|
Vanilla EU3 is a pretty good comparison actually, with respect to playability and tedium aspects at least. I don't remember what the AI was up to other than France being a nightmare and every game turning into eternal war once you made the plunge into being a forever badboy. Things like trade were too much of a pain (autosend merchants didn't appear until Napoleon's Ambition) unless you had max mercantilism and was satisfied with having an unbreakable monopoly in domestic trade centers and nothing anywhere else. Victoria II also felt similar to this game, in that I can see the fundamentals are all there, particularly with the pops, but there's a lot of stuff that is bizarre or not working (minimum wage would ruin the global economy in the release version, iirc), there's some irritating mechanics (influence whack a mole) and it feels like there's not much going on (Crises did a lot to spice that game up). While Victoria II felt like it was one internally focused expansion away from really shining, I understand why Paradox moved on from it and don't see that they wouldn't give Stellaris the attention it needs. Personally, I have no problem with how Paradox does their dlc, because I don't think we'd have anything like the EU4 and CK2 you have now without that process. They're good these days when it comes to responding to the audience and though I can't say personally because I haven't played a Paradox game without loads of DLC, it doesn't seem at all like it used to be when you had vanilla EU3 which felt completely archaic by the time In Nomine was out, EU3 Complete which was not complete, and EU3 Chronicles which was the only version worth buying. The games evolve over time and in response to the audience, and Stellaris is evolving from a blank slate, rather than from CK or EU3. Some of the QoL things I'm surprised ever got to release, but it's fun and it's not poo poo. Not something I'd recommend to a non Paradox fan yet (who could spend forty now or ten on the base game on sale, 7.50 each for the first two DLCs and fifteen on the third one that's new at that point), but fun and not poo poo.
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Drink Cheerwine posted:it's rng bullshit. they rolled a 6 and you rolled a 1 on the first phase of combat, so your dug-in behind a river general is eating daily 1k losses vs. your enemy's daily loss of 75. oh good, here comes phase 2- but you've only got 13k of your original 20k left and their morale has been beaten to poo poo and the enemy still has 19k and just rolled another 6 to your 2. :paradox: This sucks. I think I'm gonna give up on EU4 and go back to CK2 for awhile, because it feels like I'm being punished for even trying right now.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
There's so many factors at play in eu4 that matter and they are almost all laid out to display in the combat screen if you pause and mouseover everything. They're technically inferior but is the tech they are behind in important? Falling behind on a tech that boosts supply limit is different from falling behind on a tech that gives tactics. You may have a general vs no general but if it's a 2 fire 1 maneuver general in the 1500s then it doesn't matter. You may have more numbers but their army composition could be better than yours. And again the numbers are all in the combat screen and their discipline and cavalry combat bonus could be higher than yours, you may enter battle with full morale but their max morale is higher than yours etc etc. Eu4 combat is a solved problem and also transparent, rng plays a factor but really not that much. But by all means just throw your hands in the air and give up
Vanilla Mint Ice fucked around with this message at 19:46 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:There's so many factors at play in eu4 that matter and they are all laid out to display in the combat screen if you pause and mouseover everything. They're technically inferior but is the tech they are behind in important? Falling behind on a tech that boosts supply limit is different from falling behind on a tech that gives tactics. You may have a general vs no general but if it's a 2 fire 1 maneuver general in the 1500s then it doesn't matter. You may have more numbers but their army composition could be better than yours. And again the numbers are all in the combat screen and their discipline and cavalry combat bonus could be higher than yours, you may enter battle with full morale but their max morale is higher than yours etc etc. Eu4 combat is a solved problem and also transparent, rng plays a factor but really not that much. But by all means just throw your hands in the air and give up There are over a dozen factors that can all swing a battle, it's an obtuse combat system. The kind of thing you were complaining about in Stellaris an hour ago.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
There's a major difference between a dozen different factors that can swing a battle and displaying them or not displaying any of them
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Like I can't believe you even think you can throw that at argument at me as if it's a clever gotcha In EU4 you have complete control over the tools of how you want to decide your battles. You can see other countries's informations on what ideas they have, ideas they completed, what their military capacities are and the tech level they are on. This allows you to make an informed decision of whether or not you want to fight them and if you do what your current odds of winning are. Then you go into the actual battle and can see if the numbers add up to do what they say to do as you calculated In Stellaris what the gently caress do you have. You fight and numbers go up in the battle screen about damage done to hull or shields or whatever but what does this mean. I'm doing 10k hull damage with big torpedoes okay cool what frame of reference can I use this for. I don't know their ship weapon or armor layout. Did they do repeatable techs to increase their armor by 10%? Did they even put armor on? They're technologically superior to me but what of it? Are my battleships using all their guns to target their battleships or are they targeting their destroyers or what? Are my missile corvettes hanging out at the back at their max range or are they standing still in this mash pile getting hit by kinetic weapons? The closest piece of intel stellaris provides is the debris at the end of the battle but even if you want to vaguely act on it good luck refitting your fleet one at a time for full price and waiting time of the upgrades one ship at a time per starport. So you just slap on your highest tech on your ship and pray the black box spits back out some good news
