|
Cease to Hope posted:nope He was still in 1845?  Demiurge4 posted:I would like to play Vicky 3 now, thanks.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
drat, that playtest sounds real promising, cool that they localized the clergy into monks like that
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:09
|
|
|
victoria 3
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
more and more people are saying this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:26
|
|
|
ThaumPenguin posted:drat, that playtest sounds real promising, cool that they localized the clergy into monks like that it's cool that the game sounds like it is kinda sorta playable already (even though it ended in a crash) I am kind of in awe that the economic system doesn't just break immediately. So many moving parts all affecting each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:27
|
|
|
fuf posted:it's cool that the game sounds like it is kinda sorta playable already (even though it ended in a crash) He does kind of mention that the AI isn't really working great yet which is mildly worrying but it's probably also one of the things which gets worked on last (you don't really want to balance your AI around systems which aren't finalised and fully implemented yet)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:He does kind of mention that the AI isn't really working great yet which is mildly worrying but it's probably also one of the things which gets worked on last (you don't really want to balance your AI around systems which aren't finalised and fully implemented yet) The AI is at the stage it's planned to be at right now, it's not something worth trying to finalize before systems are far enough done and balanced that you don't have to redo it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 12:47
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:He does kind of mention that the AI isn't really working great yet which is mildly worrying but it's probably also one of the things which gets worked on last (you don't really want to balance your AI around systems which aren't finalised and fully implemented yet) Also, its worth mentioning that AI isn't just balancing - they'll likely be making some bespoke systems of their own for V3 which, given the current point in production, will not be fully implemented yet. There's an unfortunate natural tendency to think of AI as something that will be done in advance of the game being made, rather than alongside it. This isnt just a misconception among players, its sometimes a point of contention (at least where I work) with designers and level designers who want the AI to be 'finished' before they can make decisions in their own disciplines. Having said that, I've never worked on a game like this where there is intended to be a broad equivalence in the capabilities of the player and AI. In some ways, that would make it easier to define AI systems early in the project - but the flip side of that is that you would also need to adapt to every systems change made to make the player experience better. Edit: TLDR What Wiz said more succinctly. That'll teach me to not refresh before replying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
Vichan posted:He was still in 1845? That was my reaction. I felt like it should have covered another 10-20 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
I imagine numbers are gonna be subject to a lot of tweaking. There might even be good reason in dev to make things happen faster than they normally would so you can test it better.ThaumPenguin posted:drat, that playtest sounds real promising, cool that they localized the clergy into monks like that This is me being a pedant (although I hope Korea will eventually get specific attention) but monks really shouldn't start out in any kind of position of power in Korea; Buddhism was actually somewhat suppressed. When Joseon was founded in the 1400s, it was largely as a reaction to what was seen as the excesses and corruption of the Buddhist clergy of the previous Goryeo Dynasty. Monks had wielded enormous power, with monasteries commanding huge private armies and positions at the very top of the administration; From its founding, Joseon stripped them of all of this and banished the monasteries into the mountains, where they remained -- specifically banned from the capital city -- for the entire dynasty, functionally powerless. Monks (and indigenous shamans) were sometimes clandestinely brought in to consult/perform rituals, and a few queen consorts were notably Buddhist, but this was often fairly scandalous, and while Buddhist cosmology had already deeply permeated Korean thought by this point so it's not like it was irrelevant, I don't believe any male members of the royal family openly identified as Buddhist. Rather than involving monks, the real class-based power conflict in 1800s-Joseon Korea should be between the topmost hereditary aristocracy that'd been in positions of power for the entire dynasty, and the new aristocracy that had risen through wealth and social chaos into buying hereditary titles. Both were technically Yangban (and like 40% of society was towards the end of the dynasty), but the old guard Yangban (mostly successfully) drew themselves a cut above the new guys and held onto the actual power. also on that final photo I dunno if I'm misunderstanding how the names are displayed but the royal family's name was Yi, not Joseon lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
That's good to know, thanks! 😊
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That was my reaction. I felt like it should have covered another 10-20 years. He did also mention that his government type was "overpowered" so that might explain why he was able to do so much reforming so fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:nope "a description from a discord screenshot" and I am giving no fucks I want more honestly philosopher-king/queen rule seems to be inherently op? because any sort of autocratic rule that favors the interests of the player is going to be more interesting in gameplay terms than anything else, unless players go for RP choices and such. Korea there makes the meiji restoration look like a simp effort lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
That's one of the most appealing parts of these games, using the meta knowledge that you possess from being a 21st-century player to achieve ahistorically good outcomes. It just needs to remain grounded enough to be meaningful. Turning Afghanistan into a stable liberal democracy in 1836 should probably be impossible
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
I dunno, one of the things I think CK3 is missing is ways to encourage the player to behave as a medieval ruler might. The game should give me reasons to make the mistakes that real governments of the time did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 17:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
