|
Party In My Diapee posted:But I want historical simulations Plenty of people think they do.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Torrannor posted:There's nothing wrong with being a wargame. And especially in Paradox' case, the three or four main historical games fill different niches. Crusader Kings is character driven, where it's entirely possible to create a big empire without ever going to war. Europa Universalis is about colonization and warfare, Victoria is much more economy focused, and Hearts of Iron is a wargame but quite different from EU. Like, it seems kinda relevant to me on the warfare side that the population of England grew nearly seven times during this period, while France only grew about 75%, and some countries had essentially no growth during the entire period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
Yeah A Buttery Pastry's point is more that EU could have been a bit more simulationist, while still being fun; so if people want to make Sweden a regional baltic Empire they can by succeeding at approximately the same things at the same times as the historical sweden did; not because they had arbitrary buffs to their land because the original abstraction in the name of accuracy undermines the player's ability to do so with the tools they're given; so it ends up being abstractions being placed on top of other abstractions to fix the problems of those abstractions preventing certain outcomes from occurring. The idea then is, if the first principle mechanics were more thoroughly thought out as part of a clearly defined overall goal for the game's feel, ala as its so far been for Victoria III; EU could also be a much better game at tackling both nation-building and warfare with a stronger simulationist foundation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
Party In My Diapee posted:But I want historical simulations i dont but i want reasonable and fun abstractions that lead to engaging experiences that let me immerse myself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:i dont but i want reasonable and fun abstractions that lead to engaging experiences that let me immerse myself. These don't conflict!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
yea wasn't saying they do. but i feel like paradox has taken a hard turn away from simulationist games in general. like vicky 3 i dont think is really trying to be simulationist, it just is trying to create strong systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
I think though that's like what a lot of people really mean when they want simulationist gameplay, they want strong underlying systems to guide outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
i wonder if theres gonna be any cool 1948 events or its just a general increase to radicalism
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
I think the issue is figuring out what 'simulationist' means.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 20:22
|
|
|
Simulationist: 1. Sliders 2. pie charts 3. nato counters
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Popy posted:i wonder if theres gonna be any cool 1948 events or its just a general increase to radicalism The Berlin Airlift event chain is extremely exciting and tense, major kudos to Paradox's scripters for that one!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Whats the to-from dates for V3 do we know?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
1836-1936 iirc
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Whats the to-from dates for V3 do we know? Exactly six days in 1844 Which six days is randomized for a fresh experience each time
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Yeah A Buttery Pastry's point is more that EU could have been a bit more simulationist, while still being fun; so if people want to make Sweden a regional baltic Empire they can by succeeding at approximately the same things at the same times as the historical sweden did; not because they had arbitrary buffs to their land because the original abstraction in the name of accuracy undermines the player's ability to do so with the tools they're given; so it ends up being abstractions being placed on top of other abstractions to fix the problems of those abstractions preventing certain outcomes from occurring. Raenir Salazar posted:I think though that's like what a lot of people really mean when they want simulationist gameplay, they want strong underlying systems to guide outcomes. In my mind, the deterministic aspects of the game (in this area) should be reduced down to actual sensible poo poo, like provinces having a sort of Life Rating determining its potential development - while the dynamic aspects would determine where it actually ended up during a campaign. Basically, an Arctic province will never be particularly developed, but that doesn't mean a United Scandinavian empire able to secure its home territories shouldn't be able to see even greater population growth and economic development than it did historically in its southern parts. A Britain that fails to unify properly and do what it did historically should conversely not see as great growth as it did historically, and thus end up more as an also-ran rather than the top dog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Archduke Frantz Fanon posted:Simulationist: simulationist is when game is bad, unless it is when game is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
I think also a "problem" is that Paradox to a degree, designed EU such that any country can in theory with the right sequence of button clicks paint the whole map. I think this should've basically never have been catered to. To use the Sweden example, to forge the historical Swedish Empire you need (a) a God King early enough in the period of time in which Sweden's neighbours are all sufficiently weak (b) Taking advantage of good economic circumstances regarding the Baltic trade. (c) And taking advantage of the good economic and diplomatic decisions that had preceded the god-king's reign. If any one or being generous two of these factors don't line up, then basically the player cannot succeed before Russia/France/Some Pesky German State gains in ascendancy to force you out. Maybe there's an alternative if England implodes or England and France exhaust themselves much more than historically, but this should only serve to make up for a different deficit. I think that was something the trade system in EU was missing, dynamicism of shifting trade lanes that let nations for a short time punch up. In EU if you didn't build around trade and production, stack all of the modifiers over 200 years and had the right center of trade in my nation as a end node without anyone undercutting you, it kinda just seemed like a minor benefit you couldn't do much with. Pretty rare are exciting events like 2 nations are at war/embargo spamming so somehow you're making 4x as much money which you can use it to gently caress up people next to you. Victoria sounds like its systems are a lot more amendable for those sorts of short term swings that can help nations gain comparative advantages; which has interesting ramifications if applied to some future EU title.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 01:58
|
|
|
I think EU is fun as it is and especially like their focus on making every country fun and playable, even if they failed pretty badly there with NA natives. I don’t necessarily hate the stuff you two are talking about, but it should be its own game imho. Also this is not the eu4 thread I just noticed
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
yeti friend posted:I think EU is fun as it is and especially like their focus on making every country fun and playable, even if they failed pretty badly there with NA natives. yeah it's not the eu4 thread, but fwiw i'm trying to say it is bad and dumb that countries in eu4 should or shouldn't be viable, and it is bad and dumb that "painting the map" is anything except an ultra niche dumb thing to want. you should either play a strategic game with tough decisions and problems to solve to beat well balanced opponents, or a roleplaying game (Which ultimately content packs cater for nowadays in Paradox games) that has some challenges in it. paradox, today, really ignores the latter two in terms of design in favor of the first for EU4. and that sucks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
one of the things that i am most excited about for Vicky 3 - even though some weirdos in the HoI4/EU4 thread feel otherwise - is the idea that viability is defined by your goals and your situation, not just dumb "here is the only real optimal solution". sitting there and thinking about if i want my grain farms to become fruit orchards so i can start using that sugar in grocery industries or whether i'll just import it and use those industrial workforces elsewhere is the kind of decision that is good and cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 04:36
|
|
|
It'll be nice if it does turn out to be viable to do something like Japan's economy of importing raw goods but exporting high quality finished goods; and not be screwed because of random bottlenecks tied to prestige. Like just being this insanely rich nation based off of exports of high quality high tier products. I imagine this would be risky for a number of reasons especially in war time; but it would be neat. In Victoria 2 this tended to just completely be a non-starter and autarky was the only viable solution as unless the raw goods were massively in over supply, importing anything was always almost gauranteed to mean the factory was non-viable and unprofitable.yeti friend posted:I think EU is fun as it is and especially like their focus on making every country fun and playable, even if they failed pretty badly there with NA natives. The point take away is that at least for me, Victoria 3 seems to be such a massive improvement over the current Paradox formula that it would be intensely interesting to see what lessons might be applied to a hypothetical EU5; the discussion about EU/other paradox games does at least naturally extend from discussion of V3; because if it does well I think we'll see V3 as an inflection point in the direction of how future pdox titles are developed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It'll be nice if it does turn out to be viable to do something like Japan's economy of importing raw goods but exporting high quality finished goods; and not be screwed because of random bottlenecks tied to prestige. Like just being this insanely rich nation based off of exports of high quality high tier products. I imagine this would be risky for a number of reasons especially in war time; but it would be neat. In Victoria 2 this tended to just completely be a non-starter and autarky was the only viable solution as unless the raw goods were massively in over supply, importing anything was always almost gauranteed to mean the factory was non-viable and unprofitable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:yeah it's not the eu4 thread, but fwiw i'm trying to say it is bad and dumb that countries in eu4 should or shouldn't be viable, and it is bad and dumb that "painting the map" is anything except an ultra niche dumb thing to want. you should either play a strategic game with tough decisions and problems to solve to beat well balanced opponents, or a roleplaying game (Which ultimately content packs cater for nowadays in Paradox games) that has some challenges in it. paradox, today, really ignores the latter two in terms of design in favor of the first for EU4. and that sucks! I’m not quite sure I understand your first couple sentences. I think you mean that painting the map is dumb and people shouldn’t like it? And also something else is dumb and bad but I can’t figure out what. [e: I figured it out. I blame the booze. I think I agree with you but I like the asymmetry in starting positions. It’s what I miss most whenever I play stellaris. ] But I would assert that there’s much more to eu4 than painting the map unless you just mean conquering an empire in general. 90% of my played time in eu4 is probably on achievement runs because they’re fun challenges with a definite goal and can have multiple options for completing them. I really hope vicky3 has some achievements like the eu4 ones. feller fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 04:48
