Paradox Interactive Thread: V2 The cartographers nightmare. - Games

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;46237092]The farther back the start date is the more batshit insane history takes a turn.[/QUOTE] But it all happened so [I]fast[/I]

For me, observing, it's 1012 and half of western europe is French

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;46238696]I see you can empathize with real life zoroastrians now[/QUOTE] For real. He revoked my emirate and then the guy he gave it to revoked my only sheikhdom. Fuckin' a.

Is it me, or has CKII suddenly got really difficult with the new update? I'm the Emperor of Britannia, with a number of Kingdoms under my control (including Aragon, Andalucía, Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus). Prior to the update, the Kings were all mostly content and everything was fairly easy - which makes sense as I'm being a pussy as I am playing on the easiest settings possible. But now things are getting a bit silly. The majority of my kings are vying for independence/lower crown authority even though they have favourable opinions of me.

Can an unlanded character be elected as emperor of the HRE? [editline]15th October 2014[/editline] Or is my game playing up?

[QUOTE=Coffee;46239627]Can an unlanded character be elected as emperor of the HRE?[/QUOTE] I think members of the ruling dynasty can, if anything?

Despite the bullshit I am going to continue attempting to have success as a Zoroastrian. This time around I started well and grabbed an emirate quickly. Next? My fucking [I]three[/I] martial ruler gets bashed in the head and made incapable because for some reason he might have been leading a flank or something in the caliph's army? Christ almighty. I want the achievements if I ever have success, but at this rate I'm gonna say fuck 'em and ironman both real soon.

So this just happened in my AAR: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/5rl31vE.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Masamune;46242787]Despite the bullshit I am going to continue attempting to have success as a Zoroastrian. This time around I started well and grabbed an emirate quickly. Next? My fucking [I]three[/I] martial ruler gets bashed in the head and made incapable because for some reason he might have been leading a flank or something in the caliph's army? Christ almighty. I want the achievements if I ever have success, but at this rate I'm gonna say fuck 'em and ironman both real soon.[/QUOTE] Ironman is a pain, the constant saving makes everything take forever and if you get a bug you're SOL

[t]http://a.pomf.se/bpsmpe.jpg[/t] :(

[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;46243513]Ironman is a pain, the constant saving makes everything take forever and if you get a bug you're SOL[/QUOTE] Yeah. Or the fucking "war ended inconclusively" bullshit. Sometimes it makes sense, but if the emir of the emirate I'm trying to take via war takes part in a rebellion, my war with his ass shouldn't just vanish, POOF. The definitive issue with Zoroastrians in the new start is the heir to the Abbasids because he's zealous, so he automatically has nearly full negative opinion, which explains why he consistently revokes my fuckin' title. Abbasids confirmed for worse than Karlings.

I think I'll be skipping Charlemange for now, Art of War seems so much more meaningful and content-filled. That also may be because EU4 seems harder and rewarding to play then CK2, blobbing is not that easy if you don't play one of the major superpowers. In CK2 you could rise to the title of king or even emperor and have incredible ammount of land in less then 100 game years. Also, who tried Purple Phoenix Rises mod for EU4? I'm doing a playthrough and it feels great, makes Byzantium more manageable (though its still rather hard to thrive in the beginning), still retains the sandboxy feeling while making the game feeling like a proper campaign, with entertaining missions, mechanics and decisions.

I was wanting to get a Paradox interactive game, I wasn't sure though if I should get Victoria II or Europa Universalis 4. I like the time period of Victoria but I can get the extreme edition of UE4 if I wanted to, not sure what I should go for

EU4 is far easier to get into. There are old Paradox games with a learning curve like a bitch and the much more gentle modern ones. CK2 and EU4 are their current modern titles, with HOI4 coming up as the third.

Personally I like victoria 2 more and honestly if you just spend some time to read a guide/ watch some videos or just experiment playing, it doesnt have that large of a learning curve.

