|
Fergus Mac Roich posted:The decision to expose all of the reasons the AI does or does not do something in CK2 was amazing. I agree. It was similar to the complaint people had going from Civ 4 to Civ 5. In Civ 4, you always knew why the AI liked or hated you, and it was pretty transparent in its motivations. In Civ V, they obfuscated everything and it felt like you never knew why the AI did any of the things it did, making it really hard to predict and just frustrating. Part of this was because the AI (in the few months after launch) was absolutely awful and really did just behave erratically, but the obfuscation of information didn't help. Transparency in AI is a wonderful thing.
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
The Narrator posted:I don't think anyone replied to this, so here you go. There's a Steam group for Paradox goons called Comet Sighted, I'm part of it (as are a fair number of thread regulars) but it doesn't look like it's had much use as of late. I think a few people set up MP games from time to time in IRC or Skype, but I'm not really sure what channels to go to for that 'cause I don't really use either of them. I don't know how active it is, but last I knew, the popular gathering place was the IRC channel. #paradox at irc.synirc.org
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:I think he meant the UI/Gameplay would change seamlessly (You have entered the era of individualization!) Then you may as well just have separate games with separate budgets, development cycles, etc, with far better save conversions than currently available. Trying to cram everything into one product is a recipe for disaster.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:I'm playing EU3+ as the Inca, and it seems like it will take me until like 1700 to fully modernize (Innovative v Traditional +2, need less than -3, takes 20+ years between swaps)? Is there some workaround that makes it actually possible to modernize in any kind of reasonable time before the Portuguese eat me? You have to find and take advantage of free slider moves. I don't know how EU3+ changes things since I haven't played it yet, but in Vanilla, you could take Patron of the Arts to get periodic free moves towards Innovative, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Raserys posted:Is this from a DLC? I don't recall hearing this at any other point in the game. From Songs of Albion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:They have their own composer and like having complete creative control over their product I guess. Technically he's just an outside contractor who Paradox works with a lot. I don't think he's actually employed by them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Deploy gas in own trench, remove exits from trench.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:New EU4 Dev Diary. Honestly this was pretty disappointing to me, though the new UI looks nice. I was hoping for things to be closer to CK2, and 'aggressive expansion' seems like BB in all but name (are people still going to get pissed off because you conquered provinces that they don't even know exist?) The problem with badboy wasn't that conquering made you less popular, it was that it was too binary. There was a limit, and the penalties for staying under the limit were minimal, and the penalties for going above the limit were severe. It was also a number and effect that existed independent of other systems. By adapting the modifiers into a more linear scale that ties directly into the overall relations system, it is both more intuitive and allows you to mitigate the effects of conquest through diplomatic means.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2013 10:51
|
|
|
March of the Eagles was an AGEOD game before Paradox let them go. They took what work AGEOD did and EU-ified it, it seems. There's been some intermittent discussions on it in the last few months when developer diaries come out. For what it's worth, it seems to me like it will be its own game and not an EU4 prototype like some people fear. Stuff like its military systems seem custom designed just for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Galleys are only useful in Seas. The Mediterranean, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, and maybe the Channel are the only seas that actually count as seas. Maybe the Yellow Sea too? Outside of them, Galleys will always get eaten alive by Medium and Big ships, and play no real supporting role. Only use them if you're poor. Even in seas, they're still outclassed, but not by nearly as much, and they serve as a decent cost-efficient ship early on. edit: Basically what I'm saying is that there are no ratios in naval combat. As far as I can tell, every ship is always in combat and there's no such thing as flanking or other such things. Naval combat is really basic, as far as I can tell. What matters most is having more cannons than the enemy. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Jan 21, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
I've signed up for Paradox's newsletter like five times now, and have never unsubscribed from it. Yet every time I hear about one of these code giveways, I check and notice that I haven't received an issue in months. They just keep auto unsubscribing me or something. Who knows. It's incredibly frustrating. At least, this time I already have the game they're giving it away. I just would have liked to given it to someone else instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Graham Gremlin posted:If I'm not mistaken, for multiplayer games you get all the benefits of DLC that the host has. Not exactly. Everyone is always on the same version, whether you have the DLC or not. If you don't have the DLC, you can't play as any unlocked factions. If you do, you can, whether the host has it or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Nope, only the host needs it I believe as said above. It would be great to have you aboard and bring the goon counter to above two. I don't even think the host needs it. The DLC is handled on a per player basis, isn't it? Either you have it, and can play as republics, or you don't and can't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
