|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:You don't even need a mod to have period music btw. Turn music volume in the game down and then find one of the appx 10 million spotify or youtube playlists for "habsburg military marches" or "sea shanties" "socialist music" or "turkmenistani folk" I want every strategy game to have music designed the same way as in CK3. It's ambient on the edge of your consciousness most of the time until you get a feast or war. Made me realize that hearing inspiring Hollywood score in Imperator or Stellaris while I decide where to build a farm was always wrong.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
Friar John posted:Ok, something that's been on my mind because it was a big problem with Imperator - how will you differentiate playing different countries? Will there be historical events or chains? It's always a tricky thing cause factions can be different in, well, different ways. Like you know how early RTS like Warcraft 1 had factions that looked completely differebtly but were almost identical? Imperator and many such games are the opposite. You might have 2 factions with the same graphics and cilture (and thus available events) but extremely different starting positions. In case of release version of Imperator factions felt very different depending on geography, trade goods in starting provinces and populace. Like everyone likes Bosporus. It's your usual Greek state like dozebs of hours but it has a unique environment (a lot of nomads around), unique population (again, Nomads) and trade goods make for an interesting military problems (your Greek traditions are all about heavy infantry but you don't get iron to build them and instead have access to horse archers which are great). I like this approach more than EU4 and updated Imperator genetic bonuses in form of ideas, heritages and missions. I get that it gives you flavor and immersion, but then it destroys all the immersion by making it so that you England that won 100 years war and is now a European land power is still supposed to make a wooden wall out of fleet. Victoria 2 was good about it cause it had very little of country-specific stuff. Usually minor events or decisions that give some prestige. Really American Civil War is the only big "scripted" event, even German unification was mostly freeform. Instead you get flavourful events based on your situation. Like national minorities being suppressed (in case of USA early versions had a hilarious event about allowing signs in Dixie language) or colonies being angry. There weren't many of those but they were well written and felt right. I'd prefer those to EU4 approach of France being specifically more likely to get a revolution in 18th century.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
Vicky 3 probably ends around 1936. 9 years before the first nuclear weapon use. Depending on how the things go it's not outlandish to imagine people having nukes a decade earlier. Just pointing this out. Anyway do you people have any good documentaries or really atmospheric movies about the era?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
everydayfalls posted:Considering the scale of the Manhattan project it absolutely is outlandish to think of nucs in the 1930s. I'm mostly joking of course, but it's outlandish if you take 1936 as the point of divergence. But we start in 1836. What if we have earlier and bigger world wars? What if scientists are a little luckier and decision-makers are a little more desperate? It's not like I'm moving the schedule even a generation too early, it's just a decade.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Lol at scrubs who didn’t play original un expacced V1 for a thousand hours while the rest of the school went on dates. We true connoisseurs have ready started circlejerking about the glory of past days that the new game can never reproduce, and just to be sure we went as far as Victoria 1. All hail manual POP promotion and more importantly POP divide! Hard-coded Opium Wars! Britain refusing Machine Parts export halting humanity industrial development for a decade! All of this is true hardcore V2 newfags can't fathom.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Star posted:I think many players do stuff like that and it’d be great if the AI did as well. At least on a basic level where they become more sympathetic towards countries with similar ideologies. It'd better make some sense, not just be something that AI does. For example fighting to defend a country of your ideology or imposing a specific ideology on a country should make some of your POPs happier, maybe jingoists and those who like the ideology.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:I feel like "facing imminent invasion from a fascist state which is rapidly remilitarising" is a time where these sorts of arguments have a lot of merit Yeah, those arguments would only have no merit in a dictatorship that proclaims it has no enemies and there's no danger to the state. Sadly we have yet to see a dictatorship like that.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
Dayton Sports Bar posted:Yeah the tendency to mistake anything with the trappings of authenticity for a 1-to-1 reality simulator instead of just one particular model of reality is especially commonplace when it comes to history games. It also comes with one-sided view. Paradox forums are full of complaints about how my 5000 French troops can't just obliterate 10000 of Mali soldiers in 1540. There are very few complaints about you veing able to transport 5000 troops in the middle of Africa and have them able to fight there in 1540.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:There was an old blog I used to like (that hasn't updated since like 2015) that was all about exploring realism in fiction, and one of the big points they'd hit on a lot was that often the people complaining about "lack of realism" were very selective about what they thought was "unrealistic". Complaints about "realism" are often just very poorly masked "this does not conform to my ideology". Another thing is the very nature of realism in fiction. We tell stories about extraordinary circumstances. Say, Treasure Island is about a teenager who gets involved in a fight between gangs of pirates, outwits them and helps a party of gentlemen to get a pirate treasure, and at some point, he singlehandedly steals a ship from a crew of pirates. But as soon as you put some kind of minority in a said role and even if they're older and physically more capable than said teen you'll see a lot of comments about how unrealistic this all is. Fiction is usually barely plausible, but as soon as it offends us we ask for it to be statistically probable.