|
Lum_ posted:Originally slated to be developed for Paradox by AGEOD, this Napoleonic War game covers the years 1805 – 1820 and seems to be Paradox's attempt to bridge the gap between the EU and HOI2 games. Ambitious! How is March of the Eagles in single-player, actually? I've been wondering if I should maybe pick it up during a sale or something.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Panzeh posted:If you're going to have a lot of planetary management you have to limit the number, though. I mean if a planet is just a set of sliders like Moo1, so be it, but if you are going all out, you do have to keep the number reasonably low. This is true - but on the other hand, you could also take a "low-tech" route to sci-fi and make it so that half a dozen star systems is a large empire, with most of the new colonies being small resource-extraction mines and only a few true population centers outside of the home planet. Cut down the star systems, and you can afford to plop more planets into the star systems that are available. That being said Stellaris is definitely going full space opera so yeah, can't afford to have too many planets to worry about in galaxy-spanning wars.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Masters of Orion wasn't a good enough game to deserve 85,000 remakes. I never really understood the fascination with remaking Masters of Orion. It was a pretty good game, sure, but surely the goal should be to move BEYOND it than to try to find some way to make it again but somehow different yet better?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
You know, I know Stellaris has mentioned it'd delve into federations, but I'd love it if there were multiple positions of responsibility within the federation that member governments can jockey for instead of just "President." Instead of just the one "winner-takes-all" position of power that acts as an upgraded form of the government you're already in charge of while everyone else is reduced to helpless vassals, spread the power around so that different posts can be held by different governments with wildly varying priorities. I want to see constant jockeying and friendly competition between allies as they seek the positions of power that matter most to them. I want to see ramshackle, bickering federations constantly working at cross-purposes where it takes a whole lot of effort to ensure that everyone is pointed in the same direction instead of just working for their own personal benefit - with perhaps the option of trying to concentrate power in the hands of one particular government at a cost in efficiency and loyalty. One of the things that bug me most about "diplomatic" wins in 4X strategy games is that in most such games, allies are boring. You sign one treaty and then the only real interaction you ever have with your allies beyond that is maybe the occasional subsidy or trade and hoping that they'll answer your call to arms. A scenario where you constantly have things to do with - or to - your allies would help make diplomacy a lot more interesting than just throwing money at them until they're happy, and competing for positions within a greater governmental framework sounds like just the sort of thing that might work.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Like I'm pretty sure once you defeated 1-2 opponent professional armies in the 1800s most of the time everyone was ready to settle things? Westminster System posted:Most armies were conscript based until the 20th century though. The only professional army in Europe at the outbreak of WW1 was the British one and that lasted one round of trench warfare. To be slightly pedantic about this, both statements aren't entirely true here. The big standout is the Franco-Prussian War, where the French mobilized their reserves slowly because they trusted to the power of their professional army and figured reserves would be handy but wouldn't really stand up in a real fight, while the Germans hinged their entire battleplan on mobilizing fast and hard and striking with overwhelming numbers before the enemy could respond. The Germans turned out to be right about which worked better, and a large part of how WW1 turned out in the early days had to do with everyone being desperate to avoid becoming France in round 2.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Right, but I had gotten the impression that the Prussians were still mobilizing whatever the 1870s equivalent of reservists were? The impression I get of Vicky-2 reserves is just throwing farmers out there with whatever they got. The 1870s Prussian equivalent of reserves was "every man of military age." For that matter, the French were beginning to shift to a similar system of universal conscription but hadn't worked out the kinks before the Prussians hit them like a ton of bricks. As I understand it, the Vicky 2 system isn't supposed to represent just arming a bunch of farmers and throwing them out there without any training whatsoever, they're supposed to represent the section of your civilian population that's also had enough military training to be potentially useful in a fight. That's why various techs increase the mobilization pool available to you as time goes on - it represents governments making more and more of an effort to ensure that they have enough reserves to win a serious contest.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:
