|
PleasingFungus posted:To a certain extent, the Phony War proved him right. To a certain extent, the western allies were correct to reason that if they stood on the defensive and marked time using their massive GDP advantage to rearm, then the German economy would overheat and collapse and hilter would have to give Poland back. What they didn't grasp was just how doctrinally hosed the French army was, nor that the Germans would throw everything into a ridiculously risky plan that relied on the allies panicking and doing everything wrong (which they did).
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Wiz posted:I learned a *ton* of things applicable to Paradox games from working on MMOs. Balancing numbers and mechanics versus each other, maintaining endless replayability, etc. They're more similar mechanics-wise than you might think. A 5* advisor appearing is basically an epic drop. Actually tying the appearance of advisors in EU to player behaviour more (ie. going on a building spree raises chances of getting an admin dude, slaughtering vast numbers of foreigners gets you a chance of an Army Organiser etc) wouldn't be a terrible thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
I think fairness demands we remember that V2 was the first release after HOI3. It represented a massive leap forwards towards the new UI-friendly Paradox games we have today, but was still part of the era where QA was a thing that consumers had to do for Paradox.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 13:52
|
|
|
I really really want a Culture-novel based 4x from Paradox. Start as a regular 4x, but find out after colonising your fifth system that actually space is already quite densly populated with advanced species and expanding beyond the pretty border they assign you isn't really an option. Plot and scheme your way up the civlisation ladder until colonising new planets isn't a thing anymore because your whole society lives on orbital habitats or city-ships. In the end, balance guiding the younger civilisations that have been put under your wing (and stopping them from sneaking about breaking the rules) with your desire to sublime away and achieve mass godhood.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Have you heard of a game called Stellaris Yeah as great as I'm sure it will be, Stellaris is still Paradox-spin-on-MoO2. I want something that's tries to really grapple with the way that going up a civlisation level would fundamentally change what the player's priorities are or even what seems relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:
and that is exactly why I want the event to do that as well
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 13:23
|
|
it wasn't actually built in Manhattan dude
|
Fintilgin posted:I want a HOI4 expansion that adds diesel mechs, flying aircraft carriers, and other goofy crazy poo poo. Let us not forget that HOI2 had an actual alien invasion event you could trigger through the console.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Gort posted:I wouldn't mind hearing about balance changes that happened throughout development. Or go even broader, "Here are some of the cool ideas we had that turned out to be terrible when we actually implemented them and were cut" e: one of the best dev talks I've seen was Solomon and co. with their old XCOM prototypes showing how their attempts at real-time/WEGO were an unplayable mess. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
I just realised I want to split my fleet into 3 
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
HoI4 will either be just fine or a disaster at launch - that's the nature of the beast. Where all other Paradox games at some point have that 'well now I'm just turning up the speed because there's literally nothing for me to do' content problem at some stage, HoI gets around that largely by nature of being about a very tight story of a single war. The pre-war period can drag a little but then the game isn't about that - once the war kicks off then the pace of events is controlled entirely by the player until total victory for one side. So either the game will work or it won't, but either way you won't be sitting mid Barbarossa thinking 'I wish the game had more content'.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I mean I don't remember TFH having any outstanding CTD issues, and it fixed a bunch of things. Among HoI3 fans TFH was rather popular. You've already self-selected for poor decision making there
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:because there's still free features alongside with the patch that ruin the game. IE ck2's "threat" does not require dlc nor does the removal of dynastic alliances. There's that patch for EU4 that changed how building slots worked so it was based on development level rather than tech, but the only way to increase development level was to have the DLC.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:i don't think i've actually properly used the minimap in any paradox game ever, it's just something i don't even think about it Hearts of Iron is the one where you are most likely to need to see what's going on in another continent 9 time zones away.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
mackintosh posted:Or someone wants to inflate their sales figures and has something to hide. Either way, a suspect move to say the least. Equating owners with sales has the impact of massively inflating sales figures and that's what Paradox are complaining about - people look at steam_spy and then get an unrealistic impression of their business. e: \/\/ the steam price is not the price everyone pays by a very long shot Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:What harm is created by people interpreting the data wrongly though that warrants the removal? Uh, when people make commercial decisions based on that data that impacts Paradox? This isn't hard to grasp. e: I mean literally any business anywhere would be concerned about someone putting out inaccurate information about their turnover. e2: moreover Sergey understands this which is why he agreed to remove the Paradox info when he was under literally no obligation to do so. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:By the by, I have seen the France leaving the Maginot line thing mentioned a lot, but I haven't seen the stream in question. However, I asked Podcat about it and he said France was having a civil war at the time so it seemed like they had bigger issues than manning the border. Yeah nobody seems to have mentioned the full on civil war with Communist France occupying 1/4 of the country.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Riso posted:Civil war or not, the ai should at least leave a token force at the border. It did.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
SA_Avenger posted:Rome was good. Had a lot of diversity in gameplay for the time depending on the starting point. The resource system was a great thing to have. Biggesr problem if the game was barbarians & their lands It was a blend of EU core rules with some CK character elements mixed in and the result was something just different enough to be vaguely interesting but not really distinctive enough to justify its separate existence. Lots of people complained about barbarians being undeveloped, I'd actually argue that a good follow-up to Rome would be to focus the player experience extremely tightly on the concept of controlling one faction within Rome, working to expand and conquer provinces externally while playing power games internally and eventually tipping the Republic into an Empire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:Would a Crusader Kings-style system work for Rome, with the player controlling one individual in a family, training sons to gain popularity as generals or consuls or what have you? I'm out of touch on my Roman history so I'm not sure what changes would have to be made to CK2's notion of a dynasty. I think you'd have to control the whole family rather than one individual. Don't think in terms of 'EU with tweaks' or 'CK with tweaks', that just leads you to the design document for a DLC for those games. Rome 2 would need to be its own beast - I think there's space in the Paradox line-up for a game that's about controlling a family/faction within the political system of the superpower of the time and would prefer an extremely tightly focused game around that concept. Obviously the people who wanted Rome to be more like EU would disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
I think it's a great disservice to HOI4 to call it 'HOI3 with the edges sanded down'. Back when we did post mortems of HOI3 my view was that the main problem (aside from the obvious game production issues) was that the game was torn between player-as-supreme-leader and player-as-commander-of-armed-forces and as a result the player had too much to do, couldn't do any of it well, and none of it was fun - so everything inevitably got handed over to the AI and you were no longer playing anything. The other problem was that HOI3 had lots of systems which viewed in isolation looked like good ideas, but never really interacted with each other and so were never able to become more than the sum of their parts. HOI4 resolves that conflict firmly in favour of 'the player is the supreme leader and makes grand strategy decisions' and in my view it's pretty clear that that fundamental underpinning theme is what provides direction and focus to all the different systems and brings them together in a way HOI3 never could.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Thanks, I was going to comment on that too. For HoI4 we very much wanted to make what we thought was a good HoI game rather than "Make HoI3 better". I still have no idea what you are going to do for expansions. A few people have mentioned espionage but I can't actually see that working out - I think the game is currently sitting pretty on the perfect number of systems that demand the player's attention. I'd like to see a WW1 scenario and a few Cold War scenarios because I think they could be really interesting with the current system (WW1 would need a few adjustments to how land warfare works in terms of map control). I'm finding that the Air War suffers a lot from having the crucial info hidden away in a graph that is itself hidden away under a specific map filter - I have absolutely no suggestions for how to change that but I know that information needs to come out. I haven't played with the Naval war much but I gather that there are similar opinions. But other than that... everything people want seems to come down to 'a bit more spit and polish'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Riso posted:No they were incredibly easy to decipher because Germans thought their Enigma was unbreakable and didn't bother changing ciphers. Once you cracked the thing all messages were an open book. They changed ciphers regularly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Please do not add Another lovely Espionage System to your good game This. This. This. Maybe there's space to tweak the mechanics of the current espionage system, but the game is not asking for a new system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:In New Vegas, the army positions on the map make sense. The objective they're fighting for is reasonable and tied into real logistics and economic factors. The minor factions fit into the landscape in reasonable ways and you can see how culture and demographics is shaped by geography. There is enough wackiness to be fun, but it's subordinate to having the feel of a real lived-in region. And because Obsidian spent more than 15 minutes designing the lore, talking to the locals and reading books gives you a real sense of the history and geography of the place. That's cool. Eh, the New Vegas map is dominated above all by being a horseshoe of progression that has the semblance of being an open-world but for practical purposes funnels the player along a certain series of locations. The bit where it opens up most of all (ie. the North East) is by far the weakest part of the map.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 15:17
|
|
" but I didn't
|
I decided the sale was a good time to get back up to date with CK2 so I clicked down the list thinking all the DLC was really cheap and then hit checkout and holy poo poo it was more than I paid for the game when new nope nope nope sorry I'm out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
My recollection of launch day HOI3 was loading up the Normandy 1944 scenario as a test and discovering that all my troops were immediately out of supply and also no tech after 1936 had been researched. And a few days later the dynamic weather system plunged the world into a nuclear winter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Fredrik's CEO report should be sent out to everyone who applies for a job at Paradox. It's just brimming with leadership and charisma and is everything you'd want your boss to be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Chickpea Roar posted:I think you can only save up 1 years worth of research points. This is true, but even a year lets you make a mockery of the time ahead penalty when you want to.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Question: I have a (presumably not unique) bug in HOI4 and other Paradox games where I'm playing at 4k and 200% UI and popup tooltips stop appearing for objects halfway down the screen or further. Is this a known thing, is there a fix, if not where would be the best place to drop info on the Paradox forums to help get fixes?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Eugen are great, but as many of us will testify from the Wargame days they've had difficulty communicating with players in the past and really, really struggle with 'more does not equal better'. Hopefully they'll get a firm guiding hand from Paradox on this one (and also Paradox have learned that throwing money on developers they think are cute is nice but not a valid strategy for success).