Paradox Studio Thread

[JJLiautaud]

Its got a ways to go. One of the biggest issues is your attention gets massively split between Earth and the rest of the solar system pretty early on, and that's not good because you've got less ability than XCOM to do shit about the steadily advancing alien invaders, and you also need to engage in a shadow war against everyone trying to exploit the crisis for their own goals, either good or bad. You also have six operatives (councilors) max to do shit with, a mere four at start, two coming with tech, and if you're lucky two more you can snag as turncoats, but there's eight factions max (including the aliens), so you need to deal with 7 other assholes doing the same thing you're doing, so you don't have the manpower on hand, and you need to get into space and start gathering resources and tech, and that's no fun because shocker, there's no magic wand there. If it was just Earth and Luna it would be manageable, but I've barely gotten in and already I ran face first into a wall.

Oh, you're also dependent on the entire world (which means your enemies as well) teching up collectively before you can do your own super-special research projects (and there's only three of those projects running at the same time) and fuck that shit. The tech system is like Paradox mana, but worse since its a collective pool of everyone's research mana and everyone gets it all at the same time...

Sounds like a skill issue... /sarc
But yeah just from watching the lets plays I can see it getting a little overwhelming.
But is there a /gsg/ on this site or do i have to make one, so we can stop shitting up this thread with non paradox grand strategy games.

 

[hawkisnight]

I did a run of Ethiopia in the newest EU4 patch and I think they 'fixed' the AI somewhat. It's much less annoying to play against. They try to actually defend their borders instead of traveling to the other end of your country to carpet siege you. Also AI naval invades much more frequently now. I might actually play more now.
It was a fail Ethiopia run. I couldn't get european allies. Ottomans are not ridiculous as some patches ago but they still are strong. I managed to white peace the first time thanks to my gold coffers but the second time they were ruthless.

I watched the Netherlands and Japan Victoria 3 stream and boy oh boy oh boy. There are some positive changes like trade being not annoying/more automated but the main gameplay doesn't look like it changed that much. So if you want the taste of Victoria 3 just find the leak with the community patch. I heard the community patch got even better. Don't ask me for links I haven no idea where to find it now.
Honestly Victoria 3 doesn't look that great. Imperator had a better look prerelease and we all know how it ended. Will the hype and general ball washing on forums help the game? I can't wait to see. I will probably buy it on sale. I kinda liked the leak version but not enough to buy it at full price. Might be fun doing one Grossdeutsch run and alternative history mods like Divergence of Darkness and Napoleon's Legacy will definitely be kino. Looking at CK3 crazy mods I think modders will be able to do some crazy stuff in Victoria 3 too. Not sure if legit but I saw someone playing videos in event popups in leaked version of victoria 3 already. Pretty neat.

​

 

[BONE_Buddy]

There's one called Old World that's a knockoff of Civilization but with Crusader Kings-style dynastic mechanics.

It's 90% civ-like, the Dynastic effects and actions of the game are extremely limited. As a "Civilization, but with a twist" game, it is probably one of the best on the market... including much of the later Civ Franchise itself. So if you like Civ and 4x games in general, it's worth picking up on sale or "For Free."

But is there a /gsg/ on this site or do i have to make one, so we can stop shitting up this thread with non paradox grand strategy games.

I don't recall seeing one. Having a Strategy Gaming General, which would include strategy based wargames would be nice. We have a 4X General that isn't used.

 

[AspieNextDoor]

A bit late but Victoria 3 first official gameplay dropped, and 99% stuff from leaked build appears unchanged. Also, waging war is just clicking two (literally) buttons and watching the AI fight on it's own. Very fun.

At this point I predict two scenarios:
1) (60% chance) It will end up like CK3: barebones immitation of the prequel, not liked by anyone who isn't Paradox's retarded paypig (you know, the "I made anarchist USA in 1890s, MOM GET THE CAMERA GOTTA POST IT ON REDDIT!!!!" types)
2) (40% chance) It will end up like Imperator: Rome, a broken mess that will get abandoned 1 year after launch and (hopefully) bankrupt the studio
Both fucking suck.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Terra Invicta looks like it could be a base for a solar system mod. I'm not interested in the alien shit but I am interested in a hard sci fi near future solar system strategy game. (Manage war fleets on a small scale, NASA-style technology.)

Interplanetary has solar system combat with missile launches from planets and orbital mechanics, but it's just a glorified artillery game.

