|
Cantorsdust posted:Everything I’ve heard about war sounds good so far. I like that you have different strategies for your army, although I question the difference between Mass Conscription as an army policy vs just conscripting during wartime, as they state that’s a separate option you can do regardless of your policy. It looks like the different policies put a cap on how much of your population you can conscript.  See the "can mobilize x battalions" thing on each side. My guess is mass conscription allows the most conscripts.
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:While that should be a thing, fuckin' L oh L if you think what Sherman did in Georgia even approaches maximum devastation. I guess I should've just said "intentionally inflict devastation," since Confederacy delenda est wouldn't have been a good policy for territory you're planning on reintegrating after the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Zeron posted:It seems like an interesting/very profitable playstyle would revolve around just becoming a huge arms manufacturer and trying to push countries into wars at every opportunity. If you do it as a big country you could even get into an arms race where you force your neighbors to arm up to match you..while profiting off them the entire time. Ah yes the “United States” strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
I hope that wars aren't so costly that the more min-max'y players basically just don't go to war; I hope in the situation of players being passive it lets more aggressive players thread that needle against otherwise more powerful players; like I hope if you're not actively making use of the diplomatic system and making plays it tilts the scales considerably to smaller more aggressive powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
To be fair I don’t think they should balance around what min maxers do
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:To be fair I don’t think they should balance around what min maxers do Not like, solely, and I don't think I said anything about balancing the game around min-maxers; I said I hope that the system in the aggregate takes a sufficiently hollistic approach where if some players in a dominant position do try to turtle and make sandcastles that it presents opportunities mechanistically for others to come over and kick over those sandcastles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
It’s fine cause the optimum strategy isn’t just to avoid war, it’s to make good diplo plays that get you concessions through the threat of war… which means you might just end up in one, if another country turns out to have more spine than you thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Ultimately the fact that war is going to be very costly for you is balanced by the fact that you can make war even more costly for the enemy. Like if you are Prussia, it doesn't matter if you devastate your country if you gently caress up France/Russia/Austria even more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
If anything I'd be more concerned that wars aren't costly enough because that's the case with just about every other Paradox game where you can maintain full standing armies at all times and stay out of debt. The only thing I found a little odd in the dev diary is that you need to tech up to get the better conscription - which seems odd, but I assume France and some other countries starts with this? It's too early to make assumptions though and I look forward to seeing the war/diplo system in action because everything sounds good so far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:If anything I'd be more concerned that wars aren't costly enough because that's the case with just about every other Paradox game where you can maintain full standing armies at all times and stay out of debt. The only thing I found a little odd in the dev diary is that you need to tech up to get the better conscription - which seems odd, but I assume France and some other countries starts with this? It's too early to make assumptions though and I look forward to seeing the war/diplo system in action because everything sounds good so far. There's a difference between the financial cost of the war and the economic cost; I like Victoria being the game where not producing enough bullets affects your armies and I agree in general armies should be more expensive than they are; but that's a different consideration from the economic/political costs where presumably, Paradox wants players to go to war with each other and to make use of their mechanics, especially since they went and completely revamped war mechanics for Vicky 3, it'd be a shame if people shy away from them even from the perception that doing so is "bad" for your nation. Conscription as practiced in ancient Qin, vs revolutionary France, and then the kind worked out in Prussia after the Napoleonic Wars I think are all kinda different from each other and resulted from different historical, political and cultural contexts and aside obviously from prussia's not necessarily suited to the Victoria 3 context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:To be fair I don’t think they should balance around what min maxers do it's bad game design to ignore what behaviors your gameplay balance encourages/discourages jfc
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
IMO it'd be really cool if going into a war that you were going to win made clear sense in the early game, where nobody is very well industrialised, the devastation you inflict doesn't really hamper the productivity of the land you take, lots of the casualties from your battles recover and can re-enter the workforce after the war, etc. And as you go through the game and countries industrialise, all of those things get less and less true, but it's not actually clear at what exact moment war becomes "not worth it".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:it's bad game design to ignore what behaviors your gameplay balance encourages/discourages jfc It’s a good thing no paradox game encourages min maxing including this one, I guess? I can’t think of many games that actively encourages min maxing outside the most hardcore of the frog arc games. Like even CK where you can min max to your hearts content does nothing to encourage you to do so
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:It’s a good thing no paradox game encourages min maxing including this one, I guess? A lot of the people in this thread play MP where, at least in stellaris, it's much more necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
yikes! posted:A lot of the people in this thread play MP where, at least in stellaris, it's much more necessary. Well that’s because players are going to play differently than an AI and I don’t think multiplayer should influence the single player as they are functionally two different games
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Zeron posted:I think it's just a name thing. It's just the step above National Militia where you still conscript people, but you can also have a big standing army if you want. And then it sounds like Regular Army puts more prestige on the standing army to encourage you to make it bigger and maybe restricts conscription a bit more? If I understand it correctly, Mass Conscription allows you to use the conscripted units you've raised as infantry units under generals for offensive actions while under National Militia, those conscripted infantry units cannot take any offensive actions at all, they can only conduct defensive actions. In other words the main difference is that the former military organization would allow you to gain or regain territory using conscripted infantry especially in early stages of the way while the latter military organization requires you to use regular forces in order to gain and regain territory and hope that the defensive garrisons can fight off the opposition's offensive actions in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:There's a difference between the financial cost of the war and the economic cost; I like Victoria being the game where not producing enough bullets affects your armies and I agree in general armies should be more expensive than they are; but that's a different consideration from the economic/political costs where presumably, Paradox wants players to go to war with each other and to make use of their mechanics, especially since they went and completely revamped war mechanics for Vicky 3, it'd be a shame if people shy away from them even from the perception that doing so is "bad" for your nation. As long as other countries have oil, coal, and bananas I assume the economic cost of war will be worth it for those reasons alone. At some point you need to have a war focused economy just so you can stay alive unless you can pull off some sort of Switzerland situation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
Like 1% of the paradox userbase plays multiplayer, they should be ignored for balance
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:As long as other countries have oil, coal, and bananas I assume the economic cost of war will be worth it for those reasons alone. At some point you need to have a war focused economy just so you can stay alive unless you can pull off some sort of Switzerland situation. War is likely, in many cases, to be less profitable than just bullying countries with the threat of war without actually fighting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Like 1% of the paradox userbase plays multiplayer, they should be ignored for balance There's some old numbers back from 2014 here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/eu4-playerstats.757556/ A third of all EU4 games were multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Yeah I think the point is to be playing a game of chicken where you threaten war to twist the other guy's arm, and if it's some tiny colonial target you can get away with sending in the Marines to secure the banana plantations just fine if it comes to that. But if it's 1912 and the French want those bananas too suddenly you're stuck seeing who's gonna blink first and if anybody gets a little too over-confident (or find themselves unable to afford backing down) then whoops we just got 5 million dudes killed over some silly dick measuring nonsense, which is approximately what I'd expect out of a well designed system for this time period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:24
|
|
|
RagnarokZ posted:There's some old numbers back from 2014 here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/eu4-playerstats.757556/ https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/236850/view/2972925916159846992 Its decreased to 13% and i remember the stats for the other games also hovering between 5 and 15%. Either way, focusing too much on a balance that favors multiplayer, rather then sometjing that is fun in singleplayer and the ai can handle hurts the game
