|
Soup du Jour posted:we’re like five posts from that being posted in earnest anyway. this is ultimately a pointless discussion because it’s two groups of people with diametrically different views on what they like about paradox games trying to convince the other that they’re incorrect, wholly unable to grasp why the other believes what they do It's actually possible to think the casualty numbers in eu4 are too high and also think it's fun hth
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
Stux posted:then define how you are assessing scope in this case, because i dont understand either. eu4 deals with the entire planet and all nations on it. ck2 is limited to europe and the surrounding area with some off map mechanics for a few other things. literally measuring scope by file size here lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I do like that stuff, I just don't see how literally any of it constitutes a larger scope. because having both a larger map and far more detailed representation of various cultures and religions and nations, is a wider scope? i... i dont really know how else to explain this? you could easily take either game and reverse things, with a ck2 style game with eu4s map and variety of different playstyles and mechanics and it would have a larger scope than an eu4 entirely focused around europe that didnt really function completely for nations outside of the core christian/pagan regions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
Stux posted:you deal with expansion, and then you have other stuff like development and tech and whatever else layered on that. ck2 doesnt have a larger scope just because its aims are "internal politics". ck2 is a larger timeframe, but it is purposefully a narrower slice, being so heavily focused on europe that anything outside of christians or pagans is a footnote. thats part of the issue i had where i felt penalised for playing as an islamic nation, even one within europe, because i had not picked a leader whos culture and religion fell into the games focus, even though i think it was a completely fair assumption on my part that a game set and based around the crusades wouldve taken some of its focus and applied it to one of the two most important religions in the era. otoh, i think that eu4 does an absolutely awful job of establishing differences between different governments and religions, and a huge chunk of those differences are just press button to get an army for free. the ck2 tech system actually has a larger scope than the eu4 system because the eu4 system is entirely about getting military improvements whereas the ck2 tech system actually unlocks laws that can be hugely impactful. development is also literally just a button that lets you turn monarch points into money. your argument just boils down to ck2's representation of islam not being fantastic which is like, sure, but even then there is more to do as a muslim that distinguished you from a christian in ck2 than eu4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:literally measuring scope by file size here lmao i mean im clearly not. ck2 is narrower. this isnt a negative its just a fact about what the game is trying to focus on and where its attention is. the game has most of its attention put into a few areas, with other areas having less and less detail to them and others simply being off map interactions. this isnt bad, its just a choice of game design and its probably the right choice when you are focusing on the crusades, although i feel the muslim nations and mechanics should have more attention paid to them. but its not bad at all that its narrower?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Stux posted:i mean im clearly not. ck2 is narrower. this isnt a negative its just a fact about what the game is trying to focus on and where its attention is. the game has most of its attention put into a few areas, with other areas having less and less detail to them and others simply being off map interactions. this isnt bad, its just a choice of game design and its probably the right choice when you are focusing on the crusades, although i feel the muslim nations and mechanics should have more attention paid to them. but its not bad at all that its narrower? the size of the map doesnt determine scope and its asinine to say it does. youre making the argument that risk has greater scope because the map it covers is supposedly larger. what youre saying is essentially indistinguishable from saying file size big.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Yes, but I cannot gently caress a rosebush in EU4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:otoh, i think that eu4 does an absolutely awful job of establishing differences between different governments and religions, and a huge chunk of those differences are just press button to get an army for free. i mean ill bring these up again but how is the daimyo system for japan in eu4 press button to get an army? what about a republic vs a monarchy is press button to get an army? this makes no sense at all. thats not what the tech or ideas systems are about, they have lots of non-military stuff, very specifically. development has multiple functions some related to money, some to army, some completely seperate from that wrt institutions and tech, mission requirements, building speed, force limits, recruitment time, cost for enemies to take in war etc. you can just use it like that if you want i guess though. this is just completely false, the ck2 representation and implementation is just... a few tweaks? in eu4 even between other muslim nations there are bigger differences. and i think that with a game literally about the crusades its extremely fair to point out that the implementation is very very thin? ive even said the smaller focus is good but that probably part of that shouldve been put into more detail in the important areas of that era.