|
we're definitely having the banana craze and united fruit company shenanigans then
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
Tulip Fascination: x500000 cost and demand for Tulips (I know it's the wrong time period, but it's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear fascination like that)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
If I don't see a farm for every vegetable, then im not buying this game. Yes, even swedes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Pictured: Potato fascination
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Gort posted:I'd have thought you'd represent that by delivery costs rather than by "fascination". Rice grows in China, people eat it because it has low cost due to lack of delivery costs, while wheat grows in Ukraine but is expensive in China due to high delivery costs. I think the idea of the suggestion was that Chinese culture and cuisine makes a lot of use of rice and not as much of potatoes, so even if potatoes were available for cheaper they'd probably still use rice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
DelilahFlowers posted:If I don't see a farm for every vegetable, then im not buying this game. Yes, even swedes. that's... not how babby is formed
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
DelilahFlowers posted:If I don't see a farm for every vegetable, then im not buying this game. Yes, even swedes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
IIRC Wheat, Potato, etc are all plentiful in China; I think potato and wheat are more northern?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I don’t think they’ve confirmed that slave trading is in the game. This gave me an idea. There should be smuggling and contraband ingame. Countries should get to ban certain goods and smugglers to bypass the laws and fulfill pop demands. Wanna see prohibition simulated in game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Takanago posted:Pictured: Potato fascination i just think they're neat
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:IIRC Wheat, Potato, etc are all plentiful in China; I think potato and wheat are more northern? China's larger than the entire continent of Europe from Lisbon to the Urals, there's a lot of regional variation yeah. Rice is the staple in the southern climates that support it but in the northern regions wheat is the staple grain, and I'm sure you can grow at least a couple species of potatoes just about everywhere except the really warm and wet regions those things are nearly impossible to kill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:China's larger than the entire continent of Europe from Lisbon to the Urals I looked this up so you don't have to. Modern day China is not as large as Europe (but it's pretty drat close). The Qing Empire during the Victoria 3 time frame, however, was certainly larger than Europe, and it wasn't even particularly close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
I've played a lot of Paradox games before (including Vickys 1&2) but have sort of fallen off the wagon since EU4. I found their recent games had sort of become vaguely history-themed power fantasies about painting maps that were scared of brutalizing the player in the way the original CK would. I understand there's a huge hype train around Vicky 3 and it seems like a big part of that is due to them adding mechanics that actually simulate the forces of history better, which I'm highly in favor of. Is that accurate? Is there like a concise writeup somewhere that explains how they plan to do things different this time?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 07:20
|
|
|
How does original CK brutalize the player in ways CK2 and 3 don't
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
My memory might be bad, but there were fewer mechanics to prevent things from blowing up on you and a lot more things were out of the player's hands. I think especially it was pretty common to conquer territory, have a leader succession, and then have all your vassals decide that they'll blow your kingdom up and there was very little you could do about it. Which was fun! It was certainly more interesting than pressing the right combination of buttons and having your dukes decide that actually they won't take advantage of the fact that the current king is a 17 year old dunce living 500 miles away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
Older games didn't tell you what can happen or direct results of your actions. If you played a couple of games it looked like a faithful simulation of reality with a lot of depth. I remember that feeling in CK1, all those buildings, social classes, events, laws, technology. It's all so complex and mysterious. But then with a little experience, you start as a besieged Crusader state and somehow you own Mecca and Baghdad and AI doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it, and all the mechanics are just there having their fun and not stopping you. You learn by trial and error and suddenly you learn all there is to know. In modern Paradox games, you lose a feeling of faithful realistic history simulation after a while, but you still have a fun strategy game, and mastering the mechanics is both required and beneficial. Victoria 2 is still of this old breed that gives you experience without a strategy game. Victoria 3 clearly aims to be different (or rather both), and that's why I expect riots when it's released.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 07:47
|
|
|
One thing I actually kinda liked although it had its own problems in the original CK was wars only called in lieges one level up. I enjoyed it not necessarily being the case that a vassal's vassal had any formal relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 07:51
|
|
|
you could also poach vassals just through diplomacy if they really hated their liege and liked you. being personal friends with somebody could win you not just an ally, but free territory. i do think ck1 was more brutal toward characters in general. it's often pretty easy to keep your dude healthy for a long time in ck2 while you really had no power over that at all in ck1 beyond the choice to go into battle personally or not, and people died young constantly. getting a character to really high prestige or piety felt like a big accomplishment. and yeah, succession was brutal and a succession war ended in a dissolved realm as often as it went smoothly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 08:33
|
|
|
my favorite thing about old paradox games are that they tied history directly into it. So you'd be playing as France, dominating Europe without issues and BOOM, it turns out you go into massive debt because your lousiana colonies were fraudulent (even if you had no colonies there). You stabilized everything and you're back in shape? Doesn't matter, here's the french revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 09:46
|
|
|
The best thing about the original gen of pdx games was *thump thump-thump thump thump thump thump* FA LA LA LAN LA LA LAN FA LA LA LEIRA being able to find the public domain albums they ripped for EUII and Vicky at the libriary was always fun Archduke Frantz Fanon fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 13:49
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Older games didn't tell you what can happen or direct results of your actions. Yeah I think this is the biggest thing for me. The newer Paradox titles make the results of player decisions too explicit and predictable and in general give the player insanely more information than a real leader would have. This allows for complex strategizing but it's also at direct odds with the roleplay and sim parts of the game. Weirdly I think they could take some direction from the Football Manager series for how to make uncertainty and information gathering an integral part of the game rather than something to be treated as an obstacle to gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Part of the problem as if you don't give that information it essentially creates a gate where people who have the experience in playing the game know what the smart moves are and people who are newer don't know what they are doing and can't make informed choices; because unlike real life you can replay the game 1,000 times like its groundhog day and figure out the black box. This is especially a problem for multiplayer. It'd be neat if gameplay mechanics were less explicit; like the modifier stacking that dominates the meta in EU4 is terrible. But I'm not sure how to make it so that your choices have less explicit outcomes without making the game less accessible. One idea could be that you could when you make a decision that does X; doesn't have a direct mechanistic relationship to result Y; but instead can result in a spectrum of results where it isn't clear what exactly caused Y so on a second run you can't just do X again and get the same Y, but now its YW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
I wonder if it would be possible to have a fog of war system similar to War in the Pacific where the player gets outdated or dubious information. Maybe limited to a hardcore mode or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PDXVictoria/status/1405555840065556483?s=19
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Frionnel posted:I wonder if it would be possible to have a fog of war system similar to War in the Pacific where the player gets outdated or dubious information. Maybe limited to a hardcore mode or something. Yeah actually I think this hits it on the head; I think its probably fine for the user to get the information they do, even if its ahistorically detailed and specific; but one thing I liked about Hearts of Iron:AoD was the naval warfare and how it worked with the intelligence system. Things worked along a kind of delay and was more about the broad strokes. Stellaris has been experimenting with this, with information requiring you to dedicate an envoy to the task but I think it can be a bit broader than this. As an example, imagine the newspapers from V2; but instead they gave more info, like, "Prussia seems to be laying down hulls at alarming rate" this is based off of crowd sourcing of information from public sources and documents, like how much they're spending on their budget; to give you an early warning that something is happening; and then spend your espianage to find out more. "Wood prices rising as shortages plague russia" and so on. There's probably a way to capture the feeling being discussed as desirable without also making the divide between experience players and newcomers abyssal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
i love how thick and fast these dev diaries are coming game will probably be out in a couple of months am i right fellas
