|
Somehow models look worse than Imperator. I've predicted they'll make event pictures with real models! See! I've also said they'll allow playing as non-landed characters. Waiting for updates on this.
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 10:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
LordMune posted:I gave up working on our cool space game to be content design lead on CK3 you guys better like it!! I like it, you're doing god's will. Your parents probably love you more than they show.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
Davincie posted:come on, its ridicilious to take deus vult out of a game called crusader kings cause bad people like it. might as well take out the crusades and byzantium then It'd be like ignoring war crimes in HoI4 and genocide in EU4 or Victoria 2!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 11:03
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:When one of the top bullet points is "it won't say Deus Vult" they really must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to hype it up, you could use a mod to remove that from CK2 in about 5 seconds. It's part of what RockPaperShotgun found interesting. It's important to RPS.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/buyer-beware-potential-qa-issues-at-paradox-may-affect-the-quality-of-ck3.1262056/ Oh look, another drama. Reddit is having a great time discussing this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Minenfeld! posted:History buffs are the worst loving thing because they know the outlines of history without actually knowing how the field functions so they get pissy about these kinds of "controversies." A person claiming to be WW2 history buff. Which of those things do you think he is interested in: - Role of Latin American countries in WW2 - French political situation leading to their actions prior to and during WW2 - Economic effects of the war on USA economy - Partisan activity in Belarus - Chinese civil war - German tanks and machine guns and rockets ilitarist fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 20, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
LordMune posted:We can't really import ready-made features from CK2 DLCs, partly due to prohibitive technical differences, but mostly due to subtle (and not so subtle) design changes between the two games. As correctly assumed above I can't go into details at this stage, but we're both aware of the inevitable CK2 comparisons and dedicated to making the best and most cohesive base game possible (which is often antithetical to just cramming in content, but there will still be some crammin'). I hope you won't forget to include swimming pools on release.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2019 09:34
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:I really don't get the hate for a supposed barebones CK3. CK2 was "barebones" at launch compared to now, and it still was one of the best (the best?) GSG at the time, on day one. For some reason, people repeat that and somehow remember release day CK2/EU4 as barebones as if those games only became good later. I think it also was a self-fulfilling prophecy with Imperator: Rome. People repeated something like "it will be good in a year or two" so everyone was very quick to dismiss release version as just a demo of a future game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:My favorite part of this is the implication the roman empire was only a century away from the steam engine That thing is known as "The Chart" and it's famous in how every pixel of it is wrong. Like the scientific being a single number and being a thing in general, and existing in an ancient world, but only in the Mediterranean. Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans organizing a development relay race... I'd better stop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:A super-aeolipile wouldn't be enough to get an Industrial Revolution going in antiquity, regardless. Metallurgy aside, the institutional and financial tools to get industrialists gleefully building factories left and right wasn't there. There's no joint-stock companies to raise capital quickly, no papermaking to spam the documents you need to keep a business organized (and no cheap paper also means it's more costly to propagate scientific findings), no printing press, no double-entry bookkeeping, no patents, and a plethora of other institutional innovations, which together mean there simply wasn't enough to start the boom we associate with the Industrial Revolution. We're all contaminated by ideas of a tech tree and funny lines of thinking like "invention of stirrups means knights means feudalism". And also progress as a linear thing. Nowadays we can see some backward Asian or African town and count how much stuff it misses compared to New York or London but historically it doesn't work like that. Comparing societies would look more like comparing modern companies. Those guys work with cutting edge tech but the pay isn't that nice and there's a lot of crunches. And that company has an average employee age of 49 but they're nice and there's always a fruit basket in the kitchen. And those guys work with databases from the 80's but do a very important medical research. It's all much muddier than a line on a chart.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
I repeat again and again: Civilization caused huge harm to people understanding of history and life and whatever. Almost every concept in it is an understandable simplification of reality and no one consciously thinks about it as a historical simulator, but interactive media are powerful that way. They make you feel for granted a lot of things like there's a line between a barbarian and civilization, there's a clear scientific progress measurement, bigger cities and empires are good as long as they can keep it up, everyone can look like modern America if they play their cards right and so on and so on. Paradox is not perfect of course but it has more nuance and somewhat less glorifying. Not like it tells you "good job on colonizing this are and destroying whole cultures" but at least it doesn't pretend that history is a joyful march of liberty and progress.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 09:03
