|
FWIW I enjoy Anbennar and I think the mission trees are fun by and large, but someone at Pdox does need to find a way to translate mission objectives into plainer English. Picking through layers of nested “one of the following must be true: all of the following must be true: no provinces in province group Grouped Provinces has: provinces” is no one’s idea of a good time.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 14:52 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 16:43 |
|
Yeah don't play anbennar if you don't like mission trees Though I did just realize that my own gamer power has advanced to the point where I'm able to sightread these tooltips, like i'm reading the matrix
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 14:57 |
|
skasion posted:FWIW I enjoy Anbennar and I think the mission trees are fun by and large, but someone at Pdox does need to find a way to translate mission objectives into plainer English. Picking through layers of nested “one of the following must be true: all of the following must be true: no provinces in province group Grouped Provinces has: provinces” is no one’s idea of a good time.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 15:07 |
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:They do! I am talking about requirements: lol those are horrid the culture one would be way clearer if every sub-condition had its own (indented) tick or cross, which would make it super obvious which ones you met and which ones you didn't meet yet - which is how I thought it worked already but apparently not. (yes there's the text telling you how many provinces you have, but that's buried in the middle of the rest of the text, so it's not as clear at a glance) not sure how to clarify the "any ally" one though, since you might have different allies that meet different subconditions within it (but no allies that meet the whole thing). just saying "and" or "or" as appropriate between each clause of an "any/all of these:" would also help Jabor fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Mar 25, 2024 |
# ? Mar 25, 2024 15:10 |
|
Yeah I am at a loss as to why "Any Ally"'s requirements are not listed out. Any Ally (each top-level bullet point is required (and these could be hollow tips so they could get checkmarks of their own!)
Whoa now I can understand it!
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 15:52 |
|
Sweet jesus, that's much more readable. Please post that in the next Tinto Talks post in the hopes that Johan sees it.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 16:00 |
|
I tried Europa Expanded and had a lot of fun with Saxony and Rhineland but then I tried their Austria mission tree and had the same problem. It was just way too much. The tree had like a dozen entry points, so I couldn't even compartmentalize it; it gave me a new subject type that as far as I can tell is not documented in any tooltip, and it required me to understand the details of events of other countries.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 16:51 |
|
skasion posted:FWIW I enjoy Anbennar and I think the mission trees are fun by and large, but someone at Pdox does need to find a way to translate mission objectives into plainer English. Picking through layers of nested “one of the following must be true: all of the following must be true: no provinces in province group Grouped Provinces has: provinces” is no one’s idea of a good time. Reminds me of my one and only Rogeria run
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 16:56 |
|
skasion posted:FWIW I enjoy Anbennar and I think the mission trees are fun by and large, but someone at Pdox does need to find a way to translate mission objectives into plainer English. Picking through layers of nested “one of the following must be true: all of the following must be true: no provinces in province group Grouped Provinces has: provinces” is no one’s idea of a good time. Honestly this has been a massive pain, where some of the Grombar missions that involve building X, Y and Z in various provinces are super unclear. Speaking of grombar, you can through the orc migration events, lose tolerance and end up oppressing regular orcs if you're half-orc, which is annoying for the face of the north mission, as it was like 60 years to work it back up to co-existence. It is kinda funny though, all of the half-orc ignoring/avoiding grandapa orc like the plague (he's says racist things about elves).
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 17:02 |
|
Wtf? Where did you get that prealpha screenshot ?
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 20:43 |
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:They do! I am talking about requirements: Edit: for anyone else: Im probably too late to this and in the minority but if you look at the indentation/margin, those are the "bullets". I agree that itd be better to just have a visual indication at the start of each condition, and in the newer mission trees theyve started doing that. But for future reference when you encounter these in legacy content, just look at the indentation. Any ally has its capital blahblah OR you own 15 provinces in low countries (they also stopped writing these stupid multi line conditions like "province with: province in region name" and instead just say "15 provinces in region name") Mr. Grinch fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 25, 2024 |
# ? Mar 25, 2024 21:11 |
|
pdxjohan posted:Wtf? Where did you get that prealpha screenshot ? Oh drat, glad to see you're still lurking about here. Project Caesar looks rad.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 21:27 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Honestly this has been a massive pain, where some of the Grombar missions that involve building X, Y and Z in various provinces are super unclear. Thats when you just go into the files and erase that requirement from the mission tree, gently caress waiting around for 60 years. The dumbest ones in Anbennar are where deep into the mission tree you get punished for expanding because you have to have all of your provinces culture converted or under some autonomy number or something like that.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 21:27 |
|
To outsiders not much is know about the thriving and seedy blackmarket trade of early alpha build images, footage etc.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 21:58 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Honestly this has been a massive pain, where some of the Grombar missions that involve building X, Y and Z in various provinces are super unclear. There are tricks you can use to boost tolerance up faster. Using racial focus set to orc will make their tolerance events fire more often. If you beat a nation that is expelling or purging orcs you can make them stop for a big tolerance boost. Accepting orcish cultures will also boost it.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 22:13 |
|
Wafflecopper posted:There are tricks you can use to boost tolerance up faster. Using racial focus set to orc will make their tolerance events fire more often. If you beat a nation that is expelling or purging orcs you can make them stop for a big tolerance boost. Accepting orcish cultures will also boost it. Yeah its a mp game and we're like in the mid to late 1600s, so I don't think there's any easy tricks for that currently. I've been using the focus but sometimes the tolerance boosting decision has had large negatives pretty often so it took longer than it probably should have.
|
# ? Mar 25, 2024 22:49 |
|
pdxjohan posted:Wtf? Where did you get that prealpha screenshot ? i'm a play tester. please
|
# ? Mar 26, 2024 01:03 |
|
Kild posted:The AI really just wants the peace of westphalia (joke) I really wish this had more of an effect, or that the other possible outcomes were more significant. Westphalian sovereignty is basically the starting point for international relations, while a crushing defeat for either Catholics or Lutherans would also have had profound consequences. In game they just aren’t that profound, which makes it feel not worth the effort to get involved.
|
# ? Mar 26, 2024 06:51 |
|
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-5-march-27th-2024.1647775/
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 16:18 |
|
Very interested by the brief mention of levies in regards to the estates. Modelling the change from feudal levies to professional armies by having you rely on estate troops in the early game and then starting to build up a standing army as you gather more power onto the crown would be a good way to do it. I wonder what sort of levies you get from the other kind of estates. Maybe mercs from the merchants, and peasant mobs (that can be buffed in the right hands) fromthe commoners.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 16:26 |
|
Johan posted:We mentioned taxes before, and while this is not the development diary where we go into details about the economic system, it is important to mention that the estates of a country have wealth that is increased by the amount of money that you have not taken from them in taxes. Rich estates will use their wealth on many things, primarily to invest into things that benefit them, but will often also build things that also benefit the country. This is the most interesting part to me. The M&T influence is very obvious here.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 16:52 |
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:This is the most interesting part to me.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 16:59 |
|
I'm trying hard not to get too excited, but it's difficult.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 17:11 |
|
Any talk of how militaries work yet? One thing I'd like to see is a move away from the manpower pool and regenerating in the field regiments model which makes wars kinda feels out of place and more attritional than they were in reality. I feel like how it should work is for a while anyways, armies should be more regional in nature, more culturally specific (i.e Swiss Mercs), and more tied to specific depots where you need to bring them back in order to reconstitute them; and maybe a little more complexity to attrition that isn't just a flat number that slowly drains your armies into nothingness because you parked it somewhere weird. It would also be nice if instead of moving from province to province there was something for sub province-wise for movement or an entirely different map. It's weird for there to be attrition the way its modeled in EU4 while also having an army occupying an entire province and presumably looting it. And some sort of supply line/wagon-baggage train system to make combat more interesting than rolling at each other with doomstacks.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 17:22 |
