Paradox Studio Thread

[Spunt]

Indeed.

The problem with paganism is it gets very easy to blob. I was once fucking around in Russia and managed to take over all of de jure Sweden by inheritance, and that's before we talk about how county conquests can mean you end up owning half of Ireland.

Said County Conquests mean it's piss-easy to get the territories you need to reform your religion as well. Subjugate and doomstack until you feel the need to modernise, then reform into some ludicrously overpowered build for pretty much any playstyle you want. My last Jorvik playthrough (they start Feudal unlike most Norse pagans, so you get the good inheritance laws and the ability to actually manage a large empire) ended up spreading the good word of Odin from Spain to Poland by about 1200 with an array of pointy implements and beardy shouting. The Pagan societies are horribly broken too for a conquest-heavy playstyle - there's one that literally makes you unkillable in battle, and for some reason it let me make some sort of African war mask that I shouldn't have been able to and move my King's army twice as fast as anyone else, which makes hunting down and murdering my enemies pretty straightforward. I also personally decapitated the King of France with an axe when he tried to stop me burning Paris to the ground. Good times.

 

[vulg]

playing as anything BUT some form of Christianity in a CK game is completely pointless. The game is a feudalism game first and foremost, the feudal experience is incomplete unless you play some form of Christianity. It’s frustrating to see Paradox focus on forever incomplete and boring areas of the world, such as West Africa and India, when it’s clearly the feudal experience they should be focusing on.

The Norse, Arabs, Turks etc. are all clearly meant to be the horde and forces of evil against you, forcing any other scenario isn’t CK but an entirely different game.

 

[Splendid]

playing as anything BUT some form of Christianity in a CK game is completely pointless. The game is a feudalism game first and foremost, the feudal experience is incomplete unless you play some form of Christianity. It’s frustrating to see Paradox focus on forever incomplete and boring areas of the world, such as West Africa and India, when it’s clearly the feudal experience they should be focusing on.

The Norse, Arabs, Turks etc. are all clearly meant to be the horde and forces of evil against you, forcing any other scenario isn’t CK but an entirely different game.

Yeah, but those people have money, and understandably, they're more likely to buy a game that lets them play as what they see as their ancestors.

 

[vulg]

Yeah, but those people have money, and understandably, they're more likely to buy a game that lets them play as what they see as their ancestors.

I know, and I’m sure it’s very successful for them. I’m just bitter and sad that I don’t get my feudal sim ((

 

[Splendid]

I don't think a genuinely historically accurate feudal simulator is practical from either a development or gameplay standpoint. Crusader Kings covers centuries across many countries during which many things changed all the time. That doesn't really lend itself to good gameplay.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

there's one that literally makes you unkillable in battle

Ah, the Wolf Warriors.

Even as the AI Jorvik tends to blob a lot because it gets Norse CB's but doesn't get elective gavelkind. As a player it's hard not to blob as Jorvik because you have 11000 troops, a bunch of Norse nobles who are as bloodthirsty as you, and the ability to get free money by raiding Western Europe as you please.

 

[Emperor Julian]

playing as anything BUT some form of Christianity in a CK game is completely pointless. The game is a feudalism game first and foremost, the feudal experience is incomplete unless you play some form of Christianity. It’s frustrating to see Paradox focus on forever incomplete and boring areas of the world, such as West Africa and India, when it’s clearly the feudal experience they should be focusing on.

The Norse, Arabs, Turks etc. are all clearly meant to be the horde and forces of evil against you, forcing any other scenario isn’t CK but an entirely different game.

I'm not going to lie a lot of the Catholic plays are really fucking boring especially post 1066 holy fury where you steamroll the east.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Ah, the Wolf Warriors.

Even as the AI Jorvik tends to blob a lot because it gets Norse CB's but doesn't get elective gavelkind. As a player it's hard not to blob as Jorvik because you have 11000 troops, a bunch of Norse nobles who are as bloodthirsty as you, and the ability to get free money by raiding Western Europe as you please.

The pagans kind of need the lodges as a counterweight to Catholic crusades, HRE and the orders.

a fun trick if you hate the blob is to play non ironman and switch sides everytime you establsh an empire.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

The pagans kind of need the lodges as a counterweight to Catholic crusades, HRE and the orders.

The HRE is only really liable to blob in 1066 or later. By that time the Germanic faith is so badly fucked that lodges don't rescue it unless the player gets involves.

The crusades tend to target Muslim realms - I'm sure Jerusalem and maybe Egypt have a higher crusade weight than any Germanic territories.

Don't Germanic pagans get the Jomsvikings even if they don't reform?

Either way, I'm not denying that conquering the world as an invincible Norse chieftain is fun, but it sure as shit ain't realistic that a bunch of swamp-dwelling pagans can produce an army twice the size of Byzantium and defeat half of Western Europe in an invasion.

 

[vulg]

I don't think a genuinely historically accurate feudal simulator is practical from either a development or gameplay standpoint. Crusader Kings covers centuries across many countries during which many things changed all the time. That doesn't really lend itself to good gameplay.

