-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think the basic idea for a long time was / probably still is that they want to create a good base game which however can have the countries be a bit samey and they will flash out specific regions and countries with DLC. Im sure this was the plan for Imperator, Ck3 and Vicky3.
In Imperators case it didnt work. The problem IMO was that the base game was a failure and the setting very limited. The problems surrounding the base game were evident before the release by the uproar they caused on the forum (it was the first time I saw a dev diary getting more dislikes than likes). The result was that the game basically died by the time they fixed the base game and could start with adding the meat with DLC's. Even than I think the possibilities would have been limited - tribes covered way too much of the map and making tribes play differently in any significant would have been IMO a near insurmentable challenge even if the base game was good. So the problems with Imperator were IMO the limitations of the setting and having to fix the base game.
With CK3 I think its working.
Vicky 3 I did not follow as closely because I lost interest. I think they are trying to follow the same plan as with CK3, however they made some radical changes in that game that were controversial to say the least. Again this was evident from the dev diaries before release - and the reason I only picked up the game much later and on a significant discount. We will see if it will work out in the end but I think it clearly suffered from this.
In the case of EU5 I dont think anything announced as of yet is in any sense as radical or so controversial as to create an uproar - this might of course change with future dev diaries. The setting is strong.
So if things dont change I expect that they will follow the model they adapted with CK3 and Vicky3. It seems like we will have a good basegame that inworst case scenario could be a bit bland (though this wont necesserily the case) that will be flashed out with DLC's. In both Imperators and Vicky3's case the problems/controversies became very evident from the dev diaries even before release. If we dont see any uproar emerge I think we can be sure that the game will be at least good and probably great after some DLC's.
In Imperators case it didnt work. The problem IMO was that the base game was a failure and the setting very limited. The problems surrounding the base game were evident before the release by the uproar they caused on the forum (it was the first time I saw a dev diary getting more dislikes than likes). The result was that the game basically died by the time they fixed the base game and could start with adding the meat with DLC's. Even than I think the possibilities would have been limited - tribes covered way too much of the map and making tribes play differently in any significant would have been IMO a near insurmentable challenge even if the base game was good. So the problems with Imperator were IMO the limitations of the setting and having to fix the base game.
With CK3 I think its working.
Vicky 3 I did not follow as closely because I lost interest. I think they are trying to follow the same plan as with CK3, however they made some radical changes in that game that were controversial to say the least. Again this was evident from the dev diaries before release - and the reason I only picked up the game much later and on a significant discount. We will see if it will work out in the end but I think it clearly suffered from this.
In the case of EU5 I dont think anything announced as of yet is in any sense as radical or so controversial as to create an uproar - this might of course change with future dev diaries. The setting is strong.
So if things dont change I expect that they will follow the model they adapted with CK3 and Vicky3. It seems like we will have a good basegame that inworst case scenario could be a bit bland (though this wont necesserily the case) that will be flashed out with DLC's. In both Imperators and Vicky3's case the problems/controversies became very evident from the dev diaries even before release. If we dont see any uproar emerge I think we can be sure that the game will be at least good and probably great after some DLC's.
- 3
- 1
- 1
Papacy mechanics is tag-specific, I thought this is what You DON'T want?
- 1
Yeah, my personal opinion is that "the great divergence" started with Ockham and the return to Greek rationality. But when most people write about "the great divergence" they really only have the effect in mind, not reasons.
- 3
- 1
It would have been easy to have a few different flavors of tribal. For example, steppe tribes are substantively different from German/Scandinavian tribes in ways which are easily quantified and represented in game play. I don't know as much about other tribal areas perhaps, but, I find it hard to believe there isn't a substantive difference between a Mauretanian and a Tocharian.
The problem for Imperator was that potential players really don't know much about more than a handful of the entities rendered (Rome, Carthage, Macedonian successor states, Greece, perhaps some of India). So, unlike a war between France and Austria, which has something to attach to in people's minds, a war between Rome and Celt-Iberian states of "random" name isn't as compelling.
Imperator should have a spent a year more in development before release likely. Its a shame they dumped it at patch 2.0, because it finally was interesting and quite playable.
Another issue of Imperator and EU Rome before it is that it covers a run of time, but really only one relevant to the Roman Republic. So, you're passing up easy money by having an Alexander scenario along with easy money by having some Roman Empire scenarios as well. I used to play a table top board game Imperium Romanum II ages ago in college and people never wanted to do stuff like "the Social War". Rather, they wanted to play out stuff like "Constantine the Great against Maxentius" or "the year of the 4 emperors" or even a 406 AD scenario where people could play barbarian tribes as a reasonable option.
Perhaps the empire requires a separate game. But, I don't think so. And, just missing Alexander is a mistake imo.
- 2
I thought that these were all common sense of PDX gamers. At least for me, playing IR is a good way to get to know that period of history for fun.
My personal opinion is that, IR could not distinguish itself well with other PDX games especially EUIV. Sometimes it looks like a huge mod of EUIV.
Perhaps nobody except the marketing staffs believes that leaving IR behind is a good idea - I mean no offense to marketing team because their work is of vital importance to the survial of PDX. But IR definitely should be with some more revolution and revelation. Now we need to wait and see what would PjCsr be......
- 2
I still believe that tribes should not be playable in the base game. They would be fun as an obstacle or end-game bosses but there is just not much to them for player agency.
But these days players demand to play everywhere on the map, no matter if it makes sense for the game or not.
- 1
Who doesn't want to see if they can unite the Pretani or whatever though? Ah, yes, ancient world, so, lots of people, even Anglophiles don't know who they are.
I'm a fan of being able to play anyone on the map. But, one must accept that if you play a tribe in what the Romans called Scythia, that perhaps we don't know a ton about this area and it might be less developed.
But that should be a very different game with a very different list of obstacles and challenges. It doesn't make sense to add tribes with very similar gameplay to Greek polities or the Roman Republic. It could be added later with a DLC and some really interesting local mechanics...
Sure, but, you should be able to play them before the DLC, even if it was semi-featureless.
People played Nepal in HOI1. Why not allow anything?
- 1
...You are basically describing what I have termed simply as a problem with the setting. Tribe are just one aspect of it that I bought up as an example. And regarding tribes while there is a significant difference between nomadic and settled tribes, but other than that? I agree with there being only a few recognizable civilizations.
Alexander is IMO more suited I think to a war game, not a grand strategy game. And while I think the Imperial Era of Rome would be interesting it would need to be a completely different game with very different mechanics. And the number of recognizable civilizations would be about the same. I think that adding more to the map, especially China, East Asia in general with its recognizable civilizations would have been a very important addition.
And this is the mindset I dislike. This is why all the new PDX games feel unrealistic and dumb: you play European feudals but on different map that look like India. In CK2 they added tribe gameplay with DLC and it was good decision. First you had feudal gameplay, that was fun, then tribal gameplay, that was very different and also fun. In Imperator I played tribe once and it was... nothing. But sure, some people doesn't care, Civilization series is very popular and it has same gameplay for everyone.
- 3
- 2
I think there is a middle ground between "not letting you play certain tags for years until DLC drop" and "making all tags play the same." Surely the two may be combined?
Also, fwiw, European feudalism and Indian feudalism are rather similar, so both can be represented in similar ways.
- 3
- 2
For what purpose? I mean - I'm from Poland and I like to play Poland because I know the history well - but if Poland had mechanics based on some mutation of the "Mandate of Heaven", I'd really prefer to NOT have Poland until they implement proper mechanics for PLC. And it allows for some sweet special mechanics for tags that are not playable.
- 1
- 1
I am saying these things should be differentiated from the outset. Of course, since you are from Poland, you may also be fairly secure in the knowledge that eventually you will get Poland portrayed as historically as possible.
Many other people can hardly say the same - after ten years of EUIV development itself content in most of the world is lacking. And in that case I would rather have terribly implemented mechanics I can "hand wave" away and rp in my head than not be able to play at all - you know, like I have to do right now.
- 2
- 2
- 1
- 1
Wait wait wait...why not are happy poland see themself as "the center of the world encircled by barbarians"?
- 1
It's part of broader general trend in history to talk about "what" happened rather than "why", perhaps because the "why" is so difficult to ascertain.
I agree that it's stupid to call the point at which a European power could 1v1 China as the beginning of the Great Divergence, when in reality it began centuries earlier. Since the 14th or 15th century Europe was expanding its sphere of trade and influence all over the globe, whereas TRotW was stagnant, or even--in the case of China--actively shrinking its sphere. Technological advancements were accelerating in Europe, whereas they were slowing elsewhere.
- 3
- 2
What are you talking about? No they aren't. Not in CK2, EU4, or any other game. They're specific to a religion.
I'm not nationalistic this way
I don't really see "authocratic Poland" as "Polish". I never maximized absolutism as PLCI'd rather have deep gameplay only in Europe than shallow everywhere.
You can easily add tags with mods. But you cannot add special "NPC" mechanics that would enhance gameplay elsewhere. For example "offscreen" powerful China works better as a threat than real China played by AI. The game can spawn armies and throw at you and unlike AI China it could be a real threat.
- 1
- 1