Ironman Mode for EUIV?

[GulGnu]

And I would argue that a checkbox to disable the cheat console would also be good. It's already disabled for multiplayer after all...

Yeah, it would probably be reasonable to disable the console in Ironman as well.

 

[GulGnu]

To expand on the theme of positive attention garnered from Ironman in XCOM, here is some editorial comment that a quick Google search turned up:

Joystiq:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/08/xcom-rookies-listen-up/

"I sincerely feel Ironman mode is the way to play XCOM, as it makes you a more thoughtful commander and more cautious in your deployment."

Penny Arcade Report:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edit...f-xcom-enemy-unkown-spoiler-the-enemy-are-ali

"You can play XCOM: Enemy Unknown without enabling Ironman mode, but I wouldn’t recommend it."

IGXPRO:
http://www.igxpro.com/2012/10/15/x-com-enemy-unknowns-ironman-mode-is-frustrating-and-fun/1518354

"So while I’m still learning, and yelling at my soldiers for missing easy shots, I’ve found a much more strategic experience buried beneath the frustration. If you’re looking for a brutal no-nonsense strategy experience X-Com’s Ironman mode might just be the game you’ve been waiting to curse at."

IGN:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/18/the-xcom-ironman-diaries-part-1

The Ironman Diaries, kinda self-explanatory.

The general impression is that the amount of positive media attention garnered from Ironman is rather high, compared to the development resources that are likely to have been required to implement the mode.

 

[EUnderhill]

No, the primary reason is the inherent condescending arrogance of trying to dictate the preferences of others.

I.e. here is a summary of the debate so far:

- "I sometimes derive greater enjoyment from games when I do not have to even consider whether or not to reload to a previous save and when what has happened in my game is permanent."

- "No you do not, and if you actually do you are morally deficient and should reform yourself".

As for the actual argument, here is a useful exercise:

What would the attitude of the "self-control is no object"-camp be towards implementing the following buttons on the main screen of EU4:

- "Get 1000 gold now"

- "Get 10 000 troops now"

- "Raise your tech levels now"

Now, it is possible that you might want these. But could you see why someone might not want them? And could you see why someone might in a similar fashion want to play without the equivalent of a button that says "Unlimited time travel now"?

Even worse will be the condescending attitude of those who will insist that: "You do not play Ironman?...your life is not valid!" Keep the mode out and moot that right then and there.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

I wouldn't enjoy X-COM as much as I did if not for ironman mode. It's simply more exciting and tense if you know that you can't reload. You can't just execute perfect plan, but if bad thing happens you must adapt and improvise. I would definitely like that option in EU4.

 

[Colombo]

To expand on the theme of positive attention garnered from Ironman in XCOM, here is some editorial comment that a quick Google search turned up:

Joystiq:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/08/xcom-rookies-listen-up/

"I sincerely feel Ironman mode is the way to play XCOM, as it makes you a more thoughtful commander and more cautious in your deployment."

Penny Arcade Report:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edit...f-xcom-enemy-unkown-spoiler-the-enemy-are-ali

"You can play XCOM: Enemy Unknown without enabling Ironman mode, but I wouldn’t recommend it."

IGXPRO:
http://www.igxpro.com/2012/10/15/x-com-enemy-unknowns-ironman-mode-is-frustrating-and-fun/1518354

"So while I’m still learning, and yelling at my soldiers for missing easy shots, I’ve found a much more strategic experience buried beneath the frustration. If you’re looking for a brutal no-nonsense strategy experience X-Com’s Ironman mode might just be the game you’ve been waiting to curse at."

IGN:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/18/the-xcom-ironman-diaries-part-1

The Ironman Diaries, kinda self-explanatory.

The general impression is that the amount of positive media attention garnered from Ironman is rather high, compared to the development resources that are likely to have been required to implement the mode.

Also negative against non-ironman mode.

 

[Jaol]

Yeah, it would probably be reasonable to disable the console in Ironman as well.

I would prefer them to be separate options. I like the idea of an ironman mode, but I also like my games to be somewhat historically plausible, which means I often have to "correct" the AI. Tag-shifting (via the console) is by far the easiest way to do that.

 

[GulGnu]

Even worse will be the condescending attitude of those who will insist that: "You do not play Ironman?...your life is not valid!" Keep the mode out and moot that right then and there.

I think this is a heartfelt response, but if any fear is overblown, this would be it. Especially as most people will probably play a blend of modes, depending on what goals they set out to accomplish.

I, for instance, mainly view Ironman as attractive when playing a big nation that has a "margin of error". When recreating the Roman Empire with Naples, on the other hand, I´ll save and load to my heart´s content.