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Realistically Vicky 3 will have a poo poo ton of ahistorical stuff, like all paradox games. You may not notice it because it’s not in your personal sphere but it will exist. If you can’t give a gameplay reason for it to exist then there isn’t really a justification for it Universal currency, global surveillance and instant communications around the globe, daily updates on statistics with perfect knowledge of everything inside of your country, absolute authority over your armies in the field, relentless unified will ruling over a country for century(-ies), generals and agents traveling FTL... Also yeah, sometimes those games misrepresent specific historical events to be more fun or easier to understand.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:Clearly Victoria 3 needs an in-depth ship designer which is both needlessly opaque and over-complicated while also having just one or two actually competitive designs that require scouring multiple threads on the paradox forums to figure out. Vic2 fans won't like it if the economy and politics are proper mmechanics comprehensive to a human mind. So it'd probably be good if they get some inconsequential oldschool system like the one you talk about.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Gladi posted:Well serfdom is not in itself about class. Serfs are form of tenants farmers. In fact the poorest in eastern Europe were not serfs. In Russia serfs were also used in industry for a long time. IIRC during the time of Peter the Great tzar has allowed weapon manufactories to buy or rent serfs from aristocracy. Later aristocrats themselves sometimes tried to create businesses. Some serfs became known actors and bought themselves. Some became merchants - aristocrats rarely managed estates themselves and quite often a village would have someone managing selling grain on the market to pay their master. Naturally those people got rich sometimes and even if they didn't they probably stopped being farmers. But of course it's a thing you can easily abstract, restricting serfs to lower classes and making factory worker serfs a rarity.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 12:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I think if it's not a focus of the game the atrocities are better left out or not get too detailed. Like already in case of real-world strategy game we ignore the personal tragedies our decisions cause. It's futile to try to list every tragedy that have happened (or might have happened during the timeframe) and covering only specific events may reinforce the idea that empires are inherently good, just cause some problems at specific points. So I think the best way to do it all is to use more cynical language highlighting immorality of states. You have a glimpses of it in EU4 diplomatic messages and terms, the hame doesn't say "our faith", it uses the term "true faith". Victoria 3 might also use math showing colonialism making people poor and miserable. And not just colonialism, it was a time of people realising that societies all around made people miserable through class divide, oppression, ecology and so on.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A thing to keep in mind was 300 years ago, they had a massive fleet that sailed all the way to africa no problem, so from a certain perspective this is just Europeans barely catching up to where they were 300 years ago. China for whatever its worth, decided they didn't need to be a maritime power and so had no reason to be impressed with however advanced the ships were. That historian who reviews EU4 approach to history talks about this question in the latest blog post. Only here he mentions how Chinese didn't need early firearms because they couldn't foresee how effective late firearms would be and they didn't have many benefits from using early guns or cannons in their environment. It's probably similar with ocean going vessels: if they were forced to look for land to expand they probably could discover other lands and extract resources from there, but they were fine as it is. It'd be dumb for them to just hope to find Colorado gold mines so they stayed home. https://acoup.blog/2021/05/28/collections-teaching-paradox-europa-universalis-iv-part-iv-why-europe/ He's going to talk about Victoria 2 in his next post by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 08:39
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:I really think the "sending Lenin to destabilize Russia" thing is a bit overplayed. If giving the dude living in a sausage factory a bus ticket destroyed your empire, you were living on borrowed time already. It's just a meme. The very same train had more democrats than communists. Those were just dissidents sent to Russia cause why not. So technically it's true but it's like saying that Austrian Academy of Arts exams are responsible for the rise of Nazism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
They've changed the font!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:
Fonts are a big thing for me and it's a tragedy that only only Imperator and CK3 have high quality font rendering. Before Stellaris PDX didn't seem to think about fonts at all. Those games have a lot of reading and color-coding. I hoped they'd go for a lightly-stylized but readable font like CK3 - it's kinda stylized but still simple and readable. Maybe something like Bookerly would work for V3. But sans-serif is very strange decision, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Shameful HoI3 font erasure in this post Those were wrong Cyrillic symbols. Some of them weren't even Cyrillic. It was horrible. It deserves to be forgotten. Some letters weren't meant to be seen by human eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Secret alliance doesn't sound like a great idea unless it's for a very specific offensive goal. Otherwise you're willing to bet another country will come and save you based on some piece of paper.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 07:17
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 13:25
|
|
|
Takanago posted:From the Dev Diary: "Several different types of Private Industries are shown below" It is comprehensible but there are still problems. Like in the case of fish and grain you have icons for trade goods, I gather, but with cows, it's a little picture instead of a simple icon. Looks out of place. And then you have a building between fish and iron that doesn't have any icons. It's a detailed image of some industry but I don't have any idea what it is. If it's an empty space it should probably not be in the middle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 11:47
|
|
|
I certainly hope so. The design in general reminds me of Anno games. There the icons were much more pronounced and it all was more schematic. To me those pictures don't look like something to easily identify building. More like an art in a card game where you always have a card label to properly identify a card. Here there are no labels so the pictures/icons have to be perfect.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2021 11:57
|
|
|
Older games didn't tell you what can happen or direct results of your actions. If you played a couple of games it looked like a faithful simulation of reality with a lot of depth. I remember that feeling in CK1, all those buildings, social classes, events, laws, technology. It's all so complex and mysterious. But then with a little experience, you start as a besieged Crusader state and somehow you own Mecca and Baghdad and AI doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it, and all the mechanics are just there having their fun and not stopping you. You learn by trial and error and suddenly you learn all there is to know. In modern Paradox games, you lose a feeling of faithful realistic history simulation after a while, but you still have a fun strategy game, and mastering the mechanics is both required and beneficial. Victoria 2 is still of this old breed that gives you experience without a strategy game. Victoria 3 clearly aims to be different (or rather both), and that's why I expect riots when it's released.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 07:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Part of the problem as if you don't give that information it essentially creates a gate where people who have the experience in playing the game know what the smart moves are and people who are newer don't know what they are doing and can't make informed choices; because unlike real life you can replay the game 1,000 times like its groundhog day and figure out the black box. This is especially a problem for multiplayer. Indeed. If you make a historical sim that people can just experience then you want those obscure mechanics and scripted events to be mild. If someone plays as Russia in EU and Time of Trouble hits you don't want their game just to end. Similarly, EU3 had a hidden overextension system you'd learn about if you hit the limit, but it wasn't as harsh as EU4. This means that for an experienced player those games quickly become solved. If you play as Russia second time you know that Time of Troubles means rebels in specific provinces and stability hit so you make sure to keep your armies in the right places and high stability in a certain period of time. You know what overextention means and you can turn it from a problem into a mild inconvinience. Not saying you can't do anything about it, but I certainly see a lot of push from different types of players. Those who want a historical sim want things like more events, tall play (which is problematic for strategy games), interesting decisions. Strategy players want more balance (not in the sense of all the countries being viable, but so that there is no silver bullet strategy), clarity of outcomes and predictability.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
Y'all need to play Suzerain.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
That's akin to FPS games hiding the fact that perfect aim is not a trivial thing. You're talking about the level of detail you might see in an AGEOD game, and those games have very precise focus. Those are operational level games, so you have very little influence on strategic things (diplomacy, recruitment, buildings can only be influenced indirectly) and battles themselves are similated with a level of complexity not much higher than Paradox games. So there are games focused just on menuever, smoke and mirrors and choosing battles - and those games are still very complex and hard to understand. If you want something like that on a world scale and in Victorian era and with economy you might look at Pride of Nations! But you shouldn't
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
I have little hope that the game will successfully portray warfare from basically Napoleonics to 20th century which can feature both trench war and gurilla fighting. I can imagine them making "battles" continue for months in late game simulating trench warfare at the specific level of technology and industrial capacity. But it will look strange if it means that you have millions of troops engaged in some minor settlement in a middle of France.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 14:05
|
|
|
Paradox games don't have a lot of stuff to put you in the atmosphere of the era. Map rendering differs, music too, and UI, but those things are either not flavourful or are in a very specific style. Like EU4 map is just "realistic" while CK3 gives you a medieval painting vibe, but it's a very specific Western European painting. Imperator Rome UI rework recently tried to make it eclectic but I'm not sure it works. Basically, soldier models are usually the only thing that reminds me who do I play as. To replace them with NATO symbols would move those games much closer to proverbial spreadsheet simulator.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 07:22
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Yeah I was talking about the province development, not buildings. It just feels wrong to be able to instantly conjure a bunch of military infrastructure or plantations or taxable peasants on command with resources you were originally saving up for something else entirely, I like things to require intention and time and not be able to instantly react. EU4 buildings feel a lot better to me (would feel even better if they cost 20 ducats per month for 2 years rather than a lump sum of 480 at once though) because at least they take a while to finish building and you can't instantly summon a bunch when you suddenly find yourself at war or whatever. To me MP always felt like abstraction saying "that's what our administrators have actually worked on for some time". Like when you flip the switch and suddenly your troops fight better or your ships sail farther. Inertia was always an important element of planning in strategic games but EU still has a lot of it. It would make more sense in Victoria. Considerations about somebody's growing power or ongoing reforms making people vurnerable in short-term make much more sense there.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 08:18
