- Joined
- Oct 16, 2023
Not any more, but georgia often succeeds from the confederacy and florida often doesn't join.
Paradox Studio Thread
- Thread starter Payday
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
Age of Wonders series are made by Triumph Studios and just published by Paradox. They also made the Overlord series, which other oldfags will recall.
That's why it differs so much from the usual paradox fare.
That's why it differs so much from the usual paradox fare.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
That will never work.
Also this game will be even worse than EU4 and HOI4 after a couple of DLCs.
The game looks like a mush and will be a horrible mess after the first couple DLCs just like CK3.
They just cant be asked to do even small updates to older content once a new DLC hits.
Its best seen in hoi4 because of the focustree, but its effects are much worse in newer games.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2024
found picrel while browsing the after the end GODdit looking for event theories, post said ' TIL that furries and femboys exist in AtE'
this is why ck2 AtE as cucked as it is will be infinitely more A24 slowburn kino than ck3 AtE
this is why ck2 AtE as cucked as it is will be infinitely more A24 slowburn kino than ck3 AtE
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2020
New Tinto Talks about combat https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-22-24th-of-july.1696537/
- Regiments can vary from 100 to 1500 soldiers, to help players not have to suffer from micromanaging a shitton of stacks
- Game will have hourly ticks from 8:00 to 19:00, after which it goes back to 8:00. Battles will last for around 20% less ticks than in EU4 so no more weeks/months long battles
- At max speed the game should be just as fast as EU4 or Imperator
- Combat will have flanks and a centre like CK2 with a reserve to fill in
- Only 1 main phase of combat but dice rolls are just like in EU4
- Morale is lost every tick, once it gets too low the regiment will break and be in a broken regiments section for the rest of the battle
New attributes for units: - Combat Speed: This is how quickly units can move up from the reserves section to fill holes in another section.
- Frontage: There is a limited amount of regiments that fight from each section. Topology and Vegetation can reduce this, and some units may require more or less frontage. At the start of the game, a regular 100 men sized regiment uses the same frontage as a full 3,600 men in the Napoleonic era. This is done to scale the numbers to feel properly historical while still getting good gameplay.
- Initiative: How quickly a unit can engage as soon as combat starts. Lighter units have higher initiative.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
How unhistorical, armies tend to spread out more as time goes on due to lethality of weapons.
Super Hans v2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Is micro'ing stacks a thing? I always put mine as combat width in infantry and a cannon for the seige bonus. The pain in the ass is in endgame with the number of stacks when you're getting a unit cap of a million plus.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Honestly the idea of Comic Con becoming something like a massive Mardi Gras/lord of misrule/trade fair hybrid is fantastic world building
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2024
Serbian Peacekeepers
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2020
That sounds pretty accurate to Comic Con to me at least.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2024
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
I'm a bit late catching up with the latest Dev Diary because I didn't have time to read it properly when it was released, and holy shit Johan is a madman:
Womble of Wimbledon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
Late as fuck but I just wanted to see how progress was going on the two Sims competitors which we were supposed to be getting, and of course Paradox's one is cancelled! Why is Paradox like this? Why do they routinely have these cool ideas only to completely fuck up the development and leave us with nothing?
Oh well, maybe Paralives will turn out ok...
It won't, it looks like shit, but anything is better than the Sims 4.
Oh well, maybe Paralives will turn out ok...
It won't, it looks like shit, but anything is better than the Sims 4.
Ricardo Canitrot
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2024
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Speaking of the Confederacy, it would probably be better to just hardcode it. I like the idea of it being dynamic but in the end, if you accurately portray the socieconomic/geographical/cultural/whatever factors that lead to a state joining, it's just going to get the same result as hardcoding it.
This is something I've played with in my mind a lot (as much because I like boiling historical processes down to game theory games as for any other reason). It might be overly DHE-ish; this is the kind of approach things like Pop Demand Mod did.
For all practical purposes, I think you can split the South into three groups, Deep South, Upper South and Appalachia corresponding roughly to being militantly pro-Confederate (left before Fort Sumter), reluctantly pro-Confederate (left after Fort Sumter) and reluctantly pro-Union.
