|
idk if this argument is ever going to go anywhere because despite his protests over what i said earlier:Stux posted:i had assumed your argument was actually deeper than just "i can see it and seeing it is bad even if its actually the same" because thats such an insane thing i dont know what to say. dont look at it? just dont look at it dude. ive solved your problem for you. the difference you are talking about is in your head, its the same info being displayed visually but its little squares and arrows instead of a 3d model. thats the entirity of the difference that you are having an issue with. its extremely wild lol it is exactly the issue hes having and its like arguing with a brick wall
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's already abstracted to the same degree as other PDX titles, the 3D representation just runs on top of the combat engine. In EU4 you can watch units make profoundly stupid decisions during combat, they're just shown as rows of 2D boxes instead of as 3D models. Die rolls still dictate what happens, Stellaris just uses d100s instead of d10s and chance-to-hit instead of the completely esoteric EU4 systems. And for clarity's sake, what I mean by the scale of the complexity and cost is that armies in EU4 are simple due to only three units being involved and thus the amount of damage that stupidity can cause has less of an effect, and the stupidity is predictable inasmuch that you know that if you throw too much infantry into a battle then add artillery, the artillery will lose morale while not fighting because infantry are clogging the back row. You can avoid/prevent the worst of the supidity by building your armies well and by moving them around wisely. Also, in EU4 it is way simpler to replace a lost infantry unit or even a whole army compared to Stellaris. Which, in Stellaris, replacing a ship requires a starbase with a shipyard, alloys (sometimes quite a bit), maybe advanced resources, then significant travel time (usually), and the stupidity is harder to avoid due the un-seen engagement radius and other ship-behavior issues. edit: not worth it to reply to Stux. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
you can pretty easily simplify stellaris combat for yourself to iron out the issues by just putting your corvettes into monofleets and have them begin the engagement, then jump in your battleship backbone with some PD destroyer escorts after and the battleships will for the most part just stay where they are and blast everything, and the enemy fleet will get caught up chasing around your speed tanking corvettes that are right on top of them. not saying thats a good solution because the combat does need some fixing, obviously given that doing this has worked so consistently since basically launch, but if you just want to not have to think about it then doing that will deal with anything the AI cooks up. unless the last couple of patches broke that, which is possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's already abstracted to the same degree as other PDX titles, the 3D representation just runs on top of the combat engine. This is nowhere even vaguely close to true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Yeah, Stellaris actually takes stuff like turret traverse, unit facing, distance between units, projectile travel time, etc. into account. It's much less abstracted than HoI4 - you just have the same (lack of) level of control over your units once combat starts. It's actually not that bad if you tweak some stats too - it's just the current values for a lot of ship combat related things are loving awful. Halve ship speed in combat, massively increase engagement range and spread out the ship formations (these are all things that already exist as mods or are very easy to do yourself if you wanna give it a try) and and suddenly ship computers matter. Ship speeds matter. And the fights look a lot nicer visually too, with clearly separated battle lines and groups of ships that do different things based on their roles. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Yeah, Stellaris actually takes stuff like turret traverse, unit facing, distance between units, projectile travel time, etc. into account. It's much less abstracted than HoI4 - you just have the same (lack of) level of control over your units once combat starts. yeah its really actually quite minor the amount that needs to be tweaked to make what they already have work which is insanely frustrating both for "why havnt they" and for people wanting a giant overhaul when... its like almost there! its almost right!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Zurai posted:This is nowhere even vaguely close to true. Clarify what you mean, then. To me EU4 and Stellaris really seem to have a very similar level of abstraction. For instance a unit that misses a shot cannot accidentally hit another unit, ships cannot collide, etc. In Stellaris each unit picks an enemy to shoot at repeatedly until one of them dies or retreats: this is the same level of abstraction as the EU4 combat engine, in which each unit picks an enemy to shoot at repeatedly until one of them dies or retreats. The simulation going on in both systems is very limited, ships have predefined evasion, tracking, etc to determine chance to hit and statically defined damage and health values, analogous to the pips and morale values that EU4 units have. Stellaris