Unfortunately you guys play at a time I'd be unavailable in otherwise I'd think about joining. Just curious, is it considered bad form to start as a King? Or is it just considered boring, so players shy away from doing it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Ham posted:No, the DLC is handled per host. If the host has all the DLCs while no one else does, everyone will be able to pick Republics, muslims etc. Oh, I did not know this. This isn't really the way Paradox initially advertised that, but that's cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 09:45
|
|
|
It just happens everywhere. People still do it there, and it's fine. They just prefer that people do it more personally through PMs or Steam, or through a Steamgifts giveaway. Either way, it's a nice thing to do and someone ended up happy, at least, even if they don't actively post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
Is that a feature or a bug? It sounds like a bug. While it might make a little sense from a realism point of view, there's no stat for it in game, and no way for the player to impact. It just means that there's a random chance that fleets wont engage, and that's just no fun from a gameplay point of view. Randomly having your strategies thwarted by impossible to influence random dice rolls is not what you want out of a strategy game, especially if there aren't any ways to compensate that (say, as a small island nation who relies on naval power).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:It's not really something anyone can influence, you can't order ships not to miss fleets sailing by outside of their visual range. Oceans are big places even ignoring poor weather conditions/night. However, fleets unloading troops are always spotted so you can avoid missing them by keeping your own fleet near what you want to protect rather than out at sea. Yeah, that was kind of my point. This line of reasoning makes for really unfun gameplay. Your stratagems and tactics should not be completely thwarted by random rolls of the dice. On land, the failures of your campaigns are influenced by the dice but ultimately you are the final decider for whether or not your strategies work or fail. You can plan for a failed battle or two. On the water, having the enemy just stroll past your fleet on a stroke of luck and completely siege your home land is just kind of frustrating bullshit. If armies couldn't disembark while their transports were in combat, you would be able to have a backup navy to stop landings, but that isn't possible. This little bit of realism for the sake of realism really hampers the gameplay, and is completely inconsistent with the entire rest of the game, which always sacrifices realism for better gameplay (such as being unable to stop disembarking troops).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:This image hasn't been posted in this thread yet: That guy really doesn't like CK2+.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:No one is claiming some dev said they are literally equal; Only that a dev considers China so unimportant that it is analogous to a one province minor. To be fair, I find it really unlikely that dev actually meant they were analogous to an OPM. He only meant that from a standpoint of its difficulty in a multiplayer game. Paradox obviously put some attention and effort into shaping China into what it is. Whether or not the subject of that attention (the faction system) was misguided or not is a totally different argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Honestly, the idea of being blocked from certain actions and having to balance sliders and events was fine. The part where Paradox hosed up was not making faction influence static, but rather constantly dropping/rising similarly to how relations work in EU. That meant the events thet popped up giving +5 influence to a faction had absolutely no meaning (stalling the inevitable domination of a given faction for a month, tops) and the only way to play it was to get sliders into equilibirum and just push that +0.01 influence towards what you wanted to achieve. In order to do factions right, I feel like 1) The player needs to be able to meaningfully influence the balance of power, as you say. 2) The factions need additional unique bonuses attached to them that aren't just "you can now do this thing literally every single other nation can do," like make it so the temple faction increases religious conversion speed a good amount. And 3) Each faction having a unique mechanic attached to them to make them feel different would be nice, but time consuming to develop, I'm sure. Just make them feel different somehow, and not just a different set of pluses and minuses.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:4) The player should be able to say "gently caress this faction poo poo we're changing government forms to something reasonable" like literally every other country on the planet is able to. Maybe it should be harder for them as well. China was so deeply ingrained with its tradition and internal politics, that reform was very difficult. My point was that they should make the faction system actually fun to play in and not something that makes you go "gently caress this faction poo poo."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Well yeah, that's what stability hits are supposed to represent. If England can transition from a feudal monarchy to a constitutional republic in just 7 stab hits, why can't China get rid of its terrible government? Maybe England shouldn't be able to do that with just a stab hit. Maybe changing government types should be difficult for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
I think everyone in this thread just needs to take a deep breath and relax. We're all riled up for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Factions was the best idea Magna Mundi ever had.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
I just had a totally random thought for a feature I'd like to see in Paradox's games: An "Advance Time" or "Next Turn" button. Just a button I can press while the game is paused that advances the game one 'turn' or day/hour. There are times where things get micro heavy and you want to manage things on a day to day basis. This isn't a big deal because I know I could just set the time to a slow speed then unpause and pause again right away, but I feel like it would be a nice, convenient feature.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Serpentis posted:Well, when we were talking about old gods, I don't think we considered that Cthulhu was technically paganistic... The title seems like a reference to Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones), really. Where the people of the North are more or less considered pagans to everyone else, as they worship the Old Gods instead of the new. edit: Paradox posted:Adventurers: Landless characters can gather armies and go off to carve out new realms on their own.  It's like Romance of the Three Kingdoms X, now. And that aspect will probably be just as barebones, but still. I love it.Incidentally, has anyone at Paradox played the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games, especially VIII and X? If not, they should. They're very Crusader Kings-esque, and are just generally great strategy game/RPG hybrids, just like CK. It's like Japanese developed Grand Strategy. edit 2: Someone at Paradox, please tell me that you'll be able to sell your services as a mercenary. Please. That would be baller as hell. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 13:38
|
|
|
Honestly, that Old Gods feature list has me hard as hell. Jesus, that sounds so good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 13:44
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bulgarian_Empire Unfortunately the start date is just after the empire converted to Christianity. Maybe there will still be a few pagan lords left, and we can usurp and convert the empire back? edit: Planned invasions may be really cool. Not to harp on this even more, but honestly, it sounds like whoever is designing this expansion just got done playing some Romance of the Three Kingdoms games and thought to add some of the cooler aspects of those into CK2, and I definitely approve. In RTK X, you could announce to your vassals your intention to invade another faction without being at a state of war, and everyone would try to pitch in and raise their own forces. Then when you'd open hostilities, they'd be ready to strike (hopefully). With the bit in the feature list about adventurers joining your war parties, I hope that means a player adventurer would be able to do so as well. If there is one other thing I'd like in CK2 from an RTK game, it's 8's War Councils. Basically, before battles, all the advisers would get together to discuss and agree upon strategy. Every general in the battle could pitch in an idea, the main war strategist could pitch in multiple ideas/plans, and the actual main battle leader would decide on them. This was mostly just boosting various stats and abilities, and didn't actually affect the tactics of battles, but it was still a cool flavor thing. Before war, perhaps during the invasion planning phase, I'd like to see an event chain or something that simulates a war council of sorts. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
A revamp of the colonization system and African politics is exactly what we've been clamoring for this entire time. Yet, I can't help but feel more excited for The Old Gods. I just hope that's because we don't know everything about HoD yet. Just looking at the feature list, it just strikes me as a little odd how HoD will probably be a $20 expansion, but seemingly have fewer features than The Old Ones. Granted, a couple of those features are really big. I guess I'm just more excited about turning all of Europe Pagan than I am about HoD. edit: From the Paradox Forums: Doomdark posted:Just to stop any rumors, you will not be able to play as a landless character. They will be AI controlled while on their adventure. Also, while the new start date is 867 and you can play all the way to 1453, you cannot start at dates between 867 and 1066 without modding.  Why you gotta break my heart, man?
Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jan 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Sheizerbrick posted:Can someone please post the new features in the Old Gods DLC here? Can't access game related sites at work. quote:Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:I love the idea of an 800 whenenever start date and would love a paradox game set right at the fall of Rome forward for the next 500 years or so. I think it's because we have no records that I really want to see a game trying to cover what little we do know. I think one of the biggest reasons they haven't done such a game yet would be the difficulty in handling migrations in their game engine. I mean, mass cultural migrations where entire kingdoms were on the move, not just relatively the simple immigration in V2. They would have to redo how the engine handles a lot of different things. It just may not be compatible with Clausewitz at all. I hope they do a Migration Period game, too. They would also need to represent the rise and fall of the Carolingian Empire, too. Maybe not in that game, but in CK2? Or maybe in yet another separate game? With those two additions, we'd have more or less the complete history of western civilization.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:With an older engine I might have agreed with you that it can't really be done. However with CK2's engine it strikes me as do-able. I mean land-less characters already exist, and are cpaable of recieving land or even kingdoms. I'm not sure but I think landless characters can even lead armies in ck2. That solves most of the horde problem there. Even a fairly Except the migrating peoples weren't landless. They occupied large swathes of land at any given time, occasionally staying behind to set up permanent settlements. I think using landless characters leading armies would be an extremely poor representation of what a migrating population actually is. The way Mongols and Aztecs were handled also wouldn't work, those two were just ever-increasing blobs, nothing more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 03:07
|
|
ordeal like creating a faction called "Natives" that inherits all vacated land by migrating hordes. Even more, landless hordes ARE a think in ck2, aztecs and mongols as the prime examples. Relatively do-able!