Likewise we may think of the North as being Lacustrine Midwest and New England (militantly pro-Union), Atlantic Starboard (reluctantly pro-Union) and Riverine Midwest and NYC (reluctantly pro-Union, but less so than the Starboard).
In the West, I'd say that we may say:
Confederate Arizona = Reluctantly pro-Confederate
Union New Mexico = Reluctantly pro-Union
Deseret = Hard neutral?
Socal = Reluctantly pro-Union
West Coast in general = Somewhere between reluctantly and militantly pro-Union
Then, I'd suggest the "game" proceeds like this:
1) Slavery Debate has two main escalations, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown's Raid. The first normalized the idea of killing other Americans in civil conflict, the second demonstrated to the South that rich Northern elites were willing to fund an attempt to genocide them and the Northern press and public would celebrate it.
If Bleeding Kansas happens, it should be a matter of time until John Brown's Raid. After John Brown's Raid, the election of an abolitionist party triggers secession of the Deep South.
2) Secession does not equal war. You could play with a more complex series of events, but for this, I think it makes sense to treat it as revolving around Fort Sumter. There is a prestige and diplomatic drain on both (more severe for the Confederacy), it and the Union casus belli/cores expires if nothing happens for long enough, and it's worse (plus economic) for the Confederacy.
3) Either side can initiate shelling to end the crisis. If the crisis ends peacefully the Confederacy is reduced to the Deep South, a rump state. If shelling happens, who shells first makes a huge difference in which other regions get involved/have huge militancy spikes. It's a game of brinksmanship (for a Confederacy trying to secede and be a rump state, they never want to shell first; for a Confederacy that does, they want the Union to panic; for the Union, that don't know which scenario they're in).
CONFEDERACY INITIATES HOSTILITIES
Reluctantly pro-Confederate provinces join the Confederacy
Reluctantly pro-Union provinces join the Union
Kentucky declares neutrality
UNION INITIATES HOSTILITIES
Reluctantly pro-Confederate provinces join the Confederacy
Reluctantly pro-Union provinces of Confederate states join the Confederacy (this draws in Yankee Missouri and the Appalachian South)
Kentucky declares for the Confederacy
Mass unrest in the reluctantly pro-Union North
Unlocks Central Confederacy path
SUPPRESSION
Both powers in either scenario have a mechanic to intervene and suppress specific regions (this is like Kaiserreich's Second Civil War) to prevent them from taking the other side. I'd loosely say that we might define these regions as:
Confederate side = West Virginia, Nickajack
Union side = Maryland, Missourah, NYC (with Union hostilities)
So for example, the Confederacy could choose to prioritize securing West Virginia and encircling Nickajack instead of having a big Union frontier. The US might give up secure control of Washington to put down an NYC that it fears losing. Stuff like that.
THE CENTRAL CONFEDERACY (COPPERHEAD UPRISING)
If the Union initiated hostilities, pursues conscription (NY Draft Riots type stuff) and cocks up the war (doesn't win on time), the reluctantly pro-Union states can secede as a Central Confederacy, perhaps starting as an anti-draft insurgency.
UNIONIST UPRISINGS
American (US) nationalists can spawn in the South and will under conditions of high militancy (like the State of Jones).
EMANCIPATION
Emancipation is basically a foregone conclusion once hostilities begin, but timing it may matter, or may require certain conditions, I don't know. You are not going to not have a Thirteenth Amendment after this shit.
RECONSTRUCTION
I have to read more on Reconstruction (it's an extremely charged topic), but in general let's call it Johnsonian, Lincolnian and Radical and tie it to primary cultures. Johnsonian preserves Yankee-Dixie. Lincolnian gets Yankee-Dixie-Afro. Radical gets Yankee-Afro. Lincolnian and Radical Reconstruction can both fail (end in Yankee-Dixie), don't know how failure would be determined but this is the result in real life of the North getting bored of its first Forever War. The
NORTHERN SECESSION
For Northern secession, I think the idea is inherently silly and farfetched (it goes against the entire spirit of the Hamiltonian North), but the most realistic story I think you can tell is one where the Fire Eaters go so berserk AND somehow have enough legislative/executive power that they actually try to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts and censorship of abolitionism on the North. The Fire Eaters never gave a shit about the Constitution when it conflicted with preserving slavery, and I think that conscription into slave patrols, courts and mail censoring would have driven the North berserk.
