|
Coring provinces in EU4 isn't the same as fully integrating them, though. That process doesn't end until rebels stop spawning and local autonomy drops to 0. There's a lot of internal assumptions made from old familiarity with EU3 that don't carry over well into EU4's representation. Fast cores make sense if you treat them as the presence of a loyal codified bureaucracy, the most basic pre-requisite for a territory to be owned more meaningfully than simply international/diplomatic recognition. That new bureaucracy would then have to struggle for a long time to properly integrate itself as the representative of government. Culture conversion as a conscious decision likewise makes sense if you treat it as the culture demanded of state function and state-sponsored institutions, things like requiring courts to use the language of the state instead of the local language, displacing local aristocrats and supplanting them with your own and so on. Things like that that wouldn't mean turning every random peasant and burgher into your state culture but it would deprive local nationalist sentiment of leadership and institutions that could provide them with backing and an organisational apparatus.
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:Coring provinces in EU4 isn't the same as fully integrating them, though. That process doesn't end until rebels stop spawning and local autonomy drops to 0. There's a lot of internal assumptions made from old familiarity with EU3 that don't carry over well into EU4's representation. Fast cores make sense if you treat them as the presence of a loyal codified bureaucracy, the most basic pre-requisite for a territory to be owned more meaningfully than simply international/diplomatic recognition. That new bureaucracy would then have to struggle for a long time to properly integrate itself as the representative of government. That’s fine if you see it like that, but it’s functionally role playing something that could actually be overtly presented in the game. It’s not like eu4 lacks the granularity in other places. You could have all of what you described presented if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
EU4 is bad enough when it comes to putting in new systems ontop of systems, which has literally never begun and hardly ever ended well. Especially when Paradox will often just leave out new integral mechanics to make DLC more attractive, which can even just outright make the game broken if you don't have it. I'm also not sure it'd be particularly fun or engaging if it was part of the ground up original system in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Mans posted:This wouldn't be particularly strange when it comes to paradox GSGs Yah I am saying it wouldn't be good as a Paradox GSG I do not think YF-23 posted:Coring provinces in EU4 isn't the same as fully integrating them, though. That process doesn't end until rebels stop spawning and local autonomy drops to 0. There's a lot of internal assumptions made from old familiarity with EU3 that don't carry over well into EU4's representation. Fast cores make sense if you treat them as the presence of a loyal codified bureaucracy, the most basic pre-requisite for a territory to be owned more meaningfully than simply international/diplomatic recognition. That new bureaucracy would then have to struggle for a long time to properly integrate itself as the representative of government. A lot of these systems you're describing were added later in EU4's life, in response to the criticisms that you're replying to, in all fairness. They also suffer from the problems of most DLC/patch additions to EU4: they're a jumble of poorly-connected and thus somewhat difficult to understand and difficult to envision systems that rarely interact with each other in interesting ways. So it's possible that the people you're replying to haven't encountered those systems because they stopped playing EU4 (or didn't buy the DLC they're in, I can't even remember what DLC has what) or disagree that they're particularly effective or meaningful. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 23:04 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
I think of the things I mentioned only autonomy was added down the road, and even before that you still had to deal with a 20-30 year period before provincial revolt risk from nationalism wound down. I believe it was almost customary to expect newly conquered lands to cause at least two revolts before that cleared (though to be fair, revolt strength is something that has ebbed up and down throughout the game's lifetime so I'm sure there was a point when that wasn't really an issue one way or another).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
Mans posted:This is a cool concept that ends up in some frustration like, for example, your recruitment being a pain in the rear end playing as Portugal, Spain or the Ottos due to the low population provinces. Yeah the army management in Vicky 2 has a lot of interesting ideas but also terrible UX. Mobilization in a late game, relatively large country becomes a nightmare because you either have to use no rally points at all, or end up having to watch them and manually split the mobilized troops off once they start to pile up above the supply limit. I feel like a big improvement in a hypothetical Victoria sequel would be some kind of HoI-esque division designer, where you could set up army templates and they would just kind of assemble themselves when you order one to be built. Then on top of that what you could do is designate some infantry units as "mobilized", where they exist as empty placeholder units in the army when you are demobilized, and mobilization, instead of spitting out a bunch of infantry all over your country, will fill up these pre-designated mobilization-only units. This would allow you to set up your fronts ahead of time and then mobilization basically just gives the order to move the people there. Some variation of the HoI4 battle planner would also be nice, since late-game wars often become a real chore of carpet sieging that could very easily be automated. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:15 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I think of the things I mentioned only autonomy was added down the road, and even before that you still had to deal with a 20-30 year period before provincial revolt risk from nationalism wound down. I believe it was almost customary to expect newly conquered lands to cause at least two revolts before that cleared (though to be fair, revolt strength is something that has ebbed up and down throughout the game's lifetime so I'm sure there was a point when that wasn't really an issue one way or another). Nationalism/separatism has been adjusted many times, but there's also a bunch of adjacent systems that might affect how someone feels about it. There's the state/territory distinction, as well as the trade company province stuff that eventually merged into it. Feeding vassals was (and still might be?) a thing for a long time, and feeding, having, and assimilating vassals is a broadly similar but mechanically very different process that has skipped parts of the basic conquest integration track at times in EU4's history. This is just what I can think of off the top of my head not having played EU4 since like 2018.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah the army management in Vicky 2 has a lot of interesting ideas but also terrible UX. Mobilization in a late game, relatively large country becomes a nightmare because you either have to use no rally points at all, or end up having to watch them and manually split the mobilized troops off once they start to pile up above the supply limit. I feel like a big improvement in a hypothetical Victoria sequel would be some kind of HoI-esque division designer, where you could set up army templates and they would just kind of assemble themselves when you order one to be built. Then on top of that what you could do is designate some infantry units as "mobilized", where they exist as empty placeholder units in the army when you are demobilized, and mobilization, instead of spitting out a bunch of infantry all over your country, will fill up these pre-designated mobilization-only units. This would allow you to set up your fronts ahead of time and then mobilization basically just gives the order to move the people there. Some variation of the HoI4 battle planner would also be nice, since late-game wars often become a real chore of carpet sieging that could very easily be automated. Having to plan around a massive pile of infantry late-game that would either get insta-mulched by enemy stacks or collect in one province and suffer horrific attrition from going way over the supply limit was awful.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Even if it's not accurate to the beginning of the Victoria time period I would rather have a HOI style army system for Vicky 3, including fronts and battleplans. Or go the extra mile and have the way wars work change roughly halfway through the game.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Even if it's not accurate to the beginning of the Victoria time period I would rather have a HOI style army system for Vicky 3, including fronts and battleplans. Or go the extra mile and have the way wars work change roughly halfway through the game. Not sure about battleplans getting included though, since we're talking about a game not built around a single war and you'd want to spend your developer resources elsewhere. Mobilization plans + fronts so your army assembles like and where you want it to is definitely something they should do though. The Vicky period is also more about having prepared for the war, and then fighting it, where the WW2 period has people getting ready during the war. The latter requires more QoL features to allow the player to manage everything, while the actual fighting can be the focus of a Vicky war, so you don't need as much automation. As for the the shift from mobile warfare to trench warfare, I think that should be a function of your army composition/size/tech. You can always use the front tool to spread selected armies across a line of provinces, but the front would be colored Green/Yellow/Red depending on just how weak your front would be. Early game it'd be mostly there to let you set up a rally location of sorts, but eventually evolve into a tool to define actual fronts depending on your armies and the location you're trying to fight over. That would require them to normalize provinces size though, but that should happen anyway to prevent trench warfare on the eastern front. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 06:19 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Coring provinces in EU4 isn't the same as fully integrating them, though. That process doesn't end until rebels stop spawning and local autonomy drops to 0. There's a lot of internal assumptions made from old familiarity with EU3 that don't carry over well into EU4's representation. Fast cores make sense if you treat them as the presence of a loyal codified bureaucracy, the most basic pre-requisite for a territory to be owned more meaningfully than simply international/diplomatic recognition. That new bureaucracy would then have to struggle for a long time to properly integrate itself as the representative of government. Very true. This fast coring is just one of the systems in play. You have nationalism modifier, culture and religion, autonomy, status of the territory (state, trade company, colony), parliament seat and some unique modifiers like turkish Pasha. EU4 is very complex game, not to mention that AI has at least some understanding how to play it. But it has fewer of those simulation elements. They were never good so it's not a big loss. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 07:11 on May 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
That's not really complexity, it's just More. You don't have to worry about giving a state a Pasha, for example, becaus ehe might start accruing his own base; the decision to make a state a territory or vice versa comes down to just numbers, a simple yes/no optimal thing. None of these things affect eachother, really. Integration is just.. a clock. Not a process.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
