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.
  • Post
  • Reply
Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


The last incarnation of this thread cost me like a week of my life by introducing me to Aurora, so thanks for that.

Lord Binky posted:

Please make Victoria 3, thanks!

Also this.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


I'm playing in the new Vicky2 beta as USA in the hopes of owning North America. I open by taking Yucatan off of Mexico while Texas fights them, with the expectation of beating up Mexico for Manifest Destiny in the second war. The problem I run into is that the UK then allies Mexico. How do I prevent that, break their alliance, or...? Because fighting the UK seems like a non-starter. I've tried this start twice and it happened both times, even with a bit of savescumming to test. It doesn't seem to depend on the UK's opinion of me. They already have another GP ally so I can't ally them. Ideas?

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Cantorsdust posted:

Is Mexico too big to sphere? I forget if you can conquer countries in your sphere or not, but if you can, that might work.

I'm pretty sure you can't, right? Plus it's kinda hard to sphere someone right after you punched a state out of them and have them at -200 with a truce.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


TheMcD posted:

You can't, pretty sure about that. You could try using influence to lower the opinion of Britain in Mexico and maybe get them to break the alliance that way, but that seems questionable, especially given the whole "first step is warring them for Yucatan" part.

The UK problem is one you run into relatively frequently. Whatever you seem to be doing in Vicky, Great Britain is there to poo poo on your pancakes and ruin your day. Ideally, dealing with them as the USA shouldn't even be a question, you should be powerful enough to wipe the floor with Mexico, the Canadian troops and whatever the UK might land, then just grind them out through occupation because eventually even the loving Brits give up. In my Two Sicilies game, I had to grind them out over trying to take Libya from the Ottomans, and while I had to take some prestige hits juggling my +4 Attack general between Africa and Europe depending on where he was needed, the UK never managed to land enough troops for me to get overwhelmed and I eventually got the victory through battle warscore and ticking warscore. That's the general plan vs. the UK, being stronger just makes it easier to pull off.

Actually, have you tried actually fighting the UK? Because the naval AI isn't so great that it can ferry the entire British army across the pond to make your life hell, and the Canadian troops aren't that much of a problem. Thinking about it, I've dealt with the UK a lot pretty early in USA games, usually over Washington/Idaho, and they usually weren't a massive problem because I'm still playing the USA, continental juggernaut in the making.

There are 100K troops in Canada before I declare war. Right now I've restarted again and I got through a first war retaking every core except California (not trying for a state this time), but now UK has allied them again and gotten them up to Friendly during my truce, because gently caress me, that's why.

EDIT: I managed to beat them. That was a heck of a lot of work for one state.

Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at Dec 27, 2015 around 06:11

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Demiurge4 posted:

It would be kinda cool if Stellaris could support dual monitors. The ability to have a big zoomed out galaxy map on one screen would be very nice.

YES! Coming back from Aurora, this was the thing I missed most. I literally play Aurora with all my info splayed out across 3 monitors.

canepazzo posted:

Has anyone had any luck with alliances in Victoria 2 since the beta patch? I am through a full playthrough as S-P -> Italy and halfway through a Nejd -> Arabia one with not a single time my allies joined on an offensive war (either at war dec time or through call ally), and maybe twice on a defensive war.

They seem to work well enough for the AI, with allies joining each other here and there, but never for me.

Huh, could be. I couldn't get my alllies to answer CTAs, but then I figured I was going up against Great Britain, so no wonder.

TheMcD posted:

They're broke in some way, just like how it's impossible to get military access even if you're asking a sphereling to give it to you so you can save them from rebels.

I think there's a delay in how long it takes for them to re-evaluate. I war-decced Mexico and it took Texas like a week to switch over to being willing to give me access.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Is there some sort of guideline to what a good industrial score is at a given stage in the game? It's 1870 and I'm in 6th place industrially as USA. I feel like I screwed something up because I kind of changed tacks mid-playthrough. Or is USA just a late-bloomer?

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Has China always had a -6000% influence penalty because of population or is that new? Is there just never any way to sphere China now?

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


PleasingFungus posted:

Excellent, exactly what I was hoping for!

Was there anything funny behind the diplomatic AI bug(s) that you can talk about? I'm really hoping it was some kind of integer division rounding-down issue...

According to Wiz on the forums, it was like you asking the AI if you would join your own war or something.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Dreylad posted:

now I'm imagining a paradox developer explain the victoria 2 code to a real life dog.

the dog starts whining and howling when they get to the economy

I don't think mortal minds were meant to comprehend it.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


DStecks posted:

Any feature that prominently gives you an "Eh, let the computer figure it out" button is deeply suspect.

Stellaris is trying to appeal to people coming from Starcraft and from Aurora. Space 4X is actually a really wide genre and some fans are going to want different things from others. In that context, making parts of the game semi-optional makes a lot of sense - no Starcraft player[1] will be chased off by needing to be so grognardy as to custom-design every ship, and no Aurora player will be turned off by the inflexibility of only having standard ships.

That said, I think it would be better to frame this not as "you should design your own ships but you can automate that away" but as "you start with default ships like the AI uses, but you can customize them to suit your playstyle if you want".

zedprime posted:

What if, and I'm just spitballing here, what if they made a good ship designer that wasn't machine optimizable with an in game button because your choices are simple but meaningful?

Then the Aurora players call it a toy designer and the Starcraft players are still annoyed about having to design like a dozen ships over the course of the game.

[1] - or whatever 4x fits this "using stock units" stereotype.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Demiurge4 posted:

I don't think anyone is trying to appeal to Aurora fans.

OK, that might be an oversell, but the point is that there's a wide spread in terms of the level of detail folks want, and in that sort of situation, making some of the details optional is a decent solution.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Psychotic Weasel posted:

I can't speak to EU4, having never played it, but in HOI3 you can actually set what type of cannon, armour, engine and the like your tanks use. You can also modify most units in the game if you wanted to. In the ~500 hours I've played the game I've never had a reason to change it from what the computer automatically selects (which is the best tech you have at the time you queue up the unit) but the option is there. It's also something they plan on keeping (to some extent) in HOI4 as you use experience to build variants of units that better suit whatever play style you're going for:


And no, I don't know why this ship's top speed is 1.3 knots. Seems rather useless.

Well, you've got 0 Engines, so I imagine that's the rowing speed? Or possibly just how much wind you catch with hanging the sailors' sheets out to dry on laundry day?

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Baronjutter posted:

So I had never watched any of these HOI4 videos but it left me feeling a bit concerned about the interface. I saw people involved with making the game constantly struggling with the interface, constantly seeming like they don't know how to do things, getting lost in menus, making many little mistakes/misclicks. If the paradox team are stuggling with their own interface what's it going to be like for us? So many of the actions in the game seemed to involve clicking a ton of different menus/tabs just to do common things and I couldn't make much sense of any of it. After watching a video of a game in action I usually have figured out the basics of the interface, but after this video I figured out nothing, it was just a blur of clicking, a lot of it aimless or confused.

IDK, as a developer I feel like it's almost harder to be in that situation, because sometimes you get mixed up between how different versions work. Stuff might be in a different place or changed in the design plans or in the development branch in a way that's not reflected in the World War Wednesday build. Or they may have spent dozens or hundreds of hours playing in a previous version of the game, where stuff was in a different place (or completely scrapped and re-done).

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


So I made the mistake of watching World War Wednesday and now I'm desperate. Assuming that the half-hour videos from Arumba/Quill/etc about 6 months ago are the remainder of HoI4 gameplay that's out there, what's the best HoI3 Let's Play to watch?

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Bold Robot posted:

This is exactly what I'm concerned about, yeah. Few people bother to really figure out the CK2 and EU4 combat sims because you can get 90% of the way there by following a rule of thumb that some sperg figured out years ago in both games. In CK2 you basically just show up with more guys, maybe a Welshman, and keep an eye on terrain. In EU4 you have roughly equal numbers of inf and art and a couple cav, maybe keep a reinforcement stack around, and keep an eye on terrain. Neither of these games would be improved by having combat play out in real time - the level of player feedback and involvement is pretty good in both.

I'd love to be wrong but the system just looks way too deep for how much I imagine the player is going to care about it. Unless combat is way rarer than in CK2 or EU4 I imagine there will be a consensus fleet composition that you'll throw into combat and (hopefully be able to) autoresolve.

OK, but that's true of basically everything in gaming. A game is released, and some nerd somewhere spreadsheets it out to find the "optimal" path and then a bunch of folks read his blog. Whether it's MMORPG rotations or the best gun in FPS2016 or Paradox combat, that's always going to be a thing to at least some extent.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


PleasingFungus posted:

It's certainly possible to have complex systems that don't converge on some trivially optimal playstyle.

Yeah, but then in that case you still get a lot of the "go with X,Y,Z" or "if A, do X, if B, do Y, else do Z" type recommendations a lot which end up capturing a lot of the benefit.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Kersch posted:

But I mean is that the intended meta-game of the battle planner? That it's a trap to actually use it and you have to fight it rather than rely on it? I doubt it since this this is a game and that would be a bad design. If it works poorly I think that'd be a failure of design rather than what they were aiming for

Probably the intended meta is that both are viable options - you get a planning bonus for using the battle planner apparently, which probably offsets any sub-optimality, or you can do it manually where you don't get a planning bonus but you do get to do all the micro and eke out advantages that way.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011


Sindai posted:

Stellaris dev diary about war: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...r-peace.907257/

It's a lot like EU4 except you can declare multiple war goals, you can only actually enforce those goals or a subset of them if you win, and the defender has a year to counter-declare their own war goals. SO I guess actually it's more like V2? I never played it but I remember something about adding war goals in it.

It does sound similar to V2, except in V2 you can add subsequent war goals at any time, so long as you're winning and your population has enough Jingoism. But it's similar in that you can only take wargoals, not random stuff.

V2 wargoals have a plenty attached to not taking them - you lose prestige and gain militancy, as well as still paying the infamy cost for adding the wargoal in the first place.

zedprime posted:

EU4 actually just got a similar system in Cossacks where allies will tell you to take a hike if you don't promise them territory or cash in favors that you farm up over time or especially by contributing to their wars.

It kinda sounds similar to the CK2 Conclave stuff - you have to appease council members to get their votes to go to war.

zedprime posted:

Stellaris is at its most exciting when they are talking about how they are skimming all the cream off EU4, CK2. I guess arguably HOI4 but that's ship designer stuff that I don't personally like.

Yeah, it really shows how Paradox is growing as a company and it's great that their games cross-pollinate. We see ideas move from EU4 to CK2 or vice-versa as well. Despite the difference in eras they still often face similar problems.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply