|
Gort posted:If I was a new player, I'd just buy the base game. That way if it doesn't click for you you haven't bought $30 of useless DLCs. I'd say that even as a new player there are a couple DLCs worth getting, but you definitely don't need ALL of them right off the bat since a good half of them focus on a specific area of the game that you probably won't even play right away. Ones I'd recommend getting for a new player (in order of priority): -The Old Gods - everyone can use the new start date so even if you don't play a Pagan you still get a bunch of stuff out of it. And pagans are one of the more interesting things to play and fairly newbie friendly, so it's not actually a terrible idea to give the Vikings a go for your first try. -Legacy of Rome - once again, comes with something everyone can use (retinues). They aren't as good as they used to be but still add a fairly interesting aspect to the game. It also adds a ton of specific content to the Byzantine Empire, which is another fairly decent newbie option if you want to start big rather than work your way up. If retinues weren't nerfed recently, this would be above TOG. -Sons of Abraham - since you're probably going to play a catholic to start, you'll get a lot out of this one as it adds a whole bunch of catholic-specific stuff like the college of cardinals and papal favours. It also adds a few other bits to non-catholic rulers like randomly getting Jewish courtiers or just letting you play as one of the very few Jewish rulers in game (They are NOT newbie friendly, though. All of them start surrounded by enemies and generally won't survive unless you know what you're doing). -Charlemange - another new start date, even farther back than the old gods. It's got a bunch of other stuff but as a new player that's probably all you'll really care about initially. You can probably skip it for now. Ones that are focused on specific regions: -Sword of Islam - lets you play Muslims. -Rajas of India - lets you play in India. -The Republic - lets you play as a merchant republic. All three of those will still be a part of the game without the expansion, you just won't be allowed to play as them. Of the three, The Republic is probably the most interesting since Merchant Republics have a bunch of unique mechanics compared to anyone else in the game. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Dec 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
Kanthulhu posted:What about King of Dragon Pass Universalis? I honestly want to do a KoDP based total conversion mod for CK2 as I think it would fit super well, but don't really know enough about either the setting or CK2 modding to actually do it. Every new expansion keeps adding more stuff which just makes it fit even more - tribals in Charlemange letting you raid neighbours at will? That's basically Orlanthi in a nutshell. Just rename Piety to "Magic", give some decisions which let you spend it on blessings and you're like halfway there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Drone posted:And the swastika was created by people in India hundreds of years ago. It's totally not a Nazi symbol. This is kind of a weird derail but I'm actually curious if CK2 has had any problems in Germany because of the Swastikas in a lot of the Indian flags. The usage would be historically accurate and obviously be very different than Nazi iconography but Germany has pretty strict laws about that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
Okay I get the first and last one, but what's the middle one supposed to be? Is the second stage of civilization the same as the first stage, but colder?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I'd love a Vicky 3 too. There's really no other strategy game out there like Vicky 2 where the economy is actually run by your people who have their own needs rather than some kind of weird control freak leader entity that decides literally every building that gets constructed in your entire empire. It's also really interesting that wars actually take a chunk out of your population. Every other game basically has military units kind of appear out of thin air when you build them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
They could do a lot of that by expanding the national focus options and making them generally more effective. In Vicky 2 they're useful, but tend to work more as a subtle background thing rather than ushering sweeping changes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:The benefit is that the AI can no longer use it's limitless capacity for micromanagement to evade your moves. Yeah an end to the constant "chasing the AI in circles forever" army management in the Paradox games would be welcome. I wouldn't mind something even harsher (troops are committed the moment you give the order - or maybe the next day just to allow you to change your mind while paused), but I can understand why they'd want to keep it fairly forgiving. In the past I'd wanted a "pursue army" command of some kind to deal with this, but I think I like this solution better, because it would give you more control over where you'll actually engage the enemy. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
That's why I figured we probably WON'T get playable theocracies - the dynastic succession model is fundamental to the game, and it just wouldn't make sense to try to apply it to theocracies that didn't use it (the ones that do are already playable, i.e. the Caliphate). Playable mercenary companies might work, although I'm not sure how it would function exactly. I imagine it would be something like Merchant Republics where you've got some kind of dynastic base so even though you don't control any land you're never actually "unlanded" unless your entire company is disbanded somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Right, finally got V2's DLCs after so many years. I enjoyed vanilla V2 before, but apparently the expansions are fantastic so I'm raring to play again. Full V2 is pretty good on its own so I'd probably give it a go before modding it up. If you feel like you want more stuff after that, there's the POP demand mod which is basically intended to feel like vanilla but just has more events and such.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Actually on the subject of Vicky 2 mods, are there any shattered world or time limit extension mods, or anything else along the lines of just making it more sandboxy? I realize that a lot of stuff that happens in Vicky 2 is based on pre-made events so it's not as naturally dynamic as something like CK2, but I'm wondering if anyone has done anything like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
I think what the comments regarding HOI4's "limited timeframe" demonstrate is that what we really need is Victoria 3, with a time frame that extends right through WW2 and the cold war.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Johan Andersson's Civilization: A Paradox Grand Strategy Game. You joke but this is basically my dream strategy game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:And then you get the problem of designing mechanics that end up being meaningless because they turn off when you go to war. I don't think a wargame particularly needs a country's political parties. Internal politics can make a huge difference in a nation's ability to wage war. Politics is what made Russia drop out of WW1 a year before it officially ended. If Lincoln had lost his re-election campaign the south would have won the American civil war despite being at a disadvantage in essentially every possible aspect. Encouraging political radicals in enemy nations is a hugely important part of a wargame in the scope of something like Hearts of Iron. If the game was purely about troop movement and tactical command, then yeah, politics could probably be skipped, but a grand strategy game has a broader scope than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Bel Monte posted:I just wanted more politics and economics. I don't think vicky 2 style gameplay is necessary or desired. It's a tricky balancing act because on the one hand if you make it too open, you might end up with a WW2 game where WW2 doesn't actually happen, but on the other hand prewar actions can have a huge impact on how the war itself goes, and managing your domestic situation is just as important an element as foreign conquest when waging the war itself, and generally the biggest detriment to domestic management is that the war happens. So you have to set up a situation where players are going to want as much time to get their affairs in order before the war starts, but ALSO need to create a situation where they actually are going to want the war to happen. It's even more difficult because historically it's not like both sides were gunning for war anyway. It would be weird to incentivize the Allies to go on the offensive, but they still need to be motivated to go to war eventually rather than keep delaying forever. Motivating the Axis towards conquest is easier because that's likely what players will do anyway, but if they're playing a really passive game it's also an issue because then you need to have the Allies start pushing, and what's their motivation is Germany isn't forcing their hand? At the same time, you want to give both sides enough freedom to choose how they want to approach the conflict so they feel like their prewar decisions actually matter rather than always just being railroaded down the historical path. It's basically a conflict between "how do you give people the freedom and power to really control their nation, while at the same time ensuring they do what they're supposed to for the game to actually happen?" The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I still have no idea what the capi AI thinks it's doing. It'll try to build car and plane factories en masse when there isn't a single electric gear factory in the entire world. You can't even build a car factory without electric gear, let alone run one. And then there's its fetish for cement factories when the world is massively oversupplied on cement... The problem is it probably sees "Oh there's a huge demand for cars/planes!" without making the leap that maybe the demand is so high because thanks to the lack of electric gears NOBODY CAN MAKE ANY. I'm not entirely sure how the AI decides to build factories but it definitely seems that it doesn't really understand supply chains or the relative scarcity of different products.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
The thing about the US was it had very much the same sort of image Japan did before Japan went and beat Russia in the Russo Japanese war - basically nothing really worth paying attention to on the world stage. At least as far as the traditional factors of being "worthy of attention" in the era went (empire building, mostly). Some of the European powers kind of knew they were a "sleeping giant", but that hadn't really been demonstrated in a highly visible way until WW2. Japan probably knew that the US had a lot of industrial power, but figured they hadn't mobilized that industry the same way the other nations had where they'd essentially been building up for war the entire decade prior. What they underestimated was how quickly the US COULD redirect that industrial output towards the military, and how much of it already was already set up for that - they were already building guns and tanks and stuff, they were just selling them to the allies rather than keeping them.ZombieLenin posted:My impression of the Zimmerman Telegram has always been that it was an invitation to alliance in the event the U.S. entered the war, not an immediate offer of alliance and request that Mexico immediately invade the U.S. That's probably what it was, but the thing is that it was originally discovered by the British and then presented to the Americans, and they very much wanted the US to believe it was a German plan to co-invade the US with Mexico. So it wasn't really an accident that it might have been misinterpreted. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Well the arms race between the US and USSR is pretty inseparable from a Cold War game, isn't it? But yes fundamentally all I really want is a game where I play as the US and go around being a dick to banana republics. I think it would be pretty funny if any attempt at WW3 resulted in instant nuclear war that just game over'd you. That's what Balance of Power did. You had to push against the opposing superpower to get more prestige and win the game, but if you pushed too hard you'd trigger nuclear war and immediately game over. It occurs to me that there aren't really any games that really do much with political conflicts rooted in ideological differences the way the cold war was. Even Vicky 2 where ideology is a huge part of the game generally only treats it as an internal thing rather than something that you want to spread across the world. Civ V BNW has the Freedom/Order/Autocracy axis but it's very abstracted and tends to end up being incredibly lop-sided towards one of them almost right away (generally whichever one was chosen by either a culture AI or a human player). A hypothetical Victoria 3 extending through the Cold War and building on that aspect would actually be a reasonable direction for the series to go. It's essentially a second colonial era, where instead of literally going around the world and stealing territory from natives, you're going around the world and convincing those natives to embrace socialism or laissez-faire capitalism or communism or fascism or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
I feel like Dominions actually COULD be a lot easier to pick up with a more user friendly UI and clearer in-game documentation. It's very hard to figure out what your long term strategy should be because it's not really clear what half the poo poo you can research will actually do for you, and building armies is generally a pain because of the need to manually queue up every single unit (or summon) you want to build, and then assign all those units to a commander, arrange your squads and orders, etc. The basic thrust of the game is pretty standard 4X stuff and isn't really that hard to wrap your head around conceptually. The game just has a lot of artificial barriers making it harder for a new player to figure that out. It's also pretty horribly unbalanced. Which isn't unexpected given the sheer breadth of content, but like it's not even TRYING to be balanced. It's basically a game of whose favorite exploit will go off first. Nullkigan posted:(Also by the time the really crazy stuff starts to come up the game is probably over because people get burned out on 'obviously being behind' way too easily This is a pretty typical 4X problem though - it's easy to get beaten into the ground so badly that you can't realistically recover, and have it happen WELL before the game actually ends. For a single player game it's annoying but you can just quit and start a new game, but in a MP game it doesn't end until EVERYONE is out. Dominions at least has the option of just conceding and going AI so that you don't hold up the game for the rest of the players, but it would be better if there were comeback mechanics or more incentives for multiple smaller players to work together to take out a larger power to keep them invested even if someone else is way out in front. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:One of the big problems in Dom4 is that the phase where the craziest stuff happens is also a micromanagement hell of trying to shuffle wizards around and blood slaves and so many individual characters, many of whom are not interchangable. It gets ridiculous. The UI has been improved for the basic build troops-attack troops, but all the stuff that makes dom, well, dom, is hellish to try and play. Yeah it's stuff like that where some level of automation would make things a lot nicer without taking anything away from the depth of the game. Just being able to set some kind of minimum gem/slave count on your wizards (so they'll automatically refill to that number whenever they're able to) would be a huge boon. There's really nothing gained by having to hand all that poo poo out manually every time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Pretty sure they've explicitly said they have no intention of ever doing a 'all history' Civ style game. It probably would be, but actually designing mechanics that made sense throughout every era of history, to the level of detail that Paradox games are known for, would just be insane. Like how do you make a system that simulates both ancient tribal warfare and modern combined arms without abstracting the whole thing to a Civ-like generic "strength" level for units where higher tech = more strength?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:This is exactly why I stopped playing Distant Worlds. The mechanics are cool, and the fact that the economy largely runs itself once you've set it up is fine. The civilian part of the game works and is satisfying, for the most part. It's just that military management is flat-out broken and attempting to do anything at all with your fleets is an exercise in frustration. I just want to be able to tell my ships to pick up X troops and invade planet Y without having to fiddle with fifteen different automation sliders. Instead, if you want them to do something useful you just kind of have to hope that all of the variables are exactly right and in that case they might pull of a successful invasion fifteen years later, if they feel like it. Instead of helping you cope with the enormous scale of the game, it just makes you feel powerless. This is similar to my issues with Distant Worlds as well. I love it conceptually, but in practice it just gets kind of annoying to play. It's really unclear how important the various resources in the game are and how much of them you need, your military and fleets can theoretically be given automation orders about range and stance but they never seem to actually follow them, and overall it just seems like it's got a lot of complexity without actually being that deep. That said, I DO like the idea of it, especially the whole private sector aspect; I'd love to see that expanded to Victoria style POPs, which would create a more natural supply and demand for each planet that traders can respond to. On top of that, Star Ruler 2 has a great fleet system for military control - fleets are based around a central capital ship which is supported by a bunch of smaller defense ships. All orders are given to the capital ship so combat is less about micromanaging individual ships and more about just ordering fleets around and letting them handle the details. Defense ships aren't even built manually - you just set a target number of each type for your fleet and they'll be supplied by the nearest friendly system, based on that system's capacity to build them. Actually Star Ruler 2 does a lot of interesting things and is worth checking out if you're into space 4X games. It's not as huge in scale as Distant Worlds and is fairly game-y in some regards (every planet only produces a single resource, for instance), but nearly every system in the game is a fresh take on 4X tropes and they all work really well. Anyway long story short, a space 4X with Vicky's POPs and Star Ruler 2's fleet management would be great.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Pakled posted:In V2, one unit of population in a POP represents an able-bodied working age male. The actual population of a country is reckoned by Paradox to be four times the "population" that the game tracks. You can actually mouse over the population to see the full number. Also I don't THINK it counts puppeted nations towards your own population, so Turkey/Scandanavia/The Balkans there wouldn't be contributing towards that number.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
The main weakness of GB is that their land is so spread out that their military is rated really highly, but their actual core territory is very small and so if you can actually get troops on to the British isles you can rack up a TON of warscore against them with very little resistance. Of course it's an entirely different story getting past their navy to do that but as others have mentioned, if you can beat them to ironclads or dreadnaughts you can sweep them up pretty easily since the AI usually doesn't rush to build that stuff (which is kind of ironic given that when the dreadnaught was invented in real life everybody absolutely DID rush to build as many as possible and that was one of the major tensions leading to WW1).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:This looks like one of those weird old budget games that is completely broken and lacking but somehow still fun. Kind of like Aztec, actually. It is so much weirder than that. You are a man made of gold fighting against the Spanish invaders with a spaceship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Hl45E71WE
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
It seems like a lot of people in this thread should play Star Ruler 2, because it does a ton of the things I've seen people mention as "things no space 4X does". You don't have to waste your time building queuing up every little fighter to be built - your systems just produce them over time automatically and they'll join the nearest fleet that has room, so the only ships you have to order manual construction for are the flagships around which fleets are anchored. The races are all different from each other in the SotS way as well - standard FTL "hyperdrive" is an option, as are warp gates which allow you to effectively teleport between them but have to be built/dragged into place first. Another option is to open up temporary wormholes which work like warp gates, but don't need to be placed ahead of time (but cost a lot of energy to create and the endpoint of the rift becomes less accurate at longer distances). There's also fling beacons which are like the Mass Relays from Mass Effect - you set them up and can use them to fire your ships anywhere else in space, but it's a one-way trip. There's other things that differentiate races as well - one of them is entirely space-faring and doesn't make use of planets at all, instead building orbital structures (this is more than just a flavour thing - planetary construction is an aspect of the game). You can also create your own custom race to mix and match elements if you don't like any particular combination that the defaults offer. Anyway, re: project Augustus, yeah it does seem kind of weird that people are assuming it will be a space game. I think the thing is that everyone just kind of WANTS a Paradox space game since space 4X is one of those genres where every new game seems to almost-but-not-quite be what you want out of the genre and there aren't really any major developers tackling them. I'd really be happy with any kind of 4X that takes the resources and POPs from Vicky and does something with that - one of the big things that bugs me in Civ 5 is that there's basically no reason to fight over resources since you always tend to have way more than you need, or are even capable of using. Which basically means that there's never really much reason to fight over anything, period. Unless someone builds a wonder you wanted, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Slaughterhouse-Ive posted:this game will clearly be ahistorical trash until the full might of Serbia is represented What you aren't seeing in that screenshot is that the whole thing takes place in the Serbian galaxy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
I'm actually curious about how they're going to handle warfare - whether they'll be sticking with the Paradox CB system or go with the old style 4X "You can declare war at any time for any reason" warfare. I think it would actually be cool to see a 4X with CB-based warfare so that wars spring up around contentious territory (like the crisis spots in Vicky 2), or are at least based on something with more substance than "I noticed your army was small so I'm declaring war on you and taking all your stuff". It would be especially cool if the federations could assert dominion over territories/empires that aren't actually an official member of any of them, and then having wars spring up between federations if more than one is claiming dominion over the same territory. Basically I just want to see some logic behind when civilizations go to war with each other that makes sense in the context of actual diplomatic relations rather than just game-y "I'm going for domination victory" stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
The thing is that most planets ARE kind of "theme" worlds. Earth-like planets with varied biomes are a very, very small minority of planets. If a planet is too hot or too cold to support life, then it's essentially just going to be a big ball of rock. Sure the mineral layout and composition may vary along the planet but that's way too much detail for a player to care about. In sci-fi you can stretch the definition of "life" so that you have species that can natively survive places like Venus or Mars or even Jupiter or something, but it's pretty tricky to then imagine what life would actually be like on a planet with an atmosphere like Venus or gravity like Jupiter (Mars is a bit easier), let alone what kind of biomes would exist because of that life, and what sort of range of conditions that life could actually survive (do they find it easiest to survive around the equator, like us, or do they live on the poles? Can they survive varied enough conditions to live literally everywhere on the planet?) That said, it would be kind of cool if different species found different kinds of planets more tolerable, and would have to use terraforming technology to make colonies on other types of planets to bring them more in line with their home planet. A Venus dwelling species would find Earth intolerably cold, for example, so if they wanted to invade Earth, or colonize an Earth-like planet, they'd have to pump the atmosphere full of greenhouse gasses just to bring it up to even remotely survivable. Which would of course make conditions very difficult for those being invaded. That could actually be an interesting strategy - pick a race with way out there survival conditions and wage war by rendering planets completely uninhabitable for any species except your own.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Please do a dramatic circus clown painting at the same angle and uniform to replace. Please make this an option in the non-German version as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
I started with CK2 and it's not too difficult to get into if you don't go nuts and buy all the dlc right off the bat. The main thing about it that seems intimidating is all the different mechanics for religions and government types, but realistically in a single game you probably won't be changing religion or government. So you don't need to understand everything right away to be able to play a complete game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
I guess I'm in the minority in that I actually like Vicky 2's POPs and economy in all their complexity. I do admit that the way they're presented to the player could use some work (just finding out what POPs actually NEED when they say they're missing their various life/daily/luxury needs is like three menus deep), and the capitalist AI has absolutely no idea how to make money, but I think it's really cool to actually see the effect of drawn out conflicts on the civilian population in a game rather than just having some kind of Civ style abstraction. I'm hoping Stellaris POPs have at least that level of detail to them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
LaSalsaVerde posted:I can't get enough of Kaiserreich and Divergences of Darkness. More so the former because while I still don't quite understand the game fully it isn't too hard to spank the A.I. when wartime rolls around. The thing about Victoria 2 is that it's actually fairly easy to finish - it's a short time period and the game mostly plays itself if you let it. There's a lot of complexity going on in the background but most of it is either automated systems, or systems that can be manually controlled but are better left automated because you'll never be able to keep up with the AI. Really the main things you want to pay attention to are your budget (which is fairly easy to manage since apparently Vicky POPs don't mind being taxed at 100% all the time), science, and your military. Essentially everything else you can do falls under the category of slightly influencing the automated systems, unless you go state capitalism and build your own factories.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:
I love how Victoria 2 manages to accurately portray what laissez-faire capitalism does to a country despite being made by a hardcore libertarian.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
TheMcD posted:Well, that and the fact that the capitalist AI is pretty much braindead. MORE FERTILIZER FACTORIES. Well that and it seems like the AI never keeps much of a reserve. If a factory spends a couple days in the red it basically dies because the capitalist AI goes broke. Factory subsidies would be a lot less necessary if factories themselves were more tolerant of the volatility of the market.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:What's a fun Brazil-like country in Victoria 2? Switzerland can be interesting. Very small, but starts with pretty high literacy so in a good position to industrialize quickly. You also have a lot of expansion opportunities by picking off all the fragmented german/italian states before they unify. Persia is a fun unciv that can modernize fairly quickly as well (they start at 50% already and get a bunch of bonuses to education rate) and is surrounded by a bunch of weak uncivs that are ripe for conquest, although with Russia to your near north you want to be careful that you don't go too nuts since they will absolutely wreck you if you give them a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
