|
Kavak posted:Still seems lame that there's no way to change flags except with ideology. What flag changes does KR have that aren't due to ideology? I guess I mostly know KR through LPs since DH is way too intimidating for me to actually play. 
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:What flag changes does KR have that aren't due to ideology? I guess I mostly know KR through LPs since DH is way too intimidating for me to actually play. The PSA and AUS get to choose a flag via event, something I am quite envious of as the CSA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:What flag changes does KR have that aren't due to ideology? I guess I mostly know KR through LPs since DH is way too intimidating for me to actually play. There are a few events that allow you to pick a completely new flag, two in the ACW. There's also absorbing other countries and changing your name and flag afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
I think a bunch of countries have different flags if they become puppets of Germany or Russia even though their govtype could be the same. Some have different monarchy/republic flags. Actually there may be even more flag changes then are probably necessary, but it's nice flavor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:10
|
|
|
Aaaa all that sounds really cool. I wish I could deal with Old Paradox UIs enough to, you know, play it, but I'm still traumatized by Victoria 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Victoria 1 was a masterpiece of game design. Apologize to the Invisible Hand of the Free Market for this slight or you won't receive your proper dividends due to planned economy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
I'd assume that there'd be no reason a modder couldn't add an event for a Franco-British union or whatever if they wanted to? I mean the whole "this event/decision switches you to a new tag" thing is pretty common for all the PDX games. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:I'd assume that there'd be no reason a modder couldn't add an event for a Franco-British union or whatever if they wanted to? I mean the whole "this event/decision switches you to a new tag" thing is pretty common for all the PDX games. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue here? It's a step backwards from Darkest Hour where a single tag could have arbitrary cosmetic changes to its flag and name without changing its tag. That made event scripting easier since there was no need to make checks for multiple tags depending upon appearance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
karmicknight posted:As someone who wants to have that obsession but realizes its kind of stupid early on and quits. Part of it stems from the idea of remaking the world in a new image, especially if you are handicapping yourself and/or building up other powers. Look at the good and cool LPs of paradox games, many of them revolve around the world created, and this created world is what interests me as a player. It's why I have less of an interest in later bookmarks, less of the world is there to It's very much this. It's all about seeing how a world where Hinduism spread to Norway in 800 would look in the 1800s, or how America would turn out if it was colonised by a European Muslim Empire (the "republican nightmare paralell"). And if the AI gets into weird enough poo poo I can rule a tiny, pointless barony in the north sea for a millennium just to see how it all develops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
The goon Hanseatic LP is one of my favorites because it's a completely retold world where Vikings colonized Canada, the Aztecs conquered Spain and Asia is the desolate remnants of a civilization that Dug Too Deep. Alt history is fantastic and I really wish modders did more with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
later dates in EU games have always been a joke
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Mans posted:later dates in EU games have always been a joke If they worked less like starting dates and more like short, self contained scenarios (like in Hearts of Iron) they would probably see more play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:It's a step backwards from Darkest Hour where a single tag could have arbitrary cosmetic changes to its flag and name without changing its tag. That made event scripting easier since there was no need to make checks for multiple tags depending upon appearance. More than that, I don't think that a tag change would work for HoI4 given the national focii trees that would have to be somehow imported on tag swap.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
Ah I wish HOI4 was out now. Well maybe not right now, it only just hit beta, but you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Dude says the tech isn't in right now, not that it won't be. Either it'll come along later in development or post launch. Maybe in a FLAG QUEST DLC where you can customize all flags, forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Crouching Sickle, hidden Swastika?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Suggestion for India. Dibujante posted:The reason why I think that the longbow prolonged the conflict is that, despite the weakness of the French crown, French armies were still almost always larger and better equipped than English armies. French armies relied heavily on armored cavalry and mercenary companies, which were considered by contemporaries to be Right Way to Wage War. The use of the longbow by the English probably would not have happened if the English had also been able to afford the kind of "correct" armies that the French were fielding. For this reason, I think that, without the longbow, the English would not have succeeded at contesting the claims of even a weak French king. karmicknight posted:
Additionally: Empires rise and fall, it is a fact of history. I know Wiz posted about how certain factors are not fun for the player and keeping a player in check in a game has to work a certain way otherwise it not be fun and engaging. However, these games that are based on history so some sort of mechanic that empowers the rise of empires but then the other side of the coin can contribute to their fall would be based on history and fact and could still be engaging in some way if implemented correctly. The blobbing question is an endless one about any Strategy game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Yeah the main problem isn't "how do we design systems that will emulate the decline of an aging empire?" but rather "how do we make those systems fun". Losing strength/territory is almost universally a failure state in strategy games, and being forced to split your huge empire for "balance" would just feel like the game kicking you in the balls for no reason. Even when it's not even a forced thing but rather a natural consequence of the current game state (eg a huge more powerful neighbour rolling over you), players will still complain about it being unfair that there's no way for them to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:My impression is that Johan really dislikes the later bookmarks, possibly because of how much work they are to maintain versus how much they actually get used. I'd be fine with tossing the day-by-day start options (cool though though they are) for a few really nice hand-crafted bookmarks, but I don't get the impression that's something that's something the Paradox team has a lot of enthusiasm for... This
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah the main problem isn't "how do we design systems that will emulate the decline of an aging empire?" but rather "how do we make those systems fun". Losing strength/territory is almost universally a failure state in strategy games, and being forced to split your huge empire for "balance" would just feel like the game kicking you in the balls for no reason. Even when it's not even a forced thing but rather a natural consequence of the current game state (eg a huge more powerful neighbour rolling over you), players will still complain about it being unfair that there's no way for them to stop it. This is why I would like to see failure states so interesting that players would intentionally choose them in certain cases. You get this with communism / fascism in Victoria, although I think this could be codified: Communism / Fascism could be redesigned as last-ditch efforts to dump prestige for industry / military in order to catch up to the leader of the pack (Great Britain). In an EU4 context, it might be possible to design mechanisms that make losing parts of your empire a positive thing. Take a look at the Timurids, for example - they start in a fairly unenvious position. Historically they collapsed into feuding kingdoms. What if that were the right choice? You could say "gently caress it" and declare the disintegration of your empire, getting to pick the choicest same-culture, same-religion provinces and loot development / monarch points from the rest to boot. Rather than being stuck with Persia, you could jettison it and leave it poorer in doing so, for example. As well, with even more subject interactions, you could provide even some positive incentives for creating new vassals. For example, if it were possible to create a trade vassal who transferred x% of their trade income to you out of a bunch of high trade power provinces in a node that doesn't feed into your home node.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:This It really doesn't feel like there's ever any reason to pick a later start date. You don't really gain something from any of them that you can't do in an earlier one, and you lose years of gameplay instead. The only exception I can think of is starting a couple years after the start of the Grand Campaign as Byzantium in EU3 for a better start. So I think there's a bit of a feedback loop in this where everyone plays the grand campaign, and any future development is only about that because that's what the game is. It would take a radically different game for there to ever be a reason for you guys to work on other bookmarks probably. The biggest possibility I can think of in the confines of EU4 is if you ever make fantasy scenarios. But you know what, custom nations and randomised starts are almost as good as that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Tying everything together about blob prevention, and late bookmarks and late game in general being weird, I think some of it comes back to EU4 being too long for its granularity. The amount of gameplay per month or per year makes you feel like a useless schlub if you aren't ballooning at the most breakneck pace your manpower and diplomatic abilities can sustain. A more measured pace in the current system feels like hamstringing because not constantly being at war again makes you feel like a schlub for needing to arbitrarily play nicely in your own borders, for example regencies drive people absolutely bonkers. Its turned into a blobbing game against blobbing AI because that's how you keep people in their seats during a 2 or 3 speed multiplayer game. So then, is there room for a less granular take on the era where the territorial gains from early EU3 aren't just a ceiling, but a very engaging challenge? I don't know, EU4 works even if you kill your average save game by 1700, and all the grognard gotta stop expansion mods have been awful experiences. e. Part of me is now wondering if there isn't room for a 1700-1830 game since colonial appeasement has been hot and cold for a while now, and the closest we ever get to Napoleon is swat the Rev before it's bonuses balloon to superpower. zedprime fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Feb 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
