|
Alchenar posted:I've always seen WW1 as a natural expansion for HOI rather than Vicky, for all the obvious reasons. I don't know, V2's absurd habit of having provinces at higher fort levels that take a year and a half or two years to siege into submission is actually appropriate for trench warfare. The unchanging fronts are built into the engine! EDIT: DrProsek posted:
It's a mix of that, various Serbs going "welp, I'm Polish now!" and, most of all, a lot of the rest of your Serbs going "gently caress it, time to start anew in Caracas." At least that's what V2's dynamic population tracker says when I watch it. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jan 30, 2013 |
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Since I've been the only dev posting anything vaguely related to Ming, do you mean me? Because I have said literally nothing to justify the faction system/Ming here, I don't think it worked very well. If not me, then what are you talking about? Since you've asked, my intention is that the plural on the abbreviation of developer is a english rhetorical device to soften tone. Not to single anyone in particular out and to instead try to shift criticism more onto the developers responsible for the mess, in vague terms. Because in general I understand you are maybe not really free to answer my questions; but I have asked them and they have not been answered, and even saying or agreeing that the faction system has not worked out doesn't mean much if it doesn't translate into an impetus to fix it or acknowledgement that it is a lesson learned for EUIV, because I don't really see an agreement that Ming shouldn't be comparable to a OPM in its ability to be competitive with any one of the recommended European nations, so I'm not reassured. I'm not asking for Ming or most of the world to be reflected with perfect accuracy, god knows Europe isn't. However it isn't unreasonable to expect that playing a RotW regional power nation should have a reasonable skill barrier to remain competitive enough to effectively defend itself and its sphere with a European maritime major on equal terms on a consistent basis; simply on the strength on the argument that a reasonably balanced game implies a reasonable fun game, which implies a good game. If you look at the Extra Credits episode on "Balancing for Skill" they make the argument that a player will lose interest in a game when the game for one reason or another presents First Optimal Order Strategies to the player that while not as powerful as other strategies are easier to use. These "Foo" strategies means the players don't fully explore the depth the game has to present and they lose interest and quit when they hit a brick wall. Playing a European nation in EU3 is essentially in competitive MP a foo strategy, it takes generally little skill to play for the amount of power you get. As at no point does the game encourage you in competitive MP to play any other nation outside Europe, by design it appears and thus once a player has 'mastered' playing a European the game just becomes about spreading your colour the world over and they lose interest as the game as no further amount of depth to offer them. We've seen this at least anecdotally in this thread with EU3 and V2 in particular, not so much with HoiIII and not my knowledge not at all with CKII. The player should be encouraged to branch out and explore other nations because other nations should offer a more varied experience with different strengths and weakness; problematically a RotW nation offers not only no incentive, but by design players are discouraged from playing such a nation in EU3 MP. There is no element or theory in game design that justifies this, which is reason enough; the nature of EU3 since its set in that particular time period and the scope of the game also means there's no historical justification either, as we see with MiscMods little "Black Plague" or shattered Europe alt-hist scenarios that this was by no means inevitable. So, I am truly sorry for coming on a little strongly, that was wrong of me and this should be a very academic discussion. 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? Within the engine as is, or ideally from a purely theoretical perspective?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:You must take East Prussia, then liberate Lithuania to restore the Commonwealth. If you're playing Darkest Hour Full, here's what I've been told: 1. Do not reinforce your units. The mobilization events you get when you go to war will do that for you. 2. Build air and naval units, they use relatively little manpower. Germany can build armored divisions, but don't try this with other countries. 3. Keep your units upgraded to the best model available, but focus on researching the next-to-most recent model of each unit so you can spread your research around. During wartime, prioritize production- you need quantity over quality on land, and a unit gets bonuses to its upgrade progress as its reinforced. 4. You'll almost certainly defeat Poland and France, but you will probably get destroyed the first time you try to invade the Soviet Union. That's normal, and also you deserve it because you're playing the loving Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
I was thinking about the looming specter of way too many provinces hanging over EvW but have come to the conclusion that I probably won't care. There's no real analogy for Barbarossa to be had post '45, so that particular borefest is well out of the way. Instead, I feel like it should be fun to fight and/or support a series of low- to medium intensity conflicts in smaller theaters *if they pull it off reasonably well*.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 06:10
