Paradox Studio Thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

What are your expectations for the EU5 release?

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Computer God Autism said:
>not knowing how to use a poorly-explained system that intentionally dumbs down and removes gameplay is a skill issue

You don't hate HoI4 readers enough
Click to expand...
You braindead nigger explain which paradox game explains itself well. None of them do. You figure shit out for the first at least 100 hours playing and get proficient at about 500. Yes not knowing about a mechanic is a skill issue, it is on the line up of general commads, you could have hovered over all of them in a minute.
 
General Emílio Médici said:
You could get money from privateering directly, but it was only from your privateers taking a slice out of treasure fleets from colonies (and the way treasure fleets work is that you get them from gold provinces in the colony, so even if you had a mega Cuba printing money from all the sugar it would create no treasure fleet)
Click to expand...
Privateering was not worthy the effort in EU4 , unless you are forced to do it by your mission tree (Ditmarschen) , but pirate tags had ability to raid coastal provinces to get ducats.
 
Yap said:
You braindead nigger explain which paradox game explains itself well.
Click to expand...
CK2.

Don't call people braindead niggers when you don't even understand the point being made. The army manager in HoI4 directly incentivizes players to use it by providing stat bonuses to their units they wouldn't otherwise be able to get rather than just offering the ease of automation. No other Paradox game does this. Despite this, the army manager is notoriously incompetent and broken, and aggressiveness dictates how many divisions it moves around, rather than just how often they attack, which is what any sensible person would assume because it's never explained. This is because HoI4 is not meant to be played, it is meant to be read, so go back to reading it like the good little VN tranny you are.
 
Karakhalkin-Gol said:
The mods for it, sure, but I never got that feeling when I played vanilla or Road to 56. Most of the content in focus trees from what I remember are making/expanding your faction, wargoals, or building yourself up to use the wargoals.
Click to expand...
Sure, base HoI4 ironically is more focused on gameplay than every single mod that's kept the thing alive for the past half-decade. But the gameplay still very much encourages you to let the game play itself; the first third of the game, depending on what you choose, can be set to three speed while you get through some 70 day focuses and you can just safely tab out and do something else until events pop up or the war begins, and after that kicks off all you really have to do is just give control of what you build up to the AI and then just manually manage one or two operations like a naval landing or a specific push/encirclement. I can't imagine doing that with any other contemporary Paradox game, not even Stellaris which offers an impressive amount of automation.
 
Some additional info from Johan:
  • Current monthly gains and losses
    • -0.05 from Target of a Coalition
    • -0.01 from each threatening country that has you as a rival.
    • -0.01 from each threatening country that you have set as a rival.
    • +0.02 from every possible rival that is not a threat.
    • -0.1 scaling down from Revanchism
    • -0.05 from having a war declared upon you.
    • -0.05 from being in a civil war.

  • Currently it takes 100 years to get from 0 to 100 complacency with no reductions at all as an Empire, where you have expanded and are so strong that nobody wants to form a coalition against you, or attack you.
  • "Complacency is not there to get empires to fall apart, its there to make empires stagnate and slow down."
  • "One thing with low control is that the amount of money invested by estates into rebels is higher in 1.1"
  • "When it comes to War Exhaustion the impact has been getting worse for 1.1, with morale 25% worse per point, and the population loss 66% worse from it."
  • Occupation impact has doubled.
  • Wrong culture/religion has too little impact, and should be worse in 1.1
  • Economy has gotten a huge rework for 1.1
  • HRE has been changed, and will be further changed for 1.1
  • Some of the mid/late disasters have been reworked for 1.1, and are now integrating with complacency.
 
The youtuber Lemon Cake just uploaded an interesting video about EU5 portraits.

Archive:



And in this video he opens VS Code and what do I see?
hoi5nda.png


1768117809709.png


Hoi5 leak or bait?
 
This User said:
The big problem right now is the AI has gone insane for THIS particular patch and is just declaring constant no-CB wars, even in the HRE.
Click to expand...
I like to think of it as the AI realising what people already know: AE is just a number and german states are free to take free real estate.
 
Last edited:
Picked up Imperator, went in completely blind with Invictus and I've been doing pretty well for myself. It's currently 265 BC and I had a civil war because the guy in charge of my (only) Legion rebelled with 10k men, my Italian allies have been carrying me since they make for an effective vassal swarm to carpetsiege and snipe enemy armies. I think I get the gist of the game so far, just gotta get Tarentum and the and the last bit of the boot held by Epirus and I can move onto Sicily and Cisalpine Gaul.
1768136786010.png
 
Here’s a question for you all
Do you think decadence is a legitimate cycle in history, and if so, does it belong as a mechanic and how? Not referring specifically to Islamic decadence.

Asking because of Complacency, which I think is very real and kind of similar.

My impression is it is a midwit theory that is all things to all people. You can vaguely gesture to Rome and be “ooh they fell because of their d e c a d e n c e” while real historians talk about things like systems collapse and autistic theological slapfights tearing it apart.

I’m not sure I can even think of a single case of decadence in the moralist way.



As I understand Jena-Auerstadt is textbook "Complacency." I recently set myself a small project of getting the cliffs notes version of the Wars of the Coalition down, not just the Napoleonic Era as a vague thing. I didn't know the exact tale. Turned out it's not that complicated if you spend a day or two just drilling yourself on it. Anyways, I lived most of my adult life with a completely delusional take on European army's fitness levels. Me, contrarian midwit, thought that the British were a suck-ass second-rate army and the whole "Americans beat the greatest army in the world" thing was propaganda. I just plain did not know, did not get, that the British really did have a tiny but extremely good army because at some other point Prussian space marines and the French got drilled into my head, not getting that the thing was that the French were more balanced (not real huge until levee en masse, not real well trained but not Russian orcs, Napoleon was a massive force multiplier) and the Prussian space marines, well, bringing it back to my point, that's only true in two eras (Frederick and Wilhelmine).

So what happens, as I read it, is the Prussians get high on their success (which ultimately hinged on a miracle as they were losing anyways), proceed to sit on their ass for the next several decades while their army rots, it becomes the land version of the Spanish Armada when this Great Power is shown to be a complete sham, total destruction, Prussia BTFO, and it wasn't until Leipzig that they proved they had gotten their shit together and wasn't until Motlke that the army was actually good.

Complacency -> Nation loses catastrophically
 
Last edited:
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
My impression is it is a midwit theory that is all things to all people. You can vaguely gesture to Rome and be “ooh they fell because of their d e c a d e n c e” while real historians talk about things like systems collapse and autistic theological slapfights tearing it apart.
Click to expand...
I don't think complacency is as much decadence, but rather a representation that a society without meaningful competition will lower standards and be less innovative, so can compete less with opponents who have been forced to innovate and compete to a higher level of quality. I think that complacency should be able to be staved off by having a freer, more internally competitive society, though that might be seen as taking an ideological/meta stance, which I am not averse to, as I am a bit of whig tbh, but I can see why PDX might not want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom