|
If they can do no wrong then they wouldn’t be complaining so that doesn’t really work
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:More like they blindly buy every game because sacred Paradox can do no wrong, without actually looking at gameplay beforehand. I mean to be fair, I was pretty shocked that they didn't even include functional MP with all of the MP dev streams they showed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Walh Hara posted:To be honest, I think so as well. In my eyes, the problem is that there are a bunch of things that currently cost power that should have been free (or have another drawback), like diplomatic interactions, changing a governor's policy, setting up a trade route, etc. Yeah that's definitely how I felt when I played it, I figured it would be akin to EU4 but the implementation just didn't feel right. I love how good and bad rulers can really drive a nation and your decisions, and let you punch well above your weight in EU4. All it felt like in Rome was getting more "money" to spend a bit quicker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Beamed posted:It's kind of in line with a lot of Johan's other points about this game; in the Imperator thread, for example, he defends pirates currently being bad and annoying, because now he can change them later and players will like the changes, vs. adding pirates and players being upset about pirates. It's.. a frustratingly adversarial position to take with your playerbase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
I guess if you added pirates and did nothing else, people would think the pirates are bad anyway because their empire is just worse off than they were before pirates are added. (Even if rival empires are also worse off in just the same way, players wouldn't really look at it that way). So piracy would have to come alongside some other economic tuning that softens the blow a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I guess if you added pirates and did nothing else, people would think the pirates are bad anyway because their empire is just worse off than they were before pirates are added. (Even if rival empires are also worse off in just the same way, players wouldn't really look at it that way).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
God I wish they had made this map for CK3 or Vicky3 right now. It even makes EU4 look like crud.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:God I wish they had made this map for CK3 or Same. Also the updated portrait aging tech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:God I wish they had made this map for CK3 or Vicky3 right now. It even makes EU4 look like crud. I hope they take the province density into future games. I love how the wasteland mountains make passes a lot more strategically important, and make the geography more interesting. Especially stuff like Iran being a bunch of interconnected valleys and plateaus divided by large deserts and mountain ranges, its much more interesting than the block of provinces bordered by mountain ranges that it is in EU4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I hope they take the province density into future games. I love how the wasteland mountains make passes a lot more strategically important, and make the geography more interesting. Especially stuff like Iran being a bunch of interconnected valleys and plateaus divided by large deserts and mountain ranges, its much more interesting than the block of provinces bordered by mountain ranges that it is in EU4. Counterpoint: extremely high province density makes the game run worse and doesn't actually improve gameplay in a meaningful way. It just looks prettier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Counterpoint: extremely high province density makes the game run worse and doesn't actually improve gameplay in a meaningful way. It just looks prettier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
Imperator's best feature is easily its map.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
I'm honestly impressed at how well it localizes a conflict. Armies are fighting in a small section of Greece with a decent amount of strategy involved instead of just casually chasing each other across half of Anatolia to try to gain an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Yeah the sense of actual passes and lines of conflict is huge and a vast improvement over just chasing down a lovely stack everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Which one of you did this
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Which one of you did this Look, what I get tattoed on my penis is none of your business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
I'm more curious about the semicolon
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
It was an awkward period in their life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Red Bones explicitly calls out how it improves gameplay. This is a function of the placement of impassable terrain, not a function of province density.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