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Any talk of how militaries work yet? One thing I'd like to see is a move away from the manpower pool and regenerating in the field regiments model which makes wars kinda feels out of place and more attritional than they were in reality. I like the manpower model because it's a view of the military at the levels of simulation that EU is working on: the depersonalized high-level state view in which lots of those functions get delegated and the player just deals with the end result - not how the troops get supplied, merely what condition they're in as a result of those mechanisms for the leader moving blocks around on the map. It's not a game that's primarily about military micro and I don't fire it up to scratch that itch, and really states didn't have the ability to manage their armies that way because of how communication worked. What I'd like to see is more modifiers though which affect the game on that more strategic level. To use the EU4 vocabulary, it would be really nice if low-professionalism armies got morale penalties based on the way the war is unfolding - war exhaustion, spending too much time abroad, and perhaps from attrition. And generals should have bigger effects on these modifiers: rn manouvre is the least important general stat, and imo it should be the most important one. The terrain and river crossing modifiers should be more significant, and the map should be structured to make that a bigger part of the game and strategy: the big example my mind keeps coming back to is that the lower Danube should be a major obstacle, but it's barely noticeable in the EU4 topology. When I'm firing up a war I should be thinking about what pathways to send my troops on, knowing that everything has friction and inertia, and they're trade-offs, hoping that things turn out well for me in the end. But perhaps armies should always do devastation to any province they're in, and this should affect the way that military access works, which will make wars more about strategy than moving the armies around like an RTS. I guess I want to see something that splits the difference between the "Fronts" model of the later simulations and the current "lets run around after each other in circles" status quo. And mercs should be much different from how they are rn. They should have minds of their own to a certain extent and represent a perpetual threat to the state in (again in the EU4 vocabulary) low-stability, low-legitimacy, and/or low-prestige environments, maybe in some cases taking over their own movement or deciding to retreat from battles, or in worst-case scenarios converting to rebels or switching sides.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:07 |
|
CommonShore posted:And mercs should be much different from how they are rn. They should have minds of their own to a certain extent and represent a perpetual threat to the state in (again in the EU4 vocabulary) low-stability, low-legitimacy, and/or low-prestige environments, maybe in some cases taking over their own movement or deciding to retreat from battles, or in worst-case scenarios converting to rebels or switching sides. That sounds really annoying to deal with
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:09 |
|
Jay Rust posted:That sounds really annoying to deal with Good. Convenience is the death of interesting game design.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:15 |
|
Jay Rust posted:That sounds really annoying to deal with But it's a big part of the historical model that's lacking in the current design. Like read Machiavelli: half of it is "don't trust the mercenaries, and don't forget really don't trust the loving mercenaries". Half of the 30yw was armies owned by dudes who were some unholy mix of landed noble and mercenary warlord. Foreign mercenaries deciding just to start raiding the countryside or declaring themselves warlords was a major problem for the Romans for centuries. The Normans carved out tons of states on a model of "Get hired as mercenary - claim legitimate ownership of territory after victory," which is one way of understanding the First Crusade. These guys switched sides all of the time. The dilemma that states faced was risking all of these problems if they wanted a well-equipped, professional army right when they needed it. And it's the kind of thing that could be mitigated by idea groups or other modifiers. Hell, different mercenary groups could even have their own stats - "this free company is cheap but low professionalism but extremely loyal, this one is more expensive with good professionalism and reliably loyal, but this one here has top notch professionalism and a low price tag but the leader is chaotic and they have no loyalty." Also the equivalent of espionage ideas could be used to muck around with your enemies mercenaries.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:29 |
|
Gaius Marius posted:Good. Convenience is the death of interesting game design. "wouldn't it be cool if there was only a single speed in eu4, the slowest speed" - you
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:30 |
|
I sure would enjoy reloading cause a merc company on a 30% chance walked into some mountains instead of marching straight into relieve another army.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:37 |
|
CommonShore posted:But it's a big part of the historical model that's lacking in the current design. Like read Machiavelli: half of it is "don't trust the mercenaries, and don't forget really don't trust the loving mercenaries". Half of the 30yw was armies owned by dudes who were some unholy mix of landed noble and mercenary warlord. Foreign mercenaries deciding just to start raiding the countryside or declaring themselves warlords was a major problem for the Romans for centuries. The Normans carved out tons of states on a model of "Get hired as mercenary - claim legitimate ownership of territory after victory," which is one way of understanding the First Crusade. These guys switched sides all of the time. The dilemma that states faced was risking all of these problems if they wanted a well-equipped, professional army right when they needed it. I contend that this is first and foremost a video game, and losing a dice roll and having a mercenary army break ranks to go siege down your capital is not fun, no player would use high-risk mercs.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:37 |
|
