|
I'm having such a wonderful time with Vicky (again, real thanks for the Japan suggestion) that I'm probably on a course back through the Paradox catalogue with HOI next. This absolutely is a thing. The original tank/air/ship design systems were fine. Now there's loving modules everywhere and they all cost precious resources to even try and they make marginal stat changes that I have nothing to compare to.
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
Vizuyos posted:And the game doesn't really give any feedback that there's something off. Unless they analyze the whole combat system themselves and carefully scrutinize all the numbers, all they know is that they're losing a lot and they don't really know why. This is a lot of it. I feel like the feedback for ground combat is *okay*, you have to stare at the screen and look at every percentage on there, but you can generally sus out what is going on if you really dig into it. It is *extremely* opaque and really needs more tutorializing but it's at least there. But for things like the navy I really don't know what's going on. I understand fleet composition and everything, but what do reports even mean? If I send 100 naval bombers against a fleet and nothing sinks was that good? Did it make a difference? Damaging ships so that they have to pull back for repairs is useful but unlike ground units you have far less info on whether you are making an actual impact or need to change your tactics. You can sit and watch the battle play out in realtime, yes, but even then its opaque and the after action reports are terrible for communicating effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Probably not appropriate for current HOI but it would be neat if you could commission new unit designs from contractors - say if the US had Grumman, Lockheed and Boeing, all three had their own autonomous research going in the background or access to special parts, and you could say "generate me a long range fighter with your best tech" and get three proposals with different stats / costs to pick from.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Imo if you want to simplify things then just make companies into preset things rather than modifiable units. It's a great thing in theory to be able to change things around but if everyone is going to be making the exact same units anyways then just assume that yes, all of these guys brought their own artillery and didn't need to be told that it was necessary. Have tiers of units that goes from ground pounding MPs to full artillery or AA divisions. They all just turn into stat balls anyways. Or better yet, make the infantry section of the company standard while the rest of it are all attachable add-ons that contribute to battle differently. Give artillery their own phase in the fight rather than just +soft attack stats. But that is kind of against the Paradox ethos so I don't really see it happening.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:Probably not appropriate for current HOI but it would be neat if you could commission new unit designs from contractors - say if the US had Grumman, Lockheed and Boeing, all three had their own autonomous research going in the background or access to special parts, and you could say "generate me a long range fighter with your best tech" and get three proposals with different stats / costs to pick from. RTW2/3 does basically that.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:Probably not appropriate for current HOI but it would be neat if you could commission new unit designs from contractors - say if the US had Grumman, Lockheed and Boeing, all three had their own autonomous research going in the background or access to special parts, and you could say "generate me a long range fighter with your best tech" and get three proposals with different stats / costs to pick from. That's literally how the game originally worked (and still does, but with more layers placed on top). You picked a primary design organisation and you get 10% extra speed, or 10% more reliability, or 5% more armour. That only leads to marginal differences in equipment, but by and large the differences in technology were marginal in the war! The Tiger isn't better tech than the Sherman, the US just chose to make a hundred times more medium tanks than heavies. The performance between the 109 and the spitfire is basically neck and neck all through the war until the German inability to access high ocatane fuel and rare metals means they can't keep up. I see this as a fundamental design mistake that HOI3 made, HOI4 corrected, but then resiled back into. A HOI game should not be about fiddling over equipment designs. You should be Roosevelt/Marshall, Churchill/Alan-Brooke, Stalin/Zhukov making wartime government decisions about what proportions of steel your war industry is going to apportion to tanks, planes and boats, and which theatre of war your forces are going to prioritise. There's only one wartime leader who spent time obsessing over tank design and he lost the war and he didn't even get any good tanks. e: ^^ In RTW you have that level of 'build me a boat that's gotta go this fast and have this primary armament and this much armour' and its the right level of fidelity because the whole point is that you are the admiral who has to actually take out the fleet you build to fight.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's literally how the game originally worked edit: To add more context: In original HoI4 you got to pick from a few pre-made design companies that would get assigned as your x manufacturer (e.g. tank, plane, ect) on a politics screen (assigning this cost you political power or whatever it is). These design companies give a small bonus by picking one of them for that job, but you did not get to "commission a design from the companies available" - they would assign their bonus to the otherwise naked template that you got for that year of tank (like "1943 medium tank" or "1942 CAS" (or something along those lines, they are fuzzy memories) that you could then spend the relevant XP (army for tanks, air for planes) to improve stats like speed, firepower, armor, and reliability; adding to one of the three non-reliability would lower reliability so you had to try to balance it. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:
I was taking explicitly about how planes work in RTW: you ask for proposals specifying which stats to prioritize, and get a few candidates from various companies in your country a few months later as a response. (And sometimes they turn out to be lemons after you select one). It works OKish since it's a secondary concern after boats but it's also kinda not especially satisfying either..
