[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: YoSuF.png (336 KB, 445x495)
336 KB
336 KB PNG
PDX systems are generally unfun, they are too deterministic, and give players little choice to influence the final outcome.
>>
>>1197354
>they are too deterministic
Go play roulette or something retard, simulations should be deterministic and RNG is just a crutch in game design
>>
the "width" and "maneuver" mechanics that define lots of pdx games combat are fundamentally fucked
you could be outnumbering someone 4:1, yet instead of performing an encircling maneuver the overwhelming majority of your troops will be idle, waiting to replace a shattered unit
best case scenario, you get an extra 2-4 units assisting the flanks (depending on tech and unit type)
and if combat width is maxxed out, you don't even get that, you just fight on equal footing

a battle is raging with all enemy units engaged? a reinforcement of 5000 cavalry appears at the enemy flanks in the most critical part of the battle?
tough luck nerd, that cav will not actually charge, they will teleport at your "reserve" to replace any units that can no longer fight

not just that, but instead of taking lessons from past mistakes or successes and taking advantage of tech improvements, paradox battle mechanics are actively regressing
see imperator, ck3 (with an actual rock-paper-scissors system) and now v3
paradox is fucking done
>>
>>1197370
Paradox is no longer for wargames, Chud.
>>
>>1197354
Better than 3 buttons.
>>
>>1197357
Read history book, luck was a huge factor
Both Caesar, Napoleon, and Clauswitz go on about.
Clauswitz writes:
>There is no human affair which stands so constantly and so generally in close connection with chance as War. But together with chance, the accidental, and along with it good luck, occupy a great place in War.
>>
>>1197354
Basically just simulate a mini total war style battle. The movement of the troops will be based on the skill and personality of the commanders and the subcommanders of each unit. Morale and skill (effected by exprerience, equipment, pay, odds of winning etc) of the troops will also be included in the simulation. Battles last one day, or a few days at most. The player doesn't get to interect other than picking the generals and maybe giving very general orders beforehand.
>>
>>1197394
"Luck" is just lack of information or something we couldnt account for due to our imperfection as humans.
But game designers have tools to design all variables and mechanics in their games. I agree that some information should be obscured from the player so that they might think it was "luck" but over all they should stick as close to simulation side of thigs as possible.

Example, take X-Com Ufo defense, the game has a 3d plane underneath where all shoot trajectories are calculated and simulated, but player usually doesnt know that so the % to hit he sees in normal gameplay might be dependent on "luck" in his eyes. It creates an engaging and interesting system while there is still room for some "randomness"
>>
File: 44566.png (108 KB, 1027x797)
108 KB
108 KB PNG
>>1197354
I'm thinking that instead of dicerolls battles should follow stages determines by decisions taken by generals and these should determine the outcome.
>>
>>1197405
So we turn it into dominions micro strategy orders?
>>
>>1197357
But RNG is just an approximation of simulation.