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:the size of the map doesnt determine scope and its asinine to say it does. youre making the argument that risk has greater scope because the map it covers is supposedly larger. what youre saying is essentially indistinguishable from saying file size big. that isnt what im saying though, if you would read the words i actually said. its not breadth alone, its also depth. the map is bigger but also the regions and nations are more distinct and have more mechanical depth as well as flavor and player options. thats why its broader in scope. ck2 is purposefully narrow, its focused on europe and more specifically on the christian nations as well as european pagans, with areas outside of that being comparitively underdeveloped. thats a narrower scope. its not a negative its just, the game. i think youve assumed "narrower scope" is some bad thing and im trying to say its bad because of it. im not. its just what words mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Zane posted:i should clarify: my point isn't that eu4 is totally unrealistic and that ck2 is totally realistic; and/or that all grand strategy games should inevitably approach one of these two polarities. my point is that correspondence to historical experience is an important, arguably fundamental, criteria for modelling these gameplay systems -- especially gameplay systems that specifically model the history of (real or imagined) societies over time. and furthermore: that the strength of this correspondence informs the strength of the stories we can then tell about/within these games. why? because as human beings we are interested in the history of human experience. and these sorts of games are 'about' that history on some fundamental level. ck2 isn't a particularly good representation of history, though. while your control of the game is presented as being that a single ruler, the player is actually the embodiment of the state, same as any other paradox game. within your realm, you are able to immediately perform any action regardless of the disposition or location of your ruler. you can be on pilgrimage across the world or comatose in bed and you're still able to instantly raise the levies of any county in your realm, send gifts or bestow titles on your vassals, direct your armies to any corner of the world etc. the way you interact with the politics of the world is also significantly more narrow than history, overwhelmingly through warfare and intrigue as opposed to diplomacy and compromise. you can certainly make an argument that all of this is a necessary abstraction for the purposes of gameplay but the same argument applies equally to eu4. Sampatrick posted:the ck2 tech system actually has a larger scope than the eu4 system because the eu4 system is entirely about getting military improvements whereas the ck2 tech system actually unlocks laws that can be hugely impactful. development is also literally just a button that lets you turn monarch points into money. lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
the king literally--not just metaphorically--was the state in the medieval period though. the english state until like ~1200 was wherever the king was on horseback with his retainers. and the ck2 player has an amount of state/administrative power that is roughly proportionate to their personal situation as best as this can be mechanically approximated. agree with some of the secondary points however -- it isn't perfect.
Zane fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Apr 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
Stux posted:that isnt what im saying though, if you would read the words i actually said. its not breadth alone, its also depth. the map is bigger but also the regions and nations are more distinct and have more mechanical depth as well as flavor and player options. thats why its broader in scope. i literally dont understand how you can possibly think that eu4 has a higher degree of playstyle difference between religions/governments than ck2 does. the only governments in eu4 that have a significant difference in playstyle are hordes and exploity shogunate runs. everything else is incredibly similar modulo some minor differences regarding succession and a button that will usually give you either gold or an army.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Stux posted:thats not what the tech or ideas systems are about, they have lots of non-military stuff, very specifically. development has multiple functions some related to money, some to army, some completely seperate from that wrt institutions and tech, mission requirements, building speed, force limits, recruitment time, cost for enemies to take in war etc. you can just use it like that if you want i guess though. literally everything about development is either generating money for a larger army or generating institutions which give tech so that you can have a more effective army. that is the entire system. every single system in eu4 is like this. they all do fundamentally the same thing - you either get money, men, or points, and all three of those are used in order to make you better at war. the tech system in eu4 is incredibly, preposterously bare bones and to say otherwise is absurd. im not joking when i say that the ck2 tech system has a larger scope. on top of your military/economic techs, you get access to drastically more impactful laws than anything you get in eu4. majesty 4 by itself can cause a more severe gameplay change than literally any tech in eu4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:28
|
|
|
