- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
This attempt to whitewash an era of history known for how "unenlightened" it was will never stop being funny to me.
Paradox Studio Thread
- Thread starter Payday
- Start date
God of Nothing
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2016
Dem kiddy fucking Greeko*ds dindu nuffin. We wuz kangs n shiet.
to the cross with all of them
the roman kind
the one before that fucking jew made it holy
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2018
Vic III will have a nigger DLC to make a future where da whitey get what comming to him unga bunga
Super Hans
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2020
I look forward to countries like Switzerland being on the receiving end in the Scramble for Africa.
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
I am fucking furious that the game refers to Muslims as Muslims instead of Muhammadans
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Couldn't do anything with it? You were supposed to go on a crusade against them and kill them for being filthy pagans and infidels! IIRC Paradox even unlocked Byzantines/Orthodox powers to play on Day 1 instead of saving it for DLC, because they didn't want to take away features from the first game.
And Muslims and Pagans in CK2 were boring to play anyway for years because the decadence mechanic was dumb and getting the pagan reformation was a complete pain in the ass but before you did you wouldn't be having much fun because you'd just collapse into civil war once your ruler died half the time and lose all your progress. Christians have a more open-ended game right from the get go.
Pretty sure some African kingdoms were relatively centralized, more centralized than, say, the early United States, Switzerland, some Latin American countries, etc. What insanely stupid terminology.
And rather ahistorical, since Europeans had a policy to NOT sell weapons to African nations and there was little incentive to break said policy. It's also really great how the Baka, a totally decentralized tribe of pygmies who didn't even have chiefs and historically were mostly slave-raided and eaten by nearby tribes, will likely be considered to be on par with actual fucking African kingdoms in the 19th century founded by various warlords who ruled with an iron fist. In a way, that's pretty racist and if you somehow showed this to actual Africans, a fuckton of them would be pissed because their ethnic group is portrayed the same way as a bunch of goddamn pygmies.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
well that wouldnt have happened if they had all the western arms they could need.
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2021
Can't wait to play for an hour and then quit because I can't stand the shape of my borders.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2015
Royal Court is really fun so far. If I have one minor gripe so far it's that getting your court to maximum base grandeur is WAY to easy with how amenity costs scale. My backwater Irish court outranked every other court in the world except the Byzantines. However, everything added has greatly improved overall quality of the gameplay cycle and the new culture and tolerance systems really change how you approach your longer strategies and where you choose to expand. As 1066 Ireland, since Dublin still starts with Norse culture you can very quickly get access to longships and All-Things, along with Malleable Invaders for future cultural hybridizations. My current plan is to finish conquering Britannia and eventually get some Dutch land under my control so I can get Polders from them since it synergizes with most of Ireland's land very well
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
I commissioned somebody to make me a crown because I'm the motherfucking king. I looked on her page and she's an alcoholic lunatic. Oh shit, probably should have looked into that first. Well whatever, I guess all great artists are a little crazy and drunk. Vincent Van Goh, Sylvia Plath, Michael Bay...yeah, yeah this could work. Within a month this crazy drunk bitch has gotten into like 3 different arguments with three different people and my spymaster is telling me somebody is plotting to murder her. The vikings are sacking Oxford and this maniac is now still somehow the biggest threat to national security. Oh look somebody's plotting to murder the person plotting to murder this other fucking woman. Wonder who that is? What is even happening anymore. I just wanted a cool hat, man.
She finally gives me this crown and it's just the most underwhelming thing. I don't even remember what it is, it's just so boring to behold. Like it's not bad, the description described it as "fine". It's a "fine" crown....ugh, I don't know I just wanted something *else*, something to really WOW my chaste wife so that lesbian wannabe nun finally spits out a son before I die.
I guess I have to admit it folks, I'm not the motherfucking king I thought I was. I'm just motherfucking. And my wife REALLY doesn't like it when I do that. I'm still trying to pork this hog. Maybe some armor. Some badass plat mail shit. Like aragorn or something. Or like Warhammer huge ass armor with like spikes and skulls and stuff all over it, shit man, hell yeah she'll love that.
