|
A Buttery Pastry posted: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. I think this is a solved problem these days. A lot of the older eu4 dlcs had any new mechanics bundled entirely in them, so any future dlc couldn’t build on them since everything had to be fully stand alone. The new trend seems to be release the new mechanics into the base game in a very limited way and the dlc lets you really use them. So hopefully multiple dlcs can just tweak the nobility stats without having to constantly replace them every new dlc. I really hope this game does a lot of hard thinking and streamlines the endless modifies eu4 had by the end.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Jay Rust posted:Why do artists reduce the cost to stab up? People are too busy looking at paintings to notice all the comets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
My life is much more stable because of AI generated art now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:This is what I'm saying though - why add an extra abstract stability modifier? It's also simulating something that's already being simulated. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dislike Stability as A Thing because I frequently find myself at high manpower (never max because too many wars, but I invest *heavily* in manpower from really early in the game), good income, no loans, happy estates, and no unrest. Yet... my stability is -1 because :reasons: like... a comet flew by and a (happy) noble pitched a fit about some old right his grandfather had that my ruler's grandfather took away. Hell, another reason why stability and estate happiness might not be directly connected is that it's arguably also a measure of how much things are changing, even if everyone agrees for the moment the change is good/fine. Like, if you do a lot of reforms that the estates like, your stability should still drop a bit as people work out what the new reality means for them. That's fine though as long as you manage to get things running smooth again, before you blow through their goodwill and the reactionary types decide that things should definitely be rolled back. manero posted:Screenshots: I like this newer, cleaner, easier to read EUV. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I think stability is an EU3 remnant (maybe older than that), back then we didn't have estates or autonomy or devastation It's from EU1 and I wouldn't be shocked if it came from the original boardgame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:
That could be neat, like some Might & Magic titles changed the visual style of the UI depending on faction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
Groke posted:It's from EU1 and I wouldn't be shocked if it came from the original boardgame. I miss the little circular halo thing around your nation's capital that had the sky in it and the sky got darker and stormier the worse your stability got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
gurragadon posted: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. What you're asking for there then is not actually the 'stability' modifier: it's to have a random event fire that gives the player a negative malus that they can't avoid. I'm just arguing that it's kind of unnecessarily complex at this point to have an abstract "stability of the country" -3 to +3 modifier, when there's already a bunch of mechanics that collectively simulate the internal status (and thus the stability) of the country. Is there a reason the comet couldn't give a blanket modifier to public unrest? Or make all the estates unhappy? Or give your army a temporary moral debuff? And again, the stability value in-game isn't removed from the player's control: they pay admin points to change it. It's the random events firing that are out of the player's control, and you can have random malus events without a "stability" variable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
I sort of agree that stability shouldn't be a specific number, because eu is the type of game where the concept of stability ought to be so central that it's split out into its component parts, each modeled separately. Sort of how ck3 didn't have legitimacy (until it did in a dlc), but the concept of legitimacy was represented by a bunch of other moving parts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
Groke posted:It's from EU1 and I wouldn't be shocked if it came from the original boardgame. Checks out 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:What you're asking for there then is not actually the 'stability' modifier: it's to have a random event fire that gives the player a negative malus that they can't avoid. I'm just arguing that it's kind of unnecessarily complex at this point to have an abstract "stability of the country" -3 to +3 modifier, when there's already a bunch of mechanics that collectively simulate the internal status (and thus the stability) of the country. Is there a reason the comet couldn't give a blanket modifier to public unrest? Or make all the estates unhappy? Or give your army a temporary moral debuff? I like the idea of the stability modifier being a combination of all those parts. Just having a number or 0-100% to put a representation on how stable my country is. It doesn't need to be a modifier that I can directly influence by spending admin points like in EU4 though. I actually think that would be good to get rid of because it feels kind of gamey in a bad way. I just like all the numbers and modifiers in EU4 though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 19:54
|
|
|
