|
PleasingFungus posted:Unless it's the next Sengoku, of course. To the spice mines with you!
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:I am actually going to try my hardest to do a mod that adds Gear Krieg inspired mecha (http://www.dp9.com/gearkrieg) to the game, and they have a few other super-science units like that that might fit. I think a Gear Krieg update to the game would be pretty interesting to see the effect the various super science weapons would have on the course of the war. Been wanting to see something like that since the first game in the series, but like you the question of how it would fit comes in. From a strategic perspective, what role would the Walkers perform that the Tanks in the game don't already do? I could see Rocket soldiers adding combat bonuses vs. terrain effects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
ImpulseDrive posted:I think a Gear Krieg update to the game would be pretty interesting to see the effect the various super science weapons would have on the course of the war. Been wanting to see something like that since the first game in the series, but like you the question of how it would fit comes in. From a strategic perspective, what role would the Walkers perform that the Tanks in the game don't already do? I could see Rocket soldiers adding combat bonuses vs. terrain effects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
Earlier in this thread people brought up the After the End mod. I tried it and it's by far the best mod I've played in CK2. Only it crashes constantly for me and I can't play it for more than 50 years 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 08:47
|
|
|
What the hell happened with Sengoku anyway? Even Rome got a decent expansion/update after a while but Sengoku just got dropped the minute it came out the chute. Cash-grab to tide them over while CK2 was in development?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:What the hell happened with Sengoku anyway? Even Rome got a decent expansion/update after a while but Sengoku just got dropped the minute it came out the chute. I think it's like March of the Eagles and it was basically just a paid beta test
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
ImpulseDrive posted:I think a Gear Krieg update to the game would be pretty interesting to see the effect the various super science weapons would have on the course of the war. Been wanting to see something like that since the first game in the series, but like you the question of how it would fit comes in. From a strategic perspective, what role would the Walkers perform that the Tanks in the game don't already do? I could see Rocket soldiers adding combat bonuses vs. terrain effects. From the GK world, Walkers would basically be really good light tanks, to over-simplify. GK is really good in that it tries to place mechs in the historical context of a war where there are a lot of new technologies coming in to play and they're all shaky and a little untested at first, and nobody quite knows how to use them. When you look at the stats and fluff, you see mechs don't eliminate tanks from the ranks of major armies, they just add another thing. Tanks generally stay ahead of mechs early on in main-gun firepower, armor, and fuel efficiency. Mechs though tend to have a higher speed (at least when they fold down in to their 'ground mode') for faster strategic movement, have more agility in difficult terrain than tanks, a much smaller target profile usually, and their arms make them engineering vehicles in a pinch. Mechs tend to have really good performance in urban combat, forests and jungles, and even some mountainous terrain- but they end up being pretty poo poo in the Africa theater because standing a 20 ft. target up on open ground just makes for a pretty easy target. They make sense for a lot of areas Japan fights (despite the lovely infrastructure), would probably help speed up even Italy in fighting in the Balkans/Greece, and make appearances in city sieges that sadly rarely happen in HoI like Stalingrad. They'd also probably be the choice pick for exploitation divisions. There is something of a gap to this though- DP9 never really got around to finishing the timeline. To me it's clear that the war was supposed to go on longer mech stats closed to something similar to or above a medium/main tank, while tanks pushed more and more in to heavy and super-heavy land-battleship status. Walkers start mounting bazookas and other slightly larger versions of infantry anti-tank weapons to deal with tanks and heavy vehicles, and basically try to do the defense-in-speed strategy american tank-destroyers were supposed to employ. Also, obviously, lasers. edit- this is the nerdiest thing I've ever written Fidel Cuckstro fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Heavy Gear (same "engine" as GK I think?) had a similar thing where mechs were kinda like zippy / flexible elite heavy infantry but real squishy, and tanks mounted gently caress-off railguns and other things that would wreck anything in a straight-up fight. BMPs on legs with rollerblades (aka VOTOMS). Different from Battletech in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Heavy Gear (same "engine" as GK I think?) had a similar thing where mechs were kinda like zippy / flexible elite heavy infantry but real squishy, and tanks mounted gently caress-off railguns and other things that would wreck anything in a straight-up fight. Yep, same engine and same publishing team- and I'd assume mostly the same design team. I know podcat's most a Dust fan, and it has a way easier ruleset to figure out, but I hate that it does the replace-tanks-with-mechs thing for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Like many, many other companies, they jumped on the MMO bandwagon after World of Warcraft started going gangbusters (Though I think they bought White Wolf in 2003 and the merger came 3 years later), and were in too deep when it became apparent they'd totally misread the market. The difference is they already had EVE (So they should've known how the MMO market was going to go) and instead just sat on an incredibly marketable property for no reason. I don't understand why they didn't try to offload it after the recession- maybe they tried to get development started up again and it fell flat? They were always trying to develop the White Wolf game as the engine for adding a third-person element to Eve but it never got off the ground. They refused to admit it was never going to happen for years and wasted millions on it. Luigi Thirty fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
You can still rename your Ships in HOI4 right? The HMCS Kiss My rear end needs to live on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Tuskin38 posted:You can still rename your Ships in HOI4 right? The HMCS Kiss My rear end needs to live on. I didn't think you could re-name ships in 3?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
All the ship names you'll ever need including that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:All the ship names you'll ever need including that one. That doesn't have such gems as the: "Sir, she's one of ours!" "Activate Self-Destruct Sequence" "Out of Context Problem" "The Cutting Edge of Bookkeeping" I must have something like 200+ names pooled from books and the web
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I'm gonna be disappointed if there isn't a way to turn important planets into supercities with all the water built over and skyscrapers stretching out into space and stuff. Eh, we're probably all going to be zoomed out on political map mode 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 08:58
|
|
|
I have both EU4 and CK2. I've played EU3 successfully (on baby easy mode) and CK for a century or so YEARS back so I'm broadly familiar with game concepts, but the newer versions either seem more complex or I've forgotten more than I thought. I've read guides and watched videos but the baffling complexity still lies. Which is the EASIER game to get to grips with?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I have both EU4 and CK2. I've played EU3 successfully (on baby easy mode) and CK for a century or so YEARS back so I'm broadly familiar with game concepts, but the newer versions either seem more complex or I've forgotten more than I thought. I've read guides and watched videos but the baffling complexity still lies. Which is the EASIER game to get to grips with? EU4 is currently, in my opinion, a better game than CK2 and also easier to play all the way through and more stable. You might want to wait for the expansion though, I dunno. I guess also its harder to familiarize yourself with the succesion mechanics, claim fabrication and generation and other dynastic poltics of CK2 than with the more straight up control a nation and color the map your color style of EU4 (though there is more to it than that).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
I'd say EU4 as well. EU4 you can probably just hop in and play and do okay, even if you don't understand the menus... with the problem that if you start looking at the menus you may be overwhelmed. That applies to CK2 as well, but to have even basic success in CK2 you need to come to grips with understanding how to efficiently suck up to your vassals. You realm WILL implode with a faction or rebellion or due to dumb succession laws if you don't know what to look out for. Sometimes you can think you're doing fine and then suddenly 3/4ths of your country is independent and out for blood. However, once you know the mechanics CK2 almost becomes a flowchart that you only deviate from for fun's sake, because aside from some luck based starts you can very easily blob on any half-decent country sooner or later. I think it's in this weird place where overall EU4 is a bit more complext, while it's harder to get over that initial hurdle in CK2. CK2 kinda has a difficulty cliff that plateaus really quickly, while there's always a few more mechanics that you can abuse in your next run that you had no trouble ignoring in your previous run in EU4. Which isn't to say there aren't landmines in EU4 that can cause a new player to implode spectacularly, just that things like aggressive expansion and manpower are a little more straightforward than figuring out how to placate your ambitious nephew whom you gave a duchy. It's harder to subtly kill yourself in a way that only becomes apparent in 10 years. Linear Zoetrope fucked around with this message at 09:46 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 09:43
|
|
|
The problem with EU4 for new players is the DLC, AoW and CS seem like mandatory to play the game now. I own all the DLC and I can't imagine playing without some of the paid features. I think the only expansion I ever disabled was Conquest of Paradise to see if I can get rid of Colonial Nations while playing North American natives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
I don't think new players need the DLC immediately, it just adds lots of extra stuff for them to be confused by. When you're into the game it becomes necessary cause it has lots of tools to help you to play optimally, but new players really don't need those. Also I think the hardest thing about CK2 is just grasping the concept of vassals rather than nations, it's so alien to people today. EU4 is way simpler to grasp on a fundamental level, the countries basically act similar to how they would today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't think new players need the DLC immediately, it just adds lots of extra stuff for them to be confused by. When you're into the game it becomes necessary cause it has lots of tools to help you to play optimally, but new players really don't need those. That is the rational way to view it and is also how I view it when I do my purchases. If I see a game with a lot of expansions that adds content I am interested in I first buy the base game, play it, learn it then I go and buy the expansions. I usually am more inclined to buy games with a lot of expansions than those without because I like that I get more potential playtime with a game I enjoy. But I have no idea of how others view it (more than what people say/rant about the subject which isn't really a good statistical base to make opinions on). But I wouldn't be surprised by a person that goes and buys the game and every expansion with it without actually having any experience with the product before hand because of the "complete"-idea some people have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Groogy posted:That is the rational way to view it and is also how I view it when I do my purchases. If I see a game with a lot of expansions that adds content I am interested in I first buy the base game, play it, learn it then I go and buy the expansions. I usually am more inclined to buy games with a lot of expansions than those without because I like that I get more potential playtime with a game I enjoy. But I have no idea of how others view it (more than what people say/rant about the subject which isn't really a good statistical base to make opinions on). But I wouldn't be surprised by a person that goes and buys the game and every expansion with it without actually having any experience with the product before hand because of the "complete"-idea some people have. To be fair, a lot of people also go to forums like this and ask "hey should I buy HoI3/Vicky2/etc" and get responses like "That game's not even playable without expansion X"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:To be fair, a lot of people also go to forums like this and ask "hey should I buy HoI3/Vicky2/etc" and get responses like "That game's not even playable without expansion X" CK2 and EU4 have been the first Paradox games where expansions aren't a necessity. Vicky2 isn't fun without Heart of Darkness, HOI3 isn't fun even with all the expansions but they make it marginally less painful to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
New Stellaris dev diary on science ships  that planet in the second screenshot is gorgeous Groogy posted:That is the rational way to view it and is also how I view it when I do my purchases. If I see a game with a lot of expansions that adds content I am interested in I first buy the base game, play it, learn it then I go and buy the expansions. I usually am more inclined to buy games with a lot of expansions than those without because I like that I get more potential playtime with a game I enjoy. But I have no idea of how others view it (more than what people say/rant about the subject which isn't really a good statistical base to make opinions on). But I wouldn't be surprised by a person that goes and buys the game and every expansion with it without actually having any experience with the product before hand because of the "complete"-idea some people have. I think it's a good attitude (I think it's usually good to dissuade people from trying out huge mods until after they've played vanilla for a while too), but for me personally (and I suspect lots of other people), the problem is that I wait until there's a big sale to buy into these kinds of games, and then I always figure I might as well get as much DLC as I can afford too, since who knows when it might next come down in price and I might want it before then. And if I have the DLC, I might as well play with it too right? And I think (for strategy games at least) more expansions tends to indicate that the game was popular, so it's definitely a good sign. It's only a bad thing when you label something as the complete edition and it turns out it isn't 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
quote:Anomalies are thus quite like little quests, and usually require some player choices (exactly like the “events” you’ve seen in our other games.) Some options are only available under certain conditions. For example, a special option might require that the Scientist or empire ruler has a specific personality trait. Hoping for Emperor of the Draconis Nebula, are we?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Ghetto Prince posted:Eh, we're probably all going to be zoomed out on political map mode 99% of the time. That doesn't seem to stop Paradox normally.. national monuments dlc anyone? At least 2 of them if I remember correctly. I bought both. At least they finally added them to political map mode... Ecunemopolis pre-order DLC!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
I bet the best way to use scientists is to send the fresh young ones out there and when they hit 45 years you'll retire them to the academies. Maybe once in a while they'll be sent back out to trigger a particularly lucrative or high level anomaly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Koramei posted:New Stellaris dev diary on science ships Can I just say that I hate the "can only research something once trope". If that was true in real life and an initial wrong conclusion destroyed all evidence or future possibility of research then we would never have got anywhere at all. I don't even think it makes for good gameplay, it just encourages stupid gamey poo poo like using only 1 scientist to research all the anomalies you find to pump their xp into some sort of super genius. Doesn't make any sense at all. Yes you can come up with other mechanics to punish such tactics, but why can't you just remove the incentive to do it in the first place? Oh look, we have found a strange and wondrous alien artefact, better not pay any attention to it at all until our xenobilochemolinguistastrophysimathematian can come and research it. Presumably by eating it, since no traces are left thereafter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Can I just say that I hate the "can only research something once