 

[Snekposter]

Terra Invicta looks like it could be a base for a solar system mod. I'm not interested in the alien shit but I am interested in a hard sci fi near future solar system strategy game. (Manage war fleets on a small scale, NASA-style technology.)

Interplanetary has solar system combat with missile launches from planets and orbital mechanics, but it's just a glorified artillery game.

To sum up my thoughts, it could be good, but at the moment it feels like they really overstretched with all of the mechanics they've set up. If it was just Earth-based intrigue and conflict it would be a great game since that would be a lovely twist on XCOM. But instead they've also added this huge second strat map called the solar system that plays by entirely different rules and so you're just left spinning too many plates.

 

[naaaaiiiiillllll!!!]

Terra Invicta feels like a bait and switch: I was sold a 4X grand strategy XCOM game about aliens n sheeit, but instead I get to manage secret societies/globbohomo groups fighting each other trying to control countries, the IMF (among other random orgs), and country’s resources.

The devs definitely have middling Reddit-tier geopolitical knowledge because an early meta is the “European blue banana” where you force the UK to rejoin the EU ASAP (lol), along with Ukraine if it survives the Russian invasion (which is pre-programmed into the game). The resources from this political entity are more than all of North America, so I think the devs have an obvious worldview biasing the gameplay. It does make it amusing though seeing YouTubers accidentally talk geopolitics when playing the game.

 

[AmpleApricots]

I looked up Terra Invicta and there apparently has been this boom of knockoff Paradox games. Are any of them good?

Star Dynasties is basically Crusader Kings in space (but with a focus on space soap opera drama, it has kind of a Dune universe vibe - a lot of the angry reviews on steam on that game are because people expected a Stellaris/Numbers-go-up-game clone, not something more about political intrigue like the old german classic the Guild) and last time I checked up on it, it was pretty decent although pretty bare bones too. No idea if that has changed in the meantime.

The problem with all these games is - they get released unfinished, they make okay money for the work put into them and then the developer loses all interest to continue to improve them or it goes at a glacial rate, not rarely because the developer actually has a proper job somewhere else or (more rarely) makes so much passive income that it's better to not rock the boat.

This is a crossover with another topic but AI imagegen is really taking off right now and if you're a bit experienced with the ins and outs even as somebody who can't draw a straight line you can create pretty passable artwork that's perfect for games like Stellaris or Crusader kings with their static pictures. Expect to see a lot of this in the coming months.

As to Terra Invicta, as it is described here it actually seems right up my alley. I love such games, sadly I can never resist making that spreadsheet and then taking out the calculator and find the one fatal flaw the developer made which completely will break the entire game when unraveled. Until then it's usually fun tho.

 

[Snekposter]

Terra Invicta feels like a bait and switch: I was sold a 4X grand strategy XCOM game about aliens n sheeit, but instead I get to manage secret societies/globbohomo groups fighting each other trying to control countries, the IMF (among other random orgs), and country’s resources.

The devs definitely have middling Reddit-tier geopolitical knowledge because an early meta is the “European blue banana” where you force the UK to rejoin the EU ASAP (lol), along with Ukraine if it survives the Russian invasion (which is pre-programmed into the game). The resources from this political entity are more than all of North America, so I think the devs have an obvious worldview biasing the gameplay. It does make it amusing though seeing YouTubers accidentally talk geopolitics when playing the game.

That, and the chances of taking over a neutral country are based on its GDP, not anything else like how aligned it is with you or the level of unrest or cohesion. So snatching up Central and Eastern Europe is both relatively easy and has good payoff while nabbing the USA is a bitch and a half. Funnily enough GDP does not affect how hard it is to do a Purge op and take over someone's spot, so the USA is a gigantic monkey's paw. I think you can go the entire game of it being neutral because its unironically too costly for you, globo-whatever, to try taking it over and exposes you to far too much risk.

Honestly, I think its funny that the USA is just far too big and powerful for globo-whoever to successfully take over and keep control of, which is probably not a message the devs wanted to send.

 

[Cringe newfag]

That, and the chances of taking over a neutral country are based on its GDP, not anything else like how aligned it is with you or the level of unrest or cohesion. So snatching up Central and Eastern Europe is both relatively easy and has good payoff while nabbing the USA is a bitch and a half. Funnily enough GDP does not affect how hard it is to do a Purge op and take over someone's spot, so the USA is a gigantic monkey's paw. I think you can go the entire game of it being neutral because its unironically too costly for you, globo-whatever, to try taking it over and exposes you to far too much risk.