|
|
|
Kavak posted:4. You'll almost certainly defeat Poland and France, but you will probably get destroyed the first time you try to invade the Soviet Union. That's normal, and also you deserve it because you're playing the loving Nazis. In my first Germany game I didn't defeat Poland until late 1941 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:In my first Germany game I didn't defeat Poland until late 1941 I had an early game where I allied Poland whom my friend was playing and we divided the world between us. Somehow my paratroopers could land on any airfield so I took Boston in early 42' and took the whole east cost with 21 divisions I immediately rebased over. A player might have been surprised by the former but would've worked his damnedest to stop the latter  quote:I was thinking about the looming specter of way too many provinces hanging over EvW but have come to the conclusion that I probably won't care. There's no real analogy for Barbarossa to be had post '45, so that particular borefest is well out of the way. Instead, I feel like it should be fun to fight and/or support a series of low- to medium intensity conflicts in smaller theaters *if they pull it off reasonably well*. My and the same friend as above are planning a USSR-China game where I'm USSR he's China, his insane meglomaniac brother is USA. We *might* be able to hold him off. My plan will be to initiate Operation Anti-Unthinkable right off the bad and race tot he Atlantic. Assuming the 1946 force deployments match their historicals I should have about 6:1 advantage in everything until the nukes come flying. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
That makes me think: what is there in an East Vs West multiplayer game to stop a dickish USA player just destroy the world at the very start of an MP game? Apart from the logistics of building the nukes and etc., if there's a game over upon N nukes being fired, can't the US just decide to spit the dummy if things don't look like going their way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 08:43
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:That makes me think: what is there in an East Vs West multiplayer game to stop a dickish USA player just destroy the world at the very start of an MP game? Apart from the logistics of building the nukes and etc., if there's a game over upon N nukes being fired, can't the US just decide to spit the dummy if things don't look like going their way? The first person to launch nukes loses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
uPen posted:The first person to launch nukes loses. Ah. I wasn't sure whether nukes would be in as an actual mechanic (e.g.: the ability to use a tactical nuclear strike, which if I remember correctly was actually proposed in a couple of engagements [by madmen]) and doomsday would be represented by a countdown or doomsday clock or somesuch. It still kind of seems imperfect, though - if a nuclear weapon is instant "you lose", what's the incentive for the US or USSR to build up their stockpiles?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
It's not an instant lose. They decided against that because it'd be unfun to be a minor power then whoop game over because Russia declared war on England or whatever. Anyone who played that old cold war forum game that popular here for a while probably knows what that feels like. The limitation is that you have to be at DEFCON 1 to launch nukes. We're not entirely sure that that entails but likely a direct threat on the nation. I imagine theres huge diplomacy hits too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:Ah. I wasn't sure whether nukes would be in as an actual mechanic (e.g.: the ability to use a tactical nuclear strike, which if I remember correctly was actually proposed in a couple of engagements [by madmen]) and doomsday would be represented by a countdown or doomsday clock or somesuch. It still kind of seems imperfect, though - if a nuclear weapon is instant "you lose", what's the incentive for the US or USSR to build up their stockpiles? Ideally the system would be if you can overwhelm them and take only acceptable losses you can win, but if you start a nuclear war that kills the planet you lose. So you need to stockpile stupid amounts of weapons but actually starting a nuclear war is suicide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:You must take East Prussia, then liberate Lithuania to restore the Commonwealth. As Germany in 1936, you should have three priorities: Planes, tanks, and submarines. Your manpower is limited, and you should avoid incurring dissent to increase it unless there's an event that lowers dissent on the horizon. For submarines, either 30 or 60 is an acceptable number. Group them into fleets of 30 under a grand admiral, and set them on naval interdiction in the North Sea or Celtic Sea, watch the kills roll in. For planes, Germany gets bonuses to CAS, so build those, in groups of 8. You'll need good air cover - I recommend INT for that, in groups of 8. For tanks, as many as you can afford. Once war actually breaks out, you'll go to partial mobilisation and you'll have plenty of manpower. Forget all the above and just build infantry. You need every point of manpower out there with a rifle, shooting. There are two traps you should avoid: Upgrades, and attachments. Germany should move to full Central Planning policy as soon as possible for the extra IC and resources, but it makes upgrade costs prohibitive, so don't do any upgrading unless you have nothing better to do with the IC. There's always a temptation to try and make the "elite army" where every unit is full of attachments, but don't. You get more bang for your buck by building more units, not attaching stuff to them. There are exceptions to this rule - usually when the number of units that can be employed is limited, like in amphibious assaults, but usually attachments are an expensive luxury you can't really afford. You should, however, give your subs torpedo attachments. Oh, one last thing - DO NOT reinforce your units until you're at war. Once you are at war and you've mobilised, make reinforcing top priority. Gort fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:26
|
|
|
While CAS is good early, when you're only fighting in Western and Central Europe, the moment you get into Russia the short range is going to be a pain in the rear end. I suggest building tactical bombers instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Riso posted:While CAS is good early, when you're only fighting in Western and Central Europe, the moment you get into Russia the short range is going to be a pain in the rear end. I will second this, micromanaging CAS isn't worth the headache let alone the expense of keeping ready built airports ready to deploy at all times. Build TACs and never go back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Thanks for the help, guys. Now that I actually have an idea of what's useful or not, maybe I'll be able to build a functional army!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 09:58
|
|
|
Riso posted:While CAS is good early, when you're only fighting in Western and Central Europe, the moment you get into Russia the short range is going to be a pain in the rear end. I disagree. German CAS is significantly more powerful than German TAC. I doubt it'd be the difference between winning or losing the war, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
I'm not too experienced with DH and haven't played Armageddon in a while which I believe DH inherits its core mechanics from. But in my experience unless your good at micro-ing your planes/playing at a slow enough speed for you to micro them, against the AI you are probably better off not bothering and saving the IC for something else. There's a huge difference between knowing how to chose your targets and carefully husbanding your air regiments versus just sort've letting them do whatever. In AoD, air forces are hugely important... If you can use them right, but can still be somewhat annoying even if you don't because they can bomb your infrasturcture/province supplies and help starve your front line troops of supplies and reduce combat efficiency even if your not paying attention. In DH/ARMAG/DD there's no supply system IIRC so it doesn't matter as much. You also need somewhat of a critical mass of planes as well to reach their effectiveness, something I've only really seen USA levels of IC effectively use. Partly because once a plane takes a large mp hit they're grounded until at least 85-95% of its strength is returned or else you risk losing regiments to future air battles. Regarding nukes, I don't know about the mechanics of EvW, but I presume that if you start WWIII in 1946 the USA shouldn't have enough nukes to cause that bad of a situation? The USA iirc OTL dismantled their nuclear piles to reassemble them in a more efficient fashion and this set back production significantly for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But in my experience unless your good at micro-ing your planes/playing at a slow enough speed for you to micro them, against the AI you are probably better off not bothering and saving the IC for something else. Well, yeah, if you play like a dumbass and just tell your planes "Go bomb the USSR while I sit here with the game on maximum speed" it's probably not worth building planes. But that's a bit like saying that tanks suck because you can't just right-click Moscow and win. So - How to use planes: CAS and TAC are basically the same in usage. You should never attack a unit with planes alone. Instead, engage the unit with ground units first, then set a "ground support" order on the province with your planes. The enemy will lose lots of organization and retreat. Then, switch over to a "ground attack" mission and the enemy will lose strength. INT should be set on "air scramble" missions near major IC hubs if you're defending. Berlin and Essen are the main ones in Germany. If you're attacking, set them on "air superiority" over the enemy country. STR are fairly simple, set to "strategic bombardment" or "logistical strike" over the enemy country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
I'll also add that if your allies never underestimate what even a half hearted strategic bombing campaign can do. My friend there did that, wasn't really paying attention to it as he was focused on stopping my blitz through the Levant when I suddenly found out he had destroyed 80 of my IC and was a struggle to bring it up to only ~50 IC at any one time destroyed; and I didn't actually neglect my air defence either, I had M-R and INT doing their thing but I couldn't stop most of the bombing runs from eventually getting through. One thing I've never seen used with any effectiveness though in my games has gotta be paratroopers. Expensive to train and produce, especially the planes as you more or less need 1-1 if you want to plop a large number behind enemy lines, if they die thats a huge hit in opportunity costs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Since you've asked... I was asking only about the bit I quoted, "That is to make fun of paradox for a poor design decision and it continues to be worth making fun of because they keep justifying it right here right now."