|
The example the video gave of a use-case was for the 'holy trinity' achievement, which requires the papal states to have the teutonic order, the knights, and the livonian order as marches. All three of those countries tend to die early, so it can be a struggle to even get a CB on them before they're gone.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
It's the rebels that i feel sorry for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
Here's the video by the way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-5EQe8Bbf8 Just going through interactions I can only see 2 or 3 I've probably never used. Corrupt Officials which increases corruption by .1 for 5 years. That's pretty weak minus some really certain situations that I'd probably miss. Maybe if I'm attacking Ming late game? Maybe there's an estate that buffs this? Agitate for liberty I probably never used outside of being bored at the end of a campaign. 90 spy network is pretty expensive and you don't get it till dip tech 27. Infiltrate administration. You don't get this until dip tech 30, ya no one uses this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Box wine posted:I sure would enjoy reloading cause a merc company on a 30% chance walked into some mountains instead of marching straight into relieve another army. You wouldn't be able to reload for a MP game, so having something that's inbetween a Stability Hit and a Disaster would be cool. CommonShore posted:I like the manpower model because it's a view of the military at the levels of simulation that EU is working on: the depersonalized high-level state view in which lots of those functions get delegated and the player just deals with the end result - not how the troops get supplied, merely what condition they're in as a result of those mechanisms for the leader moving blocks around on the map. It's not a game that's primarily about military micro and I don't fire it up to scratch that itch, and really states didn't have the ability to manage their armies that way because of how communication worked. The problem though is that we DO have the ability to micro our armies, i.e doomstacks, and a lot of the interesting things about the Early Modern period, like what went on with Wallenstein and stuff like that, the importance of logistics and how armies are built up, trained and equipped is all lost and the resulting abstractions result in boring samey gameplay that comes down to stacking the most modifiers. I think the way you're asking for more modifiers ultimately is doubling down on the worst aspects of EU4's design, that the numbers don't make playing as France different from playing as Russia or playing as China; its all impersonal modifiers and stats and not differences in how the game actually plays as a result of your local decisions. I don't feel that the manpower pool as we have it is a good abstraction, I don't think Louis the 14th had a precise number of how many bodies he could throw to fill in the lochs of the Low Countries. I want a much more decentralized model that early game is more akin to begging local lords to contribute troops that slowly transitions to something more akin to Victoria 3/EU4 in having a professional army. That way we can model things like "This local lord was really big at carefully training his troops and are way better at fighting" and "this dude just sent a bunch of starving peasants" and the struggle over the course of the game is to try to create standards and to slowly take away that power from local lords and put that power in the hands of the state and its bureaucracy. Re: Geography I think it would be neat if Navigable rivers was more of a thing; both for supply and maneuver, and that crossing a major river is a major part of gameplay and is a de facto fort line. I do like the idea Victoria 3 brings to the table and it would be nice if we could somehow split that difference or square that circle to step away from Armies circling each other or to make it more interesting and aligned with historical reality. Napoleon's maneuvers in Germany aren't really all that possible in the current province based map. I'd like to see Roads/Rivers be more important to restricting movement. And yeah I think for the period in question in which Mercs were hugely important, they should be better modelled, and the consequences for failing to pay; but not quite an annoying potentially nation-ruining way if it happens. Something like they give/tick up devastation in the provinces they influence when they lack pay could be interesting, and maybe they're slower to react to the enemy, but you still have them fighting for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not attached to manpower as an integer but I like the decisions it prompts as an abstraction of "can we find enough bodies to put on the field" question,which absolutely was a problem for someone like Louis XIV, and different states found different solutions
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2024 20:54
|
|
|
Johan's really been posting a lot on the dev diary threads. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-5-march-27th-2024.1647775/page-10#post-29502735 Johan posted:If its my decision alone, achievements should ALWAYS require ironman. Johan posted:[in response to a post saying achievements can be easily hacked] Well I'm happy to hear this even if it's not for the right reason (i.e. just let me have fun with the game the way I want to). I'll give Johan some credit though, he seems to be much less of a curmudgeon than he used to be given that this is the only curmudgeonly opinion I remember hearing from him on EU5. A couple more dubs in there: Johan posted:Andorra is on the map. Johan posted:There is no lucky nations mechanic in this game..