What is complexity then? EU4 adds a lot of things requiring you to plan ahead. It also uses MP to remove some of the complexity with the intent of keeping interesting choices, like technology and ideas are instant improvements. But in any case, all that province intereaction looks like a case of Interesting Complexity to me. You have a variety of available trade-offs using a variety of resources, using MP on some of those means you get fewer options in other places.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:What is complexity then? EU4 adds a lot of things requiring you to plan ahead. It also uses MP to remove some of the complexity with the intent of keeping interesting choices, like technology and ideas are instant improvements. But in any case, all that province intereaction looks like a case of Interesting Complexity to me. You have a variety of available trade-offs using a variety of resources, using MP on some of those means you get fewer options in other places. Complexity is the stuff I like.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:What is complexity then? EU4 adds a lot of things requiring you to plan ahead. It also uses MP to remove some of the complexity with the intent of keeping interesting choices, like technology and ideas are instant improvements. But in any case, all that province intereaction looks like a case of Interesting Complexity to me. You have a variety of available trade-offs using a variety of resources, using MP on some of those means you get fewer options in other places. For them to be trade-offs, there need to be actual costs and decisions to be made. 95% of what you do when interacting with a province is choosing the optimal choice. You always want to accept widespread cultures, always want to convert province (even when Humanist!), always want to do etc etc etc. That is explicitly not interesting, because it's not a choice or decision. Again, it's just a clock. e: in conclusion, yikes! posted:Complexity is the stuff I like.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Beamed posted:the decision to make a state a territory or vice versa comes down to just numbers, a simple yes/no optimal thing. Well everything in Paradox games is numbers when you really get down to it. Worrying about the governor of a state getting too much power is numbers. Systems interacting with each other is just numbers that affect other numbers. I can't think of any Paradox game in which that isn't the case. Beamed posted:For them to be trade-offs, there need to be actual costs and decisions to be made. 95% of what you do when interacting with a province is choosing the optimal choice. You always want to accept widespread cultures, always want to convert province (even when Humanist!), always want to do etc etc etc. That is explicitly not interesting, because it's not a choice or decision. Again, it's just a clock. Yeah, those as absolutely decisions. Making a territory into a state has a trade off of raising the Governing cost, meaning you need to make decisions on which states you value more for lots of reasons, like converting religion, tax/trade value, etc. Plus I have done plenty of games not converting anything because Tolerance/Religious Unity was so high. And people play sub-optimally for a lot of reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
Beamed posted:For them to be trade-offs, there need to be actual costs and decisions to be made. 95% of what you do when interacting with a province is choosing the optimal choice. You always want to accept widespread cultures, always want to convert province (even when Humanist!), always want to do etc etc etc. That is explicitly not interesting, because it's not a choice or decision. Again, it's just a clock. Well that's why I say you can't reproduce Victoria 2 magic with modern Paradox approach focused on choices being clear and math understandable. Victoria 2 makes sure you will never be able to foresee what your choices mean for economy or politics. EU4 lacks in that regard allowing you to understand what happens.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Yeah, those as absolutely decisions. Making a territory into a state has a trade off of raising the Governing cost, meaning you need to make decisions on which states you value more for lots of reasons, like converting religion, tax/trade value, etc. Plus I have done plenty of games not converting anything because Tolerance/Religious Unity was so high. And people play sub-optimally for a lot of reasons. Yes, people can play sub-optimally, but that's.. not a good defense of the game, it's just what people do. Often to intentionally handicap themselves, since these are not well balanced games! ilitarist posted:Well that's why I say you can't reproduce Victoria 2 magic with modern Paradox approach focused on choices being clear and math understandable. Victoria 2 makes sure you will never be able to foresee what your choices mean for economy or politics. EU4 lacks in that regard allowing you to understand what happens. Not only is this not true of Victoria 2, this also isn't really something I'm advocating. You can have meaningful decisions without obscuring information. This is something strategy games have grappled with for a long time, and the most successful, such as the Total War series or even Crusader Kings, have decisions which are different but not based on optimality! CK3 literally even has mechanics where you have to decide if you're going to try to do something that benefits your character, but will stress them out too much.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Crusader Kings, have decisions which are different but not based on optimality! CK3 literally even has mechanics where you have to decide if you're going to try to do something that benefits your character, but will stress them out too much. Well that's still about optimality. Generally speaking you want to do the best thing, unless it's going to cause a stress break/increase the stress level. But if it's really good or necessary, then you can take the hit regardless. It still boils down to optimal play. Am I saying it's a bad mechanic? No, I think it's a great mechanic. But players are still going to do what they believe is the optimal choice, most likely.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Shadow Empire is the latest game that managed to land in this magic space where there's a lot going on that the player doesn't have any control of at all and just has to react to and chart their course through, but the choices the player makes always means they feel meaningfully in control of what they should be in control of.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This is something strategy games have grappled with for a long time, and the most successful, such as the Total War series or even Crusader Kings, have decisions which are different but not based on optimality! CK3 literally even has mechanics where you have to decide if you're going to try to do something that benefits your character, but will stress them out too much. I know it's crazy but some people include "my player character doesn't commit suicide" variable in their calculation of what is optimal.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2021 21:19
