AAR Thread

[InvisibleBison]

Something about this AAR struck me as odd as I was reading it, and after mulling it over for a while I think I've figured it out: Why is it that the central government of the USCA has no choice but to let the outlying states secede during the collapse, but can then turn around and use force to try and reconquer them the moment the collapse is complete? It seems to me that either the seceding states should have to win a civil war to successfully secede, or the successor states shouldn't be able to try and reconquer each other.

 

[Bananabus]

The USCA was not "turning around and reconquering them" because the player isn't playing as the USCA anymore after the collapse, they are playing as Guatemala. The reason why Guatemala was in a position to quickly conquer it's neighbors is because the player spent all the pre-collapse resources on building up Guatemala

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Something about this AAR struck me as odd as I was reading it, and after mulling it over for a while I think I've figured it out: Why is it that the central government of the USCA has no choice but to let the outlying states secede during the collapse, but can then turn around and use force to try and reconquer them the moment the collapse is complete? It seems to me that either the seceding states should have to win a civil war to successfully secede, or the successor states shouldn't be able to try and reconquer each other.

This looks like caused by a journal entry at the beginning of the game "usca dissolution - states with high turmoil might secede" so it's special content. Latin America is part of the world I have least knowledge about, but maybe it's just historical situation at the beginning of the game that couldn't be avoided? And then only while playing he can start gathering resources needed to get the ground back and hold it.

 

[Juanvito]

Something about this AAR struck me as odd as I was reading it, and after mulling it over for a while I think I've figured it out: Why is it that the central government of the USCA has no choice but to let the outlying states secede during the collapse, but can then turn around and use force to try and reconquer them the moment the collapse is complete? It seems to me that either the seceding states should have to win a civil war to successfully secede, or the successor states shouldn't be able to try and reconquer each other.

Yeah, that sounds gamey.

 

[Anna_Gein]

I kind of dislike the tone of theses AAR. Too gamey / meta for me. It does not paint a beautiful picture to me. (I play mostly to role play).

It feels wrong to let the player intentionally works around the knowledge of a future collapse rather than attempt to avoid said collapse. Kind of like the Japan AAR where the player was leading the country as the Shogun but abuse it to prepare an Imperial victory during the Boshin War.

 

[JustJacque]

I kind of dislike the tone of theses AAR. Too gamey / meta for me. It does not paint a beautiful picture to me. (I play mostly to role play).

It feels wrong to let the player intentionally works around the knowledge of a future collapse rather than attempt to avoid said collapse. Kind of like the Japan AAR where the player was leading the country as the Shogun but abuse it to prepare an Imperial victory during the Boshin War.

I can't think of any way to avoid that which doesn't become railroaded. It's the problem with all PDX games with historical events and as far as I can tell, unavoidable.

Like I know exactly where to launch exploration from to find the new world and get a jump on colonisation in EU, because I have a knowledge of geography and history that no living person of the time had.

 

[yurcick]

I can't think of any way to avoid that which doesn't become railroaded.

The answer is simple, mechanics > flavour events.
Ues, the former are harder to implement and balance, but they are the only way.

For example, Centroamerica could be just an example of, say, "a low-cohesion high-turmoil federation".
You would need a separate federalism mechanics with pops having mixed loyalties (and indeed having loyalties), but this could be used in a ton of other places, and for Guatemala this would make the starting situation absolutely organic, explained in game terms and not railroaded manually.

To be honest, this is the part of Stellaris that I like the most: nothing is railroaded. Too bad the devs decided that instead of that, they'd rather borrow the chore of endless construction.

 

[JustJacque]

The answer is simple, mechanics > flavour events.
Ues, the former are harder to implement and balance, but they are the only way.

For example, Centroamerica could be just an example of, say, "a low-cohesion high-turmoil federation".
You would need a separate federalism mechanics with pops having mixed loyalties (and indeed having loyalties), but this could be used in a ton of other places, and for Guatemala this would make the starting situation absolutely organic, explained in game terms and not railroaded manually.