I don't think the idea of the South invading the North to keep it makes any sense at all, so this would if anything be more like some sort of maximalist Confederacy (potentially keeping the Riverine Midwest, NYC, and so on) that, in a twist of irony, is called the USA. But I can also imagine, Yankees being what they are, the Free States having a casus belli to reconquer the state they secede from. In essence, choice of secession or forced overthrow.
This is something I've played with in my mind a lot (as much because I like boiling historical processes down to game theory games as for any other reason). It might be overly DHE-ish; this is the kind of approach things like Pop Demand Mod did.
For all practical purposes, I think you can split the South into three groups, Deep South, Upper South and Appalachia corresponding roughly to being militantly pro-Confederate (left before Fort Sumter), reluctantly pro-Confederate (left after Fort Sumter) and reluctantly pro-Union.
Likewise we may think of the North as being Lacustrine Midwest and New England (militantly pro-Union), Atlantic Starboard (reluctantly pro-Union) and Riverine Midwest and NYC (reluctantly pro-Union, but less so than the Starboard).
In the West, I'd say that we may say:
Confederate Arizona = Reluctantly pro-Confederate
Union New Mexico = Reluctantly pro-Union
Deseret = Hard neutral?
Socal = Reluctantly pro-Union
West Coast in general = Somewhere between reluctantly and militantly pro-Union
Then, I'd suggest the "game" proceeds like this:
1) Slavery Debate has two main escalations, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown's Raid. The first normalized the idea of killing other Americans in civil conflict, the second demonstrated to the South that rich Northern elites were willing to fund an attempt to genocide them and the Northern press and public would celebrate it.
If Bleeding Kansas happens, it should be a matter of time until John Brown's Raid. After John Brown's Raid, the election of an abolitionist party triggers secession of the Deep South.
2) Secession does not equal war. You could play with a more complex series of events, but for this, I think it makes sense to treat it as revolving around Fort Sumter. There is a prestige and diplomatic drain on both (more severe for the Confederacy), it and the Union casus belli/cores expires if nothing happens for long enough, and it's worse (plus economic) for the Confederacy.
3) Either side can initiate shelling to end the crisis. If the crisis ends peacefully the Confederacy is reduced to the Deep South, a rump state. If shelling happens, who shells first makes a huge difference in which other regions get involved/have huge militancy spikes. It's a game of brinksmanship (for a Confederacy trying to secede and be a rump state, they never want to shell first; for a Confederacy that does, they want the Union to panic; for the Union, that don't know which scenario they're in).
CONFEDERACY INITIATES HOSTILITIES
Reluctantly pro-Confederate provinces join the Confederacy
Reluctantly pro-Union provinces join the Union
Kentucky declares neutrality
UNION INITIATES HOSTILITIES
Reluctantly pro-Confederate provinces join the Confederacy
Reluctantly pro-Union provinces of Confederate states join the Confederacy (this draws in Yankee Missouri and the Appalachian South)
Kentucky declares for the Confederacy
Mass unrest in the reluctantly pro-Union North
Unlocks Central Confederacy path
SUPPRESSION
Both powers in either scenario have a mechanic to intervene and suppress specific regions (this is like Kaiserreich's Second Civil War) to prevent them from taking the other side. I'd loosely say that we might define these regions as:
Confederate side = West Virginia, Nickajack
Union side = Maryland, Missourah, NYC (with Union hostilities)
So for example, the Confederacy could choose to prioritize securing West Virginia and encircling Nickajack instead of having a big Union frontier. The US might give up secure control of Washington to put down an NYC that it fears losing. Stuff like that.
THE CENTRAL CONFEDERACY (COPPERHEAD UPRISING)
If the Union initiated hostilities, pursues conscription (NY Draft Riots type stuff) and cocks up the war (doesn't win on time), the reluctantly pro-Union states can secede as a Central Confederacy, perhaps starting as an anti-draft insurgency.
UNIONIST UPRISINGS
American (US) nationalists can spawn in the South and will under conditions of high militancy (like the State of Jones).
EMANCIPATION
Emancipation is basically a foregone conclusion once hostilities begin, but timing it may matter, or may require certain conditions, I don't know. You are not going to not have a Thirteenth Amendment after this shit.
