Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›18 »

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

In the spirit of our interest in history, I will continue a discussion from the last thread.

Darkrenown posted:

You know, I've been playing Paradox games since EU2 came out, but only been working here since a bit after V2 came out. I learned how to play all our major games as a player, not a developer (I didn't work on CK2 or Sengoku either, although they were released while I worked here). I'm pretty sure no one reprogrammed my brain at any point during the last two years, so I don't feel I have any inherent "devness" in my playstyle. I also don't see how my telling you how I play reveals anything about how other people here play games, we don't have a hivemind, we don't all play the same way.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about game developers across the genres I'm familiar with as a whole, not any specific developer on their own.

Drone posted:

Never call Austrians Germans. To be safe, never call Bavarians Germans either.

It helps if you consider that idea of a real united "German" nation wasn't really a thing until like 1800 anyway.

The idea of a common "German" realm is old as poo poo though, see the Kingdom of Germany. The newer, nationalist idea of a German identity is in a way contemporary with a lot of other nations. Take the Danish identity for example, which really only manifested itself as separate from the German-speaking population after the Prussians beat our asses and reduced us to a very tiny core of what had been a multi-ethnic empire. (A smaller version of the Habsburg domains basically.) Before that, people hadn't really considered for example the German-speaking population as something truly separate, nor the Norwegian population some decades before.

Smirr posted:

The main reason Austria didn't join the German Empire in 1871 was because it was still Austria-Hungary at the time, and the rest of the German states didn't want a whole bunch of Hungarians within their new borders, while the Austrians didn't want to give up the Hungarian crown. When Austria-Hungary was broken up in 1918, there was widespread support in Austria for joining Germany then, but the Allies weren't having any of that. So like the others have said, in EU3's timeframe, where Austria-Hungary doesn't exist, it makes a lot of sense to have that condition.

Pretty sure it wasn't anyones call but the Prussians'. The German Empire of 1871 had the major advantage (to the Junkers) of being Prussian and Protestant dominated, a dominance that would have been challenged had they decided that Austria should have been part of it as well. The German Empire was a conservative Prussian project after all, not a liberal German-nationalist one.

# ¿ Jan 2, 2013 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:11

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Vegetable posted:

Edit: Another EU3+ question: I have occupied four-province Livorno but only have 99% warscore. The game shows each province's warscore and they even add up to 100%. Is this just a thing to keep nations from annexing each other? If so that blows because I've never seen an AI become Dishonourable Scum.

Wiz has already answered your question, but for completions sake I feel the need to point out that the numbers shown when you're doing peace offers are rounded, so you can't always count on the numbers adding up to what you'd expect.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2013 22:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

ZearothK posted:

Okay, so I'm finishing up the A Srb Divided Mod for Victoria 2: A House Divided Deluxe Beta Edition Mk. I and I happen to have a need of a few flags, because I'm terrible with image editing. Someone who's not terrible with flags please help me out here with flags for the following nations, or else they will have terrible flags found with Google Image Search or drunkenly photoshopped:

I'll see what I can do.

ZearothK posted:

Catholic Space Nazi Canadian Empire

Given that Victoria has alternate flags for other ideologies, I suppose you're also going to want Catholic Space Commies/Monarchists/Republicans?

ZearothK posted:

Srb Flying Pig Republic of America

Are flying pig important here, or is it just a reference to the unlikelihood of a Serbian colony in the Americas? Help out those of us who haven't followed the LP!

# ¿ Jan 8, 2013 19:13

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DrProsek posted:

But even the free MM mod stopped getting developed a while ago and it's still not DW compatible. For all we laugh at SW, it did take a lot of effort to make. It's just that it was mostly misplaced because EUIII just can't do thinks like have migrating nomad populations or model Stalinism.

Is it that weird that the free mod stops getting developed while they (prepare to) make a game? Besides, MM does exist for DW now, it's just a different team making it. (Thank god)

# ¿ Jan 10, 2013 10:03

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DrProsek posted:

As I recall they stopped development long before the MM game was announced but I may be totally wrong on that. If the two coincided then never-mind that would make sense.

Well, I don't know when exactly they got signed up to make the game, but I'm pretty sure Ubik had already begun gearing up for it a long time before. Because he is Ubik. And Ubik pretty much was the MM team.