The two big things I want less of in paradox games are mana and province density, but I'm self-aware enough to then just not buy the game rather than buy it and leave a nasty review that makes poor Johan lose his ability to feel human anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Yeah honestly I'm not sure I like Imperator's province density. I'm sure it improves combat, but the biggest thing I was finding was that it made getting a handle on my country way harder than it had been in other Paradox games. Also the uniform shapes and sizes of practically every province adds to that a lot, plus since every country in the game is some variant of pastel and three quarters of them are tiny interchangeable tribes. Even most of the flags are generic. Maybe this kind of thing isn't an issue for everyone, but for other Paradox games, even for regions I don't know so well before playing (e.g. Southeast Asia in EU4) I normally latch on to some visual landmarks and can start finding my way around things easily before long, but I was just constantly lost in Imperator. Antiquity's basically my favorite period too. e: the wasteland provinces are great though, and I think the small uniform provinces look pretty slick even though I personally don't think they're so good from a functionality standpoint
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
Eh, even playing the EU4 mods with the improved maps makes the game feel way better. Typus is fantastic for that, in ways I have not thought about hard enough to write down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 00:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
VostokProgram posted:I'm more curious about the semicolon It's a suicide prevention/support thing. https://projectsemicolon.com/
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:I'm more curious about the semicolon It was a fad for a bit to get it to say "I tried / wanted to commit suicide, but didn't"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
What did you get when you try suicidegirls
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
That's kind of one of the reasons I keep winding up playing Britain and Italy, since I can recognize those coastlines so easily, while playing in France, Germany, Poland, Russia, or the Levant is a bit of a pain to me because I can't as readily differentiate all this inland territory for figuring out which direction to expand. I guess that may be part of why Paradox is always trying to push you towards the terrain mapmode, but I'd prefer something more abstract and representational than just trying to be photorealistic satellite views. My brain isn't used to engaging with satellite views like that, and I can't really eyeball what part of a colored topological map is supposed to be what specific terrain type, and I feel like a less-detailed but more clear design aesthetic might work better. That and making more game mechanics that can use bits of the terrain or add to the terrain. I did start to see the shape of Poland after I started playing as a people who were capable of going down and using those rivers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Perhaps it would be good if they pushed more of the economic side of the game up to the "province" level (the one where they have governors and such), while keeping the denser city level for military actions. The big annoyance with having so many tiny cities is the micro of managing pops and such in each one separately, right? You can get rid of that without losing the war benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Perhaps it would be good if they pushed more of the economic side of the game up to the "province" level (the one where they have governors and such), while keeping the denser city level for military actions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
How is warfare meaningfully different with very high province density?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:How is warfare meaningfully different with very high province density? The fort/zoc system doesn’t work without a minimum amount of provinces. That’s the big one in my mind. Other,smaller benefits are that it reduces the amount of OPM and lets borders fit better. It also makes regional conflicts feel big. Imagine fighting a 3 way war over a 6 city Sicily. It’d feel a little underwhelming to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:The fort/zoc system doesn’t work without a minimum amount of provinces. That’s the big one in my mind. Sufficiently massive provinces can also just be annoying to move armies around in, though obviously there's a balance to be struck there - too small can also get real annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
HoI4 would super super benefit from having roads, railroads, valleys, and other common attack vectors represented on the map. I think war is unnaturally blobby right now, like two amoebas trying to swallow each other. Like afaik the sino-japanese war was not actually fought by a continuous line of troops stretching thousands of miles from the coast to the Mongolian border. Infrastructure doesn't count because infrastructure speeds movement in every direction. What I'm describing would speed movement along the road/railroad/trail/whatever but not movement perpendicular to it. Probably this needs to affect supply as well, so you can send a crack mountain division humping over the carpathians but trying to do it with whole armies would suck rear end
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This sorta has a parallel in Vicky II, except in that case it's trench warfare. In real life, the Eastern Front during WWI never had the soldier density on the front necessary to create true trench warfare. In Vicky II however, density is functionally measured per province, and thus the low number of Eastern European provinces actually makes trench warfare a viable approach. Eastern Europe probably isn't the only place where the balance between regiments and length of fronts measured in provinces get pushes into trench warfare territory either, I just like the example because the Western Front makes it pretty clear that trench warfare would've happened if it was possible. I don't know how you're playing V2 but there was certainly nothing remotely like trench warfare in it whenever I played it. Sure, there's the trench invention and stuff