has ship speed and range, EU4 has combat width and a back line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In Stellaris each unit picks an enemy to shoot at repeatedly until one of them dies or retreats: this is the same level of abstraction as the EU4 combat engine, in which each unit picks an enemy to shoot at repeatedly until one of them dies or retreats. Not at all true. Stellaris ships re-target periodically (I'm not sure whether it's with each shot or every few seconds or what) and choose the target that they will do the most damage to. This is easy to see if you do a fleet with a bunch of ships with purely anti-shield weaponry like the Void Beams and a bunch of ships with purely anti-armor weaponry like Plasma. The Plasma ships will primarily target ships with their shields stripped once there are some, and the Void Beam ships will mostly ignore ships with no shields as long as there are other targets in range. EU4 combat is vastly more abstract than Stellaris combat. In Stellaris, your ships are armed with any of several dozen weapons which each deal differing amounts of damage to different defense types at different ranges with different accuracy, different tracking speed, and different rates of fire; some weapons also have to actually reach the target in order to deal damage and can be shot down in transit. In EU4, you have attack and defense pips, general fire and shock pips, terrain modifier, and a die roll. Furthermore, in EU4, your units in an army are always automatically arranged into the ideal formation, with infantry as the central core of the front line, any cavalry distributed evenly on the infantry's flanks, and any artillery behind the infantry (as long as artillery doesn't outnumber the frontline units and there isn't still room on the front line). In Stellaris, that couldn't be further from the truth; all ships wind up in a giant blob of death regardless of how you try to prevent it, as your battleships with nothing but 120 range weapons don't even bother trying to keep distance from the destroyers and cruisers with 60 range weapons. Also, in EU4 damage is abstracted to just casualties and morale, and both recover naturally no matter where you are, while in Stellaris there is shield damage, hull damage, and armor damage, and only shield damage recovers naturally in enemy territory, and further only hull damage actually causes a ship to stop fighting (while in EU4, reaching 0 men or 0 morale will both cause a unit to stop fighting). I could keep going but really, Stellaris combat mechanics are at least 10 times as involved as EU4 mechanics. At least. Unfortunately, most of that complexity is reduced to window dressing because you just do not have enough control over combat for it to matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
I cannot imagine playing though a Stellaris game and going "you know what the big problem is? Combat isn't granular enough." I mean I agree it could be better, but is that really on the top 100 issue list?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
Endless Space 2 had the same issue; the ship customizer is comparable to Stellaris, and you, at least, get the ability to tell ships to try and kite back with the precombat battle orders. So there's that. Except that the game actually tracks a whole lot of crazy simulationist things, like firing arcs on your turrets and other crazy stuff. Except that since you have literally no control over anything once the fight starts (at least in stellaris you can issue a retreat order! eventually), you're just watching a lights&color show with black-box interaction, as the aformented firing arc etc go out the window as you can't adapt to the enemies unforseen movements. It's frustrating. Except the difference is in the presentation; ES2 is very up front about its abstraction (even if its not abstract at all! the liars), while Stellaris has stuff like combat computers which imply a level of intelligence and complexity that's not being delivered on. Actually, that last line should be bolded, it could apply to almost every system in Stellaris...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:I cannot imagine playing though a Stellaris game and going "you know what the big problem is? Combat isn't granular enough." I mean I agree it could be better, but is that really on the top 100 issue list? The problem with Stellaris's combat isn't its complexity or lack thereof, it is that the current complexity of the mechanics is almost completely wasted and reduced to something only marginally different from a cutscene. This could be fixed just as easily by either abstracting combat more OR by revisiting how the player interacts with combat to give them more agency. And no, combat isn't really anywhere near the top of my wishlist of fixes for Stellaris, but it is baaaaaaad. It's just bad in a way that you can mostly shrug and brute Force your way through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Not at all true. Stellaris ships re-target periodically (I'm not sure whether it's with each shot or every few seconds or what) and choose the target that they will do the most damage to. This is easy to see if you do a fleet with a bunch of ships with purely anti-shield weaponry like the Void Beams and a bunch of ships with purely anti-armor weaponry like Plasma. The Plasma ships will primarily target ships with their shields stripped once there are