|
i wouldn't really want stellaris to have one single campaign map like the other pdx games but i do wish there was an official tool to create a scenario in-game. sometimes i want to play it like a 4x and other times i find myself really wishing for asymmetrical starts with pre-existing GPs and OPMs and all that kind of thing
Jazerus fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Nov 17, 2021 |
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
I want Stellaris but designed with the same ideology as V3. Detailed economic/political/diplomatic focus, not ship design and order micro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I want Stellaris but designed with the same ideology as V3. Detailed economic/political/diplomatic focus, not ship design and order micro. This, but actually I just want V3
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
genericnick posted:This, but actually I just want V3 Yeah same. Very hyped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:i wouldn't really want stellaris to have one single campaign map like the other pdx games but i do wish there was an official tool to create a scenario in-game. sometimes i want to play it like a 4x and other times i find myself really wishing for asymmetrical starts with pre-existing GPs and OPMs and all that kind of thing That's why I keep saying it as an extra option. I don't think there should always be a constant predefined game state. In EU2, they had a Shattered World start, where there were like 7 or so countries, and they each get a single county and can expand from there. Its fine if the game remains a randomized game, but it'd be nice if there was something that fleshed out the 'lore' of the game. I understand not wanting to make a full story mode and put those resources into it, but at the same time, somebody had to come up with the default species, and someone makes new default species with every release pack. I don't think I've seen more than 3 or 4 of the default races show up in my games over the years. If I wasn't so afraid of copyright issues or whatever, I'd release my big sci-fi empire pack. I'm not sure the 'randomized space empires' we are competing with is actually as important to the players of the game. When you start a game next to the Empire, the Klingons, and Skynet, you know what kind of game you are gonna get. Who even knows what the Exalted Regime of Hariss is about? Does it matter? What benefit does my next playthru have, if I get a full understanding of a totally randomized empire I will never see again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
My big problem with the exploration in Stellaris is that I get a lot of the same events every game, and there are only a few choices on each event and I know what a lot of them will do. That's somewhat inevitable given that I have hundreds of hours in the game, but it feels like more event variety would be good. I think I read that they're working on expanding the event choices though, so that'll probably help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Grevlek posted:That's why I keep saying it as an extra option. I don't think there should always be a constant predefined game state. In EU2, they had a Shattered World start, where there were like 7 or so countries, and they each get a single county and can expand from there. You always mostly know what the randomized empires are, because they're mostly just their AI personality. Though I suppose "The Exalted Regime of Hariss is Hegemonic Imperalists, so they'll play like Hegemonic Imperalists" might not land as well as "The Centauri will play like Centauri"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Yeah one of my big issues with Stellaris is all empires are kinda the same and play the same and every map is the same. Technically every empire and every system is randomized, but sometimes the more random something is the more the same it is. It's like a pile of sand, you can shovel it up and dump it over and over and technically it's different every time but it's always the same very familiar pile of sand. Ultimately every game just comes down to big annoying fleet doomstacks and tedious ground invasions and an economy that manages to find the absolute worst sweet spot between "so complicated it eats up all your cpu cycles and the AI is hopeless at figuring it out" and "There's always a single clear optimal choice but you have to do it by hand"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
Stellaris is objectively a good game nowadays but still the way it gets so close to being an interesting story-telling game with all the random events, relics, spacemonsters, etc. annoys me way more than it should. Without the shackle of the subjectively boring 4x layer I still feel it would be far more fun as a grand exploration game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
I'd love some big Dune / Emperor of the Fading Suns sort of vibe game made by paradox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
I'm getting back into Stellaris are any of the dlc must have cuz I kinda don't feel like dropping $$ rn
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah one of my big issues with Stellaris is all empires are kinda the same and play the same and every map is the same. Technically every empire and every system is randomized, but sometimes the more random something is the more the same it is. It's like a pile of sand, you can shovel it up and dump it over and over and technically it's different every time but it's always the same very familiar pile of sand. I dunno, there are differences in empires, but it tends to be the big stuff of which there are only a few flavours, like if they're genocidal or if they're a criminal syndicate. But yeah, stuff like "am I next to fanatic pacifist materialists who prefer ocean worlds or fanatic spiritualist xenophobes who live on desert planets" don't feel particularly different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Gort posted:I dunno, there are differences in empires, but it tends to be the big stuff of which there are only a few flavours, like if they're genocidal or if they're a criminal syndicate. But yeah, stuff like "am I next to fanatic pacifist materialists who prefer ocean worlds or fanatic spiritualist xenophobes who live on desert planets" don't feel particularly different. As such, just make a Space-France and call it a day 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Grevlek posted:As such, just make a Space-France and call it a day With aliens that are are literally big blue blobs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
genericnick posted:This, but actually I just want V3 I think it would be cool to build the fleet comp, fund massive dreadnaught production/development, but then not actually have to drive the fleet around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