LaSalsaVerde posted:There's something about Vicky 2 that I really, really like that keeps me coming back yet I still agree with you completely. Maybe it's just the time period, could be the pops. It's a cool time period for sure, and really lends itself to interesting scenarios. You've basically got the entire world going through huge economic and political change in a very compressed period and nations that can't keep up end up getting crushed. I really like the pops as well - I just like being able to actually see a full demographic breakdown of everyone in my nation in a strategy game, rather than having it abstracted as some arbitrary unit like population in Civ games. It's really cool to be able to actually see the effects of prolonged conflict reflected in your population - seeing the difference in numbers from the start of the war compared to the end, especially if you were heavily occupied and had your economy grind to a halt causing mass starvation and emigration. Even peacetime economic crunch is reflected as pops drop from higher classes to lower ones since they either can't afford their needs at the higher levels, or there's just not enough goods to go around. I'd really like to see a Victoria 3 just to see a refinement on the mechanics - smooth out some of the rougher edges of Vicky 2 like the brick-stupid capitalist AI or the incredibly confusing interface. I'd also love to see its time period extended through the cold war - I know HOI covers part of that period already, but the cold war period has a lot of stuff going on outside of big WW2 direct conflict and a lot of the issues are very related to the things Victoria already covers - massive economic and political reform/revolution, colonialism by spreading ideology rather than literally planting flags, and the growing dominance of industrial nations over old world empires.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
What exactly DOES the Vicky 2 AI use to decide what factories to build anyway? Does it basically just look at whatever is in high demand that particular day, and plops one of those down regardless of whether there's actually a long-term need for it or it's just a sudden spike in demand? I feel like having capitalists build factories is still an interesting part of the game - it's only sub-optimal because they're so awful at keeping them open on their own, and I think part of that is the weird way that Vicky 2 simulates profitability as a day by day thing. EVERY factory in the game is operating on the razor's edge and a few days in the red basically send them into a death spiral, which just makes no sense compared to how a business in real life operates. Investment shouldn't just be for construction costs but a certain amount of running cost as well, giving them a buffer so they can operate at a loss without subsidies and not immediately shut down. Capitalists could even be made to borrow money from the national bank, allowing it serve as more than just an emergency fund if the player drains the national treasury, and also making it so that a strong national bank means stronger industry (since more money to lend = more money capitalists can invest in factories). Could even have some kind of banking/investment regulatory policy as part of the nation's economic policy, essentially serving as a sliding scale between "banks can take more risks for a big industry boom, but potentially screwing everyone if the whole thing collapses" to "banks aren't allowed to lend to capitalists unless they have enough in reserve to take the loss". The main reason why I think pops should be able to build factories is just because I think what makes the Vicky 2 pops so interesting is that they actually can affect the world of the game beyond just generating tax money for your nation and soldiers to go die in your wars. Rather than just being a big resource sink that you need to provide for, they will actually give BACK to your economy if they're financially secure enough.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:38 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:It's really annoying that the economy is more or less global overnight too. I get that in the period a lot of ex-colonial nations were still exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods but why exactly does England buying a bunch of cement on the global market have to ruin my efforts to use it in Mexico, if the Mexican government owns the factories. It makes no sense. Yeah the global market is kind of a pain because it means you're competing for poo poo in your backyard with people halfway across the globe, but I imagine they basically had to simplify it this way to have even a hope of being able to balance it. I mean it's already fairly unstable anyway, can you imagine how hard it would be to ensure that it worked if it was set up to grow from just being able to import/export to your near neighbours to eventually being a global economy? Forget to put fish somewhere around Argentina and suddenly you've got mass starvation in South America at game start because the nearest source is too far away to trade. But make too many resources available around the globe and then the early game is fine but the late game gives you a glut of everything and then there's no economic competition at all. I mean pop requirements are simpler to fulfill at lower tech levels already, so you could kind of balance it around that - as trade range expands pop demands get more esoteric and require more goods from around the world, but it would still be difficult to make it work right for every nation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 01:55
|
|