some, and the Void Beam ships will mostly ignore ships with no shields as long as there are other targets in range. actually the eu4 combat does do odd retargeting and stuff like that as well and its incredibly obtuse and weird, with units being able to make the choice to flank a nearby unit even with one in front of them in specific situations, and theres also issues with how it calculates damage as a defender vs attacker due to either a purposeful choice or just a strange wrinkle in how they made it work. i dont know if maybe this is just a me thing, maybe it is, but in my head the two systems are incredibly similar and i approach them the same way. corvettes are infantry and battleships are artillery, but in stellaris you are in space so everything can engage everything else, there arent clean battle lines because its not two armies on land advancing, so smashing a mixed fleet of "infantry" and "artillery" into a province doesnt work the same way. so you work around this by swarming with close range "infantry" first, which engages the entire enemy fleet. you then have your "artillery" warp in and they then do keep at range effectively, because the issue currently with the computers is it only makes the units not approach, it doesnt make them move away. by holding the enemy fleet with infantry you allow your artillery to engage safely. like the combat is extremely not complex, it just has more numbers the game uses in rolls which for the most part mean nothing, especially with the AI and current military teching where they get everything and just use everything. cruisers are worthless. destroyers have some use for PD and in multiplayer for countering someone using corvettes properly, but SP they are nothing but PD platforms. and even if this complexity was realised it still doesnt like, stop it from being extremely abstracted? idk maybe this isnt being explained right, but its still abstract. it still could just be displayed as in eu4 and hoi4 with the little window and never have the 3d view. the reason you dont have granular per unit control in combat is because it does not exist fundamentally and you are being shown the results after the fact. its not like an rts like sc2 where the units are commanded and then the game logic works out ok this unit shot this one, this spell didnt connect because the player micro'd away, you can stutter step your marines to maximise damage uptime while also moving. none of this exists. its the same dice rolls as always, with more modifiers, and the result is shown in 3d. i feel like there is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what it means to say the combat system is abstract and what the opposite is and this is the best way i can think to explain it, and its obviously not perfect because the other example is a game where you are moving each unit, but i hope it makes it clear the difference in what way round the systems are structured in comparison to stellaris. its the visual informing the calculation vs the calculation informing the visual. this is why stuff like making 90% evasion corvettes and speed tanking is a thing because youre just giving them a giant chance to roll a miss on every attack against them. maybe a better example here for evasion is eve online, where in that game if your angular velocity beats out turret tracking or you manage to outspeed a missiles explosion expansion speed while keeping sig radius low enough you avoid damage, thats how that game is calculating if you evade damage or reduce it, and it alters in realtime based on the physical side of the game. you can get bumped by another ship and lose velocity and get popped. the in game reality of how the ships are physically moving is exactly how the game calculates what then happens because of those interactions. in stellaris its simply taking a number that is a tracking stat and reducing the evasion stat by that number and then rolling, and then it shows you the result of that roll. thats it. it is abstract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Zurai posted:I could keep going but really, Stellaris combat mechanics are at least 10 times as involved as EU4 mechanics. At least. Unfortunately, most of that complexity is reduced to window dressing because you just do not have enough control over combat for it to matter. My point was that they have the same degree of abstraction. As in, you don't directly control units during combat, positioning is handled for you automatically, etc. Whether one health type or another recovers automatically has no relevance to this point, I wouldn't argue that EU4 management is more complex simply because you have a manpower resource or because you have to use ships to perform amphibious landings, that's all approximately the same level of abstraction as having to use alloys to build reinforcements If the part of your post quoted here is really your thesis, then stop a moment and realize that not only am I not talking about the relative complexity of the mechanics of one game versus the other, but you also spent about twice as many words describing EU4 mechanics as you did Stellaris mechanics while barely even scratching the surface of how EU4 armies work. I'm not concerned with drilling or professionalism or the 100 other little modifiers that EU4 armies use, those all exist at the same level of abstraction as manpower and pips and alloys and tracking. The mechanics of both games are abstracted to a degree such that increasing the fidelity of the simulation and giving the player direct control over individual units would be an exercise in frustration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