|
|
|
yeti friend posted:I’m not quite sure I understand your first couple sentences. I think you mean that painting the map is dumb and people shouldn’t like it? And also something else is dumb and bad but I can’t figure out what. [e: I figured it out. I blame the booze. I think I agree with you but I like the asymmetry in starting positions. It’s what I miss most whenever I play stellaris. ] i don't think there's much more else to EU4 ultimately, it sounds like we mostly agree otherwise. like, EU4 does have a ton of window dressing - but the thing I've noticed most paradox vets vs. paradox enthusiasts differ in is the former rapidly identify the window dressing and meaningless modifiers countries have, vs. the latter who think "professionalism" is a factor in combat and not just an MP-bank (as a random example). i guess some people like those aspects and i don't want to poo poo on them. i just think it isn't really fun once you've "solved the problem", so to speak. you spend an hour or two and you realize the mechanic really is all it says, and that's it, you're done engaging it, really - you've solved it. not a great way to approach a strategy game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The point take away is that at least for me, Victoria 3 seems to be such a massive improvement over the current Paradox formula that it would be intensely interesting to see what lessons might be applied to a hypothetical EU5; the discussion about EU/other paradox games does at least naturally extend from discussion of V3; because if it does well I think we'll see V3 as an inflection point in the direction of how future pdox titles are developed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Yeah, this is probably right. The willingness to deemphasize micro in combat, in favor of an entirely new system that ties into the core strength of the game, makes me excited for the kind of game design shifts EU5 might see. A lot of the province interaction (buildings, development boosts, coring, estates, and so on) stuff in EU4 could potentially be cut, in favor of a more hands-off dynamic model happening behind the scenes based on how you run things at the national level. With that attention drain being taken away, the game would then have time for expanding the empire/diplomacy/war side of things, which is the more natural focus for the EU series. Makes a lot more sense to me to have the player pay attention to the line of succession to the French throne than the expansion of farms in Sussex. a different development studio would be the one to develop EU5, and likely one with a completely different design paradigm (E.g. internal politics is dumb, external expansion is all there is) ala who its leads are than Wiz and Vicky 3's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Add some racisl slurs and it's basically the /vst/ take on every mainstream strategy game made in the past decade. /gsg/ is somewhat charming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
Wasn't Johan the lead dev on Imperator (at least until it got reworked)? If he would be the lead for EU5 I imagine versions of some of the mechanics from Imperator would show up, considering how much of Imperator on release felt like a reiteration of stuff from EU4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
Lady Radia posted:a different development studio would be the one to develop EU5, and likely one with a completely different design paradigm (E.g. internal politics is dumb, external expansion is all there is) ala who its leads are than Wiz and Vicky 3's. In both cases, the solution is/would be to create a dynamic automated system that does that poo poo for you, based on overall strategic choices, as well as your successes and failures. Basically, making a system where if you do what would be natural to a game focused on external expansion (keeping wars in your enemy's territory, expanding your territory, growing your diplomatic influence) your country's population and economy just grows on its own, no need to repeatedly go back and see if you should consider building some more poo poo. This would have the added benefit of making the treasury much more explicitly your war chest, which would probably make it easier to balance too. Doing the above, internal politics as an active player choice could basically be reduced down to choice of government form, with there being essentially different tracks with different tiers of capability - with the different tracks supporting different strategies. So like, the autocratic track is better able to put its population in a uniform, while the constitutional one sees better growth while not being as good at actually marshaling those resources for the state. Of course a higher tier constitutional government would not be worse than a lower tier autocratic one, resulting in clear developmental milestones on the administrative tech track that directly boosts your military capabilities at the logistical level. And if you happened to get ahead of the curve on both admin and mil tech, you might suddenly see a major bump in both manpower and the quality of that manpower, leapfrogging all your rivals to instantly become a huge menace like was seen historically with some countries - only for their rivals to eventually catch up. In Vicky 3, I assume you could see a similar thing happening, where the development of new weaponry and new production methods, allows one country rapidly leave an old paradigm of warfare behind and absolutely trounce its rivals, all without the player having the choice to be a micro god when it comes to the actual fighting. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 10:50
