Paradox Studio Thread

[Snekposter]

Anyone else feels like stellaris is unplayable without mods? The main ethics axis restrict empires way too much for my taste, there is lack of things to do mid and end game, not enough control over settings, way too limited dlags and portraits, nowhere enough shipsets, etc.

Yep. They really dropped the ball on giving you actual fun things to do instead of ever-increasingly annoying empire and population management.

 

[AcidityLiquidity]

So no one seemed to be talking about Victoria 3, they just released a July Update video and uh
View attachment 2365125

Here we go boys. All joking aside, if the constant DLC price gouging, CK3's issues, the entirety of Imperator, the terrible community, and dev reactions to any criticism don't make you head for the hills, you deserve to lose all the money on this probable shitpile.

Dangerhair landwhale being used to promote a game set in a 'problematic' time of history.

Yeah, gunna pirate that one thanks.

 

[HeyYou]

I can't even go back to CK3 until they do a Byzantine rework. I don't know if they're going to charge for it down the line or not, but it probably should have been on the to do list before a royal court DLC.

 

[Slap47]

Have been playing Hoi4 and some parts just seem strange.

The national focuses thing is annoying. Forget to pick a focus? Guess you fucked up your whole run since the points only count per day and don't collect anywhere. Want to send air support to Spain to support your tanks volunteers? You need DLC. Want to do stuff Germany historically did? Sorry, not enough time to fill out those national focuses. Want to do complicated maneuvers and give your armies the best bonuses? Sorry, you have to let the AI do it and fumble it by either being stupidly aggressive and ramming the Maginot line or not being aggressive enough to get a meaningful encirclement.. Want to use old equipment until its phased out by the new stuff in production. Sorry, once you change templates they just throw their weapons to the ground and refuse to use them.

Hopefully this is just me being bad at the game. The production lines system is great, and the game does a good job at railroading history. I also quite like how China actually puts up a meaningful fight, unlike in DH.

 

[Stoneheart]

Want to do stuff Germany historically did? Sorry, not enough time to fill out those national focuses.

Im pretty sure there is enough time for that.

Want to do complicated maneuvers and give your armies the best bonuses? Sorry, you have to let the AI do it and fumble it by either being stupidly aggressive and ramming the Maginot line or not being aggressive enough to get a meaningful encirclement.

No you dont, you can micro and still get the preparation bonus.

Want to use old equipment until its phased out by the new stuff in production. Sorry, once you change templates they just throw their weapons to the ground and refuse to use them.

What?

Hopefully this is just me being bad at the game. The production lines system is great, and the game does a good job at railroading history. I also quite like how China actually puts up a meaningful fight, unlike in DH.

Japan needs a Buff, they are sooo slow and weak right now.

 

[Snekposter]

No you dont, you can micro and still get the preparation bonus.

Yeah. You can have a lot of fun microing a small front. You still get the planning bonuses even under manual control, so you can pick a couple places to ram your speartip divs through and let them at it before you signal the general assault.

 

[Kane Lives]

I can't even go back to CK3 until they do a Byzantine rework. I don't know if they're going to charge for it down the line or not, but it probably should have been on the to do list before a royal court DLC.

How did CK3 ruin the ERE again?

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

How did CK3 ruin the ERE again?

CK3 gave the Byzantines primogeniture and made them incredibly stable.

In CK2 the Byzantines have a weird form of elective succession where the emperor, his councillors and his commanders get to vote. This means that it's relatively easy for a young, relatively unknown duke with a marital education to get on the council and become Emperor - as happened historically. It also means that there are lots of claimants to the throne, as there were historically, meaning that there are a lot more succession revolts than there are in CK3.

 

[AcidityLiquidity]

CK3 gave the Byzantines primogeniture and made them incredibly stable.

In CK2 the Byzantines have a weird form of elective succession where the emperor, his councillors and his commanders get to vote. This means that it's relatively easy for a young, relatively unknown duke with a marital education to get on the council and become Emperor - as happened historically. It also means that there are lots of claimants to the throne, as there were historically, meaning that there are a lot more succession revolts than there are in CK3.

Just gotta wait for the update where they add that back in; after 7 other DLCs for $20+ bucks a pop and another $20 for said ERE revamp DLC.

Also to anyone actually giving them money- don't. Pirate that shit, or at the very least buy the base game and creamapi the DLC.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

Just gotta wait for the update where they add that back in; after 7 other DLCs for $20+ bucks a pop and another $20 for said ERE revamp DLC.