Gort posted:My big problem with the exploration in Stellaris is that I get a lot of the same events every game, and there are only a few choices on each event and I know what a lot of them will do. That's somewhat inevitable given that I have hundreds of hours in the game, but it feels like more event variety would be good. Well and most of the events have an objectively correct option that you want to pick every time. It would be interesting if you sometimes wanted to pick different options depending on the empire setup (and the forcing civic options are indeed good), but it rarely comes up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 01:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
verbal enema posted:I'm getting back into Stellaris are any of the dlc must have cuz I kinda don't feel like dropping $$ rn this is a little out of date since i haven't played stellaris in a while. i know plantoids and humanoids now have game effects (or might have them in an upcoming patch? idk, like i said, been a while) Cease to Hope posted:In roughly descending order of essential-ness:
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 11:25
|
|
|
Something I thought of to help differentiate the empires and their preferred planet types. What if you could share some systems. Like I'm desert people and you're ocean people. On our border I have a system with an ocean planet. You can ask to settle in return for favours or whatever. Maybe am influence cost depending on how far it is from your borders, and I get some of that influence. Couple this with a habitability hit for an empire depending on their founder species. Nearly every game habitability becomes a non issue due to different species you pick up on the way, or entering a migration treaty. It opens up lots of possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
It worked that way at release and it was just sort of messy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The Prussian accomplishments in the Seven Years War are legitimately impressive, although the armies they were up against were just Austria, Russia, and France (for exactly one battle on their own, admittedly a masterful win for Frederick. The two later major battles saw France face coalition armies of not just the Prussians, but substantial forces from Britain and Hanover as well). I could be mistaken but I don't think Spain participated in the German theatre at all. Prussia was also on the brink of defeat before the Russian Empress died, and her successor just took Russia's ball and went home. British financial support was also crucial for their success, Prussia could not have fought the war without those subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Although they lost the war they punched way above their weight in world war one. They fought off Russia, Britain, and France for four years while shackled to a couple of corpses and probably would have won if they hadn't provoked the Americans into joining. Wehraboos are really cringey and of course are perpetuating Nazi myths about Prussian dominance, but swinging all the way in the other direction and saying actually the Prussians sucked and got lucky most of the time is ignorant of history as well. Their superpowers in EU4 are unearned and only there because of one good king, but during Victoria's time period, they were consistently high quality in both enlisted discipline and a free thinking officer corps. Their performance against Austria, France and then the Entente in a nearly solo effort is testament to that. I have no problem with Prussians getting bonuses for military in a game like Victoria.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd love some big Dune / Emperor of the Fading Suns sort of vibe game made by paradox. This x1000
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
Meanwhile in my multiplayer megacampaign: Yes, Norway is in Asia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:Wehraboos are really cringey and of course are perpetuating Nazi myths about Prussian dominance, but swinging all the way in the other direction and saying actually the Prussians sucked and got lucky most of the time is ignorant of history as well. Their superpowers in EU4 are unearned and only there because of one good king, but during Victoria's time period, they were consistently high quality in both enlisted discipline and a free thinking officer corps. Their performance against Austria, France and then the Entente in a nearly solo effort is testament to that. I have no problem with Prussians getting bonuses for military in a game like Victoria. Great War Germany has almost double France's population on its own, while Russia is a moribund corpse and the entire british army is three dudes and a feisty corgi. It's also fielding two armies that aren't prussian. It's effective but it's not superpowered. Rather, its success is pretty obviously tied to Germany having more soldiers and resources than its enemies, at least until anglo-american empire is brought to bear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
just in case johnan sees this: it would be pretty epic and win if the hoi2 engine code were to be open-sourced
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Meanwhile in my multiplayer megacampaign: The three continents are basically 'Christian', 'Muslim', and 'Other' anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
Welcome to Heresy Island!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 06:53
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Great War Germany has almost double France's population on its own, while Russia is a moribund corpse and the entire british army is three dudes and a feisty corgi. It's also fielding two armies that aren't prussian. It's effective but it's not superpowered. Rather, its success is pretty obviously tied to Germany having more soldiers and resources than its enemies, at least until anglo-american empire is brought to bear. You're really underestimating how surprising the performance of the German army was to everyone at the time. Everyone thought that the French and British amries had caught up to the German in quality and while it was known that the Russians still lagged, it was thought that the combination of French investment, Russian domestic growth and lessons learned in the Russo-Japanese war had greatly narrowed the gap. That Germany would be on track to beat those three powers nearly single handedly in a long drawn out war despite Austria-Hungary's near complete collapse was something no one would have predicted. And if it weren't for the US joining the Entente would have lost. The British had run out of collateral for American loans and while they would have been able to continue financing their own war effort, they would not have been able to continue subsidizing the French effort and their economy would have collapsed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 13:01
