Paradox Grand Strategy: Tim Cook? How many divisions has he got?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: Tim Cook? How many divisions has he got?

«‹›2 »

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

ulmont posted:

The ability to put individual buildings all over your empire, instead of assigning spending priorities by slider, sounds like a great feature until it turns into micromanagement hell.

I agree MoO1 feels less bloated, and much more its own game rather than sci-fi-skinned Civilization.

This. MoO1 style planet management has a few advantages, one of which is that it's so easy to automate that the AI can also do a great job optimizing their planets.

Distant Worlds almost gets close, but the low taxes = massive pop boom combined with no settings to have super low tax on worlds that aren't maxed out combined with high taxes on maxed out worlds is its own level of micro hell.

I just want a space game where setting up a planet is as simple as a few clicks, and the grand strategy involves the mix of planets that you devote to various areas at different times. Most space games end up with the player in control of 30-40 worlds, and microing each planet's output is a nightmare.

# ¿ Sep 29, 2015 17:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:31

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Kavak posted:

The militancy stuff is really counterintuitive and gamey, and I hope Victoria 3 figures out a better system. Someone suggested that the player needs more incentive to play an ultraconservative bastard, at least in the early game. Reforms should reduce prestige- the less you have to concede to the masses, the better. In the 2nd half of the game, the US begins its rise from a nobody on the world stage to industrial titan, France becomes a Republic again, while von Bismarck builds a welfare state and absolutist Russia starts to look all kinds of hosed up. By that point, things should have begun to swing in the opposite direction a little- reforms become acceptable, just don't go overboard and become communists or anything.

I like this idea. A neat way of handling it is that as nations pass reforms, the prestige penalty decreases until a certain point where you get a prestige bonus for passing reforms and a penalty for not passing them. Countries who pass reforms early as a concession to angry peasants are viewed as cowards, while governments who benevolently bestow rights upon their people are viewed favorably.

# ¿ Oct 5, 2015 17:23

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Defeatist Elitist posted:

Hahaha, holy moly this guy does not know a loving thing about genetics or evolution and it is amazing.

The dude very clearly hasn't ever looked into owning a purebred dog either.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2015 03:53

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:

Has a crisis in Vicky-2 ever been resolved prior to war with a result other than white peace?

Yeah, if you horribly overpower the other side, you can enforce crisis demands. It takes a lot of military power though, or for the crisis state in question to have lost a great war recently and have a crippled military.

# ¿ Oct 12, 2015 14:23

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

GrossMurpel posted:

Laissez-Faire would be pretty great without the insane restrictions on max taxes (if those are in vanilla and not added by NNM). Once your literacy gets high enough, there's so many craftsmen that you can easily let the capitalists spam factories and the ones that don't shut down still give you insane industry scores.
State Capitalism is obviously better if your guys refuse to build the correct factories, but I still prefer Laissez-Faire over Planned Economy.

I like how important artillery is to the combat and how railroads combined with the battle lengths allow you to have a large front while still being able to send all your guys into one huge superbattle.

State Capitalism/Planned Economy would be phenomenal if there were a way to have projects to start and upgrade factories be generated and funded by the state automatically. It's just too much busy work otherwise.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 14:38

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

I actually like Sword of the Stars style ship design. It restricts how much you can put on a given hull, sure, but ship design is simple and easy - choose a role, choose a hull, fill slots, done.

That's the level of ship design I personally want. Weapons tend to be the focus of ship design, and it's nice to just order your shipbuilders to put as many guns of a certain type on a part of a ship and have them do the busy work of min maxing your gun count for you instead of fiddling with numbers and normal/light/heavy mounts so that you can fit as many guns per ship as possible.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2015 20:08

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Disco Infiva posted:

And that traveler's name was Albert Einstein.

Of course, then we need an event where the Soviets move in and eliminate Albert Einstein from existence...

# ¿ Oct 31, 2015 09:45

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

The important thing is that failure to roll well on the dice should reward you differently. Hell, it would be awesome if each anomaly had different interpretations, and each interpretation gave you a different bonus.

One person says it's a death laser, so your space combat goes up. One person says it's their instant planet-wide teakettle warmer, so your consumer goods tech goes up. Another person might use it as a particle collider and advance theoretical physics.

I really like the faction stuff mentioned above. It would be amazing if different scientists had traits that made them more or less likely to join a given faction of interpretation, which would let you be more likely to unlock space lasers if you hadn't already or increase tea production if you've already unlocked it. It'd also be neat to have tons of anomalies/projects at once so that you have to pick and choose who goes where to unlock what.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2015 20:45

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Personally, I always set a stockpile of goods used to build units (and forts/railroads/factories in the late game with a strong economy) of around 200-500 once my economy can afford it.