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:It’s a good thing no paradox game encourages min maxing including this one, I guess? literally all of them do by virtue of the way the game works by scoring you against other AI  if you haven't played one of them yet I get it but one of Paradox game's failings is that 95% of their games are window dressing that have no impact on the game and 5% are non-decisions you need to make the right choice of. it's not good to have less options, and min maxing should be focused on multiple different strategies, unlike what you advocate.Davincie posted:https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/236850/view/2972925916159846992 I disagree with this too but for a different reason: Balancing for multiplayer is identical to balancing for singleplayer, even without a half-decent AI, because fundamentally singleplayer Paradox games are between roughly symmetrical entities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Everything I’ve heard about war sounds good so far. I like that you have different strategies for your army, although I question the difference between Mass Conscription as an army policy vs just conscripting during wartime, as they state that’s a separate option you can do regardless of your policy. Eh, it's a huge difference. Just look at the ability of Germany and France to instantly mobilize millions of men due to their policy of mass conscription in peace time, vs Britain who took a couple of years to build up a powerful army.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah I think the point is to be playing a game of chicken where you threaten war to twist the other guy's arm, and if it's some tiny colonial target you can get away with sending in the Marines to secure the banana plantations just fine if it comes to that. But if it's 1912 and the French want those bananas too suddenly you're stuck seeing who's gonna blink first and if anybody gets a little too over-confident (or find themselves unable to afford backing down) then whoops we just got 5 million dudes killed over some silly dick measuring nonsense, which is approximately what I'd expect out of a well designed system for this time period. Exactly. Ideally the mechanics would disincentivize war (or at least late-game great power wars), but very much incentivize risking war. It's clear in the diaries that this is exactly what Wiz et al are thinking with the diplo plays system. And to make it work well, one key ingredient is uncertainty. Don't let the outcome be fully predictable in advance even if the player is a veteran. This can be done via incomplete information (maybe your target has a secret agreement with someone big and bad), or by including a noise term in the AI decision process so that its chosen action is not fully deterministic from the gamestate. The player as well as the AIs need to always face a risk of miscalculation. The other ingredient is that sometimes your sociopolitical situation should be such that war looks really attractive, even necessary. Like, Austria-Hungary thought they had to stomp Serbia or else ethnic unrest would bring down the empire, and Russia thought they had to back Serbia because they couldn't afford to look weak domestically after having already backed down in the Bosnian Crisis. Hopefully the devs really nail the society sim stuff to the point that you feel similarly pressured to just go for it sometimes. Fray fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
Fray posted:Exactly. Ideally the mechanics would disincentive war (or at least late-game great power wars), but very much incentivize risking war. It's clear in the diaries that this is exactly what Wiz et al are thinking with the diplo plays system. And to make it work well, one key ingredient is uncertainty. Don't let the outcome be fully predictable in advance even if the player is a veteran. This can be done via incomplete information (maybe your target has a secret agreement with someone big and bad), or by including a noise term in the AI decision process so that its chosen action is not fully deterministic from the gamestate. The player as well as the AIs need to always face a risk of miscalculation. I think the big thing for the latter point was what they mentioned in an earlier dev diary, where going to war is the only way to press all your demands. It lets you take much bigger bites than just getting them to concede during the diplomatic play, so war would be more attractive if you are under some sort of time pressure (like say you need to grab a bunch of specific states to form a particular nation and want to do it as quickly as possible).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:As long as other countries have oil, coal, and bananas I assume the economic cost of war will be worth it for those reasons alone. At some point you need to have a war focused economy just so you can stay alive unless you can pull off some sort of Switzerland situation. In an ideal game lets suppose you need iron and coal to produce steel and you need steel to make arms. You want arms so you can go to war and defend yourself from others who want to go to war with you. People in general should always want to go to war with you and vice versa, but only don't because of timing and circumstances. Maybe you're more powerful than them so they reframe from attacking you. This creates a dynamic of people who want to go to war will then try to create favourable circumstances, either by improving their economies to go to war with you on a more favourable footing by growing faster economically or through diplomatic actions. Regardless of how or when people go to war, how people solve the problem of improving their economic footing broadly should always go one of three ways or some combination but for simplicity lets break it down as a trinary choice. Either they form alliances to outweigh you (using Diplomacy), or bait you into a war using the diplomatic systems to which are unfavourable for you