I feel like Stability should be implicit and ultimately comes down to "vibes". Either your country feels stable, or it doesn't; based off of a confluence of factors. However with Victoria 3 proving the concept of capacities, you could probably have something like a "Unstable" to "Stable" meter which increases or decreased based off of how various different and myriad aspects of your country are. The larger your country the more "effort" it should be to nudge this well into the fully stable end of the scale. It should require vastly more effort to keep China stable than keeping the Low Countries stable. You should legitimately feel like "I dunno if I can do this thing because it might cause a rebellion that would be bad!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Aren’t comets predictable? Someone get Neil Degrasse Tyson in here to model when comets would be visible in different places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:22
|
|
|
Sri.Theo posted:Aren’t comets predictable? Someone get Neil Degrasse Tyson in here to model when comets would be visible in different places. Anyway, to spice them up a bit, there should be a chance for them to be a Tunguska-like event that can randomly take out an army or a city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:As the "comets" are limited to specific countries, they are likely actually meteors, and thus not reoccurring and predictable in the same fashion as comets. How about only disloyal mercenaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:59
|
|
|
manero posted:Checks out so does stability still affect the monarch death roll? because it would be very funny if no one had realized this the whole time
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:15
|
|
|
Why are minors immune to stability? Seems op
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:18
|
|
|
Can we also gently caress off with Ruler-Generals dying in like a fraction of the time despite never fighting a battle? What the gently caress is up with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
this stability discussion intersects with some thoughts I had after the manpower discussion yesterday but wasn't anywhere near a computer to post. Manpower shouldn't just be a number that tells you how many army guys you have - I don't see any way to abstract it beyond being an integer without radically changing the game's economies, but it should also have influence on other state factors depending on what %age full it is, e.g. production and maybe a secondary effect on certain unrest modifiers. E.g. if you have high unrest and high manpower (lotsa dudes sittin' around with nothin' to do) then ... more unrest and bigger rebellions. I don't really see any reason for stability to exist as a separate number when unrest and legitimacy are both things. It's really weird for a nation to be exploding into rebellions and for the ruler to be low legitimacy, but for it also to be max stability. I agree that it should be a consequence of those other factors, and maybe (high) manpower should be one of them. The pattern I'm seeing in my own wish list for this game is more trade-offs I guess - for the design to find ways of modelling the reasons that many of the things that eu4 gameplay encourages were sometimes Bad Ideas historically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
To me its kinda obvious that it should function similar to how calling up vassal levies works in CK3, at least for the early game while you're decentralized. Recruitment is largely decentralized and delegated to local nobles or your ministers; who tell you vague vibes of how many troops they think they can raise, I think the important thing is not having a concrete number the represents all draftable persons, but more like a malus or a modifier that indicates how much manpower remains to be effectively tapped from a region, but not as a concrete thing to be clear. You click the "raise troops" button and maybe something like it lets you choose how many to raise, and then they raise them (similar to how mercenaries work in EU but closer to like vassal levies from CK3), but as you start ticking down in your "Capacity" for manpower the amount of troops that can be subsequently raised becomes less, but I think never zero; but maybe more expensive or start accruing costs beyond gold (like population growth malus from drafting people needed to farm the land). EU4 kinda had this in that you could exploit dev but unless it was a PvP war in a In-It-To-Win-It total death ball war in a competitive mp game no one is clicking those buttons if it isn't life or death and even then. It would be better if raising troops at all implicitly abstracted this until technology kicks in to lessen the penalties. I tie this back of course to my earlier idea that manpower isn't something that's a pool that slowly drains to reinforce armies in the field; armies in the field should be (a) a little more durable so your 40,000 man army isn't attritted down to 6,000 just after fighting once and attrition. But once you do have regiments that basically cease to exist they should be sent back to their home depot to be reconstituted; and later in the game you can have something like how the British had for regiments in the field a reinforcement battalion training at home that could be sent to reinforce it. Armies should be very important; and should be more involved then just clicking a button once or a bunch of times in a row to build one and then the drill button if we're feeling generous. The selecting of individual regiments should feel impactful and their commanders a part of politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:50
|
|
|
Pops will presumably model the way manpower and the economy are linked
