|
Randarkman posted:It kinda makes sense if you think about it. It seems to be supposed to represent people valuing the good of the collective (which could be many things including the state ruling the collection of citizens/subjects) over the rights or needs of the individuals making up the collective, such an outlook might very well accept the slavery of some individuals as benefitting the collective as a whole. The idea of universal rights is very individualist, because it puts the value of EACH life as being more important than the value of ALL life - that protecting individual rights is more important than the greater good (or rather that the protection of individual rights IS the greater good). Collectivism is about putting the growth/survival of the species/nation/whatever ahead of any individual sacrifices required to achieve that goal.
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:In a way capitalism could be seen as extreme collectivist as the only social good is "the economy" and all others are disposable towards that end. A policy of unemployment to keep labour costs down is just for the greater good of "the economy" which all must sacrifice to grow and protect. Individuals don't matter, only the greater market. Individual achievement or happiness is meaningless unless the market says so. Meanwhile some sort of startrek marxism is all about personal growth and development, maximizing individual comfort and happiness even if it results in a society that isn't min-maxed for growth and production, no one's rights are worth trampling even if the market would normally dictate it. Star Trek Marxism is also kind of weird because it exists post-scarcity , so the collective needs of society already ARE met by default and there's basically no reason to restrict individual liberties beyond the basic "don't murder people" logical system of laws. Thanks to things like replicators and transporters, their only practical need is energy, which they also seem to have in abundance thanks to super efficient reactor technology. Presumably in Stellaris it will be a bit more difficult to keep your people satisfied so you'd have reason to follow harsher ethics beyond just being a dick for no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:A kickstarter? Why would anyone donate money to a profitable company that is about to do an IPO? You say this as if it hasn't already happened a bunch of times already. Well, maybe not the IPO part specifically, but the rest? Sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:Wouldn't that be really involved for HoI 4 though? A nation in EU4 is just a set of ideas (as well as a few more things like government type and religion). Countries in HoI 4 have large national focus trees that often interact with other nations. The big ones do, but I'm assuming that there is probably some sort of generic national focus tree for minors (or a set of a few different ones based on the dominant ideology in the nation at the start), since I highly doubt they're going to design huge, detailed, unique national focus trees for every single nation on the planet. Custom nations would probably just use those.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I've never played HOI3, but my 15-year old cousin does, and he says he doesn't even touch the OOB because it's such a pain in the rear end. And this is a kid who figured out Dwarf Fortress without consulting the wiki. Yeah the thing about OOB isn't that it's hard to understand, it's just really cumbersome. Basically, you have your entire army, which might be dozens or even hundreds of divisions, and they get various bonuses for being under four different tiers of command - so you get the maximum bonuses for everyone by filling out those tiers completely: i.e. each division has a corps above it, each corps has an army above it, each army has an army group above it, and each army group is assigned to a theatre. Oh, and except for theatres, each tier is limited to 5 subordinates, so you can't just make one of each and then put your entire force under a single corps. The problem is that basically every nation starts with an OOB that is far from optimal (or even complete) and the only way to reorganize them is to manually reassign them all individually. That's not even getting into generals, which can be assigned at any level all the way down to individual divisions, who have both a skill rating that affects the overall bonus given to everyone under them, as well as traits that give specific bonuses that get more powerful the lower down in the hierarchy they are. It seems like one of those things that probably sounded interesting on paper, but it would only really work if you were building up an army from scratch. When you already start with a huge, established army, reorganizing it just becomes busywork.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Tuskin38 posted:I'm guessing some standard things like Texas, California, New England Deseret.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Didn't he give the tutorial in HOI3? Come to think of it, that is rather odd. He did but they never referred to him by name during the tutorial so they probably didn't have to change that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
HoI3 had some thing about playing a government in exile, so France would still be able to contribute even after getting stomped by the Germans, didn't it? Will HoI4 have something like that or are you just out of the game if you get fully occupied early on?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Speaking of that. Uranium really should be a strategic resource. In 1940 the only known sources of Uranium were Colorado, Canada, Czechoslovakia and the Belgian Congo. In fact many people engaged in the Manhattan Project actually thought that they had exhausted most of the known supplies they had access to. Maybe have those extra deposits only appear once you reach a certain level of nuclear tech research? I'm not super familiar with the Manhattan project and the early history of nuclear technology, but I think part of the issue they had with developing the first nukes was that at the time they only knew how to do it with U-235, which only makes up about 1% of all Uranium, while modern developments allow it to be done with U-238 as well (actually having just looked it up, it's not that we can fission U-238 but rather that we know how to transmute it into Plutonium which is naturally fissile like U-235) . I think that was discovered well after the end of WW2, but since it's a game it's not unreasonable to include post-war development as possible research at the tail end of the tree that most people are unlikely to unlock but is there if you really want to pour research into it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
