|
If you want the dev titles to be more correct, Johan is studio manager rather than lead coder, while Podcat is lead coder for the expansion team. I disagree that HoI3 forces you to let the AI fight for you, it really doesn't  Perhaps it'd be worth mentioning in the CK2 section that all versions are Steam compatible except for GG, and that you can't use Steam DLC on the GG version or vice-versa? A Buttery Pastry: Right o, just came right after some posts relating to me.
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:The major land campaign of WW2, Germany vs Russia (ie. the fun bit most people buy the game for), requires you to have the AI fight for you. Germany is my most played country and I never use AI army control. You can prefer it, that's fine, saying it is required is not true though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Looks like we're not getting another EU4 dev dairy again this week. Why do you have to bust my balls like this, Paradox? EUIV team is still on their holidays, the slackers!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
It's what Johan does in MP
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
Zettace posted:I recently bought Divine Wind and my Heir to the Throne savefile loads up but crashes almost immediately. Are the save files between expansions not compatible? No.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well you don't have to play the game. You can watch the AI play it. Or you could play some parts and let the AI carry out your plan in other parts, crazy I know! HoI3 really isn't the only game in the world with AI automation options.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
Most 4x games have planetary/city governors, the Civ games also have automate worker options, Galciv2 has rally points/auto fleets/and neat automated constructor ships, Distant Worlds can also be almost entirely run by the AI for you... Did you have some point? Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Jan 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I wonder if it means something that liked both that* and HOI3 You know, I was so excited about MoO3 I couldn't wait for my pre-order copy to arrive in the mail, so I ran out on release day and bought a 2nd copy figuring I could give the other one away to someone as a gift later.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:I'm playing through EUIII for the first time (as Castille), and I have a couple questions. There's no pressing need to balance your monthly budget, you get a lump sum on the first day of each year, as long as you don't go below 0 you don't need to be making money each month. Gort posted:There's a point at which automation is just covering for bad design in a game and I believe Hearts of Iron 3 and Master of Iron 3 are both at that point. I never used worker AI in Civ either. I also didn't use governors in any 4x before the very endgame sometimes, nor do I use automation in HoI3 for the most part. That's the amazing secret: Just because there's AI options doesn't mean you have to use them! You don't need GC2 style rally points in HoI, because unlike GC where you build units on different planets and have to move them together to form fleets, in HoI you deploy all units from a central pool. However, if you automate an army and give it a target somewhere it will certainly move to attack/defend that area, including overseas if you attach some transports. HoI3 also has automated army options to a far greater extent than GC2 had automated fleets (Auto fleet option was "Once you have a fleet, attack nearest enemy"), so I really have no idea what you're talking about there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Gort posted:The game is too boring not to use the AI automation. There are simply too many provinces for me to care about. I dunno, why jump in to the conversation if you don't actually want to have it? If you don't like HoI3 I really don't care, but if you post blatantly false things about it I am going to dispute them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:Takes two to tango. You replied to me, after all. Yes, I have no problem talking about how you're wrong when you post lies: You're the one who hopped in with some snark and wants to back out when I reply to your terrible posts. Tell me more about how everyone who likes the game is wrong and you're the one true font of correct video game opinions though 
Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:I really want to play HoI3 and I don't mind dealing with a million provinces etc but its the only game I've ever had that genuinely takes 20 minutes to load the main menu. Every other paradox game, hell everything else ever, is fine but I've launched HoI3 twice and I just can't deal with that. What version are you using? And did you let it load up fully before trying again? The only reason it should take extra long to load up is if it has to generate the map cache (you'll see lots of messages about quads) which should only happen the first time you load it, and even then it should be like 5 mins max on a PC that can run the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:Please show me some "lies" I told about a game I don't like. "Game sucks, sorry." Can you prove the game objectively sucks? Are you actually honestly sorry? "rally points/auto armies etc are an example of good automation that Hearts of Iron 3 doesn't have" The claim that HoI3 doesn't have automated armies is false, as is the claim that GC2 has better automated fleets than HoI3 has automated units, and condemning the