somehow; or they grow economically by expanding into places that aren't in your sphere and don't immediately trigger your response (military expansion), or a third option is to skillfully grow their economy by utilizing their comparative advantages. Suppose hypothetically they can produce on average 25% more steel than you per capita, so they focus on importing cheap iron and coal to make up for a lack of domestic sources allowing them to increase their economic strength which translates to military strength, allowing them to eventually go to war with you once they've improved their odds enough. Sure some players might just want to tend to their bonsai tree in the corner of the world, and that's fair; as outlined above I would love for a Japan style situation being possible where importing raw materials with a focus on heavy industry and the production of higher level goods. But for most players especially in multiplayer particularly for the mainstay slots (UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc), they probably should be constantly jostling for advantages over each other and competing in a game which assumes real/weltpolitik; where any nation that isn't growing is dying. So to my mind, yes if someone wants to focus economically and carve out a niche where they don't have to rely on expansion or autarky to improve their position, but it shouldn't be everyone at the same time because it turned out that bonsai trimming turns out to be the most optimal strategy for whatever reason. Essentially I would hate for it to be the case in a ostensibly competitive game for most players to essentially just be doing nothing all game, and that doing nothing is highly disocuraged from a combination of diplomatic plays and interest groups kicking you out of complacency. So what I hope for, is that Victoria 3 with its design decisions makes Vicky/Pdox warfare fun again such that the economic costs incurred and risks to their nations/bonsai trees don't inadvertently make players excessively shy away from war as an extension of politics by other means. But that whether to tend your bonsai garden or to prepare for war, should depend on your current circumstances, skill level, and your decision influenced by the trade offs with few to no strategy being traps or inherently and self-evidently correct. Obviously it goes without saying if you have a laid back and casual group and no ones taking things too seriously that's fine; this is mainly about when in principle the majority of the players while not necessarily "cut throat" are aiming to play the game with there being winners and losers at the end where thusly they each in turn pick play styles that suit their situation and skill most of these aren't wrong or right but exist along a spectrum; ideally. CharlestheHammer posted:Well that’s because players are going to play differently than an AI and I don’t think multiplayer should influence the single player as they are functionally two different games I'm not really sure what you're arguing; but regardless of how many people play multiplayer, from a design perspective how your players may react to your mechanics is absolutely a consideration any experienced developer takes into consideration. You wouldn't want make a shooter where the optimal strategy was to camp because once everyone is doing it the game just becomes stale and uninteresting and people stop playing your game; so you'd take steps to mitigate this. As proven by how AAA shooters have maps that making camping generally extremely difficult to do in any particular spot for long because there's always a way for someone to get behind you without you being able to prepare for that and camp at the same time. A lot of the patches and DLC for EU4 as I understand it are heavily influenced by paradox's multiplayer play sessions and primarily make their balance decisions (at least in EU) around MP in mind. So regarding "Should you allow your players to min-max?" I'd say there's more room for allowing it in SP, its inevitable as the AI can't punish you for high risk strategies the way a player could, it comes with the territory. But ostensibly in either situation a strategy that is high reward is also high risk and my concern is that currently, based on my experienced with EU and V2 "competitive" MP, that turtling, playing tall, avoiding wars, is generally zero risk and medium to high reward strategy which can distort the multiplayer meta (although my experiences are generally atypical). And that the risks you would normally associate with them doesn't really work out in practice. So to be very clear, this isn't about "preventing" any kind of min-maxing, only that there are appropriate costs and rewards so that after say 100 hours of gameplay each game might still be different yield surprises from semi-random groups of people; and not, "Germany has to do this, UK has to do this, Russia NEEDS to do XYZ" etc. So far in theory everything is looking up for Milhouse, the economy looks like it should work which was a big reason why wars in V2 weren't very fun because it can be unfun not being able to consistently buy things you need off the World Market; the changes to warfare also remove a huge reason why V2 warfare wasn't very fun, like whack a mole warfare, constant annoying rebels, and other things that tend to make Paradoxian Warfare a Clicks Per Minute game like its loving Starcraft. All the decisions so far give me hope; I just get nervous about game design decisions that could in theory act as disincentives for things that already Pdox games tended to discourage pvp and make players shy away from mechanics that should be an equal and fun part of the game. So