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Vizuyos posted:40-width was optimal for a good while, but they made various changes to the combat mechanics to make that less generally true. I have kind of the same issue with the estates in EU4, watch any of the YouTubers, and no matter what country they’re playing, there’s a consistent standard set of estates privileges they all take every time. Literally the only exceptions are when a country has lower than average starting crown land or pre-existing fixed privileges that complicate things. You don’t have to take them as a player, just like you don’t have to build the best standard unit template in HoI4, but you’re just leaving performance on the table. So they might as well just start all countries out with those privileges and save time.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
I had a vague notion that all HoI4 countries should start with a ton of unique penalties and their national focuses and military doctrines should be paths towards dealing with those penalties in some way or another.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
Gort posted:I had a vague notion that all HoI4 countries should start with a ton of unique penalties and their national focuses and military doctrines should be paths towards dealing with those penalties in some way or another. Nah there's a core 'reward, don't punish' rule with game design. The numbers are all arbitrary anyway, have whatever stating positions you need but the player should always have ',I want this' options over 'I don't want thus'
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
hoi4 bad. I thought about revisiting it recently but realized I don’t want to deal with it being the same game as 10 years ago except with a more solved meta and new focus trees for, uh, Sweden
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
The series peaked hard with HOI2. In HOI4, the naval game is painful to deal with and the air game is serviceable but not exactly fun. That leaves the land game, which is decent, but held back by the division/tank designer stuff about which there were some valid complaints upthread (it’s not fun to actually engage with it and you’re better served by just googling the meta). Overall you can get a few good runs in if you’re playing Germany, USSR, or maybe a smaller continental European power but there’s only so much game there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 01:32
|
|
|
I feel like the issue HoI4 had is that it was more or less "done", feature-wise, on release, which isn't super compatible with the DLC model that Paradox has built. So you get lots of stuff being added like the tank designer that aren't very interesting to engage with since there's more or less a "correct answer", but which they had to put in because I guess a DLC expansion that is only adding unique focus trees to more nations doesn't feel substantial enough to justify the price tag on said DLC.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
meanwhile victoria 3 is the best paradox game yet 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Radia posted:meanwhile victoria 3 is the best paradox game yet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
Radia posted:meanwhile victoria 3 is the best paradox game yet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 02:11
|
|
|
Radia posted:meanwhile victoria 3 is the best paradox game yet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 02:22
|
|
|
Radia posted:meanwhile victoria 3 is the best paradox game yet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
Is that game good now? It certainly was not popular on release...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:06
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
no
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
It's good (though in classic Paradox fashion it'll probably be quite a bit better in ~5 weeks), though I don't think it'll ever really be popular. I think it was more or less guaranteed to be at the bottom of the PDS game list from the jump.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:31
|
|
|
inshallah someday a victoria 3 dev will try to play the game past 1870
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:55
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Is that game good now? It certainly was not popular on release... the main reason it was unpopular was because people tricked themselves into thinking victoria 2 was good. it wasn't, it was just the closest thing to that sort of game that had yet come out.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
Also funnily enough a lot of people were really mad at how “political” the game was (as in thinking the game is trying to indoctrinate you into being a dirty commie). Check how many reviews bemoan that “multiculturalism is unfortunately good”
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:03
|
|
|