|
|
|
That's a question of your personal suspension of disbelief. Is that a more bizarre simplification than your ability to see and control your army half of the world away in 1500? That kind of thing bothers me much more, but some people are OK with that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 10:24
|
|
|
I want to stop waiting for Victoria 3 instead of playing it. I want to wait for patches and new DLCs for Victoria 3 instead of playing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2021 08:22
|
|
|
If they're doing political parties then interest groups have to be static. Cause parties should certainly change their policy with time. If parties bade their chamging agendas on certain interest groups and those groups themselves change thier agendas then it's inconvievable. Inconcievable, I tell you!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:Wiz has expressed that he wants rarer but more meaningful rebellions. Imperator Rome tried to do that initially. Rebellions were rare and only rebel when they have a real chance of enforcing their demands. Which is not historical and not that fun, as in you can ignore rebels most of the time until they rise up at the moment when they can completely break your country. I don't want to say that the holy historicity should be the judge, but it doesn't feel right too, not authentic. Plenty of famous armed rebellions were futile. So we'll see how it works. Smaller insurrections would probably be modeled by events without army involvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:I’m curious about the pie charts. When I started doing serious data visualisation in corporate strategy teams I found that nobody used them, supposedly because they aren’t actually very intuitive to process. To the degree that it sort of felt like pie charts were obsolete. Have they had a renaissance or is it just that they’re good for the use case somehow? I think games use them to escape the "excel simulator" label. They look much more friendly than a line chart that would carry the same message. I'm working on data presentation at my job and pie charts often have much simpler logic from the design point of view. You don't have to worry about scale (how do you present a line chart with the value set of 985, 12, and 1?) or labels (the legend is separate so you don't have to worry about trimming the text).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2021 11:58
|
|
|
I understand those institutions will have proper icons and names, so it's not like Social Security level 3?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
To be honest, not very excited about this implementation. Social structure of the state is the last place I'd like to see stuff like "Police level 2", it's like researching Improved Farms in subpar 4X game. Maybe I don't get what it represents, but do you really need a big fancy separate screen for beuraucracy focus spread?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2021 12:34
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:Wow okay bud, FFT was easily the best game of the series sorry it didn't appeal to you but don't ruin it for the rest of us I want you to know your joke is appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:I don’t know if it’s even possible to make a grand strategy game with plausible logistical constraints that would allow for Cortez to conquer Mexico and the EIC to take Bengal, but annihilate Napoleon’s army in Russia and prevent Ming from marching across Siberia. I'd say one of the biggest problems in here is not the mechanics but the nature of videogames. Cortez maybe had 10% chance to succeed in his adventure and he gambled cause he was a single dude in control of several hundred other dudes. Napoleon might have had, I don't know, 30% chance of invading England and taking London (don't argue about this number, imagine I'm talking about Spain attacking Lissabon directly instead of waging colonial wars or whatever else) but failing that would have doomed France and definitely himself. To simulate border conflicts and almost impossible gambles you'll have to teach AI about the concept of risk and reward. Is it worth it to send a thousand dudes across the ocean knowing people from there won't retaliate and at worst you'll just lose a couple of ships? Yeah. Do you really need to defend a colony half a world away while your enemies in Europe are following your every move? Maybe a little, but you won't commit to that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 06:41 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Cortez won off of diplomacy too, didn't he? Bad diplomacy on the part of his enemies primarily, which swelled the size of the force fighting on his side while massively weakening his enemies. This is beyond the point. But I think I wasn't clear enough. Cortez was one of the lucky adventurers who survived and remembered. Hundreds of similar guys had limited success or have failed throughout history. Before modern states, a king could have afforded similar behaviour because their death and loss of their troops rarely meant an existential threat to most of the elites and communities but rather a change of management. In EU4 we talk about almost modern states. You never play as Cortez, you play as Spain. Historical Spain sent dudes to conquer New World but never conquered Portugal which was its historical rival for a long time. For Spanish elites gambles in the New World were safe: you won't lose more than you invest. Directly attacking Portugal on the continent might have meant the end of Spain. They could have successfully do that and become a hegemony but the risk was to high. I say it's a problem in videogame cause in a game you absolutely should conquer sweet developed Portugal land in Europe even if it is dangerous. Start another game if you don't succeed. If you're France you should definitely invade England even if it might be the end of you. Those are kind of things you can't solve in videogame format, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2021 18:36
|
|