I can die happy knowing that ethics sliders are a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Nah, afaik GSB doesn't have any kind of campaign. I want a real campaign where battles matter and have lasting impacts like in RTW as your empire expands and fights other empires, but without all the tedious colonization and micromanagement of 99% of space 4Xs. One of GSB 1's DLCs adds in a campaign, for what it's worth. It's pretty barebones and your enemy essentially consists of "everyone who isn't you" without more in the way of diplomacy or even differentiation, but that's the point, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Well yeah but the point is that even the most benevolent ending in SMAC involved lots of messed up poo poo for crazy fanatics Lal was OK, if ineffectual.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Decrepus posted:Why did they ever put turrets on the side though.  The late Victorian/Edwardian period was a strange time for ship design. There was even a point where naval designers experimented with ships built around ramming (because steam makes you independent of the wind so you're basically a super-galley, right, and you can do so much damage if you manage to hit a ship below the waterline, so...)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:Even as bad as the capitalist AI is, laissez-faire gets an undeserved bad rap in Vicky 2. The game seems built around the historical European trend of top down industrialization rather than the American one, which means you want interventionist or state capitalist parties at the start to build your economy and get everything running. Thing is, once it's already going good, you actually can just set it to laissez-faire and the capitalists have enough money to play with that their bonuses outweigh their lovely decisions and they'll just grow your economy for you while you don't have to do much of anything. Yeah, LF is terrible for a growing economy but once you got the basics set up I've never really had the free market bite me in the rear end, and it's nice not having to micromanage each and every factory in every state.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Another Person posted:France, who owns jack poo poo outside of three colonies and France itself is #2. USA, who has done literally nothing all game, is #3. GB is naturally #1. Go for SE Asia and its sweet, sweet oil/rubber? (The USA is always going to shoot up the rankings because it's a huge territory with plenty of space for factories and enough immigration bonuses to have the population necessary to man said factories in time. France is harder to explain, but I bet a good war could puncture their prestige and industry.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:There's a bunch of inventions in the infantry line as well that make it so your dudes start getting better at defense with machine guns and then better at attack afterwards, so you should try to stay on the defensive while you're on machine guns. Whether you're on the offensive or defensive shouldn't make a difference when it comes to the machine gun stats, should it? I thought unit attack/defense always applied in all battles, with attack allowing you to kill more and defense allowing you to handle more hits regardless of who attacked who. That being said there is the one tech line that increases your dig-in cap, THAT would give the defender a larger bonus, but only if they had time to dig in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:How much does digging in even do in vicky 2? It applies a direct penalty to the attacker's die rolls, but one that degrades over time. So pretty huge with sufficiently high levels, but it only works in the opening days of the battle before it becomes a deathstack scrum. Haig was right, all you need to do to break a trench is to throw more men at the problem. Edit: This is honestly one of the big weaknesses with Vicky 2's combat system, it's all set up to try and encourage WW1-style front lines by the end game but the player doesn't have nearly enough tools to micromanage armies enough to form a continuous front line and the combat system ultimately actually encourages mashing everything into a single apocalyptic deathmatch instead. Tomn fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Oct 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
I have to wonder about any society that actively decides NOT to live in a world of utopian abundance. Unless they mean "utopian abundance at the expense of the environment/other empires" or something.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Personally I can't wait for all of the human race's engineering research to be headed up by a 21-year-old. Humanity now has a population so large that it can cherry-pick world-class geniuses capable of astonishing feats at a young age for leadership roles, as long as society is geared for identifying, training, and elevating these individuals - thus the bonus of technocratic societies is younger leaders and more time to enjoy their talents before they die from old age. Except for the army, because who gives a gently caress about the army when you have laser ships? Nobody, that's who. THEY get to keep the crusty old farts who don't know anything but muddle by based on seniority.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:e: damnit Back when Total War: Rome 2 was in the works, I remember there was one guy who complained endlessly than the Romans in the previews were insufficiently white and that it was racist (against Italians) to depict them with a tan.