Anyway then I drank myself to death. The moral of the story is I paid 30 dollars for this.
She finally gives me this crown and it's just the most underwhelming thing. I don't even remember what it is, it's just so boring to behold. Like it's not bad, the description described it as "fine". It's a "fine" crown....ugh, I don't know I just wanted something *else*, something to really WOW my chaste wife so that lesbian wannabe nun finally spits out a son before I die.
I guess I have to admit it folks, I'm not the motherfucking king I thought I was. I'm just motherfucking. And my wife REALLY doesn't like it when I do that. I'm still trying to pork this hog. Maybe some armor. Some badass plat mail shit. Like aragorn or something. Or like Warhammer huge ass armor with like spikes and skulls and stuff all over it, shit man, hell yeah she'll love that.
Anyway then I drank myself to death. The moral of the story is I paid 30 dollars for this.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
Why do half the rulers look Asian with the newest CK3 update?
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
I'm posting this here because I got banned from Paradox Forums for saying "Eat shit, janitor" to a moderator.
Somebody should make a total conversion mod for Imperator Rome set in Pre-Columbian and Colonial America.
Mesoamerican total conversions have already been made (and promptly abandoned) for CK2 and EU4, but Imperator Rome is the best fit. It's sufficiently abstract that demographics aren't an issue, but also abstract enough in its political simulation and characters that a lack of genealogy isn't an issue either. The focus on trade and development (but again, in a simple way) perfectly suits the idea of developing colonies, or of running a tribe or a city-state. Mesoamerica is basically the Ancient Greece of the New World already, the Inca the Persian Empire of the New World. Tribal migration is built into the game, so you can represent things like North American tribes (including nomads) moving around in a way that's much more suitable than the shitty way other Paradox games do it. The division of Pops is already spot on, just change Nobility to "Aristocrats" (to reflect planters and colonial elites who are not necessarily titled noblemen), change Citizens and Freemen into Settlers and Frontiersmen (Frontiersmen representing the loose trapper/merchant/hunter/miner/prospector/cowboy types that are not really tied to a specific province, live much like tribesmen), and Tribesmen and Slaves stay the same.
The most ambitious I could see it is 900s AD to 1900 AD, but really you'd want to have start dates for the different big civilizations (1100-ish for Cahokia, later still for Iroquois, then for the establishment of major colonies like New Spain, Virginia, etc.). Dynamic historical events would spawn in colonies (and occasionally start wars between their homelands), could be one setting for a much more random one where you don't know where they'll pop up and a historical path where you at least know where they'll arrive (like, say, English to the Chesapeake in the late 1500s - early 1600s) even if you can't pinpoint the exact year or province.
I just want to see one grand strategy game that does the New World justice. The colonial experience would be about playing Indians against each other and against your European rivals to develop from a small but tech advanced and rapidly growing base, with an endgame of winning your war for independence. The tribal experience would be about scrambling to advance and consolidate as much as you can before smallpox, because when smallpox hits all hell is going to break loose. After surviving smallpox/conquistadors you then have the goal of surviving, "survival strategy" like Total War: Attila. You're in a real bad position but with good diplomacy and development maybe you can Westernize and win a confrontation, and if not maybe you can at least outfight your enemy long enough to outrun the clock or win favorable terms. Colonies may try to paint the map, but natives try just to be on the map at all by the end. There's also a trade-off with natives where being big and advanced gives you more ability to try to hold a territory, but it makes you less mobile/more fragile; a people like the Aztecs or Creeks has a much better chance of winning if they fight it out, but defeat is devastating; but a people like the Cree or Comanches can potentially wage a fighting retreat all the way across the map as long as they're able to outcompete the natives in their way.
I want to be able to turn Cahokia into the Egypt of America with snake mounds and pyramids built by hordes of slaves fed by Mississippi River corn, turn the Iroquois into the Romans of America with the Great Lakes their Mare Nostrum, the Comanches into the Mongols of Mexico, and the Haida into the Vikings of California. These are things you can do in EU4, but it's dull and lifeless, an afterthought tacked onto a game about Eurasia.