 

[GulGnu]

Also negative against non-ironman mode.

Well, by default, anyone who prefers Ironman mode will in a relative sense be "negative against non-ironman mode".

But none of the linked articles declare that the life of those who prefer non-Ironman is "invalid" or some other similar slur. They just prefer it, just as I prefer to play EU3 on normal difficulty settings. That doesn´t mean that I think those that toughen up the difficulty or go with easier settings are subhuman scum, on the other hand.

 

[TheCheeseMaster]

I think it would be a waste of time, send it to the bottom of priorities. Grow a backbone and stop reloading!

 

[GulGnu]

Grow a backbone and stop reloading!

Again, note the exquisite mix of condescension and arrogance that makes this thread so much fun! It´s fine if you don´t think this feature should be a priority, but the sheer amount of people attempting to dictate the preferences of others here is just boggling my mind.

 

[Hydro Globus]

the sheer amount of people attempting to dictate the preferences of others here is just boggling my mind.

So stop doing that.

 

[GulGnu]

So stop doing that.

Please elaborate.

 

[smellymummy]

Again, note the exquisite mix of condescension and arrogance that makes this thread so much fun! It´s fine if you don´t think this feature should be a priority, but the sheer amount of people attempting to dictate the preferences of others here is just boggling my mind.

i don't get it either

we've already all pretty much agreed that this isn't something that would take hundreds of man hours to implement. it's a simple option that makes the player have one save. look at it this way, in the save files of the game there would be one line with the game settings: ironman=yes, and this would disable in game saving. so the devs would just need to replace 'save' with a 'save and exit' button. not overly complicated now is it? other ideas such as disabling the console or the random seed for events (awesome idea btw) aren't really required to make ironman mode work, so those are just ideas being thrown around, for the most part as ways to increase the difficulty which is what i think a lot of people want

it's also been pointed out several times that this would just be an option. EU3 has several options like difficulty, map spread, inflation, colonist size and so on. nobody forces you to play with inflation off at very hard settings with colonist size of 200. the option is just there so players can have more fun the way they want too. ironman mode is just that, an option for people to play how they want. to explain better, look at it as a point of realism. if you're the ruler of a nation and things start suddenly going really wrong, you can't just hop in a time machine and change your decisions, but in EU3 you can do just that. there are a lot of games that have realism difficulty levels, so why is it so bad to ask for this kind of realism to be in EUIV? it's an option, nothing is being forced on those that don't care for it

as to showing a little self restraint and just play without reloading, well that's great advice, and i'm sure it's something a lot of players have done. along with forcing themselves at following self made house rules. the thing is though, restraint can only go so far and sometimes making a few exceptions to your self imposed house rules, or the simple act of clicking a few buttons to get yourself out of a sticky situation and roll back a few years is just too hard to resist, mostly because it's so easy to do so. not everyone is able to hold back, is it such a bad thing to request for an option that would make the game more fun the way players want it to be without having to force themselves to hold back?

and then there's the thing about the community would be ironman only and the rest are nubs. that's ridiculous. paradox community is mostly mature and intelligent, and when someone shows up waving their epeen around because they did some insurmountable task and tells everyone else how bad they play, well that elitist little prick usually gets a forum sit down real quick from the rest of the community.

 

[EUnderhill]

Again, note the exquisite mix of condescension and arrogance that makes this thread so much fun! It´s fine if you don´t think this feature should be a priority, but the sheer amount of people attempting to dictate the preferences of others here is just boggling my mind.

We all want a game more rewarding to our particular play-styles...hence our voices get loud in expressing them.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

The benefit of Ironman is not simply the lack of saving and reloading. It's that you know you can't save and reload when things go wrong. It ups the tension. When you have a self made rule, there isn't much tension in it. You might still start a war but save "just in case", and you'll know that if things go really terribly wrong, you can just reload. With Ironman, there is no safety blanket, you're constantly on your guard, before taking on a war, you have to ask yourself "can I handle this?", whereas without it you can just "try" a war out and see how it goes.

 

[smellymummy]

exactly. having that sense of tension in a game ups the fun factor 100%

 

[EUnderhill]

The benefit of Ironman is not simply the lack of saving and reloading. It's that you know you can't save and reload when things go wrong. It ups the tension. When you have a self made rule, there isn't much tension in it. You might still start a war but save "just in case", and you'll know that if things go really terribly wrong, you can just reload. With Ironman, there is no safety blanket, you're constantly on your guard, before taking on a war, you have to ask yourself "can I handle this?", whereas without it you can just "try" a war out and see how it goes.

tbh prior to this thread I hadn't even heard of "savescumming"; never even crossed my mind.

