|
RabidWeasel posted:There was a great post-release interview with one of the head devs which revealed just how hosed up Stellaris' dev cycle was, IIRC they did almost a full redesign of the core gameplay loop about 6 months before the game came out. In that context it's not really surprising. I feel like the trouble with Stellaris is that it does have solid design goals, but they conflict. There is clearly a desire to have an early game progression that evokes the feeling of "space is big and terrifying", moving into a more politically driven midgame that's more like the universe of something like Star Trek, where the edges are still unexplored but the territory is mostly "settled" and the action is driven by how the aliens relate to each other, and finally moving into the endgame where all the big empires have solidified and then the crises show up and they learn they were just a big fish in a small pond. The problem is that these are all very different "era" concepts and trying to smash them all into a single set of mechanics is very difficult. Imagine if a Paradox mega-campaign that went from CK -> EU -> Vicky -> HoI was actually all one single game that somehow had to support everything you do in all four of those games despite their radically different focuses, and that's probably why the development was such hell for Stellaris.
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
gently caress off Batman posted:I agree, but I was talking about something else. You know how in that Star Trek mod New Horizons you can choose an epoch that you start in. If you choose to play as humans in the earliest start, Earth is a small and unimportant backwater, while the Dominion is already an Empire. And if you take TNG start, Earth is a capitol of a big fat Federation. The galaxy map is always the same depending on a start date, with all the races in play depending on the previous star trek lore. Now of course, star trek is half a century old show so it's got a considerable head start, but I think Paradox can find some good sci-fi writers and make something similar with their Stellaris universe. I think this is a thing that Stellaris was always going to struggle with because when you're going in to a pre-established setting (either a popular fictional one like Trek or just a historical setting like the other Paradox games), people come in with pre-existing context for who the factions are and what it would mean to play as them. Working from an entirely original setting it creates extra barriers to bring people on board because you have to do a bunch of work up front just to inform people what the deal with your setting even is and frontloading big lore dumps just so people can understand what's going on is one of the worst sci-fi tropes.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Gazillionaire was a good game. I just realised their dlc model kills preset maps though. Just Utopia, Synthetic Dawn, and the rock/plant packs means 16 possible combos of what races are and are not available, never mind DLC gated civics. If they were handling it the way as other games they'd probably just make DLC restricted content unplayable but still have them available as AI empires.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:That's a big problem. With the rigged start of EU4 or even CK3 you can't help but see personality in nations behavior. Stellaris empires differ a lot on paper but behave in the same way unless they're fallen empire or exterminators. Their ethics are only important for initial reaction. Yeah it does kind of bug me that ethics have such a small impact on gameplay overall. Both in terms of how empires relate to each other, and internal management itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
You can do some crazy ahistorical stuff in HoI4 but there's no real knock-on effects because the game is basically over once you do it. Like it's not a good game to ask the question "what would the world be like if Portugal re-absorbed Brazil?" because the only answer it's going to give you is "Portugal would have a larger manpower pool and more military factories".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 07:01
|
|
|
What is a Paradox game if not a fighting game where the characters are countries?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Alikchi posted:The Paradox Player is a mysterious spirit that infuses/possesses the government. It's like you're the Holy Ghost of a country One thing that's always kind of bugged me about Vicky 2 is that because of this weird abstraction, there are a bunch of scenarios where you end up acting in ways that contradict what the basic mechanics incentivize you to do - like deliberately losing to rebels so you can swap to communism. I feel like if that's going to be a thing, then it would have made a lot more sense to work like the civil war mechanics where when the rebellion kicks off you have to pick a side, so if you want to go communist you have to take over as the communists and then actually try to win the war, rather than just going "oops I accidentally disbanded all my armies I'm such a klutz please don't take my capital"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:it is the most power ideology if you can stand the micro tho. "why yes all of my factories will chain mwhahahahahaha" Yeah the choice of ideology in Vicky 2 generally comes down to how optimal you want your factories to be vs. how much micro you have the patience for. Although the options on the free market side probably wouldn't be so bad if the capitalist AI wasn't so terrible at keeping its factories open. As mentioned earlier though, playing Vicky "optimally" does end up making the game less interesting anyway. Go full Laissez-Faire chaos mode.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Randallteal posted:(just having an "expand all factories" button on the production screen would help a lot) This exists, it's a shift+click or ctrl+click (I forget which but the mouseover tooltip will tell you) on any factory expansion button. One of those will do only factories which are close to their worker capacity, the other does every factory.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