100% accuracy isn’t what Im looking for either, I’m just interested in my games becoming more strategic and ideally more historical. The map is incredibly static, it lacks dynamism or opportunity for any genuinely different playstyles. I suppose I’m asking too much or asking for an entirely different product, but it’d be something I’d enjoy a lot more.

There’s a game called Warsim on steam - it’s a shitty, goofy, little ascii game where you play as a feudal king. The game is entirely through your perspective, your knowledge of what’s happening in the kingdom cannot go beyond what your king experiences. If you want to set up a trade deal you need to talk to the merchants guild, if you want to build your army you need to order your marshals to muster men, if you want to delegate foreign policy you need to summon your council, etc. I understand this is a lot less marketable but it really nails the whole delegation of power and character interaction (and humor) far better than CK. Because at its core, CK is a role playing game about interacting with characters to delegate power.

I'm not going to lie a lot of the Catholic plays are really fucking boring especially post 1066 holy fury where you steamroll the east.

Yeah, I can’t play these games for more than a few generations at a time without ending up as a triple emperor that’s super bored. It’s a problem with the game in general, but the Christians aren’t as egregious as the pagan faiths.

 

[Splendid]

That game actually sounds pretty awesome. I'll look into it.

 

[Emperor Julian]

The HRE is only really liable to blob in 1066 or later. By that time the Germanic faith is so badly fucked that lodges don't rescue it unless the player gets involves.

The crusades tend to target Muslim realms - I'm sure Jerusalem and maybe Egypt have a higher crusade weight than any Germanic territories.

Don't Germanic pagans get the Jomsvikings even if they don't reform?

Either way, I'm not denying that conquering the world as an invincible Norse chieftain is fun, but it sure as shit ain't realistic that a bunch of swamp-dwelling pagans can produce an army twice the size of Byzantium and defeat half of Western Europe in an invasion.

It's actually pretty rare for me to play pre 1066 Norse since it actually provides challange, slugging it out for northern europe starting as bumfuck count of Ångermanlands my default play. Norse Ghengis kahn if you will were you start with nothing and claw your way to Pagan Empire. it's so much fun.
Jomsvikings only show up if the norse hold Duchy of Mecklenburg but yeah you don't need to reform.

 

[Emperor Julian]

.Yeah, I can’t play these games for more than a few generations at a time without ending up as a triple emperor that’s super bored. It’s a problem with the game in general, but the Christians aren’t as egregious as the pagan faiths.

You might want to try Vandad Karen, Satrap of Dihistan, old gods start. Even if you crush the caliphate you still got to deal with being boxed in by Byzantines, china, maybe mega india and whatever roles out the steps. Not them mention the potential for the caliphate to stabalize and strike back.

Edit: next campaign idea is to play maximim evil wallachia

 

[AmpleApricots]

There’s a game called Warsim on steam

I remember it's very small and humble beginnings on the bay12games board. Funny, didn't think I'd ever hear of it again. The world really is small. There's an old game called King of Dragon Pass (hand-drawn graphics, I suggest googling it, it looks neat) which is similar but is actually based on Norse culture. There are way too many games where you're some kind of omnipotent and -present leader. Especially games like CK need far more "fuzziness" to everything. You know way too much and it makes things way too easy. Strategy games in general often don't balance for the "knowledge is power" aspect or even completely ignore it.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

You might want to try Vandad Karen, Satrap of Dihistan, old gods start. Even if you crush the caliphate you still got to deal with being boxed in by Byzantines, china, maybe mega india and whatever roles out the steps. Not them mention the potential for the caliphate to stabalize and strike back.

Edit: next campaign idea is to play maximim evil wallachia
View attachment 1980317

I've been meaning to try and unite India as Haesteinn of Nantes, both for the achievements and because I like the sound of the Raj but done by Vikings.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

I don't think a genuinely historically accurate feudal simulator is practical from either a development or gameplay standpoint. Crusader Kings covers centuries across many countries during which many things changed all the time. That doesn't really lend itself to good gameplay.

It is from 1066 or so. I'd just slowly unlock gameplay elements from the later Medieval Period as time went on. Different cultures could have different gameplay mechanics. The map should never have been expanded and the start date never set back and shit like India or China or West Africa could just be handled with some random events.. I think there was a real feature creep in CK2 and I remember being disappointed to see shit like India added when Christian Europe (or shit, even the Muslims) should've had more mechanics.

Europa Universalis has this problem too but even worse since the mid-15th century is far, far different from the early 19th century with modern republics like the United States and Latin America, shit like the French Revolution and Napoleon, and early industrialism. Arguably Victoria as well since gameplay well-suited for the 19th century and conflicts like the American Civil War (at least in mods/IIRC later versions of the game where the CSA isn't stomped flat in like a year every time) or Franco-Prussian War seem a little ridiculous when applied to World War I, but arguably the main problem is how the game is more an economics simulator than a warfare one.

 

[HeyYou]

playing as anything BUT some form of Christianity in a CK game is completely pointless. The game is a feudalism game first and foremost, the feudal experience is incomplete unless you play some form of Christianity. It’s frustrating to see Paradox focus on forever incomplete and boring areas of the world, such as West Africa and India, when it’s clearly the feudal experience they should be focusing on.

The Norse, Arabs, Turks etc. are all clearly meant to be the horde and forces of evil against you, forcing any other scenario isn’t CK but an entirely different game.

I like other cultures in CK but you're pretty much 100% right. The main mechanic of the game involves vassals, for fuck's sake, and vassals in cultures besides Christianity are just a weird approximation of whatever system they had. Unless they completely redo the main system of the game for every culture, they all feel like "feudalism but x".

 

[vulg]

It is from 1066 or so. I'd just slowly unlock gameplay elements from the later Medieval Period as time went on. Different cultures could have different gameplay mechanics. The map should never have been expanded and the start date never set back and shit like India or China or West Africa could just be handled with some random events.. I think there was a real feature creep in CK2 and I remember being disappointed to see shit like India added when Christian Europe (or shit, even the Muslims) should've had more mechanics.

Europa Universalis has this problem too but even worse since the mid-15th century is far, far different from the early 19th century with modern republics like the United States and Latin America, shit like the French Revolution and Napoleon, and early industrialism. Arguably Victoria as well since gameplay well-suited for the 19th century and conflicts like the American Civil War (at least in mods/IIRC later versions of the game where the CSA isn't stomped flat in like a year every time) or Franco-Prussian War seem a little ridiculous when applied to World War I, but arguably the main problem is how the game is more an economics simulator than a warfare one.

warfare has needed a dramatic overhaul since VickyII. Pretty much the entire paradox battle system is based off post Napoleonic industrial warfare where standing armies of several thousand men entrench themselves in several day long battles. Yet, every game post VickyII is using this system:

There’s no mechanics behind supply besides “don’t put to many men on a province,” there’s no raiding/ foraging mechanics, there’s no adequate POW/hostage system, etc.

Again, it’s like me bitching about how my fisher price toy can’t play grand theft auto, but, it’s really shocking how much effort goes into bullshit flavor while ignoring any actual quality of life improvements.

Me needing to plan out my invasion route, decide how much supply I should carry with/how much raiding I should do, if levies would be sufficient or a merc army is needed; these are strategic decisions someone should be making in a CK or EU game. Not “my manpowah is low I need a break.”

edit: thinking on it a bit more, Imperator did actually include a baggage/supply train system. It was super basic and basically a flavor component - but still - at least they tried to do something new in what is probably the game most symbolic of Paradox’s inability to innovate or diversify their content.

 

[whatever I feel like]

warfare has needed a dramatic overhaul since VickyII. Pretty much the entire paradox battle system is based off post Napoleonic industrial warfare where standing armies of several thousand men entrench themselves in several day long battles. Yet, every game post VickyII is using this system:

There’s no mechanics behind supply besides “don’t put to many men on a province,” there’s no raiding/ foraging mechanics, there’s no adequate POW/hostage system, etc.

Again, it’s like me bitching about how my fisher price toy can’t play grand theft auto, but, it’s really shocking how much effort goes into bullshit flavor while ignoring any actual quality of life improvements.

Me needing to plan out my invasion route, decide how much supply I should carry with/how much raiding I should do, if levies would be sufficient or a merc army is needed; these are strategic decisions someone should be making in a CK or EU game. Not “my manpowah is low I need a break.”

edit: thinking on it a bit more, Imperator did actually include a baggage/supply train system. It was super basic and basically a flavor component - but still - at least they tried to do something new in what is probably the game most symbolic of Paradox’s inability to innovate or diversify their content.

That sounds tremendously unfunny, for every CK player who wishes they had to spend more time managing supplies there are 99 others who would hate it.

 

[Snekposter]

warfare has needed a dramatic overhaul since VickyII. Pretty much the entire paradox battle system is based off post Napoleonic industrial warfare where standing armies of several thousand men entrench themselves in several day long battles. Yet, every game post VickyII is using this system:

There’s no mechanics behind supply besides “don’t put to many men on a province,” there’s no raiding/ foraging mechanics, there’s no adequate POW/hostage system, etc.

Again, it’s like me bitching about how my fisher price toy can’t play grand theft auto, but, it’s really shocking how much effort goes into bullshit flavor while ignoring any actual quality of life improvements.

Me needing to plan out my invasion route, decide how much supply I should carry with/how much raiding I should do, if levies would be sufficient or a merc army is needed; these are strategic decisions someone should be making in a CK or EU game. Not “my manpowah is low I need a break.”

edit: thinking on it a bit more, Imperator did actually include a baggage/supply train system. It was super basic and basically a flavor component - but still - at least they tried to do something new in what is probably the game most symbolic of Paradox’s inability to innovate or diversify their content.

*sobs in Hearts of Iron IV*
I would oh so dearly love to have supply lines and logistics properly represented in that game, yet not to the level of HoI 3. Where's my logistics bombing, Paradox?