PARADOX: time to go TALL?

[what am i doing]

I really would enjoy a Vicky style game but with more internal management, something akin to what they were trying to go for with estates and such in EU4, but better implemented. Preserving subnational entities such as provinces/states in federal nations (or subnational kingdoms), in a way that you can actually interact with them and engage in internal diplomacy to make your country run better (or just hold it together) would also be nice. Vicky 2 doesn't have this sort of thing and as a result playing something like the Habsburg empire plays pretty much the same as, say, France, when it really shouldn't.

 

[JarlFrank]

I played EUIII a lot, and there's literally nothing to do in the peacetime. So, it surely didn't start with EUIV

EU was always Paradox's most barebones series. IIRC it started out as a conversion of a boardgame? So of course the rules have to be simple.
And they kept the basic mechanics the same throughout the series, just adding more modifiers and "ruler mana" in newer titles, but they never touched the basic gameplay.

That's why other Paradox titles have inherently better gameplay from the start, even if they're still pretty limited (HoI, CK, Vicky, Imperator).
EU is held back by simplistic core mechanics that were never overhauled.

 

[vibehunter]

I love CK2 but they gradually increased the level of fantastical and ridiculous bullshit throughout the game's lifecycle. And then with CK3 they embraced all the stupid memes surrounding the game and doubled down on the bullshit. Really disappointed.

 

[wwsd]

I haven't played CK3 or EU4, so no recent experience there. Victoria 2 I must admit goes a bit above my head. But I get the impression in Vic2 that you would be able to have an entertaining game with a smaller power, with a country that has few or no colonies, just because of internal mechanics, economy, industry, social development, etc. CK2 tried to do more with character development and events, but it became incoherent due to all the different DLCs all interacting in incoherent ways. And still you're sometimes just playing for years in peacetime where nothing happens. Developing provinces, technology and things like that is basically linear, there are no real choices and consequences in this regard that tie in to the rest of the game. You can just make some more money and get some more troops from some structures, and sink more money into other structures. So yeah it would be good to develop more peacetime mechanics in games like this, as long as it's something that the AI can actually handle.

 

[Jugashvili]

Jugashvili , as a fellow appreciator of quality booty I want your wise slav opinion on the matter.

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kings series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Jugashvili , as a fellow appreciator of quality booty I want your wise slav opinion on the matter.

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kinds series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

I guess the "game about ideas" would be a Crisis in the Kremlin / Ostalgie / Mao's Legacy games - not for everyone I believe (I have not played the later). Their newest game ("Collapse") looks marginally on the UI front, but I am still to play it. I really wish they would tackle topics like the French revolution, the 1917 revolution etc...

Though honestly I find you mean on CKII. CKII is a great game, but I guess half the people here are upset because the UI is done well enough that anyone can play it. "It is popular now so it sucks".

 

[what am i doing]

Victoria 2 I must admit goes a bit above my head. But I get the impression in Vic2 that you would be able to have an entertaining game with a smaller power, with a country that has few or no colonies, just because of internal mechanics, economy, industry, social development, etc.

One particularly nice thing in Victoria 2 is that it's actually possible to take a country that starts out very "backwards", like Spain (virtually no industry, very bad literacy) and over the course of the game develop it into a high tech, industrialized, powerful country rather than having it lag as it historically did; and you don't need to blob across colonies, or even maintain Spain's existing colonies, to do this - your core territories are enough to hang on to GP status and finish in the top 4. The downside to this is that doing so basically just involves pushing Encourage Bureacrats until your admin efficiency is up, then getting all your populous states to 2.0% Intellectuals, then getting them to 4.0% Intellectuals, then encouraging Craftsmen. It's not very involved gameplay and mostly just feels like observer mode if that's all you're doing. That said, the fact that you can do it at all is great, and if the process had more active player involvement then it would be a great way to have gameplay that supports building tall.

You can of course do the same thing while building a large empire, but this doesn't actually benefit your country as much as you might think, especially if you're playing on a mod that enables colony costs. The main advantages are getting more direct access to certain goods, and having more shipyards to raise your naval cap / lengthen your supply distance. It won't directly raise your industry score, and the number of soldiers you can recruit is, in most mods, fairly limited. Colonies are mostly about map painting / having a big empire to point at, and in all honesty the highest industrial scores I've managed have always been in games where I didn't bother colonizing much or at all, and instead focused on cycling national focuses, expanding factories, manually building factories for same-state input bonuses, and trimming unprofitable factories.

 

[Axioms]

Victoria 2 I must admit goes a bit above my head. But I get the impression in Vic2 that you would be able to have an entertaining game with a smaller power, with a country that has few or no colonies, just because of internal mechanics, economy, industry, social development, etc.

