Paradox Studio Thread

[Computer God Autism]

I wonder what the fuck happened at paradox in relation to map design,

they peaked with Imperator then decided to do a 180

I wonder what could have happened indeed.

 

[Blackstar]

I wonder what could have happened indeed.

I meant what happened that made them decide to do that. CK3 and Vic 3 remind me more of Civ than the previous paradox maps.

 

[Sooty Soot]

This would be great. People always are taught that the Crusades were about Jerusalem or soley a form of aggression against "Muh Muslims," (conviniently ignoring that the holy land was stolen from Christian Byzantium in the first place.)

Someone should make a lolcows of history thread about the 1st Crusade, the stuff that went down and the fact it isn't represented in CK is criminal.

 

[Computer God Autism]

I meant what happened that made them decide to do that. CK3 and Vic 3 remind me more of Civ than the previous paradox maps.

Again, you're answering your own question. Imperator's UI design was old school. Johan is old school. Imperator flops because Johan had a few incredibly retarded ideas he was too stubborn to see were awful combined with Paradox getting increasingly lazy. The crowd Johan is hoping Imperator will appeal to doesn't materialize because of that, everything associated with Imperator and Johan gets momentarily discredited and Johan gets exiled to Catalonia so the new (c) adults (tm) can be in charge in the main office. Then CK3 loses all momentum and Victoria 3 bombs, and now people are looking at Imperator with a lot more of a forgiving lens.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Someone should make a lolcows of history thread about the 1st Crusade, the stuff that went down and the fact it isn't represented in CK is criminal.

I can't remember which one, but IIRC Anna Komnene mentioned one of the Crusader leaders just up and sat in her father's throne during one of the initial meetings between Alexios and the Crusader leaders.

 

[LovisXVI]

The Greeks and Crusaders deserved each other. The most treacherous and incompetent assholes in all of Christendom, together, hating each other, but forced to work together. It's like a buddy cop movie.

 

[Batko Bandera]

The Greeks and Crusaders deserved each other. The most treacherous and incompetent assholes in all of Christendom, together, hating each other, but forced to work together. It's like a buddy cop movie.

Can you elaborate? I am actually curious what they did to make you have such a poor opinion.

 

[LovisXVI]

Can you elaborate? I am actually curious what they did to make you have such a poor opinion.

The fact that at every opportunity, they stabbed the other in the back, often to their own detriment. They had many opportunities to deal killing blows to their shared rivals in Egypt and Syria only to sabotage the other (and often even within their own faction). I suspect the lack of codified succession rules and institutions encouraging stable rule independently encouraged a certain kind of character and unfettered personal ambition which lead to constant infighting in both areas.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

Can anyone elaborate on why the maps for CK3 and Vicky 3 are so bad? I've only played them a little bit, haven't played Imperator, only played EU4 extensively but overall they don't seem that different, or am I blind?

 

[Blackstar]

Can anyone elaborate on why the maps for CK3 and Vicky 3 are so bad? I've only played them a little bit, haven't played Imperator, only played EU4 extensively but overall they don't seem that different, or am I blind?

Imperator:

Imperator vs Vic 3:

Vic 3:

CK3:

 

[WarrenZHarding]

Someone should make a lolcows of history thread about the 1st Crusade, the stuff that went down and the fact it isn't represented in CK is criminal.

It really is incredible that the Crusade managed to succeed. Speaks volumes of how badly managed the Turkic government was to let that collection of chuckleheads even make it through Anatolia.

I always thought it would be cool to have a Crusade mechanic that incentivises personal glory ahead of the needs of the Crusade as a whole. Maybe add unique plots/goals to discredit or disrupt fellow Crusaders in hopes of appearing the most virtuous, as was the case historically. I know this is somewhat represented by having the top contributor having their beneficiary rule the new Kingdom, but some other reperesentation of the intrigue, self interest, and proto-nationalism elicited from the Crusades would do a lot for immersion.

 

[LovisXVI]

It really is incredible that the Crusade managed to succeed. Speaks volumes of how badly managed the Turkic government was to let that collection of chuckleheads even make it through Anatolia.

I always thought it would be cool to have a Crusade mechanic that incentivises personal glory ahead of the needs of the Crusade as a whole. Maybe add unique plots/goals to discredit or disrupt fellow Crusaders in hopes of appearing the most virtuous, as was the case historically. I know this is somewhat represented by having the top contributor having their beneficiary rule the new Kingdom, but some other reperesentation of the intrigue, self interest, and proto-nationalism elicited from the Crusades would do a lot for immersion.

Sorry, have to make an event pack around being a parent or more clothing packs for irrelevant tribals...

 

[WarrenZHarding]

Can you elaborate? I am actually curious what they did to make you have such a poor opinion.

The Greeks wouldnt give the Crusaders the supplies they promised, so the Crusaders started raiding their cities for food. The Greeks then finally gave them supplies and escorted them out of Anatolia under military guard. It didnt do much for mending relations, and Latin and Greek Christendom remained wary of each other for centuries, eventually culminating in the sacking of Constantinople by the Latins in the 4th Crusade, and basically beginning the final collapse of the Eastern Empire.