It's not possible to create a 100% accurate simulacrum of the real world so you cannot create battles with as many variables as would exist in the real world. RNG is a way of accounting for those without actually having to model them.
>>
>>1197442
That would actually be awesome, script armies before battle and watch the little sprites battle each other. Create script templates so you dont have to repeat that for every new formation etc...
It would be awesome
>>
>>1197354
You want a true battle simulator where its not just stack stomping? Make information about enemy armies very fuzzy. Your estimate says 11 thousand troops but it could be 6k or maybe even 30k. You have no fucking idea just like in real life.
Add a "tactics" system similar to HOI4. General traits will have a very small influence on units inside of battle but rather the effectiveness of the tactic they pick. Better generals will pick better tactics and thus have a lower chance of being countered as well as receiving better bonuses, but there is a chance that a random dipshit general accidentally performs a miracle or a tactical genius makes a costly blunder.
Add in a bit of RNG for how units perform and you have yourself a battle simulator where having a good general and better numbers is good enough to give you a huge advantage but not 100% guarantee victory. War is a gamble and winning every war I fight is boring as shit after a while. Literally becomes map painting.
>>
>>1197354
>Design a battle system
me smacky-smacky, me win.
you smacky-smacky - NO! no, bad!! me win.
>>
>>1197409
>"Luck" is just lack of information or something we couldnt account for due to our imperfection as humans.
KEK
>But game designers have tools to design all variables and mechanics in their games.
KEK
>>
>>1197354
GRAND STRATEGY GAMES ARE NOT FUCKING RTS GAMES
YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF A BATTLE, YOU ARE THE HEAD OF STATE NOT NAPOLEON OR GENGHIS KHAN
>>
>>1197571
THEN GO FUCKING PLAY HEARTS OF IRON YOU SPASTIC SHITS
>>
>>1197372
PARADOX GAMES WERE NEVER WARGAMES, THEY ARE ABOUT MANAGING A STATE/CHARACTER YOU FUCKING SPASTIC SHITS
>>
>>1197357
>OH WOW LOOK AT ALL THOSE FUCKING GAMES THAT DONT INVOLVE RNG WHERE I CAN FLEX MUH LE EPIC RTS MICRO SKILLS?
>NO! I WANT THIS ONE! GIVE ME THE SLOW GRAND STRATEGY GAME MEANT TO BE COMFY! I WANT IT TO BE COMPETITIVE AND INVOLVE ESPORTS TOO!
>>
>>1197354
Before you redesign the battle system you have to redesign the entire game so war doesn't routinely involve marching a two hundred thousand people across half of Eurasia.
>>
>>1197733
BROTHER HAVE I THE PERFECT PARADOX INTERACTIVE (Trademarked, all rights reserved) GAME FOR YOU
>>
>>1197733
Having a decent logistics system would probably be enough of an improvement to the war in paradox style games that changing the battle resolution system itself wouldn't matter.
>>
honestly one of the more compelling systems was the one I found in space empires 5, which allowed the use of formations and commands. I think gambit behaviours, like that in dominions, are also pretty good because they can remove a lot of the micromanaging. It allows some creativity even concerning more useless units.

It's a really disappointing abstraction found in a lot of historical games, considering that many (and I would argue all), wars were not ended by technological or logistical determinism, but by creativity.
>>
The ai should be required to use sailors. If they can’t make an AI smart enough to use sailors, they should scrap the mechanic. Infinite sailor ottomans is annoying to fight when the mechanic was pretty much invented to simulate the long term effects of the battle of lepanto.
>>
>>1197571
>>1197726
This is literally CK2 combat system
>>
>>1197354
>give players little choice to influence the final outcome
This is by design, since it's a grand strategy game. If you let the player influence individual battles too much, it becomes just a strategy game like Total War, at which point other aspects of the game such as the economy have to be simplified to make the more complicated battle systems work.
>>
>>1197870
I get the abstraction os part of the grand strategy appeal, I would not wish battles to become anything like total wars, however, I reckon in PDX games battles are determined by three factors:
>army size (and quality)
>general skill
>terrain

