Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«8 »
  • Post
  • Reply
AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Koramei posted:

Anyway there's a new dev diary for Stellaris

Dev Diary posted:

Here is an example of the Sol system, and though it’s got a little bit more planets than most systems, systems being randomly generated and all, it does give you an idea of what solar systems may look like.
One of the things I can stand about some of these new Space 4x MoO wannabes is that they have like 5 planets in a system max. Everything I have read about the Kepler telescope and its discoveries points to our system being at or below average for number of plantary bodies in orbit of the star. Despite that, these games continually have this arbitrarily small number of un-imaginitive planets in their solar systems

We obviously need to see more before I can truly cry and stamp my feet about it but that really bothered me.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Panzeh posted:

If you're going to have a lot of planetary management you have to limit the number, though. I mean if a planet is just a set of sliders like Moo1, so be it, but if you are going all out, you do have to keep the number reasonably low.
The hope is that there will not be a lot of planetary management! I dont think anybody particularly likes micromanaging planets as their empire gets larger and Paradox is inventive enough do something fun and interesting in its place. Much how they removed the Papal Points clicking game in EU4.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



A friend convinced me to start playing Neptune's Pride and I am amazed at how good it is for a FTP browser game. I never expected to be so into one. It makes me yearn for an advanced version that keeps the basic planetary management and straight-forward combat and conquest mechanics, and just added flavor and detail. It is a basic/simplistic version of most of what I am looking for in a space strategy game.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



V for Vegas posted:

Getting pretty excited for EU4 1.14. The map mode button layout has been a pet peeve for a while so good to see them getting a make over.
I had no idea it was getting changed, so that is exciting. It is going to be a while till 1.14 drops though, isnt it?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



V for Vegas posted:

Wiz tweeted this the other day



That is awesome, thank you for sharing it here. I am behind on the EU4 thread so I may not have seen it there (yet) and I dont twitter or go to the paradox forums so seeing news like this here is great.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Fintilgin posted:

I'm actually non ironically sad that CKII doesn't let me go Maximum Julian.
Source your quotes.








AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



crabcakes66 posted:

Even in that very thread the weirdo neonazi types on the Paradox Forums came out to play:
Good god I just lost a lot of braincells to stupidicide.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Tomn posted:

You know, I know Stellaris has mentioned it'd delve into federations, but I'd love it if there were multiple positions of responsibility within the federation that member governments can jockey for instead of just "President." Instead of just the one "winner-takes-all" position of power that acts as an upgraded form of the government you're already in charge of while everyone else is reduced to helpless vassals, spread the power around so that different posts can be held by different governments with wildly varying priorities. I want to see constant jockeying and friendly competition between allies as they seek the positions of power that matter most to them. I want to see ramshackle, bickering federations constantly working at cross-purposes where it takes a whole lot of effort to ensure that everyone is pointed in the same direction instead of just working for their own personal benefit - with perhaps the option of trying to concentrate power in the hands of one particular government at a cost in efficiency and loyalty.

One of the things that bug me most about "diplomatic" wins in 4X strategy games is that in most such games, allies are boring. You sign one treaty and then the only real interaction you ever have with your allies beyond that is maybe the occasional subsidy or trade and hoping that they'll answer your call to arms. A scenario where you constantly have things to do with - or to - your allies would help make diplomacy a lot more interesting than just throwing money at them until they're happy, and competing for positions within a greater governmental framework sounds like just the sort of thing that might work.
The persistent argument against this is that then wartime gets too complicated, because you have to worry about that stuff AND fighting. Most people play the games for the fighting, so developers leave out stuff to do in peacetime. My argument against that (I'm no videogame developer (just boardgames in my free time)) is that the special peacetime mechanics would be put on hold or have a "wartime status" that streamlines or holds the peacetime stuff while at war.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



zedprime posted:

So you're saying you'd like an option to suspend the democratic process during times of war? I like that idea especially if there's an option to say "you know what, lets keep going like this" after the war ends.
Exactly. For the games playability sake every Confederation/Republic/whateverthefuck has a limited set of options while at war. There could be different things with different flavors for different gov types.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Fintilgin posted:

Sadly, given the expansion is unannounced, and it usually takes at least six weeks or so from announcement to release... I'm starting to think we're not actually going to see it this year.
I figured they were waiting to announce it so they could sell it for full price right before Christmas, since they sell so many things on sale around then.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



RIP Wiz

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Empress Theonora posted:

New Stellaris dev diary on species and empires.

