|
For Victoria 2, is there any way to increase non-factory production, besides new technologies? As Brazil, I suddenly had the bottom dropping out of my budget and when I checked, it turned out that I was suddenly pumping over 150 £ in subsidiaries onto my fabric factories. I have zero idea why, and the trade menu didn't actually indicated any huge price increase, but my best guess is that my domestic cotton production isn't enough and that they have to pay a lot to buy from the global market, as there is always a huge demand for cotton. I am not in the sphere of any Great Power and my tariff is only around 3%, so I don't now what other reason there could be.
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
If we talk about cool new features we would like in the game, I'd love being able to buy above market price for your national stockpile. I recently had to wait almost a year for a couple of guards because there were no luxury clothes on available for me thanks to some war in europe.
e X fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Apr 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If they want to make V2 a GREAT game, I think they need to make it much easier to find useful information. Like being able to find out what goods and how many a country produces for the purpose of sphering. You can find out the top five producers of a good, but most of the time those are great powers or China, so that doesn't do you any good. There's the RGO output mapmode, but even with that you have to hunt down a province producing that good first. I wish there was just a button on the goods detail window to automatically display which provinces produce it. All in all I hope the next expansion deals with the economy. It's already pretty complex, but most of the stuff happens behind the scenes and is out of your hands. You had more influence in EU3.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
The new NI system sounds real awesome. From the way I understand it, it's going to make the different government types actually different game experiences. If the are modable, the possibilities are practically endless.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Most of them are not actually that bad, a lot of entries copied photos from the wikipedia pages. Still kinda stupid, but out of the five contest winner only two look weird and only babydfce here is really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Man, I just took a glance at pictures and thought that they really didn't looked that dumb. Boy, was I wrong, this is really unconformable. "If only those pesky Nazis hadn't killed so many Jews, because asides from that, the 1000 Year Reich was a really cool idea. Imperialism is awesome!" Also, how is all this stuff about Israel going to work? I thought these leaders were supposed to fill position that don't have a historical equivalent or are unknown, but the biography sounds more like a custom scenario. e X fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Jul 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Osma bin Laden reminds me of something, does the game has a mechanic to simulate the different ideological faction in different countries or the ability of foreign powers to supply these faction to change the political alliance of these countries?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:I think I'm just sore because it's an era that's been underserved grand strategy wise (you've got, what... Supreme Ruler?) and these guys have managed to take every single interesting element about the time period and either ignore it, handle it badly, or blatantly change it for the worse. At least, uh... World Stage... was just loving up an era that the main EU series treats very well. Yeah, I think it's mostly disappointed expectations. There is a lot of really interesting stuff in this period that would be awesome if recreated in the usual paradox style, but open warfare is by far the least interesting one. There is a reason the era is called the Cold War. And this 'We are are the World' contest only helps to highlight that the developers have some odd priorities, since they apparently picked a guy who will only become relevant if you reform the Kingdom of Prussia. Clearly the most pressing issue in a Cold War game. In the end, this wont be a horrible game, but instead of a genuine simulator of Cold War politics, it will be HoI3: Modern Times.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Beamed posted:
Maybe, but since this is about how the massive chat about EU4 could drown out talk about other games in this thread, it is an entirely valid statement. Also, I just gave in and preordered EU4. An official save game converter is just too good, I'd love too see my how my Kingdom of Saxony game, with an heretic HRE, Kingdom of Sicily/Africa and Latin Empire will develop in the next 400 years. e X fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jul 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 18:13
|
|
You know, I know HoI isn't popular on this forum, but since Paradox literally just said that HoI is their bestselling series, I don't think this is quite accurate. When HoI4 is inevitably released, I strongly encourage it to receive its own thread.. But EU4 is probably best-fitting here.
|
SkySteak posted:A CK2 E/N would have thread topics and people that would put anything on the real to shame. I don't know, is "Help, I work as spymaster for my dad and he is forcing me to assassinate our incest love child so my second born son can inherit Poland' really that out of the ordinary for E/N?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:Did the Mac version of ck2 have a launcher? I know that the Linux version didn't have one and its total nonsense. I hope EU4 doesn't follow suit on this very important feature being absent. Yes, the mac version has the normal launcher.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
All in all, CK2 is really easy game and I found it to be a lot more fun if you 'roleplay' a little and only do stuff that suits your ruler while trying to ignore your own knowledge of future events and the game mechanics. Otherwise it is ridiculously easy to be basically unbeatable after the first 200 years. And even than you can easily end up as the strongest power. In my Saxony game, I left the HRE and formed the titular Kingdom of Saxony and conquered nothing but the Northern German provinces and I still ended up with the second largest army after the Mongols. e X fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Aug 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:There should be a point at which you will lose to the AI no matter how good you are because it has an insurmountable numerical advantage, the question is how much of an advantage is that going to be and how aggressively is the AI going to press its advantage. Yes, that is definitely what a game you play for fun and entertainment needs, a 'gently caress you' option.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Uh, I don't see how the player not being able to defeat an empire 10 times as powerful as his is a "'gently caress you' option". That's just game balance/A.I and something that's present in many games! I am not saying it should be easy, but I do thing that a player who is good at a game should be rewarded for it. If you are able to pull off a Byzantine victory, you shouldn't be hosed over, just because it didn't happened historically. After all, Paradox makes games, not historical simulators were the same thing happens in each game. Otherwise, you might as well take Byzantine, and every other nation that was in a bad place historically, out of the list of playable countries.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 16:44
|
|
|
Kainser posted:That wasn't what he was talking about, he was saying that if a nation is in a sufficiently bad position for whatever reason so shouldn't it be possible to comeback since the AI really should be able to finish you. Being reduced to one city in Civilization with a 20-city antagonistic empire surrounding you etc. And all I am saying is that if you are a good enough player too pull of such a feat, it shouldn't be impossible 'just because'.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
That is not really what I got from Weasel's or Kainser's posts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Well, it's what I meant at least Eh, I just wrote a long winded explanation, but I guess it was a dumb misunderstanding on my part. Of course, the game deliberately letting you win would not really be a good mechanic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Okay, I guess it was covered in a DD and I just didn't overread it, but can someone explain sieges to me, specifically what the percentages mean? They just randomly seem to jump up and down, from 28% to 7% without actually indicating how much the siege progressed or how long it will take to conquer the province.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:that drop is from when a province is not blockaded. Ahh, thank you, I was sieging Venice at the time, that makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Vodos posted:I may just be dense here but I don't understand how those modifiers amount to that amount of taxes? All those modifiers add up to 45% tax efficiency, so with a 1.00 base tax you get .45 per tax interval. Pretty straight forward I think. e: f;b
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:yeah but you can make up dump arbitrary systems and you can make up good arbitrary systems. What exactly speaks against stacking percentages? I mean, I guess you could express it in absolute numbers, but I don't think having a +0.05 bonus is really any easier to understand than +5% bonus. e X fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Will there be any more expansions for Victoria 2? Because I always felt that while the last to extended the diplomatic options quite a bit, your nations politics are somewhat bare bone. Alternatively, are there any mods that deal with that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Outside of clearly failing to accurately represent the period it is set in and the somewhat bizarre, but understandable idea to engage your goony fanbase, are there any other problems with EvW? I mean, yes, designing your own battleship is not exactly what I would consider to be the most important part in a game that supposedly simulates the Cold War era, but if you see the game not as a political simulator and more like HoI in the late 20th century, wouldn't it actually be a good game?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
What is the point of a game if I can't lead my unfairly marginalized nation finally to the greatness it so rightly deserves? (Is there a lot of historic revanchism in Scandinavia?)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
The HoI 4 stuff sounds absolutely amazing. My biggest problem with these games is tat, at the end of the day, I still feel less like being in command of the armed forces of an entire country and still more like it is basically C&C WWII, were I literally have to tell every unit to shoot the enemy, otherwise the just stand around. The battle plans idea sounds like it addresses exactly that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
The real problem with all this is that in the end, it's a game, not a simulation. I name, in every single paradox game, war is a hell of a lot more eminent than in real life, simply because there is no real down side to it and in the end, nothing else to do. A pacifist game once in a while is interesting, but also pretty uneventful. So I think that regardless of how you design the mechanics behind it, there will always be a lot more nuclear wars on a paradox earth than there would ever be in real life.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
And the first major complaint is the shape of the countries  .
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:I had high expectations about EvW when I first read about it. What happened to it? Nothing. It was never really going to be a game about the Cold War, is mostly just a time upgrade for HoI so you can use contemporary military hardware.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Astro Nut posted:Just say 'people of this proud Nation', but with Nation as the name instead of a generic term. Think like 'people of Great Britain'. Nah, the question is how the President would call the equivalent of the State of the Union.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
I know the chances for that are pretty much none-existent, but what I would really like would be a game similar to Victoria, that covers the 20th and maybe 21st century. What I always disliked about HoI is that, unlike Paradox other major title, it is really not about playing in a certain epoch throughout human history and basically just another WWII game. While the focus is definitely on Europe in EU and CK, you can still have a lot of fun playing another, minor nation. With HoI, you really doesn't have anything to do unless you play a nation that played historically a role in the war. e X fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Yeah, I made that suggestion the last time this topic came up in this thread. The thing that makes CK2 fun is that, within your nation, you've got a ton of independent actors that have their own competing goals and ideas, which are not always aligned with yours. A great way to do this with a game set in modern times would be to have the basic unit of organization be the Party, where you play as a Party within a nation. Then the main game would be to try to campaign for votes and try to get your party elected to government -- or plot to depose the government in a coup or popular uprising! For one thing, it would make playing as the minor nations actually interesting, even while the Cold War rages on outside. That sounds really amazing. One think I really dislike about Victoria 2 for example is that your political option are so limited.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Paradox gamers don't care about Chinese people. At least one complained against RoI was "It's called Crusader Kings!" so yeah, they don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Kavak posted:On the other hand, if they actually manage to export Crusader Kings II's style of emergent storytelling to RPGs with Runemaster, it could be revolutionary. Either way, I doubt they'll abandon their old franchises. Is that what they are trying to do? Because that really would be awesome, I was wondering why they were trying to break into RPGs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
NewMars posted:Yes and the dev diaries about it are pretty interesting. Apparently they've using the CK2 traits system as a base to determine the personality of your character and how the world will react to them? Does that mean that the quest system will be open-ended?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Same with playing Germany and having to beat up France every other year. Yes, it makes for a challenging game, having to plan every war around the possibility of a french backstab, but it also doesn't allow for a lot variety.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
If steampunk has taught me anything, then that everything run of cogs in the Victorian age.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:Someone re-enact the Shadow President .gif and report on what happens I was about to ask, there were so many speculations beforehand how a global nuclear war would be handled, so how did they do it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Victory 2 problem is that outside war and colonization in Africa, there is not much to do. Especially the political side really got the shaft. You got six different tech trees, all with its different subcategories, but only one whopping page of political reforms.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Victoria 2's biggest problem is that it seems to be halfway between HOI and EU. The economy is basically a black box, political change is pretty arbitrary and doesn't really influences your play style, you get a mere half page of social reforms for the entire 19th century while your research tree is massive. Even the diplomacy mechanic is pretty rough and bare bone.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:49 |
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Call me a sperg but I now have little interest and less faith in HoI 4. Guess I'll just stick with DH. Okay, you got to explain this to me, why?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 19:12
|
|