To be honest, this is the part of Stellaris that I like the most: nothing is railroaded. Too bad the devs decided that instead of that, they'd rather borrow the chore of endless construction.

Even with mechanics like that I'd know to immediately start focusing on developing my core states, perhaps demolishing and rebuilding barracks etc. I'm generally pro emerging mechanics over scripted events, but it will still lead to a historic and gamey outcomes.

 

[WARenie]

Even with mechanics like that I'd know to immediately start focusing on developing my core states, perhaps demolishing and rebuilding barracks etc. I'm generally pro emerging mechanics over scripted events, but it will still lead to a historic and gamey outcomes.

You could allow population, local governments and influence groups to invest their resources into local states or buildings which empower them, outside of player's control. Then even if player could use his agency to tip the scales, his opponent will not be toothless.

Spoiler

But a certain idea from Victoria 2 seems to be abolished.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Something about this AAR struck me as odd as I was reading it, and after mulling it over for a while I think I've figured it out: Why is it that the central government of the USCA has no choice but to let the outlying states secede during the collapse, but can then turn around and use force to try and reconquer them the moment the collapse is complete? It seems to me that either the seceding states should have to win a civil war to successfully secede, or the successor states shouldn't be able to try and reconquer each other.

You mean like how in real history, Morazán declared in 1844, just three years after the dissolution of the Federal Republic of Central America, that he was going to take back and reunite Central America from Costa Rica? And then Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua attempted to recreate it in 1852? And then Justo Rufino Barrios in Guatemala declared himself president of Central America in 1885 and invaded El Salvador to try and reunite the republic? And then another union of Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua became the Greater Republic of Central America from 1896 to 1898? And then in 1921, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala sent delegates to create a single constitution for a Federation of Central America?

Basically, yes. Right after the dissolution of Central America, its successor states had plans to and tried to reunify it through both military and diplomatic means.

 

[Anna_Gein]

I can't think of any way to avoid that which doesn't become railroaded. It's the problem with all PDX games with historical events and as far as I can tell, unavoidable.

Like I know exactly where to launch exploration from to find the new world and get a jump on colonisation in EU, because I have a knowledge of geography and history that no living person of the time had.

This was not a critic on gameplay.

I appreciate that the devs allow us to change tags when with start with nations who are about to collapse and did so historically a few years after the start date. Although there is always room for improvement and maybe the collapse itself should be much more punishing and leave long lasting scars. I guess ... As I said, I am more a role play type of player so this is not my main interest.

No I was more talking about the choice of content and the tone adopted to communicate on the game during the discords AAR. Like, idk, it is so odd to read people explaining how to cheese and exploit the gameplay of a game which has yet to be released and which do not even have a release date yet.

I rather read more typical communication. AAR with longer paragraph with the player choosing a tag and playing it immersively. Taking various nations allowing to preview the different types of situation available in the game and how you can resolves them with the game mechanics. Take a small underdeveloped but united country. Then Japan trying to preserve the Shogunate from internal & external threats. The United Provinces of Central America and trying to actually keep it united. One of the larger and most developed European state and playing the greats powers game. etc.

I understand people seek different types of experience in sandbox game and its totally fine. I enjoy relaxed RP run. Some people enjoy min maxing and trying to identify the best meta. It is just that I do find odd how the AAR focus on the latter even before the game is released. I thought meta player enjoyed the search part : trying to identify what works best.

As for myself, theses AAR make the game slightly less attractive. The game appears overly gamey. With little room for immersion.

 

[Stein14]

This was not a critic on gameplay.

I appreciate that the devs allow us to change tags when with start with nations who are about to collapse and did so historically a few years after the start date. Although there is always room for improvement and maybe the collapse itself should be much more punishing and leave long lasting scars. I guess ... As I said, I am more a role play type of player so this is not my main interest.

No I was more talking about the choice of content and the tone adopted to communicate on the game during the discords AAR. Like, idk, it is so odd to read people explaining how to cheese and exploit the gameplay of a game which has yet to be released and which do not even have a release date yet.

I rather read more typical communication. AAR with longer paragraph with the player choosing a tag and playing it immersively. Taking various nations allowing to preview the different types of situation available in the game and how you can resolves them with the game mechanics. Take a small underdeveloped but united country. Then Japan trying to preserve the Shogunate from internal & external threats. The United Provinces of Central America and trying to actually keep it united. One of the larger and most developed European state and playing the greats powers game. etc.

I understand people seek different types of experience in sandbox game and its totally fine. I enjoy relaxed RP run. Some people enjoy min maxing and trying to identify the best meta. It is just that I do find odd how the AAR focus on the latter even before the game is released. I thought meta player enjoyed the search part : trying to identify what works best.

As for myself, theses AAR make the game slightly less attractive. The game appears overly gamey. With little room for immersion.

Are you sure it's Min Max? I mean letting Central America fall apart just to unite it militarily doesn't necessarily sound like the best option. Of course, he put himself in the best position for reunification.

 

[IndigoRage]

Are you sure it's Min Max? I mean letting Central America fall apart just to unite it militarily doesn't necessarily sound like the best option. Of course, he put himself in the best position for reunification.

Also as @wilcoxchar said, the countries involved actually did try to unite again numerous times without it being that long after the splintering at all.

 

[Hammrtime]

Guatemala Part 2 AAR:

Spoiler: Guatemala ARR

Spoiler: Guatemala ARR

 

[Hammrtime]

We get our first look at Violate Sovereignty.

The wording is a bit WIP, but I presume it allows one party to immediately move troops through a country and the country being violated chooses to either accept it or fight back.

Apparently this was a bit to much bad boy and the USA intervened on the side of Costa Rica which was really interesting.

 

[MfgLuckbot]

I'm kinda curious what kind of information the GUI will provide about turmoil. Like, how easy will it be to find out how much lost tax you can recover by enacting/expanding your police?

 

[Al-Khalidi]

Bad thing with diplomatic play unfortunately is still there two tiny nations fighting each other can easily drag Great Britain and USA into war - i don't see how this won't lead to constant wars between GPs which in fact was rare in that period (and those wars that occured were not about supporting this or that tiny colonial country).

I think they should make it so that if you summon a GP as a tiny country, you allow them to take complete control over negotiations and you should offer them something that you actually possess - so perhaps your independence. No to Zulu offering London to Germans if they come to their aid at war with GB

 

[FranklyJustNess]

I wonder how viable it is to release some of the republics as subjects, try to keep as many as possible from rebelling and letting go on a positive note of every other, to then unite back in with diplomacy rather than conquest.

 

[MfgLuckbot]

Bad thing with diplomatic play unfortunately is still there two tiny nations fighting each other can easily drag Great Britain and USA into war - i don't see how this won't lead to constant wars between GPs which in fact was rare in that period (and those wars that occured were not about supporting this or that tiny colonial country).

I think they should make it so that if you summon a GP as a tiny country, you allow them to take complete control over negotiations and you should offer them something that you actually possess - so perhaps your independence. No to Zulu offering London to Germans if they come to their aid at war with GB

I think that should simply be an AI balancing thing. The GP correctly evaluating that if they wanted London they could have declared for it themselves and that having Zulu as an ally in that isn't worth enough to follow their schedule for it. Only if Germany actually has in interest to contain british expansion in South Africa they should be willing to accept that deal.

The AI should consider their own power compared to the petitioner in negotiations. A GP shouldn't be willing to gain an ally worth 1% of their military power and antagonize their equal in the process. Only if they explicitely declared the minor as their protectee before and the other GP is the aggressor.

 

[Kaspar Osraige]

When real life Centroamerica disbanded, Los Altos, currently west of Guatemala also became independent. It could be a state in game and balance Guatemala being so powerful maybe? I know it was short lived but still