Mans posted:This is a cool concept that ends up in some frustration like, for example, your recruitment being a pain in the rear end playing as Portugal, Spain or the Ottos due to the low population provinces. Yeah the army management in Vicky 2 has a lot of interesting ideas but also terrible UX. Mobilization in a late game, relatively large country becomes a nightmare because you either have to use no rally points at all, or end up having to watch them and manually split the mobilized troops off once they start to pile up above the supply limit. I feel like a big improvement in a hypothetical Victoria sequel would be some kind of HoI-esque division designer, where you could set up army templates and they would just kind of assemble themselves when you order one to be built. Then on top of that what you could do is designate some infantry units as "mobilized", where they exist as empty placeholder units in the army when you are demobilized, and mobilization, instead of spitting out a bunch of infantry all over your country, will fill up these pre-designated mobilization-only units. This would allow you to set up your fronts ahead of time and then mobilization basically just gives the order to move the people there. Some variation of the HoI4 battle planner would also be nice, since late-game wars often become a real chore of carpet sieging that could very easily be automated. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 23:15 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I never played this specifically because razing settlements and migrating all over the place didn't sound appealing, but Warhammer hordes have me convinced that it could be fun. It's not just Attila you're outrunning, it's climate change. Over the course of the game the global temperature cools which makes the fertility of every province in the game drop - and the northern provinces already have fairly low fertility while the Roman territory has all the best stuff, so even if you're way in the west you're encouraged to pack it up and push into their land to be able to feed your people.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Archaeology Hat posted:Atilla is a great game because at least on the campaign layer it sort of turns the Total War formula on its head, at least for the early and mid game for most of the factions. Most of the total war campaigns are very focused on you conquering more land but Atilla tries very hard to make a lot of its campaign less about trying to paint the map and more about trying to keep what’s already yours or find a safe place to settle down and weather the storm. Yeah I think one of the things that makes Attila very interesting as a contrast to the larger Grand Strategy sphere is that it's one of very few games where losing territory is a core part of the design. Like unless you are very good at the game, a big portion of the early Western Roman campaign is going to be watching all your territory on the periphery get slowly swallowed up by other factions or rebellions. As a migration faction, one of your key mechanics is the ability to just burn all your settlements to the ground and turn into a horde at the click of a button. Modelling the collapse of a large empire is something a lot of strategy games often have real difficulty with, because it's hard to make losing progress fun, and generally players don't tend to build their big empire in a way that would really put themselves in the kind of precarious position that the real life Roman empire did. But because Attila starts most of the factions off in "just fight to survive" mode, it does allow for strategic decisions based around finding the least worst option to actually be something the player has to think about, rather than the usual strategy game decision making process of figuring out which of your neighbours to eat next. Having to decide when to cut your losses is an interesting decision to think about but it's one that very rarely comes up in strategy games because even somewhat optimal play generally means that you will not ever be in a situation where that is a decision that needs to be made. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 20:46 on May 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:I have hundreds of hours in Shogun 2 but I've only gotten past Realm Divide twice or so. By that time I'm rolling with multiple god generals, and super Veteran units. Fighting a million three stacks of Ashigaru at that point is just tedious Yeah I've rarely ever finished a full campaign in a TW game for a similar reason. The vortex campaign in TWW2 is a bit better about this because its objectives are a lot more focused than "just capture a ridiculous amount of territory", it's more about taking and holding a few key provinces. In most TW games though you reach the point where you are far and away the strongest faction in in the game where everybody else ganging up against you doesn't pose a significant threat, it's just a lot of tedious mopping up, and this happens well before the game is willing to officially acknowledge your victory. I tend to play TW games like Paradox games where it's more about setting goals for myself and just calling it done when I hit those.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