DrProsek posted:

Huh, really? I may have to look at that, MM had some good ideas that I actually wonder if a good team could do more with, at the very least it'd be amusing to relive the glory of Framed! again.

Well, it's still in beta, but it seems to work alright. Not a pure port either, the team seems to have their own ideas. (Such as putting Hindus and Muslims in the same group, to overcome the religious restrictions on marriage.)

# ¿ Jan 10, 2013 12:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Did I somehow miss this, or haven't anyone linked the EU4 dev diary for France?

Not much to say really, other than that the deterministic style of the country specific national ideas still bugs me. LEF doesn't make a lot of sense if the French monarchy manages to kill The Revolution! Would prefer the national ideas being ones that would make sense no matter what turns the politics of the country takes. Napoleon (instead of just a Napoleon) appearing over 300 years after the start of the game annoys me as well, but at least that's purely cosmetic.

Don't know how I feel bout the 'Harsh Treatment' mechanic, it could just become annoying busywork depending on how it plays out, so I'll guess we'll see. The morale news are more exciting in that regard.

E: The morale thing could make AI allies even more useless though, unless you can tell them ahead of time that you plan on going to war so they can prepare themselves. Should at the very least be a possibility for vassals and junior partners.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jan 14, 2013

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 08:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Patter Song posted:

The same French monarchy that maintained a 150 year alliance with the Ottoman Empire at a time when no one else in Europe would consider allying with the Muslim Turks?

The same French monarchy who allied with a republic that was the very antithesis of their own ideals? Foreign policy has practically nothing to do with internal policies. :smugbert:

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 10:08

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

The Narrator posted:

For what it's worth, I imagine they would have some sort of random name bit there. It does seem odd that Napoleon would take power every time, and I hope they've gone with the random names (like rulers) with "Napoleon Bonaparte" being one of them to take the middle ground between history and pure randomness.

Well, copying history could itself be more unrealistic than random names, if France for example never conquered Corsica. Still, I guess having the naming system being complex enough to add new leader names depending on which minorities exist in your country would be quite a weird thing to prioritize. It's certainly one of the most understandable abstractions.

As for Napoleon taking power every time, that doesn't seem to be the case. From the way they describe it, I would guess it would be another dynamic event. Probably related to the French Republic not getting its poo poo in order, while The Terror would have some other triggers. Kind of interested in seeing how they deal with that, simply due to it being kind of controversial.

The Narrator posted:

It does seem kind of weird that the revolution is always assumed to be violent and bloody, though. I suppose that's how the French do things? Though I guess peaceful reform would probably just be abstracted in the act of changing one's government type.

If you don't mind me asking, what else would you expect from a revolution? Violence is pretty much inherent to revolution, unless the authorities capitulate to enough demands to take the wind out of its sails. They do point out that failure to reform is a major trigger, so a peaceful solution is off the table by that point.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 11:36

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Kainser posted:

I personally wanted more dynamic yet plausible things like that in EU4, not more deterministic stuff

Yeah, pretty much. I'm pretty hopeful in regards to being able to mod a lot of the stuff I dislike the most in the dev diaries, so that's at least a major plus. Nonsensical national ideas seem like the easiest thing to mod really.

Lichtenstein posted:

Eh, I think it's okay. The ideas are usually broad enough not to funnel you drastically in one direction, and may be a factor for AI to behave more like a given nation should.

Well, I actually like the concept, it's just specific choices for ideas that I dislike. Because really, if I'm playing as a Protestant France that tries to force Protestantism on its neighbors, I don't suddenly want to get an idea that buffs tolerance of the hated Papists. In contrast, the idea that improves defensibility doesn't force another narrative on me, it's just a nice bonus if I'm at war. (And a nice way to make France even more of a monster, without making it even more dangerous on the offensive. Well, not directly at least.)

The Narrator posted:

I suppose I was more picturing the American revolution (if it could be called a 'proper' revolution), where the government is forcibly overthrown through violence, but a government that more or less has its poo poo in order steps in with a realistic-ish constitution, etc. etc. Although looking back, it does seem like there's a pretty poor batting average for revolutions

Well, the American "revolution" can hardly be called a revolution at all, it's just the upper class deciding they would prefer the existing social order minus the very top. Not really that different from noblemen in Europe putting a weak king in a golden cage. The problems of the French Revolution were not really due to its intrinsic features either, but the fact that France was full of possible counter-revolutionaries and bordered by a bunch of reactionary states. Would probably have fared alright if it had switched places with America. (And America would have been crushed.)