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
I think it'd be nice if the game just recorded whether an achievement was gotten in ironman or not. It's nice for games to give players reasons to go for things that are difficult, without leaving the option of taking the easy way out. But people get really weird about steam achievements, so tie them to the more flexible/easier version.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I think it'd be nice if the game just recorded whether an achievement was gotten in ironman or not. It's nice for games to give players reasons to go for things that are difficult, without leaving the option of taking the easy way out. But people get really weird about steam achievements, so tie them to the more flexible/easier version. unless eu5 has a way of stopping alt-f4, iron man is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 03:46
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:unless eu5 has a way of stopping alt-f4, iron man is pointless. I think the purpose of Iron Man is to prevent casual save scumming, not necessasarily as the end all be all line of defence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
there's a huge difference between alt-f4ing a misclick or bad rng, and loading back to redo a strategic decision from multiple years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
I think fundamentally any mechanic based around the idea that things might randomly go bad is mostly going to be a debuff for the AI because players tend to be incredibly risk-averse, especially for games like EU which tend towards long campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 04:47
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:there's a huge difference between alt-f4ing a misclick or bad rng, and loading back to redo a strategic decision from multiple years ago. Yeah the latter is more respectable
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 04:48
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:there's a huge difference between alt-f4ing a misclick or bad rng, and loading back to redo a strategic decision from multiple years ago. It makes zero difference, to you, for me to do any of those things in the privacy of my own singleplayer campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:18
|
|
|
Magissima posted:It makes zero difference, to you, for me to do any of those things in the privacy of my own singleplayer campaign. If you're mad at me, I'm not sure you read my posts lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
I'm not mad at you. I just don't agree that it should matter to anyone whether ironman was enabled or not when I got an achievement. I'll admit I reread your post before the one I quoted and if that's not the point you were making then I didn't understand it right and still don't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:25
|
|
|
My post was literally just saying that playing on ironman does something, replying to someone saying it was meaningless. I don't care how you play! I even agreed with you that achievements should be unlockable with non-ironman!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:27
|
|
|
I guess, to expound: achievements aren't paradox holding a gun to your head and saying 'play this way or else'. They're just a lil suggestion; 'we think you'll have a fun time doing this. Give it a try!' and then putting a happy little checkmark next to it when you do it. Recording some details about how you got it, like whether it was ironman or not, what tag you started as, what tag you ended as, whether you used the console or not, etc, lets everybody get the little checkmark, lets people who want to show off the sick challenge they just did do so, gives you something to strive for as you see something you could accomplish but haven't yet, and lets you walk down memory lane about your past runs
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:29
|
|
|
I see, I thought the "record whether it was in ironman" idea was to appease the "people who get weird about steam achievements" like me, while true hardcore players would show off that they get their achievements only in ironman. I largely agree with you then. I will say that achievements being locked behind ironman did cause me to play EU4 in ironman quite a bit, but now that I only play Anbennar I never play ironman or feel the urge to, so the restriction did force me to make a tradeoff between two aspects of the game I enjoyed and in that sense it does feel a little bit like "play this way or else" if you accept that the "or else" can be something minor like missing out on a small but fun feature of the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:41
|
|
|
ah, sorry that that part was unclear. Yeah, to be crystal clear, I'm not talking about blasting 'THIS ACHIEVEMENT WAS GOTTEN IN NON-IRONMAN' to all your steam friends. Just like, putting a little sword icon next to the checkmark, in game. Honestly, given that the ideal of achievements in this game is to encourage people to try out runs they wouldn't otherwise, it might be nice to have a few that are iron-man only, to encourage people to give it a try. If you don't like it--no big deal, it's just 5 or 6 achievements out of a hundred. And if you do like it, great! You can keep playing that way, now that you've learned you enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:46
|
|
|
All good  I agree that having at least a couple achievements require ironman would be a good compromise. Finish a full campaign in ironman, do a world conquest in ironman, declare war on a significantly stronger enemy and win in ironman
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 05:51
|
|
|
Cheevos should be iron man enabled so it's an actual measure of achievement and not how long someone can tolerate rolling dice
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 06:01
|
|
|
Buschmaki posted:Cheevos should be iron man enabled so it's an actual measure of achievement and not how long someone can tolerate rolling dice i'm kind of on the ironman side more than most, but even then how many achievements are "legitimately" gotten by rerolling starts until x rivals/doesn't rival y? if that's not cheating, then is it cheating to make a 1444 backup save when those stars align so you don't have to reroll that start all over again if you gently caress up 50 or 100 years down the line? what about starts in like sub-saharan africa where the first 50 years are easy but it gets hard when the euros start taking an interest? do you have to do the easy first 50 years over and over every time you lose to the euros? where do you draw the line? Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 06:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It would also be nice if instead of moving from province to province there was something for sub province-wise for movement or an entirely different map. It's weird for there to be attrition the way its modeled in EU4 while also having an army occupying an entire province and presumably looting it. As for the sub-province movement, I feel like that's basically locations + the more detailed impassable terrain. Like, if you're fighting in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus, you're maneuvering around in mountains, trying to trap the enemy or not be trapped yourself, just the same as if they added another even smaller subdivision of provinces with an even more detailed map of impassable terrain. Sure, you could get more fidelity by going more detailed, having sections of rivers and marshes* also be impassable, creating even more locations where chokepoints exist, but you have to weigh that against the player having to possibly manage multiple armies. As long as a region like eastern Anatolia is detailed enough that you do get the sense of it offering a different sort of opportunity for maneuver than the open steppes, I don't think there's much gained for going more granular. *I do hope they go all-in on different sorts of terrain in terms of creating impassable terrain, and where not impassable then perhaps still a barrier to swift movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It would also be nice if instead of moving from province to province there was something for sub province-wise for movement total war did this and it was a mistake