From my understanding, it sounds like an experienced tester cheesing maximum reforms with a broken government form in a beta build that has only very minimally working AI still resulted in running on the ragged edge of stability and caused an actual openly-shooting-at-each-other civil war/uprising. Going slower and appeasing the landowners so you don't blow your country up already sounds like a good idea in the super unbalanced early dev build, I'm not particularly worried that the final product will make it too easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I dunno, one of the things I think CK3 is missing is ways to encourage the player to behave as a medieval ruler might. The game should give me reasons to make the mistakes that real governments of the time did. The game already encourages you to be a murdering/torturing psychopath for the lulz, I shudder to think what would make the player (or character) choose to be worse. Having the game lie to you in a predictable fashion might be fun though, acoup.blog was saying about EU4 how the player has way more info than even modern leaders have, let alone ancient ones. However, I fired up Victoria 2 the other day and I was put off by how it feels like you're storm-tossed by history until you get some reforms passed (aside from commanding military units, which the game isn't really about front-and-center), and making the game even more obtuse would likely put off anyone who's not already a terminally-online news junkie. Then again the game is made specifically for politics nerds, so I donno. The game suddenly going GAME OVER at random because your king died would be historically accurate, though it'd be frustrating to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:"a description from a discord screenshot" and I am giving no fucks I want more The game is still under development and a lot of balance isn't in place yet. The current difficulty level of industrializing Korea is not going to be the same as the one on release and trying to figure out what is and isn't OP from a development build is a pretty pointless endeavor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:The game already encourages you to be a murdering/torturing psychopath for the lulz, I shudder to think what would make the player (or character) choose to be worse. Well actually what I mean is kind of the opposite of that. The game encourages you to be murderous and tortuous in a way that medieval rulers generally were not, and doesn't punish you for doing so. Especially when those actions conflict with what your religion tells you should be doing, despite the fact that all the evidence we have shows people took that poo poo very seriously (and of course a head of religion and vassals who don't like you should be happy to use those dishonorable actions to hammer you politically). I would enjoy it much more if the game took a much more simulationist approach, defined what actions were culturally/religiously appropriate for various areas, and then encouraged you to lean in hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The game is still under development and a lot of balance isn't in place yet. The current difficulty level of industrializing Korea is not going to be the same as the one on release and trying to figure out what is and isn't OP from a development build is a pretty pointless endeavor. Its only natural to try and mine the most info out of every tidbit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:honestly philosopher-king/queen rule seems to be inherently op? because any sort of autocratic rule that favors the interests of the player is going to be more interesting in gameplay terms than anything else, unless players go for RP choices and such. Korea there makes the meiji restoration look like a simp effort lmao "The current meta favors benevolent tyranny, using cycle assassinations to prevent rulers with bad traits from taking power"- Voltaire
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
the coolest revealed part is being able to grab a niche in a common market by focusing on making specific luxury consumer goods industrializing off funds gained from exploiting china's lust or fancy clothes sounds fun
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Going slower and appeasing the landowners so you don't blow your country up already sounds like a good idea in the super unbalanced early dev build, I'm not particularly worried that the final product will make it too easy. One fun memory I have from (modded?) Victoria 2 was the time I was playing as Japan and had westernized as quickly as possible, leading to a huge surge in reactionary sentiment and militancy, particularly in the army, who was ready to rise up against me at any moment. So I invaded Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Never underestimate the benefits of a separate landmass
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The AI is at the stage it's planned to be at right now, it's not something worth trying to finalize before systems are far enough done and balanced that you don't have to redo it. That playtest report did show that there are lots and lots of interesting choices to make and lots of ways to cock it all up, which is a very good thing. OPAONI fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
OPAONI posted:That playtest report did show that there are lots and lots of interesting choices to make and lots of ways to cock it all up, which is a very good thing. i regret reading that report because prior to it I was fine with the game being out in like 2023-2024 but now i want it today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
With the understood caveat that that log doesn't reflect finished game balance: I like that he was so worried about pissing off his landowners that he was holding off on reforms... until they revolted anyway and he pushed through all the things the landowners were resisting and saw a big benefit. It'll be interesting to see where the balance ends up between the efficacy of gradual reform, and just forcing a civil war and doing everything fast. It'll be so cathartic to tell rich assholes to gently caress off and then just destroying them when they try to stop you. Probably huge human costs and damage done to your country, but still cathartic. I really like how much there is to do as a small, less developed country. He's clearly not just waiting around for a lucky break or certain things to tick up. I totally agree that the wait became that much harder just vaguely hearing about less than 10 years of a playthrough as a minor nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
It's kind of neat that the game organically represents the difference between reformism and revolution there. I can imagine seeing myself in a similar situation and deciding that yes actually I'd probably rather risk a civil war so I can ram my agenda through more quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
