Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Fintilgin
Sep 29, 2004

Fintilgin sweeps!

Tahirovic posted:

What was the official release date anyhow, Q1 2016 for both HoI IV and Stellaris and Victoria III ?

I don't think any of them have public dates.

I think when people found the Stellaris Steam page early it had a February(?) 2016 date, which was removed before it went live, but who knows how accurate that was. I'm not expecting it until spring, but....?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Affi
Dec 18, 2005

Break bread wit the enemy

X GON GIVE IT TO YA
I saw a dude with a paradox hoodie and almost went up and talked to him before realising it was just paradox being a sponsor for a sportsclub. How can you support Hammarby??

Darkrenown
Jul 18, 2012
please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes
Are we? We do have hoodies though.

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR

Affi posted:

I saw a dude with a paradox hoodie and almost went up and talked to him before realising it was just paradox being a sponsor for a sportsclub. How can you support Hammarby??

It probably was one of us, we have a few football fans in the company.
Hammarby is Captain Gars team right?

Affi
Dec 18, 2005

Break bread wit the enemy

X GON GIVE IT TO YA
drat my one chance to be an annoying fan slipped right through my fingers..

Dibujante
Jul 27, 2004

Affi posted:

drat my one chance to be an annoying fan slipped right through my fingers..

No, Groogy's right here! You can live your dream!

Tomn
Aug 23, 2007

And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands
You know, I know Stellaris has mentioned it'd delve into federations, but I'd love it if there were multiple positions of responsibility within the federation that member governments can jockey for instead of just "President." Instead of just the one "winner-takes-all" position of power that acts as an upgraded form of the government you're already in charge of while everyone else is reduced to helpless vassals, spread the power around so that different posts can be held by different governments with wildly varying priorities. I want to see constant jockeying and friendly competition between allies as they seek the positions of power that matter most to them. I want to see ramshackle, bickering federations constantly working at cross-purposes where it takes a whole lot of effort to ensure that everyone is pointed in the same direction instead of just working for their own personal benefit - with perhaps the option of trying to concentrate power in the hands of one particular government at a cost in efficiency and loyalty.

One of the things that bug me most about "diplomatic" wins in 4X strategy games is that in most such games, allies are boring. You sign one treaty and then the only real interaction you ever have with your allies beyond that is maybe the occasional subsidy or trade and hoping that they'll answer your call to arms. A scenario where you constantly have things to do with - or to - your allies would help make diplomacy a lot more interesting than just throwing money at them until they're happy, and competing for positions within a greater governmental framework sounds like just the sort of thing that might work.

Enjoy
Apr 18, 2009

Tomn posted:

You know, I know Stellaris has mentioned it'd delve into federations, but I'd love it if there were multiple positions of responsibility within the federation that member governments can jockey for instead of just "President." Instead of just the one "winner-takes-all" position of power that acts as an upgraded form of the government you're already in charge of while everyone else is reduced to helpless vassals, spread the power around so that different posts can be held by different governments with wildly varying priorities. I want to see constant jockeying and friendly competition between allies as they seek the positions of power that matter most to them. I want to see ramshackle, bickering federations constantly working at cross-purposes where it takes a whole lot of effort to ensure that everyone is pointed in the same direction instead of just working for their own personal benefit - with perhaps the option of trying to concentrate power in the hands of one particular government at a cost in efficiency and loyalty.

One of the things that bug me most about "diplomatic" wins in 4X strategy games is that in most such games, allies are boring. You sign one treaty and then the only real interaction you ever have with your allies beyond that is maybe the occasional subsidy or trade and hoping that they'll answer your call to arms. A scenario where you constantly have things to do with - or to - your allies would help make diplomacy a lot more interesting than just throwing money at them until they're happy, and competing for positions within a greater governmental framework sounds like just the sort of thing that might work.

That sounds cool, something like CK2's college of cardinals?

The Cheshire Cat
Jun 10, 2008

Fun Shoe
It would be cool to have that sort of thing - maybe even multiple different versions so it's not always exactly the same. Like, a federation would be a UN style model where planets/races all get a representative (with maybe exceptionally powerful ones getting special privileges like veto power). You could also have a space Roman Republic where there IS a top position (dictator), but it's actually vacant most of the time and only used during crises. Meanwhile you'd have a bunch of senators that all have equal power in theory but in practice are always jockeying for more influence and control. Or some kind of Mongol horde thing, where you've got a top power that conquers a whole bunch of minor ones, but then essentially leaves them to self-govern.

Basically I think it would be interesting if mega-conglomerates didn't all just follow a single federation model, but instead would have different forms of organizing based on their own cultures/needs. It would also make integration between them more interesting, as naturally they're all going to think their own way of doing things is best.

