|
Is Mexico supposed to be the Ireland of EU4 or something? Because it was really easy to conquer the Maya and Zapotec, so now I'm just slowly waiting to unlock explorers, where as all of the European nations that seem easy have a lot more threats running around. Although they do tech up far faster.
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Kavak posted:It probably should, but even mods like the Historical Immersion Project have a single German culture. I think it's to keep the HRE more stable, but there should be other ways to handle that. I wish they'd do a thing where subcultures in the same group have heavily reduced malus between each other. Like maybe the Swabians aren't the biggest fans of the Bavarians but they still love them a lot more than a random Norse or Frank.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
i unironically want converters between all the games once there's a HoI4 and a V3
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:Well, the justification Paradox gave was that the Autonomy limit in the case of the Celestial Empire wasn't suppose to be saying that "The Ming were super decentralized", but rather simulating how the Ming were just bad at government. I'm not exactly an expert on the Ming dynasty though, so I have no idea how valid that excuse is.  throughout history china has pretty much been a massive, centralized state complete with merit-based civil service positions and various delegated ministers more than a millenia ahead of most of europe. it's just that between the mongols/manchu and their own internal strife they never really expanded much beyond the last few dynasty's borders. i don't really understand the need to keep china 'under wraps' considering most of the nations in paradox games never achieved anything close to what they do. even more of them fall short of their historical path and just get rolled over and annexed or stripped down to some lovely backwater.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
I love how the EUIV AI is so insanely retarded that it will peace out of a secondary, smaller war, despite that war being the only reason it's much stronger allies can fight the powerful country trying to annex them. Good job, Mewar! Now I can't help you against the Timurids.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
The people in this thread talking about theoretical V3 continue to be insanely awful. Nobody cares about the sperg you want in the game. Paradox probably isn't going to make a game so complex only someone like population pyramid and output/throughput guy would play. I mean, they might, but that'd be an insane waste of manpower considering normal human beings actually play the newer two Paradox games.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Morholt posted:The point was of course not that these countries would be a part of such a game but rather to point out that it is an imperialistic term. Oh, word? Sampatrick posted:No trust me referring to half the planet as a third world as though they are separate and different from the rest of the world isn't imperialist or racist at all what are you talking about? HMm... Riso posted:That's right. Thanks for the history update dickhead. Smoremaster posted:By using the term "developing countries" you are still using western countries as an objective metric for comparison, so it's not really any different. I wish you'd classify yourself with the worthless opinion-having retard label but hey to each their own Sampatrick posted:It actually can, if you change it from an Us versus Them point of view [First World vs Second World vs Third World], and instead just paint the world according to how developed a country is, you make the world seem much more integrated and make people more likely to care about other people in those countries.  In conclusion I hope the 4-5 posters who posted about this poo poo die to a loving carbon monoxide leak so I never have to read this awful horseshit in a loving Games megathread of all places ever again. There's a whole forum for shouting your worthless political wrong-pinions at each other.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
hurp durp. the unit graphics in a wargame where combat is mostly just armies moving from province to province in a slightly more indepth version of risk matters a LOT to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
H;ey, just a thought, but maybe not talk about stupid bullshit in the thread that's about HoI and Victoria. Thanks and god bless.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
You can say the truth, that it's an unwieldy badly designed incomprehensible mess. But it will be a cool game if it gets a sequel that cuts the bullshit and makes it possible to figure out, like EU4 does. CK2 used to be good but the current team is determined to ruin it. Let's see how HoI4 goes. I have high hopes because HoI3 and HoI2/DH are pretty boring as actual games, not to mention railroady, but have a lot of potential.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Kavak posted:When did it stop being good? It's still good I guess if you play at the 1066 start. The earlier start dates are insanely bad and unfortunately tribal mechanics and not being able to become feudal as an unreformed pagan pretty much made playing anyone who wasn't already Muslim or Christian a boring, centuries-long grind. Also don't lie to me and say you liked the India expansion. Nobody does.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