CK2, for all its problems, had a pretty sensible way of representing the Byzantines:
· the empire wasn't hereditary, and often changed hands between dynasties
· the Byzantines could actually lose land (I think I saw Muslim Anatolia in about 20% of my games, and I once saw the AI Seljuks create the Sultanate of Rum when I started in 1066) instead of being an unstoppable purple blob
· the Byzantines could, and did, expand in sensible directions instead of deciding to conquer Khazaria or Hungary for shits and giggles
· duchies weren't hereditary and could be revoked, making them much closer to Byzantine themes than feudal lordships
Sure, there are a few things I'd change (Orthodoxy existing before 1054, Greek culture being a monolithic blob, Byzantine AI rarely choosing to reconquer anything in k_sicily or e_arabia even if it could easily do so, the HRE not being able to restore Rome) but overall, the Byzantines are a lot more historical in CK2 than CK3.

 

[Kane Lives]

CK2, for all its problems, had a pretty sensible way of representing the Byzantines:
· the empire wasn't hereditary, and often changed hands between dynasties
· the Byzantines could actually lose land (I think I saw Muslim Anatolia in about 20% of my games, and I once saw the AI Seljuks create the Sultanate of Rum when I started in 1066) instead of being an unstoppable purple blob
· the Byzantines could, and did, expand in sensible directions instead of deciding to conquer Khazaria or Hungary for shits and giggles
· duchies weren't hereditary and could be revoked, making them much closer to Byzantine themes than feudal lordships
Sure, there are a few things I'd change (Orthodoxy existing before 1054, Greek culture being a monolithic blob, Byzantine AI rarely choosing to reconquer anything in k_sicily or e_arabia even if it could easily do so, the HRE not being able to restore Rome) but overall, the Byzantines are a lot more historical in CK2 than CK3.

Aye. I had a lot of fun in CK2 trying to elevate a Kommeni onto the throne in the 1066 start. Between the Seljuk blob bearing down on you at the start and the fact that the Kommenos don't actually start with many allies within the empire itself makes things interesting.

Of course Paradox apparently just ignored all their prior work and gave the ERE ahistorical system instead for a sequel. Very nice PDX.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

Between the Seljuk blob bearing down on you at the start and the fact that the Kommenos don't actually start with many allies within the empire itself makes things interesting.

I fired CK2 up to take a look at Isaac Komnemos, and it sounds like a surprisingly fun playthrough instead of the "you get holy warred, you die" you'd expect it to be.

Once the Seljuks take everything within k_armenia (if they do) they're relatively unlikely to do anything to the rest of the ERE unless a massive revolt happens, and Byzantium is strong enough that you'll be protected from outside aggression. Your dad has a strong, inheritable claim to e_byzantium meaning that once he dies (or "dies", if you're that devious) you can set up a faction for the Empire, and you've also got a good martial trait meaning that you can get elected pretty easily. You personally own both counties within d_antioch that are under Byzantium's control and one of them has a trade post, which you can build to increase your income. I wouldn't say it's the easiest Byzantine playthrough (that honour would go to either Constantine Isauros or Basil Makedon) but it sounds like a pretty fun game and restoring the Roman Empire as the Komnenoi sounds like a challenge.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

CK2, for all its problems, had a pretty sensible way of representing the Byzantines:
· the empire wasn't hereditary, and often changed hands between dynasties
· the Byzantines could actually lose land (I think I saw Muslim Anatolia in about 20% of my games, and I once saw the AI Seljuks create the Sultanate of Rum when I started in 1066) instead of being an unstoppable purple blob
· the Byzantines could, and did, expand in sensible directions instead of deciding to conquer Khazaria or Hungary for shits and giggles
· duchies weren't hereditary and could be revoked, making them much closer to Byzantine themes than feudal lordships
Sure, there are a few things I'd change (Orthodoxy existing before 1054, Greek culture being a monolithic blob, Byzantine AI rarely choosing to reconquer anything in k_sicily or e_arabia even if it could easily do so, the HRE not being able to restore Rome) but overall, the Byzantines are a lot more historical in CK2 than CK3.

The Greeks did always have a sense of themselves as separate from the west though united, well before 1054, Paradox probably made the right compromise without picking sides.

My complaint with the Byzantines in CK2 was that they are depicted as having feudalism, something that it never had (though there were some attempts). IMO, they are tough to do right in any game, though given the downslide of Paradox I have no doubt it's worse in 3.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

The Greeks did always have a sense of themselves as separate from the west though united, well before 1054, Paradox probably made the right compromise without picking sides.