Epinephrine
Nov 7, 2008
Paradox Grand Strategy: Hire me so I can beta test Stellaris plz.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

Tomn posted:

You know, I know Stellaris has mentioned it'd delve into federations, but I'd love it if there were multiple positions of responsibility within the federation that member governments can jockey for instead of just "President." Instead of just the one "winner-takes-all" position of power that acts as an upgraded form of the government you're already in charge of while everyone else is reduced to helpless vassals, spread the power around so that different posts can be held by different governments with wildly varying priorities. I want to see constant jockeying and friendly competition between allies as they seek the positions of power that matter most to them. I want to see ramshackle, bickering federations constantly working at cross-purposes where it takes a whole lot of effort to ensure that everyone is pointed in the same direction instead of just working for their own personal benefit - with perhaps the option of trying to concentrate power in the hands of one particular government at a cost in efficiency and loyalty.

One of the things that bug me most about "diplomatic" wins in 4X strategy games is that in most such games, allies are boring. You sign one treaty and then the only real interaction you ever have with your allies beyond that is maybe the occasional subsidy or trade and hoping that they'll answer your call to arms. A scenario where you constantly have things to do with - or to - your allies would help make diplomacy a lot more interesting than just throwing money at them until they're happy, and competing for positions within a greater governmental framework sounds like just the sort of thing that might work.
The persistent argument against this is that then wartime gets too complicated, because you have to worry about that stuff AND fighting. Most people play the games for the fighting, so developers leave out stuff to do in peacetime. My argument against that (I'm no videogame developer (just boardgames in my free time)) is that the special peacetime mechanics would be put on hold or have a "wartime status" that streamlines or holds the peacetime stuff while at war.

zedprime
Jun 9, 2007

yospos

Enjoy posted:

That sounds cool, something like CK2's college of cardinals?
Nah, it'd be cool if it was something that actually mattered.

Bort Bortles posted:

The persistent argument against this is that then wartime gets too complicated, because you have to worry about that stuff AND fighting. Most people play the games for the fighting, so developers leave out stuff to do in peacetime. My argument against that (I'm no videogame developer (just boardgames in my free time)) is that the special peacetime mechanics would be put on hold or have a "wartime status" that streamlines or holds the peacetime stuff while at war.
So you're saying you'd like an option to suspend the democratic process during times of war? I like that idea especially if there's an option to say "you know what, lets keep going like this" after the war ends.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

zedprime posted:

So you're saying you'd like an option to suspend the democratic process during times of war? I like that idea especially if there's an option to say "you know what, lets keep going like this" after the war ends.
Exactly. For the games playability sake every Confederation/Republic/whateverthefuck has a limited set of options while at war. There could be different things with different flavors for different gov types.

Shark Sandwich
Sep 6, 2010

by R. Guyovich
I'm a C++ developer but lol at being enough of a masochist to work in video games instead of that sweet sweet adtech money

Dibujante
Jul 27, 2004

Slaughterhouse-Ive posted:

I'm a C++ developer but lol at being enough of a masochist to work in video games instead of that sweet sweet adtech money

Yep. Although in my case, sweet sweet finance money.

FreudianSlippers
Apr 12, 2010

Shooting and Fucking
are the same thing!

I just bought Victoria II.

I've played a lot of CK2 and some EUIV. How confused and lost am I going to be going in?

Agean90
Jun 28, 2008


You've learned 2 paradox games already, you're already like 70% proficient. The only major problem will be the weirder mechanics and Ui issues caused by it being an old style paradox game. You can pick up the rest by fuckin around or just asking in this thread.

and did you get a house divided and heart of darkness? Because for godsake get both of those if you havent.

The Cheshire Cat
Jun 10, 2008

Fun Shoe
Probably somewhat confused, but not as much as you would be in say, Hearts of Iron 3.

Victoria 2 will mostly play itself if you let it, and even when you're good at it you'll probably still want to leave trading and such on automatic. Brazil is a good country to start with because you're fairly well established economically, and you're in South America so you won't get caught up in the middle of the inevitable huge wars in Europe (unless you decide you want to), and you're in a good position to rocket up to great power status once you get your literacy rate up.

FreudianSlippers
Apr 12, 2010

Shooting and Fucking
are the same thing!

I only got the base game but I should probably grab the DLC as soon as I can because they sound like they add a lot of pretty neat stuff.

Pharnakes
Aug 14, 2009
Wait until winter sale unless you're in a super rush.

V for Vegas
Sep 1, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER

FreudianSlippers posted:

I only got the base game but I should probably grab the DLC as soon as I can because they sound like they add a lot of pretty neat stuff.

