!" Groogy fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Jul 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Groogy posted:How was EU3 more simulationist based on culture conversion? It wasn't added until In Nomine and it was done by a totally random Cultural Assimilation event. I mean I guess randomness can give the appearance of a simulation? But this feels a bit far fetched grab. TBH Eu3 Complete (which was at the time actually complete  ) was where I first got into the EU series so I wouldn't be able to judge before that, but literally any other option is more simulationist than the EU4 system of culture conversion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:no it's still bad news, cuz they took "wow we did this system that was pretty solid in eu4 and really loving beefed it huh" as "poo poo no mana ever then" Have you seen the changes to imperator? I don't really understand how you look at the proposed/beta changes of imperator and conclude they're going "poo poo no mana ever then".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
i hope after the success of the ck2 board game, paradox is gonna make a vicky 3 board game
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:no it's still bad news, cuz they took "wow we did this system that was pretty solid in eu4 and really loving beefed it huh" as "poo poo no mana ever then" there's still mana dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:Have you seen the changes to imperator? I don't really understand how you look at the proposed/beta changes of imperator and conclude they're going "poo poo no mana ever then".
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I have no idea what they are doing because I'm not following the game or the thread, but now I'm curious what they're doing... can anyone fill us in or post a link? The game launched with a (very poorly implemented imo) version of monarch power from EU4, with fourth pool added for religion. The game was poorly received by the community for a lot of reasons but the most common slight around the forums seemed to be aimed at how the MP worked. It was very poorly balanced and used in a large number of unsatisfactory ways. When the game lost almost all of its player base and got down to a ~35% positive review score on Steam Johan decided to lock himself in a room for a month and rewrite the entire thing, and this is the (early af) beta for step 1 of that. MP is gone entirely, and depending on how you define "mana" that could mean mana was removed as well. There are still abstracted resources but imo they are way more satisfying and a lot of stuff now relies on gold and simulationy things instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:there's still mana dude I thought it was completely removed and everything was a timer now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
there is absolutely space for a sort of Hobsbawmian 19th long century game, but yeah, not a "victoria" game deffo that if anything this game should be designed from day one with gameplay focused on pops and how they create economic relations, going towards maximalist imperialism to crash down in a total loving mess
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Saving up my clipper mana. Charging my jo crystal mana
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:I thought it was completely removed and everything was a timer now? No, there is a "politcal influence" currency which ticks up over time and can be spent in a number of ways. It works just like monarch points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:No, there is a "politcal influence" currency which ticks up over time and can be spent in a number of ways. It works just like monarch points. For me at least there are two clear differences. 1) it's based on how loyal you cabinet members are, so it can be influenced by your play one way or the other and 2) it's something I can square in my head as an actual thing. MP never worked for me as "political capital" or whatever, and on first blush this seems closer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:EU4 is absolutely not more simulationist than EU3? Look at culture conversion for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 06:13
|
|
|
Groogy posted:I'd rather like point at something like population, sure it didn't really do much in EU3 and gameplay wise development is a better system. But it felt I guess more tangible? It was enjoyable to see "Oh my capital is so large now!" I wasn't really a fan of that feature. Though some of the dislike was people wanting EU3toVic2 to use it for Vic2 pop numbers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
Groogy posted:How was EU3 more simulationist based on culture conversion? Not counting pagans and colonies, it was done by a totally random Cultural Assimilation event. I mean I guess randomness can give the appearance of a simulation? But this feels a bit far fetched grab. It's random events but over the course of a campaign it results in "oh my culture is slowly spreading on its own through my realm" which is more simulationist than EU4 "click button to spend bird and convert culture". However, EU4's system makes more sense if you treat it as the culture of the bureaucracy and the local elites, and that fits the game and the world it's portraying better imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
EU4's culture conversion system happens unrealistically quickly - it should be something that takes several generations rather than a decade or so. But it is at least a model of the kind of enforced language and culture policies that did exist during the period, it just fails to model the soft spread of culture that also happened, aside from the events that spawn the various colonial cultures. CK2 models cultural change a lot better in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Paradox took a hard turn away from the simulationist bits of Vicky 2 with EU4 and HOI4 and those games are all the better for it. Did you really just suggest that Paradox's next project should be The Scramble For Africa?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Did you really just suggest that Paradox's next project should be The Scramble For Africa? Eh, I also just described Stellaris/any 4x. Victoria is a 4x with an interesting twist ending caused by crises and an unusual focus on internal stability. You can put whatever nouns you want on the map of your 2d board game if it makes you feel better. e: and if you really, really want to sit on that 'games are morally inseparable from the context their rule system is clothed in' horse then a game that's 'The Scramble for Africa' that always ends with tens of millions dead and societies shattered in a world war resulting from that scramble has a pretty worthwhile moral lesson about the whole thing. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jul 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Did you really just suggest that Paradox's next project should be The Scramble For Africa? have you played victoria
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
I'm not a particularly big fan of EU4's development system, but only because it doesn't passively grow/change at all. Apparently nobody will ever bother to expand the local plantations for centuries unless the king personally comes and released 80 doves and all that. If it just had some way to grow, change, and maybe move around in response to devastation/prosperity etc. without the player having to come personally do it, it would be great. Obviously you can also still let the player manually develop areas, but it shouldn't be the only way anything ever gets developed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I'm not a particularly big fan of EU4's development system, but only because it doesn't passively grow/change at all. Apparently nobody will ever bother to expand the local plantations for centuries unless the king personally comes and released 80 doves and all that. If it just had some way to grow, change, and maybe move around in response to devastation/prosperity etc. without the player having to come personally do it, it would be great. Obviously you can also still let the player manually develop areas, but it shouldn't be the only way anything ever gets developed. I agree. Development should raise and fall by itself too. Also raising the development should cost resourses (gold) as well, not only the kings attention
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Has anyone else played Stellar Monarch? It’s not Paradox, it’s some rando Eastern European indy developer dude, but it’s surprisingly fun and I was playing the hell out of it earlier. The basic concept is you’re the Imperium of Man with the serial numbers filed off and no chaos warp stuff, and you only take emperor-level decisions - who runs my ministries, do I go for loyalty or competence, how many fleets do I want and where do I want them? It’s not that deep but it has an interesting take on grand strategy. It’s faintly reminiscent of a very old game called Imperium.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Eu4's development does grow through (fairly common) events. Sure there isnt a system that organically grows it but its not like nothing happens without spending monarch points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Did you really just suggest that Paradox's next project should be The Scramble For Africa? Your cancelled sweaty
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Has anyone else played Stellar Monarch? It’s not Paradox, it’s some rando Eastern European indy developer dude, but it’s surprisingly fun and I was playing the hell out of it earlier. The basic concept is you’re the Imperium of Man with the serial numbers filed off and no chaos warp stuff, and you only take emperor-level decisions - who runs my ministries, do I go for loyalty or competence, how many fleets do I want and where do I want them? It’s not that deep but it has an interesting take on grand strategy. Oh great, another space 4X Ill buy and play for an hour and never again But it does looks very interesting and unique
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Culture conversion doesn't really make sense the way it happens in any Pdox game except for Vicky tbh. Most cultural conversion before modern educational institutions was just settlers from one area moving to another and eventually outnumbering the original inhabitants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:I'm not a particularly big fan of EU4's development system, but only because it doesn't passively grow/change at all. Apparently nobody will ever bother to expand the local plantations for centuries unless the king personally comes and released 80 doves and all that. If it just had some way to grow, change, and maybe move around in response to devastation/prosperity etc. without the player having to come personally do it, it would be great. Obviously you can also still let the player manually develop areas, but it shouldn't be the only way anything ever gets developed. Absolutely this. It was one of the main reasons I stopped playing for some reason. The idea that a tiny 4-province country and a 200 province country will see the same amount of real economic growth over centuries because "monarch points" always rubbed me the wrong way. Your various economic policies, trade routes, ideas, and the simple passage of time should slowly see the world grow. Give provinces growth bonuses for the size of their trade node, give them massive long term penalties for devastation and the like. Use monarch points as a bonus to all this, to allow some manual investment, but absolutely have passive growth over time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Absolutely this. It was one of the main reasons I stopped playing for some reason. The idea that a tiny 4-province country and a 200 province country will see the same amount of real economic growth over centuries because "monarch points" always rubbed me the wrong way. Your various economic policies, trade routes, ideas, and the simple passage of time should slowly see the world grow. Give provinces growth bonuses for the size of their trade node, give them massive long term penalties for devastation and the like. Use monarch points as a bonus to all this, to allow some manual investment, but absolutely have passive growth over time. It's done pretty well in the newest imperator beta: pops change and move automatically, with sieges playing a huge role.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Absolutely this. It was one of the main reasons I stopped playing for some reason. The idea that a tiny 4-province country and a 200 province country will see the same amount of real economic growth over centuries because "monarch points" always rubbed me the wrong way. Your various economic policies, trade routes, ideas, and the simple passage of time should slowly see the world grow. Give provinces growth bonuses for the size of their trade node, give them massive long term penalties for devastation and the like. Use monarch points as a bonus to all this, to allow some manual investment, but absolutely have passive growth over time. Dev does passively increase and is more like to increase in larger states. Also a tiny 4 province country and a massive 200 province country will increase dev at different rates because if you manually increase dev the four province country will have much worse diminishing returns than the larger country. Also size of country and economic performance aren't really linked irl? Like, in terms of growth. I suppose if you're talking about absolute growth you're kinda right but also that's not entirely true and it's certainly not the whole story. It also definitely works that way in EU4 already so idk. Like, the way that economies developed prior to the advent of modern medicine was mostly in the form of infrastructure and so on which is represented pretty well in EU4 I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:Eu4's development does grow through (fairly common) events. Sure there isnt a system that organically grows it but its not like nothing happens without spending monarch points. I guess it sorta comes down to what development is even supposed to represent, but I really do think the base of any province should be the total potential - in terms of population//production/tax. The players active involvement would then be more about increasing the percentage of that potential they can get out of province, rather than having a big-brained military man create population out of thin air. This would also have an anti-snowball function, in that a smaller country could spend resources to take advantage of the full potential of their provinces - but any conquerors would get far less use of it since the development itself hadn't been massively boosted by an AI going tall. Same for massive empires in general - they control a whole lot of potential, but they have a harder time taking advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Most of the growth that you're talking about happened between the late 1700s and early 1800s. The English population didn't explode to significantly larger than pre-bubonic numbers until the start of industrialization and EU4 explicitly doesn't deal with that. EU4 does a good job of modeling how economic growth worked prior to the advent of industrialization and modern medicine. It falls apart at the later stages but if you tried to model both forms of economic growth, the game would end up modeling one of them wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Maybe it would be possible to model the constant growth of your nation by having a part of your population be allowed to fund projects on their own if they're rich enough? Hmmmmm 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Most of the growth that you're talking about happened between the late 1700s and early 1800s. Sampatrick posted:The English population didn't explode to significantly larger than pre-bubonic numbers until the start of industrialization and EU4 explicitly doesn't deal with that. EU4 does a good job of modeling how economic growth worked prior to the advent of industrialization and modern medicine. It falls apart at the later stages but if you tried to model both forms of economic growth, the game would end up modeling one of them wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2019 18:36
|
|