|
Nah. The education system isn’t at all complex unless you insist on caring about every possible implication of every possible input. That’s minutiae, and it’s pretty pointless. The basic rules are straightforward and for the most part well-signposted: 1. Childhood focuses give childhood traits 2a. Childhood traits develop into adult traits 2b. Guardians influence which traits a childhood trait develops into 3a. Education focuses determine what class of educational outcome a child receives 3b. A child’s traits influence what level of educational outcome a child receives And... that’s it. What traits each childhood focus is likely to give you is listed on the focus; the focuses are (mostly) colour coded by what education they’ll enhance. What traits a childhood trait can evolve into is listed on the trait. When it comes time to select an education focus, the UI will straight-up tell you what’s a good idea based on the traits you have! The most obscure part of the whole thing is the guardian input on trait evolutions, and even there it’s generally straightforward: children pick up similar traits to what their guardian have, or traits that seem like natural extensions of those traits. A proud guardian teaches their wards to take care of their appearance? Yeah, sure, that sounds legit. If anything it’s too legible, too solvable. The real problem with the education system is that some childhood focuses are too good, and others are useless. And I still think top-tier outcomes are too common but that’s just me.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2019 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's an interesting question because it's one of those weird abstractions the game uses that doesn't really apply to real life. Like in England there wasn't really any formal succession law for centuries - the first son of the king would usually inherit but there were tons of cases where they just picked someone else entirely, sometimes even a cousin over one of their own children or siblings. This usually caused problems but it wasn't strictly forbidden. The huge success that is the new Byzantine succession system got me thinking that a lot more places in the world should be using that sort of informal, semi-elective system. There's a huge amount of potential there for modelling really nuanced power relations within courts, and if anything it makes succession more complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
I'm sad that they're going with all-dynamic event images, because CK2's event images are really good in places. Like, how the hell are they going to match King_Lunatic_muslim.dds with their goofy 3D models? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:How is that called? I always wanted that https://www.millenaire.org/gloriamundi/index.php?l=en Gloria Mundi, which was a rehash of the old old Dynastic Glory program which did the same thing for CK1. It actually had a more complex and nuanced scoring model than the game's own. I remember the Rurikovics always coming first in CK1 because there were so many of the bastards  e:  Oh yeah, there the fuckers are
KOGAHAZAN!! fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Oct 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
Eimi posted:It's not just needing more characters, I really preferred that it was three dice rolls per side determining the outcome instead of the one that EU/Imperator uses. It helped spread out the rng so you weren't just totally hosed by rolling 0 over and over. If the concern is variability you could just reduce the range of the die roll. You don't actually need three flanks to do that. Loss of oblique order is a blow, though, and letting your kids tag a long to learn things. I'm not so keen on the loss of the skirmish phase, either. Paradox never did anything interesting with it, but I've an idea to leverage it for asymmetrical warfare in this CK2 mod I'm making. There was potential there, I'm saying. Siege progress speed depending on the ratio of besiegers to defenders is traditional but kind of upside down- more mouths in the citadel means greater pressure on supplies, while not necessarily providing any benefit outside of assaults or sallies. Supply is a good idea in the abstract, but Paradox games already have problems making feel terrain feel important and impactful, and this is only going to weaken its impact further. Though they did talk about putting more nuance into terrain in the last DD, so maybe there's hope there. The rock paper scissors thing with the unit types is just- like, look at Stellaris if you want to know how fun titting about with force composition to counter specific loadouts is. It's fiddly and something you don't really have time for at the point in time where you have access to the sort of information you need to make it work- bollocks-deep in a war. Doing it to match terrain types- fine, actually. I'm down for that. Finally, while I'm in favour of simplifying the combat system, and the old model with the tactics was mostly noise to 95% of players, I could have stood more than two pairs of attack/defence values. The trick would have been to select and foreground a bunch of factors that were immediately relevant at the strategic level- at the level the player interacts with, rather than the black-boxed tactical