|
Like it says in the post, it's not finished.
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:There is a link in the "Scrap Book of Fond Memories" for the Dev Diary for MM about it; it was creepy at the time and hilarious to us now. I just reread it, and it's still too creepy to be funny.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Was there ever a confirmation as to whether the agnatic nature of merchant republics would be moddable or not?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
I've played a few games to completion over the years. I remember posting in the Paradox Interactive Bonanza thread about my games as Alexandria, the Iroquis, Muslim Italy and Muslim Spain. Most of the images I posted were waffleimages, so they're gone now, but I still have two pics from my Lpix archive: This was my Muslim Spain HTTT game. The original goal was to unite Iberia and then colonise only Africa to see how removing Spain and Portugal from the colonisation mechanics would work. More interesting though was the complete demise of Catholicism, the biggest reformation I've ever seen. (Gold is catholicism, Dark Blue is Reformed, picture uses the EU2 religion colours)  This was a game as the Iroquis in a Miscmods Dark Continent DW game. It was an early build of Dark Continent, so I was doing this as an isolationist to help Brainmeats test the scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 01:51
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I would play this game. Just buy the Sims and download a mod that adds nazi uniforms!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Man, seeing those terribly drawn provinces sure does bring back some fond memories.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:Do you know of any other good alt-history ideas? I'm kind of intrigued by the genre (both in EU3, now that I've tried some modded scenarios, and in general) but it seems like most of them are basically "What if Hitler/Churchill/Stalin got hit by a bus/had never been born/autoerotically asphyxiated himself?". I'd like to see some that are actually well thought-out (and I'd loving love it if they didn't involve either of the World Wars in some way). One of my favourite books, period, is For Want of A Nail. The divergance point is that the British general Burgoyne defeats the American commander Gates at the battle of Saratoga, which ultimately leads to a British victory in the American Revolutionary War, the creation of the Confederation of North America (a sort of canada-style dominion covering all of British North America) and the more radical founding fathers running off to Texas, taking over Mexico and creating the United States of Mexico, a weird quasi-caste-system sort-of segregationist slaveholding republic/empire that hates the guts of the CNA. But the real thing about the book is that the only indication that the book is a work of fiction is the front cover. It's written like a college textbook throughout, with a fake foreward and afterward, a massive reference section referring to completely non-existant works, and table after table about things like GDP, changing demographics, election results and more. It's as if a textbook from the world the book describes has fallen through a dimensional portal into your hands.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:(At least until we do Sunset Invasion II: Quetzalcoatl's revenge). I just want to confirm I am totally in favour of a DLC scenario for EUIV that continues the Sunset Invasion "storyline". I'd love a scenario that started with Europe divided between the Il-khanate, the Golden Horde and the Aztec Empire. Maybe with the Roman Empire in the middle to appease all the Byzantophiles you guys have on your forums.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
SeaTard posted:No, the absolute best thing would be to have the game start in 1453, on the 28th of May. Thrace would be at 100% siege progress, being occupied the next day. Let them play the Byzantine Empire, but 2 days into the game they'll be annexed. They would just load up as the Ottomans and surrender to the Byzantines before switching over though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Rebels received massive massive buffs. I don't know why paradox made the change, I don't remember people clamoring for more powerful rebels. I swear paradox does this just so they can make the same "rebels with a cause" joke for at least one expansion per game. Edit: goddamn, that trailer. Is that paradox as a publisher or developer? Reveilled fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Apr 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:I didn't care at all about this game, but now I want to buy it and invite a girl to a date where we play it. Whoever had this idea deserves a promotion. With the statement that they "saved money on voiceovers" and put that into the game instead, though, they basically said "the coolest thing about this trailer will not be in the final product".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:"The key with PoN is its not an accessible game and trying to sell it as one is doomed to failure before you begin." Never having followed AGEOD or Matrix, I was under the impression that the strategy of deciding pricing by first determining how much money you want to make and then dividing that number by your hardcore fanbase was something that was confined to the Japanese indie market. I remember the Carpe Fulgur guys talking about how convincing EGS to accept a "budget" price model for Recettear was their biggest obstacle in getting the localisation rights. I'm surprised to see that it's not confined there, but I do hope that the Matrix guys get out of that mentality, because it seems so palpably wrong that any developer like that is ultimately going to be doomed to obscurity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:EDIT: I also like to edit the fog of war in the latest games to a flat gray color instead of misty 'swirls' so that it's just darker and not animated/moving. HOW do you do this? This would be my number one graphical complaint with Paradox games these days and I thought it was unchangeable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
