Does the military policy of your governing party affect the size of your mobilisation pool?
Developer Diary 26 – Miscellaneous Military Stuff
- Thread starter King
- Start date
-
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.
miscellaneous military stuff
You never played the game? And you are telling us who played it for thousands of hours how leaders work?
Well, sometimes you would get that great leader, and he would die from a random, non historical event before you could use him. That was fine with me. Sometimes you would get a great non historical leader. Fine with me also.
If you were foolish to wait for a particular leader, sometimes he would never come. Also fine with me.
I challenge you to buy Victoria 1 and Victoria Revolutions from Gamersgate,(pretty cheap price now), actually play the game, and see what you think about the leaders then. I would be interested to know.
You never played the game? And you are telling us who played it for thousands of hours how leaders work?
Well, sometimes you would get that great leader, and he would die from a random, non historical event before you could use him. That was fine with me. Sometimes you would get a great non historical leader. Fine with me also.
If you were foolish to wait for a particular leader, sometimes he would never come. Also fine with me.
I challenge you to buy Victoria 1 and Victoria Revolutions from Gamersgate,(pretty cheap price now), actually play the game, and see what you think about the leaders then. I would be interested to know.
It would be different - you would get existentially weird wars to take provinces based on who would be born there in future... :wacko:
Edit: hey, maybe historical leaders could be linked to a specific POP? Their traits would then be affected somewhat by the situation of their POP as they 'grew up' (nature + nurture combined) so that there would be some variability. Then let players of the game vie to attract the "right" POPs as immigrants and get them into the "right" occupations...
And, no, I'm not totally serious! :rofl:
I just wished to say that I like the new mobilization system.
+1
It´ll make you think twice before starting a war.
The new blockade system is also good in my opinion.
Well to remove the historical leaders is just fine for me, especially for balancing issues and gameplay.
I don't like leaving historical leaders out either. They added a cool factor.
Other info sounds good though.
Other info sounds good though.
Yeah and it doesnt matter if they are out, cuz someone gonna make a mod and i suppose it will be easy to mod the leaders.
It won't be possible to have historical leaders modded in, except through events.
It would be great if you can rename your military leaders in whatever you want, at least we'll get some satisfaction for not having historical leaders...
I'm surprised nobody has asked (from what I've seen) why the Blood Stained flag was used.
Shouldn't the CSA just be called "CSA", not "The CSA"?
And it doesn't make much sense to say the armies have NO commanders whatsoever, wouldn't that be rather anarchic? "No commander assigned" might be better as it doesn't necessarily imply there is no commander at all, just that the player hasn't assigned one.
And it doesn't make much sense to say the armies have NO commanders whatsoever, wouldn't that be rather anarchic? "No commander assigned" might be better as it doesn't necessarily imply there is no commander at all, just that the player hasn't assigned one.
Sorry, I have not followed all 17 pages of this thread.
Does anyone think that leaving out the leaders is a good idea for Vicky2? Personally, I don't. Removing the leaders removes some of the chrome and the game could become soulless.
Does anyone think that leaving out the leaders is a good idea for Vicky2? Personally, I don't. Removing the leaders removes some of the chrome and the game could become soulless.
Historical characters at start are fun in games like Rome, where each character is a personality who can act against you, or with you. In Victoria, a General is a name and two traits. I never thought the historical ones ever added anything to the gameplay other than a hard-coded bonus. They weren't characters, just bonuses.
And do note that you don't get historical leaders in CK or Rome either (other than those at start), for obvious reasons
And do note that you don't get historical leaders in CK or Rome either (other than those at start), for obvious reasons
Alexander here said this in another topic, which IMO applies just as much to leaders as to what he originally refering to:
Excellent statement. All there is to be said really.
Excellent statement. All there is to be said really.
Historical characters at start are fun in games like Rome, where each character is a personality who can act against you, or with you. In Victoria, a General is a name and two traits. I never thought the historical ones ever added anything to the gameplay other than a hard-coded bonus. They weren't characters, just bonuses.
And do note that you don't get historical leaders in CK or Rome either (other than those at start), for obvious reasons
Yeah this is really cool about those Paradox games. In CK I got good leaders often for some reason. It's not all random either, because the complex game engine makes them according to some code. There might be many factors behind how you get a new leader created.
However in Rome it seemed that my game generated heroes (roman generals) sucked balls, compared to the other nations. I have only played Rome in Rome tho
It was quite annoying having so bad leaders cuz it made me lose most battles even when i outnumbered enemies 2:1 or so. I don't know if the game was designed to give Romans bad leaders, or if it was designed to give human player bad leaders, or AI good ones? This thing behind the curtains still confuses me. I wish they told us about how it was made