Zaryiu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2017
I solved half of the problem, I had to remove certain mods but (i forgot to mention the other half) the game still crash one year in game max
Paradox Studio Thread
- Thread starter Payday
- Start date
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
Their approach to trying to simulate an economy seems really sketchy. For example, you have those GDP per capita settings, based on buildings per population or something, and they go up or down in big blocks. But the individual factories don't do shit besides increasing construction speed. So, building "Civilian Factories" doesn't literally nothing to increase tax revenues until you hit the arbitrary limit.
It has to be better than Modern Day/NWO for Victoria II, though (which are completely incapable of representing, in any decent way, modern warfare, and are really incomplete).
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
I had the same problem with some mods a couple of patches ago, try to back up saves and reinstall the game.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Victoria II can hardly represent industrial warfare. Any war with higher tech level/tactics than the American Civil War feels increasingly weird. They have the political and economic parts done acceptably well but militarily fighting shit like the Great War in Victoria II is just meh. And fuck trying to build tanks in that game.
Especially naval warfare, but that was mostly because of a hilarious bug that made it so the AI never scrapped or updated their fleets so they'd zerg rush your industrial navy with sail frigates and sometimes win like when I wasn't paying attention and had a dreadnought and a few cruisers I was moving to another port (to merge with my main fleet) ambushed by like 120 Royal Navy ships of which all were wooden sailing ships and lost after like 3 months in game time and taking out about 70-80 of them. I remember they finally fixed the bug like a year after their "final" patch with a note saying "the AI now knows the Age of Sail is over in 1836, not 1936".
Good times, that Victoria 2. Haven't played it much since I got distracted by other Paradox games and IRL shit/wasting time shitposting here.
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
If they make Vicky 3, which they won't, and if htey do it'll suck, then they need to add, at an absolute minimum, HOI4-style air missions and some kind of improvements to the transport (currently nonexistent)/naval system so submarine warfare works like submarines in real life. That's a necessity to have WW1 work properly.
Wouldn't hurt to have a trench system, too. The way I see it is some sort of system where if units are in adjacent provinces, they inflict heavy attrition on each other, simulating trench warfare, and maybe some system for building up intel or something as a prelude to attempting breakthrough in an offensive. I love World War I.
I apparently suffered the same glitch as you. I had this one great game as Scandinavia, about the only game I remember, but I post more about Vicky than I play. I was Sweden and I unified Scandinavia diplomatically. Very little wars until WW1 and beyond. I was on the side of Germany, or maybe it was called the North German Confederation, and some others. We were up against the French, the British, the Austrians, the Russians. I mostly focused on holding the line against Russia, which wasn't that hard, and fighting Britain. I had a great blockade going which also included my own lands, so that they couldn't get colonial armies to the front.
The British sent SO MANY waves of old sailing ships against me. All sunk. I liked to imagine the great British Navy being sunk, that centuries later, people still found wrecks of British warships at the bottom near hte coast, like the Iron Harvest in Flanders now. So many ships sent to suicidal deaths against Scandinavian dreadnoughts. And I landed my soldiers on the mainland for an attempted takeover. Didn't manage it. I got control of Scotland, roughly, but they dug in like ticks in Northern England and held me off. I could imagine not just the trench warfare, but also the propaganda, the way the British government would ahve spun stories about the "Viking," like the old "Hun," to demonize the Scandinavian invader.
Germany got fucked like Russia did in OTL and was dismantled, I think due to rebels, but they gave a beatdown to Austria and I think France beforehand. Russia got fucked.
In the aftermath period, I managed to somehow flipflop from Bourgeoisie Dictatorship and Fascist Dictatorship while creating, through war, an Intermarium of fascist puppet states.
Good times. Only Vicky game I can really remember that much of. I played way more of the other games, even though I hypocrtiically put VIcky on a pedestal.
In the aftermath period, I managed to somehow flipflop from Bourgeoisie Dictatorship and Fascist Dictatorship while creating, through war, an Intermarium of fascist puppet states.
Good times. Only Vicky game I can really remember that much of. I played way more of the other games, even though I hypocrtiically put VIcky on a pedestal.
That's what grand strategy games are about. It's not about minmaxing stats or spreadsheets or any of that stuff. It's about making a memorable story in your head. But only a few of your playthroughs will ever inspire in that way. A disproportionate number of mine seem to be about Scandinavia, because there was also the time in EU4 that my Scandinavian units (Kalmar Union) hunted the Spanish Revolutionaries all the way down to South Africa...
Anyways, yeah, it was apparently AI fuckery that made the British send their oudated fleet against me. Kind of sucks the magic out of it.
You know, as I think about it, it'd be best if Vicky 3 just straight up had HoI4 air missions and naval missions both. I've never really liked how Paradox does naval battles, though Vicky is at least better than EU4. But yeah, it ought to be that naval
I also heard this amazing idea on their forums once about land warfare. Battles are this weird mixture of single battles (in how they resolve themselves) and campaigns (in terms of lasting multiple days and being fought over control of entire provinces). This dude suggested that on any given day, the two armies are just skirmishing, where single units engage each other. Over time, the armies build up a "positioning" value, representing their suitability for combat, and there's a chance of a battle occurring. When battle finally occurs, it draws in way more forces and resolves itself in a single day, or a few days at most (Gettysburg was only three days, and that was an exceptional case). But the key to this is that an army can be ordered to seek battle or deny battle, increasing or lowering the chances of combat. Depending on the circumstances, this means that a weak army could try to deny battle (avoid decisive engagements, draw out combat), trying to draw out a fight against a superior opponent, maybe hoping to get some big advantage on them. For example, an army that's more nimble with good commanders could wrack up Positioning faster, which means that they could fight battles where they bring more of their forces against the enemy (even though the enemy is bigger overall) and with combat bonuses and defeat them. But that's only going to work if your army is actually more mobile/better lead/in favorable terrain for such a thing. And, I like the idea of it being possible for battles to break out unintentionally, too, like that there should still be a small chance of them even if both armies are evading each other.
Then, there could be the option of making an army go guerrilla, or recruting guerrillas in a province, which is something that only HOI4 really tries to represent at all. Like, one way would be to have a button where the unit goes underground (or you, with a time delay on it, organize a resistance), and then it basically puts those forces in a modified version of skirmishing where Positioning is replaced with Intel, and instead of skirmishes between units its more like a constant drain of losses, modified by chance, on both sides. The guerrillas can't hold down territory against the invader, but they're immune to big knock-out battles; instead, they can only be expelled by killing them, especially by building up Intel to allow for attempts (maybe attempts that are manually ordered, with a chance of failure) to root out their bases/ambush them, killing larger numbers. But Intel could be passive, too, kind of like how in HOI4 you get passive bonuses from holding enemy codes, but you get a big temporary bonus for activating it. Guerrillas could (like HOI4) tie down some of the local resources, denying them to the enemy, and also should be able to recapture a province, and they should be able to move from province to province, or at least to do so as long as there's already a loyalist presence. Maybe infiltrating a province that's not held by you/has a guerrilla presence would require some sort of special operation, like one where you spend resources on a risky attempt that could backfire. Something like this would probably need more tweaking to work for represent Indian wars, but it would also be a way that both EU4 and Vicky could represent both guerrilla wars in general, certain nasty civil wars, and Indian wars. After all, Vicky doesn't even attempt to model the Indians, even though a lot of the big, sexy wars (Sioux, Comanches, Apaches) were in its timeframe.
And sieges have always been so shitty in these games. EU4 is the best for making sieges feel like sieges, in that they're agonizing and unpredictable. But I feel like supplies and morale really ought to be a thing, and policies you can set regarding surrender (like how much you loot) which effect that. And it should be possible for the supply situation of the besieger to get so bad that THEY retreat. Especially in CK2's timeframe, an army could exhaust local supplies long before the city exhausted its own!
Now, naval warfare would have to change a lot in Vicky, due to tech changes. Basically, in EU4 or pre-radio Vicky, there'd be no distinction between Strike and Patrol. There's no way to coordinate ships at sea outside of visual range, so there's no such thing as intentional reinforcement, though naval battles CAN last long enough for additional fleets to happen across a battle, though that's also really unlikely to happen unless you had some planned rendezvous or are near coast or something where you'd have a reason to be in the same vicinity. So you'd have Patrol, Convoy Duty, Convoy Raiding, etc. But when radio comes along, any ships that have radio would be able to send warnings back of the action, and a fleet equipped with radio could perform Strike.
And with Vicky, I don't think it takes a genius to imagine how a trench warfare system would work. I'm still toying with the idea, but I think that it could just be built into the whole Seek/Deny and Skirmish/Battle system. For example, "Entrench" could be an option which makes it so that you CANNOT avoid Battle, and your Skirmish damage gets spread out much more evenly (bombardment along a frontline rather than specific units happening across each other), but you gain from a crazy defensive bonus. Then, Advance would be the reverse of that, where a unit attacks an Entrenched enemy. So armies only Skirmish/Battle when they're still on a mobile footing, but they Entrench/Advance when they're stuck in trench warfare. I think it makes some sense to think that entrenching should require some time but be allowed no matter who's territory you're in, though maybe units that are in the process of entrenching should take time to do so, and possibly be much more vulnerable to Battle. Of course, other, mobile forces could still be screening for them, but you can't expect to march a small army into the enemy's province and just entrench right in front of him.