 

[Sooty Soot]

The fact that at every opportunity, they stabbed the other in the back, often to their own detriment. They had many opportunities to deal killing blows to their shared rivals in Egypt and Syria only to sabotage the other (and often even within their own faction). I suspect the lack of codified succession rules and institutions encouraging stable rule independently encouraged a certain kind of character and unfettered personal ambition which lead to constant infighting in both areas.

You can argue the Ctusaders including the ones from the Peasant's crusade started it, the looting & pillaging started in Hungary after all and that one time the Crusaders tried storming Belgrade to loot it.

 

[Lonjil]

Been trying a stellaris one system game with Virtual ascension + ring world. I would wager this will see a rework as Its super good LOL. Its kinda snooze obv because one system, but its cool to see how strong you can get.

 

[Throng of Titans]

Sorry, have to make an event pack around being a parent or more clothing packs for irrelevant tribals...

We're never going to get content packs for Western Europe (beyond pagan shit) because Paradox is allergic to developing any sort of unique mechanics for christians or westerners, and Paradox drones defend them because "oh western Europe always gets the most flavor anyway, so it's fine!" despite it never getting touched post launch in CK3.

The custom religion system also neuters any attempt to try and deepen the religions, because players will just make their own dumb incest-cannibal-murder cult (please give me upvotes guys, isn't it so funny?) and move away from said mechanics anyway.

 

[LovisXVI]

We're never going to get content packs for Western Europe (beyond pagan shit) because Paradox is allergic to developing any sort of unique mechanics for christians or westerners, and Paradox drones defend them because "oh western Europe always gets the most flavor anyway, so it's fine!" despite it never getting touched post launch in CK3.

The custom religion system also neuters any attempt to try and deepen the religions, because players will just make their own dumb incest-cannibal-murder cult (please give me upvotes guys, isn't it so funny?) and move away from said mechanics anyway.

It isn't even that, Muslims don't have anything either! Despite the fact that they are the other half of the whole "Crusade" thing that the game is named after. The issue isn't that they are ignoring a region, but that they are totally averse to developing out anything. They just keep appending additional, shallow mechanics but never connect them, deepen them. They haven't made generic feudalism or clan interesting to play, or improved based on what they have done with admin, or what they are adding with the wholly unnecessary Eastern Asian expansion.

And the custom faith and culture thing went from interesting to pissing me off. When I was modding CK3, I actively turned those off because it became apparent they added nothing substantially to the game. All they did was remove the possibility of unique content in the form of special mechanics for particular faiths or cultures or unlocking them via decision or event. Stupid.

 

[WarrenZHarding]

Apparently CK2+ has finally gotten a new update out. I prefer HIP, but with it's dev gone, Plus is the last big CK2 overhaul that's still active.

 

[Computer God Autism]

I always thought it would be cool to have a Crusade mechanic that incentivises personal glory ahead of the needs of the Crusade as a whole.

I mean, there already are in CK2. You can take the war goal yourself at a penalty and you can set up Crusader states outside the war goal for a penalty. It's not perfect but it is represented.

Maybe add unique plots/goals to discredit or disrupt fellow Crusaders in hopes of appearing the most virtuous, as was the case historically.

The worst of the Crusaders when it came to plotting for personal advancement was Bohemond of Antioch and virtually all of the Crusader sources are unanimous in portraying him as a weasel. If anything his most sympathetic portrayal is in the Alexiad where Anna spends a bit too much time describing his physical appearance.

You can argue the Ctusaders including the ones from the Peasant's crusade started it, the looting & pillaging started in Hungary after all and that one time the Crusaders tried storming Belgrade to loot it.

CK's failure to represent any real difference between professional/professional feudal armies and conscripts/tribes/peasant mobs beyond unit composition is tragic. The Peasant's Crusade arriving before the Prince's Crusade, pillaging and looting their ally and then just getting themselves massacred before accomplishing anything against their enemy soured relations between the Byzantines and Crusaders before the first knight crossed the Danube and is so comically ridiculous it would fit in with CK's tone. The Prince's Crusade was much better behaved and more disciplined - both compared to the peasants and the Islamic armies they fought - which was one of the reasons they managed to succeed.

 

[Sooty Soot]

CK's failure to represent any real difference between professional/professional feudal armies and conscripts/tribes/peasant mobs beyond unit composition is tragic.

Worse still, CK3's removal of the (somewhat) deep unit composition system in favor of bogstandard troop quality and like 3 or 2 unit types (I think generic men-at-arms are one of them) just neuters the combat, it really is big army smash at that pointe barring terrain modifiers. In CK2, you could be trounced in a battle if one of your flanks was under-manned in favor of another flank or had no commander, freeing that enemy flank up to attack one of your remaining flanks, even if your army was 1.5x bigger and had more heavy-inf and heavy-cav, one of the highlights was the special retinues as well where camel warriors could trounce everybody provided they were in a desert or 'jeets could build war elephants.