|
CharlestheHammer posted:That narrative is insanely stupid as if your against it you should be against it ideologically not based on results. The only way to know if a purge is necessary or not is with hindsight. So if it turns out to be nothing your paranoid if it does turn out to be true your naive. History already loves its hindsight way to much as it is are you seriously arguing that the great purge was necessary in the victoria 3 thread, lmao
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 10:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Vasukhani posted:I cannot parse it at all tbh. But this is an issue all pdox history games have. Acknowledge something and make it a mechanic, pretty disgusting. Don't acknowledge something = "clean wehrmarcht/colonialism" etc The Great Purge focuses are a bad mechanic in HOI4! That doesn't mean that the Great Purge focuses or an "Expel Jews" button along the lines of CK2 is the only way you can model historic atrocities. Assuming your goal isn't to make the player complicit (which is always going to be difficult and dicey), they can just be the result of people who are prone to atrocities being in power. To give an example from HOI4, you already have King Carol II of Romania, who isn't prone to atrocities but is a scandalous philanderer. That doesn't mean there's a "Waste the budget on your mistress" button; he just does that whether you the player want him to or not. That's just the consequence of having that person near the levers of power. I'm not sure how you'd apply that lesson to Victoria, though. They're going to have to deal with the fact that one of the main things you do in the game - the colonization of Africa - is a historic atrocity, but it's also something that's going to be under the player's control. And Vic2's and EU4's approaches both had problems.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 10:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:although it raises the question of "if everyone is unrecognized, who are they not being recognized BY" It would just be an alt-history without Westphalian sovereignty. Exclusive territorial sovereignty isn't a constant throughout history, and the fact that Paradox's games treat ownership of territory as if it did exist is one of their biggest weaknesses. It's especially out of place when it's being applied to nomads in Imperator and CK2.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
this doesn't even make sense, you just dunked on weeaboos for spending their money on stuff that flatters them and panders to their interests
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
i think the only solution to these dilemmas is to apply the hegelian dialectic: victoria 3 needs japanese trains
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
Part of it is also shifting focus. I don't think Paradox set out to make Carlists of Iron 4; it just turned out that the weird ideology-switching focus paths in the second big DLC were a hit, especially the monarchy ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2021 22:20
|
|
|
the HOI4 approach of "do you think the state or the rebels are right?" and the side you pick being the side you play is a very good idea, and it'd be cool if it were systemic in vic3 rather than being a bunch of nation-specific bespoke events like in HOI4
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2021 09:54
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:To say games don't teach you morals is to imply that the only teaching is outright weird parochial teaching session where it goes 'doing slavery is bad'. It's not Stellaris, it's a game about a particular period in history. Paradox's previous games have attempted (and mostly succeeded!) to make the player feel the pressures that pushed actual rulers and nations into doing the things they did, and posed the actual pressures that made liberal reforms difficult. People are reasonably hoping Vic3 continues in this trend, and speculating about how Paradox might go about doing so.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think there's any disagreement there, and that their example happened to use stellaris I don't think Stellaris does a very good job of recreating those pressures, though. It isn't an example of what I was talking about.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:it is amazing how many weird edge cases in vicky 2 can end up totally shutting down the world economy. The world economy has been crashing basically as long as there has been a world economy, and relative stability is a peculiarity of the modern period. The US economy crashed about once a decade in the 19th century, for example, and a fair amount of Marxist economics argues that this boom-crash cycle is inherent to capitalism, in part because it was happening very frequently at the time. I do wonder if Vicky 3 will reflect that lack of stability!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 09:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think the main issue w.r.t to V2, at least in multiplayer is that once the crash occurs it persists until the end of the game unless everyone agrees to switch to LF; because everyone building factories at max tilt makes all those factories unprofitable. I'm not saying that Vic2's economic crash was necessarily a good thing, mind. I just think that a stable, coherent, and easily understood system is ahistorical (and probably not very interesting to play).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
There were secret alliances and secret treaties in both the run-up to and during the war. It's something both the Soviets and Americans criticized as one of the main causes of the war immediately afterward. Both countries now emphasize their own principled (and correct, tbf) opposition to such alliances in the interwar period, and teach it in schools as one of the main causes of the First World War. That said, the alliances themselves weren't secret, just the specific terms. Everyone would know that two nations were on cordial terms, but what conditions they'd support each other under was not widely known except in the most closely-tied examples. It would be ahistorical to not have secret treaties and alliances in Victoria 3, though. I get why you'd remove them, to make the game less of a hassle to play, but the game covers the heyday of secret diplomacy, and they both end at approximately the same time. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Jun 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
A recurring problem that makes Paradox's games ahistorical is that they push modern structures of diplomacy, sovereignty, and nationalism all the way back through history. The average Paradox game buyer can reasonably be expected to understand politics that way, and any new stuff on top of that (eg casus belli) can just be taught in a tutorial. You can argue about the impact of secret diplomacy in World War I. I think people are exaggerating how much each nation knew about each other's commitments to each other. But that war marks the end of a long century of diplomacy where who would support who under what circumstances was a state secret. State secrets weren't necessarily actual secrets but they weren't something you could know with confidence the way I know that France and Poland have an alliance in a game of EU4. That sort of perspective isn't terribly historical in any of Paradox's games' time periods! But Victoria's timeframe ends with the failure of the old system. That long century is Victoria's long century. It's the last heyday of the diplomat plenipotentiary, the largely independent and autocratic diplomatic mission. This autocracy gave diplomats the flexibility to bluff at alliances or non-aggression pacts that may or may not exist, or work with enemies against a common enemy. It's one of the remnants of monarchy that the social and technological change in this period sweeps away. This sort of autocratic delegation isn't compatible with democracy, modern governments can exert more control over their diplomatic arms with the advance of technology, and both the Americans and Soviets were ideologically committed to stamping out this sort of diplomacy in favor of something more transparent. I can understand why Paradox might hesitate to make players learn how to think like a 19th-century diplomat as a requirement just to understand what's going on, in what is already going to be a wickedly complex game, but I also think it's a shame if they can't find a way to make it workable and fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 12:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:What that sort of diplomacy also happens in WW2 pretty famously. It doesn’t die or even change all that much. Hell you could argue the bloc systems are just an extension of this system It's not like modern diplomacy snapped into place everywhere all at once. And there are still remnants of secret diplomacy to this day, for example with nuclear weapons. But there is a clear difference in the independence and secrecy of diplomatic missions before and after the world wars, and the hard lessons of the long 19th century and the concert of powers are why.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:Furthermore it seems hard to picture that slavery would be able to continue in parts of the USA all the way into 1936. The practice of leasing convicts lasted until the 1920s and forced prison labor continues to this day. The example was people who are not technically in the states, and it's easy to imagine some sort of fig leaf reform or legal loophole that makes slavery not technically slavery in the minds of most people. Abolishing it in the states but not the territories seems like a plausible one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
Gort posted:Playing tiny countries is a pretty bad move for learning any Paradox game. Tiny countries need specific, railroaded strategies that you can't deviate from. They're bad for learning. CK being the main exception
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
Takanago posted:Pictured: Potato fascination i just think they're neat
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
sum posted:On top of not really simulating anything real, playing army ping-pong is extremely tedious and I don't think anyone enjoys it. Yeah, this is obnoxious and only exists because of perfect knowledge and perfect command and control. There's no reason armies should be able to evade each other the way that they do in all of Paradox's games except HOI.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the romans did it against hannibal for literally years. walking your dudes around and letting attrition bleed the enemy absolutely was a part of pre-modern war, and it is actually really hard to hide an army's movements under most circumstances. the fabian strategy involved an army composed of troops specialized in skirmishing, fighting in favorable terrain and favorable supply, under the command of a notably cunning general. it should not be the default for all warfare everywhere forever, from 867 to 1936. these games would be a lot more interesting if you had to cultivate a general on par with fabius maximus as well as a force as disciplined as the roman republic's to generally create the circumstances to fight like this, rather than it being the default state (and a huge micromanagement hassle that the AI will always be better at). Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jun 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
It's not hard to force a pitched battle in CK2/3 or EU4. You wait for the PC to plan a move, move into the path, force them to move somewhere else, then intercept them once they've committed to moving to a province adjacent to you. This is not a challenge. It does not require a lot of thought, and other than occasionally forcing the AI into an (often-difficult-to-see) slower path to catch them, there's little game here. What it does involve is many, many fiddly-rear end, RSI-inducing clicks. It's something you could easily program an AI to do for you, as evinced by the fact that the AI can do this just fine. If I could just tell an army "intercept this army as best you can, notify me if you lose track of them," then I'd just do that. There's just no game to that, either. So a lot of the ideas about how to delegate army command are the latter design where you just tell the army to go intercept this enemy army, but somehow incorporating a game into it. Because, right now, the ping-pong army movement is a lot of effort for very few actual decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Frionnel posted:Counters look pretty easy to make* The main challenge is making sure the top is smooth and level. Depending on the material, it might be all one piece, so then it's a real challenge to move around without causing any damage, and God help you if the size turns out to be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
