Topic: Paradox Games

[Ultimatum]

If I wanted to play EUIV I would play that sort of game,but I'm interested in Crusader Kings II which is a very different game

I get that they are similar,but god damn it paradox quit changing things when they worked fine before!

[Rysworld]

They didn't work fine before. Crusader Kings 2 was way too easy a game. Haven't played the new expansion, but I'd probably agree with Sam, here.

Are they doing that thing where they pair the DLC with a major update? What are the changes made to vanilla, here?

[Ultimatum]

 >Crusader Kings 2 was way too easy

Depends on where you started...and how experienced you are

Major changes to vanilla

-Non aggression pacts can be created through marriages (The AI can do that too)
-A dangerous rating when you declare war too much,AIs can gang up you,not happened to me yet but it will one day.
-

[Krakow Sam]

If I wanted to play EUIV I would play that sort of game,but I'm interested in Crusader Kings II which is a very different game

I get that they are similar,but god damn it paradox quit changing things when they worked fine before!

Except CK2 with conclave is still nothing like EU4. They just imported some mechanics which they'd developed for EU into CK2 relating to tributaries, coalitions forming against you and a few other subsystems.

Crusader Kings 2 was way too easy

Depends on where you started...and how experienced you are

Starting position only affects early game difficulty. Even with fairly restrictive government types that don't allow for a lot of aggressive expansion you can still accrue land and power pretty quickly if you know what you're doing, and as soon as you're a decent sized kingdom or empire then expanding further becomes trivial barring semi-random events like Mongols. Under the old system as soon as you had some momentum built up the game became rather boring and was largely a case of waiting for truces to cool down so you could continue devouring neighbouring realms.

As for "how experienced you are". Yes, it is indeed true that things seem difficult if you're not good at them. I'm not entirely sure how game developers are supposed to respond to such an intractable problem.

[Ultimatum]

Surly taking mechanics from one game where they were made with that game in mind and importing them into another game is a little problematic,no?

[Rysworld]

I dunno, I feel like coalitions just make sense, as regards difficulty and challenge.

A non aggression pact? Like, being unable to declare war because you've married someone? I feel like it would be more interesting to have a nation be able to choose whether to take a relative of yours that married into them captive or not. Maybe a chance of the relative remaining loyal to you, feeding you information unless they're captive? With being captive lowering relations with their spouse significantly?

Just brainstorming.

Surly taking mechanics from one game where they were made with that game in mind and importing them into another game is a little problematic,no?

Not inherently, no. Game mechanics don't become bad because they were used in another game first.

[Krakow Sam]

Surly taking mechanics from one game where they were made with that game in mind and importing them into another game is a little problematic,no?

Oh man you're right. Taking a coalition mechanic from an early modern strategy game and importing it into a medieval strategy game is really problematic. I'm really triggered by how problematic that is.

[Ultimatum]

eh whatever,I'm entailed to my opinion

so humph,besides its not so bad,waging war is actually easier if you have multiple children you can create many alliances,the only downside is that you are expected to fight in all their wars

[Yokto]

Note that the mechanics of the games are very focused on capturing the spirit of the era.

In Crusader Kings the focus is on the dynasty because that was so central to the feudal world. And I think it does this well.

In Europa Universalis you have a very different focus. It is more trade, exploration and building the early nation state vs empires. That sort of thing.

Victoria is really about industrialism, building the nation and the political games of the 19th century. Complete with gunboat diplomacy.

And hearts of Iron is about total mobilization, technological development and the massive logistics that goes in to a global war. (And try to play hearts of iron as a non-WWII game. It generally is not as interesting as a game where you do. At that is much due to the focus on war in hearts of iron.)

[Krakow Sam]

Victoria is about Britain winning everything effortlessly and everyone else trying and failing to run a single profitable papermill.

[Brandonazz]

So I'm back after a couple of hours of conclave, and for the most part see little problem with it.

It mainly changes the monarchs and other nobility of a feudal state from a totalitarian god-dictator to a human being who happens to be a king. And guess what, other humans have different opinions than you, and in your own realm!

Changing law structure is, I will admit, more tedious now. Especially with tribal governments, as you have to do a TON of law changes to westernize or toss away gavelkind.

[Krakow Sam]

Yeah, individually changing all the laws is a bit annoying but honestly it really was too easy to westernise as a tribe before. It was almost beneficial to start the game as a tribal because you could enjoy making mad cash, big "levies" and event troops and the incredibly loose restrictions on your expansion. Then when you got bored of that you could easily switch over to being feudal (or Merchant Republic if you want to be even cheesier) and start off with an enormous treasury you can use to build up your new feudal demesne.

[Ultimatum]

https://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive

They will be begin streaming in like two hours

[Krakow Sam]

STELLARIS RELEASED MAY 9th!!!

[PatMan33]

THAT WAS SIX DAYS AGO!?