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I would just like to note that there is now a real possibility that Paradox has someone who was paid, if only for a few minutes, to work out how to weigh an algorithm to distribute ethnicities in Stellaris.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I must be in the minority when it comes to Stellaris. I love Paradox and am going to follow it but I keep seeing things that are turn-offs to me. For an in-game justification, while there's no shortage of people who can fill any given position, there IS a limited pool of top-class talent and it's possible to come up with scenarios where the best and the brightest gravitate to, say, the Navy and the civilian sector while the Army gets the shaft. Possibly the leaders in Stellaris represent the particularly outstanding folks at the top without bothering to represent all the other guys who are competent but who won't really make headlines.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Sorry these two are funny too. Same guy. Hmm, I agree that high public transport prices justifies total war and conquest and is a measured, proportionate response. As my local government has raised bus prices significantly lately I believe I am justified in calling for revolution and sending the mayor to the guillotine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
More from that terrible thread:quote:Things done/committed by german forces or the politics germany executed in its occupied provinces has nothing to do with this, nor will i argue about it. It doesnt belong into this forum, i only say that i would fight for my country, because its my country, if it was in war with another country, i would always choose the side of my country, no matter if my country is aggressor or not, no matter if my country is evil or saint, no matter what would have to be executed. Because thats what it means to serve your country, you do different, you are a traitor. Thats the same for US forces in Iraq. Clean Wehrmacht sighted! How far along are we on Wehraboo bingo? Also that quote reminds me of a line from the Aubrey/Maturin series: quote:“But you know as well as I, patriotism is a word; and one that generally comes to mean either my country, right or wrong, which is infamous, or my country is always right, which is imbecile.”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:We wanted to do more with it, but HoD did change it so you didn't mobilise all in one lump, instead troops mobile over time with the speed based on your rail infra levels. I'm kinda curious, can you talk about any of the other plans for Victoria 2 that fell by the wayside for whatever reason?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Noo, not that thread, I just read it It's a bad thread, but there is some good that came out of it. quote:Mainstream historians? What is the other group? Hipster historians? "Yeeeeah, my area of study is a short-lived republic in Milan. You probably haven't heard of it." *adjusts glasses*
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:The majestic Hitler portrait is only slightly more majestic than the majestic Stalin portrait, when we all know that our glorious Fuhrer was at least twice as majestic as that bolshie gently caress!!! You know who was more majestic than either of them? George VI. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
Pershing posted:Looking forward to the Exalted expansion for CK2. Came here to post this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Leaving everything else aside, it seems like if the game supports a lot of alt-history branches setting the timeline back a few years seems well-advised since there's no guarantee that whatever wacko war that's cropped up will be finished by 1945-6. Though, when I went looking for HoI2's original end date, it seems like HoI2's expansions pushed the end date back to 1953 and 1964 respectively, anyways, so this shouldn't really be breaking much new ground, should it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Don't set a hard end-date at all, make the game end whenever somebody invents the ICBM and/or when they develop enough nuclear bombs to wipe out the largest nation still in play. Until then, endless conventional war.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:It's an MMO where you deal with the hundreds who went to kill Hitler, the dozens who went to help Hitler, and the thousands who went for the glory of Serbia. A co-op shooter where a team of time travelers go back in time to cut their way past hordes of Nazis and a few right-wing nutjob time travelers to kill off the top members of the Nazi leadership sounds like it could be fun.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
quote:Anomalies are thus quite like little quests, and usually require some player choices (exactly like the “events” you’ve seen in our other games.) Some options are only available under certain conditions. For example, a special option might require that the Scientist or empire ruler has a specific personality trait. Hoping for Emperor of the Draconis Nebula, are we?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
While perfect historical accuracy is both an impossible and not really desirable goal, I think there is value in historical inspiration. Digging down into how things actually played out in real life and what drove various decisions can often bring up interesting scenarios - scenarios that can be gamified into something that feels historically appropriate and interesting even if it isn't really all that close to what truly happened in history.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 11:29
