|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Shameful HoI3 font erasure in this post Those were wrong Cyrillic symbols. Some of them weren't even Cyrillic. It was horrible. It deserves to be forgotten. Some letters weren't meant to be seen by human eyes.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I enjoyed the DD and concept of capacities, not 100% on the authority using "roads" as an example even after Wiz's clarification. If building roads directly through authority is only one way to construct them, how would say the other extreme of an anarcho-communist country build roads? The game is clearly moving away from the bad system of "free market capitalism means a bad AI runs things" but how will low authority countries then build stuff? In a advanced, non-absolute-monarchy state it probably uses bureaucratic capacity. In an anarcho-communist country it requires holding a referendum on where the road should be, and then a referendum on what materials should be used, and then a referendum on what the speed limit ought to be, and there's a commune that's kind of off the planned route but they really want the road to go to them too so maybe we should build two roads, and....
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:In a advanced, non-absolute-monarchy state it probably uses bureaucratic capacity. In an anarcho-communist country it requires holding a referendum on where the road should be, and then a referendum on what materials should be used, and then a referendum on what the speed limit ought to be, and there's a commune that's kind of off the planned route but they really want the road to go to them too so maybe we should build two roads, and.... No you don't get it, the game needs to be broken and also the most brokenly powerful government needs to be a given SA poster's form of libertarian communism or the economic model sucks The game also sucks if you can't clown on all opposition without trying. If the USSA takes more than six weeks to beat down the confederacy, game broken. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I enjoyed the DD and concept of capacities, not 100% on the authority using "roads" as an example even after Wiz's clarification. If building roads directly through authority is only one way to construct them, how would say the other extreme of an anarcho-communist country build roads? The game is clearly moving away from the bad system of "free market capitalism means a bad AI runs things" but how will low authority countries then build stuff? It sounds more like a replacement for national focuses. Your entire country would have a standard of roads, but you can use authority to make specific states have/be more likely to have infrastructure above average. Which is something that pretty much every type of government does. For taxes in the same screenshot, I imagine that most taxes don't use authority but it does when you want to tax specific goods/services rather than a broad income tax etc. Gort posted:I'll be interested to see if people find this better-feeling than saving up points which you then spend, given that it's effectively the same thing. I think there's a big difference from a player perspective. When you just have mana, it can be hard to tell when you should use it or save it etc. With capacity, you know exactly how much you should be spending at any time and your challenges are just figuring out how to spend those amounts and what to be spending them on. Or if you have specific projects you know will put you over, figuring out how to expand your capacity. It's also a big reducer of click fatigue, you just pop in and adjust your policies only when things change instead of having to spend currency every time it accumulates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:12
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I enjoyed the DD and concept of capacities, not 100% on the authority using "roads" as an example even after Wiz's clarification. If building roads directly through authority is only one way to construct them, how would say the other extreme of an anarcho-communist country build roads? The game is clearly moving away from the bad system of "free market capitalism means a bad AI runs things" but how will low authority countries then build stuff? It's not "building roads", it's the ruler ordering the people in the state to keep the roads in shape. Building infrastructure is a completely separate mechanic divorced from Authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It's not "building roads", it's the ruler ordering the people in the state to keep the roads in shape. Building infrastructure is a completely separate mechanic divorced from Authority. That sounds good. Makes sense for the ruler to be like "hey this one state is critical to defense of the realm, keep the roads there in extra good quality"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:No you don't get it, the game needs to be broken and also the most brokenly powerful government needs to be a given SA poster's form of libertarian communism or the economic model sucks You sure owned that guy you made up. Bet he’s quaking
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:Yeah it should be noted that, while the euros were 100% the bad guys and ultimately responsible for everything bad that happened, the Qing empire was also just very badly run. Thats part of the reason poo poo like the Taipei rebellion and other uprisings kept happening in the first place. China actually started almost all the reforms that Imperial Japan did as well. It's just that Japan managed to carry out the reforms to the end, and China had all of them consumed by Qing corruption and/or reactionaries. At the Battle of the Yalu River, the Qing Beiyang fleet had more ships, larger ships, and more technologically advanced ships. But corrupt Qing officials had sold all the cordite in the training shells, so the Chinese sailors had almost zero gunnery practice. And corrupt Qing officials had also sold most of the cordite in the actual battle ammunition. So the Chinese battleships were entering battle with 10% or less of their supposed ammo capacity. Predictably, the Japanese won a crushing victory in that battle. That is the level of corruption you are working with. EDIT: Although that exact scenario would be really unfun for a player. No one likes to enter a battle where they have more combat stats overall, but then get crushed because they rolled a natural 1 on their corruption check. golden bubble fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 21:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'll be interested to see if people find this better-feeling than saving up points which you then spend, given that it's effectively the same thing. There is a very real difference between the two implementations in that a law taking effect over time pushes you to a bit of forward thinking. If you're saving up mana for one thing and then suddenly circumstances changes, you can spend that mana on a different thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
I think if instead corruption is something that can spread and takes effort to fight would be interesting. Like as an example; what if individual ships above a certain size (and then flottilas if below) could get different kinds of corruption modifiers (or positive modifiers in the inverse, like "Superb Gunnery Training: +33% reload speed") and to specifically root them out you need to assign an official to take care of it possibly in addition to some kind of Edict. Thus you can have a nation like China play different from other nations because the nature of the specific challenges are different and hold equal depth and complexity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:That sounds good. Makes sense for the ruler to be like "hey this one state is critical to defense of the realm, keep the roads there in extra good quality" Yeah, spending additional political capital and state resources to ensure what you think is critical is kept prioritized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Sorry if this was answered already but Colour-blind mode. Will this be the Paradox game to finally offer it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:China actually started almost all the reforms that Imperial Japan did as well. It's just that Japan managed to carry out the reforms to the end, and China had all of them consumed by Qing corruption and/or reactionaries. At the Battle of the Yalu River, the Qing Beiyang fleet had more ships, larger ships, and more technologically advanced ships. But corrupt Qing officials had sold all the cordite in the training shells, so the Chinese sailors had almost zero gunnery practice. And corrupt Qing officials had also sold most of the cordite in the actual battle ammunition. So the Chinese battleships were entering battle with 10% or less of their supposed ammo capacity. Predictably, the Japanese won a crushing victory in that battle. That is the level of corruption you are working with. Raenir Salazar posted:I think if instead corruption is something that can spread and takes effort to fight would be interesting. Like as an example; what if individual ships above a certain size (and then flottilas if below) could get different kinds of corruption modifiers (or positive modifiers in the inverse, like "Superb Gunnery Training: +33% reload speed") and to specifically root them out you need to assign an official to take care of it possibly in addition to some kind of Edict. If you wanted to make corruption hit a little harder, or have it vary between the various areas of state (bureaucracy/army/navy), then a corrupt bureaucracy could also change the rating from a single number to a range. So like, you just see "Navy Professionalism" 30-70%, with the upper bound perhaps being good enough that more ships can overcome the handicap, but 30% being a disaster. Shifting some of the modernization/reform issues over to dealing with corruption rather than beating up reactionary rebels seems like it'd be good too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
The issue I find is professionalism is too much honestly of an all or nothing affair; how does it make sense for your entire army to have the same flat bonus? Regional armies/theatres should have differing amounts of readiness. To use the US as an example; Hawaii (officers looking for a cozy vacation) is going to be different from Manilla (directly vigilant regarding Japan), which is different from Jersey (Actively protecting British convoys). If you had a hierarchy of possible corruption/bonuses, almost like CK traits, you can more granularly reflect the way People assigned to Stations in Theatres were all politically important and nuanced. What a professionalism value can do is affect how expensive it is to whip a command into shape. A more modern example is the Western front during WW2 before D-Day; until Rommel took command IIRC there was a lot of slacking off and as a result effort was needed to get the defences ready in preparation for the expected Allied invasion. Basically, even with low overall professionalism I think it should still be possible, albeit requiring a lot of direct intervention to have say, you're most important command (say the one around the capital region, within basically direct oversight) be somewhat in decent shape. Maybe there's a cap on how professional it can be and is more expensive to keep it there using influence but if someone gut punches you, you have at least something. Which reminds me; I think it would do a lot to fix the logistical issues that plague paradox games if there was a concept of a "home base/area" or "military district" so to speak; a place that regiments/brigades are assigned to and is responsible for some proportion of their supplies and reinforcements; and then something like the supply/capacity determines how much it can support; you can reassign armies around and inflate a district but only for a temporary amount of time or uses much more supplies that need to be redirected to it, costing more. So just because Russia has a large army doesn't mean all of it can be in the West, some of it has to be spread around. Some sort of dynamic system of "border tensions" where you lose prestige if you don't maintain a comparable military presence on the border would also mean you can't just keep your whole army in the central region; you gotta garrison your border regions (not directly the forts/borders). And then a slightly more complex version of this for overseas; basically units raised for one area might not be particularly effective in other places; but have bonuses for where they're supposed to be. Kola/North Russia troops maybe have bonuses for winter fighting which might be useful to bring them to the Far East for a winter campaign but less effective in the Spring. Which would also solve the India issue; India needs a lot of troops to keep it stable; and this can only realistically be met by locals who plummet in effectiveness as colonial troops overseas (but a very small percentage can be converted into Imperial divisions that can be moved around elsewhere, with some units have specific bonuses for overseas fighting, like the Gurkhas). For naval invasions/expeditions I think its something like a special "overseas" district that can be assigned to anywhere and its capacity is dependent on your naval size vs how much troops you've already deployed. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jun 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/PDXVictoria/status/1400483429754585088 https://mobile.twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1400494990107762692
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU Give me Zeppelins in the game, even if they suck as much as the historical ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chlF5oubFHU They were pretty okay when you bear in mind the insanity of the concept of "giant hydrogen balloon that can easily explode for virtually any reason". Hell, two-thirds of the Hindenburg crew and passengers survived the disaster. Those are pretty good numbers for a flaming ball free-falling into the earth!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 18:44
|
|
|
The PDXCon segment where Wiz, Podcat, and Groogy discussed the history of Vicky is up on youtube now. Among other things they talked about how the economy code became incomprehensible (many optimization passes), the money creation hack they had to put in because the supposedly closed-loop economy was leaking money, and the Vicky 2 Christmas patch. Not much if any info about Vicky 3 iirc but it's a good watch if you're interested in the dev process or you want to hear some code horror stories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cyhfG6zeUQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Figuring out a way to handle corruption is going to be hard to do in a way that's realistic, because ultimately it represents a disconnect between what's true on paper, and the factual reality. In some games it's really fun to have psychological effects where your character hallucinates enemies that aren't really there. But in a strategy game, it'd basically be having phantom units/pops/resources. I think that's a really fun premise for a game built around that, but it'd be tricky to drop on a player who doesn't realize what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Yeah, a game where you have eternal fog of war like that isn't really possible unless that's like the whole point of the game. Some stuff like War in the Pacific gives you uncertain information about your enemies via intel reports, and uncertain damage reporting, but when it comes to your own side it's perfectly transparent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's exactly what corruption is, it might contribute to that but bribes and embezzlement and so on are corruption regardless of whether the state is 100% aware of them happening. Corruption is modelled fairly precisely as a drain on state resources of various kinds, not so much fog of war stuff imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
Magissima posted:The PDXCon segment where Wiz, Podcat, and Groogy discussed the history of Vicky is up on youtube now. Among other things they talked about how the economy code became incomprehensible (many optimization passes), the money creation hack they had to put in because the supposedly closed-loop economy was leaking money, and the Vicky 2 Christmas patch. Not much if any info about Vicky 3 iirc but it's a good watch if you're interested in the dev process or you want to hear some code horror stories I bet I could fix the victoria economy code 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Figuring out a way to handle corruption is going to be hard to do in a way that's realistic, because ultimately it represents a disconnect between what's true on paper, and the factual reality. Zohar posted:I'm not sure that's exactly what corruption is, it might contribute to that but bribes and embezzlement and so on are corruption regardless of whether the state is 100% aware of them happening. Corruption is modelled fairly precisely as a drain on state resources of various kinds, not so much fog of war stuff imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Just make corruption a leader trait and have leaders be pretty uniformly terrible. It will make the good ones stand out so much more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Corruption could be a function of the capacities. Your bureaucracy is too small and underfunded? Government officials start collecting bribes on the side. Or they start dealing in goods that normally have tariffs on them, capturing revenue meant for the state, etc. Maybe certain interest groups see corruption as their God given right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Yeah, interest groups who do not care about/want to benefit from corruption are a central part of ruling cliques and I hope are modeled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