In other words, basically, when you zoom in on a system in Stellaris and see the ships shooting lasers at each other, they just put that stuff in to make it look pretty. If they wanted to, in EUIV, they could let you zoom in on a little field and see little horsemen, little cannons, and little musketmen shooting at each other. But they don't, because nobody who made EU cares if it looks pretty or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:In other words, basically, when you zoom in on a system in Stellaris and see the ships shooting lasers at each other, they just put that stuff in to make it look pretty. If they wanted to, in EUIV, they could let you zoom in on a little field and see little horsemen, little cannons, and little musketmen shooting at each other. But they don't, because nobody who made EU cares if it looks pretty or not. i know it sounds crazy but its honestly true. ripleys believe it or not stellaris edition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
Hey guys I'm playing an rts game where I designed all my units and gave them tactics to use in battle. For example made some cool long range artillery units! Lets take them into battle----uhhhhh hey I can't control my dudes? And also the artillery units are plowing straight into the enemy battleships?? whaa??? just don't look at it! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 08:35
|
|
|
The thing people are trying to point out is that adopting an EU4 model doesn't solve any of the problems, since EU4 has the same problems if you bother to look.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 09:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
QuarkJets posted:My point was that they have the same degree of abstraction. As in, you don't directly control units during combat, positioning is handled for you automatically, etc. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term you are trying to use. An abstract combat system is one in which relatively simple, general ideas stand in for more complicated, specific ideas. An example of an extremely abstract combat system is Risk, where you just roll dice to see who wins a fight. An example extremely non-abstract combat system is Aurora, which has stats for basically everything and even models damage done to individual sections of individual layers of armor (with different weapon types having different damage patterns). EU4 is closer to Risk than Aurora. Stellaris is closer to Aurora than EU4 is. EU4 is the more abstract combat system. PittTheElder posted:The thing people are trying to point out is that adopting an EU4 model doesn't solve any of the problems, since EU4 has the same problems if you bother to look. Not nearly to the same degree. My cannons don't charge into the front line in EU4 unless the front line is demolished to the degree that there isn't one, just as one example. Stux posted:like the combat is extremely not complex, it just has more numbers the game uses in rolls This means it's less abstract. Generally speaking, the more numbers there are adjusting the dice you're rolling for the same result, the less abstract the combat system is. What you're describing isn't abstraction, it's degree of influence. You have the same ability to influence either EU4 or Stellaris combat once the fight starts (you either let it play out or hit the retreat button), but that doesn't mean the two systems are equally abstract. --- Again, I'm not advocating any specific change to the combat system or a removal of system view or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that Stellaris's combat has a lot of moving parts which basically do not matter because the player's ability to influence combat doesn't really allow them to make use of most of those moving parts. It's a sad, sorry amalgam of something like Sword of the Stars and EU4, both of which have combat that is pretty much perfect for the game they want to be, and is worse than either as a result. This is a symptom of Stellaris's identity crisis, where it doesn't know whether it wants to be a 4X game or a Grand Strategy game. A lot of the game's systems suffer from that, not just combat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:My point was that they have the same degree of abstraction. As in, you don't directly control units during combat, positioning is handled for you automatically, etc. Whether one health type or another recovers automatically has no relevance to this point, I wouldn't argue that EU4 management is more complex simply because you have a manpower resource or because you have to use ships to perform amphibious landings, that's all approximately the same level of abstraction as having to use alloys to build reinforcements Stellaris unit creation is highly complex and involves a lot of user involvement. You have a huge number of modifiers all feeding into each other and you make ship decisions up to and including the exact placement of individual weapons. Combat is complex and a mix of simulated and abstracted. Bullets and lasers are just roll vs evasion and then they go away, but missiles and strike craft are modelled and retarget in flight. Weapons all have ranges and target individual ships which themselves can be at different ranges. You have beam weapons that can't "beam" because they aren't modelled as such, but they're tied to individual ships and as such can be "taken out", which means some targets are more valuable than others. This in itself would be a problem, but complex and simulated/modelled combat implies at least some way for the player to influence combat other than mashing fleets together, maybe in waves. Again, I'm not saying whether the solution is less or more combat player interaction, less or more complex unit creation, less or more complex combat, less or more abstract combat, or less or more other stuff. But it's at least two of them, in combination. Which ones are a matter of preference. Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