That's why a lot of beginner's guides recommend starting in Ireland in the high Middle Ages start. The main thing that makes lower tier starts "difficult" is that it's very easy to get taken over by a more powerful neighbour with very little ability to defend yourself if you don't know what you're doing. Ireland meanwhile is relatively isolated from major powers and also small enough that you don't need to worry about juggling a dozen vassals like with the HRE or Byzantines.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Not sure where the supersonic part comes in, though. The takeoff procedure involves a very large slingshot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
I'd think that would actually be a good survival strategy for France. Go communist, cozy up to the Soviets early on, then when Germany invades you get the USSR joining the war way earlier than usual and taking some of the heat off the western front.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Gort posted:At the end of the day HoI4 is a wargame, so he should probably just use the top 8 military powers. Realistically, sure, but it could work if you basically just look at it as "WW2 tactics combined with modern day technology". Which honestly would probably be more fun to play than a more realistic depiction of modern day warfare. Plus it's not as if we have any good examples of what direct conflict between two superpowers would actually be like post-WW2.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:The 'Major 8' might be more straight forward if you used say the EU, or NATO, as a single superstate, but I don't know whether the game engine throws other obstacles up if you take that route. I would think those would make more sense as factions (like Axis/Allies/Comintern) than individual super-states. Although then you still have to sort out who goes into which faction, which gets tricky with overlaps like EU members that are also in NATO.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
katka posted:Well thanks to that link for CK2 on sale for cheap I'm gonna go with it for now and pick up EU4 when it goes on sale and Stellaris when its had a little time to iron out the rough edges. The base game is pretty good but a few of the DLCs add a lot to the experience and are worth getting right away - Must have: -Way of Life: adds a bunch of flavour events, lets you pick a character focus to emphasize particular aspects of your rule. -Conclave: significantly enhances the vassal management element, and even when playing as a vassal gives you a bunch of options to gently caress with your liege. Optional but very good: -Legacy of Rome: mainly for access to retinues, but also adds a bunch of stuff for the Byzantines like event chains and decisions to reform the Roman Empire. -Old Gods: Allows you to play pagans, but even if you don't care about that also comes with an earlier start date. -Sons of Abraham: Adds a bunch of extra stuff for Christians, especially Catholics, who you will probably spend a bit of time playing anyway. -Charlemagne: Another even earlier start date, and a bunch of little things like viceroyalties or being able to create new kingdoms/empires if you're a big realm but don't meet the requirements for any de jure titles. More Specialized, only get if you're interested: -Horse Lords: allows you to play as nomads. Nomads are cool but you probably don't want to play them for your first game. -The Republic: Allows you to play merchant republics. See the above comment about nomads. -Sword of Islam: Allows you to play Muslims, but doesn't add anything for non-Muslims so only really worthwhile if you plan to play them specifically. -Rajas of India: Ditto the above, except Indian religions instead of Muslims. It also gives you the ability to convert to the religion/culture of your capital, which is useful but not worth buying a whole DLC just for that. The other stuff is all cosmetic so you can take it or leave it. I find the portrait packs are generally good but the unit packs are kind of pointless. There's also sunset invasion which adds a western equivalent to the Mongols - it balances the game out a bit but is also kind of a pain if you aren't prepared for it.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:my personal experience with eu4 is that, pretty much every time i look at a battle, i can see why i'm losing - "oh, they have a better general", "oh, they have +20% morale, gently caress you france", etc. or why i'm winning. whichever. very rarely is it because of "rng bullshit". I feel like if they ever make a Vicky 3, it would help a lot to base the warfare on the HoI model rather than EU - especially if they integrated the strategic planning options in HoI4. That way it would be less about micromanaging your elite troops and hordes of conscripts and more about setting up a front line and then ensuring your production and supply lines hold up, which I feel would fit the economic focus of the Victoria series better than the EU style army management.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Drone posted:I'll be adding all (known) national focus trees later in the day. It's also missing screenshots of the national dog system. Arglebargle III posted:Can you guys help me figure out what happened in CK2? He may have formed a faction and your wife capitulated when he sent his demands. I've found that kind of thing happens a lot when you press someone else's claim on a title - the AI is really bad at holding on to them. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 16:24 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I dont think is unethical or anything, I just think that, beyond a certain point, to keep developing above then might start hurting the games instead of improving then It really becomes an issue of when do you stop doing DLC and start working on a sequel. There's issues with both - the more DLC there is the larger the barrier for new players since there's so much extra stuff they have to buy before they really get the "complete" game, and after a certain point you're piling systems on systems that were never really designed to integrate with each other so you end up with a kind of bloated experience even for veterans. On the other hand, developing a sequel means starting over from scratch, and even if you include features from DLC into the base game it's still not going to have as much content as a game with years worth of updates and expansions.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Koramei posted:You could have carvings in different styles from the various parts of the world for DLC too. It'd be kind of cool, I think going whole hog into the tabletop aesthetic would work really well for Paradox games. Yeah but remember that Paradox plays on terrain mode for some weird reason. So for us the games look like a Risk board but for them it's all mountains and forests and such.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:It'll be Stellaris but with little farmers and men with tophats instead of robots and bug-eyed monsters. Split the difference - bug-eyed monsters with top hats.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
