|
Dramicus posted:If we are getting into armored cars, then give me full on Ferdinand Porsche simulator, where you completely ignore all sense and create an endless loop of problems for yourself where the gun that you want increases the weight, which requires you to develop new transmissions, but they aren't sufficient, so you start developing electro-transmission drives at a time where no one really understands electronics, and so mass-production is impossible. So it's really just you, and your friend Friedrich hand-assembling a 180 ton monstrosity with a bespoke electrical transmission system and submarine engines powering the whole thing and no one remembers how you got to that point. true, that might be a bit much. we'll save it for dlc
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Some even feeding off the same resource (tech and ideas both being huge military priorities just fed by monarch military points- so why even have them be two separate things?) Tech and ideas feeding off the same resource pool is good game design imo because it gives the player a bunch of interesting choices regarding which idea groups to pick, when to prioritise keeping up with military tech over the more specialised bonuses granted by different idea groups, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Yeah I think an EUV in particular would benefit not from necessarily more military focus but a more consistent military system that ties into the nation's general development more- and ultimately I'd like to have playing a (proto-)nation-state in 1792 feel substantially different from playing a feudal kingdom in 1450.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Again, this is something MIEOU tackled with some success. Early game, most of your countries resources are tied up in various estates. As the game goes on you centralize those resources into your own pocket. Corruption even plays a role in how much control you are able to wield over your state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Yeah I think an EUV in particular would benefit not from necessarily more military focus but a more consistent military system that ties into the nation's general development more- and ultimately I'd like to have playing a (proto-)nation-state in 1792 feel substantially different from playing a feudal kingdom in 1450. Currently your EU military is a bolted-together set of things that you mainly notice as "number going up" but spread over several screens. Some even feeding off the same resource (tech and ideas both being huge military priorities just fed by monarch military points- so why even have them be two separate things?) I'd like to really feel what it's like to be fielding condotierri vs. knights and sergeants-at-arms vs. a professional army of career soldiers vs. a levée-en-masse. Yeah, it's this exactly. The growth of national institutions (and the way they occasionally collapsed periodically) is probably the single most important element of the period when it comes to military success, and it's not really modelled well at all. Stuff like that is why the Ottomans are so damned successful right around the beginning of the game, in a way that no other power really is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2019 21:36
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
x-posting from the grog thread:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
It makes an excellent point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Hearts of Iron (or at least historical Germany) would be unplayable if the Holocaust were included, but I totally agree that EU and Vicky should represent the repercussions of imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
EU also actively supports the very wrong idea that the Americas (and Africa) were mostly uninhabited save for faceless barbarians and a few small nations
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Magissima posted:historical Germany [...] would be unplayable I fail to see the downside of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:EU also actively supports the very wrong idea that the Americas (and Africa) were mostly uninhabited save for faceless barbarians and a few small nations America definitely, but Africa is pretty dense at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
To rephrase a previous post but in more detail: Machine Guns allows whitey to use the "click to paint map" button on provinces with lower life ratings Many provinces are empty, but have a low life rating If Machine Guns allows whitey to click the button And Machine Guns isn't curing disease or providing air conditioning or fueling ships Why does it have that effect? What is it doing in this fresh, empty land? Honestly playing as either the colonized or the colonizer would be more fun if there was more interaction- the myth of a bunch of dudes in pith helmets staking a claim and then machine gunning a bunch of screaming savages is just that, and actual human causes and consequences and consequences of victorian imperialism are more interesting. Even if you only ever want to be the one in the pith helm, wouldn't it be more fun to have different areas have actual problems and requirements to take over instead of Press Button Paint Map Arrhythmia posted:Africa is pretty dense at this point. The way it's presented in both EU and CK is still extraordinarily chauvinistic. It's a playground for the Proper Nations, but with starts and mechanics that you can do hilarious gimmick runs with. The actual polities, cultures, religions, even basic geography, take a backseat to "here's a mechanic where you can be Tribal Pagan Africans but out-European the europeans!!" What's an African Tribe? What religion is African Pagan? Which africans get to be feudal instead of tribal and why? Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:America definitely, but Africa is pretty dense at this point. So was America before the European's arrived. If anything it should be as full as it actually was and after European contact the historical nations that were wiped out by the superplague could be removed. It would be much better than starting out without them present.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Eimi posted:So was America before the European's arrived. If anything it should be as full as it actually was and after European contact the historical nations that were wiped out by the superplague could be removed. It would be much better than starting out without them present. It wouldn't be much fun though. Either you have a game with blind spots, or you have no game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:America definitely, but Africa is pretty dense at this point. But is still have a lots of empty provinces along the coast, inst it? Is been a while I played Anyway, it could be both less problematic and more fun if they got rid of nameless "natives" completely and instead made colonization work with nations. Today we have 2 kinds of natives: the ones that have a nation and so we have to interact with then with diplomacy and war, like real people; and the faceless natives that are subject of colonization, who are nothing. That makes no sense, is incoherent and dont reflect reality. Get rid of the later and revamp the colonization system to interact with these nations (and of course, make then bigger, and make more of them). Like, the Tupi wanst a 1 province nation on a corner of Brazil, they covered most of its coast And besides, the colonization system in EU is and was always boring, which is another reason to change it
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:It wouldn't be much fun though. Either you have a game with blind spots, or you have no game. Yeah imagine starting with all of Europe full of playable nations that could also become powerful AI rivals. Having them be empty land would be way more replayable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:It wouldn't be much fun though. Either you have a game with blind spots, or you have no game. You could lock the player from picking them, or just have the player ahistorically survive, otherwise I don't see how that would be any different than what is currently in game? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:But is still have a lots of empty provinces along the coast, inst it? Is been a while I played But there were areas without governments, where the highest authorities were very local affairs. In a game about central governments, which the Paradox games are, they are not players. In Europe for instance making a nation of Frisia is strictly unhistorical. There was no body that would formulate a foreign policy. The two provinces representing Frisia in EU contained in reality a dozen sovereign (under the HRE) republics, each of which were further divided by numerous factions without a common goal. They would sometimes work together against foreign invaders, but there were also always factions supporting the strangers hoping to profit. For a historical representation it should have no government, and only some defensive military power. It would have estates, the Church formed the civil administration, large abbeys and landowners upheld a justice system and coordinated the water works, there were centres of trade. But there was no foreign policy. While such a situation was rare in Europe, in the rest of the world there were a lot of regions that similarly lacked a government as represented by the player roles in EU.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
yet Frisia has existed either as a country or as a province under someone else since at least EU2, just like every other bit of Europe, and no one has ever suggested it should be converted to empty territory inhabited by Germanic Christian Natives, free to be colonized, to better represent its historical situation and increase playability. Weird how only non-europeans get to be in that category...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:(...) Frisia (...), no one has ever suggested it should be converted to empty territory inhabited by Germanic Christian Natives, free to be colonized, to better represent its historical situation and increase playability. I just did.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:But there were areas without governments, where the highest authorities were very local affairs. In a game about central governments, which the Paradox games are, they are not players. But we do already have the Tupi and many other indigenous nations. Only we have them and also have the generic natives, when in reality, they were the same Also, the colonization of north and south america was full of alliances and deals and trade between the invading powers and these local peoples, which is completely impossible to represent with generic savages on empty provinces waiting to be colonized. EU nations cant model the government and society of those peoples, I know. But at least is closer to what they actually were and makes possible to have diplomacy with them like it happened in the real world Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:yet Frisia has existed either as a country or as a province under someone else since at least EU2, just like every other bit of Europe, and no one has ever suggested it should be converted to empty territory inhabited by Germanic Christian Natives, free to be colonized, to better represent its historical situation and increase playability. The name of the game literally implies that Europe is the only important part of the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Lotti Fuehrscheim posted:I just did. Ok, so EUV would be better and more historical if Portugal could click a button, pay some money, and turn Frisia into a Portuguese Catholic territory in 1520, with the previous frisian inhabitants whisked into the mists of time? They're Germanics under the Holy Roman Empire right? Where's the other germanics? What do they have to say about this? Will their response be more complicated than a Germanic Native Uprising in New Lisbon? Did anything else go on that led to this situation? What even is the Holy Roman Empire but a disunited, feuding set of other Germanic Natives in uncolonized provinces that war among themselves more often by far than they exert influence on anyone outside of their homeland? What happened to the many frisian polities you described? What happened to all the frisians? Are they still there? Which frisians acquiesced to this new state of affairs? Were they all in agreement? Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:The name of the game literally implies that Europe is the only important part of the world. At least the game explains why we are discussing this using the English language.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Eimi posted:So was America before the European's arrived. If anything it should be as full as it actually was and after European contact the historical nations that were wiped out by the superplague could be removed. It would be much better than starting out without them present. This would make the natives unplayable, though. Unless you want to just get an event ~50 years in that just game overs your country because of a plague you had literally no control over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
AFAIK the Inca and the central america civilizations were just as affected by mass death from diseases, werent they? edit: maybe something like: make that nations bellow a level X or tech or institutions can be crossed without a open border agreement and can be declared war upon without a casus beli. And then, while occupying or after conquering one of its provinces, you can colonize. And then of course fill the whole Americas, Africa and Asia with nations, leaving no empty province were people lived. The diseases affect then after the europeans arrive with events or a crisis, but is possible to overcome it With some tweaks, that alone would make colonization both more correct and fun Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
It might still work as an additional challenge. The plague might work as a kind of disaster you can't escape. You already have playable countries that are basically lost cause. Of course usually you can turn it around with good luck and allies. Here you might have to be prepared that once Europeans arrive you get instant devastation and stuff. The real reason, of course, is that then you'll have to rework colonization mechanics. It's already in a strange place. Some Siberian tribes and most people in America and Africa (mostly coastal, hmm) are non-entities, while tribes of Central Africa and Eastern Siberia are there. There's no historical reason for them to exist or not, it's mostly gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:This would make the natives unplayable, though. Unless you want to just get an event ~50 years in that just game overs your country because of a plague you had literally no control over. Not every country has to be hit the same. Randomly have some be hit badly, but come through intact, some be knocked down really hard to 1pm levels, and some vanishing entirely. Then just lock the "Fully wiped out" possibility so it's only the AI who can get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Doesn't EU already have effects the player country is immune to? Like you can start under a PU with Burgundy and get freedom by default when Burgundy and the rest of its junior partners get inherited, because the player can't be inherited?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
To provide the skeleton of a counterargument, maybe it's not just native tribes that your machine guns are scourging, maybe it's animals that you've got to keep from messing up your farming and settlement.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War What's weird is that while there is historically some habitable territory that isn't held under anyone's control, what's much more common is nebulous borders where land that isn't technically physically occupied is still considered as one group's territory, but they'd still be open to sharing it or even allowing external habitation without there being a war or negotiation about it. Human populations are sometimes like a gas, expanding in density to the size of the territory available. Although many traditional perspectives of history only consider dense population centers as valid civilization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Ah yes, the 30-50 feral hogs theory of colonisation. Worth remembering the origins of this game. Board game and early versions, none of which granted non-Europeans any agency. EU4 I think probably gives our non/euro ancestors more than any other strategy game? No reason not to improve it but it’s hardly the worst out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
There's only so much you can simulate in an engine designed to imperfectly simulate European states from the high middle ages to Napoleon. I don't know how you can simulate every little tribe that well, especially given there is a lot, lot less written history in ROTW to go on. I just don't think playing natives could ever be fun in the Clauswitz engine. They tried with Africa, and what you end up with is tribes just blobbing into each other until they hit wasteland. Because the engine was designed to keep gameplay in Europe somewhat plausible, so tribes behave like European states: expanding until a balance of power is made. Adding pops could help make population shifts a lot better, but it's still never gonna be enough to get as granular as it needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
EU just flat out doesn't model colonisation very well. It's not just the natives, but it's how it treats colonial provinces as, well, provinces, instead of fortifications and hunting outposts. It results in dumb stuff like requiring the map to be blank for it to work at all, and fails to replicate things like historical trade routes that were the result of geography; you can't really replicate the effect that rivers had on colonisation unless you force it, the game gives you ever incentive to do a slow roll from the coast inland alongside the entire continent. The territory of French Louisiana makes no sense in EU, geographically, because EU land travel is erroneously portrayed as just as if not a more of a trivial matter. I doubt EU5 is going to do a giant overhaul of colonisation since the existing system makes gameplay sense and it can be re-used elsewhere in the world where a model that makes sense for American colonisation might not make sense for elsewhere, but if I were to re-design it a few things pop to mind that I'd like to see:
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 09:42
|
|
|
At least they're doing better. Think of what Africa looked like in CK2 before Wiz got hold of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Some kind of modelling for provincial infrastructure for land travel. From the presence of rideable animals like horses to the quality of roads. It should be a pain to expand over these long distances over land otherwise. This might work if they go for a much more detailed terrain. Imperator shows they can do that. Probably make individual provinces of current size or bigger but add small sub-provinces Victoria style. This way you might have a lot of empty spots even in a relatively crowded space. Armies would probably have to change so that you don't have 100k soldiers all stationed in a small space the size of an outpost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:It might still work as an additional challenge. The plague might work as a kind of disaster you can't escape. You already have playable countries that are basically lost cause. Of course usually you can turn it around with good luck and allies. Here you might have to be prepared that once Europeans arrive you get instant devastation and stuff. YF-23 posted:EU just flat out doesn't model colonisation very well. It's not just the natives, but it's how it treats colonial provinces as, well, provinces, instead of fortifications and hunting outposts. It results in dumb stuff like requiring the map to be blank for it to work at all, and fails to replicate things like historical trade routes that were the result of geography; you can't really replicate the effect that rivers had on colonisation unless you force it, the game gives you ever incentive to do a slow roll from the coast inland alongside the entire continent. The territory of French Louisiana makes no sense in EU, geographically, because EU land travel is erroneously portrayed as just as if not a more of a trivial matter. Which thinking about it, would also work in other parts of the world? Like, trading posts evolving into puppeting local rulers into taking direct control seems like it could be covered pretty well by the same system? With the initial step of letting foreigners set up trading posts being a boon to local rulers, something even the player might accept despite the risk of these foreigners getting ideas later on and now having a foothold in your territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Okay i'll admit I was not expecting to get to Australia to discover the Mamluks had colonised it first. That's new and cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:EU just flat out doesn't model colonisation very well. It's not just the natives, but it's how it treats colonial provinces as, well, provinces, instead of fortifications and hunting outposts. It results in dumb stuff like requiring the map to be blank for it to work at all, and fails to replicate things like historical trade routes that were the result of geography; you can't really replicate the effect that rivers had on colonisation unless you force it, the game gives you ever incentive to do a slow roll from the coast inland alongside the entire continent. The territory of French Louisiana makes no sense in EU, geographically, because EU land travel is erroneously portrayed as just as if not a more of a trivial matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
That’s a nice idea also because it could give more weight to habitability and make it a real choice whether to throw colonists at some hellhole island off west Africa to steal the cape trade versus fighting for a piece of the Caribbean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:30 |
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I really like this/these ideas and I think it would go well with a system I suggested a long time ago where your country has a certain number of people that want to be colonists every month; there would be factors that affect this number such as if your stability is low and/or intolerance is high, more people want to leave for a new opportunity on another continent. There would be no "colonist" agent with this system; if you set up one single colony all of your colonists would go to this one colony and it would grow faster while if you decide to try to "landgrab" the coast of Brazil, you would have several small, slow growing colonies that all of your willing colonists would distribute between. You would of course have something you could do to prioritize one if you want, and could set policies or spend money to encourage more colonists to go. It would be way better than the current system that grows at the same rate no matter how many colonies you establish. Agreed, EU5 should have pops
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 13:46
|
|