Spoiler

My solution, and I know this would be hard to implement, would be:
· every "Chalcedonian" (which is what I'm going to call pre-schism Christianity for the sake of preventing an argument) character is either Latin or Greek (or Celtic, but implementing Celtic Christianity is another topic entirely)
· the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope) is the religious head of "Chalcedonian Christianity".
· if a "Chalcedonian" character holds the temple holdings of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria, that character becomes the patriarch of that patriarch. As in vanilla CK2, the patriarch acts as a "mini-Pope" for his patriarchate and can excommunicate and divorce people within his patriarchate. The Papacy always exists, even if unlanded, because vanilla Catholicism (and to a lesser extent, Orthodoxy) becomes buggy if k_papal_states (or k_ecumenical_patriarchate) isn't held by anybody.
· the Pope can assert his authority over a patriarchate by, for instance, requesting the power to grant divorces. The patriarch's top liege (eg, k_jerusalem for the Patriarchate of Jerusalem) can say no. Traits, whether that character follows a different rite to the Pope, and that character's secular power can influence this. An AI who holds e_byzantium will always say no. Likewise, if the top liege of the Pope holds e_byzantium, he can take powers away from the Pope and give some to the patriarchs.
· Not doing what the Pope says or trying to take powers away from him makes a schism more likely. Characters in the Latin, Germanic or Iberian culture groups ruling over Byzantine provinces, or vice versa, also make a schism more likely.
· When the schism happens (if it happens) AI Latins become Catholics, AI Greeks become Orthodox, and players get a choice between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The patriarch of Constantinople, if one exists, becomes the religious head of Orthodoxy and gets given k_ecumenical_patriarchate.

I'm just spitballing and some things (such as autocephaly, because the "Patriarch of all Rus'" seems a lot more realistic than the "Patriarch of Aquitaine") seem hard to implement across "Chalcedonianism", but this is just what I'd do.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

Yeah but you could go even more autistic - if we went back further. Pre-split with the Nestorians? Pre-split with the Orientals? I am sympathetic but i don't think you could do it cleanly and have it make any sense. Yes, the split with the Greeks was more decisive and damaging but the earlier schisms broke off the (long declined) ancient sees from the universal church.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

I fired CK2 up to take a look at Isaac Komnemos, and it sounds like a surprisingly fun playthrough instead of the "you get holy warred, you die" you'd expect it to be.

Once the Seljuks take everything within k_armenia (if they do) they're relatively unlikely to do anything to the rest of the ERE unless a massive revolt happens, and Byzantium is strong enough that you'll be protected from outside aggression. Your dad has a strong, inheritable claim to e_byzantium meaning that once he dies (or "dies", if you're that devious) you can set up a faction for the Empire, and you've also got a good martial trait meaning that you can get elected pretty easily. You personally own both counties within d_antioch that are under Byzantium's control and one of them has a trade post, which you can build to increase your income. I wouldn't say it's the easiest Byzantine playthrough (that honour would go to either Constantine Isauros or Basil Makedon) but it sounds like a pretty fun game and restoring the Roman Empire as the Komnenoi sounds like a challenge.

So I thought I'd try a playthrough as Isaac. Unfortunately he doesn't have any preset traits so I consoled in Skilled Tactician (he fought the Seljuks well) and Ambitious (helped the Komnenoi rise to power). I sat around for a couple of years building up my forces, then started holy warring the Sunni OPM's to my south. I got Tripoli and Beirut, and was halfway through declaring war on Tyre when this happened:

Here I was expecting to have to build up my own power base in the East before making a bid for the imperial throne, and the Byzantine nobles willingly hand it to me. I'm not sure why I got elected - given that everyone seemed happy to support the doux of Trebizond - but it doesn't make that much difference to me and for once, I'd willingly give the Empire up to factionalists.

 

[Slap47]

I've played the game further and most of things I bitched about are not an issue.

So I thought I'd try a playthrough as Isaac. Unfortunately he doesn't have any preset traits so I consoled in Skilled Tactician (he fought the Seljuks well) and Ambitious (helped the Komnenoi rise to power). I sat around for a couple of years building up my forces, then started holy warring the Sunni OPM's to my south. I got Tripoli and Beirut, and was halfway through declaring war on Tyre when this happened:
View attachment 2396707
Here I was expecting to have to build up my own power base in the East before making a bid for the imperial throne, and the Byzantine nobles willingly hand it to me. I'm not sure why I got elected - given that everyone seemed happy to support the doux of Trebizond - but it doesn't make that much difference to me and for once, I'd willingly give the Empire up to factionalists.

Maybe the AI is being smart. They pick the weakest to be king so that they can do whatever they want. I doubt it but it would be cool if that were the case.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

Maybe the AI is being smart.

This is a Paradox game you're talking about.

 

[Slap47]

New Paradox drama.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Tankies be seething.