DrSunshine posted:

What if you, by some freak happenstance of history, were to play as Catholic China? When the reformation rolls around, would you find Martin Chang or Martin Li popping up?

Considering how Hong Kongers happily adopted a Western first name for political/business reasons, I could see Catholic Chinese doing the same for dealing with the Pope. It's not like kings and poo poo in Europe didn't just get renamed, or used different names, depending on where they were/who they were kings of.

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 22:54

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DrProsek posted:

Well to be fair, it's easier to wipe out the Catholics within France when they revolt less and it doesn't really affect going to war with Catholics to force them to stop being Catholics. Unless they are keeping hidden things like the Bill of Rights idea not telling you that you also get the liberation CB, it doesn't seem like LEF will remove your ability to wage religious wars.

Well, it might help mechanically*, but it's still really weird. I can just imagine every mock-tribunal against a Catholic priest or monk ending with everyone receiving a pamphlet about how people should just be excellent to each other, and the Catholics being largely placated by that.

*Though modding tolerance to drop conversion chances was something I thought worked rather well in MMtM. It's kind of silly when the Ottomans start converting the Balkans when they specifically tried not to, as Christians paid more taxes.

DrProsek posted:

On the other hand, I do agree that the idea only helps if you don't have a religiously homogenous population, and if that's your end goal, once you achieve it the idea will be useless to you. Sort of a disadvantage by a lack of advantage, but still it can hurt when it's otherwise neck and neck with another superpower whose ideas are more versatile. Like if LEF was just a flat RR deduction, it would help no matter what boat France is in while heretic and heathen tolerance isn't helpful unless you have them.

On the other hand, LEF really should be an idea that is actually about people being excellent to each other, which I don't think a flat RR reduction indicates. That would probably be better for a 'Vive le Roi' alternative royalist idea.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 01:22

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DrProsek posted:

Yeah being a really tolerant nation that's throwing missionaries at anything that doesn't adhere to the state's faith does sound kinda backwards, but I guess the idea is you try to be less of a dick about it so even though it's less effective, you don't resort to outright banning or penalizing religious minorities in order to pressure them to convert so they don't feel it's time to choose the king or their faith.

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea that it should be possible to pursue a soft approach to conversion, instead of pushing one to the extremes of either Inquisition or Jizya, I just don't think it's something the player should be forced to by being saddled with an idea that's basically anathema to the way he runs his state.

DrProsek posted:

Although making tolerance a penalty to conversion chance is a fantastic idea, Ottoman conversion machine is just wrong.

It really is. Since the penalty becomes a bonus with low tolerance, you're also encouraged to be more of a dick if you want to convert people, making conversion significantly faster but also making the provinces far more restless. Which works pretty well when you have to convert a province more than once to get it to flip, like you have to in MMtM.

DrProsek posted:

The way I see it is LEF affects not just the average peasant but it also affects how the government sees its relation with the peasants, so instead of a king that is offended by the notion that the people feel they deserve rights, the government is willing to provide them to expand rights where possible which makes the people less inclined to revolt against them. Maybe it'd make more sense for a stability cost reduction.

So more along the Danish style of absolutism? Apparently the Danish kings were often even more absolutist than even the French were, they just happened to also respond more positively to Enlightenment ideas, so people had far less need to revolt when the king was obviously looking out for them. Well, not so much political rights as just trying to make people's lives a bit less miserable, so I guess that's more targeted at the working class than the bourgeoisie. I guess that would nowadays be classified as some sort some populist/paternalistic dictatorship, but compared to the alternatives around Europe it probably wasn't that bad. I believe the Swedish kings were the same way.

Quantumfate posted:

I like music a lot

Those songs are a bit old-fashioned, aren't they? Should go for something a bit more happening, like this one: Vive Henri IV. I really do agree though, and I would love to have EU4 really capturing the music of the different periods throughout the game.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jan 15, 2013

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 11:25

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Nolanar posted:

Looking through the CKII files, there's a songs.txt that seems like it might let you do this. Currently every entry looks like this:

Maybe it's possible to put in year-based modifiers, so they turn on and off for the correct time periods. I don't know much about modding or Paradoxese, so I might be reading it wrong. But, EUIV is running off the same engine I believe, so I imagine anything that works in CK works there too.

Seems like it should be possible, because otherwise such a file would be pretty useless wouldn't it? If you can add factors like you do for events, you could even make it so you were very likely to get aggressive songs when you were at war, or making culture group specific songs to add a bit of variety between different states. That would be pretty sweet.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 13:08

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

ThePutty posted:

Everyone's favourite feature of HoI3 is now coming to EU3.

Mod of the Year. Now the game can finally model German majority enclaves across Eastern Europe.

Ray and Shirley posted:

I knew the localization experiment would result in meltdowns. Whoever it is that says we pick on the Serbians too much is right. All members of the Paradox forums are prone to nationalistic freak outs.

I know I've certainly advocated this view, though as someone else said, the clay video really doesn't do the Serbians any service.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 15:37

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Cowcatcher posted:

I would love that but how do you simulate migrations? Saxons werent the only ones moving around.

Add a German settler mechanic similar to the Jewish settler mechanic of MMtM (and probably other mods as well, might be part of that SRI mod?), just with different conditions and effect. Each time you settle more Germans, add a modifier N+1, which when it's high enough compared to the population, switches the province culture to a generic German (or state culture, if a German state). When you first settle Germans, you would have the choice of either getting +tax, or +defensiveness from your settlers (multiplied by higher levels of the modifier), which would lock your choice for the province. That bonus would stay even when the province flips, preventing further settlement. That's basically German settlement of Eastern Europe.

Would probably be pretty unbalanced/annoying, depending one whether you're using the normal map or the HOI3 map though, but I think it could work. Just having the German settlers be a simple bonus to tax/defensiveness, without flipping the province culture, would probably be better on the normal map really.

Cowcatcher posted:

That video was made by someone itt.

Really? Well, it still doesn't help the perception of Serbians being crazy nationalists.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 20:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Cowcatcher posted:

I'm gonna be the PC brigade now and complain about the lack of Wlach, Roma and Tatar migrants in your proporsal

They're all part of the Balkan culture, along with the Croatians, Serbians, Greeks, Turks, Romanians and Hungarians, and would thus be part of the Balkan Settler mechanic, which adds +1 revolt risk for each level of the modifier, outside clay producing provinces.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2013 00:47

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Darkrenown posted:

All I can say at the moment is bear in mind these are alpha screenshots, don't take specific values in tooltips as gospel. The screenshot was more to show how the UI looks than to give you the exact mechanics of how it works.

This quote from Johan certainly seems to confirm this:

Johan on the Paradox forums posted:

Impact of expansion depends on what you conquer and how those countries view it.

Poland won't care much if you conquer Tangiers as Castille, but Aragon & Portugal may be a bit wary, while Morocco & Algiers will hate it.

Which is pretty much what people have been clamoring for for years.

Mirdini posted:

Funnily enough what I find most interesting in that screenshot is that we apparently get to earn nicknames for our nation's leaders

Could be that they have just given him his real life nickname, since he's one of the starting rulers.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2013 12:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

EightDeer posted:

How will this work with nations like Britain? For centuries, one of the central principles of their foreign policy was to keep Europe as divided as possible; Balance of Power and all that.

Well, there is the rival system. If the British AI can figure which European country is the strongest*, it would be able to designate that as its rival and then alliances with continental powers would follow. Speculating a bit, perhaps being rivals would make aggressive conquests count for more? The new relations system does potentially allow for some interesting new national ideas though. 'Balance of Power' could be an idea that boosted the relations with rivals of rivals even more, to make it even easier to form a new alliance if you desire. Additionally, the idea could provide a reduction in war exhaustion** for allies who you have a connection to. (Which would make alliances more useful, and encourage you to protect the sea lanes to your allies to maintain this connection, while your enemy would be encouraged to cut them off.) Another idea might be 'Political Realism', which would reduce/remove the relation penalty of being a different religion/government type (both for you and others), and allowing relations with 1 additional country without upkeep. (First of course being more the English style, the second the French.) More diplomatic ideas would be pretty cool actually, given that the systems are apparently getting a bit of love.