One particularly nice thing in Victoria 2 is that it's actually possible to take a country that starts out very "backwards", like Spain (virtually no industry, very bad literacy) and over the course of the game develop it into a high tech, industrialized, powerful country rather than having it lag as it historically did; and you don't need to blob across colonies, or even maintain Spain's existing colonies, to do this - your core territories are enough to hang on to GP status and finish in the top 4. The downside to this is that doing so basically just involves pushing Encourage Bureacrats until your admin efficiency is up, then getting all your populous states to 2.0% Intellectuals, then getting them to 4.0% Intellectuals, then encouraging Craftsmen. It's not very involved gameplay and mostly just feels like observer mode if that's all you're doing. That said, the fact that you can do it at all is great, and if the process had more active player involvement then it would be a great way to have gameplay that supports building tall.

You can of course do the same thing while building a large empire, but this doesn't actually benefit your country as much as you might think, especially if you're playing on a mod that enables colony costs. The main advantages are getting more direct access to certain goods, and having more shipyards to raise your naval cap / lengthen your supply distance. It won't directly raise your industry score, and the number of soldiers you can recruit is, in most mods, fairly limited. Colonies are mostly about map painting / having a big empire to point at, and in all honesty the highest industrial scores I've managed have always been in games where I didn't bother colonizing much or at all, and instead focused on cycling national focuses, expanding factories, manually building factories for same-state input bonuses, and trimming unprofitable factories.

All Paradox games are timer simulators. It is fine to have timers for some stuff, since that is the way it truly works, but you need to balance it out with a ton of non-timer based gameplay. Really only mana controlled shit and warfare in PDox games aren't timer trash.

 

[Axioms]

Jugashvili , as a fellow appreciator of quality booty I want your wise slav opinion on the matter.

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kings series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Axioms_Of_Dominion_Wiki

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

And they kept the basic mechanics the same throughout the series

hell no, eu3 was way more simulationist than 4 despite working on 1/100 of its computing power.
i liked sliders ._.

 

[Silva]

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kings series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

Well said, sir.

 

[Ravielsk]

Jugashvili , as a fellow appreciator of quality booty I want your wise slav opinion on the matter.

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kings series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

Excellent point but I am afraid that considering current options making a game that is competently able to present and work with any idea is not possible. For one because games are ultimately just very fancy mathematical equations solving themselves at speeds too high for us to perceive so everything that happens in them has to be somehow quantified. So best case scenario we could make a game about "events" that pretends its also exploring "ideas". Arguably though that is a purely technological problem that given enough time might be solved.

The real problem here is that to make a game exploring an idea you first have to understand an idea well enough to break it down and morph it into a digestible game system. Understanding an idea comes with the caveat that you must accept all of it and the that come from it even if they are not going to agree with you or please you. Without that particular nugget of realization you cannot really grasp any idea or concept no matter how simple it is and from what I can tell the current video game landscape has no one even close to possessing that crucial nugget. In fact I would argue that most of the industry is infested with people who straight up reject the concept of "uncomfortable truth" or even "truth" as a concept whole sale. Those kinds of people can barely discuss people let alone events or ideas and expecting them to make games about them is equivalent to asking a rock to fly. Its just not possible for them to even begin to comprehend what you are asking them to do.

 

[Axioms]

Jugashvili , as a fellow appreciator of quality booty I want your wise slav opinion on the matter.

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kings series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

Excellent point but I am afraid that considering current options making a game that is competently able to present and work with any idea is not possible. For one because games are ultimately just very fancy mathematical equations solving themselves at speeds too high for us to perceive so everything that happens in them has to be somehow quantified. So best case scenario we could make a game about "events" that pretends its also exploring "ideas". Arguably though that is a purely technological problem that given enough time might be solved.

The real problem here is that to make a game exploring an idea you first have to understand an idea well enough to break it down and morph it into a digestible game system. Understanding an idea comes with the caveat that you must accept all of it and the that come from it even if they are not going to agree with you or please you. Without that particular nugget of realization you cannot really grasp any idea or concept no matter how simple it is and from what I can tell the current video game landscape has no one even close to possessing that crucial nugget. In fact I would argue that most of the industry is infested with people who straight up reject the concept of "uncomfortable truth" or even "truth" as a concept whole sale. Those kinds of people can barely discuss people let alone events or ideas and expecting them to make games about them is equivalent to asking a rock to fly. Its just not possible for them to even begin to comprehend what you are asking them to do.