simulation. Fighting strength, yes, but also strategic manoeuvre, supply weight, morale, reorg speed... I don't think it's going to hurt the game any, mind, but I'm not particular excited by any of this. Except "more chokepoints". More choke points is always good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:It's not immediately clear what knights are supposed to contribute to the broader battle outcome (as opposed to just being things that hilarious midcombat events can happen to) but it feels like these are all roles they can fill depending on how many of them can be allocated to an army and what effects they have. I think they came up in one of the articles that came out of PDX Con, which made them sound like normal units that were 20x as effective as normal units? Their coming up in battlefield duels is a safe bet, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 22:42
|
|
|
UrbicaMortis posted:dev diary about the new 3d portraits and traits: quote:In CK2 you could easily end up with 5-8 personality traits without much effort, but then what really defined you? It was hard to get a grip on who a character really was What? No? quote:characters tend to not have more than 3 personality traits urrrrrrrrrrgh quote:Before moving on to the Portraits themselves, I’d like to mention genetic traits! Traits such as Strong and Genius were much sought-after in CK2, and you often went out of your way to breed those traits into your direct line. In CK3 this is even more involved, with genetic traits having multiple levels that you can improve with successive generations (which can be sped up by inbreeding!) oh my loving goooooood 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I think is not just societies, is like almost every new feature or mechanic makes the game easier Yeah, it's not a problem with the personality system per se so much as the power creep. And I certainly don't have a problem with them making personality traits more enduring. But like every time I've gone to add a custom character while modding I've felt like I haven't had enough space to fully express someone's personality with the five traits you can give them, and I have never at any point playing any incarnation of CK thought to myself, "dang, this guy just has too many traits, I have no idea who he is". In fact, one of the reasons I find the characters in Imperator leave me cold is that they have hardly any traits. On that alone they feel insubstantial. At this point the CK3 DDs proudly announcing features that are the exact opposite of what I was hoping for is getting to be a trend. Not a great feeling.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I have thousands of hours on this game and never saw that happen If you find yourself playing a game where you're enatic for some reason- you're playing someone near Seattle in ATE, say- it's nigh constant. No idea when it was added, but it's been there a good few months at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
Funky Valentine posted:I have never met a goon that was Kind and/or Patient. Kind, patient, generous, well-read, an accomplished doctor and a master diplomat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
fuf posted:Also I am 100% on board with making the game more transparent and approachable but it seems like a shame to replace primogeniture, gavelkind, etc. with "Oldest Child Succession", "Partition Succession", etc. Part of the fun was learning all those medieval terms. Agnatic, cognatic, primogeniture- these aren't "mediaeval" terms, they're just... the terms. Gavelkind being "gavelkind" instead of "partible inheritance" or whatever was always a weird and ugly exception, to be honest. But congrats on Paradox for finding a way to make it uglier 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Agnatic, cognatic, primogeniture- these aren't "mediaeval" terms, they're just... the terms. Gavelkind being "gavelkind" instead of "partible inheritance" or whatever was always a weird and ugly exception, to be honest. That reminds me, CK1 had Salic vs semi-Salic succession. And consanguinity! Good times.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
I heard the Crisis of the Confederation mod had been resurrected the other day and went to check it out. It was fun (there are a lot of localisation bugs in the current version) for a bit, but after I while I started to find myself having problems with just basic poo poo like reading the map. I was constantly forgetting what provinces were in my demesne, not a problem I remembered having with CK2. So I hopped over to ATE:FF to see if it was just me being out of practice or if it was the mod. Yep! It's the mod. And this reintroduced me to just how solidly built and fun ATE is. Just an extremely well-crafted mod all round. I'm also doing a Gaian run, getting to the point I always get to in a CK2 game, where I regret leaving coalitions on. Threat takes so long to decay. It's obnoxious!
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Coolguye posted:if i am not at 100 threat i generally feel like i'm not trying hard enough. It's hardly even a matter of trying, once you're large enough. Get out of bed in the morning and you'll be at max threat. But coalitions are so tedious...
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2021 09:40
|
|