Delterius
Arcane
have you played other grand strategy gamesNo forts, no strategic infiltrations and raids, no forced marches, no doctrines (they are literally assigned randomly per battle according to general's traits).
have you played other grand strategy gamesNo forts, no strategic infiltrations and raids, no forced marches, no doctrines (they are literally assigned randomly per battle according to general's traits).
Wow, that's some decline.So the cat is absolutely out of the bag now and all the fears were justified and warranted in reference to the war system. You pick a general and click one of the three buttons - that's literally the entire extent of the grand player agency in this grand strategy game. No forts, no strategic infiltrations and raids, no forced marches, no doctrines (they are literally assigned randomly per battle according to general's traits).
I've waited for over a decade for a V2 successor only to be certain to ignore it.
I lost all faith in humanity reading the reactions to that dev diary.https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/dev-diary-44-battles.1522286/
So the cat is absolutely out of the bag now and all the fears were justified and warranted in reference to the war system. You pick a general and click one of the three buttons - that's literally the entire extent of the grand player agency in this grand strategy game. No forts, no strategic infiltrations and raids, no forced marches, no doctrines (they are literally assigned randomly per battle according to general's traits).
You don't play as a head of state in Victoria 2 though. The game doesn't end when you suffer a coup and similar. You play as the spirit of the nation or whatever.that's literally what heads of state do during wars
So I've been playing this all evening and eh... I'll buy it.
While this is true, I strongly disagree with that sentiment. It's all about the intended scope of the game: it is appropriate to give the player control over military, if that is the intention of the devs(which, here it unfortunately isn't); beyond that it is simply a lot of fun to command your own units, that you have outfitted and supplied yourself, and that are fighting for the expansion of the empire you've been building the whole game. So to me the ability to control units only enhances the experience because of the context of the rest of the game. In a sense it could be more satisfying to command units in this game, rather than in a dedicated strategy game, exactly because it fits the greater picture.Allowing you to put yourself in the general's seat defeats the purpose of cultivating a strong military and competent officer corps since the commander will always be le 1337 gaymer stratadjist and not some idiot who got promoted because of family connections.
I mean if you remove it from, say, EU4, there's pretty much nothing to actually do in that game... The doomstack war, while profoundly retarded (with strategies like "feed your units into it gradually to keep the morale up" and similar dumb shit, not to mention the ahistoricity of having armies clash every day for MONTHS in late middle ages) is one of the precious few things you can actively do as the player to break up the waiting game. Now, true, in Victoria 2, you didn't need this as there was plenty of other systems to interact with. Open a factory, influence minor countries, shift policy focus, etc. etc. Plus the combat was pretty shitty there, ngl. But this is modern Paradox we're talking about and I just can't bring myself to believe they'll deliver anything better than doomstacks Benny Hilling each other.Paradox doomstack war is the definition of degenerate, brainless gameplay and something I played other games in spite of, not for.
I've pretty much just been playing the market / industry the entire time. More than enough content and variability there to garner attention.I mean if you remove it from, say, EU4, there's pretty much nothing to actually do in that game... The doomstack war, while profoundly retarded (with strategies like "feed your units into it gradually to keep the morale up" and similar dumb shit, not to mention the ahistoricity of having armies clash every day for MONTHS in late middle ages) is one of the precious few things you can actively do as the player to break up the waiting game. Now, true, in Victoria 2, you didn't need this as there was plenty of other systems to interact with. Open a factory, influence minor countries, shift policy focus, etc. etc. Plus the combat was pretty shitty there, ngl. But this is modern Paradox we're talking about and I just can't bring myself to believe they'll deliver anything better than doomstacks Benny Hilling each other.Paradox doomstack war is the definition of degenerate, brainless gameplay and something I played other games in spite of, not for.
yeah this game sounds like the anno of gsgs. with demographics and some diplomacy added on top.I've pretty much just been playing the market / industry the entire time. More than enough content and variability there to garner attention.
While this is true, I strongly disagree with that sentiment. It's all about the intended scope of the game: it is appropriate to give the player control over military, if that is the intention of the devs(which, here it unfortunately isn't); beyond that it is simply a lot of fun to command your own units, that you have outfitted and supplied yourself, and that are fighting for the expansion of the empire you've been building the whole game. So to me the ability to control units only enhances the experience because of the context of the rest of the game. In a sense it could be more satisfying to command units in this game, rather than in a dedicated strategy game, exactly because it fits the greater picture.
You could argue that every part of the simulation should receive similar treatment: instead of setting domestic policies on your own, you should 'cultivate' a cabinet of competent politicians, and then press the 'do policy' button, so that they can set and push for desired laws themselves. What about the economy? Simple - just cultivate a stack of intelligent ministers, who will make decisions on their own. Similarly, alliances and various dealings with other nations are to be controlled by preselected characters, with you, the player, only providing general guidance.
Because, you know, otherwise what's the point of handpicking those ministers if the player is always going to be le epic 420 Bismarck and make all the correct choices on their own? That way the whole structure can be deconstructed. I understand what they are going for, and while I think they're making a mistake, and that the game will lack a cool mechanic that it has had in the previous iterations, that's their decision to make. That said, let's not pretend this is somehow not an arbitrary(and quite radical) choice on their part, and just a natural consequence of making a game of this kind.
yeah this game sounds like the anno of gsgs. with demographics and some diplomacy added on top.I've pretty much just been playing the market / industry the entire time. More than enough content and variability there to garner attention.
whatthat Victoria always seemed to most want to capture is gunboat diplomacy and small, mobile operations
what