lack of rally points without acknowledging the different production models is at least dishonest. "lie" was the wrong word though, I posted in a rush, I meant to say "post dishonestly". When you post or agree with posts saying that it's impossible to play the game without automating everything, it's dishonest. When I say HoI3 is not the only game with automation options and you bring up Moo3 it's a dishonest attempt to imply that only bad games have such options when it is in fact a fairly common thing in strategy games. When you present your opinion as fact that is dishonest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Yeah, I've tried it a few times. I've even timed it all the way to the main menu (it was about 19 minutes). I well and truly surpass the minimum requirements. Semper Fi seems to be the only expansion I have and a couple of sprite packs. I think I bought them on a steam sale a couple of years ago. Do you get the message about "creating quads" etc? Or if not, what's it saying at the bottom of the screen for most of the time? Are you running it as an Admin? Have you tried just reinstalling it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
Gort posted:Eh? The game doesn't have rally points. It would be nice if I could set a rule where every time I had, say, six divisions of infantry built I could have them automatically. I have no experience with GalCiv, so I think saying that's a lie is either bad writing on my part or bad reading on yours. The example of rally points and auto fleets I gave was from GC2, I said "Galciv2 has rally points/auto fleets/and neat automated constructor ships" to which you replied "rally points/auto armies etc are an example of good automation that Hearts of Iron 3 doesn't have", so I explained that GC2 style rally points make no sense in HoI3 and that it does have "auto armies". The rest of it is you presenting your opinion as fact, saying you don't like the game or that you think it sucks is one thing, that is your opinion. Saying flat out that it sucks or that you can't play without automating everything is false though, plenty of other people, some posting in this very thread in the last few pages, play it differently and enjoy it. That there's a difference between saying "I think something is X" and "Something is X" should not be news to you. Rudi Starnberg posted:Oh Gort and Darkrenown, never stop. We're the gift that keeps on giving. Still, in other news, did you see the CK2 1.09 patch notes yet? quote:MAJOR:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
Gort posted:Rally points make perfect sense. Auto-deploying newly built units somewhere would save a bunch of clicking. A system to automate the building of armies along the lines the user sets would also make sense. Why are you still going on about this? We've already established you missed that I was talking about GC2's version of these features. Gort posted:You're strawmanning, and pedantic . Quote where I said the game can't be played without automation. That's what I was arguing against when you leaped into the conversation with me, and you've followed up with: "The game is too boring not to use the AI automation. " and "Likewise, HoI3. There comes a point when the inflated province counts make conducting a war an unfun slog. You then fall back on the AI generals [snip]" Gort posted:And if you can't make the logical leap between a post that says, "This game sucks" and "This poster thinks the game sucks" without a multi-page argument, you must be new to the Internet. Hey it only took you ~3 posts to clarify this, are you also new to the internet? I guess you are, because you are apparently unaware that many people actually mean a game is objectively bad when they say it sucks rather than that they personally don't like it. I read posts, not minds. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
canada jezus posted:Does anyone know how the various paradox games run on a intel hd 4000? Specifically eu 3 and ck2. Think so, several people here say it works anyway: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?614242-Will-Intel-HD-4000-handle-Paradox-titles
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Gort posted:You haven't established anything of the kind. All you've done is misread a post and attempt to muddy the waters with trivia. What? I gave an example of features in Galciv2, you talked about them for a bit and then said you'd never played Galciv2. So you either misunderstood my post or..I don't know, something? Gort posted:So you can't actually back up your statements about what I said, and are now attributing others words to me. What the hell are you talking about? You said those exact things, here's the posts: Gort posted:The game is too boring not to use the AI automation. There are simply too many provinces for me to care about. Gort posted:Likewise, HoI3. There comes a point when the inflated province counts make conducting a war an unfun slog. You then fall back on the AI generals, You seem to be seriously confused about what we're actually talking about. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:So I spent the past few hours messing around with it. I played with USSR for a while then I had an idea to do go to a backward nation in the middle of nowehere like Australia in 1936 and turn on instant construction and research for a year. Much to my amusement, once 1939 rolls around, a nuclear armegeddon of 50 nukes marked the opening salvos of each new front, with an equal retaliation. Sadly by the time 1940 rolled around the game had so many units in it was just too laggy. Ha, yeah, those cheats apply to the AI too so they will all be max teched and have built a lot more units than normal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:I think we should set up Gort and Darkrenown for a trial by combat, with Steppe Wolfe being the weapon of choice. Aren't there international treaties against that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:You know what would make EU4 the best game ever? Bringing back Falalalan. That song was awesome. Isn't there a Falalalan version in the EUIII music pack? I haven't actually got it, but I heard it mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 14:32
