Ships for Victory
- Feb 13, 2003
I like some of the announced gameplay changes like diplomatic plays and the new warfare system. But if I were paranoid, I might say that these changes are deliberately designed to reduce the need for pausing (like they tried to do in HOI4), which would not be a good sign for message settings. For example, if someone declares war on you, it will no longer happen suddenly, but the diplomatic play will give you time to prepare, so it might be less devastating if you don't react immediately when the actual war starts. And as mentioned above, the lack of controllable units might make it less important to pause during war.
If that's the actual intent, it might be good for people who want to play without pausing, but it won't work for players who want to pause (just like it didn't work in HOI4). Pausing will still be useful, and I will still want to pause on the exact tick that e.g. a war starts, even if it's less necessary to do so.
I cannot agree with this more strongly. The only way to make pausing not have an impact on play, is to make the game play itself* - which, of course, wouldn't be much of a game. I'll just keep hoping - I'll likely play it either way, but like CK3, there's a chance that if it shanks the surfacing of information as badly as that game has, I won't play it a lot (I haven't played CK3 in months, and I'm kind-of-having to force myself to try and play it, rather than look forward to it - ie, it's really, really close to dropping off my rotation entirely due to it's poor UX).
* Unless the game allowed players to give the game a hugely complicated decision-tree of what to do when certain events occur, but I can't see this being the devs approach.