Victoria tends to be the easiest game to finish just because it's both the shortest time period covered in any Paradox game (technically HoI is shorter in terms of actual years passed but since it ticks in hours instead of days I believe the math works out that it is actually longer in terms of the number of "turns"), and because the gameplay throws in some fairly dramatic shifts in the mid and late game, with the scramble for Africa and then great wars, to give you something to look forward to rather than having the entire back half of the game be an overlong victory lap. That said a lot of nations in Vicky have pretty boring early games because there's not a lot for you to do until you can really start colonizing or making huge claims in great wars.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2021 13:56
|
|
|
Yeah my feeling is it's either Vicky 3 or an entirely new franchise and it's about even odds between them. I wouldn't expect a sequel to any of their other franchises right now - Stellaris and EU4 both just got expansions (even if EU4's was kind of a disaster), CK3 is obviously way too new in general, and I don't really think it would make sense for them to be making HoI5 just because like, HoI4 still has plenty of stuff left to build on and it's just not really a game that needs a sequel right now.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:vicky kinda struggles with showing the kind of modernization china engaged in- they got plenty of modern arms but since modernization was such a decentralized scheme, it pretty much led the provincial governors to be warlords(it also somewhat struggles with the US federal system) I am curious how they are going to handle this in Vicky 3 since it's been a known problem area of Vicky 2 for ages (which is why basically every big mod tries to do something with China). A player controlled China in Vicky 2 basically just goes from the struggling 19th century Chinese empire to the economic and military superpower of modern day China, skipping all the steps in between.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That part has always been the one that confuses me the most. The "Century of Humiliation" seems like a pretty powerful propaganda image, so why not let people portray the non-CCP ruled China of the era as just a huge mess? I suppose the alternate history CCP being allowed to do better than the real one would be an issue for Victoria though. The thing it boils down to is that there's no actual solid rule and that is on purpose, because it's much more about giving the government the leeway to ban whatever makes the censors feel funny on that particular day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:misunderstandings of chinese censorship in the west are pretty common. often companies adopt bizarre general rules, such as "no skeletons" (Blizzard), that are more about being extremely careful so as to avoid even the vague possibility of a particularly rigid or protectionist censor deciding they were putting one toe over the line. these rules are taken by a lot of Gamers to be the actual rules that are used by the chinese government, but they aren't. from what i understand chinese media tends to stay within the actual rules, so many of the things that people think are banned in chinese media are, uh, not actually banned. Yeah a big thing to bear in mind about Chinese censorship of western media is the power imbalance. Western media makers want access to the Chinese market way more than China wants western media, so sometimes China just kind of flexes simply because they can.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:How the gently caress do you get a CCP game off the ground anyway? You basically have to ignore the strategy that seems to be suggested by the focus tree and proactively invade your neighbours by manually justifying against them, getting them wrapped up before the Japanese invade and everyone joins the united front. If you try to get to the focus that gives you the annex war goals for free, it takes too long to really use them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Hellioning posted:So Henry VIII is an rear end for obvious reasons, but I would like to know what you hated that much about Cromwell. Yeah, he was a religious fanatic who betrayed the ideals of a supposedly republican revolution, but I feel there were a lot of those in history. He also tried to wipe out the Irish. Although there's no shortage of people doing that in history either.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:I would guess they hate him because he overthrew the king and the current state is a monarchy so overthrowing kings is bad? I think the UK just likes to hold grudges. They still burn Guy Fawkes in effigy every year because he tried to blow up parliament 400 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I've just recently listened to BBC In Our Time show about the Interregnum. It assumed I already knew who Cromwell was. There were professional historians there talking about his deeds and plans and problems. It sounded like he was a genocidal dude, but it's a 17th century, so it felt more like an early Napoleon rather than early Hitler. And naturally plenty of mass murderer's are celebrated as heroes. I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me that Cromwell is a national hero because of early republicanism or something. As I understand it as a non-Brit, Guy Fawkes is not really an ambiguous figure in the UK (he is the villain), but his image is often used in an ironic way to make a political statement (this is how V for Vendetta was using it). Like the actual historical gunpowder plot was not some sort of radical rebellion against the monarchy or whatever - Guy Fawkes was a religious extremist and specifically wanted a more repressive state (he was angry at the monarchy because of their split from the Catholic church). Bonfire night is basically a big celebration about the fact that he failed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