RECONSTRUCTION
I have to read more on Reconstruction (it's an extremely charged topic), but in general let's call it Johnsonian, Lincolnian and Radical and tie it to primary cultures. Johnsonian preserves Yankee-Dixie. Lincolnian gets Yankee-Dixie-Afro. Radical gets Yankee-Afro. Lincolnian and Radical Reconstruction can both fail (end in Yankee-Dixie), don't know how failure would be determined but this is the result in real life of the North getting bored of its first Forever War. The
NORTHERN SECESSION
For Northern secession, I think the idea is inherently silly and farfetched (it goes against the entire spirit of the Hamiltonian North), but the most realistic story I think you can tell is one where the Fire Eaters go so berserk AND somehow have enough legislative/executive power that they actually try to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts and censorship of abolitionism on the North. The Fire Eaters never gave a shit about the Constitution when it conflicted with preserving slavery, and I think that conscription into slave patrols, courts and mail censoring would have driven the North berserk.
I don't think the idea of the South invading the North to keep it makes any sense at all, so this would if anything be more like some sort of maximalist Confederacy (potentially keeping the Riverine Midwest, NYC, and so on) that, in a twist of irony, is called the USA. But I can also imagine, Yankees being what they are, the Free States having a casus belli to reconquer the state they secede from. In essence, choice of secession or forced overthrow.
foreman 89
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2021
I think an interesting idea that could either be done by paradox or modders (because it may or may not be controversial) would be to partition the South in multiples ways with Greco-Turkish style population transfers to create majority African states that could be given autonomy or even independence. I don't know if the government would have had the political power/ capital to do this IRL but perhaps in the game if you strengthen the government it could be an option.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
I forgot another alternate history path I had intended as a way, actually the way, to spawn the Central Confederacy.
If the US is doing badly enough far enough in the War then you get the Peace Democrats event.
This forces a decision to either make peace or establish a Republican dictatorship.
But the dictatorship immediately triggers a Central Confederate uprising.
It's basically a last-ditch effort by a Union that has decided that it is worth gambling on losing EVERYTHING but New England for a shot at not losing the Southern States. A Union that is losing the War, but it is willing to broaden the scope of the War even more if it believes it can salvage it.
Aside from running out the clock (and that does require winning, ie, outperforming the historical Confederacy), the Trent Affair can fire if Anglo-American relations are sufficiently bad, or perhaps make it a little more generalizable to any large industrial country.
It DOES NOT cause a British entry into the Civil War on the Confederacy's side. Britain may have armed them but they more or less hated them. It just starts a second, separate war with something like a "cut down to arms" casus belli. So Britain isn't an ally to have fight your war, it's another distraction (open another war of limited scope).
IRL I think you'd have to have somebody like William Seward in charge.
Something Victoria does not represent, even though it's actually more important to this timeframe than any other besides Crusader Kings, is a model of federalism. The closest it gets is the slave laws being state-by-state, and that solely to make the US functional. I've thought about different possibilities before, but it's a hard question no matter what. New Afrika could be something like a vassal. Federalism could be used, among other things, to have different culture laws in different places.
I've also thought about the possibility of Confederate-Liberian relations. Liberia had adopted this hypocritical system of forced labor, didn't call it slavery but it was de facto slavery and they were, of course, culturally very similar with antebellum architecture, fashion, customs and such. The Liberians gave the impression of still thinking of themselves as Southern in some fashion, named their cities after Southern states. I've wondered if a successful CSA sending Liberia its freedmen (something the Fire Eaters always hated having around) could have actually steered Liberia to becoming an explicit slave society and a partner in African colonization. When I've played CSA in Victoria II i've always made Liberia my top diplomatic priority and I'd use the console commands to feed it what I colonized.
P.S. It would be sick if the Hunley was in the game somehow, even just as a harbor defense weapon (which is what it for all purposes was). Balloon corps is also cool, though that's really just basically a tech (+ to recon or whatever).
If the US is doing badly enough far enough in the War then you get the Peace Democrats event.
This forces a decision to either make peace or establish a Republican dictatorship.
But the dictatorship immediately triggers a Central Confederate uprising.