|
|
|
Wiz posted:If bad posts are not relentlessly mocked, they will be encouraged to stay and multiply. Before you know it, this thread will be all about the lack of realistic fuel consumption for Space Battleship Yamato. It was pretty funny how the thread went from "Lol look at those Para-nerds whining about a lack of fuel consumption and being all REALISM for MAI YAMATO" to "monoculture planets that specialize in producing a single resource in my space strategy game is UNREALISTIC!"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Is this one any good? It really depends on what kind of player you are. The developers are huge fans of statistics, to the point where I think they rely on statistics to carry the narrative of the game, as it were - there's a lot of emergent narratives that come out of the gameplay, but you can only tell that it's there if you learn how to parse the absolute shitload of numbers they throw at you from every angle. Without that knowledge (or the patience to gain that knowledge) the game's a giant, overwhelming infodump that doesn't feel much like anything at all. I wasn't a fan myself, but if you're into that it could scratch your itch. Edit: Thinking out loud here, but it occurs to me that there's not really a lot of space 4Xs that focus on making you feel like you're guiding an actual empire of people instead of pushing blocks and numbers around in space, mostly for the sake of warfare. The focus is usually on the cool starships and the fancy lasers, with everything else there largely to research, design, and build said spaceships before sending them off to explode prettily. One reason why Stellaris has me quietly hopeful - the addition of Pops and virtues could go a ways towards making empire feel less like intergalactic starship factories. Tomn fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Well I do like CK2 and EU4 and most of this applies to then too. I think ill get this one then. Keep in mind that I say that the game has a shitload of numbers as a fan of Victoria 2. And not only is there a lot to dig through, but the devs don't exactly have Paradox's modern accessibility sensibilities...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
It's interesting that for all that MoO1/2 are held up as the gold standard of space 4xes that everyone should copy, I don't remember many games if any at all that tried to replicate their tech system with the hard choices that came along with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
A space game where you actually have meaningful reasons not to expand wildly in every direction you can would be pretty sweet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
I am inordinately amused by the fact that this time around the revolutionary Greek government is based in Crete while the reactionaries are based in the mainland.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:didn't the IJA end up drafting people out of the IJN at some point? Specifically important specialists who mattered in the navy but didn't matter in the army. Purely to gently caress with them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Mans posted:And again i'm definetely not fan of magic resources and this "Toxic world" mumbo-jumbo. wtf is a toxic world ? What does toxic even mean ? This is supposed to be sci-fi not fantasy in space Is the guy not aware of Venus or something?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Ok, so nobody does it good then. Automated micromanagement is a funny one, HOI3 style literally just does what the player does but much worse is terrible, I think we can agree on that. But CK2 style feudalism (which is a form of automated micromanagement) works pretty well in my opinion. If paradox can take that experience and apply it in a plausible fashion to the space genre then we could finally have a 4x that represents the inevitable issues of a galaxy spanning empire in a fun and engaging fashion. I think the key thing to note about CK2 feudalism is that your CORE is always under your direct control. In HoI3, automation takes over critical aspects of your country, which makes it enormously frustrating when it fucks up. In CK2, though, the "automated" sections are largely stuff which is nice to have but which doesn't represent the real center of your power - your personal demesne, which you can always personally manage. Automation gently caress-ups don't bother you that much when it's MOSTLY stuff you don't really care about as badly. In the context of space, the idea of the rich, developed, and centralized "core worlds" dealing with the resentment of relatively underdeveloped, exploited, and independent-minded "frontier worlds" is a pretty old trope that the player can slot into quite readily. Do you maintain an iron grip on internal power by deliberately keeping the frontier weak, or are you willing to cede rights and political power in exchange for the frontier worlds being richer and more capable of contributing to the union?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Going all-in on a randomized tech tree ought to be interesting - even Sword of the Stars never dared to go beyond semi-random availability but fixed paths. I guess it's a sign of the Paradox heritage, though - less emphasis on tightly-balanced and tightly-focused systems and more on the grand sweep of events.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 15:49
|
|