DJ_Mindboggler posted:Hard to sell cosmetic DLC for counters. As long as I can see relevant info about a unit/groups of units just by selecting them, it's all good. different palettes for your nato counters as a big expansion: warsaw pact symbol counters
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Pladdicus posted:I kinda figured it out second hand, but what's mana? Is it just any resource that lets you accomplish something as an abstraction of political will/effort? Yeah. Political Power in EU4 and HOI4, Influence in Stellaris.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:From what I can tell, the main reason for all the hate is Imperator on release, which had the various mana types horrifically unbalanced, and generally had that scapegoated as the big key reason it was bad (there were like a dozen other, worse things.) It was also pretty bad and imbalanced and paralyzing in the early days of EU4.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Pooned posted:Just like I did with Imperator and Ck3. it would be really nice if vic 3 turned out as well as CK3 did
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
this is obviously whales, but it seems to imply meat is fungible. if meat is fungible, and religions are actually going to be modeled, what does this mean for meat taboos? they were actually a big deal for the colonial powers, in that even rumors of mismanagement could lead to uprisings.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Sepoy Rebellion was animal fat used for Enfield cartridges (amongst other frustrations). Were there other instances? That's the specific one I was thinking of. But managing separate rations was always a concern for both the Raj and any colony with a significant Muslim population, and pressuring the locals to eat the same diet was a big part of both British and French colonialism.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:look let's first get the basics right, then we move into procedural sepoy revolts due to pig meat imports k I'm not demanding that they split up meat types or anything. I just recalled that they said they were going to tackle religious dietary taboos, and wondered if that included meat (and how they'd handle that if so).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
PawParole posted:the sepoy rebellion was caused by the Doctrine of lapse this is the same sort of oversimplification that you're trying to argue against; the sepoy revolution didn't have a single cause. in this specific example, i know it was just a rumor. the issue wasn't that the cartridges were actually sealed with pork or beef fat, but that there were persistent rumors that there were. those rumors were credible because of the pervasive pressure on hindu or muslim indians to conform to british cultural practice, including eating beef and pork it would be cool if vic3 could simulate this! if it would make the british occupier player's life easier to push the locals to eat the same food to simplify sales and provisioning, that would be a neat and real-feeling way to put the player into a colonial mindset. i get why they're not doing it, but it would've been cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:To be precise; there are in the context of a game (albeit one whose appeal aims to be somewhat simulationist) fair annoyances and unfair annoyances; because in real life there exists a bureaucracy that automates some of that. Most of what I mentioned should fall under QoL improvements regardless of whether your nation is stable or not. i think mechanical annoyances that you want to smooth out in the way that colonizers wanted to smooth out the inconvenient desires and needs of the people they're colonizing are good design for a game like this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 07:39
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I love the whole local economies thing and sphere's being replaced by markets. One of the dev replies said that import/export will be a topic for a future diary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
does this mean we're getting a dev diary about straits
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:is Vicky 3 a goon project goon game projects generally turn out well pretty often these days
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
please help my aristocracy is dying
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
would clown be a profession, ethnicity, or standard of living
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2021 11:52
|
|
|
Reports on MAJOR DISCOVERY Scientists in our country have discovered: MIMES
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2021 17:37
|
|
|
That would do the exact opposite of what you want.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2021 08:49
|
|
|
Red Bones posted:That idea of making being or agreeing to become a subject into a valid route to take during the game is a really smart idea, considering how often that happened during the period, particularly to non-European countries. Botswana sent representatives to the UK to ask to become a protectorate to avoid getting annexed by South African colonists, iirc. CK3 does manage this balance i think, so i'm curious if paradox can strike it again in another context
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
/
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
ahahahahahaha awesome. either this is going to be great or it's going to continue the victoria tradition of jank so complicated and counterintuitive that your decisions are realistically based in misunderstanding and ideology. i cannot wait to see
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 22:41
|
|