I mean I completely agree, all I was saying is I like the 'concept' I always liked the concept of delegating my armies to my generals while I direct production, economy and research. But after all this time and the AI is still utter garbage isn't a good sign.
People shit too much on HOI4
It's decent. I aint no stranger to paradox games but HOI4 with the complexity of HOI3 would be <3
M&T is over complicated and pretentious. The vast majority of people who play these games would not at all be woo'd over by the pointless bloat M&T has. It's map is also ugly as shit.
Imperator looks far more approachable, look at Manga Mundi for what happens if you apply M&T's philosophy into a full game, a broken mess that got mercy killed and literally sent it's creator insane and institutionalised. Seriously.
https://youtu.be/-8ezrpsxVPE
Explain, I would argue the biggest issue is the railroading. What bloat is there?
I haven't played it long enough to tell you in detail and I haven't attempted to do so in some time to be fair. But whenever I have tried it just overwhelms me completely to the point I get frustrated, Islam alone has tons of it's own shit seemingly while opening the trade tab makes me want to cry. Some parts of the map has way too many provinces, there also seems to be a intense amount of interacting features and none of it is explained clearly enough.
I feel like if I put time to learning the mod, I'll probably really like it, but it's basically something that's VERY niche, even to the Paradox community. It's also not at all what I'll build a game on nor would I say it's going to be more of a game than Imperator. It's way too unapproachable for most people and it's inevitably going to be unstable and insane to create.
I both like and will continually be confused by the way they handle the start date, which is 450 years since Rome was founded. According to the Anead, the start date would be ~321 BC. I've seen a lot of comments that show a lot of confusion with it, thinking that it starts at the fall of Rome rather than the beginning of the Republic's steamrolling of the peninsula
I always get this bit of trivia wrong, but didnt the creator of Magna Mundi keep inviting people to his "Carnival of Pleasure" (his basement in portugal) or some shit?
Yeah. He also wanted to destroy Paradox and literally talked like a cartoon villain.
It's really unfair to say something like that and then say you haven't even played it or learned it properly.
Christianity has more mechanics than Islam does. All Islam has is Holy Lands and the Dhimmi system, even the Caliph is abstracted compared to the Holy See's Papacy election system and reform (Which by the way is in vanilla EU4, it's just fleshed out more due to Dei Gratia). The HRE has so many provinces to properly represent all the princedoms within it and China and India have so many to be able to accurately account for its population distribution because they've always been the most populous regions in the world.
The only direct interactions you'll have with provinces is building forts, roads and actual buildings. There's not a lot of it. Your estates will occasionally do things according to their autonomy and their wealth. The wiki (which is on the subreddit AND the official forums) explains everything adequately enough to play the game at a decent level.
Once you get into more abstract things such as maximum efficiency rural and urban pop balancing and food it gets complicated- but it's supposed to, you're going into in depth game mechanics.
I'm calling HoI4 a piece of garbage because I've put in the effort and time to try to figure it out.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/108630/cacbdadc-a6c7-4fab-b3b1-47b823d07b13/image.png
It's a pale comparison to its predecessors, people just put AI on, draw lines to the capital and let it roll. The game even penalizes you if you dont (No plan building bonus, why????) It's definitely why it's flourished, it caters to the lowest common denominator. It's always been a operational level War Game inspired GS, HoI3 was the apex of that, but even DH striked an alright balance. I'm not a fan of it at all, it's turned into another map painting simulator like EU4 is.
He never said that though.
"I haven't played it long enough to tell you in detail and I haven't attempted to do so in some time to be fair."
????????????
Where in that sentence does it say he hasn't played the game? Because it quite clearly says that he has, just not for some vague short period.
Yeah and that's what I said, he hasn't played it properly.
What is your point, because it sounds like you don't have one.
You said he hadn't played it at all.
My point is you're putting words in his mouth he didn't explicitly say.
I dunno guys his wording comes across as a general, not specifically him.
"It's really unfair to say something like that and then say you haven't even played it or learned it properly. "
The latter part of that sentence applied to Grizzly and the former applied as a general statement, which isn't necessarily wrong.
I don't think it's that unfair of me to only play it for a short period because of how unapproachable it is, I highly doubt I'm the only one too. That's a major flaw in itself.
Uhhh. Are we reading the same thing here?
I liked having AI control in regions with lots of partisan acivities, as it became a nightmare to manage beat down all uprisings in Hoi3, Especially in the Soviet Union when partisan units could literally block off the entire supply line by occupying certain provinces, which made little sense as that would imply the partisans were acting like conventional units and not unconventional units. But now (atleast in vanilla hoi4) partisans are gone as actual combat units and replaced with just destroying factories and infrastructure with the "unrest" modifier. Which makes far more sense in an unconventional way but it still neglects a lot of partisan activities historically. The AI also automatically guarded coastlines which in my opinion is something I miss in Hoi4 as the AI now just doomstacks entire armies in 2-3 provinces after having no front to establish. But that was the only good thing about the AI control, the rest was pretty bland.
That wasn't my intention at all, I thought you guys were fucking with me to be honest. I see now what you mean by that. The properly -in my mind- has a relation to both learned and played in that sentence. Sorry for the confusion.
Man, Stellaris after Megacorp is absolutely horrific.
The AI is completely incapable of playing with the new planets. It wasn't great with the tiles before but wow. Nothing like conquering a planet and seeing 6 Commercial Zones.
The trade system is okay but the AI seems incapable of using that as well.
Every AI faction is hopelessly outpaced by any remotely competent player within 30-40 years of game start.
Also the lag even 50-60 years after game start is making it unplayable on any of the larger galaxies.
Paradox have goofed really really hard with this release.
Okay so I really want to actually try learning how to play one of the Paradox games, just because everyone and their mother tells me they're amazing and super addictive but I'm unsure which one.
I'm torn between Europa Universalis IV and Crusader Kings II. I own both. Which one is best for a beginner? I know absolutely nothing about them.
Both take time to learn how to play. I'd just go for which ever time period peaks your interest more
EU4 is playing more as a nation, CK2 is more playing as a character, thats the biggest generalisation I can give you. Imo I think CK2 is the most difficult and micromanaging one compared to EU4.
EU4 is easier to learn imo and is a bit more forgiving.
I think one person on this forum thought Eu4 was harder then Ck2.
Dunno how they could think that. You need to micromanage so much shit in CK2 whereas you can ignore stuff in EU4 and still bungle your way through, generally. CK2 is also way less forgiving even on lower difficulty levels.
Although, CK2 does have the expansion that lets you join cults or whatever and you can be a devil worshiper and sacrifice people to essentially live forever. The game has also gotten progressively more goofy events over the years so if you like silly events happening then CK2 is your game. Nothing like playing an insane cannibal devil worshiper who appoints a horse to his council while also out on an expedition looking for the fountain of youth.
Thats the charm with CK2.
And i wouldn't change a thing.
Except for "for whom the bell tolls" event fuck that shit. Just lost my perfect ruler due to that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