Another thing is that you get to retreat pretty much any time you want to. And when I say Battles and Skirmishes, you should get a pop-up for individual Battles and a pop-up for Campaign Histories. I'd want to be able to go through a list and see, kind of like those Chess write-ups, a sequence of who engaged who on what day and what effect it had. But basically, you still win a Campaign the same way: you run their Morale/Organization into the ground and force them to retreat. It's just that Skirmishing and Guerrilla Action has very little effect on Morale/Organization in that sense, so you mostly rely on Battle to lay those knock-out blows that force an enemy out of your territory.
Basically, I want to be able to play a version of Victoria where I can:
1) Grind down the Army of the Tennessee by organizing local partisans (with their own commanders, like Champ Ferguson) and suck away their manpower and supplies.
2) Use my British-purchased commerce raiders to terrorize Yankee commerce from the Atlantic to the Pacific, like the CSS Shenandoah.
3) Fight fierce, ongoing battles for the airspace above London with tense zeppelin missions that act like aerial submarines (you can kill it if you can find it, but can you find it?) and ace pilots spawning in like HOI4.
4) Wait as my generals use trench-raiding missions, aerial reconnaissance, and espionage (Vicky 3 needs espionage) to carefully plot out the perfect bombardment and advance to try to break the line in Flanders.
If Paradox hired me as designer I'd make them 100x richer.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
Hey, Its me again, just go banned from the their forum again for calling a bunch of devs lazy cucksucker because i lost 12 tank division to a stupid bug that makes your division go into the sea without ports and without reason. they told us that they patched this out more than once.
They also didnt liked it that i called out Da9l for simping on stream for a retarded troon.
They also didnt liked it that i called out Da9l for simping on stream for a retarded troon.
737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
What the hell were you expecting from a Swedish company?
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
So i got an email from them asking me if i wanna preorder CK3...
Fuck NO-
Fuck NO-
Poop A Loop
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2017
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
Im not okay with them cutting that out for political reasons, but thats just a problem for fags, nobody cares about arabia, Its just a mehh place to be when you could kill english with fuckn vikings...
but i also dont want to call out the people working on it. there are atleast 3 people working for them who could dox me but chose not to do that(or more likely dont know about the farms) because i could retailate and cost them thousands of $ while beeing paid to spill beans by mittens.
also, im not SOTHRASIL, im not a goon cock sucking idiot who cant lead an attack for shit.
737 MAX Stan Account
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2020
Since Paradox broke EA's monopoly on city simulations, it must be possible for someone else to break Paradox's monopoly grand strategy games. Are there any that are trying to?
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2019
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2018
I havent seen anybody realy trying to. atm Paradox is still growing because they are eating into the playerbase of the long out of date Civ games(and all Civ clones).
making good games isnt realy a factor in 4x, Civ is still around while superior games like imperialism died even after beeing realy succesfull.
Jarolleon
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
Deus Vult is in the preview build, that was just some journo stirring shit. Unfortunately Pdox is still stuck in 2011 and only giving said preview build to journo sites at the moment.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
They don't have a monopoly on strategy games? They don't even have a monopoly on 4X games.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2019
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2019
grand strategy is a genre separate from strategy and 4x
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2020
All of paradox's "Grand Strategy" games are 4X.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2019
No they aren't lol. Good try though buddy!
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2017
At the very least, they overlap heavily with the 4X crowd.
Look, I don't care whether or not Paradox's grand strategy games fit the exact definition of 4X, but I'd say a lot of their successes came from the demise of the 4X and RTS games in the late 2000's and early 2010's.
Really, Civilization is the only one of the original giants that's still around and it's mainly a legacy franchise at this point.
Paradox is the gold standard of grand strategy games and they've been drawing in a lot of the 4X crowd from before, and even if they aren't 4X, Paradox's games tend to draw in the gamers who would've been 4X fans back in the day.
Now, they are trying to revive Age of Empires, which was a favorite franchise of mine that mixed RTS and 4X but who knows how well it will fare?
On an unrelated note, I'm wanting to get into Paradox's games and I'm thinking of starting with an older title since the DLC's will all have been released and I'd be less likely to need a dedicated gaming PC to be able to run it.
Should I go with Hearts of Iron III or Europa Universalis III?
I'm also wanting to eventually get Crusader Kings II later on down the line.