Somebody should make a total conversion mod for Imperator Rome set in Pre-Columbian and Colonial America.
Mesoamerican total conversions have already been made (and promptly abandoned) for CK2 and EU4, but Imperator Rome is the best fit. It's sufficiently abstract that demographics aren't an issue, but also abstract enough in its political simulation and characters that a lack of genealogy isn't an issue either. The focus on trade and development (but again, in a simple way) perfectly suits the idea of developing colonies, or of running a tribe or a city-state. Mesoamerica is basically the Ancient Greece of the New World already, the Inca the Persian Empire of the New World. Tribal migration is built into the game, so you can represent things like North American tribes (including nomads) moving around in a way that's much more suitable than the shitty way other Paradox games do it. The division of Pops is already spot on, just change Nobility to "Aristocrats" (to reflect planters and colonial elites who are not necessarily titled noblemen), change Citizens and Freemen into Settlers and Frontiersmen (Frontiersmen representing the loose trapper/merchant/hunter/miner/prospector/cowboy types that are not really tied to a specific province, live much like tribesmen), and Tribesmen and Slaves stay the same.
The most ambitious I could see it is 900s AD to 1900 AD, but really you'd want to have start dates for the different big civilizations (1100-ish for Cahokia, later still for Iroquois, then for the establishment of major colonies like New Spain, Virginia, etc.). Dynamic historical events would spawn in colonies (and occasionally start wars between their homelands), could be one setting for a much more random one where you don't know where they'll pop up and a historical path where you at least know where they'll arrive (like, say, English to the Chesapeake in the late 1500s - early 1600s) even if you can't pinpoint the exact year or province.
I just want to see one grand strategy game that does the New World justice. The colonial experience would be about playing Indians against each other and against your European rivals to develop from a small but tech advanced and rapidly growing base, with an endgame of winning your war for independence. The tribal experience would be about scrambling to advance and consolidate as much as you can before smallpox, because when smallpox hits all hell is going to break loose. After surviving smallpox/conquistadors you then have the goal of surviving, "survival strategy" like Total War: Attila. You're in a real bad position but with good diplomacy and development maybe you can Westernize and win a confrontation, and if not maybe you can at least outfight your enemy long enough to outrun the clock or win favorable terms. Colonies may try to paint the map, but natives try just to be on the map at all by the end. There's also a trade-off with natives where being big and advanced gives you more ability to try to hold a territory, but it makes you less mobile/more fragile; a people like the Aztecs or Creeks has a much better chance of winning if they fight it out, but defeat is devastating; but a people like the Cree or Comanches can potentially wage a fighting retreat all the way across the map as long as they're able to outcompete the natives in their way.
I want to be able to turn Cahokia into the Egypt of America with snake mounds and pyramids built by hordes of slaves fed by Mississippi River corn, turn the Iroquois into the Romans of America with the Great Lakes their Mare Nostrum, the Comanches into the Mongols of Mexico, and the Haida into the Vikings of California. These are things you can do in EU4, but it's dull and lifeless, an afterthought tacked onto a game about Eurasia.
For Pops you'd actually want to add a few types (it looks like the game allows that). I do think a Frontiersman type would make sense, but Citizen/Freedman is important in Latin America for the sedentary, assimilated Indians living in a state (peonage) similar to serfdom, but not literal slaves like Blacks; "Citizen" would be more like politically engaged, non-discriminated, free labor populations like the American colonists. But the game should allow you to develop a colony in any way, you could be like Mexico based around not-serfdom, like Haiti with an almost all-slave population, like New England and all settlers, etc. Tribesmen in a colony are like Indians which are legally submitted to the government but still live in their own manner, are not integrated.