 

[unmerged(63836)]

exactly. having that sense of tension in a game ups the fun factor 100%

Yeah - it works for roguelike genre, which also requires strategical planning. Losing is fun too.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

tbh prior to this thread I hadn't even heard of "savescumming"; never even crossed my mind.

I used to be like you...

And then I started to do it. First just to prevent me from losing a particularly bad war...

And then I couldn't stop myself, I just started doing it all the time.

Try save scumming for a game and see if you can go back...

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I'm asking for a checkbox to tick when I start a game.

Then don't use it?

As for use of resources, it really isn't a concern. It's a checkbox on the load menu, next to difficulty. Zero research, zero arts assets, minimal coding (all the required features are already there). How could that possibly remove a DLC or feature?

Are you sure about that?

You don't see how introducing a new mode will require extra time testing that the mode functions correctly?

It isn't /zero/ art asset, but is trivial amounts to add in the button. The back end of how that works, with making the game use a different saving method to default is less trivial.

You also don't answer what you're meant to do when the ironman game save corrupts - in a normal game you can at least try to access the alternate autosave, although you will have to replay a year.



For another and separate part, I don't want a game I've played through legitimately and without (save scum) reloads to be called less valid if I post it up as an AAR or "Display your empire" thread than someone who has used ironman mode, but has crashed the game and gone back when the game has misbehaved.

The benefit of Ironman is not simply the lack of saving and reloading. It's that you know you can't save and reload when things go wrong. It ups the tension. When you have a self made rule, there isn't much tension in it. You might still start a war but save "just in case", and you'll know that if things go really terribly wrong, you can just reload. With Ironman, there is no safety blanket, you're constantly on your guard, before taking on a war, you have to ask yourself "can I handle this?", whereas without it you can just "try" a war out and see how it goes.

And with Ironman, unless there is something to stop you tabbing out, closing the game externally, and reloading from the last autosave, you can still do this.
You then have the added tension of "will my save corrupt or suddenly decide it's from a different profile" (at best stopping you getting an achievement if they are being used in some way, at worst destroying your game with 20-30 years to go).

i don't get it either

we've already all pretty much agreed that this isn't something that would take hundreds of man hours to implement. it's a simple option that makes the player have one save. look at it this way, in the save files of the game there would be one line with the game settings: ironman=yes, and this would disable in game saving. so the devs would just need to replace 'save' with a 'save and exit' button. not overly complicated now is it? other ideas such as disabling the console or the random seed for events (awesome idea btw) aren't really required to make ironman mode work, so those are just ideas being thrown around, for the most part as ways to increase the difficulty which is what i think a lot of people want

I don't know how long it would take, but I doubt it is "simple" or "trivial", since that one change would require a new save system, testing to make sure it saves properly, that the coding can't affect the normal game, and making sure that it doesn't break anything else.

it's also been pointed out several times that this would just be an option. EU3 has several options like difficulty, map spread, inflation, colonist size and so on. nobody forces you to play with inflation off at very hard settings with colonist size of 200. the option is just there so players can have more fun the way they want too. ironman mode is just that, an option for people to play how they want. to explain better, look at it as a point of realism. if you're the ruler of a nation and things start suddenly going really wrong, you can't just hop in a time machine and change your decisions, but in EU3 you can do just that. there are a lot of games that have realism difficulty levels, so why is it so bad to ask for this kind of realism to be in EUIV? it's an option, nothing is being forced on those that don't care for it

And with ironman mode you still can. You just need to crash out of the game, or tab out and close the game without saving, and then reload a previous point.

as to showing a little self restraint and just play without reloading, well that's great advice, and i'm sure it's something a lot of players have done. along with forcing themselves at following self made house rules. the thing is though, restraint can only go so far and sometimes making a few exceptions to your self imposed house rules, or the simple act of clicking a few buttons to get yourself out of a sticky situation and roll back a few years is just too hard to resist, mostly because it's so easy to do so. not everyone is able to hold back, is it such a bad thing to request for an option that would make the game more fun the way players want it to be without having to force themselves to hold back?

and then there's the thing about the community would be ironman only and the rest are nubs. that's ridiculous. paradox community is mostly mature and intelligent, and when someone shows up waving their epeen around because they did some insurmountable task and tells everyone else how bad they play, well that elitist little prick usually gets a forum sit down real quick from the rest of the community.

You obviously haven't seen some of the comments based on "oh, you don't play on ultra-hard, your success is worthless compared to mine", or "well done, you conquered the world with France - now try it with Orleans".

Besides, people /will/ judge based on whether the game was played ironman or not, especially in AARs or "conquer the world" threads.