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:There's so many factors at play in eu4 that matter and they are almost all laid out to display in the combat screen if you pause and mouseover everything. They're technically inferior but is the tech they are behind in important? Falling behind on a tech that boosts supply limit is different from falling behind on a tech that gives tactics. You may have a general vs no general but if it's a 2 fire 1 maneuver general in the 1500s then it doesn't matter. You may have more numbers but their army composition could be better than yours. And again the numbers are all in the combat screen and their discipline and cavalry combat bonus could be higher than yours, you may enter battle with full morale but their max morale is higher than yours etc etc. Eu4 combat is a solved problem and also transparent, rng plays a factor but really not that much. But by all means just throw your hands in the air and give up I get what you're saying, but as somebody who played the poo poo out of EU3 and has only just got back into EU4 after not playing it since release, there's very little in the way of useful information presented for me to make an informed decision from. Without having played the game exhaustively since release and learned the ins and outs of all the mechanics enough to make sense of the numbers and the often minuscule differences that can and do decisively swing battles it feels very much like the game has been exhaustively tweaked to appease power-gaming grognards. It's hard to  when the barrier to entry is now so high, which is strange because I remember the EU games being some of the more accessible of Paradox's output and I've never had trouble figuring out CK2, Vicky or the HOI games. It also just feels outright unfair, as major powers tend to snowball and blob because there are exponentially more factors in their favour with each battle they win, which has always been a problem but with the increasingly complex combat seems to have become even more and more prominent.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
As someone who played a shitton of eu3, I found eu4 super obtuse at release.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
I have question about EU4 modding: When editing the lists of monarch names and leader names for a country in EU4 as well as the names of historical rulers, the game seems to not recognize letters such as "ç", "é", "è" or "û" and just shows them as something else like "ÃIII" or something like that. Anyone knows why this is? I'm somewhat confused on this one because there are alot of names already in the game that use special letters like that, even those letters and it shows up just fine, but when I try to change stuff then the game seems to crap itself on those letters.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Honestly I wouldn't recommend someone new get into eu4 the way it is now, not because of the combat which has largely remained unchanged since release, but because of all the other bloated, tacked on mechanics after each patch cycle. Until you slowly learn the mechanics you should really stick to major powers in eu4 so you have the room to make mistakes and learn.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
I'm not trying to e-burn you, I just think the combat in both EU4 and Stellaris can be pretty confusing to anyone. EU4 does present a ridiculous amount of data in the ledger and in the combat tooltips; with enough careful reading of forum posts and wiki pages you can figure out what it all does and how you can optimize your armies. Stellaris has a lot of complexity that's inaccessible to any of us right now, but it'll probably become clearer over the next couple patches. In both cases there's a lot to get frustrated with, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
I wasn't on the hype train so I don't think Stellaris is all that bad. I just don't get why it didn't get a little more time since it's not PDS's only major title this year. Maybe launching in the autumn still wouldn't give enough time to rework things but it just seems a little rushed. And I'm sure HoI4 will have all sorts of hilarious bugs and broken AI at launch but based on the streams it just seems a little more focused and that it's probably benefited from the delay.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:I have question about EU4 modding: I think the EU4 files use unicode versions of characters, and (assuming you're using a foreign language keyboard or copy-pasting from somewhere else) the versions you're putting in might be an unrecognized character as far as the game is concerned. Try to find an example from the game files and copy it into whatever you're trying to add and see if it works. Jaramin fucked around with this message at 21:08 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Like I can't believe you even think you can throw that at argument at me as if it's a clever gotcha True
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:I think the EU4 files use unicode versions of characters, and (assuming you're using a foreign language keyboard or copy-pasting from somewhere else) the versions you're putting in might be an unrecognized character as far as the game is concerned. Ah, that might very well be the case as I'm using a Norwegian keyboard. So if I change the language on my keyboard to English and type it in and save it it should be fine then?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Ah, that might very well be the case as I'm using a Norwegian keyboard. So if I change the language on my keyboard to English and type it in and save it it should be fine then? I think that should be fine. If it still screws up you can look up the "ALT code" for a character and that should work fine too. IE: The alt code for ç is ALT+ 0231, é is ALT + 0233, and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:There are over a dozen factors that can all swing a battle, it's an obtuse combat system. The kind of thing you were complaining about in Stellaris an hour ago. Of all those factors, the only one you as a player have 0 control over is the 0-9 combat roll. Which is the big thing, yeah, but you can control so many other aspects of it that it should balance out in your favour if you've secured yourself an overall advantage. If it doesn't, tough poo poo, you either didn't plan things out as well as you thought you did or you hit the reverse jackpot. And even in those cases you can usually recover afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:There are over a dozen factors that can all swing a battle, it's an obtuse combat system. The kind of thing you were complaining about in Stellaris an hour ago. complex and obtuse are not the same thing buddy
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Stellaris is a new IP, that's all there is to it. It will be fleshed out over patches/DLC and five years from now when Stellaris 2 is released, it'll be a whole different experience. It seems this title is the first Paradox rodeo for a whole slew of people unfamiliar with their track record. As a person who's played Paradox games for a very, very long time, Stellaris was exactly what I expected of the very first iteration. Sure, they could have held it back for another six months, tacked on several other features or whatnot, but that's just not the way they roll. On a different note, I've watched most of the HOI4 developer diaries and gameplay streams and it seems to be on course for a fairly well polished release. Pretty much what I wanted with quite a lot of expansion potential that will, no doubt, be ruthlessly exploited.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
I think the ship design in stellaris is dumb and doesn't result in much like ship designers in all 4x games. You just get the most optimized ship rather than different styles. It's not like there's much to be different on anyway in this game. I wouldn't mind abstracted war but then why the hell do i care about shields and point defense.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
It's kind of like offensive vs defensive troop choices in EU, except a triangle with decent sidegrades you'll probably only briefly use. You sort of care about shields and point defences because the most powerful strat in the game is to mass destroyers with the large weapons module and the best weapon you can find, and generally other empires, AI or player, will build around that singular design. Torps lose to PD, Tachyon Lances lose to shields. Not sure what the kinetic weapon equivalent is yet, but it'll suck against armour stacks. Flak Artillery helps against swarms, but starts up an arms race of its own with lightning projectors and similar. Right now capships don't really feel worth it, and strikecraft are utterly useless because they have zero range. Both of these issues'll probably be fixed over the next few weeks - the former by fiddling with the battleship module slot and the latter by an outright number tweak patch. Also the whole fleet strength calc is utterly useless and should probably be removed, as it's about as useful as the troop count overheads in CK2 since the introduction of elephants and custom units. It's not the Best Thing Ever, especially as there's frequently little to do between wars and whilst waiting for science projects to tick over, but it's solid enough that I'm getting time out of it now and will be able to come back to it in three to four expansions time and really enjoy it. That said, I've also yet to get to any crises such as robot uprisings or stuff; unlike scripted events in other games it's not like stuff can be tied to nation tags or provinces so I might well accidentally sidestep a chunk of the interesting / unique stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Drone posted:Let us all remember vanilla Civilization 5. This is very true. I have no idea how buggy Beyond Earth was at launch, but Stellaris is already way more interesting and engaging than BE. The HoI4 release though is going to be great getting another round of people discovering their dream game isn't in at launch.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Drink Cheerwine posted:it's rng bullshit. they rolled a 6 and you rolled a 1 on the first phase of combat, so your dug-in behind a river general is eating daily 1k losses vs. your enemy's daily loss of 75. oh good, here comes phase 2- but you've only got 13k of your original 20k left and their morale has been beaten to poo poo and the enemy still has 19k and just rolled another 6 to your 2. :paradox: if eu4 combat was rng bullshit, it'd be pretty surprising to find players who could consistently pull off world conquests and other difficult feats. TomViolence posted:This sucks. I think I'm gonna give up on EU4 and go back to CK2 for awhile, because it feels like I'm being punished for even trying right now. Can you take a screenshot of the combat screen at the start of a battle, the next time you get into a fight with one of the guys who's creaming you? maybe mouseover morale, discipline, whatever? that'd be helpful for diagnosing what's going wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
also, if you want to find a combat system less obtuse than eu4's, ck2 is not really what i'd suggest...
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
As someone who's trying to get into non-Stellaris Paradox games for the first time: EU4 or CK2, and why? edit: Extra question: And which expansions are considered must-haves for either? Prism fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Prism posted:As someone who's trying to get into non-Stellaris Paradox games for the first time: Victoria 2.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Prism posted:As someone who's trying to get into non-Stellaris Paradox games for the first time: I'd say EU4 because if you've played a 4x game your experience there will probably mostly translate over and the initial learning curve mostly becomes understanding the PDX interface and a few moderate sized concepts like the reality of asymmetric starts. CK2 adds in all the dynasty stuff which is cool, but may be tough to wrap your brain around.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Prism posted:As someone who's trying to get into non-Stellaris Paradox games for the first time: EU4 if you want strategy CK2 if you want roleplaying. Art of War and Common Sense for EU4, Way of Life for CK2.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
ExtraNoise posted:Victoria 2. it's not nice, to troll
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:it's not nice, to troll Yeah play Darkest Hour instead
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Prism posted:As someone who's trying to get into non-Stellaris Paradox games for the first time: Iron Cross.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Prism posted:As someone who's trying to get into non-Stellaris Paradox games for the first time: Victoria 2 is the best pds game
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Nullkigan posted:It's kind of like offensive vs defensive troop choices in EU, except a triangle with decent sidegrades you'll probably only briefly use. Torps really don't lose to PD, they're easily the best weapons in the game. The AI rarely ever even uses PD because it reduces DPS and they bypass the shields that the AI prioritises. And they never miss.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Victoria 2 is a legitimately great Paradox game once you get the expansions, but I wouldn't recommend it as somebody's first Paradox game. I'd recommend CK2 just because a.) it's my fave b.) it's the Paradox game most different from other strategy games so it's a really unique experience and c.) failure is both more amusing and more recoverable than in other Paradox games. It's not quite as easy to pick up as Stellaris-- the tutorial blows and since you're thrown right into the middle of history there's no period to just learn mechanics before-- but even though it's more complex and has more moving parts than EU4, it tends to be a lot more forgiving of sub-optimal play and trying weird and dumb things.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Hey OP I'd like to point out a correctionquote:Mare Nostrum - Adds corruption (yet more ways for your map-painting to slow down), states/territories (replacement for overseas colony modifiers), better naval combat, a deeper espionage system, the ability to hire out your idle armies as mercenaries, and, most importantly, the ability to hit a button and reform the Roman Empire if you've conquered Europe and the Middle East. So far consensus is that this DLC is pretty skippable. Corruption, states/territories, and all of the naval combat changes were all patched into core EU4. Mare Nostrum adds the ability to hire your idle armies as mercenaries, the ability to reform the Roman Empire, various new espionage options (the "build spy network" thing is part of core eu4, too), various naval missions, and slave raiding for the barbary nations
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Like I can't believe you even think you can throw that at argument at me as if it's a clever gotcha If you're digging through the ledger pretty much ever while playing EU4 you are short-changing yourself extremely badly. Fog of war is what makes the combat in EU4 and stellaris fun. Also if you have entered combat with that specific ship design or you have good enough sensors you can just click their fleet and look at them, including after-modifier values.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Contrary to opinion, play Stellaris long enough and you'll learn that red lasers and then blue lasers and yellow and then orange missiles all mean different things related to tech that are clearly visible as opposed to tooltip mousing in EU4.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Westminster System posted:Contrary to opinion, play Stellaris long enough and you'll learn that red lasers and then blue lasers and yellow and then orange missiles all mean different things related to tech that are clearly visible as opposed to tooltip mousing in EU4. And what's this? A visible roman numeral in the picture showing what tier of tech it is? So you won't even get confused over whether auto-cannons are a side grade or an upgrade?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
You can't actually see what those red lasers and blue lasers are doing, how the ships are using them, which ships your ships are targeting, which ships are doing damage to them- you can't see any of that poo poo. All you're given is an extremely opaque and obtuse combat log that basically provides pretty useless information. You don't even get a summary of the ships you lost (!) You can actually see all of that in EU battles, and in fact you could see that at EU3 release (!)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:55 |
|
|
Well I already know that lasers are bad against shields, good against armour, the damage details indicate as much and that's something that some people have already worked out but it could be better indicated. On the rest, it's exactly the same as an EU battle, except more enjoyable to watch most of the time. You are right on the ships lost thing though, that definitely needs to be added rather than me working it out manually. Though frankly I'm not playing a paradox game for the combat.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 09:37
|
|