|
Quantumfate posted:There were problems to be sure, however the Mongol and Aztec hordes did prove the exchange capable of handling the issue. Im also not sure why a modest horde of barbarian peoples can't be represented by unplanned characters. As a mechanical aspect that is. Or rather I fail too see how that serves as a limitation on representing migratory culture. Paradox could just do events for the hordes where they have a choice to settle swathes of land they conquer granting them a claim on, or access to territory similar to the duchy formation choice in ck2. If the horde colleagues to press on rather than settle, let the land be transferred to a small ruler of similar culture to the house but not pay of the corpus of the invaders. I think a fluid system where your capitol is not tied to your land or city and represented a final defeat if it were lost would make a migration era game cool Well, I have a few problems with that approach. The migrants were more than just soldiers, they had enormous amounts of civilians. They kind of brought their whole economies with them. They produced lots of goods, traded in coin, and for all intents and purposes, were actual countries that just kind of moved around. It just sort of feels wrong to represent that with an army. They also took up more than just a single province at any given times, sometimes settling whole regions before picking up and moving again. And also, my idea of a Paradox army is one that is able to move around province to province in days or in the most extreme cases, a couple months. This just doesn't really jive well with how migratory tribes moved. I guess the issue here is that you're treating them like they were just hordes, constantly roving and plundering, which couldn't be further from the truth. Beamed posted:Again I point to Great Invasions, sorry for the typo earlier. I never really got into it myself, but it has a ton of interesting concepts and seemed to at least try to tackle the issue well. I love how that 2005 game has graphics on par with Europa Universalis 1. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2013 10:10
|
|
|
King seemed to not really know everything he was talking about. There was a lot of I-think-sos and maybes, with a healthy dose of "You'd have to ask this other guy." From the announcement and dev posts on the forum, it sounded like they were wanting to do some cool stuff with Zoroastrians. Maybe that will only turn out to be a couple events. Or maybe King is way too poorly informed to make for a good interview subject. It's probably a little bit of both.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
It's funny because all of Paradox's games are technically turn based.Fintilgin posted:http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...=1#post14980467 Are you seriously taking offense to the word denigrate? It's never been used in racial context before and it isn't racial in origin, and I've never heard of anyone else ever taking offense to the word before.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Rudi Starnberg posted:Wait, why would denigrate imply rascism? Or is it just because everyone knows Paradox are white supremacist Swedes? I don't know. I guess I misread Fintilgin's post, and due to the common "paradox is racist" mentality here, I jumped the gun. My bad, let's pretend this never happened.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
pdxjohan posted:100% true. Turnbased should not be present in modern computer games. Counterpoint: Turn based play allows for a completely different style of play, in which the player is able to carefully consider all possible tactics and choose the best one at any given moment. The specific subdivision of turns allows for a you-go-I-go system that is very easy to mentally grasp and apply complex tactics to. Turn based systems have a very clear cause and effect feedback system that makes people feel like their choices matter more in the moment. It's a different and equally valid genre of gaming that has nothing to do with computational power but choice in play style. I really do not know how you would make a good real time 4X game like Civilization, with just as much depth and complexity. Slowing everything down to turns makes systems way easier to design, which allows game designers to spend time making more and better systems instead of figuring out how to make what they want fit. My personal opinion: I prefer real time with pause. Even in games like Jagged Alliance, I prefer an in-depth real time system with abundant automatic pause conditions like the one used in 7.62 (I feel like the modern 3D JA games do it poorly). I honestly prefer Infinity Engine style RPG combat to Fallout style RPG combat. For JRPGs, I like both almost equally. For 4Xs, the only real time ones I've played have been Distant Worlds and Pax Imperia, and I never liked either as much as their turn based counterparts. So I guess it depends on the genre. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Erm, look at the thread we're in. Or if you prefer more pedigree, look at SimCity. Paradox's games have a lot of systems, but they tend to lack fine detail. It's really a result of their scope its and not necessarily a bad thing. Turn based games tend to focus on a more specific subset of systems and are able to really flesh them out with a large amount of detail. Take a look at Jagged Alliance 2 and the 1.13 mod/fan patch for an example of this. Or any of the super grognardy war games that have supply and regimental systems that make HoI3 look like checkers. Sins isn't a 4X game, it's an RTS that wants to make people think it's a 4X game. It has way more in common with Starcraft than it does with MoO.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Falsification of this claim: Dwarf Fortress. Outrageously detailed and complex game, still works in Simcity-esque RTwP. And it's taking him years and years and years to make, and it's still not even close to done, and has massive usability flaws that may never be fixed. Not a great example. edit: I mean this in terms of real time making turn based obsolete. If the example of games that do so are so impractical to develop, I argue that they can never be a major factor in the obsoletion of TBS. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2013 22:36
|
|