Radia posted:the main reason it was unpopular was because people tricked themselves into thinking victoria 2 was good. it wasn't, it was just the closest thing to that sort of game that had yet come out. (It did not negatively affect my friendships at all, opinions about a video game aren't that big a deal to me.)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:05
|
|
|
Yeah Vicky 3 has a lot of problems but a lot of them were stuff that 2 had as well- and the one exception is that they tried innovating with the war mechanics and it almost works but its clunky as poo poo. I think it delivers on the premise better than Vicky 2 did at least
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:08
|
|
|
multiculturalism is extremely funny because once you get it all your imperialism becomes woke and everyone you conquer loves you
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
Vicky 3 is a good game until you cannot tolerate the slowness, so it depends on how good your PC is and how much you're willing to wait.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
Radia posted:meanwhile victoria 3 is the best paradox game yet
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:38
|
|
|
Eiba posted:drat, this hits close to home. I made some of my closest friends over a mutual love of Victoria 2. They hate/were deeply unimpressed by Victoria 3 (greatest Paradox game ever made) and it was crazy to realize what different perceptions/experiences we actually had. I realized it was mostly the idea of Victoria 2 that they enjoyed, and we're all much older now and it's harder to open ourselves to embrace new experiences.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 04:59
|
|
|
For me, Stellaris has consistently been the Paradox game I've enjoyed the most since CK2 stopped being worked on. I come back to Stellaris with every new DLC, and I get at least three fun playthroughs out of the game every time I do.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 05:01
|
|
|
I am in Awe at the amount of DLC available for Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 05:04
|
|
|
Eiba posted:drat, this hits close to home. I made some of my closest friends over a mutual love of Victoria 2. They hate/were deeply unimpressed by Victoria 3 (greatest Paradox game ever made) and it was crazy to realize what different perceptions/experiences we actually had. I realized it was mostly the idea of Victoria 2 that they enjoyed, and we're all much older now and it's harder to open ourselves to embrace new experiences. first off yep dont let poo poo like vg opinions affect friendships anyone reading this secondly - this is my point exactly. people remember what victoria 2 tried to do, but fundamentally failed at (i go back to my usual example - industrialization being completely pointless), and then what victoria 3 does, with many successes and while i would say few, let's concede many failures as well, and naturally that leads to upsetti-spaghetti. i think creating a historical materialist simulator already sets things up way better than vicky 2 could ever hope, but if people wanted, uh, .. i sincerely have no idea what folks see in vicky 2 that's not in vicky 3, but that., then they'll be disappointed. im not even trying to be dismissive there, just, it seems fundamentally a misunderstanding of the two games that drives people back to vicky 2. i -get- going back to Ricky even if I disagree
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 05:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Is that game good now? It certainly was not popular on release... it was always good and has always been the best thing paradox put out
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
with hoi4 being in a weird state of over 10 years old but still the same game just worse, ck3 being ck2 but without being able to play as Muslims, eu4 only now getting a based historical materialist sequel (johan ty for seeing the Light and playing MEIOU and taxes), and cities skylines 2 being a massive flagship product that uh well anyway yeah vicky 3 being actually good in spite of the above is truly remarkable
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 06:00
|
|
|
Vicky 3 is fantastic and I will fistfight anyone to defend its honour
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 06:12
|
|
|
Victoria 3 taught me the true meaning of love and family.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 06:23
|
|
|
Radia posted:i sincerely have no idea what folks see in vicky 2 that's not in vicky 3, but that., then they'll be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 06:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:27 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you read my post, you'd see it's not (necessarily) what's in 2 but not 3, but what's in 3. The cookie clicker gameplay smothers any desire of mine to engage with the rest. The quality of everything else might be a huge step up compared to 2, but that doesn't matter if you dislike the main gameplay. i understand except.. what did you see vicky 2 as? it had the same idle gameplay
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2024 06:26
|
|