[QUOTE=Wolf532;46245132]I was wanting to get a Paradox interactive game, I wasn't sure though if I should get Victoria II or Europa Universalis 4. I like the time period of Victoria but I can get the extreme edition of UE4 if I wanted to, not sure what I should go for[/QUOTE] I recommend vicky 2, but the way I got into paradox games was EU3 > CK2 > Victoria 2 > HOI II > EU IV So maybe eu iv is better, but its a very different game compared to their older games. My personal quality list involving their current games that I've played is: 1. Vicky 2 2. CK2 3. EU IV 4. HOI: DH (Hearts of Iron Darkest Hour)

Vicky 2 seems a lot more micromanagey to me. I like the historical setting and massive nature of these games, but the amount of seemingly endless micro needed to play Vicky 2 really well is a huge put off for me. I enjoy EU4 a ton more. I also find the time period more interesting in EU4.

I've only played EU4. I like the idea of Vicky the most, but I've never tried to play it because I'm worried it'd feel too dated after only playing Pdox's newest. And I know I'll have a hard time getting into CK2 because I don't know jack shit about the time period.

I started with HoI I > HoI III > Vic2 > EU3 > CKII I still play HoI I, I enjoy it for its relative simplicity. Its quite good for quick LAN games, though it can be hard to change history, though sometimes it breaks and it dives off the deep end and goes batshit crazy Hearts of Iron III was fun till there where way too many units to organise, I didnt really trust the AI to do it for me. Vic 2 I immensly enjoyed and would recommend, though after 1880 I found it became too tedious organising all the armies, just for the shear volume of units. EU3 I havent really enjoyed, I dont know how to accumulate wealth, and having to constantly remember to build stuff in provinces became a drag (If someone could enlighten me on how to, that would be great) Recently Ive picked up Darkest Hour and its great! There is certainly more wiggle room from the added 1933 start (ala Italian dominated Europe)

[QUOTE=sgman91;46247640]Vicky 2 seems a lot more micromanagey to me. I like the historical setting and massive nature of these games, but the amount of seemingly endless micro needed to play Vicky 2 really well is a huge put off for me. I enjoy EU4 a ton more. I also find the time period more interesting in EU4.[/QUOTE] ??? The amount of micro in vicky depends completely on your playstyle. If you play a communist country with tons of population, provinces, land, and manually micromanage the economic system (which I never see anyone do ever but it's doable) then yeah, you'll have some serious problems. But if you are laissez faire and have automated economics (the way I usually play) there's not much micro at all, especially when compared to older games like EU3 imo.

I keep getting these fucking glitches in CK2 where important child/education events don't fire. Kids are auto-named for me, I get no alerts for them When kids become adults, nothing comes up and then suddenly I'm flooded with sibling's requests for marriage, land etc.

why is hungary so op. they literally have a 27k deathstack sitting around yet they don't do anything with it? i'd invade and subjugate the polish counties and bring them under my tribal confederation but the thought of that deathstack running around one shotting everything i have stops me. I have 3/4 of poland, almost all of pomerania, and a bit of lithuania under my control.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;46256222]why is hungary so op. they literally have a 27k deathstack sitting around yet they don't do anything with it? i'd invade and subjugate the polish counties and bring them under my tribal confederation but the thought of that deathstack running around one shotting everything i have stops me. I have 3/4 of poland, almost all of pomerania, and a bit of lithuania under my control.[/QUOTE] Turn to inheriting or trying to incite unrest. 2-3 good-sized civil wars can cut that deathstack and levies down enough for you to smack them around.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46256298]Turn to inheriting or trying to incite unrest. 2-3 good-sized civil wars can cut that deathstack and levies down enough for you to smack them around.[/QUOTE] I would if all of my competent chancellors didn't die of old age leaving me with a bunch of useless fucks. To them I'm an infidel so inheriting is out of the question. Inciting unrest caused my chancellor to be exposed and almost jailed.

