|
Oh wow, the wiki's improved a ton since the last time I checked it. It's almost like there's way more information about the game out there now!
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:Groogy has said he'll work on Vicky3 once he is done with CK2. When that is, is another question. Yeah, problem is that I will never be done with CK2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yeah, problem is that I will never be done with CK2. Someday the anti-woman realism squad in paradox forums / reddit will break your spirit and you'll move on to more enlightened times Or maybe it's squashing the hundredth prisoner rape mod that does you in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yeah, problem is that I will never be done with CK2. That's good to hear, I really like the new mechanics in Conclave. You just need to fine tune them a bit, which you already promised to do. The upcoming coalition/infamy changes look pretty promising. I'm just sad that my lunatic character was murdered by his younger brother before he could introduce councilor Glitterhoof to the court 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:Someday the anti-woman realism squad in paradox forums / reddit will break your spirit and you'll move on to more enlightened times Lol I love how in this specific context. The "enlightened" time is the most sexist time of all human history and somehow unintentionally becomes satire
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Having returned to CK2 after a long spree of EU4, I really miss the way EU4 armies cannot change their destinations once they're half-way to them. In CK2 it's a right pain actually intercepting an enemy army to engage it. You can do the "wait until they're a day away from their destination, then start moving to their destination and you'll probably get them" thing, but it's not the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Isn't that from the "New Hordes" mod or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Lol I love how in this specific context. The "enlightened" time is the most sexist time of all human history and somehow unintentionally becomes satire Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
So this may be a weird question, buuuut.... have Microsoft Surface Pro tablets caught up to being able to play Paradox titles yet? I am going to be in the market for a laptop replacement something this year and being able to play Stellaris or my beloved Crusader Kings would be incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:So this may be a weird question, buuuut.... have Microsoft Surface Pro tablets caught up to being able to play Paradox titles yet? I am going to be in the market for a laptop replacement something this year and being able to play Stellaris or my beloved Crusader Kings would be incredible. Its a pain to play eu4 on them though, as the ui relies on mouse and tooltips.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Paradox Johan confirms: HoI4 released for tablets only, Kungahuset rasar! Read all about it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Get 1000 Hitlerboosts for only €4.99!! Today only!!! pops up for the 50th time this week
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
Ghost of Mussolini posted:Get 1000 Hitlerboosts for only €4.99!! Today only!!! pops up for the 50th time this week I thought it was called fuhrermana  Funnily, internally we know refer to all resources as mana these days.. goldmana for money, etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:Its a pain to play eu4 on them though, as the ui relies on mouse and tooltips. I actually play EU4 on a surface pro 4 and it works reasonably well. The pen provides the mouse input so that side works okay. The only problem I've seen is if I set the resolution to a 3:2 aspect ratio that isn't the surface's native resolution the game will default to a 5:4 one next time I load the game up so I'm forced to play with black bars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:I thought it was called fuhrermana I love having four wives as a Muslim, I always need more sonmana.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I love having four wives as a Muslim, I always need more sonmana. Glad I developed those mil-heavy provinces, gotta get that manmana.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Glad I developed those mil-heavy provinces, gotta get that manmana. Thankful I built that Wizards tower, I needed some more manamana. Am I doing this right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Thankful I built that Wizards tower, I needed some more manamana. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Yeah, problem is that I will never be done with CK2. Don't lie, you'll walk out of Pdox's doors the day they say they're making a Helleno-centric DLC. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:I thought it was called fuhrermana Does that mean... manmana?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2016 19:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Does that mean... manmana? Dudu duhdudu
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Dudu duhdudu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21UP0frYg-E ?!?!?!?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:?!?!?!?! No, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N_tupPBtWQ edit: (from the original) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBPnRh9U8ZE
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Are there any LPs of March of the Eagles, besides that cool MotE section in Wiz's Azerbaijan LP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:Are there any LPs of March of the Eagles, besides that cool MotE section in Wiz's Azerbaijan LP? Even Paradox forums have just one MotE AAR. I think even Sengoku had more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
Does CK2 still have suicidal Dukes who think they'll rebel with their 800 soldiers while you have an army of 12'000 parked on their province? Or do they actually look for allies first and are less annoying than EU3 rebels ever were.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Does CK2 still have suicidal Dukes who think they'll rebel with their 800 soldiers while you have an army of 12'000 parked on their province? Or do they actually look for allies first and are less annoying than EU3 rebels ever were. Disgruntled dukes will band together with other disgruntled dukes until they feel they have enough support to make demands of you. Though they do still do that david-vs-goliath rebellion thing if you fail to arrest them while they don't have much in the way of supporters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
If you think of them as the good guys in a tragic historical epic it sort of makes sense. With how goons seem to run their empires the disgruntled dukes probably are the good guys most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Some space 4x ramblings: Wanted to quote this post from like 20 pages back. I just started playing Aurora based on all the LPs people started doing on it. It's an interesting game and a lot of things I like about it- but I think this captures a lot of that game's weaknesses as well. Tech level tend to determine dominance, with empire size usually directly linking to research potential, certain techs tend to just make you flat out better and unstoppable to lower-tech'd groups (ship engines!), and also once you get past your first 2-3 colonies, the universe becomes very same-y looking. One thing I do like about Aurora though is that I never see what my enemy ships look like. I just get a dot on the map, and a few bits of sensor data, like thermal signature, hull size, and speed. I like that I can't just eyeball the ship on the game map and be like "oh, that's the frigate model- because it's that model I know it's small and fast and also I probably know what fleet strategy the AI is using..."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
EU4 AI tends to gang up on you if you get too big which, for a competent player, is enough to keep you in line and break you up again with a big war if you don't play super carefully. A really good player will game the system down to fifth decimal and conquer the world as loving Ceylon if they so choose but balancing around that is pointless. I think that Stellaris will end up breaking the mold of classical turn based space 4x games simply in the way that nobody gets to snowball and get into the "mopping up" stage that the genre has always suffered from. If your empire is massive and dominates a galactic arm you're going to break up from bureaucracy, capital distance, genetic divergence, post-humanism or straight up politics. Other empires will form Federations and gently caress with you, and conversely you'll be able to bait bigger fish into wars and use diplomacy and subterfuge to ferment rebellion and break them up, it'll be great. The fact that Paradox get to play around and do crazy poo poo because it isn't historical is also going to help. I'm really loving hyped for this game you guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Stellaris dev diary about war: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-20-war-peace.907257/ It's a lot like EU4 except you can declare multiple war goals, you can only actually enforce those goals or a subset of them if you win, and the defender has a year to counter-declare their own war goals. SO I guess actually it's more like V2? I never played it but I remember something about adding war goals in it. Also if you're in an alliance, the other members have to approve the war, which is more likely if your goals include giving them something. That's one interesting solution to all the issues EU4 has had with allies. Sindai fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Feb 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:EU4 AI tends to gang up on you if you get too big which, for a competent player, is enough to keep you in line and break you up again with a big war if you don't play super carefully. A really good player will game the system down to fifth decimal and conquer the world as loving Ceylon if they so choose but balancing around that is pointless. I think that Stellaris will end up breaking the mold of classical turn based space 4x games simply in the way that nobody gets to snowball and get into the "mopping up" stage that the genre has always suffered from. If your empire is massive and dominates a galactic arm you're going to break up from bureaucracy, capital distance, genetic divergence, post-humanism or straight up politics. Other empires will form Federations and gently caress with you, and conversely you'll be able to bait bigger fish into wars and use diplomacy and subterfuge to ferment rebellion and break them up, it'll be great. One thing that I think would also help is that, in my limited space 4x experience, few games do "vertical" empires well. It's assumed that everyone is advancing their tech a lot, so going wide doesn't interfere with also trying to be the most efficient/advanced empire much. I hope there's something of a mechanic for that. Unrelated, but another mechanic that would be interesting is if your people randomly start asking for you to colonize a new world with random properties. Like as a player you will usually have a set of guidelines that make you say "ok this planet is worth the effort, this isn't..." and so after your 3rd or 4th planet you are probably only going to be excited to colonize the most perfect and valuable of planets. So maybe if your population came to you and were like "your generals think you should set up a colony on a lava planet so they can train tougher soldiers" or "your scientists want to colonize a methane-atmosphere planet in hopes of making some serious breakthroughs in genetics..." that could break up the monotony of space expansion...