Zane posted:the king literally--not just metaphorically--was the state in the medieval period though. the english state until like ~1200 was wherever the king was on horseback with his retainers. and the ck2 player has an amount of state/administrative power that is roughly proportionate to their personal situation as best as this can be mechanically approximated. agree with some of the secondary points however -- it isn't perfect. that's my point though, the exact opposite is the case in ck2. your character can be literally anywhere in any state of lucidity and have complete control over any part of their state. in mechanical terms, characters in ck2 are in a superposition of every province within diplomatic range. your ruler has no heir and is off crusading for five years? no problem, you have the same odds of producing a heir as if you were home with your spouse. you never have to weigh the chance that your regent will usurp power while you're off campaigning abroad. having perfect knowledge and control of all of your state is a huge departure from historical reality, and contributes to ahistorical outcomes - the longevity and stability of blobs, the weakness of periphery states (nubians and ethiopians, iberian christians in early start dates, georgians and armenians) and the strength of what should be decentralised powers such as the HRE. Sampatrick posted:literally everything about development is either generating money for a larger army or generating institutions which give tech so that you can have a more effective army. that is the entire system. every single system in eu4 is like this. they all do fundamentally the same thing - you either get money, men, or points, and all three of those are used in order to make you better at war. the tech system in eu4 is incredibly, preposterously bare bones and to say otherwise is absurd. im not joking when i say that the ck2 tech system has a larger scope. on top of your military/economic techs, you get access to drastically more impactful laws than anything you get in eu4. majesty 4 by itself can cause a more severe gameplay change than literally any tech in eu4. you are vastly overstating the disparity between the eu4 and ck2 tech systems. in ck2, 2/3 of the tech tree is all about getting money or men to make you better at war. the other 1/3 is half minor opinion boosts and half unlocking laws, the most important of which is unlocking primogeniture. none of the other laws really matter. you're going to have to do a bit more to sell the importance of majesty 4 to me because increasing the rate of prestige and piety accumulation doesn't really blow my mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:literally everything about development is either generating money for a larger army or generating institutions which give tech so that you can have a more effective army. that is the entire system. every single system in eu4 is like this. they all do fundamentally the same thing - you either get money, men, or points, and all three of those are used in order to make you better at war. the tech system in eu4 is incredibly, preposterously bare bones and to say otherwise is absurd. im not joking when i say that the ck2 tech system has a larger scope. on top of your military/economic techs, you get access to drastically more impactful laws than anything you get in eu4. majesty 4 by itself can cause a more severe gameplay change than literally any tech in eu4. this is entirely nonsense that doesnt even deserve a response honestly. at least pretend youre interested in arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:that's my point though, the exact opposite is the case in ck2. your character can be literally anywhere in any state of lucidity and have complete control over any part of their state. in mechanical terms, characters in ck2 are in a superposition of every province within diplomatic range. your ruler has no heir and is off crusading for five years? no problem, you have the same odds of producing a heir as if you were home with your spouse. you never have to weigh the chance that your regent will usurp power while you're off campaigning abroad. having perfect knowledge and control of all of your state is a huge departure from historical reality, and contributes to ahistorical outcomes - the longevity and stability of blobs, the weakness of periphery states (nubians and ethiopians, iberian christians in early start dates, georgians and armenians) and the strength of what should be decentralised powers such as the HRE. Zane fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Apr 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Zane posted:all true. but the more comprehensive point, i think, is that the rational sovereignty of the 'state' is an even more powerful and even more unrepresentative presence in eu4. early medieval society is sufficiently primitive--although even this is probably a stretch--for it to be possible to conceive the early medieval state as being encompassed by a single rational intelligence and--as a corollary--to conceive state/dynastic politics as being the principle driver of early medieval history. by the early modern period (1450+) of eu4, however, the same premises are close to ludicrous. yeah, that's a fair point. i think it'd be interesting exercise to try and create an engaging game with a "realistic" portrayal of the limitations of a medieval or early modern ruler but it'd probably be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
EU4's internal development is definitely just pressing buttons to get a bigger army though. Development either directly provides men, or it provides money, the only use for which is buying either more troops or more upgrades. And all the buildings you can buy with money just generate either more money or more troops. Unless your goal is to sit on all your money to have the biggest dragon hoard possible, the only use for the entire economy in EU4 is getting more shootmans/boats. Technically you can use money to bribe your neighbors into being friendly (so that your military situation is improved by buying off the threat/buying an ally) or advisors (which give you more mana to spend on getting more money or more troops). Once a century you might need a lump sum for an institution I guess (you mainly want to embrace institutions so you can get better tech for more money/better shootmans).