I say just call them libertarians regardless of historical accuracy, then let people go nuts when they take over and inevitably tank your economy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Tomn posted:If Paradox ever does get around to tackling the Victoria 3 challenge I hope they'll do their best to try and preserve the feel of being in charge of a living, breathing nation. Imperialism was a fun and good game and all, but it's also explicitly a game where your pawns exist only to help you win the game. Victoria 2 had plenty of faults, but it's also one of the very few games in existence that gives you a sense of your nation being its own thing and not just an extension of your godlike will in your contest against the other nation-gods. Yeah this is one of the most interesting aspects of Vicky 2 to me and something that really no other strategy game does. You'll usually see games with systems to represent your population being unhappy or something, but it's always very game-y and feels more like just another resource to be managed rather than something that actually significantly affects the direction of your nation/civilization/whatever. Chief Savage Man posted:Vicky 3 should crib from Empire Total War where you could switch to controlling the revolution. The communists and fascists and stuff were usually pretty easy to beat down so unless you were playing to lose in a sense you typically wouldn't be able to play those types of games. Yeah this is something that's kind of funny to me - a lot of Vicky 2 strategies involve basically "let the rebels win", since communist/fascist governments give you a lot more direct control over your nation than the more traditional ones. I feel like that's fine as a gameplay thing, but you should at least have to actually win the revolution yourself to take advantage of it rather than deliberately surrendering. Losing against an uprising should turn you into a government-in-exile or something if you side with the state.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Drone posted:Victoria 3's focus absolutely can't stray from economics though. There's a reason wars suck to fight in V2 and why they're bloody as hell and have a huge impact on a country's economy: because that's how the 19th century worked. Victoria without the economics would basically just be EU set in the 1800s. The economics and internal politics are the defining features of the series.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:EU4 is more like a boardgame, and as such feels more like a game where CK2 and V2 feel more like simulations. You can't really - that's kind of the point of simulations though. They're built around using computers to do things that would be way too complex for a human to handle while playing a board game (not that there aren't some obscenely complex board games out there, but like 90% of the complexity of those games would vanish if they were video games and just had the computer handle all the paperwork). Game systems don't have to be transparent to be fair - they just have to work how you logically expect they SHOULD work. The main failing with a lot of games in this style isn't the systems themselves but the documentation - descriptions of things being out of date or just plain wrong giving people the wrong impression about what is happening when they use ability X.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
The mixed reaction on Stellaris is basically down to expectations - people in this thread were expecting essentially a Paradox historical game in space, with the level of detail we've gotten used to. Instead the game is essentially a straightforward 4X - which isn't a bad thing, it's just different than what people thought it would be. HoI4 meanwhile is pretty much exactly what people expected, which is essentially HoI3 with most of the rough edges sanded off so it's got the same level of detail but with the approachability of more recent Paradox games. I think it just comes down to Stellaris is a new thing so it's more experimental, while HoI is very much within the Paradox wheelhouse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Yeah it's kind of a weird topic - espionage was a vital part of WW2 so it feels weird not to have it at all, but it's also hard to think of a way to implement it that would actually be fun and meaningful to the game.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:National Bears or bust He's already in the game 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I guess that's one way to solve the whole Alaskan oil pipeline through Canada debate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:Sunset Invasion was Paradox dipping ones proverbial toe in the water and having it chomped off by nerds. Understandably they don't want to jump into any wacky themed DLC headfirst any more, but its a sad state. We could have wizard DLC or some kind of age of heroes Arthurian/Nibelung scenarios today if it were a happier universe. Did you write this entire post just to justify that pun?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:I just got Victoria II because of the sale. Is there any sort of sane tutorial for the game? Because the budget seems nearly impossible to balance if you want to have enough money to actually do anything. That's going to be the case for a while (although it depends a lot on your nation). Tax efficiency starts very low - so you want to max out taxes on everyone just to counter it (apparently they don't really mind a nominal 90% tax rate). Raising tariffs also makes a big difference but be wary of making them too high - if your people can't afford to import the goods they need your economy will very quickly go into a death spiral. I tend to go for 10-15%, but you can fiddle with it until your budget balances out nicely. You'll also want to slash the budget across the board. As mentioned above cutting your military maintenance budgets during peacetime is a no brainer, but you'll probably have to keep stuff like admin and education around 50% for a while, too. Once you start getting techs that improve taxation efficiency you'll be able to afford to raise these up to 100% easily but until then get used to being pretty broke.