to repeat, supposing a situation where England and France are being chummy and basically are dividing the world between them and avoiding conflict to an adverse degree should provide multiple ideally ways for Prussia/Germany, Russia and Japan to sneak in a good effort to displace them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 05:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of the patches and DLC for EU4 as I understand it are heavily influenced by paradox's multiplayer play sessions and primarily make their balance decisions (at least in EU) around MP in mind. for whatever it's worth, I want to emphasize that Paradox's strategy of patching EU1, 2, 3 and 4, all based off of MP sessions, is extremely bad - it more or less boils down to "one of the lead devs/project leads lost this way", or worse, "the commentator at the time thought it was dumb as hell when they saw it". Just very ad hoc stupid poo poo that artificially walls off strategies, versus actually using incentives and balancing to make interesting choices and decisions on the player's end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:for whatever it's worth, I want to emphasize that Paradox's strategy of patching EU1, 2, 3 and 4, all based off of MP sessions, is extremely bad - it more or less boils down to "one of the lead devs/project leads lost this way", or worse, "the commentator at the time thought it was dumb as hell when they saw it". Just very ad hoc stupid poo poo that artificially walls off strategies, versus actually using incentives and balancing to make interesting choices and decisions on the player's end. That's probably true but on the other hand playtesting is an essential part of game design and in context of the discussion it is important to point out the role mp play testing has on how Paradox goes about balance changes; I would absolutely assume that Victoria 3 is going to result in some iterations happening as a result of multiplayer play tests with mechanics being tightened up and polished there. The big thing is that there's hopefully no obvious "I Win" button or "Stop having fun" button and that play testing lets them iron it out. CharlestheHammer posted:It’s a good thing no paradox game encourages min maxing including this one, I guess? This didn't quite catch this the first time I read it but this is trivially not true. In CK2 multiplayer the most effective way to win wars is to red-wedding the other player; and to engineering claims on whole kingdoms if not their empire title in order to destroy their slot in one button push. Without multiple house rules CK2 MP would be dominated by like the 2 players who understand the mechanics inside and out and everyone else just being entirely non-entities in comparison. Every paradox game has its issues where players figure out the optimal way to play to win, you just haven't been in those MP groups. Otherwise it would be as obvious as breathing that every paradox game encourages min-maxing. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 06:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:
I feel like the international goods market should solve this problem because there are few nations that actually have access to all the resources they will need for industrialization and multiple players relying on imports will drive up prices and slow each other down. Plus, all the other downsides to relying on markets that are vulnerable to interference. At some point it probably just becomes cheaper to steal the land and extract what you want using the internal market instead. Obviously, we'll have to wait a while to figure this one out, but Wiz and the team seem pretty good at their job. One other point, the ai is notoriously bad at managing economies and at some point I might decide to just invade anyway to optimize the territory for resource extraction as quickly as possible. I also want to echo Lady Radia's point that the EU4 mp testing was less than ideal. Although I think it did make the EU4 team realize that naval combat width was too small for late game navies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That's probably true but on the other hand playtesting is an essential part of game design and in context of the discussion it is important to point out the role mp play testing has on how Paradox goes about balance changes; I would absolutely assume that Victoria 3 is going to result in some iterations happening as a result of multiplayer play tests with mechanics being tightened up and polished there. playtesting is super important, but their MP games aren't playtesting, and balancing decisions that come out of them are based on the amount of salt lead devs have, not "what is best for the playing experience/keeps choices alive".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 06:08
|
|
|
Do you have any specific examples? I often hear something like that being said but never saw examples beyond quoting some dev from the forums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
Jabor posted:War is likely, in many cases, to be less profitable than just bullying countries with the threat of war without actually fighting. Yeah I think if anything this will be exacerbated as the game progresses, because there will be less available territory and more valuable stakes each time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 09:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I hope that wars aren't so costly that the more min-max'y players basically just don't go to war; I hope in the situation of players being passive it lets more aggressive players thread that needle against otherwise more powerful players; like I hope if you're not actively making use of the diplomatic system and making plays it tilts the scales considerably to smaller more aggressive powers. At least in terms of multiplayer, if you absolutely want to avoid war you are giving me and my brinkmanship an advantage in diplomatic plays no? I think the intention here at least is that you might find yourself in a war even if you've been trying to avoid it because of the whole "war is a continuation of diplomacy" thing where all other diplomatic options available might be even less acceptable to you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 11:34