trope". If that was true in real life and an initial wrong conclusion destroyed all evidence or future possibility of research then we would never have got anywhere at all. I don't even think it makes for good gameplay, it just encourages stupid gamey poo poo like using only 1 scientist to research all the anomalies you find to pump their xp into some sort of super genius. Doesn't make any sense at all. Yes you can come up with other mechanics to punish such tactics, but why can't you just remove the incentive to do it in the first place? Also he didn't explain what scientists could be doing while not on a science vessel and why you wouldn't want them to always be on one, if for any other reason that rotating out a stable of more than 3. e. That is to say I expect that time pressure is going to dictate you keep research pressure up to minimize any sort of scientist skill loading or shuffling. ee. it also depends on the event writing, which has been good but bad in CK2 (or bad but good), but he mentions the failure state is figuring out the wrong thing about an anomaly. So you could just file the Galaxan Death Beam in the museum under Galaxan Tea Set if you aren't smart enough to figure out how to turn on the death beam. zedprime fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Can I just say that I hate the "can only research something once trope". If that was true in real life and an initial wrong conclusion destroyed all evidence or future possibility of research then we would never have got anywhere at all. I don't even think it makes for good gameplay, it just encourages stupid gamey poo poo like using only 1 scientist to research all the anomalies you find to pump their xp into some sort of super genius. Doesn't make any sense at all. Yes you can come up with other mechanics to punish such tactics, but why can't you just remove the incentive to do it in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Yeah it's dumb to just have a blanket single-use-only for all research. Have it make sense in a case by case basis. If your scientist can't translate some huge alien tablet let someone else come try later, maybe when you have better translation technology. Or maybe you've found some ruins, but they are booby-trapped and it all self-destructs. Basically have it based on the outcome of the quest. It could also force players to make tough choices about what to do with the anomaly after they're done the quest. You've gained some insights by studying this ancient city but its far from your borders. At the end of the quest you can choose to destroy the ancient city so its secrets don't fall into anyone else's hands, or keep it intact as it will provide bonus infrastructure or a tourist attraction when colonized. There, an interesting choice!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Its weird to not see it mentioned in the science dev diary so hopefully its still in, but Doomdark explained at Gamescom that while anomalies are once and done, galactic features can house multiple anomalies that could be hidden and only show up when certain requirements are met. Ok that's fine, but why should that mean that no one else can come along and tinker with the tea set and wipe out a planet? Time pressure against using just one scientist is precisely what I mean when I say I hate the mechanics that are usually implemented to try and balance this, it just makes it feel like the game is taunting you with the possibilities of what you could discover, then punishing you when you try to do so. Either by using one scientist and falling behind or else by using many scientists and loving up your future research potential. It's just not a fun or rewarding mechanic at all. At best you just feel like you've gamed it the objectively correct way/got lucky, never that you have been rewarded for an actual plausible approach to discovering alien artefacts. Why can't it just be that every time a given scientist fails at researching an anomaly, his chance of success at the next attempt goes down a little. After a while it would be obvious he has totally the wrong approach to the problem so you bring in someone else who has a different idea of how to investigate it. That's not to say there shouldn't be some chance of failure resulting in destruction of the artefact or worse, but to have it be a 50% chance or more (which the diary heavily implies it will be, as per usual for this kind of mechanic), is extremely not fun at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Maybe it should instead be that that particular scientist can no longer research that anomaly? Could represent them coming to the wrong conclusion and being set in their ways and refusing to accept alternate explanations, or maybe them just being too dumb to figure it out correctly. But you can send other scientists (with the cost of getting them there and everything, and also the risk that they blow themselves up and destroy the anomaly forever) who may be able to figure it out, but they might also come to the wrong conclusion and get locked out. So you may end up with your entire scientific community coming to the wrong conclusion and getting locked out of this development for decades until they die and are replaced by new people, or you might decide to wait and level up your one remaining scientist for a while so that they have a better chance of figuring it out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Or maybe not every game is about minmaxing 180% and a bit of randomization is good to give the player a different experience next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I refuse to believe I can be the only sperg lord who find's it supremely frustrating when a game dangles a cool potential thing infront of your nose then goes nope, gently caress you, you rolled the dice wrong and takes it away again. Yes, I could start a different game and maybe I'd get lucky in that one, but I want to make meaningful decisions not rely on luck. Obviously games like these are making huge use of die rolls, but it needs to be kept far down under the hood, if you shove it in the players face that they are just rolling dice what's the point of playing the game? I might as well just go sit in the corner and roll physical die: "6! that means I discovered the death star and wiped out the umpa bumpa planet!