This is more related to fog of war situations than corruption, but it seems like it would be cool have secret deals. An alliance for example, but not public, or like "if you attack X country for Y war goal, we'll also attack them for Z war goal", and if you break them you get a big loss with that country but nothing public. Maybe sorta like CK2 plots, where they can be backed and discovered, and support can be withdrawn. Not sure how appropriate it would be tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:This is more related to fog of war situations than corruption, but it seems like it would be cool have secret deals. An alliance for example, but not public, or like "if you attack X country for Y war goal, we'll also attack them for Z war goal", and if you break them you get a big loss with that country but nothing public. Maybe sorta like CK2 plots, where they can be backed and discovered, and support can be withdrawn. I'm not an expert on the period but this happened between the French and Sardinia-Piedmont against the Austrians, didn't it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
It did but players would hate it
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Corruption could be a function of the capacities. Your bureaucracy is too small and underfunded? Government officials start collecting bribes on the side. Or they start dealing in goods that normally have tariffs on them, capturing revenue meant for the state, etc. I really like the simulation idea, and it would be very "Victoria-like". Since you stock your bureaucracy buildings with bureaucrat pops, then it stands to reason if your bureaucrat pops are disloyal, unhappy, and poorly-paid, it would increase their desire to fund their life-needs through corruption by taking a cut from tax collection and fines. If they could make such a concept visible to a player, it'd introduce lots of chances for decisionmaking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Corruption could be a function of the capacities. Your bureaucracy is too small and underfunded? Government officials start collecting bribes on the side. Or they start dealing in goods that normally have tariffs on them, capturing revenue meant for the state, etc. I think something like this is a good idea; corruption is something you start to see due to a variety of factors; and I think in any sufficiently large and complex society it always exists; but ebbs and flows and you want to be working against the flow because you don't want it to get out of control. But if a society starts to go tits up then you can see corruption become endemic. Like civil servant wages not keeping pace with inflation; a culture of corruption as leaders and politicians become more openly corrupt; drug use; distance to the capital could also be a factor. Rural areas far afield might be easier for the local officials to setup their little administrative empires. I think what could be interesting way of modeling it is by having POPs having varying levels of corruption. basically a modifier that determines: 1. How likely they abuse their position in the government/RGO/Factory/Building if a position is taken and how much this effects things determines how far up they are. 2. How much in taxes they actually pay. 3. How likely they are to join in crime. The existence of high enough corruption should start to provoke reformist movements/rebellions to right these wrongs. In a place like China you tend towards secret societies and rebellions; in the US its lobbying groups/activists who influence the government. Enough and high enough corruption can start to have a feedback loop because if the cops/courts and civil servants are corrupt enough than more money into it just starts to result in more corruption. Requiring more direct solution. Capitalists should be particularly inclined towards corruption, they want money above all and successful ventures start to become less successful as they loot it for money to spend on luxuries. While farmers/labourers aren't inclined at all, and instead intensely dislike corruption and will organize to fight it. The middle class are evenly divided between being corruptable and not and are easier to clean their corruption than the upper classes. Leaders having CK2 style traits and modifiers is good and I support it, but I think we can go deeper in having pops become living modern day recreations of Sodom and Gomorrah; perhaps as a mechanism that lets nations devolve into failed states or pirate havens? Because authoritarian nations lack a free press or a means to petition for redress; its easier to accumulate corruption in monarchies and communist states; looking at kleptocracies like the modern Russian Federation as an example here or the modern PRC where bribes and patronage networks are needed to get anywhere. While the modern day US can be represented as being more corrupt than a normal democracy because of how many capitalists are in government positions or dominate interest groups; curtailing anti-corruption efforts. Serperoth posted:This is more related to fog of war situations than corruption, but it seems like it would be cool have secret deals. An alliance for example, but not public, or like "if you attack X country for Y war goal, we'll also attack them for Z war goal", and if you break them you get a big loss with that country but nothing public. Maybe sorta like CK2 plots, where they can be backed and discovered, and support can be withdrawn. This would be a really good improvement for the Crisis system where Germany's urging of Austria-Hungary behind closed doors is what resulted in the sequence of events that inevitably guided the July Crisis until WW1. At the very least it would be a useful tool for the Player to spend influence points to guide the AI into being more proactive and operating according to your will instead of just doing random stuff. For Multiplayer give it like, a bonus to mobilization speed or war support or similar so there's a benefit to spending the influence on another human. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jun 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Because authoritarian nations lack a free press or a means to petition for redress; its easier to accumulate corruption in monarchies and communist states; looking at kleptocracies like the modern Russian Federation as an example here or the modern PRC where bribes and patronage networks are needed to get anywhere. While the modern day US can be represented as being more corrupt than a normal democracy because of how many capitalists are in government positions or dominate interest groups; curtailing anti-corruption efforts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:It did but players would hate it Players can use it too. Make a secret deal with France to gang up on Belgium, you get their Europe lands, France gets their colonies. Deals against you? Invest in espionage to figure them out I know it's not that simple, it just seems like an interesting thing in the game, rather than having everything be public to everyone
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Players can use it too. Make a secret deal with France to gang up on Belgium, you get their Europe lands, France gets their colonies. Deals against you? Invest in espionage to figure them out I know players can do that but going into a war with something you can’t know is frustrating. People didn’t like how the AI could drag people into wars they are already in. That could happen in real life but it was frustrating as a player
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
If you don't want to deal with secret alliances and back room Great Power politics and getting dragged into wars you want nothing to do with then just.... don't play politics and make alliances. Sit there in your splendid isolation and just don't get involved, that is the historical response for the time period, giving players some mechanical incentives to go isolationist (as multiple Great Powers in the period did) sounds like a feature not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
Players won’t go isolationist they will just reload and complain on these boards
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
Secret alliances seem fairly antithetical to the mechanic of diplomatic plays, where both sides line up all their allies and wargoals up front and try to get the other side to back down. Making yourself look weaker then you actually are by keeping an alliance secret wouldn't be advantageous unless you wanted to get jumped by all your neighbors who think you're weak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
Well, there would be gameplay incentives for that - the way they have described the diplomatic plays, if one side backs down, only the original demand is met. If it goes to war, everything is on the table. So you might want to deliberately appear under-strength in order to bait the enemy into going to war, thinking they can take you. But in general secret alliances would probably not make for very good gameplay - they make for interesting real life historical stories because they contribute to the never ending cascade of gently caress ups that is real life history, but in a video game players generally want some ability to make informed decisions because losing in a video game is not as interesting as hearing about the fall of an empire from an external point of view. Most of Paradox's games general involve some level of unrealistic knowledge on the part of the player in order to be interesting - whether it's just an unrealistic level of intelligence about your opponents (like knowing the exact manpower of your opponents in EU4) or just broader abstract knowledge like knowing exactly when WW2 is going to start in Hearts of Iron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:If you don't want to deal with secret alliances and back room Great Power politics and getting dragged into wars you want nothing to do with then just.... don't play politics and make alliances. Sit there in your splendid isolation and just don't get involved, that is the historical response for the time period, giving players some mechanical incentives to go isolationist (as multiple Great Powers in the period did) sounds like a feature not a bug. Yeah, great solution. Make diplomacy and warfare actively painful enough to engage in that players never want to participate in that side of the game again. I'm sure you can take that design philosophy further. Make it so the truly best way to play Victoria 3 is uninstalling it from your system forever. Or maybe they could make game mechanics that are actually fun. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
tbh I can't think of a "secret" alliance between states that remained secret very long at any point in history, its not something worth modeling at all edit: also I can't think of a single great power that did isolationism in this period, if you were doing isolationism you weren't a great power and were pretty quickly put on the chopping block as another territory to carve colonial holdings out of
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2021 01:17
|
|
