|
catlord posted:In a hypothetical Victoria 3, do you think accepted languages would be a worthwhile addition? I was thinking about those events people posted about "signs in Yankee vs Dixie," and how you would deal with that, and I thought about pops having a language attached to them, but that also seems like it could easily just be bloat rather than be something interesting. It's probably one of those things where they'd have to decide if it would actually be used enough to be worthwhile. Like, Victoria 2 already has cultural groups, so it would probably make sense to just assume that all cultures in the same group speak the same language (admittedly this falls apart with some of them - like the Scandinavian group containing Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Finnish, and Sami, even though ALL of them speak their own languages).
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
catlord posted:In a hypothetical Victoria 3, do you think accepted languages would be a worthwhile addition? I was thinking about those events people posted about "signs in Yankee vs Dixie," and how you would deal with that, and I thought about pops having a language attached to them, but that also seems like it could easily just be bloat rather than be something interesting. Attempts to standardize dialect and language were a pretty big feature of the era, it'd be worth tracking imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Ultimately you'd probably be fine just specifically excluding the cases where it doesn't apply from those events.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
It would be worth doing because it could influence a lot. You could have an Austro-Hungarian style problem where your officers don't speak the same language as their troops, so your army's organisation is always a bit poo poo. Suppressing languages while promoting your own was something imperialist powers actually did, and any game mechanic that encourages players to act historically is cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
It'd also be useful for tracking the effects of colonial empires on the colonized, because it's silly having half of Africa become French culture, but there should be some way to tell which groups have begun speaking French...
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
What about bilingual or trilingual pops? How many different literary rates could we add?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Once you separate language from culture, I think culture becomes a (more) nebulous and mostly useless thing to keep track of. Are monolingual German-speaking but Polish-cultured pops accepted in Germany? Would they prefer to live in Poland? When do they start being culturally German? Are the Arvanites cultural Greeks who happen to speak Albanian or cultural Albanians? What precisely is cultural assimilation if not language acquisition? If culture is distinct from language, the natural assumption is probably that it represents ethnicity, which becomes... problematic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's probably one of those things where they'd have to decide if it would actually be used enough to be worthwhile. Like, Victoria 2 already has cultural groups, so it would probably make sense to just assume that all cultures in the same group speak the same language (admittedly this falls apart with some of them - like the Scandinavian group containing Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Finnish, and Sami, even though ALL of them speak their own languages). *I suppose Norwegian wouldn't count for the majority of the game. da beeper king BABY posted:Once you separate language from culture, I think culture becomes a (more) nebulous and mostly useless thing to keep track of. Are monolingual German-speaking but Polish-cultured pops accepted in Germany? Would they prefer to live in Poland? When do they start being culturally German? Are the Arvanites cultural Greeks who happen to speak Albanian or cultural Albanians? What precisely is cultural assimilation if not language acquisition? If culture is distinct from language, the natural assumption is probably that it represents ethnicity, which becomes... problematic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
da beeper king BABY posted:Once you separate language from culture, I think culture becomes a (more) nebulous and mostly useless thing to keep track of. Are monolingual German-speaking but Polish-cultured pops accepted in Germany? Would they prefer to live in Poland? When do they start being culturally German? Are the Arvanites cultural Greeks who happen to speak Albanian or cultural Albanians? What precisely is cultural assimilation if not language acquisition? If culture is distinct from language, the natural assumption is probably that it represents ethnicity, which becomes... problematic. This is actually pretty thematic for Vicky 3
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:bruges is a city built through multiple historical eras with the medieval core intact, and i was commenting on how cool a multiple-era city builder would be Urban Empire might be similar to what you're after, not from the medieval era though. Industrial revolution to the Present.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Attempts to standardize dialect and language were a pretty big feature of the era, it'd be worth tracking imo. Here have your game mechanic nightmare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romansh_language The proper comedy value comes from there being 10ish dialects spoken by a couple hundred or thousand people each. They can't even agree on which one they should teach at school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
I want every pop in New Guinea speaking a different language from a different family, none of which are accepted by any state. EDIT: Also, I want the game to track creoles and pidgins and have them develop dynamically as the game goes on, with any two or more languages being able to mix and form new languages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Here have your game mechanic nightmare: And also the controversial move to make a standardised version, and the debate about it: quote:The debate was characterized by a heavy use of metaphors, with opponents describing Rumantsch Grischun as a "test-tube baby" or "castrated language". They argued that it was an artificial and infertile creation which lacked a heart and soul, in contrast to the traditional dialects. On the other side, proponents called on the Romansh people to nurture the "new-born" to allow it to grow, with Romansh writer Ursicin Derungs calling Rumantsch Grischun a "lungatg virginal" 'virgin language' that now had to be seduced and turned into a blossoming woman. That strikes me as a kinda weird place to go, Mr. Derungs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
We're talking about a small tribe of partially inbred mountain folk. It's not as extreme these days since mobility and with it the dating range increased a lot but it's still shows in studies. Will the Vicky3 pop model allow cousins to marry?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:We're talking about a small tribe of partially inbred mountain folk. It's not as extreme these days since mobility and with it the dating range increased a lot but it's still shows in studies. Will the Vicky3 pop model allow cousins to marry? it would be remiss of a game about the 19th century to not include the confederacy
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:EDIT: Also, I want the game to track creoles and pidgins and have them develop dynamically as the game goes on, with any two or more languages being able to mix and form new languages. It can even be a feature mentioned in the previews that never ends up implemented, like cadet dynasties in CK2 or fun in Stellaris! I like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:It can even be a feature mentioned in the previews that never ends up implemented, like cadet dynasties in CK2 or fun in Stellaris! I like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Urban Empire might be similar to what you're after, not from the medieval era though. Industrial revolution to the Present. It's also a steaming pile of poo poo though. The city building is boring and devoid of content, the political system is a repetitive soulless chore of watching votes that are easily gamed through a couple of clicks, and the economy is completely and utterly broken. Too bad, because I loved the concept and wasted some time trying to convince myself it was salvageable, but it's not, especially since the devs vanished into thin air right after release. Don't buy this game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:it would be remiss of a game about the 19th century to not include the confederacy  ZearothK posted:It can even be a feature mentioned in the previews that never ends up implemented, like cadet dynasties in CK2 or fun in Stellaris! I like it.  Edit for actual content: mother of god that Stellaris dig. Putting it that way just sums it up for me so well. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:
I still really enjoy the first.... 1/3 of a Stellaris game? Mid game I feel sort of aimless and have to overcome my reluctance to engage with the combat system in order to take some enemy planets and stuff them in a sector to make my big numbers slightly bigger. In 87 hours(!!) of play I've never gotten far enough to see an end game crisis. Once though I did get buff enough to roll over a Fallen Empire like it wasn't even there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:It's also a steaming pile of poo poo though. The city building is boring and devoid of content, the political system is a repetitive soulless chore of watching votes that are easily gamed through a couple of clicks, and the economy is completely and utterly broken. Too bad, because I loved the concept and wasted some time trying to convince myself it was salvageable, but it's not, especially since the devs vanished into thin air right after release. Fair enough. Don't even think I've played it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Is Stellaris getting another expansion soon? Preferably one that makes combat not awful
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Is Stellaris getting another expansion soon? Preferably one that makes combat not awful 1) yes https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-80-machine-empires.1038072/ 2) focus is on cyber empires, not combat
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
In their words it's a "story pack" rather than an expansion. So it's got a narrower focus and no huge mechanical changes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Oh good more cool and interesting features packed onto a really mediocre game
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Don't worry, you'll still get to micromanage every planet your cyberpops are on! Fun!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
The issues with Master of Nature isn't that it needs to be nerfed (or even should be), it's that the other ascensions need to be buffed so that MoN isn't always the automatic first pick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Soup du Jour posted:The issues with Master of Nature isn't that it needs to be nerfed (or even should be), it's that the other ascensions need to be buffed so that MoN isn't always the automatic first pick. they'd need to get buffed alot for that to happen though
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Hmmm, the AI in our game is really really bad at allocating pops to our weird and unnecessary tile based planet management system. People hate going heavily into bio-engineering because you end up with a dozen specialized types of pops with specialized bonuses that only apply if placed on the correct tile and the level of micro is insane. People love going cyber because you are just managing a single homogenous species so you don't need to micro worker placement of hundreds of pops. What should we do about this? Figure out an AI that optimises poo poo and puts the +10% mining pops on mines and +15% engineering research guys on the engineering labs? Re-think bio-engineering to maybe just stack bonuses into a single species since you can only get one bonus at a time anyways and just abstract the different sub-species into the pop? Nah, let's add all the hated worker-placement micro management and cluttered horrible pop screens to cyber races too! They can make a dozen specialized robot types now and enjoy all the same levels of micro, or just sit back and watch the AI place the -20% research +20% food robots you made on your research labs. Imagine if in Victoria 3 every single pop had a skill level or specialty for working in certain factories or RGO's. Now imagine the game didn't really know how to optimize this and in order to enjoy all those little +15% bonuses or avoid penalties you had to micro every single pop, clicking on them and making sure that pop of clerks that give +10% production to glass factories are on the glass factory, not the clipper factroy. Unless I've missed some big announcement about the worker placement and species management screen coming in stellaris, this is the hell awaiting in the next DLC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah a year and a half later the places where Stellaris is getting additional detail and complexity are in systems that are generally reviled and disliked (sectors have gotten what like 2-3 passes now and still barely work? Tiles are more fiddly somehow?) fleet combat is yuck, ground war is still horrid, and everything about combat, warfare, and conquest makes the game turn into a slog once you have to deal with that part of the game. For me the moment that I have to conquer another planet in a campaign is where I'm about done with it because everything that sucks about Stellaris has fully come into play at that point (planet micro, bitchy factions, penned in on space) and whatever comes next involves all kinds of tedious work for marginal gains. Wonderful. I feel 18 months post release is enough time to start thinking about "How do we make the core gameplay work" but apparently there's no rush, at best you'll get the big content pack by xmas or something and then it's time for another 2 month vacation period
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Yeah a year and a half later the places where Stellaris is getting additional detail and complexity are in systems that are generally reviled and disliked (sectors have gotten what like 2-3 passes now and still barely work? Tiles are more fiddly somehow?) fleet combat is yuck, ground war is still horrid, and everything about combat, warfare, and conquest makes the game turn into a slog once you have to deal with that part of the game. I honestly don't think there's any "saving" stellaris, it's built on flawed bones and just adding more meat on top isn't helping, it's just straining the already weak bones. I thought maybe they'd revisit some of the core systems and gut/replace but they just don't have the budget or interest to do it. It's like they're just trying to bury the core gameplay problems with more fluff and content rather than fixing anything. Like the ethos system wasn't quite working out, so they simplified it in the areas that were interesting and added factions, a cool concept, but it just hasn't worked out to be any more fun or believable because the bones of the game don't really support it. People wanted mega-structures and super projects, but once again they implemented ideas the game's bones can't handle in a reasonable way so you get these mostly useless late game prestige projects that generally aren't worth building and feel extremely unsatisfying. I mean when your planet management system is based on a 25 tile grid as a "large" planet, how do you even model things like ring worlds or dyson spheres? You can't, the pop and grid system is really lovely and inflexible and doesn't scale at all. The attempt to scale the system using sectors is still a source of OCD rage amongst players. It's a fairly established 4X truth at this point that you can't have super detailed/micro intense systems that "scale up" using AI/automation. It never works out, it's never fun. The AI will never be as good as the player or do it "right" so people will always end up either having to live with the knowing their empire is only 70% as efficient as it could be, or go crazy trying to micro everything. But Stellaris' main problem from the start was that they didn't invest as much care or time into their 4X bones and they rushed ahead with cool ideas that ended up just not being supported by the core mechanics and interface.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I honestly don't think there's any "saving" stellaris, it's built on flawed bones and just adding more meat on top isn't helping, it's just straining the already weak bones. I thought maybe they'd revisit some of the core systems and gut/replace but they just don't have the budget or interest to do it. It's like they're just trying to bury the core gameplay problems with more fluff and content rather than fixing anything. Like the ethos system wasn't quite working out, so they simplified it in the areas that were interesting and added factions, a cool concept, but it just hasn't worked out to be any more fun or believable because the bones of the game don't really support it. People wanted mega-structures and super projects, but once again they implemented ideas the game's bones can't handle in a reasonable way so you get these mostly useless late game prestige projects that generally aren't worth building and feel extremely unsatisfying. I mean when your planet management system is based on a 25 tile grid as a "large" planet, how do you even model things like ring worlds or dyson spheres? You can't, the pop and grid system is really lovely and inflexible and doesn't scale at all. The attempt to scale the system using sectors is still a source of OCD rage amongst players. Just reading between the tea leaves, since I don't work at Paradox, but I believe they seem to have adopted a sort of "We don't make major, fundamental changes to our games after they ship, we just add functionality and systems with DLC" approach I hope I'm wrong and that's not the case, just from reading various forum posts, what devs talks about and announcements for EU4 / Stellaris / CK2, I just get this feeling that they have absolutely no intention of making fundamental changes to their games, just more iterative ones. I can't really tell if this was always the case or if them going public really hardened this mindset, but it does seem to be a thing. Like when the combat pass happens I just sort of expect it to be a rebalance of ship parts and combined with whatever changes they settle on for the FTL type(s) and that will be that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Just reading between the tea leaves, since I don't work at Paradox, but I believe they seem to have adopted a sort of "We don't make major, fundamental changes to our games after they ship, we just add functionality and systems with DLC" approach Institutions in EU4 kind of fly in the face of that idea a bit. As does the changed fort system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Institutions in EU4 kind of fly in the face of that idea a bit. As does the changed fort system. Yeah forts is sort of what I had in mind, it changed the dynamics of combat, but it wasn't a complete overhaul of the combat system. It didn't change the shock / fire system, it didn't change the pip system, it didn't change army tradition, it didn't change the 2 month combat periods, it simply added some detail that made the existing stuff work better. Estates was pretty comprehensive no doubt, I'd say that EU4 is at the point where the core gameplay works (diplomacy, combat, etc) so it makes sense for them to adopt that approach. The reason I mentioned it for Stellaris is that there's still work to do on the core stuff. I don't believe Paradox will touch the whole system / galaxy map issue, nor do I expect massive changes to the tile system or any of the big issues that Stellaris has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Yeah forts is sort of what I had in mind, it changed the dynamics of combat, but it wasn't a complete overhaul of the combat system. It didn't change the shock / fire system, it didn't change the pip system, it didn't change army tradition, it didn't change the 2 month combat periods, it simply added some detail that made the existing stuff work better. Yeah that's exactly it. EU4 changed a ton since release but it was all just new stuff or essentially "big tweaks" of existing systems. But EU4 didn't have huge flaws like "you need to custom design every military unit you build down to what type of boots your soldiers wear, what length of pike, what style of helmet, all in a giant unfun rock-paper-scissors system". EU4 didn't make an insane choice to have every single province in the game have its own sub-map that you can only see by clicking on the province and zooming in one by one, then and only then do you get to see where your troops and forts are. Imagine having to zoom in and micro your troops in every province in EU4, where it really really mattered exactly where your troops were standing or the enemy might just march through the province unopposed. Is your 500k death ball army standing slightly too east of the province's west border? Oh well, the enemy was able to walk through the province, enjoy chasing it around in circles while constantly zooming in and out of province maps while doing it. Oops your cavalry units all have the wrong type of saddle which is the rock to your enemy's paper saddles so you fight at a massive penalty. Oops the siege you've been waiting a year for just ended because the army sieging it saw an enemy merchant walking through the province and moved away from the fort to chase it and has been sitting doing nothing in a field for months now because you weren't babysitting it. If EU4 was designed from launch to have these pretty 3d province-level maps it would be very difficult to admit it was a huge gently caress up and remove them, specially when all the marketing and official screen shots for the game centre around showing them and the troop designer off. The only thing that could fix stellaris at this point is stellaris 2. I think the devs have learned a ton from Stellaris and am slightly optimistic that a Stellaris 2 might be good, so long as they dont hang onto a bunch of the really bad design choices as suddenly being core features for the "franchise" Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Aug 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
From what they were saying shortly after release it sounds like the game was in a rediculous development hell where they were constantly scrapping and reimplementing things because they spent most of their development time trying to jam a grab bag of random "space 4x stuff" on top of a Grand Strategy game only to eventually realise that something had to give when the game was supposed to be released in 6 months. Which is why we have tiles, ground combat and the ship designer but the actual game still kind of sucks; all of this stupid micromanagey poo poo gets in the way of the fun parts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I honestly don't think there's any "saving" stellaris, it's built on flawed bones and just adding more meat on top isn't helping, it's just straining the already weak bones. I thought maybe they'd revisit some of the core systems and gut/replace but they just don't have the budget or interest to do it. It's like they're just trying to bury the core gameplay problems with more fluff and content rather than fixing anything. Like the ethos system wasn't quite working out, so they simplified it in the areas that were interesting and added factions, a cool concept, but it just hasn't worked out to be any more fun or believable because the bones of the game don't really support it. People wanted mega-structures and super projects, but once again they implemented ideas the game's bones can't handle in a reasonable way so you get these mostly useless late game prestige projects that generally aren't worth building and feel extremely unsatisfying. I mean when your planet management system is based on a 25 tile grid as a "large" planet, how do you even model things like ring worlds or dyson spheres? You can't, the pop and grid system is really lovely and inflexible and doesn't scale at all. The attempt to scale the system using sectors is still a source of OCD rage amongst players. Distant Worlds does it but you can adjust lots of the AI stuff if you want
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:Distant Worlds does it but you can adjust lots of the AI stuff if you want I only played the base game, no expansions, but for a game that was designed ground-up to be this automated real time system you tweaked and interacted with it did a pretty good job. It certainly could get fucky in certain areas, like war. But the mostly automated civilian economy was really fun to watch just chug along and grow. Much like Stellaris though when it came time to do proper invasions and war I'd get really frustrated at the AI, or really burnt out trying to micro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Stellaris is fun and good
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Stellaris 2 may be fun and good
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:16
|
|