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Never thought of it that way, but this is 100% true and linked to my main criticism of 4X / grand strategy as a whole: no one has figured (afaik) a way to make playing tall viable and rewarding. It's either "you can do OK but you just have many, many hours of waiting for nothing to really happen" or "you'll just be crushed by people bigger than you", and never even comes close to "you can have advantages by not expanding like a madman" I'd argue that it's impossible to make tall game good cause it's the antithesis to a strategy game. If it's not a zero-sum game then there isn't really competition. Usually, those games solve it by having additional "planes" of competition, like with religion you literally can switch to a map where enemy cities are actually of your religion, so you are "wide" in that sense. Or with space victory, you still sort of fight enemies by spy control. Strategic games resemble long-term geopolitical struggles or isolated 2-way wars so we concentrate on those settings. In real history, no one exists just in the context of a single war just like no one really cares about the long-term strategic interests of their countries. Gradual expansion through the centuries makes sense in Civilization but in reality, it requires a series of rulers bent on doing the same thing as well as economy and culture being the same. How many pre-modern rulers just wanted to be happy, or genuinely cared about well-being of their country, or wanted personal wealth and so on? Those are boring rulers having no place in strategic simulation. As for tall play - honestly, I think if you want something like that you want city builders. Civilization increasingly resembles solitaire city-builder combined with a wargame anyway. Anno 1404 is an easy recommendation but later ones are just as good as far as I've heard. Or there's Six Ages: Ride Like The Wind which is all about managing your tribe with no real expansion. Or Thea, if you want something that looks like Civ. Of course, those games don't have any other type of gameplay so it's not really tall, it's about the only way to play.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 12:22
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:I think the thing with Civ's view of history is that for a very long time, right up to the time the first civ game was made, that whole 'linear progression of history' narrative was widely accepted as a normal way to view history. It's only more recently that viewpoints challenging that narrative have become accepted and have replaced the linear progression narrative to a certain extent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history was heavily debated already in the beginning of the 20th century by people like Spengler and before that by various philosophers. True, during Cold War there was a popular assumption that it will all only go better from there and finally turn into a flawless democracy/communist utopia unless the other side will nuke us. But even at that time, everyone realized that World Wars and totalitarian states build on reaction is a thing. Even before that popular culture started foreseeing future dystopias.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 12:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Like Red Bones said, those ideas were all the default assumptions for most people before Civ too, even if there were some historians arguing otherwise. Civ didn't create people's popular misconceptions about history, it reflected them. Of course, it's not like Civ has invented those ideas and most people get a worldview like that one way or another. But the point is you won't see it codified. If you don't read some pop-history like Guns, Germs and Steel chances are you will only get those ideas by cultural osmosis or from some anecdotes. You won't see a 20 hour movie or documentary about history. And videogames are very immersive. It's not like I'm saying that shooters make you think that mass murder is fine, but they give you assumptions about how it all works. Like thanks to videogames, people think that shotguns aren't effective if shout not in point-blank range, or that assault rifles have terrible spread, things like that. Civilization doesn't focus your attention on the fact that every government is good for something so it reinforces the idea that brutal dictatorship is sometimes more effective than a more liberal society. Or the rock-paper-scissors nature of war. Or the eternal idea of money being some sort of resource you produce.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
It might still work as an additional challenge. The plague might work as a kind of disaster you can't escape. You already have playable countries that are basically lost cause. Of course usually you can turn it around with good luck and allies. Here you might have to be prepared that once Europeans arrive you get instant devastation and stuff. The real reason, of course, is that then you'll have to rework colonization mechanics. It's already in a strange place. Some Siberian tribes and most people in America and Africa (mostly coastal, hmm) are non-entities, while tribes of Central Africa and Eastern Siberia are there. There's no historical reason for them to exist or not, it's mostly gameplay.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Some kind of modelling for provincial infrastructure for land travel. From the presence of rideable animals like horses to the quality of roads. It should be a pain to expand over these long distances over land otherwise. This might work if they go for a much more detailed terrain. Imperator shows they can do that. Probably make individual provinces of current size or bigger but add small sub-provinces Victoria style. This way you might have a lot of empty spots even in a relatively crowded space. Armies would probably have to change so that you don't have 100k soldiers all stationed in a small space the size of an outpost.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
