|
Kinda wish they'd post the source code on Victoria 2 to let the modders at it. We'd have working capitalist AI in a year or so.
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
You can't upgrade ships in Darkest Hour anyway
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:Learning HoI IV is going to be... rough, since everyone always says to play Germany and I refuse to play as Nazis on principle. Didn't you play Byzantium in a Let's Play? Gort fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I guess the whole "Playing as the Nazis" thing is icky - it's a shame though, 'cause they provide a "hard mode" to play once you're familiar with the game, and alt-history is fun. It'd be cool if HoI4 had some alternative start scenarios like War in the Pacific does that beef up the Axis in semi-plausible ways to make the war less of a foregone conclusion - that way you'd get the hard mode without the ick.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Generating quad terrain...hoi3.exe has stopped working...delete mapcache...Generrating quad terrain...hoi3.exe has stopped working...delete mapcache...Generating quad terrain...hoi3.exe has stopped working...delete mapcache...Generating quad terrain...hoi3.exe has stopped working...delete mapcache...Generating quad terrain...hoi3.exe has stopped working...delete mapcache. It's for the best
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I met some Firaxis people in a bar after Gamescon a last year. I wanted to ask them about their post-release stuff in general, but they left while I was still complaining about XCOM bugs/patch support XCOM's one of their less buggy games though. Compared to Beyond Earth it's a towering masterpiece of flawless game design.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Aw man, I'm away from my computer for like three days and the HoI4 beta comes and goes? Oh well, betas tend to get you burned out on games before they release anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
What plans do Paradox have for White Wolf's properties? I thought they canned that Rune-something RPG they were trying to make because it wasn't shaping up to be much good.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Might just be that there are so many anomalies that it'd be impossible to just have your best dude do all of them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:4X boardgames are a bad idea. You can have like 2 X's before the game gets too goddamn complicated for a tabletop. I kind of like Seven Wonders for my 4x boardgame fix, though obviously it's not like you're painting a map your colour or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
It's a fuckton better than the system that preceded it. What would you use instead that would be better?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
It seems like the National Focus system is stealing most of the good stuff from Kaiserreich anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Just being able to point at a province and instantly find out how many divisions you can put there without problems will put this game massive ahead of HoI3. I think the "oil is only used to make new tanks, not run them, but you're going to constantly need new tanks thanks to attrition" system will work fine for infantry, tanks and planes (since you'll notice very quickly if Germany stops being able to make new tanks as their numbers drop off) but it's going to be weird if Japan can run the Yamato around all day without any sources of oil.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
podcat posted:yes very much so. stuff doesnt teleport to London. Yeah, but there isn't a food resource that London needs, is there? Also, London actually produces stuff, and some stuff doesn't require particular supplies, does it? So if the UK lost all its convoys it wouldn't be able to make tanks or planes or anything advanced like that, but they could still make infantry equipment, couldn't they? I guess you could handle it by event (if the UK or Japan's merchant navy drops below a certain size they take penalties) but the current supply system doesn't appear to allow for starving Japan or the UK into submission.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
They're rolling the average lifetime supply use of a unit into its build cost. So tanks cost things like chromium, steel, tungsten and a fuckton of oil to make, but don't use up oil once they're operational. It's an abstraction which simplifies the supply system of the game, but does seem a little strange if you consider a single unit, and means that Japan can still sail its fleet around all day even once it has no oil supply - it just can't build any NEW ships.