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:just in case johnan sees this: it would be pretty epic and win if the hoi2 engine code were to be open-sourced agreed OP
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:You're really underestimating how surprising the performance of the German army was to everyone at the time. Everyone thought that the French and British amries had caught up to the German in quality and while it was known that the Russians still lagged, it was thought that the combination of French investment, Russian domestic growth and lessons learned in the Russo-Japanese war had greatly narrowed the gap. You're avoiding Edgar's arguments though. It's true that Germany had a much stronger army than previously thought, but one of the main reasons wasn't because of strong Prussian quality, but in the fact that the Germans trained their reserves as good as their frontline units, because their doctrine was to send everything they had to the front. This is why in 1914 they had manpower to spread everywhere, while the French had their main armies at the front with the reserves, which were a good portion of the mobilised men, sitting way behind the front, only expecting to act in case of emergency. No one considered the Russian army capable of being a threat in 1914, but they were expected to be a serious danger when it came to defending their homeland. This is why the western pressure for the Russians to attack as soon as the war started was a disaster which murdered two entire armies. It did force Germany to remove vital units from the western front, so their sacrifice wasn't entirely in vain I guess. Russia destroyed the Austrian army quite handily, but the idea that the allies were this super strong group while the central powers were a joke is honestly ignorant. It's hard as hell to enact a war like the first world war and only three nations were close to competent in doing so. The Germans were having food problems already as early as 1916 and the more they conquered, the worse it got, meanwhile there's simply nothing the Germans could throw at France that would've knocked them out of the war by then. Without the Americans, it's possible that the war drags for longer, yes, but that just means the German people would be actively starving at a similar point in time. And all of this ignores the main, fulcral point that the reason Germany was in such a strong position wasn't because they had RoboCop soldiers, it was a serious industrial development, population numbers, natural resources (and also a history of terrible diplomatic decisions). I really hate military bonuses on EU or Vic, they're so much more powerful than soft bonuses that they end up railroading a lot of the game (which I guess was the point when it came to EU2 OR Vicky2)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Honestly I'm just always suprised at the relative competence of the Ottomans in ww1. Given how relatively outclassed they should've been in multiple ways and fronts, that they managed to basically draw even with A-H in the end (dissolved state) is about a good a sendoff as they could reasonably expect
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Meanwhile in my multiplayer megacampaign: Wait, what's this? A full world map generator?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Wait, what's this? A full world map generator? Made by our GM, (I have my own project but its aimed at more geographically 'realistic' looking maps, I post about in the Game Development megathread) currently its just for our megacampaign but we've (the players) have all been enjoying it immensely and have been suggesting he should collaborate with Idhrendur to add it to the Megacampaign paradox converter project. I'll go tell him people here seem to be impressed with it and hopefully he iterates over it (initially its a bit buggy but I imagine those can be ironed out).
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:
This is not even close to true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
yikes! posted:This is not even close to true. yeah, as mentioned above the German economy was in an equally bad shape if not worse; the war didn't end because Americans marched over the Rhine, it ended because Germany collapsed into a revolution because its workers were starving. Tanks were also about to finally crack open trenches as seen in the battle of Cambrai, which happened independently of US involvement. Germans were far behind Britain in tank development.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:yeah, as mentioned above the German economy was in an equally bad shape if not worse; the war didn't end because Americans marched over the Rhine, it ended because Germany collapsed into a revolution because its workers were starving. Tanks were also about to finally crack open trenches as seen in the battle of Cambrai, which happened independently of US involvement. Germans were far behind Britain in tank development. Though it's not clear to me that France wouldn't also have collapsed into revolution if the war went on without US involvement. No one was having a great time at the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:just in case johnan sees this: it would be pretty epic and win if the hoi2 engine code were to be open-sourced 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Gentlemen, let's been honest and put aside nationalistic egos: the main (not only) reason Germany lost the 2 world wars (especially WW2) was decided when the U.S.A. entered the wars with its immense industrial/military/call-it-what-you-want capability. No one could (and still can't these days, but that's another story.....) stand in the long run against the U.S., not by army professionalism (the German Wehrmarcht was at that time the best trained army in the world, especially its officer corps with geniuses like Guderian or Von Manstein) but as I said for the war production . Obviously, there were secondary reasons for the german fall like the lack of proper naval production (especially battleships) in the 20s/mid 30s before entering the war or the decision to let an agonizing England to breath and open a 2nd huge frontline against the USSR that only a madman like Hitler could decide (and impose) to its officers, etc. etc. But those are only secondary reasons.......
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Invading the USSR is absolutely NOT a secondary reason lol. Even if the USSR was as weak as the germans thought, operation barbarossa was a terrible plan that was doomed to failure from the beginning, the Japanese high command looked over it and said as much even before the germans invaded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:28 |
|
|
Knightsoul posted:Gentlemen, let's been honest and put aside nationalistic egos: lol i'm sure there's not a nationalistic ego aspect to you calling the eastern front a secondary reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 18:43
|
|