I don't know how you'd do it, but one thing the game would really need is a way to represent that Indians have the ability to pack up and leave instead of submitting to rule. "Civilization" is already a pretty valid way of portraying how some Indians were more advanced than others. Colonies with rule of law, Mesoamerica, and Incas max out civilization. Cahokia was quickly developing into Mesoamerica-on-the-Mississippi before it collapsed, as was the American Southeast, Southwest, the Iroquois, and the Northwest. But other peoples didn't even have states. Being stateless isn't really a problem in Paradox games, seeing as they already have playable anarchies in EU4 and HOI4; you're the "spirit of the nation," and I don't really see it being an issue representing if a tribe is a single political entity or hundreds, just so long as you represent somehow that decentralized tribes don't have the advantages of coordination (like low morale, diplomatic fuckery where people sell off lands they have no right to, etc.). Similarly, the civilization program with the Five Civilized Tribes is literally raising the civilization level. Even for colonies, civilization levels could be conceived as being like how strong the rule of law is, with the frontier often being more of an anarchy than anything else. Civilization should have an effect on your ability to conquer people. Highly civilized people are so settled and developed that when the land is conquered, they stay with it and become subjects. Uncivilized people have a choice, they can potentially flee unless literally enslaved by capture or preferring conquest. This would fix a big problem of EU4 where you can, ludicrously, just conquer a people like Shawnees and suddenly they're all normal contributing members of society instead of being run off deeper inland. A colony and a tribe alike should only be able to conquer from tribes by actually settling them, a steady march inland, whereas settled peoples (Mesoamericans and colonists) can be truly conquered in single campaigns.
Most land would not be owned by colonies, of course, but tribes would tend to wind up being protectorates (of varying autonomy) of their overlords.
Representing warfare is where this whole thing could really fall apart. If you can't simulate guerilla warfare with events and what not, then something like a tactics system where battles kill slowly but drag on forever would be fine, except for that does then make problems with things like retreats. Honestly, an event-based system might be fine. The confusing thing is most North American warfare is guerilla fights, until suddenly it isn't and you get a proper siege or field battle. The scale of everything is absurdly small, too, except for when it isn't. That's one problem with having things like Mesoamerica and the Sioux Wars coexist in the same setting.
Pirates really should be a huge part of the game, there could be a wonderful Dynamic Historical Event where a massive naval standdown (privateers are like naval mercenaries, both mechanically and literally) could trigger the creation of a buccaneer republic like Nassau.
I imagine the game running up to maybe 1890, 1900 at a stretch. Ending around the time of Wounded Knee makes sense symbolically, and is before the US started getting involved in major military actions (things besides just killing pirates and tard-wrangling the Chinese) overseas.
You should be able to have territories deep inland, especially if they're connected by river, one example being how Kaskaskia was a center of French control disconnected from their other cores in Canada and Louisiana. Colonization isn't a solid wall, it's more like getting footholds that then accrue land around them.
I don't know how you'd do it, but one thing the game would really need is a way to represent that Indians have the ability to pack up and leave instead of submitting to rule. "Civilization" is already a pretty valid way of portraying how some Indians were more advanced than others. Colonies with rule of law, Mesoamerica, and Incas max out civilization. Cahokia was quickly developing into Mesoamerica-on-the-Mississippi before it collapsed, as was the American Southeast, Southwest, the Iroquois, and the Northwest. But other peoples didn't even have states. Being stateless isn't really a problem in Paradox games, seeing as they already have playable anarchies in EU4 and HOI4; you're the "spirit of the nation," and I don't really see it being an issue representing if a tribe is a single political entity or hundreds, just so long as you represent somehow that decentralized tribes don't have the advantages of coordination (like low morale, diplomatic fuckery where people sell off lands they have no right to, etc.). Similarly, the civilization program with the Five Civilized Tribes is literally raising the civilization level. Even for colonies, civilization levels could be conceived as being like how strong the rule of law is, with the frontier often being more of an anarchy than anything else. Civilization should have an effect on your ability to conquer people. Highly civilized people are so settled and developed that when the land is conquered, they stay with it and become subjects. Uncivilized people have a choice, they can potentially flee unless literally enslaved by capture or preferring conquest. This would fix a big problem of EU4 where you can, ludicrously, just conquer a people like Shawnees and suddenly they're all normal contributing members of society instead of being run off deeper inland. A colony and a tribe alike should only be able to conquer from tribes by actually settling them, a steady march inland, whereas settled peoples (Mesoamericans and colonists) can be truly conquered in single campaigns.
Most land would not be owned by colonies, of course, but tribes would tend to wind up being protectorates (of varying autonomy) of their overlords.
Representing warfare is where this whole thing could really fall apart. If you can't simulate guerilla warfare with events and what not, then something like a tactics system where battles kill slowly but drag on forever would be fine, except for that does then make problems with things like retreats. Honestly, an event-based system might be fine. The confusing thing is most North American warfare is guerilla fights, until suddenly it isn't and you get a proper siege or field battle. The scale of everything is absurdly small, too, except for when it isn't. That's one problem with having things like Mesoamerica and the Sioux Wars coexist in the same setting.
Pirates really should be a huge part of the game, there could be a wonderful Dynamic Historical Event where a massive naval standdown (privateers are like naval mercenaries, both mechanically and literally) could trigger the creation of a buccaneer republic like Nassau.
I imagine the game running up to maybe 1890, 1900 at a stretch. Ending around the time of Wounded Knee makes sense symbolically, and is before the US started getting involved in major military actions (things besides just killing pirates and tard-wrangling the Chinese) overseas.
You should be able to have territories deep inland, especially if they're connected by river, one example being how Kaskaskia was a center of French control disconnected from their other cores in Canada and Louisiana. Colonization isn't a solid wall, it's more like getting footholds that then accrue land around them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2020
Yes and no. You run into the same problems you run into modding bethesda games. You can add so many mods that do a great job of improving the game. But the foundation is always going to be Stellaris with other things added. It's going to get more janky and unstable with more things that you add.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
ohh i got that message about 30 times... who done it? just generic or some personal shit? also you cant use eve to get at them, burned down their shit along time ago....
I love you
Stellaris runs pretty well for what it is and mods are not taking away any performance.
the main problem is the bad Ai, nothing else....
feedtheoctopus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
Stellaris arguably runs better then other paradox games. My biggest gripe with it though is there is always a period, usuallymid game, when absolutely nothing is happening. You just wait around until the tech bar fills up and you can research something else.
I also really don't like the espionage system they put in in the Nemesis (I think?) DLC. I like it in concept but it's kind of bullshit that I can't even see where the borders are unless I put resources into it. They basically copy and pasted what was in HOI but made it worse.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
A little note about my Indians sperg, something that EU4 kind of represents now, which is really important to getting North American natives right, is that there's a huge difference between how Indians and Europeans settled.
In every Paradox game, population is tied to a specific province and that provinces' resources, but in real life there are industries where people do not live in the same place they work. I haven't seen anything on how Victoria III is going to handle things like whalers, and it doesn't really matter, but stuff like whalers or (in modern day mods) offshore oil rigs are kind of like that, you have resources in a shared pool on the ocean which any coastal population can go access.
Well, inland this applies to hunting. Hunters did not necessarily live in a specific "province" (small geographical area) and hunt just it; they may range quite far away. And for Indians, that's exactly what they did. In the South they had a division of labor where women farmed, foraged, did crafts, and stayed in their stronghold towns (for Cherokees, these were all in the Appalachian Mountains). Men, on the other hand, hunted and raided, and hunting took them far away, for the Cherokees all the way out to places like Arkansas. For civilized people, the equivalent would be things like the fur trade or buffalo hunting.
If you portrayed population as concentrated like that in EU4, it would not get the resource benefits of all that hunting land. If you portrayed population as diffused, then you could rip off chunks of population without actually taking the cores. That's one of the things that makes Indian diplomacy and warfare interesting: the fact that tribes had these vast underpopulated zones that could be easily conquered or sold because it wasn't that big a deal to give them up. But, to lose your core towns was devastating. Fight for hunting grounds and all you've done is secure hunting grounds for your own settlement. Seize the croplands and you've destroyed the enemy as a people. This also makes it a valid strategic decision to sell tribal land as you develop, like Southern tribes did; the more developed you get, the more you can afford to give up hunting grounds because now your economy revolves around things like commerce, mining, and plantations instead of deerskins and beaver pelts. Mechanically, I think it’s something like the pops can harvest from provinces nearby, with the productivity falling off the further away they are.