There must be something more...
>>
>>1197894
You can breakdown quality further
training
organisation
equipment
experience
morale
then add
doctrines
communications
intelligence
Most of these are highly interconnected. For example providing information about the enemy through reconnaissance ( intelligence) is less useful if that information isn't effectively relayed ( communications ) and assessed ( doctrines).
>>
>>1197894
no really there mustn't be anything more, maybe forts or other things
the main skill in combat is knowing to delay or avoid wars where you will lose, that is it
micro will fuck up the game and make it so you can win wars where you shouldnt
>>
Id love to see a mesh of ck2 and hoi3/4 system i think it would be easy to encompass both medieval and modern warfare as well just by changing the combat width depending on the era. Then i would make it so every commander in the OOB has strategy they are using. The higher up the command the longer it takes for the strategy to change/adapt. Also you are going to have more control over high level commanders than commander low down in the oob. Pic related combat width will be more flexible but will come at a penalty. You could manage flanks like ck2 but i think it would just be easier to manage them by being the provinces like hoi. Each flank would be opened up by the connected provinces. This would also add another layer in battle like Army A attacks the center flank unexpectedly but the wings react and drive them back, stuff like that.
>>
>>1197394
>did the enemy general just roll 5 consecutive 6’s and I cant get anything above a 2?
>>
File: chucky.jpg (6 KB, 251x221)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>Zoom in from the strategic map and the province becomes a operational battlefield
>Zoom into a battle and it becomes a squad tactics battlefield
>Zoom into a single soldier and you control his nervous system
>Zoom into his body and you are a single region of neurons in the brain and the entire brain is a grand strategy game
>Battle system is abstracted and has no on map units
>Literally unplayable
>>
>>1197830
No its not. You can see enemy army sizes in CK2 perfectly fine. Battles also all end the same way. It barely even matters if you win battles anyways since the war system is shit.
>>
>>1198110
>Zoom into his body and you are a single region of neurons in the brain and the entire brain is a grand strategy game
RTSCeption
>>
>>1197724
>>1197727
That is very specifically not true of any paradox game but CK
In Victoria, EU, HoI, and IR, the head of state is an entirely sperate entity that changes on a whim and roll of the dice. You are instead the disembodied, immortal 'spirit of the nation'
The character, opinions, and limitations of the head of state don't apply to you. You have near total economic, full view of all the vying political factions of the nations, complete diplomatic knowledge,, an easy way way to gage and judge the relative strength of the nations around you, full knowledge of the income and manpower every single province of your nation provides you available to you at any time of the day
At the press of a button you can completely alter the political outlook of your entire nation
To limit your understanding and control of war when you have such total control over literally every other aspect of the game is simply baffling, there is no excuse for it other than the devs not wanting you to play a certain way
Hell, in the CK series there's even MORE reason to have influence over war
As a medieval king, it is out right expected of you to lead your armies to battle yourself, and as the player is playing their character, they should absolutely have more control over how a battle goes, as incentive to let your character do what they are expected to do
>>
>>1198187
CK2 is the only time Paradox seriously attempted simulation and I’ll die on that hill. EU remains at its core a board game on steroids (and frankly once you accept that it’s a lot of fun for what it is), HoI3 was an attempt at a wargame, and CK was the simulation attempt. Everything after their popularity blew up in the mid-2010s is an entirely different can of worms mind you
>>
>>1197724
>napoopan
>chinggkhis
>kaisar
>alexander
>not heads of state
please tell me i'm falling for le funni bait
>>
>>1197436
This is what CK2 does, but it's based on RNG (of course) and general stats
>>
>>1197436
Generals anticipate and react to what they see. RNG is a simulation of their mistakes and good plays.

That Rock, Paper, Scissors is way more luck based than an RNG factor added on your generals' modifiers
>>
>>1197409