|
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:I'm so sick and tired of you guys badmouthing HOI4! You don't have to set troop breathing to automated to play; you just have to pause every other second to go through the chain of command and remind them to breath in new oxygen and exhale CO2. Personally I find it the immerse challenge rather fun. Finally someone gets it!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:New EU4 Dev Diary. Honestly this was pretty disappointing to me, though the new UI looks nice. I was hoping for things to be closer to CK2, and 'aggressive expansion' seems like BB in all but name (are people still going to get pissed off because you conquered provinces that they don't even know exist?) It's not really the same, no. I assume a later DD will give more details. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:It would be cool if it did, but in the dev diary screenshot you see a vassal and ally that's pissed at you because of Aggressive Expansion, which is a different penalty from Conquered Our Province. All I can say at the moment is bear in mind these are alpha screenshots, don't take specific values in tooltips as gospel. The screenshot was more to show how the UI looks than to give you the exact mechanics of how it works.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 12:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well Paradox has had it's own shop before but even HOI3 couldn't stop it from being so successful they had to spin it off into a separate business. You know, we don't make 3 expansions for games that sell badly, HoI3 is one of our most popular games. Anyway, Europa Universalis III Chronicles code: E: gone Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Took a brief look there and:quote:The most important change is that we discourage gifters from posting codes or direct links to games for grabs. Please ask people to post their Steam IDs instead and then contact them. E: Although I see there's a bunch of EUIIIs on page 115 if anyone wants to try them. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 12:50 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 12:46
|
|
|
Well, it's a bit silly they can do it in the strait of Gibraltar, but you don't have RADAR on your manowars. Sea zones are mostly large enough it's a non trivial challenge to spot and engage an enemy fleet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 12:07
|
|
|
It's not really something anyone can influence, you can't order ships not to miss fleets sailing by outside of their visual range. Oceans are big places even ignoring poor weather conditions/night. However, fleets unloading troops are always spotted so you can avoid missing them by keeping your own fleet near what you want to protect rather than out at sea.
Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Yeah, that was kind of my point. This line of reasoning makes for really unfun gameplay. Your stratagems and tactics should not be completely thwarted by random rolls of the dice. On land, the failures of your campaigns are influenced by the dice but ultimately you are the final decider for whether or not your strategies work or fail. You can plan for a failed battle or two. On the water, having the enemy just stroll past your fleet on a stroke of luck and completely siege your home land is just kind of frustrating bullshit. If armies couldn't disembark while their transports were in combat, you would be able to have a backup navy to stop landings, but that isn't possible. This little bit of realism for the sake of realism really hampers the gameplay, and is completely inconsistent with the entire rest of the game, which always sacrifices realism for better gameplay (such as being unable to stop disembarking troops). I disagree. It's risk/reward. You chance having your navy forward deployed, if it pays off you can destroy the enemy fleet where they are unable to land their troops. Or you keep your fleet back and get a guaranteed interception, but they probably get to land their troops. If you're so outnumbered that one landing force can destroy your entire home army and take your homeland, it was a risky war to get into and sometimes those don't pay off. Found the patchnotes: quote:- Fleets not on patrol order will not attempt to intercept enemy fleets when moving and/or carrying troops. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:If it's not-so-positive, I'll be going with Sweden since I can be almost sure that at least that one got properly tested and QA'd QA lead is Dutch, so uPen has the better idea! 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
