|
Panzeh posted:They're really good- I think my only problem is that on higher difficulties you must trade heavily for raw materials and make quick trades and it would be so much easier if there was a good interface for automating that(trading enough to maintain a stock, for example). Yeah, I would pay a ton of money for a remaster with some QoL fixes for either of the Imperialisms.
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
Does anyone have a clue how to get an Ambassador in Old World? I was hoping to, uh, beg my way out of an early war where Egypt was just overrunning me, but it tells me I need "Ambassador". My assumption is I need a character with that trait, in which case, I've already hosed up?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
Super Jay Mann posted:There's a tech that lets you select an ambassador (I think it's Administration, but considering how often things are being tweaked in EA don't take my word for it) and once you have it you can assign any valid diplomatic character in your court as one. It's one of the buttons in the upper right area. Thanks for this! I don't think I can overstate how much more enjoyable I'm finding Old World than I ever did Civ 6, though I'm having trouble putting my finger on why. I think some of it is the obvious "they actually put effort into it" and "the AI knows how to play, sort of", but it's also the more subtle immersion the game gives, and the synergy of the systems feels natural and not just tacked on. I'll effort post if I figure it out a little better. e: I also think making it so you can only settle city sites was an inspired decision, completely getting rid of the hamfisted approach Civ 5 and 6 both took.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
I keep wanting to dive into Shadow Empire, but I get super intimidated by the interface when I first boot it up. Is there any getting started guide that can help acclimate?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised that Stardock is still around. Between Wardell being a shitlord, all of their games being huge failures since Elemental's release, and Kael being hired and..never really doing much, I don't really know what's keeping them going. Been a long time since GalCiv2's release and they were praised for being the only strategy company with good AI.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
Paradox explicitly avoids putting internal strife in their games, and refused to allow sectors to have any internal politics at all in Stellaris, because one of their designers hates the idea of internal politics. So, I think you need to work on your examples a bit - I think the idea that internal strife is a crutch for broken game systems is in fact backwards, and broken game systems avoid internal strife to cover up shortcomings in abstraction.quote:I like my games tight-knit with game systems that matter and will naturally enable opponents to attempt to win on their own and provide conflict to me, the player, that is measurable and and possible within the games mechanics. e: Fwiw, I think the actual problem you're highlighting here is correct - games like to simultaneously depict you as an omniscient god-emperor of a nation state (even before the concept existed!), but also an agent of government. And.. you can't really do both, at the same time. Beamed fucked around with this message at 01:49 on May 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Do you not watch or read any kind of sci fi/fantasy, or even real history/politics? External threats rarely mean an end to internal strife, and if it does for a time it rarely lasts. It's a very strange view to have, as is thinking that internal conflict = bad design. If you don't want it in games you play, fair enough, but those are some weird reasons. This bodes good things for Old World 
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 01:55
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:That's fair. I'm honestly not familiar with Stellaris, but Paradox with CK2 and CK3 and their magical armies that appear constantly are just an example of the fact that they don't have game systems the AI can interact with so they have to spawn enemy armies instead. Specifically this stuff: It honestly sounds like your opinion here is actually in accord with the rest of the thread? That sort of thing is kind of artificial, outside of the established game mechanics. But for example, if you had a governor in charge of a region and he brought that army to bear, that would be in line with mechanics AND an interesting consideration.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 13:35
|
|
|
Clarste posted:This is sort of a tangent from your point, but I feel like a region magically spawning an army from nowhere when they rebel is also an important part of the immersion-breaking, and wouldn't be automatically solved by putting a face to the governor. You could probably do something with like a fraction of your army mutinying (or even keep track of which troops are from which region of your empire, so you'd better appease the governor supplying most of your army, etc etc) but it seems like it'd make this a much bigger mechanical addition. I think to take this particular sub slice of the discussion further we'd need to draw on specific games and the things they did wrong vs. right and what the issues therein are. For example, Stellaris sectors having assigned fleets under a governor would have accomodated maintaining immersion here, and Imperator with levies vs. generals at least attempted making this an interesting decision.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:36 |
|
|
The big problem in CK's case is the governor's levy and the levy you get from your governor are completely unrelated to each other; it used to be they were one and the same, but Paradox didn't have any other solution to the Roose Bolton strategy.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2021 01:34
|
|