|
|
|
War being a bad thing for everyone is great. It does suggest the "optimal" strategy is to turtle, but (ideally) that's not going to be as easy to pull off as just getting into the lead and sitting there. First, if you're not doing diplomatic plays on your closest rivals and they're still bullying smaller counties, they're catching up to you. If you do diplomatic plays against them you're risking a costly war. This much has been pointed out, but I feel there's also another dimension that makes it more mandatory to engage in these risky diplomatic plays: alliances. Even if you're at the top, number two and three are probably going to be able to take you on, and they can back each other in a diplomatic play and just take stuff from you without a fight. So you'll always need allies to balance things out. And if the great power you depend on to back you up is in trouble, you're going to have to back them up even if there's nothing really in it for you directly. This is notably how things went in history. Britain could have just sat at the top of the leaderboard, but if Germany took France and Russia down a peg, Britain would have a hard time by themselves against a continent-dominating Germany. France had a beef with Germany, but could have sat that particular war out, to their benefit... except their critical ally Russia had already committed. Germany could have left Austria-Hungary out to dry, but then they'd be isolated and surrounded by hostile powers. If that scenario happened in Victoria 3, the players would all be making the same calculations. Austria makes a diplomatic play against Serbia, Russia backs Serbia. Everyone else has to make a choice. Germany hopes throwing their full weight behind the play will end things in Austria's favor. After all, no one actually wants a war. But if Russia commits for their own reasons and refuses to back down, that obligates France, which strongly incentivizes Britain, and so on. The only one without an obvious motivation in game systems we've learned about is Russia, but add some domestic benefits/consequences for diplomatic commitments and we've fully modeled the Great War. The only thing that would throw that calculation off is the end date of the game. If you want to sit at the top of the heap at a particular date you might not have a motivation to head off rising threats in a late game war. I think that's an unavoidable issue with competitive multiplayer in any Paradox game though. Eiba fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:At least in terms of multiplayer, if you absolutely want to avoid war you are giving me and my brinkmanship an advantage in diplomatic plays no? As I said this is my hope. That diplomatic plays basically act partially as a equalizer so more aggressive smaller great/regional powers have opportunities to catch up to the people in the lead; and that interest groups prevent GP oligarchies/cartels from forming. It should take a long time and the rise of a much more clear threat and cost political power before UK & France can Ally etc. Combined with the fact that wars might be a bit more swingy in the early half of the game due to the fact you can't just roll up on someone with 100 regiments and sit on them like a bloated frog should make for more interesting dynamics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 15:19
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Do you have any specific examples? I often hear something like that being said but never saw examples beyond quoting some dev from the forums. I recall some changes being done because people would do some obscure mechanics to so some weird but cool tricks, like that guy who made a world conquest with ryoko. Outside of that I only remember paradox constantly patching the AI to ensure that the latest trick to survive as bizantium didn't work anymore. I kind of loved that. It was a constant game of cat and mouse between players finding new ways to beat the otomans while the Devs changed parameters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
I remember this too. It gives you a reason to complain about patching priority like someone had to spend time to fix some obscure exploits instead of fixing an obvious bug reported for years. But we don't know how complex are those tasks so it's not that daring. Stories about devs changing the game based on the outcome of a single dev game are much harder to believe in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
I remember a dev turning the ottos into byzantium and just owning one of their dev clashes and then next patch end game tags are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
ilitarist posted:Do you have any specific examples? I often hear something like that being said but never saw examples beyond quoting some dev from the forums. The one I recall was that troops used to be able to unload while in combat, until Johan lost a big war due to this in MP, then next patch combat stopped unloading. This was a long while back though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 00:41
|
|