At least in CK2 some religions/governments are bound to gavelkind succession to split up their titles if the player doesn't game the system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I mean, if there were greater incentives for splitting up your empire (basing this on what I've seen of my buddy playing EU4 and me playing CK2) that could lead to more organic rises and falls of empires (undulating empires?). You could give Croatia back to Croatian nationalists, for example, and end up with a strong a.f. ally if no bloodshed were involved. You'd end up with less bureaucracy as well, and your people would see as the just and good ruler you were. At some point, though, new leaders of our hypothetical Croatia would emerge, which for one reason or another would require you to bring Croatia back into the fold. I mean, the mechanisms are already there, I guess, and I'm bad enough at the game that I probably would need 500 years or more to build an empire anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:I mean, if there were greater incentives for splitting up your empire (basing this on what I've seen of my buddy playing EU4 and me playing CK2) that could lead to more organic rises and falls of empires (undulating empires?). You could give Croatia back to Croatian nationalists, for example, and end up with a strong a.f. ally if no bloodshed were involved. You'd end up with less bureaucracy as well, and your people would see as the just and good ruler you were.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
In CK2 I think the later 1080something bookmark is actually the top secret start date everyone should use. Byzantium is no longer a blob, the HRE is out of Italy and William the Conquerer is actually ruling in England and isn't about to be bumped out by those uppity Anglo Saxons anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:At least in CK2 some religions/governments are bound to gavelkind succession to split up their titles if the player doesn't game the system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:At least in CK2 some religions/governments are bound to gavelkind succession to split up their titles if the player doesn't game the system. Which they almost certainly will. Gavelkind is a perfect example of how hard it is to implement anti-blobbing mechanics that players will actually enjoy. I mean everyone HATES gavelkind. The first piece of advice given to new players is always "switch away from gavelkind ASAP".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This is why I would like to see failure states so interesting that players would intentionally choose them in certain cases. You get this with communism / fascism in Victoria, although I think this could be codified: Communism / Fascism could be redesigned as last-ditch efforts to dump prestige for industry / military in order to catch up to the leader of the pack (Great Britain). [/quote] You get a little bit of this in CK2 due to laws affecting an entire duchy/kingdom rather than one province. If EU4 had something vaguely analogous, you could get Interesting situations, where, say, two provinces in Austrian Hungary have gone protestant and are trying to rebel, but to raise their autonomy you need to raise all of Hungary's autonomy, which is a net loss to you... so you kick them out and let them get
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:In CK2 I think the later 1080something bookmark is actually the top secret start date everyone should use. Byzantium is no longer a blob, the HRE is out of Italy and William the Conquerer is actually ruling in England and isn't about to be bumped out by those uppity Anglo Saxons anytime soon. Yeah I'm surprised that people don't play CK2 out of the earliest bookmarks much, I play all over the place in that one. I think I only used the default 1066 one on my very first game. EU4 on the other hand I've only done like twice. It really is the chicken/egg thing though- I've felt like playing later a whole bunch of times so I could get more established Spanish and Ottomans etc, but the 1444 date has had so much more care put into it which turns me off from using any of the others. Having to rejig ideas, catch up on tech, the whole world being sparse on buildings and development etc since the AI does all that pretty actively. It makes things feel a lot more dead. Even then though it's meant to be a pretty huge amount of work to maintain the bookmarks? I'll be sad to see them go but I would definitely rather see the dev time put into other things personally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:A weak ruler letting the rabble decide his policies more like. Well it would mostly be so that you could throw Croatians at stuff until it's weak enough to mop up with your camel-army with no risk to your fancy princes. Edit: also everyone should read this for camel-armies and fun history https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3731765&pagenumber=10&perpage=40