*Perhaps also the one with the strongest navy.
**Or some other bonus that helps keep them in the war.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Jan 18, 2013

# ¿ Jan 18, 2013 15:07

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Tahirovic posted:

For that mechanic to make sense it would have to be modeled correctly, this means you'd need to accurately display every single sea province. Finding the other fleet in the South Atlantic Current is obviously more difficult than at the Bosporus or around the Danish Isles or at the strait of Gibraltar (only Das Boot style actions should get you trough there!).

The easiest solution would probably be to just make it impossible for fleets to sneak by in sea zones that are adjacent to a land province. Seems like a pretty good compromise between gameplay and realism to me at least.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 10:35

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Beamed posted:

No trading posts?

Yeah, the colonization system seems pretty uninspired, compared to the overhaul in for example trade. Trading posts/forts doesn't seem like a particularly taxing thing to add, just have to have a level of provincial control where it gets painted your color, and the trade goods from it flow to your proper provinces (or directly to the trade network, if on the coast), but you don't get to build anything and the province is easy to conquer and cheap to keep. Like this basically:

Where all the light blue would stuff would be provinces that only have traders, trappers and soldiers, whereas the blue would be proper colonized provinces. A cheaper kind of colonization, and much less of hassle in regards to natives, but also very vulnerable to a rival just coming in and gobbling it all up. Perhaps by making it possible to just grab the provinces like unfinished colonies in EU3, and perhaps also tying the hinterland to proper provinces. In the case above, conquering the lone colonized province of "Sault Sainte Marie" would take with it all those western provinces that are tied to it. Would make for both cleaner colonial borders and more realistic conquests in the colonies. And then of course there's Africa, which definitely deserves an overhaul compared to EU3. I would probably make 2 levels of colonizable provinces; those that can be settler provinces and those that can only support trading posts. That would open up more land to be painted without representing heavy colonization, and the capabilities of the colonizers could be reigned in in areas such as sub-Saharan Africa.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jan 25, 2013

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 16:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

First Denmark because nationalism, and because no matter how badly I do I'm going to outperform history. :denmark:

Then Burgundy->France, assuming that's still possible, to see how well the game deals with blatant aggression.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2013 23:44

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DrProsek posted:

I believe it was Miscmods that did that, I remember seeing 300 years per core but it would never take that long unless you were conquering say Japan as France and never converted the locals.

Magna Mundi did as well. The best part of the system is people seeing the core timer say 500 years, closing the game and going straight to the forum to call the developers retarded.

donzwei posted:

Outperforming danish national history = Easy, you just have to make the right choice just once :P

Yeah, pretty much the only states which are easier to outperform with are ones like Poland.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2013 13:00

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Gort posted:

Okay, so I'll bite. If the factions system was so terrible, how do you stop a vast country like Ming from just exploding across all of the world?

A more developed system for internal politics and administration, one that models the difficulty of exercising your authority on the fringes, preferably also one that takes terrain into effect.* China should in this model be going beyond what's possible to administrate for a normal state, but the Mandate of Heaven modifier would act as a major bonus that would reduce the administrative burden of core Chinese lands. Expanding too far, too quickly outside this region would increasingly risk you losing this modifier, as your policies are threatening the harmony of the Middle Kingdom. Revolts, bad emperors and so on, would push you even further towards losing the modifier, similar in a way to the "Framed!" idea Ubik had. With the major exception being that instead of just having a single high MTTH event screwing you over, it would be several low MMTH events, allowing you to react by for example releasing states as vassals,surrendering power to a faction, or maybe even preempting the revolt by cracking down. (A high risk/high reward decision.) If you fail to do so, the loss of the Mandate would greatly elevate the risk of the China region splintering into rival states, all attempting to reunite China under a new dynasty.

*Which would be part of a general overhaul of peace-time gameplay.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Jan 29, 2013

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 14:05

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Vivian Darkbloom posted:

Do you think it was really that feature that caused MM's implosion?

Yeah, the problem with Magna Mundi isn't the name of the concepts, or even sometimes the concepts themselves, it's the boneheaded way they were implemented. (Well, "implemented".)

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 14:50

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Alchenar posted:

You either focus your game on internal politics or external politics (to the extent that the game is about politics).