[QUOTE=lifehole;46248641]??? The amount of micro in vicky depends completely on your playstyle. If you play a communist country with tons of population, provinces, land, and manually micromanage the economic system (which I never see anyone do ever but it's doable) then yeah, you'll have some serious problems. But if you are laissez faire and have automated economics (the way I usually play) there's not much micro at all, especially when compared to older games like EU3 imo.[/QUOTE] It's all the little things, like these: - Making sure each recruitment area has enough troops to reinforce - Keeping track of influence for tons of different nations around the world (opinion/influence) whereas EUIV you really only worry about nations around you. The influence micro alone is annoying to me. - The whole population influence mechanic. It's annoying to micro the number of clergymen/bureaucrats/etc., especially when you have a ton of different states (like the US). [editline]16th October 2014[/editline] I can definitely see how some people would like all that stuff, but I just find it to be a drag.

Wait is making titular kingdoms a Charlemagne exclusive thing, if not how do you do it?

FUCK YOU HUNGARY. They finally declared war and my meagre 4k stack can only wait on the other side of a river and watch as that 23k deathstack occupies all my lands. aergh if only my shitty stward could raise some zealots. how the fuck does hungary even get that much troops and why?!

[QUOTE=sgman91;46256757]It's all the little things, like these: - Making sure each recruitment area has enough troops to reinforce - Keeping track of influence for tons of different nations around the world (opinion/influence) whereas EUIV you really only worry about nations around you. The influence micro alone is annoying to me. - The whole population influence mechanic. It's annoying to micro the number of clergymen/bureaucrats/etc., especially when you have a ton of different states (like the US). [editline]16th October 2014[/editline] I can definitely see how some people would like all that stuff, but I just find it to be a drag.[/QUOTE] I think you're placing too much importance on things that dont need as much attention as you're giving Setting a few target nations to influence and then waiting is all you need to do most of the time, unless there's competition. I usually play on speed 2-3 just because I like being on the ball on the influence and economic parts of the game, but I've seen plenty of people play at speed 4-5. I don't even think I've ever messed with recruitment areas since it matters so very little in the grand scheme of things. With pop stuff you basically just have to switch around national focuses on your largest states depending on what they need. (order for me is usually clergymen, capitalists, craftsmen, clerks.) maxxing out administrative funding will ensure a ton of bureaucrats.

[QUOTE=lifehole;46259328]I think you're placing too much importance on things that dont need as much attention as you're giving Setting a few target nations to influence and then waiting is all you need to do most of the time, unless there's competition. I usually play on speed 2-3 just because I like being on the ball on the influence and economic parts of the game, but I've seen plenty of people play at speed 4-5. I don't even think I've ever messed with recruitment areas since it matters so very little in the grand scheme of things. With pop stuff you basically just have to switch around national focuses on your largest states depending on what they need. (order for me is usually clergymen, capitalists, craftsmen, clerks.) maxxing out administrative funding will ensure a ton of bureaucrats.[/QUOTE] The problem with VIC 2 is a game that doesn't allow that much sandbox unlike EU or CK, so it needs to have a fuck ton of events for historic and ahistoric events. That's maybe why Victoria: Revolutions (Improvement Project) was SO damn fun to play with. Every minute you would have to take a choice regarding something. Participating in the Three Hurrahs for Germany chain of events was awesome, because you could form germany with any country which had german P.Culture and the amount of stuff involved with it was amazing. Plus, there is something in those nice graphics and pictures that come up with the events, and damn, were they full of text! Sadly, you didn't have the tooltips to know what would happen next, so you had to check out the files. Even if POP gets somewhere near that, it doesn't have the same amount of events for 3rd world countries. You could form La Plata in VICRP and the Argentine Federales vs Unitarios was extremely well researched and developed. And microing the army in VIC 2 is waaaaay less satisfactory than what it was in VICR (I always say this). The "Battle in province" rather than "Battle from province to province" kind kills the 1880 and later warfare. Because you can't have static fronts. And don't get me started with the province modifiers.

[t]http://puu.sh/cfV9A/f06eb73d42.jpg[/t] lol...