wukkar posted:So, Pride of Nations then. Great game, can't wait for quantum computers becoming a thing so that I can run it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I'm sure this is pretty early in the development cycle, but I'm glad to see stuff like this, indicating they're doing some basic rethinking of what a house or dynasty means. And implementing cadet branches! The thing I like the most about it is it gives characters some... character. In CK2 all those snowflakes become indistinguishable for me unless I make an effort of remembering them. Even something like Total War Three Kingdoms works better for me: you have fewer characters and each one gets some of those titles that probably sound better in Mandarin. Or in Imperator: Rome a character has just a few stats but then it's easier to percieve my Brilliant Greedy Mil 12 character than CK2 character with decent stats that affect nothing who is greedy lustful gregarious pagantolerating one-legged fat coward. Having better portraits, descriptions and house mottos would mean some very important crutches that will help form a story in my head.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
Yeah, it's just like bloodlines. It's all about your fame and people expectation and placebo effects. A descendant of Ragnar Lodbrock will certainly spend a little more time in a camp training to not shame his bloodline, people will trusts Lannisters with their money, people will see bastards of William the Conqueror dynasty differently, Rurikovich name will always have a special weight in Rus. But the bonus will never be that big to define the character.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 09:15
|
|
|
There was a big recent NVidia drivers update. They've changed a lot, added some new gpu scaling things. I notice some problems when changing screen resolution now, other people have bigger problems. It might not work well with Paradox games, especially if you're not playing on a native resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
SnoochtotheNooch posted:My contibution: Let rulers with the insane trait march through impassible terrain. And build a castle in the marsh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Yeah I liked learning with mother Russia, not sure if that's viable or what but, seconding the Muscovy vote. It's very easy to screw up Muscovy early, plus you can get screwed by the random diplomatic situation (basically you have to be fast about subjugating both Novogorod and hordes). Kinda same with France, it's a powerhouse but if you don't know what's what you're gonna get in an early world war. Ottomans and Castille are much harder to screw up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
cock hero flux posted:the best nation for a new player is Byzantium, unironically. You have obvious goals and succeeding at them requires you to develop a basic grasp of most of the systems in the game, including tricking the AI into doing dumb poo poo. Your starting resources are very limited, so it's impossible to get overwhelmed by options, but once you've gotten a handle on things you can expand super quickly. This way you know that EU4 is actually a short roguelike similar to FTL.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
Crusader Kings 2 and Stellaris work well. Mind you, even in Stellaris they sometimes break new UI element by not adapting them to UI scaling and so you may get misplaced tooltips and such. HoI4 I didn't play that much but I noticed that even after years of patching some tooltips are just missing when you're in UI scaling mode. Mostly works OK otherwise. EU4 has hidden experimental scaling support and they bringing up an official one later. It doesn't look or work well. Functional, but you'll have a lot of broken tooltips and scaling doesn't seem to use a good filter. Imperator worked perfectly well on release. It is possible that it's worse after they've reworked a lot of UI in last two patches, it happened with other Paradox games, but I think they've learned their lessons there. Really it's strange how problematic UI scaling is in strategy games. Total War only started doing it properly in Three Kingdoms, Warhammer 2 is basically unplayable for me if I try to enable UI scaling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
Mind you CK2 might disappoint you if want strategy game specifically cause in that regard it's probably more primitive than modern Total War titles but with a much bigger and denser world. If you try to play it as a challenging strategic puzzle you are at mercy of randomness in events abd AI decisions. Relax and be prepared for all your plans foiling because of drunks spilling secrets, all the heirs turning out to be girls, neighbours consolidating into unbeatable blobs and so on and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Gobblecoque posted:The lack of control is a big part of why I like CK2 and I disagree with people who say it makes it less of a strategy game. It's just a different (and honestly more true to life) type of strategy. I wasn't even talking about parts of CK2 that lack control. I'm fine with no plan surviving meeting with a reality. It's also about obscure mechanics that are relatively easy to play around, but due to the random nature of a game you'd never know without looking into files or doing a research. E.g. there are objectively right ways to educate children depending on what you want from them even though the system looks like it's for roleplaying. Same for mysterious effectiveness of a doctor, there's no way you'd just learn one simple trick to make your doctors more effective. Or obscure combat mechanics. Or that there are specific actions that AI will or will not do depending on their traits but it's very hard to notice on your own because of lots of random noise. Or diplomacy system that begs for something like EU4 macro diplomacy filter but instead is extremely inconsistent in its feedback. E.g. it will tell you that holy war might bring other rulers into the fight but never tells you that everybody loves this guy so they'll help him, or that he has tributaries so actually that number of troops thing is a lie. EU4 has a lot of randomness too, and sheer number of actors doesn't let you have a perfect plan. But in CK2 you can accidentally inherit HRE or can struggle for century never getting more than a duchy. Both playthroughs might be equally enjoyable cause you're forging an interesting story, not a path to victory, and playing CK2 as a challenge is punishing yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2019 09:05