Yeah, thing is, what counts as internal vs. external? Because factions like the nobility, clergy and merchants can act as both, depending on their power and disposition. This is painfully obvious in CK2 of course, as it should be given that central authority was more an idea than a reality in the period, but the struggle between the capital and the provinces continued through the EU3 period and even to this day. Obviously it has become less and less of an issue, which is why settling for a blanket faction strength/mood that covers the entire country/an entire culture within the country might serve as a compromise.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Well it's not factions exactly, I already said I approve of it for China. It's the fact that Magna Mundi tried to make every nation different, which while a noble goal was impossible to balance or even program.

Every nation different? Far as I can tell, they just tried to make regions different. Horde/Nomadic/Tribal system for Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, that ugly porcelain system for China and so on. Which I think is pretty smart way to approach the problem of limited resources, they just did it in a dumb way. Doing things that are conceptually sound in a remarkably dumb way seems to have been a major part of the MMtG development really, though there are obviously also examples of remarkably dumb concepts which no amount of development could salvage (pirates, which I don't see how you could make either fun or useful), or just wasteful. (the prose explaining how a battle played out, which 99% of players would only read once/accidentally.)

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 15:18

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Beamed posted:

Just... stop. Please. For all of us.

Besides, it's a well known fact that Alexander was actually a Turk.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2013 20:24

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

YF-23 posted:

Dragons and seamonsters!

Yeah, his thought process is all kinds of special. I can follow the logic of including stuff that people believed in, as beliefs, but then translating them into being real is just. :psyduck:

That said, a DLC that allowed dynamic sea level height and changing provinces to simulate The Biblical Flood part 2: Revenge of God would be a great idea!

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 00:14

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

WeaponGradeSadness posted:

Yeah, but it would really suck to have your capital occupied in a week because the enemy army marched around its walls seven times on the seventh day.

Look, if you don't bother the Ethiopians, the Ethiopians won't bother you. :colbert:

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 01:06

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

YF-23 posted:

I love how sometimes the pdox forums just screw up.

Maybe this is just Universo Virtual taking over the Paradox forums? Paradox did after all hand over their rights to them.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 12:02

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Strudel Man posted:

Yeah, the prospect I worry about with EvW is that it will be too deterministic, with the Soviet Union doomed either to collapse or to 'reform' into liberal democratic capitalism. Like the old Crisis in the Kremlin game. And for me, that doesn't really appeal at all - for it to be a decent game at all, either side should have a decent shot at winning. That does imply that there should be events for an American collapse.

Yeah, the game should be (some kind of) Capitalism vs. (some kind of) Socialism, either side adopting the other side's ideology should count as a defeat. If the game assumes Francis Fukuyama was right then there's really no point.

Riso posted:

They spent up to 40% of GDP on their loving military to keep up with the USA while completely mismanaging the civilian sector. There's absolutely no way to avoid collapse.

Got a source on that? Besides, if they actually mismanaged their poo poo as badly as that then that's really an argument that collapse should be avoidable to the player, just imagine what cutting the defense budget by half could do for shoring up their economy. Secondly, EvW is going to be an amazingly lovely Cold War game if it's designed so that one side in a two-way competition can't compete.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2013 11:47

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Spiderfist Island posted:

It would be stupid for a game based around the Cold War to not have a "US Loses" event spiral, but to make it in the same vein as those Russian talking heads predicting the balkanization of the US isn't exactly realistic.

While the US does have an advantage in being more culturally homogeneous, ideas such as "state rights" and regional identities can be exacerbated by economic difficulties. Especially since different sectors of the economy are not evenly spread throughout the country. A continued oil embargo might see the federal government attempt to increasingly take control of the oil fields, which for example the Texans could be pretty opposed to. Given that Texas has perhaps the strongest secessionist streak, that's probably not a good thing for the union. Texas alone also represents a third of the area needed to secede before the US has lost the same proportion of territory as the USSR lost when it broke apart, and if somehow Alaska could follow you would actually exceed that. You don't exactly need every state to leave for the US to match the USSR.

That said, a break-up of the US should of course not be the only possible indication that the US has lost/is losing. Before that point, you have the fall of US sponsored dictators, the break-up of NATO/SEATO and other good stuff. Hopefully handled in a way that has a cause and effect that's not based in artificial game concepts such as [US at <25% Superpower Status -> NATO breakup].