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:In Vicky 3, I assume you could see a similar thing happening, where the development of new weaponry and new production methods, allows one country rapidly leave an old paradigm of warfare behind and absolutely trounce its rivals, all without the player having the choice to be a micro god when it comes to the actual fighting. I'm interested to play the game and decide if the warfare system was a huge win or loss. I like that paradox is taking risks and trying things new, but toggling options doesn't seem like an engaging way to execute war. In the end who cares if its microing sprites or automated systems, most people just want to have a fun game with this economic system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Apply the same philosophy to a game where the design paradigm is all about war and external relations, and you get the willingness to scrap internal development micro. I may not really understand what kind of system you think it would be nice to replace buildings/provence development with, but it's hard to imagine a system less disruptive and more minimal than clicking on a province once every few years. In fact, that's about the level of engagement that warfare/building your army now is in Victoria 3. In general I think it's being overstated how much of a pure wargame EU4 is. The systems all revolve around map painting, true, but that doesn't mean stripping out everything that isn't map painting makes for a more pure EU experience. You could make a game where you just move little guys across the map to make it your color, while fighting other little guys trying to do the same, and it would not feel like EU at all. Of course EU has historical simulator elements even if they're not the foundation of the game. They exist to establish a certain level of flavor- a satisfying amount of plausibility to facilitate some level of narrative coherence. A more simple, focused game is not necessarily a better feeling one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Eiba posted:This doesn't seem that different to how EU4 already is. It's hard to imagine internal development being simpler than clicking one of half a dozen buildings. That's not really micro. Or at least nothing as remotely involved and disruptive as unit micro has always been in these games. Eiba posted:Of course EU has historical simulator elements even if they're not the foundation of the game. They exist to establish a certain level of flavor- a satisfying amount of plausibility to facilitate some level of narrative coherence. A more simple, focused game is not necessarily a better feeling one. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Oct 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I guess my issue is that the flavor kind of has rotten undertones to me, because this particular aspect of the game is so clearly divorced from reality. Like, it kinda sucks to have certain countries be massively overpowered from the start, and others massively underpowered, to push a historical outcome. Or in some cases, not a historical outcome, but an accelerated historical outcome - pushing late EU-period or even Victorian era poo poo into the EU mid-game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
I'm surprised they are still only doing dev streams and haven't let streamers get their hands on the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I'm surprised they are still only doing dev streams and haven't let streamers get their hands on the game. Have you seen the nearly show stopping hot code bugs they keep finding? It's still needed to have that dev context to explain that oops, no, all your industry vanishing is very much a bug. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Oct 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 18:54
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I'm surprised they are still only doing dev streams and haven't let streamers get their hands on the game. For CK3 they did pre-release video content with selected content creators but streamers were not allowed to stream the game before release day. The idea behind this approach is probably to protect against streamers ranting about bugs that are already fixed in the release version.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Have you seen the nearly show stopping hot code bugs they keep finding? It's still needed to have that dev context to explain that oops, no, all your industry vanishing is very much a bug. They explained that wasn't the 1.0 build, it was the post-release build they were working on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 19:05
|
|
|
There’s been an AMA today with many of the developers https://reddit.com/r/victoria3/comments/y0exiu/official_victoria_3_ama_with_the_game_devs/
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
Ardryn posted:They explained that wasn't the 1.0 build, it was the post-release build they were working on. Yeah, I dare say they're still trying to decide whether to release the stable build or the one they've been patching for the last month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Party In My Diapee posted:But I want historical simulations In my current HOI4 game Poland owns half of Spain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 22:22
|
|