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I hope that combat takes a similar hands off approach as Vicky 3. My initial thought about the V3 system was that, while it's in V3 specifically to make it not a wargame even though the era was replete with leaders who took "commander in chief" literally, it would be an interesting simulation fit in CK or early-mid EU. Full-micro if you've got a ruler or heir in the vicinity, probably something near it (HoI fronts?) with a general, "go" or "stop"--and maybe those not that reliable--if you've hired mercenaries or told the Marquess of Lower Nowhere to gather up some peasants and go show Upper Nowhere what for. It's sad that "not that reliable" is so bad as a game system, because you've got the kickoff to the historical crowning endgame convulsion cycle directly traceable to one colonial lieutenant colonel at the head of 300 men realizing, orders to stay chill or no, he had a great ambush opportunity to push a single regiment off a really nice tile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 05:19
|
|
|
one of the forum posts on a tinto talks confirmed no vic3 style war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:one of the forum posts on a tinto talks confirmed no vic3 style war. I do hope they do something other the very worn out +morale, +discipline, wait until the ai has movement locked combat system. Also gently caress combat width. I hate any system that has an objectively right answer but gives you no indication of what that answer could be but gives you lots of wrong answers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 07:07
|
|
|
I would also like the ability to automate generals. Give them objectives and a bounding area and let them handle it. Would be a nice simulation for colonial wars, and can make it optional if people are unwilling to let the AI handle things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 07:17
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I would also like the ability to automate generals. Give them objectives and a bounding area and let them handle it. Would be a nice simulation for colonial wars, and can make it optional if people are unwilling to let the AI handle things. I expect that we'll get at least as much as Imperator in this regard. In general I'm guessing that the main question when it comes to warfare is how much is it going to iterate on Imperator's systems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Magissima posted:I expect that we'll get at least as much as Imperator in this regard. In general I'm guessing that the main question when it comes to warfare is how much is it going to iterate on Imperator's systems. At this point I’m starting to wonder if imperator was basically a trial run of eu5. Seems like a lot of the systems it trialed can map to some of the new features announced, like class based pops. I also saw a video that the levy/legion system could very easily map to a levy/professional army system. I wonder if it’s the same bones for both games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
I really should try Imperator at some point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 17:18
|
|
|
People seem to mostly like imperator after the patches, except for the fact that only major countries have flavor. It's not surprising to me that they're iterating on it
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
I'm really hoping Imperator gets the Crusader Kings treatment and they take a mediocre but promising game and make an amazing sequel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:At this point I’m starting to wonder if imperator was basically a trial run of eu5. Seems like a lot of the systems it trialed can map to some of the new features announced, like class based pops. I also saw a video that the levy/legion system could very easily map to a levy/professional army system. I would be surprised if there weren't a significant amount of shared code even outside of the engine and core paradox mapgame functionality. Iirc the map is built directly on Imperator's and from what Johan has said it seems like the army supply system will be essentially the same or very similar to the implementation from Imperator, which is why I think there's going to be a lot of overlap in all of the related mechanics. I'm curious to see how far that goes and if we get something like the provincial food/supply mechanic too. edit: by shared code I mainly mean code copied from Imperator and heavily iterated on rather than directly reused Magissima fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:one of the forum posts on a tinto talks confirmed no vic3 style war. thank christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:one of the forum posts on a tinto talks confirmed no vic3 style war. Boo. That's the best thing about Vic3, even if it's still imperfect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 01:34
|
|
|
Imperator war is good, so I have high hopes
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Boo. That's the best thing about Vic3, even if it's still imperfect. what the
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
Well, if EU5 is built off Imperator it better be an evolution similar to CK2 from Sengoku.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
TaurusTorus posted:I'm really hoping Imperator gets the Crusader Kings treatment and they take a mediocre but promising game and make an amazing sequel. Imperator was that sequel to EU: Rome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 08:26
|
|
|
They're talking about the leap from CKI to II
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 11:59
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:They're talking about the leap from CKI to II I suppose the point is: Imperator is the sequel
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I suppose the point is: Imperator is the sequel
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 14:04
|
|