|
Honestly, there was plenty of state industries even in ostensibly liberal capitalist governments at the time so I think it's a good choice to not have liberal capitalism be the "AI delegation" thing. The way management of companies runs differently based on ownership is very good, anyway. Also, the granular political model rather than the weird HOI style polar system really captures the politics of the early part of the game much better than trying to fit Bonapartists vs Orleansists into "liberal vs conservative".
|
#
¿
May 22, 2021 11:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
BillBear posted:This would honestly be amazing but unfortunately, player-controlled armies are kinda non-negotiable for most. It would be seriously cool though if your armies hinged on the quality of your generals and military staff and how they would conduct the war on your behalf. Some rear end in a top hat general making a clown of himself costing you the entire war but can't be replaced because of his political connections would be right up my alley. I love it when you actually have to deal with incompetent morons in your nation. I think for that to work you'd have to have big enough provinces where you could shuffle a lot of the military detail into a black box so you're not just watching the AI do dumb poo poo so I don't really think the automated military really fits the design as currently done. It'd probably be an ideal way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 00:29
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:US board of ordinance or whatever it was called was controlled by a guy who thought the same. IIRC Lincoln wanted to introduce as many repeaters as possible but that guy had a lot of political backing. The main problem logistically with the new repeaters of the time was that they required specialized cartridges and the quantities needed just weren't available early on. The US did adopt the Spencer officially during the war though and eventually cartridge production came up enough that it wasn't such a big problem. The army was very interested in breechloaders and had quite a few of them, but not in the numbers to do much more than equip cavalry. "We'll use up all the ammo" was definitely a statement but it's also "all our stores of powder and paper cartridges would not be useful" whereas pretty much every repeating rifle needed a brass-cartridged bullet.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Not really unless you consider Northern Virginia to be the entire war, and besides having them be useless pushovers is really boring gameplay-wise. People play games for different things, i powergame the gently caress out of CK, i dunk on that game a lot.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Yeah, honestly, I think Russian serfs would probably be better modeled as peasants as 'peasants' is a much more useful catch-all for pre-modern subsistence agricultural workers. American chattel slaves are really not in the same category as Russian serfs.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 10:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:They pretty much are for the purposes of the game though, unless Paradox has expanded the mechanics. A specific pop for pre-modern agricultural workers was added for victoria 3. That's what peasants are for.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 10:58
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean at that point you have to model the internment camps for the western colonies or the arrests that happened during the war for being dissidents but those are mostly only gonna be useful as role playing and doesn’t accomplish much Yeah, if we're going to get into spectrums of unfree labor, you really can't ignore the colonies, where even though the colonial power officially banned slavery, debt peonage was very common.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's the name of a boardgame that uses game mechanics to teach lessons about the holocaust. It's not a very interesting commentary, it's quite literally "game thing you were doing, actually lol you were running the holocaust trains, owned"
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Imperialism I actually ends up having a hellwar mechanic despite just being a victorian themed 4x game because once oil becomes completely developed, there's no longer any need to maintain population to run industry and thusly they can all be put into military units, which also frees up a bunch of transport for more iron and more guns so you can just fight ultra-wars, and also the game shifts from the skirmisher being the best unit to tank heavy artillery shots to the tank becoming the best unit for that
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2021 11:16
|
|
|
Koramei posted:They were also engaging in actual imperialism (up to genocide; see Dzungars) throughout the period; there’s a reason Qing’s borders are so much more expansive than Ming’s. The Qing really weren’t the heroes in their story. It's one of the reasons the Qing court was so broke- they spent it all trying to fight frontier wars, the trade with Europeans, so long as it was bringing in silver and not, say, opium was a godsend for the court. Once that went away, things spiraled out of control, at least in the Qing imperial court- the provinces themselves(the coastal ones, anyway) seemed to do okay on the tolls the Europeans let them collect which is why they ended up fighting the Taiping rebellion and spearheaded Chinese military modernization.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
Eiba posted:If the information is fixed and knowable, but hidden, that's just pointlessly loving over new players, and adding nothing to the experience of experienced players who've learned the hidden values. Yeah, as someone who actually play games to play them rather than just 'have an experience', most of these hidden mechanics add nothing and mostly just make things more sluggish and random in a way that's not interesting to me at all. I'm okay with hidden information, but only if there's an actually compelling reason for it, and not just "well governments aren't omniscient". True, and you can't save and load irl, either. Games are not real life.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Most of these ''thematic" limitations just kind of end up slowing the whole game down a bunch and making it more random. I kinda think someone should at some point give the 'immersion' gamers what they want and make a paradox game where instead of having a nice UI and map you have to first person navigate several ministries and go through dialogue trees to find out basic statistics about a region, then run over to the chancellery to order railroad construction. I can't imagine that ever being remotely fun to play out, but people really like to hear about bizarre concepts. It's like that one developer that's trying to make a ww2 tactical game where the entire game is dialogue trees. People just hear about it and go gaga over it because they think "finally, a ww2 tactical game i can play, one in which theres really not much tactical maneuvering at all"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 11:11
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I mean I don’t think that’s true. I think that’s one of those things that people like in theory but in practice would hate. Yeah, and honestly a lot of stuff in this vein gets made, it's just not very good. See: Radio Commander. You toy around with it, and then the novelty wears off and you realize it's an awful strategy game. There are tons of indie games that try to do this because it's much easier to obfuscate than make systems and have them engagable. These threads do tend to be 'wow this sounds cool' without really thinking things through. The paradox forums are much, much worse though, and they're freaking out over the laissez faire change making it not as stupid in the gameplay sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 14:06
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:Yeah, and I'd rather have Radio Commander and Radio General then yet another hex and counter wargame. It's largely a moot point with Vicky because this is a very different beast, but Imperator was just another EU4 (well, an EU:Rome) and nobody liked that. I'd much rather have more well thought out, well done hex and counter wargames than more radio commanders, or suzerains, or burden of commands or whatever. At least those try to be interesting games in play(though a lot of the ones that come out are, yeah dreck). Then again, i don't play games for the narrative of them. Story in games is like a story in porn, etc. (thanks john carmack)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
fuf posted:I dunno I kind of like the idea of slightly vague newspaper headlines or alerts that are like "uh oh looks like Russia is building a big fleet" Honestly, I don't mind this kind of notification if it's in addition to actually being able to look stuff up. It was not difficult for a power to know what another power's navy looked like in pretty good detail anyway. I'd probably turn off 'newspapers' if it was an option but if you take away my ledger and make me stare at headlines, i'd probably not enjoy it. Raenir Salazar posted:I'm not sure if it is inherently bad for the game to "slow down" a big problem for me in stellaris is just how fast the tech and snowballing can be. For a game with vicky which presupposes mostly established polities; there's no reason why the gameplay should be particularly fast until the end game where the technological progress has exceeded mankinds ability to reconcile all of its knowledge, forcing the mind to flee into a comforting new dark age. If the problem is that things happen too quickly, it's a lot easier to make direct adjustments rather than adding an order delay in a game like this. It just adds a bunch of frustration to make the game more obtuse and opaque in order to 'slow things down'. It's not slowing the game down as in making things take longer, so much as it to me is like slowing the game down by forcing you to play with a very low mouse sensitivity. For example, Total War was significantly improved when instead of having to move a diplomat to another country's capital to do any kind of negotiation, you could just open a diplomacy screen and click on them and negotiate.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
Yeah, PoN had some interesting ideas, but they never really came together. For example, the idea of separating private capital and state funds a separate resource pools is actually a pretty good abstraction that lets you guide the country without making finance a total farce. Unfortunately AGEOD picked such a complex game that it was never going to work. I'm actually in favor of a greater level of abstraction in warfare for Vicky 3, especially if it can be handled in such a way as to actually make the navy more important for more than just prestige. Big provinces where you send in the troops and there's just a big 'campaign' box like a battle from eu4 but a lot slower, especially depending on the situation and the techs, and in the meantime you see the little sub-provinces change hands here and there. It's one of those blind spots of abstraction, though, probably because people are less willing to accept it. People who play Civilization, for example, accept the abstraction of 'hammers' but need to see their troops as 'swordsmen' and 'pikemen' which is kind of a weird mismatch. And as a side note, i'd love to see an Imperialism III as those games were awesome, even if they weren't trying to hit what vicky 3 was doing. It was always really nice to see a game where naval superiority was super critical. Imperialism used the abstraction that all international trade was sea trade and international trade was the only way to really run massive industry and make money on the side to make falling behind on the naval race horrible since if you went to war and got choked off, you'd be done, but if you tried to create an autarky and keep making money off of say gold/gems you'd fall way behind the AI in production of things like steel and arms and lose to a land invasion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 11:48
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I like that he acknowledges that most of what he talks about is the intention behind the system, not the actual result. Victoria 2 actual political, economic and military systems suggest that the right way for any state in 1836 was to focus on clergy, research Free Trade/Mechanization and start forging papers on owning Sokoto. Honestly, that's my take on victoria 2 as a game in general, much more interesting to think and talk about than to actually play. ACOUP's criticism of EU4 do sometimes lie in ways it sacrifices history or realism for being an interesting game, so I imagine he'll like the game that leans less in that direction.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:i love the thought of southerners grappling with the morality of slavery and being like "it's the RACISM that's the problem, egalitarian slavery is the answer" Many of the apologetics for slavery in this period were very much that any society that relied on free laborers would inevitably end up as a tyranny of mob rule, while a servile class was the only way to preserve Liberty. Slave economics as a way to preserve a reactionary regime well past the liberal period strikes me as good representation of its game-utility I think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I kinda wanna know more about how the slave trade is gonna be depicted in centralized African kingdoms that actively exported slaves. I read on the forums that socities with debt slavery export some of their slaves to those who have the slave trade running, it's not really that complex a system.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2021 09:34
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Yeah my reading is that incorporated states are basically the economic parts of cores from previous games, but homelands are the diplomatic part. Although the dev responses do note that you get a claim if an incorporated state is taken from you, but I imagine it needs to be a full Homeland state to trigger revanchism/get really good CBs. I think pdox games have had too many provinces for a while, and hopefully this is one way to kinda pare it down a bit. If they actually had the balls to do it i'd love it, but i understand gamers like big number so the province quantity has to be huge.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
I'm shocked nobody thought to do that sooner. I mused about how the discrete units in a game like civ don't really make sense at the level of abstraction they operate at but it's nice to see paradox giving a more abstract warfare model a go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
I think it's something they're working on getting implemented. There's not a lot of old games for guidance on how to make this stuff work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
There have been cardboard ancients games that tried to use nato symbols.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 11:29
|
|
|
Honestly i'm pretty pro-nato symbols and wouldn't mind them being there for vicky 3 in whatever ui they use for allocating forces but we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 11:32
|
|
|
Fray posted:And military access treaties are still a thing. Honestly, i think what they'll probably end up having to do is split it into discrete 'campaigns' or something like that where you can assign a general to it and the result at the end is some change of territory potentially, or not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
fuf posted:So imagine a set of starting conditions where you had, say, five major European powers, and five major Asian powers, of exactly equal strength. I imagine if modders wanted to model that, they could create their own mechanics to handle that, but since Vicky 3 takes place in the real starting date of 1836, it's not that weird to have the mechanic work that way.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2022 11:39
|
|