fuf posted:haha, this just gave me a flashback to my British history education where we did indeed spend an inordinate amount of time on the puritans wanting to ban Christmas. I do wonder if a lot of modern resentment of Cromwell in the UK is mostly due to the fact that they have to spend so much time learning about a guy who, ultimately, did not really have an impact on the modern United Kingdom. He did a lot of stuff during his lifetime, sure, but then after he died basically everything was reset to how it was before the war. There's got to be a feeling of "is this guy really so important that we have to keep learning about him?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This confusion is included in the polling itself though. If you ask the general public this sort of question it's more like [Popularity] x [Impact]. The inclusion of Diana makes that pretty obvious. Yeah the fact that the list has Thatcher above Alexander Fleming kind of says a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
I never played HoI2, but I found HoI3 to be essentially incomprehensible, and HoI4 to be extremely approachable, so it's definitely more user-friendly than past HoI games. The DLC setup is a bit weird because it honestly doesn't really need any DLC, it's pretty much complete in vanilla, but a lot of minor features are locked behind various DLCs, and you won't get the updated focus trees for countries if you don't have the relevant DLC, which does make a big difference because otherwise those countries have generic focus trees or their older, shittier one, and that has a big impact because the focus tree is basically what guides your entire playthrough.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'm as much for giving the middle finger to nazis as anyone but it seems kind of pointless to be talking about making warcrime leaders NPC countries. In a series of games such as Paradox's GSGs no less, where Europa Universalis gives you an "Attack natives" button and Victoria has you do the trail of tears. There is a serious discussion to be had about how these games whitewash history and feed into historical myths, but kneejerk suggestions like those do not meaningfully contribute to it. The big problem with WW2 is that it's a very popular setting for wargames for a reason - it's the last major direct conflict between great powers, before the invention of nuclear weapons basically made the possibility of any future conflict of that scale mean "the extinction of the human race". It's a strategic scenario that people have been going over constantly basically since the moment it ended so there is going to remain interest in playing it out and imagining how things could have gone differently if Country X had done Y and so on. On the other side of the coin, the war is inseparable from the politics that caused it and just as it was the last major modern conflict, it also industrialized human suffering on a scale never seen before or since. So you have a conflict that is strategically fascinating but politically very ugly. The easy solution to this is "fantasy WW2" where you take the technology of the war and remove it from the real world context, but fantasy nations tend to be very poor mappings of real world ones and it's not as interesting to imagine alt-history scenarios for a history that was entirely made up in the first place. Minenfeld! posted:Friends and I basically only played axis nations in our multiplayer games for this reason. Though the most fun we had was in HOI2 playing as the pan slavic alliance of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, kicking Germany in the balls in 1936, puppeting Italy in 1937 and starting a hell war with the Soviets where the entirety of Eastern Europe ran out of manpower by 1942. One of the nice things about HoI4's expansions is that a lot of the focus tree additions allow you to do more stuff like this. There are a lot more options for being the "protagonist" nation of WW2 down the alt-history paths; even if a lot of them are fairly historically implausible, the point is to allow them to bootstrap themselves up to be on par with the Axis/Allies/Comintern with a bit of historical flavour, not really to present a "this could have really happened!" scenario. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Sep 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Pierson posted:Someone introduced me to this game and I feel like I'm gonna resent them for doing so because I lost the entire day to youtube tutorials and a trial-run as Germany (lol). I just wanna ask before I get obsessed; I don't really want to start modding before I have a good grasp of the game, so can you get up to weird historical hijinks in the base game, or is it just various permutations of "the axis win"? Which game? From the context of the post I'm guessing one of the Hearts of Iron games, and if it's 4 then the answer is extremely yes, although a lot of the really wacky alt-history stuff is gated behind DLC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I can't speak too much to it, but from my limited historical reading, one thing that I don't think Crusader Kings as a series has ever captured particularly well is the low level, endemic violence of the Middle Ages. The very strict hierarchy of CK is also a simplification of how real life feudalism worked, although this is probably a thing where it makes for a better game to not aim for accuracy. Like in real life, you could have things where the king of England was both an independent king with vassals of his own, and also a vassal of the king of France, because he was the Duke of Normandy, which was a title under the French crown, and the specific laws about land ownership and subject/overlord relationships were extremely regional. CK goes for more of a broad strokes approach, generally trying to create the feeling of being a feudal lord without really aiming to accurately recreate any specific system from the period.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:Is there a thread for Grey Eminence? People from MEIOU and Taxes are apparently making a grand strategy game, the globe from 1356 to 1956 with OVER A MILLION HEX TILES. And of course it has full pop system, religion framework , and weather system. Unity can handle a lot of simultaneous calculations just fine if set up correctly, but it's a pretty advanced design technique that's based around ignoring a lot of how most people understand Object Oriented programming, so there's no guarantee that it would work for this specific application (although it's impossible to say without knowing more about the game really).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Vizuyos posted:Don't worry too about profitability, especially early on - early factories aren't very productive or efficient, and the global markets won't be that demanding for stuff. In addition to looking to make factories that make things from goods you produce in your nation, you should also try to build these factories in the states where those goods are produced - a factory gets a stacking bonus for each input produced within the state (including inputs that are being produced by other factories in that state; it's not just RGOs). There's never really a reason not to do this as it's a completely free bonus, so it just comes down to finding the states that would be the best fit, resource-wise, to the factory you're trying to build.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2022 08:33
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:Maybe it's just my lack of experience with Vic2, but one of the issues I found with production chains etc in that game is that the map seems to be set up to make some countries playable (the bigger European tags, Brazil, Mexico, the US, Persia, Japan, etc) and then a lot of the other countries in the game aren't given the right set of trade goods to ever set up a functioning economy within their own borders (e.g. having coal, iron, sulphur, livestock/wheat/fish, etc). It creates a situation where you can't expand militarily or economically at the start, because you can't get the goods you need to build an army or expand your industry as you're too low down on the power rankings to buy stuff off the global market whenever they're in higher demand; and then whenever you get unsphered and leave a GP's market you end up back in the same situation again. The thing is this kind of lack of access to resources was a pretty key issue of the era, but it does make it awkward to play some nations because they simply don't have any options except getting sphered by a great power and hoping there will be scraps left over for them in the local market after the sphere leader has had their fill. Vicky 2 kind of lies right on the edge of when Paradox was shifting from their games more or less sticking to a fixed historical progression to a more open ended, systems driven approach, so in a lot of cases the only small nations that are really viable to play are the ones that have a bunch of pre-defined events that let them punch above their weight or make powerful allies (like how Japan gets the Meiji Restoration decision that lets them modernize much more quickly than other nations that have to use the built in system). It's a game where you kind of just have to recognize that playing as a tiny country you've never heard of probably won't be fun. There's a reason why the typical small nation strategy is to just rush all the prestige techs first to bump themselves up to a secondary power on prestige alone - because there's not really anything else you can as one of those nations. Phlegmish posted:Thanks for all the economical advice, what you guys are saying makes a lot of sense, even though I'm not quite sure yet how to effectively implement it in an actual playthrough. I find the trade screen and such to be very opaque, it's difficult to figure out which goods I should definitely be producing. So long as your own income is positive, it's not actually that big a deal to have a ton of factories closed. What you want to subsidize are the goods needed for military and construction, and anything that might be needed as an intermediate good in producing them. Anything else you can feel free to leave to the whims of the free market. If the factories are