like the tank inventions which were used to break through trenchlines, but that's on an abstracted level that you never get to see except for defense/attack values. Mostly the big wars consist of armies clashing with each other just like they used to do before WW1, the only difference being that you can now ship your entire theater directly into that battle in 7 days. And you can still go around the enemy armies if you feel like it, there's nothing like a trench system preventing you from doing so. Hell, a bogged-down line in HoI is more like trench warfare than anything in V2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:HoI4 would super super benefit from having roads, railroads, valleys, and other common attack vectors represented on the map. I think war is unnaturally blobby right now, like two amoebas trying to swallow each other. Like afaik the sino-japanese war was not actually fought by a continuous line of troops stretching thousands of miles from the coast to the Mongolian border.  the lack of geography of rail lines and mountains vs lowlands makes the warfare feel a bit blobby as you say - just huge fronts moving against each other. It seems too late to do something meaningful with rail in HOI4, but if Vicky 3 is in the works it's really something I'd like to see represented. The ability to quickly deploy armies or reserves to specific areas and keep them supplied should be a huge concern for industrial powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I don't know how you're playing V2 but there was certainly nothing remotely like trench warfare in it whenever I played it. Sure, there's the trench invention and stuff like the tank inventions which were used to break through trenchlines, but that's on an abstracted level that you never get to see except for defense/attack values. In the late game, generally the number of troops you can field goes up a lot faster than the supply limit of provinces, so it encourages spreading them out more. That, plus the fact that defense has a big spike around Machine Guns means that it's often better to arrange your armies in big wide fronts and wait for the enemy to attack one. Managing all that is a real pain in the rear end though so I can understand why people would continue to just shift everyone around in giant doomstacks, attrition be damned. Victoria 3 would really benefit from some version of the HoI4 battle planner if they ever make it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Last game as France in Vicky I tried trench warfare, really effective. You make it three provinces deep, with your front line only a token force, your second the actual line that reinforces the first and counter-attacks, and third your reserve. Baits the AI into attacking and is a really effective carpet siege at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 06:50
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:In the late game, generally the number of troops you can field goes up a lot faster than the supply limit of provinces, so it encourages spreading them out more. That, plus the fact that defense has a big spike around Machine Guns means that it's often better to arrange your armies in big wide fronts and wait for the enemy to attack one. Oh yeah, certainly when I attack France as Germany I keep a bunch of stacks right next to each other at the border. That doesn't make it trench warfare though  . At best, it's like that one ability in March of the Eagles that allows you to have your armies march separately but support each other when battle breaks out.Most strikingly, you abandon all your nearby defensive positions to reinforce an army that gets attacked, and the enemy also throws everything into that one battle. The simple fact that you can maneuver around enemy stacks means it's just good old armies marching around. That's why I said a bogged-down line in HoI is far more like trenches than anything else. It's not necessarily meant to represent giant lines of trenches but you have two lines of troops spanning the entire border looking at each other, and if you can't force a breakthrough you can only slowly attack province by province while still keeping the line intact. WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Last game as France in Vicky I tried trench warfare, really effective. You make it three provinces deep, with your front line only a token force, your second the actual line that reinforces the first and counter-attacks, and third your reserve. Baits the AI into attacking and is a really effective carpet siege at the same time. Never played 1 but the AI in 2 as well is WAY too happy to attack an enemy stack it deems inferior with 10 bigger stacks around it that can reinforce it nigh instantly. It's fun for the player IMO but also kinda silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 09:09
|
|
|
Best part was that the Vicky 2 ai didn't take army comp into account so you end up with 3 stacks of conscripts getting thrown into a normal 20 unit stack and getting destroyed because you were dig into the mountains with artillery support and they only had infantry
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Best part was that the Vicky 2 ai didn't take army comp into account so you end up with 3 stacks of conscripts getting thrown into a normal 20 unit stack and getting destroyed because you were dig into the mountains with artillery support and they only had infantry Sounds like it was just trying to be historically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
I like how whenever someone brings up "here was something bad in Vicky 2" there's always someone responding "That's just the game being historically accurate" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 14:52
|
|