Honestly, I think its funny that the USA is just far too big and powerful for globo-whoever to successfully take over and keep control of, which is probably not a message the devs wanted to send.

I haven't played since Beta. But Unrest is a potential back-door to flipping the Control Points of another faction. If they are sitting on something like USA, locking it down, using an operative to constantly run the "Fortify CP" op, then you can just boost instability constantly. If a nation has an organic coup, then the control points become neutral. If you supported the coup, then you can gain some control points.

And with the Great Powers, the idea is to plan ahead from the start. If you want, say, USA, you need to go for Canada and Mexico first to get the neighbour's bonus. Boost your own popularity inside of the country. And just run very low percentage success missions till you get a foot in the door. Once you do it will become easier.

Or you can wait and take a smaller Great Power first. France is a great pick, since it has to many neighbours but is still decently powerful, and you can consolidate a few neighbouring states into France as a unified EU in order to reduce the burden of defending CPs. Then go after China or America once you have a broken councillor with their persuasion (can't remember the stat name) massively stacked via upgrades and Orgs.

Are superstates still broken? Early in development you could chain them together and create almost planetary superstates.

For example, have Russia annex all it's old territories to rebuild the USSR, then have it join the EU. And have Turkey create it's own giant empire, then join the EU. You could have states across most of Eurasia. Or have Russia join the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere after annexing central europe via the Restored Warsaw Pact focus. All sorts of crazy things.

Of course it would be extremely inefficient since in Terra Invicta, super-states become extremely disunited and inefficient after a certain point (which is a based and realistic take). But it was still funny.

 

[Snekposter]

I haven't played since Beta. But Unrest is a potential back-door to flipping the Control Points of another faction. If they are sitting on something like USA, locking it down, using an operative to constantly run the "Fortify CP" op, then you can just boost instability constantly. If a nation has an organic coup, then the control points become neutral. If you supported the coup, then you can gain some control points.

And with the Great Powers, the idea is to plan ahead from the start. If you want, say, USA, you need to go for Canada and Mexico first to get the neighbour's bonus. Boost your own popularity inside of the country. And just run very low percentage success missions till you get a foot in the door. Once you do it will become easier.

Or you can wait and take a smaller Great Power first. France is a great pick, since it has to many neighbours but is still decently powerful, and you can consolidate a few neighbouring states into France as a unified EU in order to reduce the burden of defending CPs. Then go after China or America once you have a broken councillor with their persuasion (can't remember the stat name) massively stacked via upgrades and Orgs.

Are superstates still broken? Early in development you could chain them together and create almost planetary superstates.

For example, have Russia annex all it's old territories to rebuild the USSR, then have it join the EU. And have Turkey create it's own giant empire, then join the EU. You could have states across most of Eurasia. Or have Russia join the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere after annexing central europe via the Restored Warsaw Pact focus. All sorts of crazy things.

Of course it would be extremely inefficient since in Terra Invicta, super-states become extremely disunited and inefficient after a certain point (which is a based and realistic take). But it was still funny.

Well, I haven't exactly been playing long enough to try that out, but with what you've said it just reinforces my initial belief that this really should have been two different games: one about Earth intrigue and the other about racing to the stars.

 

[LegoTugboat]

I looked up Terra Invicta and there apparently has been this boom of knockoff Paradox games. Are any of them good?

There's one called Old World that's a knockoff of Civilization but with Crusader Kings-style dynastic mechanics.

One called Espiocracy that's a Cold War espionage game, maybe can't call it a grand strategy game because it's just espionage-focused. Could be a good competitor to the board game Twilight Struggle.

New publisher called Hooded Horse, founded by a lawyer who's into 4X strategy games appeared about 2 years ago and has been publishing a crapton of indie strategy games, which you've likely heard of.

Old Worlds and Nebulous Fleet Command made a good amount of money. Terra Invicta's another one published by them.

And then after that, you've got Against the Storm, Capital Command, Manor Lords, Alliance of the Sacred Suns, Fragile Existance and The Way of Wrath to come out in 2022.

And another 7 likely to come out in 2023 so far. Espiocracy's also published by them.

 

[Snekposter]

Old Worlds and Nebulous Fleet Command made a good amount of money. Terra Invicta's another one published by them.