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 12:03

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Patter Song posted:

I agree with the earlier poster who said that a full-fledged secession isn't really reasonable

Why not? The US has largely been coasting along during its short lifetime, what would sustained pressure do? Economic differences* and the desire for secessionist politicians to become/remain big fish in a small pond, instead of small fish in a big pond could easily magnify the divide caused by cultural differences. Sure, the federal government might choose to occupy a state trying to secede, but that could backfire as the usual "state's rights" people start getting really antsy over the federal government pointing its guns at the states. It's not that I don't think the federal government could remain in control unless things really went to poo poo, just that maybe the price would be too high for anyone to accept?

*Would the people of a secessionist state with a higher per capita GDP than the US average necessarily want to rejoin/remake the US, and therefore have to send subsidies to poorer states again? Especially if the secession was caused by a terribly economy, and the secession fixed it?

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 7, 2013

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 17:17

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Patter Song posted:

A lot of those poorer states that receive subsidies are in possession of various things that make them desirable to hold onto anyway. A good example is West Virginia, which in many ways is a charity case but even so has absolutely massive, productive coalfields even today, and coal supremacy is one of the things that placed the US in the upper echelon of world powers to begin with. Even though a lot of people would say "good riddance" to a West Virginia on the face of it, they'd soon be missing that coal.

It's not like a border necessarily prevents trade, and the people who own those coalfields would probably not be happy about anyone suggesting they couldn't sell to whoever they wanted.

Patter Song posted:

Another problem is that, with a few exceptions like a hypothetical independent New England or Pacific Northwest, you'd end up with a lot of landlocked inland countries that are totally surrounded by the US/jabbed up against the Canadian border with no real outlet for import-export with the rest of the world. I could imagine an instance where a lot of the US' minor outlying territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, given that this is a Cold War game the Pacific Islands Trust Territories) calling it quits and going in their own directions, but even if a bunch of nuts in Utah want to reestablish Deseret, you're a long way from the ocean in Utah and your economy will still be at the mercy of the US government.

There's a reason I'm focusing on (resource) rich coastal areas.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 18:20

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Guildencrantz posted:

I just want to create an alt-history where neoliberalism never takes hold and the USSR and its satellites break up into welfare states and don't privatize everything. Just so that alternate-universe me is born in a less lovely country

Welfare states imply Capitalism, which would mean the satellites would just devolve into neoliberal states eventually anyway, especially with the threat of the USSR gone. :colbert:

Though I'll give you that it's preferable to just going full tilt neoliberal from day one.

Raw_Beef posted:

These games are for history nerds who are also game nerds. Its a small overlap and majority male in both.

Even worse, military history nerds.* But yeah, the enjoyment of Paradox games largely rests on an interest in the kind of stuff the games deal with, so the genre being opened up to women would be predicated on a more substantial shift in societal attitudes than for for example FPS games. Mostly because violence is pretty much the defining aspect of popular culture, while history is just something to bore people with.

*Depending on which history department, the distribution can vary enormously. Art history is heavily female dominated for example. In some universities at least, it's kind of hard to google this poo poo because the words become pretty ambiguous when dealing with this subject.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 7, 2013

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 20:21

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Mans posted:

This might be a dumb question but is there any fun in playing as an Asian state in EU3? The farthest i've played with was Persia, does the game still maintain any resemblance of fun after that or is it just "Gobble up a few neighbors, wait for the inevitable white conquest"?

I've no idea if it is in vanilla EU3, but it can certainly be in Magna Mundi. One option is playing as a south-east Asian trading nation, in which case you should be able to match/beat Europe technologically, all the while being in a very nice position to colonize Australia/Oceania/the North American west coast. At least that was possible in the HTTT version of the mod, haven't tried it in the DW beta version. In that there's the option of doing a pretty entertaining "Mongol" conquest of India, which is very different from playing in Europe. The Horde mechanics might be much maligned, but in this specific case they work pretty well. Instead of the usual problem of having to slow down and digest your conquests, the Horde system basically encourages you to conquer all of India in as short a time as possible, so you can begin exploiting the riches properly as the sedentary Mughals.