Monarchs, heirs, factions, ideology sliders, and POPs! I think Stellaris might be................ the perfect game.....................................
I am still really scared about planet tiles.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Gwyrgyn Blood posted:

Same but also ship design.
I am almost as worried about that as I am about planet tiles. I just dont see how either can be a fun mechanic in a game that they are trying to design to have a fun lategame because they will both be a pain in the rear end to deal with late game, especially in large empires.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Has anyone tried out the game Rouge State? Looks interesting enough. And has a catchy national anthem.
Someone made a game about a colored state? Rouge is such an interesting color...

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Decrepus posted:

Why did they ever put turrets on the side though.
Why not?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



This is amazing.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



VerdantSquire posted:

Honestly, from my own experiences, the main reason people think that this is a great idea is because obviously bigger sizes = more content, right? I don't really blame people for choosing all the stuff that makes the game a lot longer and bigger, since from their perspective, it's the option that will give them the "most" out of the game. But, while on paper it may seem like increasing the scale of a game won't change much, the effect is much more like what you get if you make someone several times the height of a normal human in real life. You don't get a monster of a human being, you get a human being whose back breaks instantly under the force of gravity and is left with a myriad of physical health issues which probably makes them incapable of even sitting upright. The same thing can be seen with games: Increasing the scale does not equal more content, it results in the framework of the game breaking apart and previously interesting components becoming incredibly annoying and dull.

It doesn't help that a lot of strategy game developers seem to just think that allowing players to make the game as big as they want is completely fine. If you want to truly increase the scale of your game, you have to do a lot more than adjust a couple of values and call it a day, you have to absolutely overhaul a lot of the systems to account for the fact that the player is going to be managing dozens of times more units/settlements/whatever than they'd normally would, and playing on a map far larger than what the game was designed for. Developers really ought to make sure that their game is capable of functioning on even the highest scaling setting available, but I'm basically a nobody so who cares what I think?
I like doing big scale games of Civ5 and space 4x because I love the concept of large empires, long-term games, and strategic planning. What is the point of putting a lot of thought and planning into my plays if the game is short and there are only like 3 options that are viable? Its hard for me to explain so I doubt this really conveys how I feel about it but I just like larger long-term games. Heroes of Might and Magic 3, Master or Orion 2, anything, you name it, I liked playing on a big map. I find it more satisfying even if it means more micro or whatever.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



I must be in the minority when it comes to Stellaris. I love Paradox and am going to follow it but I keep seeing things that are turn-offs to me.

devblog posted:

Most leader types are recruited using Influence (a type of diplomatic "currency" in the game) and there is a cap on the total number of leaders you can employ, so you will need to weigh your need for Admirals against that for competent Governors, etc. Although all leaders tend to gain experience and become more accomplished over time, they do not live forever. The day will come when they perish and will need to be replaced…
The bolded bothers me and the bolded italicized scares me. Needing to juggle leaders and having opportunity cost for having governors or admirals feels like an outdated train of thought to me. When in history has someone said "well the Pacific fleet can have an admiral OR we can put a governor in the Phillipines, but not both"?!?

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Gwyrgyn Blood posted:

It's a video game, I think you can probably assume it's an abstraction for the sake of play-ability. Limitations on how many Characters you can have leads to more decision making and less micromanagement.

I don't know if you've ever played Dominions 4 or not, but I'd use that as an example of why unlimited numbers of leaders is potentially a horrifying thing for a 4x.
Except I micromanage where the few leaders I have go so I get the best bonus at the right time in the right place/ect. I dont like the concept that there are a bunch of super-amazing dudes that I am managing but everyone else is an identical incompetent nincompoop with the same stats and same lack of abilities/specialties/whatever.


Tomn posted:

For an in-game justification, while there's no shortage of people who can fill any given position, there IS a limited pool of top-class talent and it's possible to come up with scenarios where the best and the brightest gravitate to, say, the Navy and the civilian sector while the Army gets the shaft. Possibly the leaders in Stellaris represent the particularly outstanding folks at the top without bothering to represent all the other guys who are competent but who won't really make headlines.
This can be abstracted a number of ways, though, and having a small pool of leaders for the player to manage seems like a pain. This is Paradox that made CKII, which has rulers from the Barony level to Emperor - why cant my planets, fleets, ect all have a generic milquetoast leader who gets modifiers from a 'global' leadership modifier my gov type, research, policies, ect determine that can have random events give me a random chance to make them exceptional? It would be less complicated than CKII because there would be no dynastic politics. If I found a new colony it should automatically get a leader or I can assign it a leader from my existing pool, and that one taken from the pool would be replaced by a random milquetoast nobody who then himself would be affected by random events and stuff to maybe turn into someone special that you promote or a clown that you fire into the sun.





edit: Thinking more about it I am just arguing about personal preference. I can understand the way they are doing it, I guess I am just tired of that method and would like something more....Paradox.

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at Oct 26, 2015 around 22:17

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Koramei posted:

You will note that micromanaging your leaders down to the barony level in CK2 is one of the most mind numbing experiences possible once you get past a certain size. I can kind of see why you might want lots of leaders (although I think you're probably overestimating how much you'll enjoy it in practice) but I think for all but 1% of the playerbase it just adds needless confusion and an enormous amount of micromanagement for next to no benefit whatsoever.

it also sounds like something that'll be incredibly easy to mod, leader cap is the sort of value that's in defines.lua I expect.
I could go on about what I think would be best, but I wont. To sum it up - I want the leaders in use to be dynamic in the background: if there is this generic pool of leaders to pick from the game could just randomly assign one to lead a new colony or replace a dead one. If, however, I want to put a leader who -through background events I am not managing- is a great industrialist, I could chose to sort the list by stats and select him to lead my new colony...it is just a few optional clicks. Whatever position he was in before is auto-backfilled. There would in essence be little actual micromanagement - I just want to feel like I am managing a group of leaders rather than sticking whomever I have wherever because I only have 3 dudes to pick from despite having a dozen colonies to manage.

edit: If you played "Endless Space" you may understand my fear better - at the start of the game you get 3 leaders in your pool of hire-able leaders. Certain leaders are home-run hitters from the get go and can develop into someone that turns any fleet that they are in command of into inter-dimensional murder machines, while other leaders you can get are garbo and can develop into okay-ish given enough time. It is all a crapshoot that is RNG based rather than having anything to do with my decisions, skills, or game-goals.
An idea I had about that, which could very well end up being neat for Stallaris, is that you can click on the "recruit a leader" button and pick the traits you want them to have (there are only 5 traits to pick from) and if you pick a leader with the same traits as a leader you already have it costs way more so you cant load up on the same type of leader.


GSD posted:

You also only get a few generals at a time in EU4, even when you have several hundred thousand soldiers in arms.
This is something I have been less than thrilled about in EU4 for some time. When I pay 50 of my precious MP for a general and get some shitter with 4 fire and zero shock in 1475 I am annoyed. Why dont I have a pool of leaders to pick from? Why cant I pay my 50 MP for an older more experienced general who wont improve much before he retires/dies or for a younger up-and-comer who may improve (or get worse!) in his career that still may have 20 or 30 years? You can pay 50 MP for a general or admiral who dies 5 years later.

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at Oct 26, 2015 around 22:51

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Koramei posted:

Having an unlimited pool of leaders like that sounds like it'll just make you care about them a whole lot less. It's a lot easier to keep track of just a few people and actually get somewhat invested in them. I can see how it kinda sounds like it'll make things seem busier and more alive, but I think in practice all it'll do is take away a huge chunk of the uniqueness of the characters you actually care about for very little benefit.

e: actually there's a really good example for this, just look at Total War Rome 2. They switched from a limited selection of leaders that were slow to replace and turned it into an unlimited pool, and suddenly people started caring about their generals a whole lot less, even though they were about as detailed as they had been in the older titles.


This just sounds like you want to be able to get all the best leaders all the time. I dunno about Endless Space, but in EU4 you're totally able to make your leaders better, it just takes a lot of investment through ideas and army tradition. When you give people a selection of traits to choose from, all that happens is they take all the best ones all the time and there end up being totally optimal play strategies. Randomness avoids that somewhat.

Also no state in history has been able to just hand pick the best and brightest in their country. You're dealing with corrupt and self interested nobles, if you don't like it, spend another 50 MP to strip some poor guy of his title and find a replacement, otherwise make do.
Eh, this is why I am not going to go on about it - opinions vary. I dont have the effort to articulate my point so I am going to drop it. I'm not saying "I want whatever I want whenever I want it" I am saying "I am tired of getting hosed by the RNG". If I wanted to "deal with it and make do" I wouldnt play videogames to try to relax after a long day at work.


Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:

I was tempted to link another "Germany was not the aggressor in WW2" thread from HoI-4, but drat that's weak poo poo compared to the Stellaris stuff.
I will always laugh at that poo poo, feel free to post it.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



zedprime posted:

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Is there a vermin race? If not, why isn't there one?
Humans were like the first race announced dude.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Demiurge4 posted:

Paradox and Obsidian to merge! Immediately go public and get bought out by EA.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Fintilgin posted:

I think a 'sandbox' DLC would be crazy fun too. Have the game randomly generate semi-balanced nations named off regions like the EUIV generator, so you've got Red Texas fighting fascist Chicago in the Great Plains or whatever. Paradox is nuts if they don't do something fun like that. Especially now that they have more robust AI and peace making rules.
I would go bananas if they announced this.



Orcs and Ostriches posted:

And if your cold war somehow gets out of hand it just loads up the After the End mod for CK2.
That would be an amazing transition.


Ofaloaf posted:

Part of the team, yeah. What regional quirk has been misrepresented now?
After The End was my favorite CKII mod by far before I got burned out on it. And now there are all these new expansions and I am intimidated by the game.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Pharnakes posted:

Can I just say that I hate the "can only research something once trope". If that was true in real life and an initial wrong conclusion destroyed all evidence or future possibility of research then we would never have got anywhere at all. I don't even think it makes for good gameplay, it just encourages stupid gamey poo poo like using only 1 scientist to research all the anomalies you find to pump their xp into some sort of super genius. Doesn't make any sense at all. Yes you can come up with other mechanics to punish such tactics, but why can't you just remove the incentive to do it in the first place?

Oh look, we have found a strange and wondrous alien artefact, better not pay any attention to it at all until our xenobilochemolinguistastrophysimathematian can come and research it. Presumably by eating it, since no traces are left thereafter.
I agree with this 100%

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



nothing to seehere posted:

It does seem like you guys are complaining that it might be possible to miss content or for it to be possible for not everything to turn up good for you. I've got no problem with stuff sometimes giving no bonus, personally. Sometimes poo poo just doesn't
To me, its less about that and more about the irrationality of "your scientist failed once you now forever cannot look or think about this fantastic anomaly/ancient artifact". If the dev diary said that you would get options like "intensive research: anomaly/ancient artifact is consumed, chance of success or breakthrough +x%" or "basic research: anomaly/ancient artifact is preserved, chance of success or breakthrough +y%" then I wouldnt have anything or as much to say.

But it doesnt. It says that if you research something once it is gone forever. Which just sounds dumb.

Now I may be misinterpreting what is said in the DD or maybe I just need to wait for more information, but as it is presented at this point in time I think it sounds like an odd and obtuse mechanic.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



This looks fantastic. I lost my poo poo every time I was successfully supplying my Japanese troops that were navally invading India via ports, but then when a land connection was established from my invasion beachheads to China/Siam/Burma the supply AI would stop sending supplies to the big ports in india and instead insist on driving supplies overland from China.

What I'm saying is that I hope that issue from HoI3 is fixed with this, too.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



A Buttery Pastry posted:

Will Italian units require extra supply, to simulate their love of pasta and the strain that puts on supply lines?
Well, their trains do run on time...

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



lmao the "I know how to design a videogame better than professionals" entitlement is so loving delicious.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Welp, officially off the hype train for Stellaris.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Wiz posted:

Have you guys considered that switching from 'this will be the best ever' to 'this will be the worst ever' because of one DD about tile grid planets is just a little bit on the histrionic side?

I posted:

Bort Bortles posted:

Welp, officially off the hype train for Stellaris.

I have never been posting "this will be the best ever" about Stellaris - I was excited that the company you work for announced they were making a space grand strategy game because I know they have incredibly talented developers like you on staff. However I immediately expressed misgivings about certain things, including the planet tiles. As I have read the dev diaries I have gotten less and less excited for the game. With the announcement of more info on planet tiles I am no longer have much interest in the game. I decided to share that opinion on this comedy internet forum in the hopes of seeing others opinions on the matter. Should I share more info every time I post? My mood, why I am thinking what I am thinking, why I dont like it, or what? Its not like I posted a tantrum or immediately said "I hate Paradox I cant feel human anymore" or something.

