|
vyelkin posted:I want a space game that is basically 90% ship design. Rule The Waves in space. All you do is design ships and smash them against alien ships. No politics, no colonization, no economy, no planet management. That can all happen in the background as your race expands but you are the grand admiral and it's your job to keep humanity safe against the Bug Menace by designing the biggest baddest ships that just so happen to be built by your nephew's shipyard even though your nephew doesn't know how to connect a warp drive to an engineering section or w/e. Have you tried Distant Worlds with everything but ship design and military campaigns under AI control? That seems to be a playstyle it supports but I like interstellar politics too much to try it that way myself.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
Groogy posted:Have any of you tried the magical -debug command line argument? In CK2 it turns on something I made a few years ago called script asserts, will make the scripts run a bit slower but it will output to he error log the exact piece of code that failed when it tried to execute the trigger/effect and sometimes even have a informative message on what went wrong. Dibujante posted:Goddammit groogy Both "-debug" and "-debugscripts" add extra script logging to CK2 (one of them was even in the changelog when it was introduced) and they have been godsends but frankly I've never been sure which does what, and I don't remember seeing anything quite that exact in the logs but possibly I haven't been looking in the right place. What's been more useful is being able to include logging in events and CBs so it's easier to see when some hypercomplicated event chain goes off the rails. But all in all CK2 is much nicer about access debug logging than it USED to be, phew. edit: oh, okay, THAT script assert log. That was in the changelog for the patch that introduced it, and I had high hopes for it but it would be a lot more useful if it wasn't swamped with weird false-positive assert failures every time you manipulate variables in some mysterious way that the game itself seems to handle fine but the assert tracker doesn't like. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jan 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:There's now an infamy mechanic and possible coalitions. I think you might be right. I wouldn't call those "generally accepted" changes though judging by all the whining on Reddit/PDS forums. Good, maybe, but I haven't gotten a chance to see them in action.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:That's better saved for Rome 2. You kept your redtext all these years just to make that one joke, didn't you? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:What's so different about wars? I haven't played a lot of CK2 but it strikes me as very similar to CK3. I did play a lot of CK2 and CK3's wars strike me as very similar on a base level too, so that comment struck me too, but I can think of a few relevant differences (edit: oh, okay, it was literally all of these things but I'll post anyway). a) In CK2, "levies" weren't an undifferentiated useless mass, instead they had different troop compositions (and thus effectiveness) based on the buildings in the province - "MaA" basically just let you add extra troops of a type of your choice, rather than being the only troops of that type. They were still an improvement over levies (as they should be) but they didn't utterly eclipse them to the same degree. I actually preferred this system too and I don't entirely get why they changed it. b) In CK2, MaA were just always on the map rather than being raised, levies were raised from the individual provinces (or, at best, you could raise a particular vassal's levies all at once in one of their provinces) and consolidated, and boats had to be raised like levies rather than just magically appearing if you spent money (this last change was basically how CK1 worked). Probably more realistic, definitely more fiddly interface-wise. The deployment delay for troops in CK3 (especially now that they've fixed teleporting MaA) mostly replicates that feeling for me while saving clicks but MMV, of course. c) CK2 battles were resolved way differently in a way I can't quite describe (mostly because I only kinda understood it myself). Essentially, instead of the "advantage" stat multiplying damage and the EU-esque combat rolls, each army would have 1 to 3 commanders (centre and flanks) that would pick a "tactic" every so often during the battle depending on stuff like their martial score, terrain, culture, and troop composition, and each tactic would apply bonus or penalties to certain (or in some cases, all) troop types' damage or toughness. There were, again, definitely advantages to doing it this way, but for me it was CK2's equivalent of Victoria 2's economy: very fun to design but barely legible to the player. (there's actually a very thorough battle detail subscreen that I only learned about while I was speedrunning Monarch's Journey challenges literally two days before CK3 came out. No, not the one you're thinking of, another one)
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Yes and Paradox games have never been like that except for the literal one exception that is CK2. They didn't move away from it - the assymetry in Paradox games is about start position, not mechanics. And in fact, it could hardly be otherwise. You cannot simultaneously have "every one of hundreds-to-thousands of entities is playable", "substantially different game mechanics for each of them" (or even for each subgroup of them unless those subgroups are sweepingly large), and "games released before the heat death of the universe". I like Anbennar too but let's not overstate how different its factions actually are by comparing it to Sword of the Stars or HoMM or an RTS. It's mostly the different bonuses they get affecting their access to/the usefulness of different mechanics, plus the nature of certain start positions making for different challenges - much like EU4 itself!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
This is true but on the bright side there's (to my fuzzy recollections of both games) a daunting amount more space in to exist as a smallish state coming to grips with the mechanics in Imperator vs EU Rome since the map is so much bigger unfortunately most of it never gets played because all the places anyone knows/who aren't tribals are in the thick of the superpower mess, so you get the choice of "play Rome", "play an endgame threat when you barely know the game", "get crushed by said endgame threat", or "play someone small enough and safe enough to learn with but with no theme or flavour or pre-existing historical knowledge on your part to connect to" in retrospect it's a marvel the game is as popular as it is that said I still want to try it again and helpfully it isn't currently a moving target like, say, CK3 Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Apr 21, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2024 23:29
|
|