I snagged Nebulous same time I did Terra Invicta with a Steam package deal and I am loving it a lot more than Terra Invicta. Mostly because spaceship go boom, ha ha.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

A bit late but Victoria 3 first official gameplay dropped, and 99% stuff from leaked build appears unchanged. Also, waging war is just clicking two (literally) buttons and watching the AI fight on it's own. Very fun.

At this point I predict two scenarios:
1) (60% chance) It will end up like CK3: barebones immitation of the prequel, not liked by anyone who isn't Paradox's retarded paypig (you know, the "I made anarchist USA in 1890s, MOM GET THE CAMERA GOTTA POST IT ON REDDIT!!!!" types)
2) (40% chance) It will end up like Imperator: Rome, a broken mess that will get abandoned 1 year after launch and (hopefully) bankrupt the studio
Both fucking suck.

There is also a chance it'll end up like Hoi4: a game people play almost entirely for the mods.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Espiocracy - Steam News Hub

Updates, events, and news from the developers of Espiocracy.

store.steampowered.com

Holy fuck.
These dudes know every obscure little bit of Cold War espionage lore and quote fucking academic journal articles in their dev diaries.
Compare to Paradox "lol horse nomad Teutonic Knights lol Norse revival" from the latest DLC.
Read Dev Diary 15, it talks about using Markov chains to model political processes.

 

[Judex Meus]

This might be really late but I don't have any friends autistic enough to play Paradox games to discuss with so I'm posting it here.

I picked up CK3 since it was on humble monthly just out of curiosity since I thoroughly enjoyed CK2 and EU4. Yes, I was aware everyone said it sucks compared to CK2, but for $12 I thought "what the hell, why not." I've done a couple runs so far.

This may be a very retarded question but I have to ask: is there anything CK3 does better than its predecessor, or at least does well? I know the DLC is mostly shit (so far) and it's lacking content which will hopefully be remedied by less shitty DLC (can't believe I'm actually saying that), but it feels so soulless and...easy? To me it's like playing Sims 3 but with more mechanics and random events. CK2 had ridiculously broken garbage like hordes but it just felt way more fleshed out and satisfying, and playing different countries actually felt different.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but basically I'm asking if there's anything redeeming about 3 or if everyone dumping on it is completely justified.

and full disclosure: I'm still basically a paradox newfag, only sitting on about 100 hours in CK2 and 300-ish in EU4

 

[JJLiautaud]

One of my least favorite parts of CK3 is how there doesn't seem to be a way to improve the stats of the levy, or any cultural differences between levy stats, and they should make it a monkey's paw; like England had they had very good yeoman levies but if they ever got pissed off they were a bitch to deal with, this could be modled by having the rebels levies being better, and then you can add royal armories in the late medieval which just cost say 80 gold/yr but vastly increase the combat power of only your levies, unless rebels capture the province.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

This might be really late but I don't have any friends autistic enough to play Paradox games to discuss with so I'm posting it here.

I picked up CK3 since it was on humble monthly just out of curiosity since I thoroughly enjoyed CK2 and EU4. Yes, I was aware everyone said it sucks compared to CK2, but for $12 I thought "what the hell, why not." I've done a couple runs so far.

This may be a very retarded question but I have to ask: is there anything CK3 does better than its predecessor, or at least does well? I know the DLC is mostly shit (so far) and it's lacking content which will hopefully be remedied by less shitty DLC (can't believe I'm actually saying that), but it feels so soulless and...easy? To me it's like playing Sims 3 but with more mechanics and random events. CK2 had ridiculously broken garbage like hordes but it just felt way more fleshed out and satisfying, and playing different countries actually felt different.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but basically I'm asking if there's anything redeeming about 3 or if everyone dumping on it is completely justified.

and full disclosure: I'm still basically a paradox newfag, only sitting on about 100 hours in CK2 and 300-ish in EU4

I've never played CK3, but having individualized feudal contracts sounds really nice.
That isn't enough to make up for everything else.

 

[Slap47]

Paradox plane logic.

 

[Snekposter]

View attachment 3708446
View attachment 3708448

Paradox plane logic.

According to another comment if you slap on 6x Engine IV you actually can break the speed of sound with a propeller plane. Keep in mind 1,225 is at sea level, too.

Also, planes like to go faster as they go higher thanks to thinner air meaning less drag on them so long as their intake systems can maintain sufficient air pressure through various forms of compressor. So a plane that goes 1,100 at 30k feet (which is an altitude easily obtainable with WW2 tech since the P-47D could fly all the way to 42,000, never mind later models) is going faster than the speed of sound.