It's basically a last-ditch effort by a Union that has decided that it is worth gambling on losing EVERYTHING but New England for a shot at not losing the Southern States. A Union that is losing the War, but it is willing to broaden the scope of the War even more if it believes it can salvage it.
Aside from running out the clock (and that does require winning, ie, outperforming the historical Confederacy), the Trent Affair can fire if Anglo-American relations are sufficiently bad, or perhaps make it a little more generalizable to any large industrial country.
It DOES NOT cause a British entry into the Civil War on the Confederacy's side. Britain may have armed them but they more or less hated them. It just starts a second, separate war with something like a "cut down to arms" casus belli. So Britain isn't an ally to have fight your war, it's another distraction (open another war of limited scope).
That's a very good idea and close to what I think should have been done IRL. (Yes, Black Amerika would have been a dysfunctional hellhole, but it's their hole to hell if they want.)
IRL I think you'd have to have somebody like William Seward in charge.
Something Victoria does not represent, even though it's actually more important to this timeframe than any other besides Crusader Kings, is a model of federalism. The closest it gets is the slave laws being state-by-state, and that solely to make the US functional. I've thought about different possibilities before, but it's a hard question no matter what. New Afrika could be something like a vassal. Federalism could be used, among other things, to have different culture laws in different places.
I've also thought about the possibility of Confederate-Liberian relations. Liberia had adopted this hypocritical system of forced labor, didn't call it slavery but it was de facto slavery and they were, of course, culturally very similar with antebellum architecture, fashion, customs and such. The Liberians gave the impression of still thinking of themselves as Southern in some fashion, named their cities after Southern states. I've wondered if a successful CSA sending Liberia its freedmen (something the Fire Eaters always hated having around) could have actually steered Liberia to becoming an explicit slave society and a partner in African colonization. When I've played CSA in Victoria II i've always made Liberia my top diplomatic priority and I'd use the console commands to feed it what I colonized.
P.S. It would be sick if the Hunley was in the game somehow, even just as a harbor defense weapon (which is what it for all purposes was). Balloon corps is also cool, though that's really just basically a tech (+ to recon or whatever).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2023
>army now needs supplies and food
>you can pillage the enemy countryside for supplies
>defeated armies leave their supplies behind
>you can supply your armies with ships
>automation systems
>A regiment can only reinforce in your owned locations and in a location owned by someone you are fighting a war together with, when that location is currently not occupied.
Johan... my knees are weak...
>you can pillage the enemy countryside for supplies
>defeated armies leave their supplies behind
>you can supply your armies with ships
>automation systems
>A regiment can only reinforce in your owned locations and in a location owned by someone you are fighting a war together with, when that location is currently not occupied.
Johan... my knees are weak...
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2023
With the Maghreb reveal, the map is almost complete
(for some reason server freaks out when I upload the country map)
(for some reason server freaks out when I upload the country map)
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2023
Natural Harbors
This is something new for this game that we have not done before. With so many locations, and such granularity, and mechanics emphasizing a deeper simulation, we had to start treating places differently, as there is a reason why certain places on the map are better suited as ports than others. This also explains why certain locations grew to be important places in history over others.
The brighter the green the better the harbor can be..
Of course, you can improve the harbor suitability of a location by building certain infrastructure, so even if the location you want to build up lacks the natural benefits, it can still be built up, even if it is more costly to do so as well.
Shipbuilding
One of the disadvantages of playing a naval nation, in other games we’ve made, was the simple fact that unless you had a large coastline you could not compete, no matter how good the coastal locations you had were. One of the reasons was the simple fact that you could only build a ship at a time, and if you wanted to recruit a regiment, you couldn’t.
In Project Caesar this has changed, first of all, there are three different construction queues in a location. First there is the civil one for buildings, RGO’s, and all other non-military oriented things you can do in a location. Secondly we have the army based queue, and finally, we have the naval based queue, so you can recruit regiments at the same time that you build ships in a location.
We also added the concept of parallel ship building in a location, where buildings can unlock additional shipbuilding slots in a location, where at the end of the game you can build close to twenty ships at the same time in the same shipyard, with all the related advances and other stuff unlocked.
This is a unique building that Venice has in its capital that increases the parallel capacity of shipbuilding by 4.