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Found a typo, they wrote "a single unit of Tanks" when it should be "a single unit of Barrels" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Part of the problem as if you don't give that information it essentially creates a gate where people who have the experience in playing the game know what the smart moves are and people who are newer don't know what they are doing and can't make informed choices; because unlike real life you can replay the game 1,000 times like its groundhog day and figure out the black box. This is especially a problem for multiplayer. I agree, but that's something that could be addressed through difficulty. So playing on Very Easy gives you huge amounts of transparency into what's going on around the world, Very Hard could severely cut down the level of information available to you. It would certainly be better than the current EU4 state of "the AI is exactly as passive and stubborn but now they have +50% everything, get wrecked" or the CK3 state of "what are difficulty levels??" PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I agree, but that's something that could be addressed through difficulty. So playing on Very Easy gives you huge amounts of transparency into what's going on around the world, Very Hard could severely cut down the level of information available to you. This would be irreconcilable for multiplayer though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Would it be? Like you'd be reliant on the 'easy' players not just telling the 'hard' players the information in chat or whatever, but my understanding of the Paradox multiplayer scene was that it was hugely dependent on house rules to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Part of the problem as if you don't give that information it essentially creates a gate where people who have the experience in playing the game know what the smart moves are and people who are newer don't know what they are doing and can't make informed choices; because unlike real life you can replay the game 1,000 times like its groundhog day and figure out the black box. This is especially a problem for multiplayer. My impression is that everyone who plays multiplayer is a turbonerd with 10000 hours in the game anyway. It's not like it's Fortnite. I don't think game design decisions should be balanced around multiplayer. To make the Football Manager analogy more explicit, I think players should have to make a decision to "scout"/gather information that they want, using limited resources. This is especially true for the medieval titles (why should you get to know Count Sheepfucker O'Connell a thousand miles away has a 19 year old unmarried genius courtier for free?) but I think even for something like Vicky it makes sense to have to e.g. spend diplomatic resources to get granular detail on a foreign war, or spend bureaucracy points to get a clear picture of which exact pops of yours where are feeling especially rebellious. As your state gets larger, more sophisticated, and technology improves your passive ability to know things and therefore make sophisticated decisions would also get better. I think a system like that would both improve realism and roleplaying while also adding strategic depth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Part of the problem as if you don't give that information it essentially creates a gate where people who have the experience in playing the game know what the smart moves are and people who are newer don't know what they are doing and can't make informed choices; because unlike real life you can replay the game 1,000 times like its groundhog day and figure out the black box. This is especially a problem for multiplayer. Indeed. If you make a historical sim that people can just experience then you want those obscure mechanics and scripted events to be mild. If someone plays as Russia in EU and Time of Trouble hits you don't want their game just to end. Similarly, EU3 had a hidden overextension system you'd learn about if you hit the limit, but it wasn't as harsh as EU4. This means that for an experienced player those games quickly become solved. If you play as Russia second time you know that Time of Troubles means rebels in specific provinces and stability hit so you make sure to keep your armies in the right places and high stability in a certain period of time. You know what overextention means and you can turn it from a problem into a mild inconvinience. Not saying you can't do anything about it, but I certainly see a lot of push from different types of players. Those who want a historical sim want things like more events, tall play (which is problematic for strategy games), interesting decisions. Strategy players want more balance (not in the sense of all the countries being viable, but so that there is no silver bullet strategy), clarity of outcomes and predictability.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
I love how goods are being done. Wiz confirmed on the Paradox forums that there's no one thing a province produces. So I guess just because you've got a diamond mine or whatever doesn't mean you can't also produce luxury wood in a province. That's neat. I also like that they're putting "potentials" front and center. That way you might not start with massive coal mines in Korea, but you know if you conquer them you can build coal mines there. Or (assuming systems aren't too different from Vic2) you could invest in their development and use that influence to push them into your sphere. Need rubber? Find out where it can grow, Victoria was already such a satisfying game when you get production chains all working together profitably, and Vic3 seems like it's going to feel even better. sum posted:Yeah I think this is the biggest thing for me. The newer Paradox titles make the results of player decisions too