(my underline), and my question was who was doing this justifying because I sure haven't been and no one else is posting on the subject. Nothing you said addressed that question. Throughout our posts in this thread I have only ever addressed specific things you have said "Paradox devs"/"Paradox" have said or done to point out that these specific claims are untrue, yet your every response is your general thoughts/complaints/ideas on game design or specifically EUIII Ming mechanics. I've said it before, I have no wish to discuss this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:One thing I've never seen used with any effectiveness though in my games has gotta be paratroopers. Expensive to train and produce, especially the planes as you more or less need 1-1 if you want to plop a large number behind enemy lines, if they die thats a huge hit in opportunity costs. There is a worthwhile use for exactly one division of paratroopers. To attack an area where every beach province is guarded, do a paradrop on a non-beach empty coastal province. The province will become yours and you will have a short window to land a billion divisions before the paratroopers are destroyed. This makes defeating the UK trivial, but I suppose it could be used to attack occupied Europe or Japan as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Riso posted:Dear Paradox employees, I'd hazard a guess that it would be no problem since its the demo. If it wasnt a demo it would be a big no-no, or you would need to make it so the player had to copy those files themselves from the sengoku install if for the full game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:There is a worthwhile use for exactly one division of paratroopers. To attack an area where every beach province is guarded, do a paradrop on a non-beach empty coastal province. The province will become yours and you will have a short window to land a billion divisions before the paratroopers are destroyed. Yeah this is on the checklist of small situational things that I'd like HOI4 to deal with when it comes around - the fact that it's so easy to game a fake Sealion means that a German player never has to deal with fighting a two-front war, which takes something away from the experience (at least, invading the UK should mean a major and risky commitment that requires significant pre-war investment). Obviously this only applies to single player, but that's where 90% of the customer base is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Make it impossible to land on any non-beach areas I'd say. V No, I really mean ANY non-beach areas. Controlled or not, no beach, no landings. Riso fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Thats already in DH and it doenst really help though, as said you just take an undefended non beach with paratroopers then instantly land troops there. What should be done is add a load/unload time to ships dependent on the size of the port, so you only have to defend major ports + beaches, rather like in real life. Of course, if they can manage to fix the supply system for HOI4 you won't be able to stage a major invasion through a minor port/beachead anyway due to lack of supplies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Are there any indications they're even doing Hearts of Iron 4? If 3 is as profitable as they say, I don't see why they wouldn't...
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Well I'm sure they'll get to it eventualy, but I dont think they said anything about it yet, officialy or otherwise. I'd be suprised if their next "main" title after EU4 isn't HOI4 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Gort posted:Are there any indications they're even doing Hearts of Iron 4? If 3 is as profitable as they say, I don't see why they wouldn't... Well the super-secret project is either something new or something old. If it's something new then it obviously could be anything (dinosaurs). If it's something old then the rotation of IPs would make HOI4 an obvious option. Of course EU:Rome is a game that's halfway between EU and CK in terms of themes, so having just made a CK and an EU game would put Paradox in a good position to rebuild that game based on the experience of the two preceding. Also releasing a game called Rome 2 at the same time that CA are means being able to ride on a crest of games media interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well the super-secret project is either something new or something old. If it's something new then it obviously could be anything (dinosaurs). If it's something old then the rotation of IPs would make HOI4 an obvious option. Not to mention, if the rumors of expanding CK2 backward in time for the Viking DLC are true, they could use the sequel to move EU:Rome's end date forward, so you could actually run an unbroken campaign from whatever BC through to the end of the Cold War (eventually).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Not to mention, if the rumors of expanding CK2 backward in time for the Viking DLC are true, they could use the sequel to move EU:Rome's end date forward, so you could actually run an unbroken campaign from whatever BC through to the end of the Cold War (eventually). You'd have to move the end date of Rome forward longer then the entire period covered by the game. You'd really have to have some sort of 'Dark Ages' bridge game. I had sort of hoped that the Paradox AGEOD union would result in an updated version of 'Great Invasions', which was a total mess but had some cool ideas. I don't know if Paradox isn't interested in a Dark Ages game or if they just think the period is too tricky to cover, but I'm not really counting on getting one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