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Well, if you're never committing your tanks to a battle then you're an idiot who should be using the much cheaper, faster motorised infantry instead. Also there's near-constant attrition in HoI4 outside of battle (as there should be - tanks need a constant supply of spare parts to do anything) so the goal of simply avoiding losing any is unattainable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Pretty sure the ships will require the generic supply resource which likely needs oil to produce in the first place? The Dev Diary posted:In HOI3 supplies was something you produced and stockpiled, then fed into a flow network towards units. In HOI4 the only thing you can stockpile is equipment so this is what you do. Moving, training, fighting, being in bad weather or in particular in bad supply means equipment breaks down and this equipment needs to be shipped. The worse a supply situation is the longer it will take to send equipment and the more attrition you will take. So instead of a flow network we have a system being limited by bottlenecks. There is no generic supply resource. It's rolled into the cost of equipment now. One of the reasons this was done was to prevent every player just stockpiling gigantic amounts of supplies and oil before the war and therefore never getting impacted by the lack of supplies and oil at any point in the war. If we're going from "Japan/Germany never suffers problems from lack of supply" to "Japan/Germany only suffers problems from lack of supply when it comes to making new units" then I call it a win. Gort fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Nov 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Frontspac posted:My understanding is that new equipment is needed to reinforce/repair/maintain units. Yes, where "equipment" is things like "1 tank" or "1 battleship". In tank units a unit might be losing 5% of its strength to attrition, so needs 50 new tanks a month to maintain its strength. quote:So in the aforementioned Japanese Navy example, you'd have ships that would never repair damage and would degrade in fighting capability over time. Or something like that. This is not the case within the information we have so far. If it does cost oil to repair capital ships, it's a mechanic we have not yet been shown. Within the mechanics we HAVE been shown, ships will be able to move and fight without any resource requirements. As Podcat said in the dev diary thread in response to someone saying, "This is a huge buff to the Japanese navy": Podcat posted:yes this is a downside from a pure simulation perspective in that they can be more active. its also a buff to fun since you dont have to stick them in a port the whoel game. They still have the same issues as historical though: A desperate need for oil to replace lost ships and build a big enough navy to fight USA (USA can affort do lose ships, japan really can't since they take so long to build). So it doesn't sound like we'll be seeing damaged ships requiring resources to repair or Podcat would have mentioned it in his response.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:wasnt German tanks running out of fuel a major reason they lost a few key battles? How will this supply system represent stuff like the battle of the bulge? It'll be more like the Germans losing key battles because they didn't have enough fuel to build enough tanks to fight the battles - technically different, effectively similar. The Battle of the Bulge will be the Germans pulling their tank and air units from the front long enough for them to reinforce, then bringing them back in as part of an offensive. I think the main difference will be when you're dealing with navies that historically couldn't operate and got sunk in port - those will instead get sunk doing operations by a numerically superior enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
It would be cool in EU4 if you could just click a button and have the most profitable temple/workshop built for you automatically
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Stellaris will be an RTS too. Paradox just makes RTSes that are at such a scope that they kind of straddle the line between TBS and RTS in terms of gameplay. Most of the representations are TBS representations, but they play out in real-time. We might be arguing over nothing, but Stellaris will have turns just like Europa and Crusader Kings have turns. Just 'cause there are lots of turns doesn't make it a real-time game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
At this point I'm willing to concede that we are actually arguing about nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I loved both moo and moo2 and no one, not a single "clone" has actually captured any of the best mechanics. That obviously worked, but it sounds kinda dull when you're at the one or two planets stage. If Paradox can deliver, then an indepth managing of buildings and optimisation for your first half-dozen planets might be pretty cool. And then when you have more than that you switch to more of a MOO1 system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Maybe I'm just not thinking about it right, but planetary management being disabled as you get larger sounds like it'll bother the hell out of me. Even when automation in games is practical and makes a lot of sense it still always feels like "well the AI doesn't know how to manage the planets as well as me, why should I hand over control". Especially if a big part of the early game is having nicely optimized planets, and suddenly when you get bigger you find their efficiency hits the toilet. It'll just seem really jarring. I wouldn't have a problem with it. The old system of managing individual planets would be gone - it wouldn't be like the option to hand over planets to governors that other games have, where they make the same decisions you would make but pick bad options, it'd be more like ten of your Europa 4 provinces merged into one when you got big enough. You wouldn't be concerned with what's going on in Brittany any more - your decisions only affect France. You literally wouldn't see the interface for a single planet any more, and it would just be up to Paradox to make sure the sector produced at the same rate as a reasonably-managed set of ten planets. They could even put in a system where converting ten planets into a sector means you get greater production than the ten individual planets could produce on their own when managed perfectly, to represent economies of scale and ensure that nobody feels like they should avoid making sectors. I have no idea if Stellaris is going to use a system like this, but who knows, maybe it would work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