telcontar posted:Least badass flag. It looks like a metal band's logo. Isn't the Fascist party called Babylon Zoo?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Man, it must be weird for the citizens to talk about the FSA. Someone would always have to go: "Wait wait, which FSA are you talking about? The Free States or the Federated States." The Federated States would be FSM though.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Doesn't the normal CK2 tech screen default to your capital too? There might be a toggle between realm average and capital province, but I am fairly sure you don't have to fiddle to see your capital tech. Unless you are hovering over a specific province, I believe the screen shows the highest (in blue) and average (in gold) tech levels in your demesne or realm, depending on the toggle. But if, for example, the default view shows that the highest tech level for Legalism in your demesne is level 3, the default view doesn't tell you whether it's your capital or some other province which has that tech level.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:All I get from that is that people projected their wishes unto a faraway land, much like how some Americans project a completely skewed image of "socialist Scandinavia" due to being dissatisfied by their own government. It tells us nothing about the actual China, nor does it really support the idea of Europeans wanting to Sinosize. There's even evidence of the Chinese doing the same thing, there are Chinese records from the 1st century talking about an empire on the other side of the world where the people elected the best man among them to be king, who would happily step down without bitterness or anger if he failed to bring prosperity. Which is, ah, not quite how I'd describe the Roman Empire in the 1st century AD.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Sockerbagarn posted:Dear Leader is dead, Long live Dear Leader! What the gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Stop saying 'whilst.' There's nothing wrong with the word whilst. In some parts of England while and whilst even mean different things.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Tulip posted:"Whilst much of the ascent of the new Magyar Empire had been with the tacit approval of Byzantium, the resurgence of Rome itself placed Hungary in a difficult position. Whilst the spectre of conflict loomed, the reformation continued to spread. " is too much 'whilst.' I didn't realise he'd commited the cardinal sin of starting two sequential sentences with the same word. Gosh, how horrific.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Stalingrad posted:I am very curious as to how this will work with Sunset Invasion. If it actually works the way it should I'll be loving stoked for mounted aztecs fighting off hordes of Incans wielding Chinese fire sticks and a world in which China's exploration fleet is already kicking about in America. I hope everyone (or maybe just everyone outside of the CK2 map area) gets full tech speed in that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 13:21
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Does anyone know if the free copy contains DLC or is is the base game? It will almost certainly be just the base game. Think about it, since almost everyone who would preorder EU3 will have CK2 already, you'll gift it to a friend who will hopefully get hooked, and Paradox can make back the "lost" money from the free copy on the price of the DLC.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:Anybody mind explaining to me what exactly it means to play as a merchant republic or a Norse country? What sets them apart from the other nations (well, dynasties) of CK2? Merchant republic: Your dynasty is based out of the family mansion, and you build trade posts around the sea your republic is based on, instead of politics being focused around the relationship between vassal and suzerain, politics is instead internal to the republic, with family fueds and plots to sieze trade posts. However, on the matter of external politics there are other republics around, and while you are doge you are always vying with other republics to ensure your city is the top dog, by bribing kings and dukes to go to war with your rivals. You also get money, lots of money, and the primary way you will wage war as a republic is by hiring mercenaries. Norse:  Declare your intent to gently caress up some kingdom's poo poo and watch as adventurers from all over flock to your banner to share in your glory, sail up people's rivers and take their stuff without even being at war with them, kidnap people and sacrifice them to odin! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApxnAr6pRt0Norse Merchant Republic: ALL OF THE ABOVE
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:Welp, looks like I'll be investing in a copy of the Old Gods during the Steam winter sale. You still get the republic aspects of a Norse republic with only Old Gods, right? Eh, in the sense that you could make a merchant republic vassal if you are playing as a norse ruler, yes, but if you want to actually play as a republic you'll need the Republic DLC too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:EU2 was railroaded. They didn't have MTTH until Victoria I think? MTTH was Crusader Kings, Victoria had the same system as EU2 essentially. EU2 was definitely railroaded, but that was a part of the game's philosophy and it led the modding community for the game in a fun direction, which was essentially a railway network. You might only have a limited number of railway lines to follow, but at the start of the game you were in your country's central station and could go a lot of places and see some interesting sights on the way. With the major mod of that game, the AGCEEP, many countries got an event every couple of years dealing with an event in the country's history, or the alt-history outcomes of previous events. Nowadays that sort of stuff is generally handled dynamically by the existing systems, which is better on most levels, but I confess I rather miss the events of EU2 in a certain way--EU3 can represent the Hussite wars as a religious war that you either win or lose and maybe put Jan Hus in Bohemia as a theologian at the ruler's court, (modded) EU2 represented it as a war with something like 40 events each with a three or four paragraph history lesson about (for example) the difference between the Utraquist and Taborite factions within the Hussites and why they were on the verge of coming to blows. So while you could pick up as Bohemia and EU3 and just play a game, EU2 came with a free history lesson on the nation you were playing as while you played, with some choose-your-own-adventure elements mixed in. The Events of EU2 gave each nation character, a uniqueness you literally would never get playing another nation, and EU3 lost that hard to begin with. Now I don't want to oversell my point, I'd never go back to EU2 and I think EU4 is hitting a happy balance, but EU3 really was terrible at release compared to modded EU2--every nation was functionally identical except for shape and colour and they had nothing interesting about them, there was no decision system so everything had to be done by events, but the events were imprecise by design to make creation of those long and extraordinarily complex chains of events we'd had from EU2 impossible, and it all was a giant mass of boring. Napoleon's aambition helped, but EU3 wasn't really a better game than EU2 (for all its faults) until In Nomine came out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
DStecks posted:The problem with the the Sengoku Jidai is that it only goes so far as a setting. It's really great for a Total War game, since it presents a lot of cool fighting and a bunch of fairly balanced factions, any of whom could have historically come out on top; but if you go for a Paradox angle, where you don't fight the battles and war isn't such a focus, well, it's really just Japan vs. Different Japan. It loses its novelty fast. So the Nobunaga came out on top this time, whoop-de-poo poo. Not quite as interesting as Burgundy Florida, Ottoman Quebec, and Papal States Brazil, is it? I think that's unfair to the period. Yes, it's limited in scope but that doesn't mean it couldn't be interesting. You've got the various Daimios competing for power as a baseline, but on top of that you've got the Christian lords in the south, the Europeans with their enclaves, and the peasant-monk Ikko-Ikki, any of which might come out on top. Sure, you can boil that down to Japan vs Different Japan, but I think that's rather harsh. The problem is more that games have never made the dynamics between the factions interesting, not that the dynamics cannot be interesting. To take a local European example, try out the Winter King mod for CK2. The map is reduced to Great Britain and a slice of France, and covers the Arthurian Britain period of the Saxon invasions with various groups all vying for conquest of the area. I see it as similar in many ways to what Sengoku could have been, most chiefly in the fact that it is a lot of fun.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:Honestly, it seems like it's just a matter of widening the scope, isn't it? Around the same time as the Sengoku Jidai you have the Ming Dynasty in China and all its political machinations, the liberation of Annam and the rise of the Dai Viet, the Early Joseon Period and all the craziness over there (along with them actually being invaded by Japan), the establishment of the Mataram Sultanate in Indonesia and the spread of Islam, not to mention at the tail end of the period you have the obvious Christian colonizers, along with the rise of the Manchu... No, that's not my point. I don't disagree with you that if you had a game that covered those areas that could make the game more interesting, but what I'm saying is that you can make a game that covers only Japan and you can make it interesting, because there was enough going on there to fill a game. The problem was with Sengoku the game, not Sengoku the period. So okay, how interesting would Crusader Kings be if the map only covered England and Northern France from 1066 to 1217? Not very, I agree. How interesting would Crusader Kings be if the map only covered England and Northern France from 479 to 867? Pretty drat interesting, and the mod that covers that period is a lot of fun, if very different in scope from a regular game of CK2.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:One thing I've always wondered about Victoria 2: are there nations that you guys consider to be better suited to fascism or communism? It always kinda felt like the two played really similarly so I've always wondered if there's something I'm missing, like is a fascist Canada a horrible idea but a communist one a good idea, is communist Italy a joke but fascist Italy really good, etc? I get the pluses and minuses of a monarchy vs a democratic republic, and why I'd want liberals vs conservative vs reactionaries, but other than the assimilation bonus for full citizenship in most communisms, is there any significant difference between them? I confess I have never had a fascist party in power, but one of the advantages I found in my game as Haiti where I got the Communists democratically elected after passing every political reform earlier in the game is that I could keep my democratic reforms in place but roll the upper house back to Ruling Party Only, allowing me to pass every single Social reform in just a few years. Making me a New World Democracy with full social and one short of full political reforms, boosting immigration. Also, it gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing I was the nicest country on Earth.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Why couldn't we have just gotten a PC port of Twilight Struggle with multi-player matchmaking done through Steam I would definitely pay money for a PC port of Twilight Struggle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:By that criterion, half the posters in this thread are probably Karlings. Way more than half, Viscardus isn't kidding about basically everyone being descended from Charlemagne, if you are European or have a European anywhere in your family ancestry in the last 200 years, you will almost certainly be descended from Charlemagne in some tenuous sense.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
quote:Every Journey ends some day. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?644573-MOD-NBRT-%28A-complete-Map-Upgrade-Package%29&p=16362014&viewfull=1#post16362014 That's a Minecraft-level Modder Meltdown right there
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
DStecks posted:"Do I want to do this busywork?" is a perfectly legitimate thing to balance against. Not everybody plays like their life is on the line, so offering an advantage for a little extra effort is perfectly good design. And splitting your army is hardly "optimal", since it leaves you vulnerable if your enemy wants to use a big ugly doomstack. It really isn't a legitimate thing to balance against. This is like one of the basic principles of game design, players in general play to win the game, and so will always tend to take the action that seems like the best play, even if that play is not fun, and when they discover that the best way to play is not fun, they will not come to the conclusion that they should play differently, they will come to the conclusion that your game is not fun, and stop playing altogether. To make a good game, you need to give the player multiple options and you need to make all the options fun, because having fun is the entire point of playing games. If you have an option players can take and it is not fun, it shouldn't be in the game because on the occasions where it is the best play, the best thing the player can do is Not Have Fun, which is a game design failure state.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:That's what I'm saying though, what reason do you have for even letting it get that far? Just back down at the first sight of a crisis if you don't wanna destroy the world. If there's boni to be had for escalating a crisis, these apply to the opponent as well so you can't reasonably expect him to ever back down. In Twilight Struggle the way this works is that crises ramp up each turn, and certain actions bring you closer to nuclear war, while other less significant actions have no impact on the crises. Further, as the crisis warms up, certain actions become too provocative and become impossible to do without triggering nuclear war until eventually literally any action taken will set a war off. So the goal is not to defuse a crisis before it gets to nuclear war, the goal is to engage in brinkmanship in such a way that you get more of what you want than your opponent, and to force the opponent into a situation where any response they give will trigger a nuclear war (which will cause them to lose the game), forcing them to either do nothing or forfeit the game to you. Also, bonuses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:But won't everyone lose the game if you make your opponent go to nuclear war? Not in Twilight Struggle, where the only two players are the US and USSR, the goal is to either assert your dominance enough to collapse the other superpower, or force them to nuke you. It would obviously need tweaking for a game in which you can play as other powers, but I think the principle is sound in the sense that the goal of crises should be to extract the maximum amount of gain as the crisis escalates so that you don't really have an incentive to defuse a crisis before it hits breaking point, and then it becomes a game of chicken as the nuclear powers race to get as much as they can done before there's nowhere to go but war. Here's one way you could do it: Any war or diplomatic incident begins a crisis, if there are no "bigger" crises ongoing. The nuclear power on each side then start demanding concessions, supplying belligerants, saber rattling, etc for prestige as well as tangible outcomes (so if you successfully supply arms to a rebellion you get prestige and might get an ally as a bonus if they win). The crisis steadily increases in temperature over time, but actions taken jump the temperature up. Crisis temperature cannot go above 100. Once it hits 100 the crisis is resolved, and the superpower with the lower amount of crisis prestige loses that amount in score, while the winner gains their prestige in score. This would be a version where nuclear war just straight up doesn't happen, but there are other ways you could incorporate nuclear war into the system with different mechanics. Bonii is the second-declension nominative latin plural of Bonius and that doesn't even mean anything. At least boni means good men (as long as you are using the noun in the nominative case), even if it doesn't mean "benefits gained" like the english word bonuses does.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Just rockets, no one mentioned space! And the name was taken from a different Armstong I'm now expecting events where Hitler takes drugs to win the Battle of Tour de France. Seven times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:I never really "got" native localization for everything. It just made it confusing to decipher events, oftentimes still ended up being irregulary applied due to limitations ("Roi of France" comes to mind for CK2), and didn't make much sense from an RP perspective either (if the character was a German than all the names should be in German because that's how he'd see it, right? Except then translation conventions come into play and it all comes out as English anyways). Yeah, I think there's a case for it where in English (or whatever localised language the game is set to) we called the country differently depending on who was ruling it, but I'm not fond of the localisations otherwise. So I'm fine with the Duchy of Galloway being the Petty Kingdom of Strathclyde when there's a welsh ruler, because that's the English name of the Brythonic kingdom that inhabited the area during the early part of the game's timeframe, but changing everything to local names doesn't make sense to me when I have the game's language set to English. It wouldn't even be that bad if they at least did with localised names what they do with Dynasty-named states and put the unaltered name alongside when you highlight the coat of arms. So we get "Seljuk Sultanate [Sultanate of Persia]" why not have "Petty Kingdom of Strathclyde [Duchy of Galloway]"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Started at the "Judgement at Ninevah" bookmark, keep losing the the drat coalition, loving Cimmerians are OP And then make a DLC called Sunset Invasion: A Link to The Past to explain the Bronze Age Collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Someone a while back in a DnD thread posted an awesome form of the Union Jack that I've re-appropriated for my Anglo-Norse Great Britain: Lead my flag to great things, I'm counting on you!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I once played a computer adaption of Settlers of Catan that was localized to Dutch and had the AI spout lines (thankfully no voiceover) along the lines of "trade wool with me, you oval office!". Obviously, the localisation team were dedicated to replicating the authentic Catan experience.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Well, there's basically two ways the Royal Family can get back Britain, right? Either from the collapse of the Union of Britain (very rare), or the straight up conquest of the UoB by Canada. The way I see it, given the massive undertaking involved in a transatlantic invasion, the fighting for britain would be so heavy to blast the country out essentially. The aristocrats and capitalists from Britain who commandeered Canada to fight the Syndicalists would be returning from Canada to find their estates dismantled, their factories repurposed, their workers disgruntled at the idea of giving up their joint control of those industries. I think in that situation, you'd see a circumstance whereby the British elite gets to britain, realises everything is hosed, and head back off to Canada where things are relatively speaking much better. A provisional government in Britain would make a lot of sense, with the state taking direct control of industries and agriculture for a time before slowly privatising the holdings back into private ownership. So what I'd think you'd see is a situation where Canada initially retains its place as the premier state of the Commonwealth while they attempt to reconstruct the UK, but the native Canadians start getting pretty darn restless because they've done their bit for the motherland and want their own country back. So as a Canadian player you'd have a choice, do you try to maintain Aristocratic control of Canada while the reconstruction proceeds (success would mean a reconstructed UK leading the Commonwealth and you'd tagswitch over to them once reconstruction is finished with Canada as a puppet, but you'd have the challenge of a canadian rebellion which might be supported by the USA or its successor), continue reconstruction while transitioning back to Canadian rule in Canada (safest option, you pick after reconstruction whom you want to play, and the UK and canada merely have an alliance at the end of it), or canadian outrage at the aristos attempting to alter the terms of the deal forces the Britons back to London (which leads to a Loyalist uprising either in Canada or the UK, or a fresh syndicalist resurgence in the UK, leading either to Canadian victory with the UK as a puppet, a Loyalist victory in Canada which is game over, or a successful Loyalist or Syndicalist revolt in the UK, which leaves the UK/UoB independent).
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 13:29
|
|