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at Nov 17, 2015 around 17:35

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Westminster System posted:

I had fun with Stardrive 2 - people are extremely salty over the fact that Stardrive 1 was never "finished" (Part developer fault, part random factors, part game engine being discontinued during development) - though its still a reasonably decent game let down by engine limitations. Mileage varies on the bias of other reviews as well.
Well to be fair, Stardrive 1 was a dumpsterfire from the get-go and the developer flipped his lid when people pointed out valid criticisms, then all of a sudden Stardrive 2 was announced with (at the time) no explanation.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Koramei posted:

Maybe I'm just not thinking about it right, but planetary management being disabled as you get larger sounds like it'll bother the hell out of me. Even when automation in games is practical and makes a lot of sense it still always feels like "well the AI doesn't know how to manage the planets as well as me, why should I hand over control". Especially if a big part of the early game is having nicely optimized planets, and suddenly when you get bigger you find their efficiency hits the toilet. It'll just seem really jarring.

What other games have done automation like that that people can point to? I can't think of any and maybe in practice I'm wrong and it feels really different.
Agreed. I have played a lot of space 4x style games and the answer is none.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



nothing to seehere posted:

The space 4X genre is probably unique in having no brilliant games for a long time despite a fairly steady pace of people trying to make good ones, and getting average/good at best. Maybe there's something about how divergent fans expectations are about the genre that you never get a universally acclaimed game?
From my perspective, a lot of the space 4x games that have come out have all had low budgets and end up being poo poo on release, get no support, have bad sales, and then never git gud because they dont sell.

That and the aforementioned no outstanding combinations of abstraction/interesting innovations/improvements of old or bad mechanics. I liked how Endless space had you simply building buildings for a system and had some ship customization that let you build terrible awful ships if you have no idea what you are doing or build unstoppable murder machines if you did. I didnt like actual combat or how every solar system ends up being the same thing with the same buildings and you end up picking a spec for it and then ignore it except for queueing new buildings and/or ships.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



I wonder if it will be possible to mod Stellaris to be the Battletech universe...

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Sky Shadowing posted:

Obligatory SQUAWK!
CAW CAW MOTHERFUCKER


Demiurge4 posted:

Yeah they've implied there will be a lot of events in the game that shakes up major empires. Stellaris probably won't be a game where you paint the entire map your color like in EU4.
Indeed. I think it is great that they are building these things into the fabric of the game and letting people know loud and clear that it aint gon' be easy to maintain huge galactic empires. Kinda like how CKII has the facet of "losing is fun" (that I dont always agree with but can definitely see the meaning) in that bad things will happen but so will good things.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Sharzak posted:

Sins of a solar empire loving unequivocally owned though??
It was pretty good but did not scale up well as the game went on, though. And had some odd mechanics.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Psychotic Weasel posted:

But seriously I hope HOI4 and Stellaris don't come out right next to each other. I don't know why they would release them like that, knowing that there's probably some serious overlap in markets, but since one of them has been in development forever someone may just decide to shove it out as soon as it's done so it can start earning back some cash. As for which one I want to play first? I don't care, I'll play the hell out of both eventually so just finish one already drat it.
HoI4 is in active Beta testing and has already been delayed twice now while Stellaris is still in Alpha and was just announced. Paradox has tons of cash from Cities: Skylines and whatever so they are probably letting Wiz do his thing so HoI4 has good AI and bugs/kinks/exploits are worked out.


Deceitful Penguin posted:

Not saying its you thinking that btw, just that the entitlement is pretty amusing to me.
Its loving hysterical.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Thank you for continuing to share these here, I never remember to look them up.

I am even farther off the hype train after reading this. Still need more details because it was kinda vague and may not be as bad as I am perceiving it to be but, eh.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



zedprime posted:

The worrying part is its going more ambitious than EU4, which is maybe limiting but who's simplicity throws at least a few bones about important decisions about splitting armies or early unit type choices. Every other bundle of force that's gone complicated, in CK2, HoI3, Vicky2, HoI2, ends up having maximized, often unintuitive, builds figured out and you just attach the correct materiel or marry in high martial Welshmen into your family and go about your day.

In other words I'm worried the ship designer is going to be about marrying Welshmen again.
Whats wrong with marrying Welshmen? Hrm?!? Marrying Welshmen is one of my favorite pass-times in CKII.


Ghost of Mussolini posted:

Some of these Stellaris DDs blow me away, and others make me not want to touch it at all, fearing infection from the space 4x plague that has killed off so many games.
This is exactly how I feel.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«8 »