If you click the wiki link a couple posts up you will see that this is mostly nonsense. You can totally make a game about ideas. You can do all sorts of stuff if only you choose to, which most devs don't because they are cowards and/or lazy. You can break down plenty of ideas into gameplay at a similar level as combat stuff in wargames. Combat in most games isn't exactly full of true to life action.

 

[oscar]

The recent strategy game trend of conquered lands taking 300 years to become profitable is just as unrealistic as how it used to be. Makes you wonder why nations bothered taking territory at all when it costs hundreds of mana to integrate some bumfuck province (that will otherwise revolt 24/7 with stacks well in excess of how many people could plausibly live there) or suddenly your tech slows down to a crawl because you conquered a new city.

 

[Burning Bridges]

I always hated Paradox games, there so much wrong with them and they weren't even fun.

12 years ago there were some players like Ageod who made actual grand strategy games but they retreated from the market because of you cunts.

 

[Sranchammer]

Tabletop wargames are the only place left untouched by globohomo.

 

[downwardspiral]

TBF ageod's games are leaning more towards wargame. Except few, they usually have a very specific scope and goal.
Most of them are not the map meme grand strategy that just let players do whatever they want.
In that sense, most of them are not grand strategy, but maybe strategy or higher operational warfare games.
Thus they can't grab that meme market much. That is why they try to do that more relaxing GS game, field of glory empire.

 

[Sranchammer]

Pride of Nations 2 was a mess but the idea was the closest to what I want.

 

[downwardspiral]

I guess the "game about ideas" would be a Crisis in the Kremlin / Ostalgie / Mao's Legacy games - not for everyone I believe (I have not played the later). Their newest game ("Collapse") looks marginally on the UI front, but I am still to play it. I really wish they would tackle topics like the French revolution, the 1917 revolution etc...

The problem of games about idea is it usually highly depends on how the players views the history.
Because it is almost impossible to use mechanical simulation to simulate how society/sentiment/ideology shift.
And it is not like normal wargame where despite being abstract, we still have real life statistic reference to compare.
For example, a good simulation of war should have a closer casualty to real life result under the same condition.
But for things like societal change it is very hard to verify that. It is like the difference between micro and macro economics.
The later tend to become a flame war between different views/theory. Because it is way too complex and have way too many variables and the scope is too big.

Though honestly I find you mean on CKII. CKII is a great game, but I guess half the people here are upset because the UI is done well enough that anyone can play it. "It is popular now so it sucks".

I know, sometimes it might be a bit of hipster elements there to dislike things that become popular.
But being popular do have it's problems.
It will change the focus of the game series due to being more popular.
The focus of paradox's game did change since EU1. The new paradox is like that because it is made for the new demographics.
And the demographics changed because of being more popular.
When your games are less popular, your voice/taste/preference become statistically significant in that game series.
But when the game is played by everyone on the market. It regress to the means, the game is not that fitting to one's taste that much anymore.
It is a bit like how UBI open world game try to add every elements to appeal to everyone and losing it's own identity.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Pride of Nations 2 was a mess but the idea was the closest to what I want.

Pride of Nations (was there PoN2?) was one of the best/worst examples of "well it's a turn-based game so performance isn't that important" thinking.

 

[Axioms]

Jugashvili , as a fellow appreciator of quality booty I want your wise slav opinion on the matter.

There is a saying according to which small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, and great minds discuss ideas. The predominance of small minds can be seen in the success of the Crusader Kinds series. It is a game for hylics who guffaw at having cousings marry and produce funny offspring. The midwit's taste for events can be seen in the Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron series. They create alternate series of events with no substance to them other than "mana points" or "focus trees" which magically make things happen.

What we do not really have, however, are games about ideas. Victoria II comes close, exploring changes in demographics, political consciousness and political economy, but does not exactly fit the bill. This is where your idea about building tall comes in. Consider a game about one of the most astounding feats of recent history -- the Meiji restoration. How do you transform a society from an isolated feudal rural society to an industrial and imperial power in the span of a single lifetime? Victoria II approaches westernization in a very superficial way, throwing penalties at you every now and then as you struggle to research certain technologies and press the magic button. I believe that a game that takes an in-depth look at the social and political changes and the challenges implied by the ascendancy of the "western wind", with difficult choices and consequences, could be fascinating, and it would have to reflect the progress of literacy, the scientific mindset, isolationism vs. expansionism, modern vs. traditional education, building a national spirit, and the resistance or support they might encounter. The model could also be applied to a failed example, such as late Qing China, to reflect on why attempts at reform failed. In a way, it would be Datsu-A Ron: the game.