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Stellaris dev diary about war: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-20-war-peace.907257/ Stellaris is at its most exciting when they are talking about how they are skimming all the cream off EU4, CK2. I guess arguably HOI4 but that's ship designer stuff that I don't personally like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Stellaris dev diary about war: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-20-war-peace.907257/ It does sound similar to V2, except in V2 you can add subsequent war goals at any time, so long as you're winning and your population has enough Jingoism. But it's similar in that you can only take wargoals, not random stuff. V2 wargoals have a plenty attached to not taking them - you lose prestige and gain militancy, as well as still paying the infamy cost for adding the wargoal in the first place. zedprime posted:EU4 actually just got a similar system in Cossacks where allies will tell you to take a hike if you don't promise them territory or cash in favors that you farm up over time or especially by contributing to their wars. It kinda sounds similar to the CK2 Conclave stuff - you have to appease council members to get their votes to go to war. zedprime posted:Stellaris is at its most exciting when they are talking about how they are skimming all the cream off EU4, CK2. I guess arguably HOI4 but that's ship designer stuff that I don't personally like. Yeah, it really shows how Paradox is growing as a company and it's great that their games cross-pollinate. We see ideas move from EU4 to CK2 or vice-versa as well. Despite the difference in eras they still often face similar problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:One thing that I think would also help is that, in my limited space 4x experience, few games do "vertical" empires well. It's assumed that everyone is advancing their tech a lot, so going wide doesn't interfere with also trying to be the most efficient/advanced empire much. I hope there's something of a mechanic for that. Either that or you get the Civ V problem where vertical/tall empires are by far the superior choice, because the game scales research and cultural costs based on how many cities you have, and generally it works better to build 3-4 really awesome cities than having 10+ mediocre ones which just serve to increase your requirements faster than they can produce tech/culture (so even if you still have a couple of awesome cities on top of them, you're still running a net loss). The thing about wide vs. tall is that they should both be viable but also both have different challenges. With wide, it's a management/efficiency problem. CK2 does this really well - the more territory you have, the more vassals you need to manage it, and the more vassals you have the harder it is to keep them all happy. Going tall, meanwhile, should put you a bit behind when it comes to production/tech, but you're much more efficient than larger empire, so a bunch of tall nations banding together can punch way above their weight class - the challenge there then is in brokering and maintaining those alliances. Basically, it boils down to wide mainly needs to worry about internal threats, while tall needs to worry about external ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Either that or you get the Civ V problem where vertical/tall empires are by far the superior choice, because the game scales research and cultural costs based on how many cities you have, and generally it works better to build 3-4 really awesome cities than having 10+ mediocre ones which just serve to increase your requirements faster than they can produce tech/culture (so even if you still have a couple of awesome cities on top of them, you're still running a net loss). Another thing that could also work in the space 4x world- where tech tends to be king- is your empires have a natural amount of tech leakage. Basically anyone near you gets a small amount of tech points based on seeing your ships fly by, stealing or buying bits of your stuff off the black market, etc etc. As your empire grows, that leakage grows because you have an even longer border to patrol and keep in check. This would maybe help with some of your smaller neighbors rubber-banding themselves if they can't rely solely on alliances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Stellaris dev diary about war: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-20-war-peace.907257/ I'm not super on board with the idea of wars having static wargoals that cannot be changed in the duration of the conflict, but I like specific wargoals in general so I'm still looking forward to this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Another thing that could also work in the space 4x world- where tech tends to be king- is your empires have a natural amount of tech leakage. Basically anyone near you gets a small amount of tech points based on seeing your ships fly by, stealing or buying bits of your stuff off the black market, etc etc. As your empire grows, that leakage grows because you have an even longer border to patrol and keep in check. This would maybe help with some of your smaller neighbors rubber-banding themselves if they can't rely solely on alliances. EUIV sorta has this thing, but you could easily go more indepth here and have some ways for the player/ai to increase/decrease that leakage, through espionage, or "isolationism" for example (with whatever downsides there are). Like building a reverse-engineering SpaceChina with tight censorship/internal controls to keep tech inside the country, but is kinda cruddy at making it's own tech from scratch as a result. Easy to guarantee that you are never too far behind any other power, but much harder to leap-frog ahead - might be worth it tough if you're up against super-research aliens like the psilons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:Another thing that could also work in the space 4x world- where tech tends to be king- is your empires have a natural amount of tech leakage. Basically anyone near you gets a small amount of tech points based on seeing your ships fly by, stealing or buying bits of your stuff off the black market, etc etc. As your empire grows, that leakage grows because you have an even longer border to patrol and keep in check. This would maybe help with some of your smaller neighbors rubber-banding themselves if they can't rely solely on alliances. Or make it so that it's very difficult to get large amounts of money without inter-empire trade, and inter-empire trade gives huge tech boosts to the lower tech civilization due to purchasing and trading for advanced goods from the other empire. Trade, of course, should be completely automated based on your relations with other empires (i.e. not the Civ/GalCiv model where you build one giant freighter and send it from one planet to another). Any empire you're neutral or friendly with should be trading with you, and that gives them big tech boosts. And then through the magic of networking, almost all civilizations will benefit because your trading partners will benefit from you, then their trading partners will benefit from them, and so on, so that only some super isolated North Korea-like state that has no friends would actually fall substantially far behind everyone else. Civ 5 tried to do this with trade, but the actual science gains ended up being so minuscule that it didn't make a difference at all, and in any case you could always just trade with city states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
YF-23 posted:I'm not super on board with the idea of wars having static wargoals that cannot be changed in the duration of the conflict, but I like specific wargoals in general so I'm still looking forward to this. quote:There are other exceptions to how wars are waged, in the form of special types of civilizations, but that will have to wait for another dev diary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2016 17:23
|
|