SickZip posted:It was really really dumb and a bad precedent. CK2 is fun but already crazy ahistorical, it doesnt need to be moreso. PITY WE FORCE YOU TO BUY IT SO YOU HAVE NO CHOICE ABOUT IT! OH poo poo, NOW WE CAN'T DO ANY MORE HISTORICAL STUFF DUE TO THE PRECEDENT!  Raenir Salazar posted:In a thread discussing multiplayer balance and how the faction systems made Ming empirically a worse country to play a dev said "Playing Ming in mp is like playing a OPM." Which was hilarious as a OPM has a better ability to compete with France than Ming ever will. In the absence of of any link or context I'll go out on a limb and say it was an analogy to say playing Ming in MP vs European major players is giving the Ming player an extra challenge, akin to the extra challenge of playing a OPM. Some countries won't fare as well as others in a competitive MP game. Not that Ming is literally a OPM.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Eh, as long as we keep DinoUniversais under wraps it's all good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 13:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Here it is, this cannot be reasonable interpreted as "Ming is an extra challenge in MP" its "Yeah we're not going to fix this because we don't believe Ming is meant to be played competitively in MP." No, it's literally exactly what I said: Ming is not balanced vs the European majors, so it's not a good idea to play as them against said majors in a competitive MP game. I don't see where the misunderstanding is coming from, and he's in no way saying Ming = OPM. You can imagine that's what he means and get angry about it if you really want to, but I don't see what good that does. Also, the post you're quoting is from 2 years ago on a different forum, you should really let this go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
Beamed posted:For reference: Raenir is Sid Meier on the Paradox Forums, aka Blayne, who is somewhat infamous for refusing to play an MP game if he couldn't be China, and sperging about it to a very inane degree. The reason he is starting his own MP Grand Campaign is because the one he used to be a part of kicked him out. Oh I know he's Sid Meier anyway, although "Blayne" is unknown to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think your quite understanding, your nit picking the semantics of what I said; not addressing the actual concerns that underlie it. No, I was addressing this: Raenir Salazar posted:Since after all, China is just a one province minor; its only natural. According to certain devs. Sampatrick posted:Explain, please. Raenir Salazar posted:In a thread discussing multiplayer balance and how the faction systems made Ming empirically a worse country to play a dev said "Playing Ming in mp is like playing a OPM." Which was hilarious as a OPM has a better ability to compete with France than Ming ever will. Now you're bringing up some other complaints about Ming/factions etc, which I'm not interested in talking about with you again. I just wanted to point out that no one said China is a OPM or is comparable to a OPM in anything other than an analogy. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Isn't an analogy supposed to show that two subjects are comparable in some ways? Ok, I should have said "equal to" there. They're comparable in the sense they're both not a balanced match for a major nation, but one is not the other. meatbag posted:Also, Paradox, would it be possible to find a better way to organize armies? Playing Russia in Vicky2 is a nightmare when it comes to setting up your forces. Just because you have a massive army in general, or when you mobilise? Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Since after all, China is just a one province minor; its only natural. According to certain devs. Raenir Salazar posted:No one is claiming some dev said they are literally equal That's exactly what you said. Apparently it's not what you meant, despite it being your literal words, but I hope you can see where the misunderstanding came from. As you've disavowed the part I was arguing against I'll say no more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Are you going to address my actual argument instead of the one you imagined? No. There is no argument. You said we said a thing, I said we didn't, you agreed you had not meant that thing. With that out of the way I really have no wish to talk to you any further. Darkrenown fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Jan 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not trying to be confrontational, I did a goony thing that plenty of others have done. That is to make fun of paradox for a poor design decision and it continues to be worth making fun of because they keep justifying it right here right now. Since I've been the only dev posting anything vaguely related to Ming, do you mean me? Because I have said literally nothing to justify the faction system/Ming here, I don't think it worked very well. If not me, then what are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Since you've asked... I was asking only about the bit I quoted, "That is to make fun of paradox for a poor design decision and it continues to be worth making fun of because they keep justifying it right here right now."(my underline), and my question was who was doing this justifying because I sure haven't been and no one else is posting on the subject. Nothing you said addressed that question. Throughout our posts in this thread I have only ever addressed specific things you have said "Paradox devs"/"Paradox" have said or done to point out that these specific claims are untrue, yet your every response is your general thoughts/complaints/ideas on game design or specifically EUIII Ming mechanics. I've said it before, I have no wish to discuss this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 14:05
|
|