|
|
|
It's hard to read those posts and not know which level of irony they are on. Yeah, just choosing martial education isn't enough, https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Education#Strategies The point is that you can't talk about "objective" things in this game except when you can, it's inconsistent and unreliable. So you'd better not to think about it as a strategy game and not to try to play it well, play it fun. And there is the way to play it well, but it's not that fun, unlike EU4 where those playstyles are as close as they can be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:It leans heavy on realpolitik and tends to portray ideological decisions as ultimately driven by material conditions first and rhetoric second. It is by necessity, I'd say, cause then you'd be the only sane person who methodically paints the map in a world of people who want normal human happiness, irrationally hate those specific people, fight for the title for their brothers and so on. Even CK2 portrays its characters as too rational cause characters don't have desires not connected to the power play. You don't even have people who just want to be rich for the sake of good life. Historical realpolitik is also paradoxically serves some very ideological worldviews. I see plenty of adepts of totalitarian ideologies who say that murders of millions were justified because reasons (e.g. Stalin knowing that WW2 is coming and thus he just have to kill millions). If you think hard enough you can see geopolitical mind game in a decision that the glorious leader ordered while being drunk in a company of yes men. One of the things I don't like more detailed Paradox games like HoI4 is making historical events rational. Munich agreements are portrayed as a rational political play, not a risky gamble that by itself could cause WW2. And as USSR you're dumb not to murder those generals on made-up charges because Trotskism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't believe anyone should make any conclusions from stuff like that. Reminds me of Company of Heroes 2: devs wisely decided that they wouldn't touch Axis war crimes cause you don't want to see death camp and then go into multiplayer and cheer for your King Tiger defending fatherland policies. But with Soviets you can make player command Soviet armies and see them doing some bad stuff, here you can go all philosophical and ask whether fighting evil and defending evil justifies those specific atrocities. And so it somehow happens that in the world of CoH Soviets are the only ones who do bad stuff, cause their bad stuff is big enough to scare you but not in the Nazi league of being beyond evil.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Eimi posted:Also I think the thread has discussed this before, but video games like Pdox's have never mastered balancing building tall. In reality it's balanced by the fact that when you play tall you don't send your children to die in a foreign land opening up your borders for third party invasion, and you also don't have to make peace with the fact that you're destroying a whole culture. Tall VS Wide game should be psychological horror. As you've said, if there's a real balance then to start a war you'd need someone as bad as real warmongers instead of someone who just wants some fun game with friends.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2019 08:56
|
|
|
I was disappointed in PDX cause of Stellaris and HoI4 but I previously couldn't get into HoI2/3 so I thought fine, they shouldn't make everything just for me. I was somewhat more sad with the way they've approached Imperator Rome. It's clear that Johan still thinks his mana system made better strategy game, maybe it needed some balancing. But he felt he needed to throw away his vision and design a game that he himself wouldn't be happy about. Stellaris and I:R had made me see that now Paradox has a business model to make ever changing games as opposed to good games. With EU4 a lot of things made the game actively worse or less balanced than it was but it was relatively tame; Stellaris devs are ready to switch mechanics turning it into a game that no PC can process in the endgame and AI is incapable of playing. But you get your monthly fill of funny pictures in Stellaris subreddit, people are clearly happy to see new wacky interaction in a game they'll never finish or master.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Asimov posted:Still waiting for the space 4x game that's better than MOO2. Endless Space 2. But only if you play in multiplayer cause the AI is impotent. And only if you don't really care about tactical combat. Yeah, those are pretty big "buts".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 09:28
|
|
|
