|
Frontspac posted:Rogue State looks cool. It actually really strongly resembles a spec design I was thinking about a while ago, including the title, which is super weird. Hopefully it's still on sale tomorrow when I get paid. I gave it a try just now. Frankly it seems a bit unpolished and lacking in gameplay. Maybe I'm just playing wrong, but I find myself just clicking "end turn" over and over again, hoping that I have enough cash to pay for whatever the next random event is going to cost me; there just isn't all that much to do on each turn. The game isn't very good at telling you what things are/do either, though maybe the info is in the manual somewhere. It could really use some mouseover-explanations though, I shouldn't have to dig through a manual to figure out what the resource icons represent for example. I like the basic concept though, are there any other similar games out there people can recommend?
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Losing is fun, but the failure should come from specific choices the player did or did not make, not random chance. It should be something you could have prevented if you were a better player, or had more information. If you lose a civil war in CK2, at least you know you *could* have won if you played better or that victory was simply impossible given the circumstances. Even in a game like Dwarf Fortress, where "losing is fun" is the motto, failure is something you could have prevented. If you fail horribly in DF, you can at least see why it happened and how you can prevent that specific disaster from happening again on your next attempt. Having an obvious coinflip where you could get a better result by reloading the game and trying again (without changing anything) is just infuriating gameplay. The answer to "why did I lose" shouldn't be "you were unlucky".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
zedprime posted:How do you stand playing map games? What with all the dice being thrown around for battles that you could reload and get a better result on constantly. Mostly because of the sheer number of dice throws, and the fact that you can rig them pretty heavily. Perhaps it will be the same for Stellaris, I haven't really been paying attention to it much. If I lose a battle in EU4 for example and reload (I prefer to play ironman just to prevent myself from doing that to be honest), I don't think "that was unlucky, I should try the exact same thing again until it works". I prepare better by bringing more troops, a better general and/or picking a better place/time to have the battle. Sure, there is random chance involved, but you can and should work around it. Each battle has lots of dice throws, but so many of them that the better army wins anyway. I would prefer it if the game was less random, but you can usually just work around whatever difficulties thrown your way by the RNG (or prepare for them in advance). There are some RNG-elements of map games that annoy me (like trying to get a siege general in EU4), but for the most part it comes down to the choices you make as a player and not how lucky you are with your dice throws. The more dice throws there are in a game, the less dependent you are on winning them all. Maybe a 30% success rate on researching anomalies is fine, there could be hundreds of anomalies and you'll get what you need eventually. The fewer you find, the more important it becomes to "succeed" in each one though. Freudian posted:So what do you do when you fail to pass Genius onto your heir? I rig the game in advance by having as many children as possible, and making sure the best one gets to inherit. Or I switch to an elective monarchy and find someone qualified amongst my huge dynasty (which is full of geniuses due to careful breeding). Disaster is still possible, but usually preventable with enough effort.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Losing is fun, but only if you choose to lose. Lmao. This guy is crazy. Random chance is an aspect of every game ever made, whether its the coinflip of whether you will beat your human opponent or whether you are fighting some kind of probability system. EU4/CK2 would be a million times shittier if it just hid all the math from you (hello V2) and left you in the dark when stuff was happening. Random isn't the same as unpredictable. When I get a 0-10 kill/death ratio in a game of Counter Strike, it isn't because I was unlucky with the dice throws. I can't blame my lack of skill on random chance, I just have the choice of dealing with it or trying to do better (or finding less skilled opponents). I don't want games where I have to consciously choose to lose, I just want games where it's possible to make a choice that leads to success.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Why are we discussing this again I thought we were discussing whether some minor feature in a half-finished game which we have almost no information about sounds like "fun" and "something that makes the game better". Apparently I was wrong, and we were really discussing whether or not games are even real or just a figment of our deranged imaginations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:It was, as nominally was Germany's lebensraum- but the actual war decisions really didn't do much in that regard. Japan had Manchuria and barely exploited it - resource wise at least. Diqing oil field wasn't discovered until 1959. Then Japan spends a bunch of energy and manpower fighting a very broad front war against China, and when they start looking at the South Pacific they don't really bee-line to Indonesia to get what oil's there. Similarly, Romania doesn't join the Axis until November of 1940, and it wasn't like Hitler was clamoring to force them in either. Instead, Hitler's focused on invading Norway for...dubious reasons. Basically, little of the war plays out as a focused or even determined grab for resources. Here's a recording of Hitler in 1942 talking about how crucial the Romanian oil wells were and how worried he was that the Soviets would seize them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUD7YN--_VU I don't know whether it is true, but he is literally saying they would be screwed without that oil.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