I just want.. to be able to manage the mods I want to play with...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Hey guys I'm playing an rts game where I designed all my units and gave them tactics to use in battle. For example made some cool long range artillery units! Lets take them into battle----uhhhhh hey I can't control my dudes? And also the artillery units are plowing straight into the enemy battleships?? whaa??? must suck to be unable to understand words that you read good luck in the future Zurai posted:This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term you are trying to use. An abstract combat system is one in which relatively simple, general ideas stand in for more complicated, specific ideas. An example of an extremely abstract combat system is Risk, where you just roll dice to see who wins a fight. An example extremely non-abstract combat system is Aurora, which has stats for basically everything and even models damage done to individual sections of individual layers of armor (with different weapon types having different damage patterns). this just isnt what abstraction is in this context at all. i dont know how to reply to this because you dont know what the words you are typing actually mean. games like eve when they are doing combat are non-abstract, they are fully modelled systems where the physical interactions of the game objects is what the logic of the game uses to create the outcomes. in stellaris it is dice rolls with modifiers. adding more complexity to the system doesnt change how it fundamentally operates it just makes it a more or less complex abstraction. in an rts like starcraft 2 what determines when and how my units act and interact with other units is calculated based off of their physical positioning in the scene of the game. in stellaris it is just dice rolls. the 3d visuals are just added on after the fact to make a pretty thing to look at it. thats all its doing. just tear it out if its going to make everyones minds break like this honestly. then we can all be happy with the combat working exactly the same as it does now but we dont have to look at it so its ok. Zurai posted:EU4, both of which have combat that is pretty much perfect for the game they want to be eu4 is my favorite paradox game without question but lets not pretend like eu4 combat is actually like, good?? its perfect to you? its completely broken lol stellaris might just be a case of mostly smashing numbers together and needs fixing to actually account for all the modifiers it uses more, but eu4s combat is literally broken. if you know how to exploit it you can completely wreck nations you should have no business in fighting. im not saying i even want them to change it in eu4 either because the game basically works and is balanced around it, and it lets you have more fun with opms because of it, but you cant sit here and say its "pretty much perfect" when in a game with 3 land unit types, one is so useless you can never ever build them and be fine and naval fighting is completely irrelevant for 99.9% of nations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Stux posted:
Stux posted:must suck to be unable to understand words that you read good luck in the future This discussion is perfectly normal and I really do not understand your need to be the only person being passive-aggressive / snarky / whatever you want to call your attitude - no one else here is insulting anyone else and there really is no need for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Zurai is not saying that the combat is perfect and I think its pretty easy to see that. Its combat does the job just fine for the game it is - where you are not custom designing your infantry/cavalry/artillery battalions, or blue water boats, and you are not watching the battles play out on a battlefield. the combat is very literally broken. its pretty bad overall and could be a lot better. it has an entire combat system with boats that is complicated and involved and expensive to use and its all irrelevant for nearly every nation even if they were traditionally sea faring. One Third Of The Land Unit Types Could Be Deleted And It Would Not Make Much Difference. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