By that point, you're probably going to run into some technologically superior Europeans, but you should be able to prevent them from gaining a foothold and becoming a real menace. Though admittedly I was blessed by Allah in my playthrough, as Russia inherited Portugal* not long before my Khorasan horde gained a border with them, which basically meant a much easier time at evicting the Portuguese from India. I guess maybe the same thing is possible in vanilla DW? Anyone playing MM should disable the Naval System before even starting their first game though, that poo poo's just annoying.

*A real rarity in Magna Mundi, that basically prevented the Portuguese colonies in South America from expanding beyond the 4 they had when they were inherited.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2013 23:11

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

RabidWeasel posted:

This all sounds amazing, combat width is especially important as it makes it a lot easier to hold natural borders in mountains etc.

Yeah, some definite improvements here. I'm still skeptical about mercenaries actually being useful in the early game, but if true then that's pretty drat awesome as well. That, combined with the width changes, should give a greater sense of combat evolving over the centuries.

I really hope though, given the talk of loans, that the suggestion others have made about peace deals is implemented. You know, the one about being able to ask for far more gold than the enemy has, forcing them to take a loan instead of having to settle for 25 ducats when you've absolutely destroyed them. The fact that warfare is apparently more expensive makes this even more important.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2013 11:38

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Burning Rain posted:

That was quite dry DD, tbh, talking a lot about inaccessible (and, to me, rather pointless) complexity - did anyone really pay much attention to flanking, ranges and individual regiments attacking each other in EU3? Apart from 50%/4 unit cavalry rule, does micromanaging all of that makes/will make much difference in battles or is it the case of losing 1500 instead of 1700 men? Is it desirable for it to make much difference in a game like EU? If not, what's the point?

Maybe it's more useful in EU4? Especially when combined with terrain affecting combat widths. Even if it isn't something most players will care overmuch about, it's at least nice that they're making battles more transparent.

Sindai posted:

Looks like EU4 won't be improving on that aspect of it much, although I do like the strategic-level changes.

I will say though, that of the two, focusing on the (grand) strategic-level instead of the individual battles is the right choice.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2013 17:44

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

It looks like tech bonuses apply on top of the terrain base. I'd much rather have each unit/army start out with some base width and tech bonuses add on that until you reach the max width of that province. Right now the Swiss Alps are narrow until you upgrade your tech to make them... not so narrow? It's changing the terrain and not how the unit uses it.

Yeah, that's a good point, and hopefully something Paradox will take a look at. Would be a pity if the mountains are functionally leveled in the late game.

Fintilgin posted:

Although why would you spend your time sieging provinces and letting them regroup and recover? Wouldn't it be better to just march over to where they're retreated and locked in place and KILL THEM TO DEATH?

Well, if the warscore system is closer to CK2, maybe quickly taking those provinces would allow you to potentially end the war right there, instead of risking more casualties?

# ¿ Feb 8, 2013 18:49

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

If it's anything like CK2, you'd want to just kill the army and peace out on Battle Warscore alone instead of dragging the war out by sieging provinces and letting the enemy units recover. Especially since EU4 will have War Exhaustion.

Doesn't occupying a contested province boost your warscore a whole bunch, while also making it significantly easier to grab in a peace deal? Combine that with the game encouraging you to conserve your forces, and the murderous rampaging armies of EU3 might be a thing of the past.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2013 19:40

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Trujillo posted:

Europa Universalis IV: World Map Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKK2WMSBzCQ

This may be the first paradox game I actually stay on terrain mode.

Don't think we're not on to you Paradox, I see you strategically avoided showing Scandinavia in detail. :colbert:

Now I can't see if you've fixed Jutland!

# ¿ Feb 9, 2013 10:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 23:11

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

DarckRedd posted:

My ~~Austria~~ EVERYTHING has generated some slightly ahistorical borders.

That rump Scandinavia in Denmark made me realize something; perhaps it would be nice if cultural unions were ~~a bit~~ much likely to break up once formed? Scandinavia in particular always ends up breaking apart pretty much the minute it's formed, which is just ridiculous. Really, such a union should only be possible to make when every constituent state accepts it, which should vastly reduce the chance of separatism. (In the time-frame of the game at least.) Make that process harder if need be, but if the AI manages to unite then let it have that damnit! :argh:

Really, the AI should be much better at holding together its domains, cleaning up stupid left-overs and eradicating enclaves in EU4.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2013 01:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›18 »