This
>>
>>1197465

This too
>>
>>1198206
Shame they never made CK2's simulation deeper in a meaningful way and just slathered it in DLCs for random pointless shit like nomads, republics, india, off map china, etc
>>
>>1197760
Yeah in most of the Paradox games I definitely wouldn't want to micro the battles all the time but a way to influence battles from a high level could be interesting. I'd make an exception for Crusader Kings: some more detailed ability to manage the battles of the army you're personally leading would be kino
>>
>>1197354
Dammn these heretic Czechs are getting fucking roasted.
>>
>>1198187
>As a medieval king, it is out right expected of you to lead your armies to battle yourself
There is no reason to ever lead your troops, there is +3 advantage to your ruler self-leading, but in most cases, you have a courtier who has higher martial.
It is stupid, the king leading his troops is symbolic, there is a reason why so many kings led in person. When they didn't you have disasters like Agincourt where the king's constable lost control of the nobles in the army, because they could get away with disobeying the constable.
>>
>>1198206
people shit on CK2's battle system because it was too complex, hence we get the abortion that is CK3's battle system, where a bigger army always wins, and where only defeated army takes real losses
>>
File: 1507772485858.jpg (45 KB, 747x275)
45 KB
45 KB JPG
>>1198349
>>
>>1197736
I am actually asking for the exact opposite, for it to be made less like a RTS.
>>
>>1197743
>>1197733
Agreed. Then you just need to tie garrison forces to manpower (so garrisons aren't clones from nowhere) so that big empires have to leave large amounts of their manpower in remote regions to hold things together.
>>
>>1198187
"Spirit of the nation" is a paracuck cope term that falls apart comepletely as soon as you think about it for more than a second
>>
>>1198397
I have been saying this for awhile, but games like EU4 would become much harder if you would be forced to leave behind troops to occupy proportionally the wealth of the province. Like if you want to occupy Paris you need to leave behind 10 regiments.
>>
>>1198399
It's literally the only explanation for how the games work
You simply are not the head of state. That is always represented as an entity completely separate of you. You have too much control and knowledge at hand to be any single individual actor
If you want to call it asinine you can, but 'spirit of the nation' is the only true explanation for what the player is
>>
>>1198414
Pretty sure the player is just (((them)))
>>
>>1198414
No. It's the 'spirit of Johan'. You have infinite control over some things and zero control over others based only on whatever genius game designer johan and his disciples arbitrarily decided would constitue """good gameplay""". There is no condsideration about the spirit of a nation or what such an entity should or shouldn't be able to affect whatsoever. It's an entirely post-hoc term invented so they don't have to admit that they never gave a serious thought about answering one of the most fundamental questions of the game design process: Who am I playing as?
>>
>>1198399
I don't see how it makes sense that game continues if rebels win.
In Imperator if you lose a civil war you get a game over
>>
>>1198325
The good thing is that mods exist that do exactly that, everyone jerks off HIP which has a lot of extraneous graphical shit but the core mechanics overhaul (which can be installed separately) makes it imo the best medieval simulation game, bar none
>>
>>1198399
>>1198414
EU4 is a board game. Not a simulation game. Hell, Johan has said as much himself in terms of design philosophy, so I'm not sure why people bother debating this.
>>
>>1198490
Even in a board game you have to answer what you are playing as
>>
>>1198496
t someone who has only played dnd
>>
>>1198446
>one of the most fundamental questions of the game design process: Who am I playing as?
kek keep making shit up
Ever heard of puzzle games?
>>
>>1198504
Ever looked at the name of the board you are on?
>>
>>1198496
Generally board games at the national level make it work by abstracting the government to you just being omniscient, which is what EU4 does
>>
>>1198412
I like the idea, the big problem that comes to mind is that it'd make the AI not knowing when to give up an even bigger flaw if the player can't fall back on carpet sieging the entire country.
>>
>>1198716
I did a mockup of this a few months ago.
Basically, I made it so that AI had a deadline to occupy a certain amount of land (which would few year) if made the deadline, it would continue the war, and set a new goal + deadline.
If it missed the deadline, it would sue for peace and seek to reinforce already occupied provinces instead of continuing the offensive.
>>
>>1197394
No. That's wrong. Caesar, Napoleon, and Clauswitz just had imperfect information. There was no magical roll of the dice that won or lost wars. Wars are almost always over before they start for socio-economic reasons. WW2 is a great example. You had the resources of the British Empire and the industrial power of the United States vs Germany, Italy, and Japan - who were all starving for resources. Guess who fucking won.
>>
>>1198349
ck2 combat was better. idk why paracuck shills cry about it. had flanks btw. tell me thats not a downgrade.
>>
>>1198399
I just think it is a boring idea because the ruler has no way to influence your actions.
In the game I'm making, you are still a sort of invisible hand, but the ruling government is different, you are essentially a middle manager and the ruling government is the senior management.
In order to do what you want you need political favors, and you get political favors from completing missions given by the government.
If you get enough political favors you can replace the government with one that gives you missions that align with your goals, So, if you serve the country well you can do what you want, fail to serve the country and you have to make do with handouts (i.e. you can't pick generals or raise new armies)
>>
>>1198187
do you even know what a wargame is?
>>
>>1198486
Sounds interesting, never tried HIP. Maybe I should give it a try, though I can't find a complete feature list to read through.