explicit and predictable and in general give the player insanely more information than a real leader would have. This allows for complex strategizing but it's also at direct odds with the roleplay and sim parts of the game. Weirdly I think they could take some direction from the Football Manager series for how to make uncertainty and information gathering an integral part of the game rather than something to be treated as an obstacle to gameplay. The only reason to hide information is if it's slightly randomized so players have to infer values from effects, but even then the effects need to be clearly presented, and usually they aren't. And even if they were that's not really a game I'd be interested in playing, personally. A game would really need to be built around this principle. Paradox games aren't about the experience of an individual (not even CK, really), they're games about systems. And when you're playing as a system, it's going to be more fun if you know what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Eiba posted:If the information is fixed and knowable, but hidden, that's just pointlessly loving over new players, and adding nothing to the experience of experienced players who've learned the hidden values. Yeah, as someone who actually play games to play them rather than just 'have an experience', most of these hidden mechanics add nothing and mostly just make things more sluggish and random in a way that's not interesting to me at all. I'm okay with hidden information, but only if there's an actually compelling reason for it, and not just "well governments aren't omniscient". True, and you can't save and load irl, either. Games are not real life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
It would be possible to build a game from the ground up around the idea of playing a limited-knowledge monarch interacting not with the state directly but with your council and vassals with their own unknown (but discernable) agendas, skills etc. Paradox games do not fit that description. You are already playing an omniscient spirit possessing a (country|dynasty) able to see real-time changes in the world and have a unified plan across generations. The "limited knowledge obscuring outcomes" ship has sailed, circumnavigated the globe, and sailed into Japan with overwhelming firepower
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:The "limited knowledge obscuring outcomes" ship has sailed, circumnavigated the globe, and sailed into Japan with overwhelming firepower And then unceremoniously sunk at Tsushima Strait
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, as someone who actually play games to play them rather than just 'have an experience', most of these hidden mechanics add nothing and mostly just make things more sluggish and random in a way that's not interesting to me at all. I'm okay with hidden information, but only if there's an actually compelling reason for it, and not just "well governments aren't omniscient". True, and you can't save and load irl, either. Games are not real life. The compelling reason for hidden information is that staring at spreadsheets loving sucks, has been the worst part of Paradox games for well over a decade, and, to paraphrase Sid Meier, gamers will optimize all the fun out of a video game if given the opportunity. Taking risks is fun. Having things blow up catastrophically is fun. Doing a baking recipe off of the wiki to conquer the world as Muslim Iceland with absolutely zero uncertainty is not fun. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
I really cannot understand the perspective of anyone who wants Paradox games to allow the player to do anything, with any country, with zero risk of failure if they're skilled enough. Literally just open up google maps and pretend Korea owns Peru and is syndicalist or whatever. There's absolutely no reason to enshrine clunky, unintuitive, and unrealistic game mechanics that were mostly put in there in the first place because the original games were designed 20 years ago by 3 developers with a budget of $40.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
sum posted:The compelling reason for hidden information is that staring at spreadsheets loving sucks, has been the worst part of Paradox games for well over a decade, and, to paraphrase Sid Meier, gamers will optimize all the fun out of a video game if given the opportunity. Taking risks is fun. Having things blow up catastrophically is fun. Doing a baking recipe off of the wiki to conquer the world as Muslim Iceland with absolutely zero uncertainty is not fun. Sorry. You don't, you know, have to go full spreadsheet%. Like no one is putting a gun to your head and demanding you play in only the most optimal way according to a walkthrough on a wiki somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
sum posted:The compelling reason for hidden information is that staring at spreadsheets loving sucks, has been the worst part of Paradox games for well over a decade, and, to paraphrase Sid Meier, gamers will optimize all the fun out of a video game if given the opportunity. Taking risks is fun. Having things blow up catastrophically is fun. Doing a baking recipe off of the wiki to conquer the world as Muslim Iceland with absolutely zero uncertainty is not fun. Sorry. Having things blow up catastrophically with no indication that they would blow up catastrophically isn't fun. The vast majority of hidden mechanics in games have a correct choice and a wrong choice, all easily looked up on a Wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 20:24
|
|