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:It really doesn't feel like there's ever any reason to pick a later start date. You don't really gain something from any of them that you can't do in an earlier one, and you lose years of gameplay instead. The only exception I can think of is starting a couple years after the start of the Grand Campaign as Byzantium in EU3 for a better start. So I think there's a bit of a feedback loop in this where everyone plays the grand campaign, and any future development is only about that because that's what the game is. The thing is, I *don't* lose years of gameplay, because I don't play to the end-date as is. pdxjohan posted:This  Ty for the response!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Which they almost certainly will. Gavelkind is a perfect example of how hard it is to implement anti-blobbing mechanics that players will actually enjoy. I mean everyone HATES gavelkind. The first piece of advice given to new players is always "switch away from gavelkind ASAP". I quite like it as long as it doesn't create a massive blob inside the kingdom when my character's brothers die and their duchies all go to the same sibling
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:In an EU4 context, it might be possible to design mechanisms that make losing parts of your empire a positive thing. Take a look at the Timurids, for example - they start in a fairly unenvious position. Historically they collapsed into feuding kingdoms. What if that were the right choice? You could say "gently caress it" and declare the disintegration of your empire, getting to pick the choicest same-culture, same-religion provinces and loot development / monarch points from the rest to boot. Rather than being stuck with Persia, you could jettison it and leave it poorer in doing so, for example. As well, with even more subject interactions, you could provide even some positive incentives for creating new vassals. For example, if it were possible to create a trade vassal who transferred x% of their trade income to you out of a bunch of high trade power provinces in a node that doesn't feed into your home node. I really, really like this idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah I'm surprised that people don't play CK2 out of the earliest bookmarks much, I play all over the place in that one. I think I only used the default 1066 one on my very first game. CK2 is probably the only Paradox game where I've played at the later start dates frequently. The issue with playing EUIV at the later start dates is that by that time your national ideas are usually fixed in place, and so you don't have as much flexibility in expansion as in 1444. It may just be an issue that a state-based game rather than a character-based game will make players feel more "trapped" at later start dates. At the same time, I wish that there was a dedicated EUIV bookmark for the Peace of Augsburg, since that is a pretty good starting position for a more "historical" game to occur: Protestantism and Reformism are entrenched, with each having a spare CoR if you want to also convert, Spain has a massive empire but North America is still uncolonized, Austria is dominant but doesn't have a PU over Spain anymore, the Ottomans are at the height of their European expansion, and the Mughals and Safavids are on the upswing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:CK2 is probably the only Paradox game where I've played at the later start dates frequently. The issue with playing EUIV at the later start dates is that by that time your national ideas are usually fixed in place, and so you don't have as much flexibility in expansion as in 1444. It may just be an issue that a state-based game rather than a character-based game will make players feel more "trapped" at later start dates. Spiderfist Island posted:At the same time, I wish that there was a dedicated EUIV bookmark for the Peace of Augsburg, since that is a pretty good starting position for a more "historical" game to occur: Protestantism and Reformism are entrenched, with each having a spare CoR if you want to also convert, Spain has a massive empire but North America is still uncolonized, Austria is dominant but doesn't have a PU over Spain anymore, the Ottomans are at the height of their European expansion, and the Mughals and Safavids are on the upswing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Tuskin38 posted:Ah I wish HOI4 was out now. Yeah. Years of beta-testing games for free have taught me that while you're getting to play the game early (and for free), you're always better off just waiting for release and paying for the improved, non-hosed version.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Black Griffon posted:I mean, if there were greater incentives for splitting up your empire (basing this on what I've seen of my buddy playing EU4 and me playing CK2) that could lead to more organic rises and falls of empires (undulating empires?). You could give Croatia back to Croatian nationalists, for example, and end up with a strong a.f. ally if no bloodshed were involved. You'd end up with less bureaucracy as well, and your people would see as the just and good ruler you were. GB is usually better off just keeping most of its dominions as puppets and sphere members instead as their territory on Vicky and there are a lot of events that endorse it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:In CK2 I think the later 1080something bookmark is actually the top secret start date everyone should use. Byzantium is no longer a blob, the HRE is out of Italy and William the Conquerer is actually ruling in England and isn't about to be bumped out by those uppity Anglo Saxons anytime soon. The Alexiad start date is also the pro Byzantine start date, because Alp Arslan is dead and Alexios is a badass with great stats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 22:03
|
|