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
I like playing E.U.4.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
CK2 also makes you sink a lot of your money into buildings that give you more money or more troops, but at least hospitals are a thing, and bribing vassals/potential plotters/neighbors is a measurable money sink, as are the dick measuring contest Great Works. The only Paradox game with a good internal development system is Victoria, where you have to give all your money to vaguely defined government ministries that probably do something, probably, just go do some more imperialism on places with coal deposits.
Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Apr 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
except you can spend mana and money on doing diplo stuff instead, you cant just write it off because you feel its not as good as ck2s. you cant list eu4 letting you bribe neighbors and then frame it as "ahh its for war though" but in ck2 when you bribe a neighbor for a murder plot thats more meaningful or "better". theyre the same thing, its just that you like doing a ck2 assassination more than diplo annexing a vassal in eu4. a lot of the diplomacy options in ck2 come down to gaining land without fighting, which is exactly what you use eu4 diplomacy for as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Or try playing an insane character, and outlaw not wearing masks in public. Funny how life imitates art
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
Stux posted:its just that you like doing a ck2 assassination more than diplo annexing a vassal in eu4 just look at this from the other perspective and i think we have a conclusion here. nobody's going to reveal some deeper secret about how to like ck2 than has already been suggested
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 03:54
|
|
|
cool av posted:just look at this from the other perspective and i think we have a conclusion here. i mean i was aware of the reverse as i typed it im not clueless, but i guess at this point really it comes down to sitting back down with ck2 at some point and trying out a christian or pagan and seeing if that helps things, its very possible ill be more into it if the islamic content is really that cut down in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
Going back to the "scope" topic. I like both EU4 and CK2, but claiming that the entire map in EU4 is fleshed out is a ridiculous assertion when several continents full of indigenous people are modeled as empty land with "native aggressiveness," and the nations that exist have boring ahistorical mechanics that haven't been touched for years. If they were truly given proper attention then I wouldn't need to make a mod to overhaul the entire western hemisphere, but they weren't, so I have to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
it isnt entirely but a shocking amount is, but i think i did mention eu4s handling of the americas is pretty poor and involves genuinely sitting doing nothing on high speeds for a decent chunk of the game which is unacceptable. i would much rather them be doing an overhaul of that than the hre as the next big update.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Stux posted:in execution, doing that in ck2 never actually felt compelling to me because its very flat, and it felt like the answer to every political issue ended up being assassinations which just wasnt a particularly enjoyable mechanic to interact with. i guess i just expected more complexity in how the personal interactions played out and crossed over due to how everyone had pushed how that was the focus of the game. i had thought there would be a lot more to it and it would be more dynamic and deep than it was. and again its why eu4 for me executes its concept better, its a game focused on expansion and there is an incredible variety to the nations you can play and the way all the systems work while you do that. i was expecting that level of variety and flavor and detail but on the ruler and interpersonal level in ck2. I don't know how often we need to tell you that your Muslim game was not representative of this aspect of CK2. Muslims are locked to agnatic inheritance, which makes all those arranged marriage games etc. impossible. A title cannot fall out of a dynasty's hands unless the dynasty dies out, or outside forces (their liege, a faction, an enemy nation) intervene, by revoking titles, pressing claims, waging holy wars, etc. Any criticism of Muslims as a playable religion is valid, and the devs themselves are on record that they were never happy with how they turned out. They received two overhauls, the last with the Sons of Abraham DLC that touched all three Abrahamic religions, but it never really worked. They were the first new playable characters unlocked after the base game's Christians, in the very first DLC, and they never got over their bad start (though they were always pretty powerful, just not that fun to play in comparison to most other faiths). But that doesn't mean that only Christians or pagans are worth playing. Hinduists, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists and Zoroastrians are fun, too. And EUIV might be more complex than CK2, I have no beef in this fight. I didn't enjoy EUIV, while I have over 2000 hours in CK2. But the point is, that you don't have the capacity to judge whether it has more complexity than CK2, because your impression of CK2 as a game is not accurate from only having played Muslims. And I begin to suspect that you're arguing in bad faith, when you go on about how Muslims being not that good is that giant fatal flaw in Crusader Kings 2, while all regions and religions in EUIV offer so many diverse playstyles, and feel so different from each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I don't know how often we need to tell you that your Muslim game was not representative of this aspect of CK2. Muslims are locked to agnatic inheritance, which makes all those arranged marriage games etc. impossible. A title cannot fall out of a dynasty's hands unless the dynasty dies out, or outside forces (their liege, a faction, an enemy nation) intervene, by revoking titles, pressing claims, waging holy wars, etc. There's an interesting parallel between the Muslims and Americans in each game: Historically relations between them and Europeans were a very significant part of their respective era's history, they were each the focus of the first DLC for their game, which in comparison to what was done later seemed very lackluster, they got a second DLC to try to improve them, but they still are kinda boring to play as and feel very shallow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
Lol never change Johan https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1254014323632082944
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
Thats kind of a dumb discussion: EU and CK are both complex games, in different aspects, I dont think we can quantify it to find out which is more complex
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 13:30
|
|
|
Sure you can. Just measure the number of the megabytes of event text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:Sure you can. Just measure the number of the megabytes of event text. Multiplied by number of provinces and the size of the government defines files.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I don't know how often we need to tell you that your Muslim game was not representative of this aspect of CK2. Muslims are locked to agnatic inheritance, which makes all those arranged marriage games etc. impossible. A title cannot fall out of a dynasty's hands unless the dynasty dies out, or outside forces (their liege, a faction, an enemy nation) intervene, by revoking titles, pressing claims, waging holy wars, etc. like i said, im probably going to sit back down with ck2 and play through as a christian or pagan instead to give it another shot, because i would like to have another paradox game to enjoy. but i do think that having muslims be so significantly less developed that multiple people tell me that theyre entirely unrepresentative of the game, when its a game about the crusades, is a pretty large flaw yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Stux posted:like i said, im probably going to sit back down with ck2 and play through as a christian or pagan instead to give it another shot, because i would like to have another paradox game to enjoy. but i do think that having muslims be so significantly less developed that multiple people tell me that theyre entirely unrepresentative of the game, when its a game about the crusades, is a pretty large flaw yes. CK1 was sort of about the Crusades, but my impression is that they're not a major focus in CK2 despite the name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Is there a way to remove the ugly rear end terrain on the map in Vicky 2? Besides zooming out
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:CK1 was sort of about the Crusades, but my impression is that they're not a major focus in CK2 despite the name. They were when it first came out and you could only play as Christians, and the earliest start date was just before the crusades started. Although I suppose even then you could always just choose to ignore the call to a crusade and do your own thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:yeah, that's a fair point. i think it'd be interesting exercise to try and create an engaging game with a "realistic" portrayal of the limitations of a medieval or early modern ruler but it'd probably be terrible. Mount and Blade is kind of like this and it's a giant pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:CK1 was sort of about the Crusades, but my impression is that they're not a major focus in CK2 despite the name. Maybe it just refers to the Northern Crusades now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2020 13:17
|
|
|
Post Holy Fury Crusades are super important if you're Christian because the Pope will actually pop open his money vault and allow you a brief trip inside if you participate. Like even as say third most contributing kingdom the Pope would pay out several thousand gold, along with a mountain of piety and the great Crusader trait. It is a shame that Muslims are modeled poorly, and hopefully one of the better parts of CK3 is getting a mulligan on them. Of course I haven't played EU4 that recently since I'm super far behind on DLCs, but I just remember Muslim mechanics in EU4 are you have a slider where you want to sit if you want to go for war and a position you want to sit when you're teching up. Your general government type didn't feel that different from a Christian, as you had all the same options. Like comparable changes to CK2 muslims, just that they are better balanced and don't have a negative mechanic like decadence as a yoke around your neck. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:19 |
|
|
the generic muslim mechanics now also have schools which are tied to sunni and shia nations with ibadis drawing from both and which have intra-school diplomatic relations. theres also two specific islamic government types as well as more indepth nation specific ones for the ottomans and the mamluks. islam also has i want to say one of the larger pools of religious events in the game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2020 08:45
|
|