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Having an end state that is just "Failure " with maybe [try again? Y/N] is a pretty bad design, because it takes that excitement at finding a cool thing and just goes "nope". Better to have the success influence how well you succeed, so that at best you get the tech right there and then or hell, maybe you even get some tech juice towards more stuff just because your researchers managed to see the big picture, while failure states simply delays the tech (the Tea Set analogue) to various degrees (or funnily, unlocks some all-together other tech; Expert Tea Brewing, Dr Death?). Toss [Scientist-Experience / Traits / Empire (Research) Culture / Empire Research Mana Points] on top to not make it just a dice-roll. Maybe have the absolute most terrible outcome be "Whoups, we blew up the only copy of this thinga-ma-jig and now we can't research it, but we learned a valuable lesson! [Minor Research bonus]" / "AND BLEW UP THE SHIP", if you want a drop of "risk" mixed in. This issue comes up in a lot of boardgames, some deal with it better than others. Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
I also just really like the idea that Joe Smith shows up and studies the thing and publishes his findings and is like "This is a giant kettle" and decides to subscribe to Giant Kettle Theory for the rest of his life. And a year later Jane Mbutu shows up because she was unconvinced by his publication so she examines it, but she also ends up publishing her findings as "Yeah, this totally is a giant kettle" and joins the Giant Kettle Theory school. And so it's accepted that it's a giant kettle. But then ten years later Pavel Kutuzov, by this point an established mid-career scientist with a lot of experience, decides to take another look at Giant Kettle Theory and examines it only to discover that it's actually a giant death laser, and publishes his findings and unlocks the discovery for the broader empire. Or, alternately, he also subscribes to Giant Kettle Theory and you have to wait for a new generation of scientists many turns later, who are able to make better discoveries because you've researched more laser technology so they're more likely to recognize a giant death laser when they see one. This would be further improved if there were two levels of non-discovery: a low level (which low level scientists would have a higher chance of getting) where they don't make a discovery but also don't conclusively prove nothing is there (so the anomaly doesn't disappear) and a high level (which high level scientists would have a higher chance of getting) where they don't make a discovery but conclusively prove there's nothing there and the anomaly then disappears so you don't spend any more time chasing red herrings. Ideally there would be some small bonus here, like your civilization was really in need of a giant kettle anyway so you still benefit somehow. And of course by trying to minmax every discovery you run increasing risks of blowing up your valuable scientists examining the same anomaly over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Would be funny if you could direct the experimental/alien tech research budget towards a project, after getting some sort of briefing ("It could be this or this thing... we think. Maybe. Give us money") and after waiting many tick-tocks, pumping 75% of the research budget into it because man you are getting increasingly sure that it's the fabled Death Laser from these reports, it turns out that no, it is in fact just an advanced Tea Brewing Device [+5 to Empire Tea Sipper-Pop Morale]. Tea Brewer Scientist Faction gains 15 Influence. Dr Death loses 25 Influence. Empire Tea Tech Doctrine advances! Before you know it you've conquered SpaceIndia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I also just really like the idea that Joe Smith shows up and studies the thing and publishes his findings and is like "This is a giant kettle" and decides to subscribe to Giant Kettle Theory for the rest of his life. And a year later Jane Mbutu shows up because she was unconvinced by his publication so she examines it, but she also ends up publishing her findings as "Yeah, this totally is a giant kettle" and joins the Giant Kettle Theory school. And so it's accepted that it's a giant kettle. Something like that would have far more character to the game in my opinion. It make your scientists seem like actual characters, other approaches just have your scientists be dice. Obviously your scientists still are dice, but by putting that extra layer on top of them they are dice that you remember and care for. You will remember when some forgotten mad scientist who has been rejected by mainstream thought for a decade discovers the secret to AI in what every body else was deeply convinced was a ritualistic dildo, and triumphs over all the people who had sneered at him. You will not remember when faceless super scientist Blah Blah McBlah who has spent the last 10 years been farmed on every anomaly your empire discovers is finally allowed to approach the level 100 anomaly and unlocks building the death star. In the end isn't that the charm of paradox games? The emergent narrative that comes from all these interacting systems? I don't see a traditional approach to anomalies adding to that, quite the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:04 |
|
|
Might just be that there are so many anomalies that it'd be impossible to just have your best dude do all of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2015 20:32
|
|