Now it's MoO2 thread! MoO2 was famous for its flavourful nature. Usually, space strategy games like Stellaris give you bland technology like better agriculture and Laser 2. And the factions are either overdesigned and too complex to quickly grasp or boring. MoO ripped off Star Trek, Star Wars and probably Dune or something, so it has a lot of everything in it. instead of better agriculture, you invent Biospheres or something. And there aren't that many techs, 40 or so, so they've managed to make them all comprehensible a la Civilization. Races are obvious too, you have hooded invisible guys and guess what, spying is their thing. Big headed dudes are scientists. Bearpeople are ground fighters, catpeople are agile pilots, rockpeople are isolationists and don't care about food. And AI behavior was clearly marked with characterstics like "Xenophobic Technologists" or "Honourable Expansionists" that had a very obvious effect on their behavior so it all had personality. This game didn't feel pressured to include hundreds of buildings and 1000 star maps, so it's to the point and doesn't have random fluff. As I've said, I think only Endless Space 2 had the will to not sell us game with 500 unique technologies, 40 races, and maps with up to 1000 stars (which was the thing that crushed Master of Orion 3) but it had a huge miss with AI that doesn't know how to play the game. I don't mean it's bad, I mean after you figure out the basics you can play the highest difficulty with unfamiliar faction and you'll still decide yourself what type of victory are you getting and when. All the other space strategy games had an approach similar to Stellaris - they're bland and they have a checklist of stuff they have to include.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 11:45
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:MOO and MOO2 is approximately 100% of the reason ship design is shoved into every space 4x regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. Same for tactical combat. It made much more sense in MoO1 which was more in line with games like Heroes or Warlords. And I agree that MoO1 deserves a lot more praise. It has a very brief design and it feels like XCOM 2012 - it feels as refreshing as dropping system with 54 Action Points in favour of just 2 but important ones, if you know what I mean. It feels like a game made after all the 4X typical bullshit feature creep, not before it. MoO2 was just Civilization (or rather Master of Magic) in Space.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:The endless remakes are very much a thing and they don't seem to be going away. On a more philosophical note, I find it odd that small teams of 5-20 people could create wholly novel gameplay and experiences in the 1990s. They still do. We got a lot of new genres like roguelites (like FTL or Binding of Isaac), puzzle RPGs (like Puzzle Quest), narrative games like whatever Alexis Kennedy does, survival thing like Minecraft, battle royals, DOTA, autochess - all of those things were made by small teams after 2000, some were made in 2019.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2019 09:52
|
|
|
Communist Bear posted:Is it me or is EUIV incredibly hard to play now? Just seems the update and such have made it difficult to play. Unless you're one of the major nations, it's really difficult to expand and grow. I had a moment like that but really it made me happy in the end. AI is rational enough to see a weakling he can annex. This might mean a rough start for OPM, you are not guaranteed to get a good ally. So I'd say there's that element of an uncertainty in the very beginning, and sometimes you might feel locked between unbeatable alliances. But the game has a lot of tools to overcome stuff like that now, at least with DLCs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2019 10:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You forgot the spiritual sequel to Victoria, Disco Elysium. Or, if you will, Age of Decadence but not terrible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:If you just don't try to make a hybrid character your very first time you should be fine. I think the game even tells you this and recommends "just make a fighter your first time". If you stick to the recommended skills on basically any class you should be ok. (some dumb words are cut cause I thought you're talking about Underrail) But anyway, Age of Decadence feels like exercise in restarting till you know which skills you need in each chapter for your chosen path. There's probably a path you can follow by screwing every skill check though. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Dec 6, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
I'm not Russian even though it's my native language so maybe I can't feel the shame, but that campaign was indeed more like trying to tell a story you're not equipped to tell. Russians are pretty used to be portrayed as villains but usually, those are cool villains, not disgusting ones. Plus it would have worked much better if it wasn't the second game in the series. In the first game and expansions, everyone was a hero of Sabaton song, it didn't even go to Saving Private Ryan level of self-consciousness (that movie at least had a moment of American soldier executing Czech PoW). Even when you played German campaign those were all honorable men fighting for the fatherland ignoring all the politics and policies. Then turns out CoH world has some bad people after all, and they're all Soviets. Later you got expansions for CoH2 and it back to Western Front where everybody is locked in a tragic but necessary struggle with heroes on both sides. So even with that video of a BadComedian condemning the game (BTW the guy is huge in Russian movie internet culture, probably bigger than RedLetterMedia, you might have even seen him in some movies like Hardcore Henry) a lot of people would still play it. We all probably complain about DRM or even Paradox DLC policy/new launcher shenanigans/questionable QA, doesn't stop us from buying those games. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 12:49 |
|
|
Also while we're on RTS wave have you heard about this new game Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition? Has a lot of campaign and factions, and looks nice. And they say that genre is stagnant!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2019 09:15
|
|