I guess I understand the idea behind colonizing horde provinces, since it's all basically undeveloped land in the time period anyway outside of the occasional city or fort, but with new autonomy there's no point since there's no effective difference between, say, Genoa's Crimean provinces and Portugal's African land. Except for Trade Companies I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Are they totally the same mechanic as colonisation? I'd guess having them spawn occasional rebels to wreck your progress would be a way to limit the expansion into horde territory. Not totally the same, but the provinces are usually insanely cheap to core since they are distant overseas and they have a minimum autonomy of 75%.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Gort posted:More time can only be a good thing for a game developer. Yeah, except for the insane number of games crippled and ruined by feature creep and taking so long that they have to spend time doing engine upgrades instead of content development.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:"Insane number", really? I can only really think of Duke Nukem Forever that fits your description, and Paradox don't tend to jump from engine to engine during the development of a single game, which has gotta be one of the biggest timesinks in DNF's development. You don't get out much do you
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
It's a well-known fact that what more people want in CK2, is definitely more map area that only the player ever enters or leaves, as well as baron-level courts, so the game can just light on fire past 1000 AD. Seriously I still don't get why RoI wasn't just a total conversion mod that let you use the new religions/cultures in the main map ruler designer. What a massive sink in performance for so little gain. Can't wait for that thing changing the Flykirate to use the lovely college of cardinals screen that you have to click approximately 8 million times to add any significant gold to. Strip the last fun thing out of non-Abrahamics I guess. Nobody plays Coptics or Neostorians anyway so why bother giving them anything cool.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:The only people who want playable baronies are retards who don't understand what the barons are for. That's the joke. Groogy is a retard who doesn't understand why his game is fun. Not surprising to me though since a lot of SA mapgamer people seem to think it's a piece of webcomic art generation software instead of a game that you should play.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Harsh, man. Bad day? I just hate LP retards
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
My point mostly is that EU4 and to a lesser degree, V2 and HOI (whichever version you prefer) manage to be fun games and still generate cool stories. CK2 has always had extremely funky mechanics but it's just been getting worse with most of the changes. Pretty soon it's just going to be a random story generator with an extremely intensive menu. The character focus of CK2 isn't even what makes the mechanics funky, it's just that basically everything the game does relies on putting the game on 5x speed and waiting. It's extremely boring and when you add things that essentially force you to spend more time waiting is stupid. The biggest offender is tribal rulers, IMO. Yes, it's cool that you can reform into a Republic. It's extremely not-cool that without consoling yourself gold or being Abrahamic, it will take a century or so at the fastest.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Sure, I just have no interest in hunting down some dude's post saying they like it. I'm fairly sure such players exist, but I don't see any point in taking the time to prove it because I wasn't talking about the CoC and it wouldn't have any bearing on your perfectly legitimate criticism of the system. Could you at least add the ability to shift-click that and the Republican campaign screen to donate more gold.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Seems sensible. Honestly though, last time I played a long term Tribal game they couldn't raid same religion so everything now seems so much better in comparison. Your levies are so small unfortunately that unless you start as a duke or have high martial, sometimes you can't even siege the actual valuable churches/feudal neighbors. You get less gold from the average tribal holding than it takes to pay your troops to siege it... And you can't rely on the Marshal option to raise raiders because again, you won't have enough troops to be useful and they also flip out and steal your money after about 3 months, which isn't even enough to siege a holding at all. Sometimes you get lucky and get someone valuable like the Chief's daughter to ransom... except then he might not have enough to actually pay you.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Thats always the sucky part about playing a EU4/CK2 minor. You end up having to restart a lot when you get randomly crushed and game over'd in one war. At least it's usually in the first hour or so if that's going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:I didn't know there were Welsh names for the rest of Britain IIRC there's a different name for Britannia for each culture. I think. I know Scotland becomes Alba if you are Irish, probably becomes stuff if you are Welsh too.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Kersch's LP taught me to play V2, and Patter's showed me how interesting the stories that V2 creates can be. I recommend both of 'em. Shame about the game it creates
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Mans posted:Poland Alternate history where the Free City of Danzig conquers Germany and builds a Fascist war machine
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
They oughta put the mapgamer roleplayer types in camps.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:The POP system is what makes Victoria Victoria. You might as well leave out characters from Crusader Kings 3. It's also what makes the older paradox games lovely
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Drone posted:-Great Wars. Victoria is not at all known for its robust combat system, but (due partially to soldiers having an effect on POPs) I think it simulates the devastating effect of WW1-scale conflicts really well. As awful as it sounds, it's really satisfying to play a late-game war in Victoria and win, because you see the practical effects of having utterly defeated your enemies to the point of breaking them. Congrats, you just won a great war against France. Their manpower reserves have been bled dry, their mobilized workers return to the factories in far fewer numbers than they left them, and their political system is more likely to spiral into instability/towards the political extremes. It is drat interesting to win (or even lose) a Great War in V2 because you're able to see these direct consequences. EU4 doesn't have that -- the only lasting effect that leaves any major impression is a country's manpower pool being depleted, but you still don't get quite the same feeling. EU4 is getting better and better at this. There's all kinds of tags that can be spawned from rebels now, even tags that have had their cores disappear but the culture didn't. Pretty soon I think we'll see a system that lets every nation break apart like this, and it'll be awesome. It's a beautiful thing to watch France, the PLC, a large Germany, Timurids, or Ming fall apart. I guess technically this can happen to the Ottomans too but you almost never see it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Coming soon: Warlords of China: 1916-1928: A Hearts of Iron IV Game. I would play this
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Next stop: You are stoned if you think the CK2 dev team will ever make a good expansion again
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Man every HoI4 video I see just makes me want to play it more. I couldn't stand DH at all, it was just too awful. But HoI4 looks like it's streamlined enough to not be batshit crazy and also has enough automated tools that I won't go insane from trying to manage two different fronts without just pausing every hour.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
Yes_Cantaloupe posted:EU4 DLC is on steam sale. I haven't been keeping up with it; are any of the recent expansions particularly worth it/not? I have Conquest of Paradise & Wealth of Nations already. The only 'skippable' DLCs IMO are Res Publica and El Dorado, unless you want to play a New World country, then you want El Dorado. That said, you should probably just get all of them. But especially get Art of war and Common Sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:You probably got too powerful so they did not want to hit your hornet's nest. Why even make a WW2 game if the AI isn't going to be suicidally optimistic
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Drone posted:Real-life Imperial Japanese High Command: literally dumber than Paradox AI. I mean it's fairly to ridiculously insane to assume they could win a war against a country with at least twice their population and vastly more territory and resources. They had to have known they had precious little time after sniping the Pacific Fleet to secure their territory against inevitable counter attack. Mostly this just makes me want to play multiplayer games as Mexico, being the USA's main opponent to keep them out of the European wars, WW1 style all the way baby.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to get EU: Rome to not crash after about 10 minutes on Windows 8.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
uPen posted:Run it in a windows xp virtual machine inside of windows 8. How do I do this. Do you mean literally a VM. Or that weird XP extended compatibility mode thing. Because I think that would seriously tank performance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Man I know you guys said EU: Rome is really silly, but uh, I'm kinda getting tired of barbarians attacking me every time I get a province to 50 civilization and setting it back to 35. The campaign is going to end before I ever expand beyond 2 provinces.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:For EU:Rome one thing I actually do quite like is how they handled trade. Well conceptually I like it, imports and exports for varying provinces and all. In implementation it became a massive, massive pain to manually set it on a province-by-province basis if you were a country of any real size. Like Rome. Not to mention other countries with empty slots are randomly just like 'nah, not trading with your dirty rear end even though it'll make me richer than anyone else can'
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
If the USA wasn't a fascist dictatorship, why would people laugh at it. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
I live on bread, but only the most tasteless bread because I'm a three chromosome ascetic in the modern age.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 12:14
|
|