hawkisnight
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
I don't like the coloring. Ideology should just be a map mode not the "main" map. I think most people will skip it just because of this.
Paradox Studio Thread
- Thread starter Payday
- Start date
crows in guns
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
Its a video probably made by a tranny complaining how Victoria 2 having Africa blank is bad not for gameplay reason but for historical reasons. Im pretty sure africa was the way it was because it was a very decentralized region of the world and lacked boarders like Europa or other regions. he also sperg's about some philosopher while going on about how he was a nazi.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
Africa needs to be easy to conquer for the Europeans because that's what the entire game is about. How would this sperg do that with gameplay mechanics? It's the same reason EU4's "uncolonized" land isn't actually uncolonized and has natives there. It's so you can believably build a world empire.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2021
In Vic3 we will have like 30-40 unplayable tags in Africa that will sit there doing nothing for fifty years only to be carved up by Europeans in 1880s.
And knowing PDX games their existence will slow game.
And If they ever get content they will be so op even AI will be able to create Wakkanda before Europeans arrive . Like North American natives in EU4
I am not personally on PDX discord but I heard that one dev on discord said that they are planning to make it possible for USA to lose Dixie as second primary culture and gain Afro-American instead.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
How would that even work? The only thing I could see having something to do with that concept would be a decision choice to prevent Jim Crow type voter suppression, but I have no idea why you'd lose Dixie as a primary culture if you did that.
wopirish
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
They are trannies who hate state's rights? Kinda wish they would care as much about slavery in the Ottoman Empire and modern africa as they do about the US.
Its probably something that if the north loses the civil war the north loxes Dixie, and maybe if they fleshed out the Confederacy to start having claims/cores on cuba/mexico/central america like they would have in real life, could be interesting.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2017
Thanks now I have a headache. The clouds blocking the tool tips is a nice touch, genius.
Crabouse-united
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2021
They really shat that up in the newest update. I get that playing as natives isn't exactly the most fun and engaging experience but allowing them to blob up colonize half of north america from the west coast to minnesota by the 1600s and outpace the Russian siberian colony system by using tribal lands and confederations is insane.
I just hope vicky 3 is playable 5 years after release and mod support so I can have some reasonable fun with Uncivs without making them ridiculously OP due to some rando mechanic and the devs intentionally not nerfing them because that would be "white supremacist", incompetence or whatever the fuck combination of both of these issues.
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
Beautiful thing about steam is that you can always roll the game back.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
I remember one Victoria 2 mod let you choose between a fully European Ottoman Empire (made all the Arabs pissed off but let you keep the Balkans/annex Greece) and fully Islamic Ottoman Empire (made all the Slavs/Greeks even more pissed off but let you annex Egypt), they should have a feature like that but let the fully Islamic Ottomans bring back the good ol' days of the Barbary pirates, ghazi raids, and of course buying slaves from Africa (since that's what they did IRL anyway). Speaking of African slave trading, needs a DLC to flesh out the Congo Free State and their relations with slave traders like Tippu Tip (an Arab man of partial African descent and one of the OG African warlords).
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2017
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Very revanchist and pro-Black Union suppressing Southern culture in general. I could easily see it happening in Radical Reconstruction if people like Thaddeus Stevens or William Seward were in control. As is there were things with teachers/missionaries from outside the region coming in and trying to “correct” locals on bullshit like their dialect, religion, and how they cooked their meals.
Also, policies that effectively disenfranchise Southerners (like everybody who was a soldier and their families), like literacy tests being used to de facto disenfranchise Blacks.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Since I've been banned from Paradox Forums several times, you all are my sounding board now.
Since this whole new combat system is based around generals, there really should be (but to my knowledge isn't) some "fog of war" on generals traits. Generally in real-life you don't know who's a Napoleon until they've proven themselves by their achievements. So, my thinking is you have an actual hidden General skill score/traits, and a projected General skill score and some hidden traits, with a correlation between the two and the skill levels/hidden traits revealing themselves/being revised more closely as more battles happen.
This would make it where you have (like a real ruler) moments where you're left guessing if six-star General Thundercock just had really bad luck at the Battle of the Doomstack or if he's actually a paste-eater and was only ever good at parading and passing West Point exams. Or, when your general gets assigned to some far-off colonial post because he's a Coward but turns out to have a knack for commanding troops in rough terrain and goes on to conquer the colony singlehanded.
This post was inspired by the many times a general had to work their way up instead of the All-Seeing Government knowing who to put where. (Grant replacing McClellan, Zhukov replacing whatever clowns were ahead of him, etc.)
Really want there to be inter-general interactions too (I think I've rambled about Tannenberg before), but I doubt they put any thought into that. Things like generals forming special bonds that make them work better together (Jackson and Lee) or bitter rivalries that make them go together terribly (Samsonov and Rennenkampf), or generals acclimating to fighting other specific enemy generals (famous rivalries like Patton and Rommel), etc. It could also be really cool if commanders could have specialties in specific enemies (Yamamoto having more insight into fighting Americans, for example), or even false traits where they get real lucky in a battle and they get some false trait/score that isn't real (Custer).
Fog of war like that would be really useful in character-driven games like Crusader Kings (can't tell how much they like you, just whether or not they act like they like you), but it was more important we get lolsatan and The Sims instead.
Since this whole new combat system is based around generals, there really should be (but to my knowledge isn't) some "fog of war" on generals traits. Generally in real-life you don't know who's a Napoleon until they've proven themselves by their achievements. So, my thinking is you have an actual hidden General skill score/traits, and a projected General skill score and some hidden traits, with a correlation between the two and the skill levels/hidden traits revealing themselves/being revised more closely as more battles happen.
This would make it where you have (like a real ruler) moments where you're left guessing if six-star General Thundercock just had really bad luck at the Battle of the Doomstack or if he's actually a paste-eater and was only ever good at parading and passing West Point exams. Or, when your general gets assigned to some far-off colonial post because he's a Coward but turns out to have a knack for commanding troops in rough terrain and goes on to conquer the colony singlehanded.
This post was inspired by the many times a general had to work their way up instead of the All-Seeing Government knowing who to put where. (Grant replacing McClellan, Zhukov replacing whatever clowns were ahead of him, etc.)
Really want there to be inter-general interactions too (I think I've rambled about Tannenberg before), but I doubt they put any thought into that. Things like generals forming special bonds that make them work better together (Jackson and Lee) or bitter rivalries that make them go together terribly (Samsonov and Rennenkampf), or generals acclimating to fighting other specific enemy generals (famous rivalries like Patton and Rommel), etc. It could also be really cool if commanders could have specialties in specific enemies (Yamamoto having more insight into fighting Americans, for example), or even false traits where they get real lucky in a battle and they get some false trait/score that isn't real (Custer).
Fog of war like that would be really useful in character-driven games like Crusader Kings (can't tell how much they like you, just whether or not they act like they like you), but it was more important we get lolsatan and The Sims instead.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
Ultimately, these are games and there has to be tons of unrealistic things to compromise. If so many things are obfuscated from the player, to the point that it's difficult to actually make strategic decisions in a strategy game, people aren't going to be having fun. I think being able to see exactly how much a country likes you or exactly how many beneficial traits a general has is perfectly fine. The difficulty should come from how the AI builds up and behaves when hostilities inevitably break out rather than hiding useful statistics from the player. The problem is that Paradox's AI is brain dead and easily exploitable in all of their games.
A system where a general gains beneficial or negative traits depending on how you use them, like the earlier Total Wars, would be a better way to handle it imo. Then a player at least feels like they're contributing to their own success or failure rather than "fuck you, this general actually sucks, fire him and reroll for a better one."
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Well, you can always go into more or less detail, but I think most of these ideas are useful and can be done in ways that aren't real complicated. For the importance of it, I'd say, you've got some games that depend quite a bit on randomness (Risk, Axis and Allies), and some that are not very random at all (Company of Heroes). Of course the randomness in a grand strategy game largely comes from needing to represent tactics in a game that doesn't depict a battle. But some of that randomness could be made less random by having it be factors you can control (like if the general isn't quite what you thought you were). Then the random swingyness in battles can be made, to a bigger extent, something you can control through paying attention.
If we still had a warfare system (I won't even dignify what we currently have by saying "micro," that implies that Vicky III has macro which it doesn't) like Vicky II, I don't think this stuff is real important, but if you're going to build a warfare system around generals having personalities and agency, I think it's a lot more important since that's the main way you interact with war. Having things "change" with generals that incentivizes reshuffling them would be a great way to make autopilot war more fun. The personalities stuff would just play out in the background. You've already got rivals and friends in CK2 and stuff like that makes that game way more entertaining. Shit, the more I think about it the more I want to see a casual game like that, where you mainly engage with your military by choosing who goes where and how much you give them, and juggling the larger-than-life personalities of your commanders is a big part of it all. Like the generals are the stars, the units are just resources.
But the best thing they could have done would have been to just have a HOI4-style battleplanner. Give some vague instructions to the generals, but I do want to be able to give an order like "swing through Belgium" or "land in Veracruz and advance directly on Mexico City."
Last edited:
Kochmess
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Man, the possibilities of Vic3 with today's tech are nearly endless. But after reading how the soy devs made red niggers op in Eu4, you just know how morally bankrupt they are. Instead of a mana simulator, it's now a woke mana simulator. Such progress, much wow.
Kochmess
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Did a quick look up. Every single time.
Not just a tranny but a jewish one at that. Might be a future lolcow in the making, who knows.
crows in guns
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
Trannys all have a similar style when speaking because they like to try and sound like women which fails. I did not expect the jew part.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2018
The next EU4 DLC will focus on the Scandinavian and Baltic nations, including the Teutonic Order. At least it's an area that people have wanted overhauled for awhile.