I think Johan mentioned something about wanting a Dark Ages game, but either way yeah I can't really see Late Antiquity working in the same game as the rise of the Roman Empire. Basically, I'd say EU:Rome is the rise of Rome, Carthage, Seleucid Empire, Egypt or some other grand empire, EU:Dark Ages is the Christianization of that empire (which the player can fight but of course it would be hard and should be less 'stop Christianity' and more 'keep my small stronghold of Paganism going'), migration, and all that other good stuff. Migration is basically the big thing that I think would be hard to also put in a game about the rise of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
I always felt like Rome had a huge amount of wasted potential, Rome 2 could easily be my favourite Paradox game if done right. The Senate, barbarian uprisings as a serious threat, and the 3 population types were mechanics I'd really like to see in an up-to-date game, tempered with CK2's character engine and whatever new stuff EU4 introduces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
I'm a big big fan of Victoria and I'd love another expansion. It's probably my second favorite franchise after HOI (including 3) and ahead of EU3 and CK. Having said that, is there a way to directly and militarily intervene on behalf of the CSA during the ACW? I'm thinking of taking a nation like France and using it to prop up the CSA and nurturing it to the game's end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I'm a big big fan of Victoria and I'd love another expansion. It's probably my second favorite franchise after HOI (including 3) and ahead of EU3 and CK. Yes! There is! There are one of two ways; Wait until the CSA is losing (1% warscore down or worse) and then check the ongoing wars screen to see if you can't click the yellow + button next to the CSA's side of the war, or mouse over to see what's wrong. If you feel less ethical, save, edit the save so the CSA has 1000 cotton stockpiled, load it and then tag over and do King Cotton. France and every other Great Power will then gain a CB on the USA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well the super-secret project is either something new or something old. If it's something new then it obviously could be anything (dinosaurs). EU: Alpha Centauri. At last, we will have the technology required to deal with sighted comets appropriately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Koesj posted:I was thinking about the looming specter of way too many provinces hanging over EvW but have come to the conclusion that I probably won't care. There's no real analogy for Barbarossa to be had post '45, so that particular borefest is well out of the way. Instead, I feel like it should be fun to fight and/or support a series of low- to medium intensity conflicts in smaller theaters *if they pull it off reasonably well*. Looking at the screenshot of East Germany they released in the latest Dev Diary, I think they may actually be scaling back the number of provinces for Europe and elsewhere. So they may very well pull this off correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Tomn posted:EU: Alpha Centauri. At last, we will have the technology required to deal with sighted comets appropriately. "The Spartan Federation offers us peace on the following terms: they will pay 50 energy credits." "Cult of Planet rebels have risen up in New Jerusalem!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
Thanks Dr Prosek for the CSA advice! I will have to try that next game.Raenir Salazar posted:One thing I've never seen used with any effectiveness though in my games has gotta be paratroopers. Expensive to train and produce, especially the planes as you more or less need 1-1 if you want to plop a large number behind enemy lines, if they die thats a huge hit in opportunity costs. Do Paratroopers even have better stats than regular infantry? (I can't rightly remember) I'm thinking the player could at least be able to find some utility in using them as elite units, the way the 101st was thrown into Bastogne by foot and truck just because they had better training and elan than other units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks Dr Prosek for the CSA advice! I will have to try that next game. I forgot one more requirement for intervention; you need to have Friendly relations with the CSA, so the second they appear drop all Influence Priority outside of the CSA. I notice the USA is kinda slow with the war so you should still be able to intervene in time. Plus in the 1861 start, France starts with 35 influence in the CSA already but if you use the 1830s start it should still be doable. E: Wait no the influence is from the Officially Recognize the CSA decision  . This decision may or may not be unique to PDM, so if you use PDM make sure to use it.
burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thanks Dr Prosek for the CSA advice! I will have to try that next game. Varies from game to game but they ussualy have more soft attack and morale but less hard attack. Still no where near worth using as ground troops in an IC effciency sense though,but thats true for just about everything except bog standard infantry and a handfull of tanks. I really wish brigades were more ballanced to provide a viable IC heavy manpower light army for nations like Germany or Britian, as it is everyone is best off just spamming bog standard infantry, hell Germany is even better off not upgrading their infantry because of their central planning slider. If the USSR wants to take that approach that should be fine but it really sucks that its true for every nation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 17:40
|
|