closing it means that there probably just isn't enough demand for them, so it's unlikely your people are actually lacking in access to those goods. One thing I am noticing is all your factories are level 1. You really should be upgrading them - the ones that are making a profit likely can't actually produce enough goods to keep up with demand so you're leaving money and jobs on the table. If a factory is fully staffed and making a profit, you should upgrade it until one of those things isn't true anymore (on laissez faire and interventionism, capitalists can upgrade factories, but state capitalism and planned economy you have to do it yourself) The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Aug 2, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm really happy that in V3 provinces can have multiple resource operations, so even a minor nation with only 3 provinces can produce more than 3 resources. Yeah this is definitely the weakest part of Vicky 2 and what makes a lot of nations very frustrating to play. Not great being an entire nation that makes fish, and only fish.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
The way the inventions work, it's also a thing where you can't get too much of a head start even if you beeline directly for the techs because the odds of other nations discovering them jump up tremendously as soon as one of the great powers has them, so a good colonization strategy is to try to cut off as many routes into the continent as you can (since you can only colonize coastlines or territory adjacent to territory you already control) and then fill in the interior afterwards. Since a few GPs start with colonies already there (like the UK with South Africa) you can't 100% cut out the competition but you can end up grabbing a good chunk of the continent for yourself. Ships do give colonial power, with higher tier ships giving more, but not at a rate that retains efficiency per supply as you keep upgrading (since the supply cost jumps significantly for top tier ships). Ironclads give you the best colonial power per naval supply ratio, so you pretty much just want to make your entire navy out of ironclads if you want to maximize your colonial power (although you should probably save a bit for transports just so you can actually move troops around your intercontinental empire). The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Aug 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2022 06:56
|
|
|
The "forever battles" are one of the funnier consequences of the combat system in V2 and the way that army size grows but battle frontage shrinks over the game, making it very easy to just keep piling more and more brigades into a single unending combat. It's not particularly realistic for a world war to consist of basically one massive battle in a single territory with millions of participants but I suppose it is sort of in the spirit of WW1 that both sides are encouraged to just keep committing more resources to what could have been a relatively minor conflict, solely to avoid losing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2022 19:27
|
|
|
I do think it's worth pointing out that Paradox games are also at their most fun when you kind of suck at them and don't understand the systems well enough to consistently win. CK especially is a series where the narrative of building an empire, having it all come crashing down, and then rebuilding from scratch is much more interesting than just blobbing forever and never experiencing any sort of setback. So the best Paradox game to dive into first is the one that you just find the most thematically interesting, because you'll get to enjoy that narrative of ups and downs for longer.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2022 02:06
|
|
|
I feel like the "everybody basically has the same levy composition" issue could have been addressed by varying what unit types you get more dramatically based on terrain, which is something CK3 kind of already supports with it having a lot of terrain-specific building types, where CK2 had identical holdings no matter where they were + one unique cultural building.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
4X means turn-based. Grand Strategy means realtime.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
skipThings posted:Correct me if I am wrong here, but aren't the mission trees more a thing made for the AI to have any general idea of what it is supposed to be doing instead of just randomly bumbling about? They've always had the ability to give the AI goals/interests without a player facing system, though I suspect once mission trees were added it simplified it a lot and it built into the mission tree logic is code that tells the AI how to follow them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:When the game tends to nudge things towards real-world history, that's where the fun of breaking away from the path happens. Honestly I feel like HoI4 has the best approach to this, where you have a "historical mode" setting that forces the AI nations to attempt to follow the historical path they did in the real world (without being so deterministic as to always have the same winners), and then later patching in nation-specific settings where you can set specific alt-history paths for them to follow or just let them pick totally randomly. It's probably something that works better in the short timescale of WW2 though compared to Victoria or especially EU/CK which cover several centuries of history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2023 22:18
|
|