On the other hand, even Paradox games - which are generally better than most at including systems to make managing a large empire manageable - get to the point in the late game where you can't be bothered finishing them since it's a bit of a slog managing all these separate provinces effectively and the game's a foregone conclusion. MOO3's approach was to keep all those provinces separate and give you AIs to manage them. This was bad. With merging planets into systems into sectors you could keep the "province" count low, and bypass the need for AI governors as a result. Imagine a game of Europa where you're Russia and you control all of Asia, but it's still just ten provinces you need to manage. And then the warp demons come.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
The number of divisions isn't all that matters, either, given that mobility doctrine troops are 50% better than everyone else for half the game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Jokes aside, given that it is on sale, is there anything going for HOI3 vs Darkest Hour? I understand that people often say not to commit onto HOI3 but is there really nothing that the game does well? There's plenty of cool mechanics in HOI3, it's just the experience of organising a military and impenetrable supply mechanics that put me off. Some good things: Graphics and modern OS support are better in HOI3. Aircraft carriers have actual planes that are modelled rather than just being fast battleships with 200km-ranged guns. DH's naval simulation is utter garbage. That said, you can actually play DH instead of having to hand off half the game to AIs who'll do a poor job, which negates those above.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Hearts of Iron 4 looks like a blast to play. I particularly liked how nobody had to spend an hour unfucking their "order of battle" before they could start having any fun.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
I liked the "I converted all my divisions to motorised ones!" "What, all of them?!" "Yeah, they'll be ready by the turn of the century" exchange.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Would be really cool if there was a way to start as a federation for a co-op game. (Without making the game trivial)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
I wouldn't have thought so. Germany should have about four times your IC and the AI isn't so incompetent when it has the entire eastern front to play with.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
I'm thinking I'll just put nothing but naval bombers and fighters on my carriers - their primary role is naval supremacy, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Yeah, I wouldn't forgo fighters on my carriers unless I had land-based fighter cover (and perhaps not even then) but I don't see myself sacrificing torpedo bombers in favour of dive-bombers on a carrier, ever. I guess it all depends exactly what stats the two bomber types end up having.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:I can't remember which iteration of HoI2 (and HoI2-offshoots) it was, but the ideal fleet was a massive ball of CL and CA + some CVL to increase detection. They would chew their way through everything (except the even more OP naval configuration, a stack of pure NAV bombers). Sounds a bit like Darkest Hour, where a fleet of 30 modern CAs will murder anything they run into. That game had horrible naval mechanics. I can do an effortpost if anyone wants one, but I might start getting flashbacks halfway through. Gort fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
Yeah, unit addons were all kinds of unbalanced in DH.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
I'm a little worried by that last World War Wednesday actually. Germany declared war on Poland and didn't do anything. Neither side's divisions moved for like a year. (then the player quit) Later, Finland conquered Moscow on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
He never cut Leningrad off completely. He left a little bit to the North-west open, which gave me conniptions. It likely wouldn't have helped, but still.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The HOI4 stream was accidentally using a build with the military AI disabled, so that would be why it was being passive. I did feel for the player when the guy taking questions said, "OK, show us the state of the world" when from occasional panning about it was clear nothing had happened at all. So how come the USSR troops still moved about? Human intervention?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
That makes sense. Thanks for piping up, was worried we had a World in Flames in the making 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Is the stuff on Wiz's Twitter the only news about this? Do we know when the patch is coming?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 21:06
|
|