I guess the "game about ideas" would be a Crisis in the Kremlin / Ostalgie / Mao's Legacy games - not for everyone I believe (I have not played the later). Their newest game ("Collapse") looks marginally on the UI front, but I am still to play it. I really wish they would tackle topics like the French revolution, the 1917 revolution etc...

Though honestly I find you mean on CKII. CKII is a great game, but I guess half the people here are upset because the UI is done well enough that anyone can play it. "It is popular now so it sucks".

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Axioms_Of_Dominion_Wiki

If you go hear and read the integration, ideology, propaganda, government, secrets, espionage, diplomacy, and conspiracies pages you will see what kinds of things people who look down on CK2 want. I played several hundred hours in CK2 but significant aspects of the game are shallow and trivial and rely almost entirely on RNG timers. Plots for instance. And in CK3 aside from secrets and vassal contracts, which are still incredibly simplistic, almost every change they made to the game was not for mechanics. Whether it was pointless 3D models, sex cults, or gay rights. They appear to have made a conscious and deliberate choice not to improve on the areas of the game that would not only allow people to actually get their game of thrones kicks but to make the game entirely unique within the history of strategy games. All they did was add dumb gimmicks.

 

[Joggerino]

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Axioms_Of_Dominion_Wiki

If you go hear and read the integration, ideology, propaganda, government, secrets, espionage, diplomacy, and conspiracies pages you will see what kinds of things people who look down on CK2 want.

That's great and all but the problem is that you can't play axioms of dominion.

 

[Axioms]

https://axioms-of-dominion.fandom.com/wiki/Axioms_Of_Dominion_Wiki

If you go hear and read the integration, ideology, propaganda, government, secrets, espionage, diplomacy, and conspiracies pages you will see what kinds of things people who look down on CK2 want.

That's great and all but the problem is that you can't play axioms of dominion.

Sure but any day Paradox or some other company could either copy those ideas or come up with their own version and make it. They just choose not to because they want that casual cash.

The post I responded to made a wrong and bad argument about criticism of Paradox and CK2. The problem isn't that it is popular. The problem is that they choose not to make new fun D/I/P[diplomacy,intrigue,politics] mechanics but instead waste time on pop culture gimmicks and graphics junk. Even just reading that wiki refutes the idea that Paradox is stopped from creating awesome D/I/P gameplay by anything but their desire to sell out. None of the mechanics on there require anything fancy, aside from maybe AI stuff, but it isn't like the Paradox AI for existing games being shit prevents them from being popular so that is a weak defense.

 

[thesecret1]

Sure but any day Paradox or some other company could either copy those ideas or come up with their own version and make it.

They won't. Whoever is in charge of developing the game will have his own vision, and sure as hell isn't going to spend the next couple years of his life working on someone else's idea for the game. Sure, they could perhaps be influenced by some of the ideas therein... except they sure aren't going to read any of that, because why would they read some obscure wiki somewhere on the internet? If you want your idea to gather any kind of attention, you'll need to actually realize it in some way. Be it as some kinda indie game, or even just a mod for some other game.

Ideas guys are a dime a dozen, and even though sometimes their ideas may be genius, nobody is going to bother filtering them out from the rest of the dross.

 

[Axioms]

Sure but any day Paradox or some other company could either copy those ideas or come up with their own version and make it.

They won't. Whoever is in charge of developing the game will have his own vision, and sure as hell isn't going to spend the next couple years of his life working on someone else's idea for the game. Sure, they could perhaps be influenced by some of the ideas therein... except they sure aren't going to read any of that, because why would they read some obscure wiki somewhere on the internet? If you want your idea to gather any kind of attention, you'll need to actually realize it in some way. Be it as some kinda indie game, or even just a mod for some other game.

Ideas guys are a dime a dozen, and even though sometimes their ideas may be genius, nobody is going to bother filtering them out from the rest of the dross.

Well I said come up with their own version of those kinds of mechanics. I know the pandemic is causing issues with elementary kids reaching grade appropriate reading level but damn.

The argument isn't that people should copy those specific ideas. It is that those are an example of more detailed mechanics for diplomacy, intrigue, and politics. That are easy to program because they are essentially just data structures with a UI.

Yes, everyone who has read even one blog post about "game design" knows that no one with production skills wants to make someone else's game, unless they get paid.

The point is what Paradox has chosen to focus on for their feudal politics simulator. Which is chincy nude graphics, sex cults, and gay rights. Instead of gameplay to improve the verisimilitude and/or options for engaging with other characters.

I know this is the codex and half the people here are morons and trolls and weebs, but basic logic and reading comprehension seems to be especially difficult for members these days.