I think most of the things that annoy me are hard or impossible to change, though, and CK3 pissed away any chance of them being addressed.
>AI characters not behaving in a believable way for their traits and station in life (especially with regards to their marriage choices)
>the way homage/fealty is modelled
>lack of coherence to interactions with the AI
>distance feels meaningless (interacting with someone a gorillion miles away is no different to interacting with someone in a nearby county)
>>
>>1198187
>devs not wanting you to play a certain way
And why should the game allow you to play a way devs don't want to?
>>
>>1198417
>Pretty sure the player is just (((them)))
every player is a jew at heart
>>
>>1199271
every human is a jew heart
who wouldn't want to get rich and control the world
>>
>>1199279
>who wouldn't want to get rich and control the world
women
>>
>>1199094
>>the way homage/fealty is modelled
Homage and fealty were quite different, the game seems to confuse the two.
Fealty was based fief, so multiple one people could swear fealty to multiple lieges through different fiefs. It is comparable to the tenant and landlord relationship, in that you can rent multiple apartments from different landlords.
Homage was a personal pledge, it could only be sworn by one person, who would be their master.

Following the Norman conquests of England, William and his brood stopped paying homage to France because it would have acknowledged England as a client of France, but they continued swearing fealty as the dukes of Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine.

Way CK games essentially pretend these are the same thing.
>>
>>1199351
Learn english
>>
>>1199619
I’d rather read educated posts by ESL-kun than grammatically correct shitposts
>>
>>1199351
To be fair, I can’t think of a way to present that in a gameplay form that wouldn’t be a complete fucking mess. Medieval hierarchies were also complicated, even if you got it as accurate as possible in France it’s not going to be accurate to any other region
>>
>>1199094
Here’s an old and incomplete summary of the main mechanics module: https://ck2.paradoxwikis.com/Extended_Mechanics_%26_Flavor_(EMF)
>>
>>1199619
sorry, I did make a few mistakes, I still through it to be readable, but here is the corrected version:

>>the way homage/fealty is modelled
Homage and fealty were quite different, the game seems to confuse the two.
Fealty was based on fief, thus people could swear fealty to multiple lieges through different fiefs. It is comparable to the tenant and landlord relationship, in that you can rent multiple apartments from different landlords.
Homage was a personal pledge, it could only be sworn to one person, who would be their master.

Following the Norman conquests of England, William and his brood stopped paying homage to France because it would have acknowledged England as a client of France, but they continued swearing fealty as the dukes of Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine.

Way CK games essentially pretend these are the same thing.
>>
>>1199351
>>1199628
>CK games essentially pretend these are the same thing.
No. In CK2, "homage" is represented by de facto control, while "fealty" is represented by de jure control. In your example, the duchies of Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine continue to obey the crown laws of the Kingdom of France (until 100 years have passed and they "drift" out of France's de jure territory), even though de facto they are part of the Kingdom of England.
Or are you suggesting that fealty should impact more than just crown laws?
>>
>>1199630
>Anjou and Aquitaine
Whoops, those are de jure part of the K. of Aquitaine, so they obey the crown laws of England, not those of France.
>>
>>1198754
You are absolutely correct. That is why the Soviets overran Finland in the winter war, Algeria remains a French colony and South Vietnam still stands against the North. Whoever has more stuff always wins.
>>
>>1199630
Technically whole is so abstracted that is hard to compare, but the whole point of fealties was that every time a vassal or liege died, the vassal had met with the liege, and swear fealty, and the liege had to recognize their inheritance. Additionally, the vassal had to pay inheritance tax in form of feudal relief, and the liege might demand something more like a hostage or occupying the fief for a few years (ward right).
There is just none of that in CK, which is a shame you'd think the devs would embrace such roleplay opportunities, but they don't care, and as the result, I seldom notice when my vassals die.
>>
So I haven't put thousands of hours into EU4, so I might be missing something, but am I right to think that the optimal strategy for lategame wars is just to have a couple of stacks in the 70-100 units range that you split up when safe to lower attrition?
Just having a much bigger stack seems to dwarf almost any other factor for players and the AI.
>>
>>1199718
you rarely want to fight actual armies, just burn down his forts faster. Basically the general war strategy is ignore the actual main target, and take the capitals of his allies and white peace them out. Once you have the main target isolated, you burn down his forts faster. Giant clashes just eat your manpower and don’t give much warscore. If your lucky he’ll be a coward and just hide his precious army and let you 100% him without a single major fight.
>>
It srill gets to me that CK still can't get vassal kings right
The French King doesn't get his cut of taxes from English normandy, even though the King of England, as the Duke of Normandy, is subservient to him, as normandy is still considered a possession of the french crown. This is a very, very important part of medieval politics, and is something that CK just can't simulate with how their current feudal systems work. The entire 'German Prince becomes a king of a nation outside the HRE' debacle just doesn't fucking work like it should.
It's a massive failing, up there with their refusal to accurately depict the power of a bishop or really go indepth with how Slavic feudalism differed from Frankish feudalism
>>
>>1199624
>To be fair, I can’t think of a way to present that in a gameplay form that wouldn’t be a complete fucking mess. Medieval hierarchies were also complicated, even if you got it as accurate as possible in France it’s not going to be accurate to any other region
I think I would rather an autistically detailed simulation set within France alone compared to CK's "wide but shallow" approach. CK could barely handle feudal Europe but then they expanded it to muslims, republics, nomads, India, and so on.
I'm predisposed to playing a handful of places in Europe so I guess I feel like it's wasted effort.
>>
>>1199645
>>1199750
These are the kinds of things I hoped for in CK3 but we can see how that's turned out. Shame there's no CK competitor
>>
>>1197354
Why couldn't Paradox just rip-off Total War and do a tactical battle in the field itself where you contol Brigades against the enemy? Seems better than just doing dice rolls.
>>
>>1197724
>>1197726
>>1197727
>>1197730
>>1197730
>>1197736
based schizo poster
>>
>>1199742
Huh? DId EU4 add ability to destroy enemy fort?
>>
>>1200030
He means assaulting them, "burn down" is a metaphor for how fast you go through them
>>
>>1200034
oh, I thought it would nice if you could actually destroy enemy forts you have occupied. Because maintaining them is costly.
Also, happened historically, Robert the Bruce assaulted English castles in Scotland, but because he couldn't hold them against English field armies, he just torched them and ran away, depriving of the base of operation.
>>
>>1200124
It's been years since I played EU4 but you can at least mothball them. Don't remember if you can also just delete them
>>
>>1199979
it would be shit/take away dev resources from other things/dumbed down to extreme. if you want total war, play total war.
>>
>>1199636
Kingdom bloat kinda became a problem in ck2. Or was Aquitaine always a de jure kingdom?
>>
>>1199979
tactics micro doesn't belong in a grand strategy game
>>
>>1200124
CK2/EU4 don't let you station troops inside fortifications to begin with, nor it really have a system for simulating armies running out of food, which honestly is an huge issue that makes fortifying your stuff not really worth it, for most part.
Ironically enough, Imperator actually got the second half of that right, with armies having to resupply in friendly territory and be wary of running out of food.
>>
>>1200362
>CK2/EU4 don't let you station troops inside fortifications to begin with
Never understood why
>>
>>1202248
My guess is that it is a mix of “We didn’t thought of that” and that AI couldn’t handle it, since the siege system is based on you having (number of defenders)+1 guys to effectively siege something down.
>>
>>1202323
EU4's siege system is bad, but it still 100 times better CK2/3's, and it drives me insane when people praise CK2/3's system.
>muh, EU4 siege system makes me angry because I never know when the siege end (like in real life)
>CK2/3 loading bar for sieges is better because I know exactly when the siege ends
In EU4 the unpredictable nature of sieges means a few bad rolls mean that you have to retreat from siege because a bigger enemy army is approaching, CK2/3 model turns sieges into a chore.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.