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:Eugen games are generally well-received. For all we might complain about unbalanced mechanics or unit bloat in the Wargame series, their heart is in the right place and they are one of the few developers making modern RTS games and getting it right most of the time. The problem is that over the course of the three games it became clear that they definitely never understood why people liked Wargame, and their heart was always in abandoning that surprisingly popular game to go make Act of Aggression. That having bombed, they went back to producing DLC for Red Dragon and looking for a new publisher (now found). The talent is definitely there, what they need is a bit of that Paradox style bond with the fans where they listen very carefully to what the customers actually want.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Kavak posted:HoI IV was in an awkward position where they had to find a reason for the player to undertake a tremendous crime and strategic mistake like the Great Purge and punish saying "No" somehow. I feel like rather than a focus it should have been something that happens no matter what and all you can do is choose who's getting shot. HOI just has to walk this tightrope of having the player sitting in the role of a crazy paranoid absolute dictator but not actually being crazy or paranoid and so has no reason to play anything other than optimally. But having *bad thing happen* outside of the player's control is very difficult to get right. Have Stalin occasionally execute generals who don't have their armies constantly engaged in combat. Have Hitler decide every so often that he wants a certain city captured and your national unity temporarily drops for as long as you don't have it. Have Himmler randomly decide he wants an SS Panzer Division and divert all of you production into an army unit that you don't really want.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 11:04
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Randomly shooting generals sounds...bad, unless there's a "Stalin's Ire" bar next to them to warn you. The other two are okay because you still have some control, e.g. Ignore Himmler and lose NU or PP but keep production going smooth. Throwing ideas out for discussion - Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa has a thing where if your Generals are too good then Stalin's paranoia rises and he purges some of them, so you have to balance against that and it works really well. It's really a general point I made in the HOI3 post-mortems we did in this thread: uniquely among Paradox games HOI benefits from nations getting their own special snowflake events and mechanics for the sake of unique flavour - it's really important that the player is not able to beeline for the optimal solution to any problem because that leaves you ending up with a HOI3 situation where everyone is rocking identical armies with identical bonuses. Paradox has done this via rewards via than punishments (definitely the right decision) but I think there's still a bit further to go. The Western Democracies could be a bit more hamstrung by the fact that in the pre-war period they can't really devote resources to war. The Axis are really good at fighting but the game doesn't currently reflect the massive internal corruption and power-plays that crippled their ability to wage total war (I think this is the biggest thing missing). The Soviets have the purges but I think there's more to be done with pushing Stalin's insistence on 'attack all the time' on the player.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure I want HOI3's 'officer' training mechanic back but it was definitely an interesting stab at explaining how some nations could produce divisions with extremely effective command and control and some nations couldn't, and though it never actually worked out that way a rapid expansion of your army or a need to do more research would result in your armies fighting worse. Saying this stuff is 'missing' isn't a criticism of Paradox anyway, it's ridiculously difficult to pull off 'your armies are poo poo and there's only so much you can do about it' and not just have it come out in the form of a mechanic that's just there to punish the player and make the game horrible to play.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
IncredibleIgloo posted:Not really. Tim Shafer is putting together a team, and they will do a grand strategy game, but I get the feeling it will be something new/different. They said they couldn't talk about it yet. My Longshot theory is an asymetrical grand strategy based in the battletech universe. It would be fantastic if Paradox managed to get the Battletech license off Microsoft (worth way more than White Elephant that is White Wolf) but there would obviously be a lot of noise if that had happened.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
HBS have it right - one update every 3-4 weeks just to do a page of 'hey guys we're still doing stuff' and maybe dropping a screenshot or two is all the effort anyone needs to keep faith. More in the form of streams etc is appreciated, but there's just that minimum level of effort you need to give to people you've sold a bill of goods to.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:theres no way in hell i'll give anyone money for a shafer game until at the gates is done, which is to say i will never give anyone money for a shafer game Yeah I hate to say it, but any review of a Paradox game Shafer develops should begin and end with 'by Jon Shafer, who took a load of kickstarter money for ATG and then never released anything'. Taking customer's money and then walking away should be a career ending fuckup.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
I'm entirely okay with 'Kickstarting something means taking the risk that nothing will come out of it'. My point is that the other edge of that sword is that if you have taken a bunch of money in the past and failed to deliver anything for it, you can't complain when people hold that against you in the future. In this case Paradox should really have considered that having Shafer's name attached to a project is not a PR plus right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:Too late I'm giving money to Phoenix Point. I've ks/backed Battletech and Phoenix Point. Both of those were on the basis that the people asking for money had a track record of delivering finished products. Phoenix Point is a bit more of a punt than Battletech given I think there's a risk that they could deliver everything promised and it just won't come together into something that's fun or unique, but I figure anyone who has ever played any XCOM style game can throw $20 Gollop's way by way of thanks.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
They've always said that building Clausewitz was the biggest gamble Paradox have ever taken as a company. It would be interesting to get a hint at the calculations going on behind 'keep fiddling with Clausewitz' vs 'build something for 2020 and beyond'. e: particularly given that doing so would mean drawing a line under the current generation of products. EUIV and CK2 might be running into diminishing returns on ideas for DLC but that's certainly not the case for Stellaris and HOI4. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:21 on Jun 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 13:18
|
|