Can't remember what AHD added (Taipings?), but at least get Heart of Darkness, stuff like the crisis and colonisation mechanics are essential.

Good starter country is Austria-Hungary. Lots of manpower + money with smaller states around you to beat up on.

KOGAHAZAN!!
Apr 29, 2013

a miserable failure as a person

an incredible success as a magical murder spider

FreudianSlippers posted:

I only got the base game but I should probably grab the DLC as soon as I can because they sound like they add a lot of pretty neat stuff.

I only ever found one good reason to manually gently caress around with trade and that's flash-building troops.

GSD
May 10, 2014

by Nyc_Tattoo
Victoria 2 belongs to ye olde paradoxe model where the expansions are also the patches. So yeah, you need them.

Fidel Cuckstro
Jul 2, 2007

Some other Vicky-2 questions:

1) Is there an appropriate war goal to liberate a region for another country? Greece is constantly starting crisis over territory they want from the Ottomans, and it'd probably be less an issue for me to just conquer it for them without having another great power or two breathing down my neck. I know I could just try to knock them out of great power status, but I figure why not kill 2 birds with one stone?

2) Is there a best strategy to freezing people out of trying to take countries out of your sphere? England has this crazy idea that Egypt should listen to them, and that's not happening if I can prevent it.

3) Is there any drawback to high taxes? Like at least as high as you can while the pops are at least getting their basic needs? Does getting everyone luxury needs do something actually good, or something that's secretly bad, like lowering militancy?

Pinback
Jul 22, 2012

I've been having real awful dreams about giant apocalyptic machinery
just mowing us all down...
Happy pops have lower militancy, yeah, but they also have individually calculated wealth which impacts how they promote and what they buy, which in turn will impact your industry. If you manufacture consumer goods for domestic consumption, then you want your pops to have money. It's kinda hard to suss out an ideal economic set up in Vicky so don't be afraid to experiment with those sliders. Tariffs can be a good way to raise revenue if your industry isn't based on imports. Whatever you do just don't let the Liberals/capitalists take control, because they are realistically short sighted and incompetent and will run your country into the ground while starving you of revenue.

Keep an eye on your main imports and exports, and try to build your colonization/expansion around meeting those needs. Countries in your sphere of influence count as the domestic market, so goods from there go to your needs before the global market and don't get tariffed. Be careful adding to many popular consumer goods to your domestic market if you're dependant on tariffs for revenue though.

Also also don't forget your RGOs are also a source of income, and that production for them and factories are impacted by infrastructure, so improving infrastructure is almost always a good choice. This is also true of the major industrial tech trees which improve mining and farming output.

Investing in a country (building factories, railroads) multiplies your influence there. You could also use the Make Puppet CB on them. You get a big influence multiplier on puppeted nations so it's far easier to keep them in your sphere (and I think discourages the AI from investing influence there). Also IIRC you get profits from successful foreign factories.

GrossMurpel
Apr 8, 2011

Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:

Some other Vicky-2 questions:

1) Is there an appropriate war goal to liberate a region for another country? Greece is constantly starting crisis over territory they want from the Ottomans, and it'd probably be less an issue for me to just conquer it for them without having another great power or two breathing down my neck. I know I could just try to knock them out of great power status, but I figure why not kill 2 birds with one stone?

2) Is there a best strategy to freezing people out of trying to take countries out of your sphere? England has this crazy idea that Egypt should listen to them, and that's not happening if I can prevent it.

3) Is there any drawback to high taxes? Like at least as high as you can while the pops are at least getting their basic needs? Does getting everyone luxury needs do something actually good, or something that's secretly bad, like lowering militancy?

1) I don't think so? All you can do is liberate nations.

2) The AI will generally stop trying to influence a nation if you gain points faster than them. So stop investing in your spherelings that aren't being contested and put it all into ones that are. Or if that's still not enough, get those cultural techs that give influence points. That said, playing as Prussia or Austria is hell because you have to change focus every few days.

3) Yeah, getting more goods lowers militancy. That can also be a good thing if you keep getting annoying separatist revolts or something.
You can always check the detailed POP view to see what makes a POP tick (and in the case of militancy, you can just hover over a POP's value in the list view to find out whether getting goods influences it).

YF-23
Feb 17, 2011

My god, it's full of cat!


GrossMurpel posted:

1) I don't think so? All you can do is liberate nations.

You can use the regional equivalent of the Liberate Country CB to return cores to already existing states, in fact.

Fidel Cuckstro
Jul 2, 2007

Thanks!

-Is there a screen where you can directly control foreign investment, or is that just something capitalists will do?

Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Oct 7, 2015

Allyn
Sep 4, 2007

I love Charlie from Busted!

Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:

Thanks!

-Is there a screen where you can directly control foreign investment, or is that just something capitalists will do?

Foreign investment in your country? Or your investment in foreign countries? I think the only thing you can do on the former is nationalise the means of production, which shows up in the decisions menu. Unfortunately the game files aren't clear on when that's enabled, just says "can_nationalize=yes", but it means you get industry score from the factories rather than whoever built them. Afaik capitalists will never take over a foreign-owned industry. The latter is in the Foreign Investment tab of the Production menu, but you can only build new railways (and it's generally easier to build new factories) via clicking on a province, where it has two buttons just below the culture pie chart.

The Cheshire Cat
Jun 10, 2008

Fun Shoe
Yes, if you click on the actual country you want to invest in on the map and click the build factory button it will take you right there.

You have to be a great power though, and your current party's economic policy has to allow foreign investment.

Alikchi
Aug 18, 2010

Thumbs up I agree

I really love EUIV's Client State mechanics and I hope similar dynamic country stuff is in future Pdx games. Especially HoI IV. Would be perfect for Reichskommisariats/protectorates, things like the RSI, and the post-war occupation zones in Germany.

Larry Parrish
Jul 9, 2012

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Alikchi posted:

I really love EUIV's Client State mechanics and I hope similar dynamic country stuff is in future Pdx games. Especially HoI IV. Would be perfect for Reichskommisariats/protectorates, things like the RSI, and the post-war occupation zones in Germany.

Use it for renaming puppet states :grin:

Shark Sandwich
Sep 6, 2010

by R. Guyovich

Larry Parrish posted:

Use it for renaming puppet states :grin:

North New Srbja, East New Srbja, West New Srbja, South New Srbja

Dibujante
Jul 27, 2004
Mordor, Alcatraz, Azkaban, Hotel California

DrSunshine
Mar 23, 2009

Did I just say that out loud~~?!!!

PleasingFungus
Oct 10, 2012
idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

PittTheElder posted:

Man, those EU4 screenshots. 1.13 really is like an entirely different game.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those screenshots are from pre-release dev diaries.



Was "combat our inflation" ever a button label in a released version of the game?

csm141
Jul 19, 2010

i care, i'm listening, i can help you without giving any advice
Pillbug


This is from a game started the day the game released. It does certainly feel different.

Fidel Cuckstro
Jul 2, 2007

A couple of random thoughts as I keep trudging through my Vicky-2 game.

-Starting to get a feel for how factory subsidies work, and I somewhat enjoy it as another thing to monitor in the overall budget game...although it becomes really weird to watch how factories will use subsidies to turn bad decisions into worse. From what I can tell, if a factory is subsidized, they'll try to grow regardless of actual profitability of their product. Also I don't think there's anything that factors in economies of scale in to factory costs? So if you subsidize a factory where the inputs are getting more expensive than the outputs, they'll still try to grow and expand, and just eat up more subsidies. It'd be nice if you could set better subsidy rules (ex. you'll only subsidize $20/day per factory max, or $60/day per factory type) so if a product type is doing bad, your companies don't just make it worse by trying to flood the market.

-It'd also probably help the AI if bankrupt factories could be re-purchased and re-purposed by other capitalists. Especially a problem if you get stuck with L-F and you can't even destroy bankrupt factories. While it should take time and money, it seems like the game would probably run itself off the rails less often if the AI could re-assess global demands and national plans regularly and realize where everyone's over-built.

-I'm at almost 1880 in my Austria game and the capitalists still haven't built a steel factory in my nation. That just feels silly.

-The election pop-ups are possibly the most annoying part of the game??

-It'd be nice if you could force westernization on a country in your sphere, I think. I guess it'd increase the chance they try to leave your sphere, but you could also get a government that lets you invest in them.

Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Oct 8, 2015

GrossMurpel
Apr 8, 2011
At least subsidies won't grow when your factory is full! Unless capitalists decide to upgrade it :shepicide:.
I always thought the AI can re-open factories, plus don't they get destroyed automatically after a certain time of being closed?
If you think the election popups are bad (they're actually great because you can steer your POPs), you should try playing the USA sometime.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Fidel Cuckstro
Jul 2, 2007

GrossMurpel posted:

At least subsidies won't grow when your factory is full! Unless capitalists decide to upgrade it :shepicide:.
I always thought the AI can re-open factories, plus don't they get destroyed automatically after a certain time of being closed?
If you think the election popups are bad (they're actually great because you can steer your POPs), you should try playing the USA sometime.

They can re-open I think, but if your cement factory closes, either it re-opens as a cement factory or eventually is destroyed. I don't know if they auto-destroy though, I've never been patient enough with an L-F government to see.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply