|
Thanks for posting this, it looks amazing. DrProsek posted:Seriously, the gradient borders were basically the only thing that was holding me back from using it in other games. I always want to play with terrain mode in CK2 but then I jump over to political mode for a second and suddenly notice my neighbor has been in a 20 way civil war for the past decade I'm only just now finding out about. If that kind of terrain map mode could make it into CK2 and EUIV, I'd at the very least try to use it as my standard mapmode. It will be in EU5 and CK3 
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
The French did have a feeeew issues like having one radio per 5 tanks or whatever, planning on the war being more WWI-esque with trenches, and the Germans were using superior czechnology built tanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:e: also a) there's a reaction to weirdo wehraboos shouting about SUPERIOR KRUPP STEEL and b) it's funny to laugh at some of this poo poo, seriously the Maus was such a terrible, terrible idea Our big, heavy tanks arent working. So lets build a bigger and heavier tank. That will surely fix the problem!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I remember reading (something linked in this thread, I'm pretty sure) that it was pretty late in the war before German industry was totally committed to total war. Which is pretty loving hilarious, since you'd think the advantage of autocracy is the entirety of a country's potential united under a single will, but the democratic USA did a much better job of directing all effort towards the war. Hitler was arrogant and didnt think they needed to Total War. Or complete researching Jet engines/rockets/whatever. Its pretty hilarious in hindsight.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Hopping on the Civ5 is The Worst Game bandwagon. I think its expansions made it worse as time went on, but I stopped throwing money and effort away after Brave New World or whatever it was. Is there a Civ5 thread? I dont know if I have seen one but I havent surfed the games thread list in a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:civ 5 is both fun and bad Hex-based combat is awesome; Civ5's Hex-based combat is loving awful and whoever thought of it needs to be shot. Combat needs to A.) not be annihilation based and B.) not be "tactical" on a "strategic" map. I'm going to stop talking about it unless it is in comparison to a Paradox title though because this is a Paradox thread and Paradox is awesome and makes fun games, unlike Firaxis. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Combat has always been bad in Civ. Part of the problem is time scale. One of the concepts of Civ's design is that every action takes place in the same time scale - contrast this with I agree with you completely. I like that EU4, and pretty much all of the Paradox games, offer different solutions to problems you face when at war. You can siege a province by simply sitting on it, you can assault it, and you can even ignore it without too much consequence. In Civ5 you cannot "siege" a city, you can simply run up to it and assault it, likely losing units that take decades to produce and move to the front in the process. The big problem here is that Cities have a ranged attack. Cities having a ranged attack is possibly the stupidest mechanic I have ever seen in a videogame or boardgame and is completely unforgivable. There is no equivalent in a Paradox game and that is part of what makes them so good, and part of why I wish there was a random map generator that also generated random countries in Paradox games of all flavors. I want this so I can play a Civ-style game without needing to play Civ loving 5, because the concept is cool but the implementation in Civ5 is so incredibly bad. end rant
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:So, CK2+. Is it actually possible to reform the Norse religion in this mod? It seems to have done away with any of the CBs that'd be required to take any of the holy sites needed. To my knowledge, CKII+ is generally designed to make conquest a much bigger challenge. You could probably ask about it in the CKII thread (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3551718&pagenumber=1), I know one of the guys who has done development work on the newest version posts there and I am sure others would have advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
ArchRanger posted:Christ, I Ctrl-F'd through eight pages of Games and didn't find it so I assumed it didn't have it's own thread anymore. Thanks. hahaha it is a super popular game and the thread moves quick so I guess it probably resides on the front page .
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Darkest Hour is very much just a really polished Paradox phase one game, and all the other ones you mention are Paradox phase two games, including HOI3 and EU3, they just came early in the new phase and so are less polished. Darkest Hour is designed for people who played a lot of HOI2 and loved it and then tried HOI3 and hated it and wanted to go back to HOI2 but better. This explains why I have been so confused about why people like DH/dont like HoI3....I never played HoI2 or DH. I love the poo poo out of HoI3. I mean, just look at this pocket: http://i.imgur.com/ICGXB.jpg and this submarine blockade: http://i.imgur.com/z59Vm.jpg . I enjoyed the poo poo out of setting all of those pockets and submarine raiding zones and blah blah so I never saw what the problem was. The problem is that I never tried HoI2 .
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:Cool, I didn't know the submarine mapmode was actually useful. It is very useful if you are trying to make sure your subs are in the right spots. I got Donitz up to 9 skill once!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Counters 4 lyfe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:I'm playing a game of HOI3 with all the dlcs for the first time in a long time and I'm having tons of fun. It's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. It really is a good game but I understand that a ton of mod work went into HoI2 and people love it to death, and that is fine. But HoI3 really is a good game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Johan said ahead of time on the forums that none of the three code name projects would be announced at pdxcon. Ohgod if Paradox made a (good) videogame version of the old Diplomacy boardgame I would jizz my pants for an hour.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:Has anyone had problems with CK2 crashing repeatedly at random on Mac? I have only played the windows version before now but I'm getting mad crashes today when I try to do anything on a macbook.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:Here's portrait of Stalin, enjoy! I have no idea why I am laughing so hard at this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Re: generalchat in PDox games- In EU4 I would really like in if the General and Admiral system would get an overhaul and you would always have a general in charge of an army (except 1 stacks, or any army that is over size X, or has over half of your combat width of infantry and cavalry, or something). Depending on your army/navy tradition and ideas, the generals would start with better stats. These generals and admirals could improve over time and gain traits like they can in CKII and HoI. Because of the time period, these generals could have traits that make them more liable to rebel or do other "internal management" esque things. The Mil/Dip point cost could then be associated with firing generals or admirals with bad traits instead of hiring them. One thing I am not a huge fan of is investing 50mil or 50 dip points in a general or admiral only for them to be dogshit awful, and I dont even play Ironman so I really could fix the issue with the console if I wanted. I just think it would be great if every army and navy had a 'captain' or something and you could promote them to a full time general/admiral for a few MPs, and it would cost MPs to fire bad generals/admirals. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I am really REALLY hoping that HoI4 gets an El Dorado treatment where you can randomize the world, turning off all railroading and letting the world shape itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:HoI3 had 3 gameplay expansions. I mean, I understand you don't mean literally 50, but 3 doesn't seem a large enough number to require any level of hyperbole A lot of people have an irrational dislike of HoI3 and I cant figure out why.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
There are some sore butts in this thread. I did say "a lot"; not "all". Some people do have very good reasoning. I thought HoI2 was a bad game at release and never got into it, but I dont kneejerk shitpost it every time someone brings it up. I'm going to drop it, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Well, at least you got the last word in. I mean...we could start a derail if you'd like but its pretty much semantics at this point. I'm not saying others cant post about it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:It is! Welcome to Darkest Hour! It's really funny that a lot of discussion in this thread is devoted to various balancing issues in DH and assorted bugs in KR and yet to suggest that someone play unmodded HOI3 complete which at least has most of its events fire, doesn't randomly drown you in rebels, and favors fleet and army compositions that make sense gets you laughed out of the thread. This is why I genuinely like HoI3 - my armies have to actually make sense BUT you can do different things with different brigade additions to really spice things up. I understand that people do not like it because it was poo poo on release and handling division commanders and HQs -especially as a large power- is a huge pain in the rear end, and all the other stuff that has been mentioned. However the concepts behind all of it makes sense and, to me, did not require gamey tactics to be competent in war - normal things worked, like infantry being bodies to occupy space so specialists like tanks can do their thing. The production, research, and industry sliders (adjust sliders to optimum alignment for victory!) all just feel right to me. And the map is fantastic. This fukkin pocket. It felt SO GOOD.  edit: and there are definitely a few other things I would nitpick about HoI3, but I just love the tactics and strategy in it. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Drone posted:Is that multiplayer with you as Germany and someone else as Italy? Okay, I can admit that something like that is probably fairly fun in HoI3. Yup. I was Germany :heil: and a friend was Italy. He had taken over all of the Balkans himself while I sat there nodding approvingly. Then I lend-leased him a corps of Light Tanks and he conquered all of
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:HoI3 was brutally difficult and drat near impossible to play. I think I just stared at the screen and thought "What the gently caress am I supposed to do here?" when I played it. I didnt think it was that bad once I figured it out, but I played EVE: Online, a bad internet spaceship game, for years so my concept of bad UI and unplayability is probably skewed. Gort is correct though - just wait for HoI4. Even with patches and expansions HoI3 has a flaws that HoI4 will be fixing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I can't even begin to tell you how sad it makes that apparently Paradox tried to bid on the Master of Orion license but were outbid by some company that makes multiplayer free-to-play tank games. God knows what they'll do to MOO. Wait WHAT?!?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:NATO counters, obviously. This would make me unironically very happy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Dynamic and historically accurate borders in the Balkan. MY SERBIA.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Why can't you westernize off of a trading company anyway? I mean presumably said company would engage in uhh trade, which seems like a thing that could lead to the adoption of technology, techniques, ideas, doctrines and practices by the trading partner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Tipu is a great example of a French Protectorate. He didnt westernize (in EU4 terms) because the British trade companies - he had French trained armies because the French helped him so he would be a headache for the British. He was organized, tried new things like Rockets, and reformed his government, but I wouldnt say he successfully Westernized his state.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
It felt so good finally being powerful and rich enough as my custom Malaya to invade Iberia and skullfuck the Spanish and Portuguese.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I'm thinking about giving EU4 another try someday. I hosed around a bit as Thailand and colonized Australia and made some failed attempts to reach the west coast of America. Then I gave up because it felt a bit dull and impersonal compared to CK2. When the enemy leader is just a name with some base stats and doesn't have a name or personality it becomes a bit harder for me to care. But a lot of the expansions sound really neat so maybe I should give it another try but play it more like a Total War game. It has definitely changed quite a bit with some of the recent expansions. If you are thinking of getting back into it but are not in a hurry to do so, I would wait for the next expansion - it is likely a ways off but looks like it will be fundamentally changing how warfare works, for the better.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The random New World thing one of the expansions has sounds really neat. Since it actually makes the new world new and you can't really use your preexisting knowledge of America to your advantage. I hate to be that guy, but the random new world is one of the worst aspects of the game. It produces just plain awful "continents".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Yeah the next expansion will probably get me to start playing agian. Agean90 posted:The new system looks like it will have fewer, bigger sieges that decide the course of the war and the ability to actually have your provinces grow so your not hosed if your in a poor region (AMERICAS) and can actually focus on developing your land instead of All Imperialism All the Time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Drone posted:I get to 1820 fairly regularly in EU4, but I've never once made it to the end of CK2, and I have like 350 hours in that game. I keep starting ironman games with the intent of going all the way through and getting those drat achievements for doing the entire grand campaign, but it always fizzles out after 200-300 years. V for Vegas posted:The challenge of getting a small power to middle/large power status is my favourite part of the game and that's usually done by 1600. I've never gone past 1750 either, but I just hit 1700 in my westernized Qing game and there's still a lot to do so I'm pretty confident this will go the distance. Panzeh posted:It'll be really cool when the location of forts actually mean something, too. France's belt of forts on the Lorraine frontier was a serious obstacle for any invader but in EU4 they'd just get walked by. YF-23 posted:Finishing an EU4 game isn't that tough; it largely depends on how aggressive you've been in the rest of the game and how much you've grown, but as long as there's still AI lucky nations like France of the Ottomans you will still have countries that can make things interesting for you if you aren't allied. Setting out to accomplish a goal like dissolving the HRE is also something that can be a long-term project depending on how European alliances have coincided and can easily take you to the 1800s. If there was more national development I could do, such as spending admin to upgrade provinces I own (other than building buildings), then I would not feel the need to conquer more land (in my game as the Ottomans I have to keep going to war so I can spend my admin points on something other than stability). I dont like conquering endlessly because the tediousness of doing so. If I could I would conquer more slowly but upgrade my country as I go so the land I do own is more valuable; I would have fewer unaccepted cultures, provinces to convert, ect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:As long as we can play as the Assassins, I'll be happy. Come to think of it, since CKII is all about playing a dynasty, do you think there will be an election mechanic for theocracies to make sure your dynasty stays in control?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Mr.Morgenstern posted:Exactly. If theocracies are going to be playable, then there needs to be some way for dynasties to become involved. Merchant Republics are playable because it's five dynasties competing for the top via election. Thus there needs to be something similar for theocracies in order to work with CKII's system.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Drone posted:Yep, that's what I meant. Nice to see theocracies getting a bit of attention in EU4 though, since as it stands I see pretty much no reason to play them. No ability to Royal Marriage takes away a LOT.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:Devs have mentioned that the parliament system isn't appropriate for PLC Wait, wrong game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:I like the incomprehensible Welsh names for everything in Great Britain.    Invading India as a Welsh Norsemen is so much fun (if there isnt a big megablob there that instantly crushes me).
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
The real question is if I will still be able to influence Portugal and/or South
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 16:04
|
|