if you want to compare Stellaris to anything, compare it to HOI4 naval combat, I think. In HOI4, you have ships made up of multiple components you can research and then use to customize the ships, but then once combat starts, you don't have any way to control the battle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Stux posted:the combat is very literally broken. its pretty bad overall and could be a lot better. it has an entire combat system with boats that is complicated and involved and expensive to use and its all irrelevant for nearly every nation even if they were traditionally sea faring. I 100% agree that naval combat got worse when they changed it to add width. I still havent bothered with it enough to understand it well. Stux posted:One Third Of The Land Unit Types Could Be Deleted And It Would Not Make Much Difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
What I mean by "perfect for the game it wants to be" is that EU4's combat absolutely works for combat in a quasi-real time (technically it's a turn based game with extremely fast turns which advance on a timer rather than by players saying they're done) game where the overall thrust of the gameplay is very high-level control of a renaissance nation-state. Combat isn't perfect, but it does exactly what it needs to do without being either overly simplified or overly complicated. A skilled player can moderate the influence of luck on wars without being able to completely eliminate it, and battles are close to exactly as involved as they should be for a game where you really shouldn't be doing much more than telling the armies where to go. Note that this doesn't apply to Stellaris because of the ship designer. The ability to design ships implies that those designs should matter, and they just plain don't, at least against AIs. Epicurius posted:if you want to compare Stellaris to anything, compare it to HOI4 naval combat, I think. In HOI4, you have ships made up of multiple components you can research and then use to customize the ships, but then once combat starts, you don't have any way to control the battle. This is absolutely true and I would but I know basically nothing at all about how HOI4 naval combat works. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont think anyone is disagreeing with you here, though? The land combat in EU4 is simple enough on the surface that you can easily get by without knowing too many of the fine details that are the core issues with the combat. I think this is why Zurai is saying its fine for the purpose it serves. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont think anyone is disagreeing with you here, though? The land combat in EU4 is simple enough on the surface that you can easily get by without knowing too many of the fine details that are the core issues with the combat. I think this is why Zurai is saying its fine for the purpose it serves. my last game was jianzhou into manchu into qing and i forgot i was playing a nation with cav bonuses and banners because im dumb as a wall and just did my usual and never used them and it was not an issue. like the problem with cav and how irrelevant they are is that there is one type of nation where theyre worth building but even with them you are not effectively penalised for never using them because your flat land bonus is so strong it doesnt really matter. would my combat have been even easier if i hadnt been a braindead idiot and used cav/raised my banners? yeah for sure. did not doing it at any point create any issues in my game even though im playing a freaking eastern horde? no lol. i think eu4 combat is fine for the purpose it serves in the same way the stellaris combat is because both can be forced to work in your favor in ways that arent intended and despite the systems not really working properly. i dont think its better in eu4 than in stellaris, its just as fundamentally broken, its just everyone is more used to how to work around that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Zurai posted:The ability to design ships implies that those designs should matter, and they just plain don't, at least against AIs. i agree with this 100%. i think how weapon tech works now is bad and should be rolled back. back when you started with a certain weapon type you were more likely to upgrade down that line first, and, and this the most important part, the AI basically funnelled itself down whatever weapon it started with until later in the game. back then the ship designer had a ton more relevance, scouting out a new empire and finding out their fleet fits and counter fitting was a legit thing and insanely powerful and was good gameplay. but now thats not really a thing and AI empires end up getting and fitting just everything on their fleets, so you can just cookie cutter your own fleets far more instead of tailoring them, and i think thats one of the biggest reasons that as the game currently stands the ship designer isnt satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Stux posted:i dont think its better in eu4 than in stellaris, its just as fundamentally broken, its just everyone is more used to how to work around that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Stux posted:i agree with this 100%. i think how weapon tech works now is bad Stux posted:and should be rolled back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Black Pants posted:I just want.. to be able to manage the mods I want to play with...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Zurai posted:
That's the one thing they won't do. But they can and will decide not to fight at all if the arrived on the second day of battle. Or sometimes your cavalry just decide to sit around doing nothing because they don't see anyone immediately in front of them. Then there's the insanity that is naval combat. Stellaris' combat system, for all it's faults, is far superior. Whoever was saying that it just need tweaks is on the right track, the EU model would be a complete step back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Note that this doesn't apply to Stellaris because of the ship designer. The ability to design ships implies that those designs should matter, and they just plain don't, at least against AIs. The ship designer matters to some extent. AI fleets aren't going to go all-in on one type of weapon or one type of defense, and that shouldn't be the expectation. They also don't always have exactly 50% shields/armor and 50% lasers/kinetic weapons of equal tech levels; the actual variations of these ratios that exist in-game can be optimized against even if you personally choose not to. I literally just did this in the game of Stellaris that I was playing last week; a stronger AI opponent had armor that was 2 tech levels above their shields and I was able to take advantage of that by tweaking my ship designs. It stops mattering by end-game, but that's not the same as not mattering at all. e: (and even that's not strictly true since many of the end-game crisis fleets don't use perfectly uniform armor/shield and kinetic/energy ratios, either) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Dec 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Zurai posted:This means it's less abstract. You're saying that a combat system's "abstractness" is just a function of how many numbers it uses? So if you mod EU4 to have one more combat modifier, you'd argue that mod makes EU4 combat less abstract?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:if you mod EU4 to have one more combat modifier, you'd argue that mod makes EU4 combat less abstract? If that modded modifier changed the system so that it got more detailed and closer to reality, then yes. That's the actual genuine definition of abstractness when used in this context. Again, when used to describe systems in games, "abstract" denotes how closely it models or simulates whatever it is that the system represents. Adding modifiers which are intended to make things more realistic by definition makes the system less abstract and more concrete, even if it all boils down to a die roll in the end. I feel like several people in this thread are using abstract to mean something other than its actual definition, conflating it with degree of influence or visibility of combat mechanics. Those can be related but don't have to be. For example, Age of Wonders combat vs Total War combat (just general series stuff, not specific games). Age of Wonders has a combat system which the player has a stronger degree of influence over and much higher visibility of the combat mechanics, but it is a more abstract system than Total War. Grid-based turn base combat is more abstract than free-moving real time combat, simple attack/defense values are more abstract than regular vs armor piercing damage and attack rate and fatigue vs armor and evasion, etc. Meanwhile, even though it is a more abstract system, you have full control of all of your units at all times in Age of Wonders and all the combat modifiers are literally displayed on the screen whenever you are making an attack. Total War has a more detailed and concrete combat system (though it's still fairly abstract) but it just doesn't allow you the same degree of control or show you the same degree of information as AoW.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Zurai posted:If that modded modifier changed the system so that it got more detailed and closer to reality, then yes. That's the actual genuine definition of abstractness when used in this context Ok, then we're in agreement; simply looking at how many numbers are involved isn't what matters, what matters is the level of simulated detail. Yes? So would you also agree that adding Drilling to EU4 didn't really alter the degree of abstraction? Because at the end of the day it's just one more modifier on a die roll and didn't really bring the combat any closer to reality?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
If the combat in Stellaris is that abstracted, explain to me what happens when the ships fly to one side of the system and refuse to shoot at anything. Or whatever the hell was happening with Strike Craft until recently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Yes i dont mean you literally just roll back ok roll back was a poor choice of words, but making it so your tech tree doesnt so easily and quickly flatten and become "im just getting everything" so early on, and i think having a thing where you pick your starting weapon tech tree again could be part of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:If the combat in Stellaris is that abstracted, explain to me what happens when the ships fly to one side of the system and refuse to shoot at anything. Or whatever the hell was happening with Strike Craft until recently. Bug
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
Stux posted:i dont mean you literally just roll back ok roll back was a poor choice of words, but making it so your tech tree doesnt so easily and quickly flatten and become "im just getting everything" so early on, and i think having a thing where you pick your starting weapon tech tree again could be part of it
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2019 02:52
|
|