I haven't played Victoria 2 in ages, so I don't know what mods are currently good, but I do remember that the various mod packs mainly just added more stuff. More events, more nations, more wars etc. Sounds good in theory, but it slowed the game down. There was one great feature though, which converted per-province events/election stuff into state level events, which vastly cut down on the number of annoying popups. I don't know if you can get that on its own however.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Is there an elegant way to handle incremental upgrades? In most 4Xes, what happens is you keep getting slightly better versions of the same technology. It sucks to have to redo your ship designs every time. I really like the system in Star Ruler 2, where the incremental upgrades are just boosts to existing systems rather than new systems. Instead of researching "Laser Turret mk.2", you just research "+20% damage to Laser Turrets". You can research new modules as well, but they are all substantially different from the existing ones, not just straight upgrades that are always better. For example you can research an alternate version of a weapon that has less straight damage, but armor piercing. In SR2 the researched incremental bonuses are just automatically applied to all existing ships as well, so your ships can't get outdated in that regard, but you could just as well require existing ships to visit a shipyard to have the upgrades applied I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
I played it a bit when it was released and quite liked the concept, but it's basically a tech demo at this point. There's a bare-bones single-player campaign to teach you the game, but it's really a multi-player game I think (not much content in the single-player department anyway). When I played it, there were almost no players though, so it was impossible to find any games. I hope they make a sequel at some point, but I don't think the game is worth buying now. According to Steam I have 7 hours played, which includes finishing the campaign and spending an hour or two trying (and failing) to find other players to fight...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Gort posted:I don't really mind peace conferences since the game's over at that point anyway - what would you do to "fix" them? Make the AI take contiguous areas next to their own territory first for the sake of pretty borders, or something else? Peace conferences aren't always at the end of the game though, so they should work in a sensible way. For example, when I played as Japan and ran my own faction, I got a peace conference after crushing the Soviets where the Germans managed to grab quite a lot of stuff despite never accomplishing anything on their front (they declared war on the Soviets separately after I was already winning). After the peace conference both the Axis and the Allies were fully alive and in need of stomping, but the peace conference just killed my desire to continue that campaign. You should at least the get the option to say "No, gently caress off" if people you hate are trying to take territory from you in a peace conference after you've won the war, even if it risks starting a new war immediately. The game was still pretty fun though, and I'm looking forward to the patch so I can start playing again.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Gort posted:I don't think they've any plans to resolve the issue you have with peace conferences. Most people complain about stuff like Bulgaria grabbing one random province in Siberia. If you could just take whatever you wanted and say "Deal with it" then peace conferences would be a rather pointless opt-in mechanic. What happened in my example was that Germany took stuff deep in Siberia (they annexed Siankiang whole, instead of taking anything from the Soviets they were actually fighting), so it would have been better if they stole more sensible provinces. It's fair enough that other nations try to claim stuff in the peace conferences (at least if they've actually contributed to the war), but they should be more sensible about what they grab. I think it would be reasonable to have the option of refusing to give up occupied provinces in a peace conference though, at the cost of instantly starting a new war. I'm not saying I should be able to take whatever I want, but if the peace conference is going so badly that I'm just going to declare war immediately afterwards to "fix" it, why should my troops be kicked out of the territory they're occupying and gently caress up my supply lines? If we can't reach a mutually acceptable agreement at the peace conference, why shouldn't it devolve to fighting with status-quo borders and occupation remaining as-is? Bort Bortles posted:I think the distinction here is that one faction joined after another faction was already winning. In Apoffys's case, based on his post, he as an independent faction Japan was attacking the USSR and winning without another bloc's assistance. Then Germany/the Axis attacked the USSR after Apoffys's Japan already broke the USSR. This would lead me to believe that Germany would have made more progress because the USSR would have been weaker so they could 'claim' more land. That's exactly how it happened, except the Germans barely managed to take any land, they got all their warscore from "casualties" and bombing. They did do some fighting, even if they were terrible at it, so giving them something in a peace conference wouldn't have been completely unreasonable. I mainly objected to the fact that they took random poo poo in Siberia that had been occupied by my troops for years, instead of taking something near their own borders.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
My generals have actually been fairly good about that since the last patch. I usually have them set to balanced rather than aggressive, and they still advance pretty well. The only time it seems they won't advance into empty provinces when told to (with a battle plan) is when doing so would widen the front too much and leave a gap. They're still pretty terrible at initial distribution of troops along a front and still shuffle troops around too much though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
The main problem I had with playing any major nation in Victoria 2, but especially huge ones like China and Russia, was micromanaging huge armies. Once a Great War starts and you hit the button to mobilize, you end up with way too many units that need to be carefully micromanaged to avoid attrition. Features from HoI4 (like the battle planner and strategic redeployment) would help immensely with that though, so if they ever make V3 I hope they'll copy that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Tanks are great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV2nIkqnGBI
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 13:02
|
|