Jay Rust posted:I contend that this is first and foremost a video game, and losing a dice roll and having a mercenary army break ranks to go siege down your capital is not fun, no player would use high-risk mercs. Then don't hire them. Or perhaps expect that there would be other ways of interacting with these mechanisms and managing their loyalty, just like every other mechanism in the game. Historically mercs revolt when they can overpower the rest of a state's available army, when they think that the population will accept them as leaders, when they don't get paid, or when they get bribed by a foreign power. Historically states hire risky mercs when they're desperate. Or there are other ways to model this loyalty problem - maybe mercs increase local autonomy wherever they go. For all the talk of wanting realistic simulation, that mercenaries right now are "materialize an army out of nowhere for basically no cost other than duccats" is ridiculous.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:42 |
|
Sybot posted:Very interested by the brief mention of levies in regards to the estates. Modelling the change from feudal levies to professional armies by having you rely on estate troops in the early game and then starting to build up a standing army as you gather more power onto the crown would be a good way to do it. I wonder what sort of levies you get from the other kind of estates. Maybe mercs from the merchants, and peasant mobs (that can be buffed in the right hands) fromthe commoners. It's 2020. Modelling the change from feudal levies to professional armies by having you rely on levies in the early game and then starting to build up men at arms as you gather more power onto the crown would be a good way to do it. It's 2019. Modelling the change from feudal levies to professional armies by having you rely on levies in the early game and then starting to build up legions as you gather more power onto the crown would be a good way to do it. It's 2013. Modelling the change from feudal levies to professional armies by having you rely on mercenaries in the early game and then starting to build up a standing army as you gather more power onto the crown would be a good way to do it. It's 2012. Modelling the change from feudal levies to professional armies by having you rely on levies in the early game and then starting to build up retinues as you gather more power onto the crown would be a good way to do it.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:44 |
|
I think a good middle ground would be for mercs to be loyal as long as their paid. Your army won't go sacking your own cities just on a whim, only as a consequence of something you have control over
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:56 |
|
CommonShore posted:Then don't hire them. Or perhaps expect that there would be other ways of interacting with these mechanisms and managing their loyalty, just like every other mechanism in the game. I suppose it's that i am much less interested in the game's historicity, and already look at eu4's bloat and think "what does this not need". Complicated merc management is a step towards extra micro that i don't think any of us really want. Although maybe i'm generalizing? Does anyone here pay attention to condottieri opportunities? Do people regularly use spy actions like sabotage rep and slander merchants? Wait until winter is over before invading england?
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 18:59 |
|
I want to be in the position of the Spanish crown trying to figure out how it can possibly keep paying all its armies, and what they might do if the don't get paid. It's a defining and story-creating feature of (parts of) the period.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 19:04 |
|
Jay Rust posted:I suppose it's that i am much less interested in the game's historicity, and already look at eu4's bloat and think "what does this not need". Complicated merc management is a step towards extra micro that i don't think any of us really want. I know these games are considered bloated, but I don't really know what these games are without all the options. All the micro is what keeps me coming back for 1000s of hours. All that stuff you mentioned are things I don't use every playthrough but sometimes I do use them depending on what country or how I'm playing a country. I like how the game can be played without using all those features each time but it's also fun to see people use the mechanics fully to completely break the game. Too much streamlining and it's just not interesting enough to keep me coming back. Edit: Like I want them to put enough stuff into the game that playing at normal speed feels "normal" or even a bit fast. gurragadon fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Mar 27, 2024 |
# ? Mar 27, 2024 19:14 |
|
And then every so often you learn that like, support rebels is actually weirdly strong? Not because the rebels do anything useful. But because it gives power projection scaling with the ducat cost of the action, and because, if the rebels have already spawned, it gives you a CB on the country regardless of range. All the insane nooks and crannies means you essentially never fully master the game, and is what gives it its longevity, I think. Even if some of the stupid options really are just completely pointless, if you remove too many of them, you risk losing what makes the game what it is.
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 19:24 |
|
cheetah7071 posted:And then every so often you learn that like, support rebels is actually weirdly strong? Not because the rebels do anything useful. But because it gives power projection scaling with the ducat cost of the action, and because, if the rebels have already spawned, it gives you a CB on the country regardless of range. All the insane nooks and crannies means you essentially never fully master the game, and is what gives it its longevity, I think. Even if some of the stupid options really are just completely pointless, if you remove too many of them, you risk losing what makes the game what it is. I saw that video too and it blew my mind
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 16:43 |
|
This is all pretty interesting (not sarcasm), i just stick to mission trees most of the time which tend to only really care about the base mechanics. Like they won't ever require you to declare a no-CB war against a faraway island that can be circumvented with these support rebels shenanigans, that kind of unintended gameplay fuckery doesn't interest me because it feels weird and also i don't need to do it, i'll attack this closer island instead
|
# ? Mar 27, 2024 19:41 |