I've chosen to read wholly into that discord lets play, and I've decided that the hair to the throne is the one true master and I must now lead Korea to great power status.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The game is still under development and a lot of balance isn't in place yet. The current difficulty level of industrializing Korea is not going to be the same as the one on release and trying to figure out what is and isn't OP from a development build is a pretty pointless endeavor. Agreed! Fwiw I loved that report because it seems that, unfinished as it is, it's going very much in a direction that seems very appealing personally (and to others here as well). It wasn't meant as a criticism, just fun speculation 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well actually what I mean is kind of the opposite of that. The game encourages you to be murderous and tortuous in a way that medieval rulers generally were not, and doesn't punish you for doing so. Especially when those actions conflict with what your religion tells you should be doing, despite the fact that all the evidence we have shows people took that poo poo very seriously (and of course a head of religion and vassals who don't like you should be happy to use those dishonorable actions to hammer you politically). Do you have a source on that? I understood in those ages the nobles were even worse than CK3 lets on, and much more state/religion sanctioned genocide and other atrocities. I mean the Romans were famous for crucifying whole cities, men women and children all, because some resident pissed off some Imperial official, and that wasn't terribly unusual at the time. Lots of games about that period of history have some serious rose-colored glasses, and at least with Victoria 3 it looks like it will be much less so than normal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
It was fairly common yeah. You needed some justification, you couldn’t do it for no reason, but as far as I’m aware that is how it works in CK as well. If you had justification most wouldn’t bar an eye, unless they were personally invested CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Do you have a source on that? I understood in those ages the nobles were even worse than CK3 lets on, and much more state/religion sanctioned genocide and other atrocities. I mean the Romans were famous for crucifying whole cities, men women and children all, because some resident pissed off some Imperial official, and that wasn't terribly unusual at the time. Oh yeah to cities that resisted sieges and to peasants at large, absolutely. What you don't find much evidence for is for nobles (ie. nearly every character you interact with in CK3) treating each other like that. It's not that they weren't cruel, but you don't see people murdering their cousins to inherit their land or keeping all of their vassals in jail for 40 years. No sourcing as I don't think there's any one volume that would cover it, but a whole host of books on the Late Roman Empire, Holy Roman, and Kievan Rus'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I dunno, one of the things I think CK3 is missing is ways to encourage the player to behave as a medieval ruler might. The game should give me reasons to make the mistakes that real governments of the time did. Eh? I act much more medieval in Ck3 then I ever did with Ck2. I was always a just, kind ruler in 2 but in3 because of the stress system I have to be a tyrant sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Do you have a source on that? I understood in those ages the nobles were even worse than CK3 lets on, and much more state/religion sanctioned genocide and other atrocities. I mean the Romans were famous for crucifying whole cities, men women and children all, because some resident pissed off some Imperial official, and that wasn't terribly unusual at the time. The Romans at which point in time? I don't think the Byzantines were big on crucifixion. If you mean early empire/late republic Romans, that's... most of a millennium before CK3 even starts? The middle ages generally had lower intensity conflict than antiquity, both because medieval polities were less able to field large armies and religious/cultural factors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Do you have a source on that? I understood in those ages the nobles were even worse than CK3 lets on, and much more state/religion sanctioned genocide and other atrocities. I mean the Romans were famous for crucifying whole cities, men women and children all, because some resident pissed off some Imperial official, and that wasn't terribly unusual at the time. the romans really didn't do that kind of thing on a whim, and they didn't crucify as a routine part of war. crucifixion was a death penalty for criminals more than anything. the bloodiest the romans ever got was caesar and while he undoubtedly razed swathes of gaul to the ground in a way you won't find depicted in Imperator, even his fellow romans were a bit put off by it. as far as the medieval era goes, no, there wasn't really a whole lot of sanctioned genocide going on outside of events so unusual we remember them today, like the albigensian "crusade" against the cathars. it's one of the positive aspects of the era honestly. a lot of pop culture's conception of "medieval" brutality belongs more properly to the early modern, i.e. the EU4 era, when the restraints of religion and state on violence began to crumble
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 08:32
|
|
|
Simon de Montfort being vehemently critical of the attack on Zara, and then going on to ravage most of Southern France is top ten anime betrayals. Bonus funfact his son Simon de Motfort, the Sixth Earl of Leicester, has a relif set in the chamber of the US House of Representatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 08:44
|
|
|
ive never heard of an entire city being crucified. when the hell did that happen
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 09:14
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Eh? I act much more medieval in Ck3 then I ever did with Ck2. I was always a just, kind ruler in 2 but in3 because of the stress system I have to be a tyrant sometimes. Yeah. I think stress system needs some additional balancing so that you can reasonably expect other characters to act in a certain way, and when they surprise you they go Macbeth about it. Plus it has a deeper culture and religion differences allowing for a special kind of medieval barbarism. I imagine popular support will play this role in Victoria 3. Prussia might be in no position for war, but they're ruled by military and their population is jingoistic so I have to prepare for them to go to war or collapse. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:the romans really didn't do that kind of thing on a whim, and they didn't crucify as a routine part of war. crucifixion was a death penalty for criminals more than anything. the bloodiest the romans ever got was caesar and while he undoubtedly razed swathes of gaul to the ground in a way you won't find depicted in Imperator, even his fellow romans were a bit put off by it. amusingly enough a lot of those ideas of medieval (and other) brutality are enlightenment myths that also persisted in some forms into the victorian era (and now...)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2021 10:04
|
|