If you don't have the goods stockpiled, the game spends ~10 days or so buying up the goods for each unit that you queue up, which adds months or years onto the time it takes to recruit a large army or build a navy. If you have goods stockpiled, the game starts building units/infrastructure immediately.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2015 16:40

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Fintilgin posted:

It really depends on how its executed in game. If it's like MOO2, where every turn is a dozen planets demanding you update their build queue, that would be bad. If it's like EUIV, where you've five hundred provinces with ~5 building slots apiece, but you're really just going in and enhancing certain places when you've got the extra resources, that's probably fine.

This absolutely. It's the main reason I prefer MoO over its sequel and why I'm not a fan of GalCiv. I trust Paradox to handle it well, but I'm nervous about any similar mechanic.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2015 21:29

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

So here's a question - if I set ships to patrol, they'll abstractly move around and try to find enemy ships and shipping. However, you can also manually order ships to stay in one smaller sea zone. If you blockade a port by manually ordering ships to sit in front of it, will they 100% intercept enemy convoys coming in to resupply that port?

# ¿ Jun 14, 2016 16:50

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

There's definitely some room for adjusting encryption and decryption. Building buildings that take up factory slots and increase either encryption or decryption would be a fairly elegant solution. Modify it based on the tech and the size of the respective armies or territory as well as distance (larger armies/territory = more transmissions, closer = more intercepted transmissions).

It also gives a meaningful choice of investing resources beyond just six techs to break or obscure orders and troop positions.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2016 20:57

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

I'd like the ability, in a 2 on 1 war where the two nonhostile sides win, to say "gently caress you, all the territory we fought and died for is ours, and if you don't like it, we can start WW3 right now."

The peace conference can then go on for each side and WW3 can then proceed after that point.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2016 04:45

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Baronjutter posted:

I've been dosboxing both Master of Orion and Civilization this week and there's really something to be said for the tight simple gameplay of those classics. So many strategy games today just put in way way too manage features to ever correctly balance or fully integrate into a working whole. Or they seem to skip the whole "let's get the core gameplay really tight and balanced so all these other details and features have some good bones to support them" phase and just pile on mountains of features.

MoO is still one of my favorite strategy games. The economy is simple to run, but there's still a tradeoff in production now vs. production later, where and when to subsidize, etc. It also has the advantage that the economy is simple enough that the AI can actually use it.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 00:43

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Looking at that, I realized I excluded religion-science from my suggestion. Time to make a true sphere grid, not the circle grids calling themselves sphere grids.

I will only accept this if it is a Tetrisphere grid.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2017 05:18

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Gort posted:

The weird thing about MOO2 clones is that they never actually clone MOO2. There's always realtime 3D combat or some poo poo jammed in there.

The weirdest thing about MoO2 clones is that they're not cloning MoO instead. Each planet was dead simple to manage, and you just told them what you wanted them to work on while the game handled the rest. There was some irritating micro when tech leveled up, but that only happened a few times a game, and just involved moving a couple of sliders around. There was no fiddling with lists of buildings or pop management - just design the ships, build the ships, go blow stuff up, and figure out how much research vs. shipbuilding you wanted as well as where to spend empire money to build up planets and planetary defenses.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2017 16:31

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Zombiepop posted:

Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike.
Why complain about most of the mechanics in a game that is built upon those mechanics? :s (not just this thread and discussion right now)

I mean sure things could be better, but should we have a d&d ruleset for space combat in stellaris? turn based? cockpit view??
I actually think turn based squadron/fleet combat could be nice for stellaris, it would make designing spaceships more important since you actually would control them on the battlefield. Maybe for Stellaris 2.

My favorite thing about Victoria 2 is that resources in the game drive conflict. Actual province management is minimal; you set your focuses and occasionally build infrastructure. Empire building is the focus, and you conquer or influence areas dynamically based on what you need.

I want that in Stellaris. I want a high level empire management game where I tell my planetary governor "you are a research planet" or "you are an industrial planet" or "shore up defenses here" and they go and do the micromanagement for me. Ideally the system is built around this and is simple enough for the AI to run planets as optimally as a player.

I want to have dynamic resource demands that encourage me to go and acquire them forcefully or diplomatically. Give me a reason to conquer an area, or a reason to establish a dominion over another faction to secure their resources. Hell, let me trade for those resources so that I have a reason to make an ally, and a cost if we go to war.

The planetary tiles and the ground troops were a big mistake in my opinion. In an empire game, there's no reason to drill down to that level of detail. Pops and factions are great, but I'm the emperor, have me manage them on the imperial level. By all means, make them drivers for crises, for resource acquisition, and for other things, but don't make me micro them.

I'm also not a fan of the way ships are implemented. It's very micro intensive to build and gather them, and since we don't control the ships directly, the ship designer feels too opaque. It also leads to all or nothing doomstacks slamming into each other with no real supply limits or anything preventing large ship concentrations. The lack of manpower or system defense boats or anything like that aggravates military losses and makes them a headache to rebuild from, if that even ends up being possible. I would honestly prefer generic ship classes over designing ships.

Planetary invasion is terrible. Just make it a siege like in other games and abstract ground troops as something that fleets transport in autonomously. Hell, give ships a blockade value and an invasion value to show how good they are at planetary assault.

Overall, more macro, less micro. Let me be in charge of the broad strokes of empire building, and let the peons in charge of planets and fleets do the grunt work of implementation. As a bonus, this makes the AI much easier to make competent, as it makes players and the AI manage planets similarly.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2017 05:37

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

pdxjohan posted:

The premise of Vicky is that all ideologies should be playable..

Nonsense, this is an election year, and we need all the jingoism we can get for more demands!

# ¿ Nov 29, 2017 04:27

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Don Gato posted:

It'll be Sengoku 2 and Sword of the Stars 2 HD, which is actually an expansion for Stellaris and adds in features such as ships surrendering to asteroids and the ability to crash to desktop when you open the research tab

Also, researching English sets your labs on fire.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2018 04:12

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

boner confessor posted:

the civil war is pretty pointless in vicky 2 simply because you can disband all your dixie culture units and station your ethnic northern armies in key southern cities on the verge of war. it's better to hit the gas on the war and try to get it over with asap so you can spend additional years industrializing

if there was an invisible intelligence pouring money from heaven into abolitionist groups, absolutely

My favorite thing to do is ship all of the Dixie units off to Africa. The CSA doesn't have a navy, so you just kind of conquer them. Their soldier pops are also tied up in an army already, so they can't even recruit new units to try to stop you.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2018 22:24

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Psychotic Weasel posted:

Yeah, that seems odd. When you intervene in the Texan war you can only go for the Status Quo goal so I don't see how you could grab any more that early. I've always had to grab the western states piecemeal as well since grabbing them all at once put you beyond capacity, even when they are cored and have a valid causus belli.

Then after that's done I keep marching down the peninsula for more. Then it's Canada's turn...

I usually declare a separate war on Mexico rather than intervening with Texas directly. From what I recall, it still works out well and ends up allowing you to grab some good territory, especially the territory that makes dyes (which are otherwise really hard to get outside of India).

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 04:32

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Fister Roboto posted:

iirc the immigration focus only makes it so that if your country receives immigrants (and you won't if you're in the Old World), they're more likely to go to that state. It doesn't affect internal migration at all.

There's pretty much nothing you can do here!

Yeah, from what I can tell, your pops will migrate internally to conquered territory if and only if they share a land route.

# ¿ May 1, 2018 07:33

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Drone posted:

Arcanum Universalis

This is the game that I never knew I wanted, but now I do.

# ¿ May 17, 2018 16:59

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Panzeh posted:

Actually building a bunch of buildings on planets in games where you should be able to control three digit numbers of them is wasteful and it'd be better off as moo1 style sliders.

This. Good lord, so much this. The goddamn ruler of space doesn't give two shits about the type of factory the governor is faffing about with building - he/she/it just wants the planet to produce a certain amount of industrial output (minerals), or a certain amount of research, or some combination of the two.

# ¿ May 23, 2018 16:04

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

fspades posted:

Hands up, who enjoys building buildings in Paradox games? And no I don't mean the unique buildings or the ones that are sorta expensive and special. I mean the basic ones that you have to build AND upgrade in every province repeat ad nauseam. The ones you have to click through manually, because even though you give no thought whatsoever to them the AI can't figure out how to do it so they can't be automated in a satisfying manner.

Seriously, who likes that poo poo? And why does Paradox still thinks this is an integral and crucial part of grand strategy games and insist on including it in some form in every game? No I don't want to decide what to build in hundreds of cities in Imperator. I really, really don't. And if they force me to do that I will be greatly disappointed. If it has to be automated because it's not fun, then it doesn't deserve to be in a video game.

100% this. If I'm a goddamn emperor, I don't want to micromanage 50-60 cities in depth. Let me allocate resources to local development and delegate from there.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2018 17:21

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Tomn posted:

There's an indie game called Stellar Monarch whose mission statement is basically this. "You're an Emperor, you don't have to give a poo poo about all the details, your underlings will handle that while you do the big picture."

There's also MoO, where upgrades in industry, unlike in MoO2, just required you to tell the planetary governor to spend time building factories. Colonizing a planet late-game in MoO is dead simple - toss some funding in industry, send colonists from other planets, spend some reserve treasury money. MoO2 required you to click several dozen times to queue up all the loving different iterations of each factory, and then if you wanted to spend money, you had to spend money each turn to buy out the factory one damned building at a time. It was a step backwards from a very elegant system (and don't even get me started on Stellaris or GalCiv with the way tile management works).

I like the idea of investing money in the economy vs keeping the money for a rainy day or using it for mercs. It's a good dynamic. I do think there are better ways to go about it than building each individual building.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2018 20:05

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Koramei posted:

I'd like to see more interactions with other things, like someone mentioned a bit back. Like how markets and universities give you extra institution spread, more stuff like that. I think doing too much to them does risk making them needlessly complicated though, and while I kinda see where you're coming from, it does need to be simple when you're dealing with hundreds of the drat things.

I'd like to see buildings be a long term strategic choice that's on part with some of the other big choices made in the game. Right now, every building essentially breaks down to a different flavor of income (manpower and force limits included, as you can buy mercs and pay more to exceed force limits). Rather than making hundreds of small decisions, it'd be nice to make a few big decisions to influence the development of your country.

# ¿ Jun 6, 2018 16:36

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

spectralent posted:

In fairness so's HOI because past 43-ish there's just an insane amount of divisions so you never do anything and the game slows to a crawl. I can't think of many paradox games that're fun near their end dates. Sometimes CK2 if you didn't blob too hard?

The main thing is at the START of the game in HOI you have 20+ "armies" and you will often expand more than ten or twentyfold that number. Likewise with your 200 fighters or factories or whatever. Some automation is at that point desireable, and it's definitely not the optimal way to play the game. "HOI plays itself" always smacks of being a grudge statement by someone who wanted to make everyone spend three hours tweaking orbats before they could start the game.

What I really enjoy about HoI combat is that I can automate the front lines and be reasonably sure that the AI will be pushing when they can and shoring up the lines with infantry. I can then take control of whatever special units I want (tanks, special ops, whatever), and go ahead and punch through lines with specialized targeted attacks without faffing about with the tedium of moving the rest of the battle line forward. And if the enemy nation is small enough or inconsequential enough, I can just surround them with divisions, draw a battle line, and leave the AI to it while I go work on something else, like factory assignments, or research, or whatever.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2018 20:46

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Poil posted:

I'll just settle for the AI not running around like a scalded beaver all the time.

And battles should be quick time events where failing one prompt means you don't deal any damage that phase. Every battle should assign five or ten new completely random buttons on the keyboard to use, assuming the swedish layout of course. Better hope you know where ö is located.

Hitler teaches typing?

# ¿ Jun 17, 2018 22:40

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

On the other hand, MoO 1 has systems eimple enough that it could be easily automated. Toss simple goals at an AI that tell it to optimize production growth, get X level of defenses, and then research/build ships/stockpile/whatever. In the end you'd end up with similar output from a player and an AI due to the lack of complexity.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2018 20:45

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Phlegmish posted:

I agree with this. If base EUV recombines the various DLC improvements in an organic way, and ditches what doesn't work or is too difficult to integrate, it could be the best strategy game ever made. As for EUIV, it's still a good game at its core but it just feels like an impenetrable mess to me at this point.

A couple years back, Arumba did a video series where he taught the game to someone who was very familiar with Civ. I think they unpaused something like 45-50 minutes into explaining the game, and it was another 30 minutes before they ended the first year.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2018 08:12

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

That is really bizarre. For a long while I was running a Xenophobe / Authoritarian / Materialist with the start that puts you on a Relic World or whatever it is. My goal was beat people up, take their planets, then move their pops (my new slaves) to my worlds - if climates didnt match they all went to my homeworld. In either case, all my pops end up gravitating to being like.... 50% Egalitarian by 2300. Playing unmodded.

What living standards are you running? If I remember correctly, running stuff like stratified economy makes it so that really only your rulers are the people who count as far as factions go, so even if the unfortunates are clamoring for freedom, their political power is so low that it doesn't matter.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2020 15:36

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I usually ran Stratified Economy, yeah. Slaves have zero political power and the working and specialist class have very little, but the problem is that when they are in factions that have zero percent happiness their productivity drops. I dont play the game any more (due in part to this problem) so its all a wash at this point anyway.