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:I want an rpg where the story is entirely personal. Like there is no world end I mg threat or whatever, it's just your character taking care of personal poo poo. It's why I've only ever finished F:NV once, the whole dlc plot is much more interesting than 7th Hoover dam stuff I think this would be interesting if it was done in the scope of larger things happening but you don't necessarily have a personal stake in them. Like the civil war from Skyrim but without the whole "you are the chosen one, dragonborn" aspect of the main plotline. So many RPGs force you into the hero role because you have to save the world or whatever - I think it would allow for more roleplaying options if the PC was just some guy and could choose how they feel about whatever the big crisis is for themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:Any clan with Celerity was easy mode for combat. It's a tossup between Celerity and Obfuscation which was stronger for most fights. With Celerity, after a few dots enemies move so slowly your only risk is moving so fast that you dodge back into bullets you forgot were hanging near-motionless in the air. With Obfuscation high enough, you can move around and stealth kill every non-boss enemy at will, with no chance to be detected. Celerity is better for boss fights (I killed the Transformed Sheriff using Celerity before he even finished the first swoop), while Obfuscate is better for non-bosses, since you're in 0 danger and don't have to waste ammo You didn't even need obfuscation, really. With stealth skill maxed out you were effectively invisible anyway. VTM: Bloodlines was not a balanced game. It was still awesome though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Chief Savage Man posted:Despite all that it has a certain charm and immersion that got polished out as they refined the concept into FC3. Far Cry 3/4 are certainly better games but Far Cry 2 I think is worth playing. An RPG where you aren't either the most important person in the world or associated with them would be a nice change of pace though. Not many games give you the sense that you're just one person out of many trying to accomplish things. New Vegas was close in that regard as the political forces felt much larger than the player but even there you could run the world or at least single handedly change its fate. I think being able to change the fate of the world/take it over is fine; it's just that a lot of RPGs make the PC into the keystone of the crisis from the very beginning.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Can I assume that the thread title will be updated the second that V3 is finally announced? Yeah. Then it'll be "Still waiting on Victoria IV". Enjoy posted:http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Little_Lamplight My theory that I just made up right now is that they kidnap children from other settlements. To kind of bring it back around to Paradox games without totally dropping the Fallout thing - I think it would be cool if Paradox and Obsidian did a team up for a new post-apocalyptic setting. I like Fallout but it's kind of the only game in town at the moment for its particular niche (I'm not counting Wasteland 2 because it's a classic isometric RPG rather than a shooter). Since the STALKER series died and the spiritual successor they're working on is taking forever, there really haven't been any more serious takes on post-apoc open world stuff (Metro is cool but not open world at all). My suggestion: Bring some of the After the End guys on board and build a full game out of that setting. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Nice. I assume the content DLC (Heart of Darkness/House divided) is worth it too? And thanks! Absolutely get the DLC if you plan on playing Victoria 2.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
You can also accumulate them and become known as a crazy cat lady/lord.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
ExtraNoise posted:Eve Online has a really cool character engine and CK3 should figure out what it is and use it. Yeah HoI4 is a solid game and exactly as complex as it needs to be. The only stuff I really feel like is "missing" is stuff that I honestly don't know how they could implement in a fun way, anyway (espionage, mainly. A huge part of WW2, but also boring as poo poo in like 99% of strategy games).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:I would like to think that the next game in each series would be more than just a cleanup/engine upgrade with minor features added or removed. Granted I haven't seen HoI4 so I don't know how big a leap that is from 3, but as great a game as EU4 is the leap from EU3 to EU4 (on release, of course) was a bit of a letdown. I'm not sure we'll get a leap as big as from the Europa games to the Clausewitz games for a few years still, but I'd like to hope that Victoria 3 and EU5 will be part of a leap of that magnitude. The leap from HoI3 to 4 is pretty huge actually. Not just in the tech/presentation but in the gameplay design as well. They really built it from the ground up rather than just iterating on HoI3.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
I think the thing about espionage in a lot of games is that it always ends up as a zero-sum game. You have to invest a bunch in spies and all they really accomplish is keeping you up to date on enemy spies. It just seems like something that can be abstracted away entirely as "we're just assuming that your nation is investing in espionage, that's why you can see all this information about the world". Which is basically what HoI4 does. You just research encryption/decryption technology and build radar stations and the rest is all background.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
THE BAR posted:Yes, definitely. Same with reconnaissance supports, but only a tile away. I think radar coverage DOES make you gauge troop counts more successfully. It would make sense for recon support to do the same thing, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 13:53
|
|