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Those decisions are strictly based on optimality though, which doesn't really make it a decision. Once you understand the factors at play, it's just something you do. You are describing whether the system is interesting when it's solved. I think that's a fair view to have (and a view shared by plenty of Paradox fans, especially on SA) but I think there's a real tendency for people to discount the value of a system that is interesting to solve.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:You are describing whether the system is interesting when it's solved. I think that's a fair view to have (and a view shared by plenty of Paradox fans, especially on SA) but I think there's a real tendency for people to discount the value of a system that is interesting to solve. This is a fair point but I think a balance EU4, especially as it developed, did not maintain well. But yes, since I've played these since EU2, it's fair to say I've solved these so long ago I have a skewed perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Okay so some talk about how they are gonna police their forum more closely, which is fair enough. However, where is the roadmap and plan for the flagship game they just broke?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
lmao. this all came on the heels of the overwhelmingly negative feedback on “giving Poland one free nuke per year is stupid as hell” and “why isn’t this much more historically accurate person part of this alt history branch”
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
we're talking about paradox forum posters here, if all their keyboards were taken away the world would be a better place
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:“giving Poland one free nuke per year is stupid as hell”
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
I also Imagine they got some nerd rage over Leviathan deleting/corrupting their saves.Ghost of Mussolini posted:Can you expand on this? Did they add free nukes to hoi4 ? In the recent Dev Diary for Poland they revealed that they thought it would be a good idea to give Poland magical nukes at a rate of 1 per year, just because.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:I also Imagine they got some nerd rage over Leviathan deleting/corrupting their saves. edit: I'm not saying I agree with it, but I feel like its important information to include when someone is asking for more info on the subject.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:33
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Can you expand on this? Did they add free nukes to hoi4 ? Poland will have a focus that gives it an offmap reactor that spawns a bomb per year
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Its not really that simple. They get 1 nuke per year IF they are a government in exile and they take a certain focus deep in their focus tree. Its not like they get them from the start of the game in 1936 in all circumstances. Also important to include that it's part of the historical part of the tree, not the alt history part.... Also I think the terrible release of Leviathan might also play a part
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Davincie posted:Also important to include that it's part of the historical part of the tree, not the alt history part.... Inasmuch as the original tree was historical, anyway. The nuke thing was already an inexplicable part of Poland's focus tree, they just buffed it to be useful.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Its not really that simple. They get 1 nuke per year IF they are a government in exile and they take a certain focus deep in their focus tree. Its not like they get them from the start of the game in 1936 in all circumstances. Fair point. We could also add that they're the only nation to get this treatment, which is unprecedented, and as Davincie said, it's in the "historical" path. I could probably get behind it if it were locked behind one of the alt-history paths. It might be fun even, but in the historical path, it's just silly. It means Poland is going to inevitably drop nukes on Germany in a typical historical game, which is of course ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
I mean don't they have to have at least one strat bomber to deliver it? Even if they get the bomb what use is it gonna be for the average poland ???
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Grevlek posted:I mean don't they have to have at least one strat bomber to deliver it? Even if they get the bomb what use is it gonna be for the average poland ??? Well, on historical settings it'll be the USA in 1945 filling Europe's airspace with Mustangs then the exiled government of Poland dropping the Bomb on Berlin with their single strategic bomber.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
Grevlek posted:I mean don't they have to have at least one strat bomber to deliver it? Even if they get the bomb what use is it gonna be for the average poland ??? The designers thought of that, Poland gets off-map factories (magic factories) for the off-map reactor (magic reactor). So the average Poland will always be capable of deploying those nukes, assuming the allies haven't been obliterated.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
God Hoi4 is an embarrassment
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:God Hoi4 is an embarrassment To be fair, this is mostly only a thing with the not-yet-released Poland rework. It's not yet standard practice, which is why I'm particularly snarky about it. I don't want it to become a normal part of HoI4.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 00:53
|
|
|
vanilla HOI4 has so thoroughly lost its grasp on reality that I’m beginning to think stuff like Red Flood is better
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Can't wait for them to reveal the lovingly detailed monarchist and fascist trees for the Soviet rework
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2021 01:01
|
|