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 08:14
|
|
|
All of you talking about alt-f4ing to cheat ironman mode… Doesn’t alt-f4 still automatically save the game? I thought you HAD to ctrl-alt-delete-taskbar-endprocess
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 08:46
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:All of you talking about alt-f4ing to cheat ironman mode… nope
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 08:50
|
|
|
ctrl-shift-esc will bring up the task manager directly without the intermediate screen btw
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 08:50
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:total war did this and it was a mistake
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 09:16
|
|
|
After the latest not-EU5 dev diary with stability and prestige and diplomatic reputation being mentioned, I hope the development isn't just importing every variable from EU4 without discussing whether it's actually required or if its just unnecessary complexity. Does the trade system really need seven different variables adjusting trade revenues? Does there need to be a stability value when the game is already simulating the stability of a country via its internal politics and economy? Does combat need to import every fire, discipline, combat ability, moral, shock, etc etc variable from EU4 (please no)? I feel like one issue of Eu4s opacity and inaccessibility is how many of these variables there are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 11:53
|
|
|
I just realized the game will be trash, for one obvious reason: The icon for commoners has a sword in it, the very symbol of wealth and power. Make it a spear, and perhaps the game still stands a chance.Red Bones posted:Does there need to be a stability value when the game is already simulating the stability of a country via its internal politics and economy? The above is sort of an example of what I feel like is the most important aspect of keeping the game accessible. A lot of variables isn't necessarily an issue in itself, only when they fail to cohere in a fashion that's easy to grasp to the level required. That was a major criticism of EU4 DLC, where various variables seemed to model essentially the same thing, and where variables that should interact didn't. You don't need to know the specific meaning of literally every variable, as long as the game is set up in such a way that consequences seem to flow naturally from your decisions, where things that you'd assume would empower or disempower an estate actually does, rather than half your decisions affecting something called Nobility Contentment which for some reason has nothing to do with Nobility Satisfaction which has nothing to do with Nobility Loyalty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 14:30
|
|
|
Box wine posted:I sure would enjoy reloading cause a merc company on a 30% chance walked into some mountains instead of marching straight into relieve another army. Honestly if there's one thing I really want to see in EU5, it's making battles resolve faster (instantly?) so that the Noria style reinforcement meta dies out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 15:42
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I hope that combat takes a similar hands off approach as Vicky 3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I just realized the game will be trash, for one obvious reason: The icon for commoners has a sword in it, the very symbol of wealth and power. Make it a spear, and perhaps the game still stands a chance. If they make stability actually dependent on your country's current status w/r/t are people pissy? Are you in debt? Is there a big rebellion brewing? PittTheElder posted:Honestly if there's one thing I really want to see in EU5, it's making battles resolve faster (instantly?) so that the Noria style reinforcement meta dies out. Secondary to that, I would like to see rebellions work differently. Right now they are a time/attention/manpower tax that only means something if you plan ahead poorly or make the mistake of getting into a war you didnt have won before you started it (by having wildly more mans).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 16:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I just realized the game will be trash, for one obvious reason: The icon for commoners has a sword in it, the very symbol of wealth and power. Make it a spear, and perhaps the game still stands a chance. This is what I'm saying though - why add an extra abstract stability modifier? It's also simulating something that's already being simulated. If this game already systemically models, "are the four main estates upset?" "Is my economy operating at a loss?" "Do I have enough food?", "how many provinces have unrest?", its already simulating the stability of a country. In your example, it would make more sense (and be more intuitive for the player) if the estate unhappiness just magnified directly off other variables like food shortages or economic troubles, rather than going through an abstract "stability" value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
I think stability is an EU3 remnant (maybe older than that), back then we didn't have estates or autonomy or devastation
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
Stability being abstract kind of represents things that are just outside of the ruler's control. The comet event is just something that you can't deal with because of the beliefs of the time that they were bad omens. Or like having someone declared a saint is something you don't really have control over, but it improves the countries stability. It could be replaced but I think there should be some parts of a country's stability should be completely removed from the player's control. No matter how well you feed your population, manage manpower or play the game, that drat comet is still a bad omen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:03
|
|
|
I kinda want to check out eu3 again, i bet it's gonna feel like revisiting your old high school
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Screenshots: I like this newer, cleaner, easier to read EUV. There are posts on the PDX forums of people complaining about how it looks like it's too flat, looks like a website, etc, but I always thought EU4 suffered from too much "ink" - the UI was alright, but there are way too many ornamental things, and it wasn't always clear what was a clickable button, or what was just an icon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Why do artists reduce the cost to stab up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:47 |
|
|
Through sheer force of personality, they keep the society constant. But yeah, it doesn't really make a lot of sense and a rework is a good idea. I think there should be parts of the reworked stability you just can't control was my main point from that previous post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:11
|
|