Weird, that's definitely not been my experience. Checking an authoritarian game I have going on right now (all my pops are synths, but some are enslaved via a civic), none of the enslaved pops are in a faction, and while their happiness is low (usually 30-40% as compared to 90% or so for non-enslaved pops), their output is actually higher and their upkeep is much lower due to the bonuses my empire has to slave output. In fact, the number of pops in factions is pretty much exactly the ratio of pops that are free (the empire currently has a little over 3,000 pops).

# ¿ Sep 15, 2020 20:12

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Cease to Hope posted:

But if we're getting that far into wishful thinking, I would also like a pony.

Yeah, but cavalry maintenance costs are way too high for it to be affordable.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2021 23:50

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Splicer posted:

Another frustration of mine with stellaris: research has a neat thing where if you gain a chunk of research it doesn't just immediately dump into your completed pile, it gets put into a bank. Then as you research it draws from the bank on a 1:1 basis with actual research. So if you have 250 society banked and are researching 50 society month you get 100 a month for 5 months. If you miss selecting a research your "wasted" research goes into the same bank, so not getting around to picking new research for a few months doesn't actually penalise you.

This cool backlog bank system is super neat and is used in the following other parts of the game:

It's not really relevant elsewhere though? Unity is a number that stacks infinitely that you can spend chunks of for effects, influence/energy/minerals/food/alloys/etc. are all pools with a cap that fill up or drain at various rates. Admin cap is a moment to moment thing based on # of jobs employed.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2021 14:36

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Splicer posted:

If you look at techs as "large projects that consume resources" then a few uses come to mind. Terraforming for example; if you switched it to a per-month energy drain rather than an all upfront cost you could have events or optional spends to bank terraforming points. Same for megastructures; move them to a per-month cost during the build process and replace the living metal edict with the ability to spend living metal to buy megastructure points.

Oh, certainly, and I would absolutely love things like that to be changed. Hell, I'd be more than happy with all up front costs to be replaced with costs over time, but that can make it hard for players to understand when running a deficit is okay.

Even better for megastructures would be that idea that gets bandied about every so often where they become actual colonies and you have worker jobs that build them over time. It'd remove the oddity of ring worlds not having anyone on them when they're complete too, as the workers could just become residents.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2021 04:45

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Staltran posted:

I think most people wouldn't really mind this if catching AI armies was easier/less frustrating. As it is the AI just force marches just out of range and you don't really have any tools to catch up to them.

I mean, that's exactly what a player would do as well. It ties up your army and keeps their army as close to the objective as possible. I'm reminded of Heroes of Might and Magic 3 which had similar issues and where players would use chains of heroes to bait the AI to coming into range before charging forward and handing troops off until the leading hero suddenly had an army and could wipe out the enemy.

And it's tricky because we don't often want optimal play, we want something that is challenging, but ultimately surmountable. We want the AI to make some level of mistake so that there's a level of optimal play that we can reach that is just beyond what the AI can do. And honestly, that's an incredibly difficult bar to hit, because what would be an obvious minor mistake to a player familiar with the game might be something a newcomer cannot recognize.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2021 23:30

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Staltran posted:

That would be really annoying in multiplayer too and people would probably complain about it if anyone actually played head to head campaigns. Games can be designed so that optimal play isn't really annoying to play against.

It's smart play. I've done it in SC2, admittedly a completely different genre, but feinting an attack with fast forces over and over again keeps your opponent's army occupied and penned in and allows you to expand behind it. Keeping your forces just out of reach, but also just close enough to be a major threat is not a novel concept.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2021 00:56

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

Gaius Marius posted:

I think it's to it's credit that the game allows you to so internalize the thinking at the time that you end up commiting untold atrocities just to gain access to luxury furniture or to show up a rival.

If you ever stop to think about the actions you're taking in the game you quickly realize you've become histories greatest monster without thinking about it.

This. You start wars and fight over diplomatic influence in the name of markets and raw resources. A random crisis can be a flashpoint for a world war not because anyone gives a poo poo about the crisis, but because it pits one alliance bloc against another, and neither wants to back down or one side really wants a war.

# ¿ May 22, 2021 20:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 20:31

Dirk the Average: Feb 7, 2012; "This may have been a mistake."

The Chad Jihad posted:

It would be cool to build a fantasy nation with cool spells and monsters and orcs and things, these are hard to find in historical games

Clearly Paradox should team up with Illwinter and make Dominions into a proper Paradox title where the AI is only terrible instead of utterly godawful.

# ¿ May 23, 2021 05:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: Tim Cook? How many divisions has he got?

«‹›2 »