Best survival chances for an Indian state would be becoming civilized in an environment with several competing states, so you can play them against each other. If you're "just" civilized but face a juggernaut like America, you're going to be at their mercy. Cooperation with Europeans is necessary for survival because it gets you the technology and resources that help you dominate other Indians and survive other Europeans' incursions. (Similarly, isolated colonies aren't going to prosper.) Real world failed attempts at this would include things like Tecumseh's Confederacy if the British had won 1812, or the State of Muskogee (an attempt by a British agent to set up an organized Southeastern coalition against the US.) Aside from things like the Neo-Incas and the Caste War, I think Comanches, Apaches, and Navajos serve as good examples of successful Indians; they were able to effectively resist Mexico/Texas over hundreds of years and only went down when the massive military power of the Union was directed against them.
In every Paradox game, population is tied to a specific province and that provinces' resources, but in real life there are industries where people do not live in the same place they work. I haven't seen anything on how Victoria III is going to handle things like whalers, and it doesn't really matter, but stuff like whalers or (in modern day mods) offshore oil rigs are kind of like that, you have resources in a shared pool on the ocean which any coastal population can go access.
Well, inland this applies to hunting. Hunters did not necessarily live in a specific "province" (small geographical area) and hunt just it; they may range quite far away. And for Indians, that's exactly what they did. In the South they had a division of labor where women farmed, foraged, did crafts, and stayed in their stronghold towns (for Cherokees, these were all in the Appalachian Mountains). Men, on the other hand, hunted and raided, and hunting took them far away, for the Cherokees all the way out to places like Arkansas. For civilized people, the equivalent would be things like the fur trade or buffalo hunting.
If you portrayed population as concentrated like that in EU4, it would not get the resource benefits of all that hunting land. If you portrayed population as diffused, then you could rip off chunks of population without actually taking the cores. That's one of the things that makes Indian diplomacy and warfare interesting: the fact that tribes had these vast underpopulated zones that could be easily conquered or sold because it wasn't that big a deal to give them up. But, to lose your core towns was devastating. Fight for hunting grounds and all you've done is secure hunting grounds for your own settlement. Seize the croplands and you've destroyed the enemy as a people. This also makes it a valid strategic decision to sell tribal land as you develop, like Southern tribes did; the more developed you get, the more you can afford to give up hunting grounds because now your economy revolves around things like commerce, mining, and plantations instead of deerskins and beaver pelts. Mechanically, I think it’s something like the pops can harvest from provinces nearby, with the productivity falling off the further away they are.
Best survival chances for an Indian state would be becoming civilized in an environment with several competing states, so you can play them against each other. If you're "just" civilized but face a juggernaut like America, you're going to be at their mercy. Cooperation with Europeans is necessary for survival because it gets you the technology and resources that help you dominate other Indians and survive other Europeans' incursions. (Similarly, isolated colonies aren't going to prosper.) Real world failed attempts at this would include things like Tecumseh's Confederacy if the British had won 1812, or the State of Muskogee (an attempt by a British agent to set up an organized Southeastern coalition against the US.) Aside from things like the Neo-Incas and the Caste War, I think Comanches, Apaches, and Navajos serve as good examples of successful Indians; they were able to effectively resist Mexico/Texas over hundreds of years and only went down when the massive military power of the Union was directed against them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
I made some sarcastic remark about how Paradox players want the game to play itself (in reference to the Vicky III war system) unless its to expand factories. It got taken down for trolling.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
I think it sounds fine.
Big empires should have trouble governing themselves. Biggest flaw of Victoria 2 is that it was too easy once you got big. As the UK you just throw Indians at everything and never have to worry about logistics. It took the British like 300,000 professional soldiers to crush the boers, basically a bunch of ranchers with rifles.