So.... Them Paradox games...

tusk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I tried Civ V once. Tutorial made me pick Moscow. I'd no idea what I was doing and the game had a million start options so I never went back to it.

I randed my first proper game. Ended up being Gandhi and getting the war victory hahaa

pawrick

Try using the cheat codes in CK2 to explore / learn the game quickly starting out and not have to worry too much about certain aspects until you are familiar with how things work.

CIV 5 is a great game, I moved on to CIV 6 because it's newer but some things drive me mad in it compared to 5.

J Mysterio

I also really wanted to like Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings etc, but they are ridiculously complex and - tbh - not all that fun. As another poster said, it seems you need to have a PHD in the mechanics just to get by.

Heart of Iron looks interesting as a concept, but the graphics etc are just so basic its prevented my looking at it more closely.

I enjoyed Knights of Honour for a while, which is basically a dumbed down, simplified CK. That is very accessible.

Mount & Blade: Warband, while a little dated, is still pretty fun and combines a tactical map/ empire management with first person battles which you control.

I get most of my grand strategy kicks from CIV, which I've been playing religiously forever. I agree that 5 is better than 6 overall, but it's hard to go back to 5 once you've played the new title, There are some nice new mechanics. Still though, diplomacy has not been improved and is very awkward. It annoys me too that the DLC is still not potted to the Switch after all this time.

The Total War games are brilliant of course.

X-COM, while a slightly different genre to the aforementioned, is also a favourite. I've been doing another play through the last few days.

Strategy games are a clear favourite for me, I just wished there was more choice!

pixelburp

I'm surprised Hearts of Iron has never had much of a graphical upgrade; perhaps Paradox is too small a company, the game too niche to afford a larger Graphics & UI department. Must be a very efficient little set-up. Agree about the graphics though, I just can't get behind the excessively 'board game' look.

Last Total War game I played was the much maligned Empire: Total War; not a fan of medieval / Shogun settings so this tickled my fancy a little more. I think I just enjoyed the kick of Ireland becoming a Despotic Monarchy and taking over England (as happened in a couple of playthroughs).

Spare a thought for us poor RTS fans; nobody makes them anymore, it's either MOBA or - at best - a Tower Defence game. What I wouldn't give for another proper Red Alert or Starcraft (minus the insane multiplayer mania)

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

I also really wanted to like Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings etc, but they are ridiculously complex and - tbh - not all that fun. As another poster said, it seems you need to have a PHD in the mechanics just to get by.

Well, I did splurge on the DLC for both so I feel a bit compelled to give them a proper go. Quill18 has tutorials for EU4 which might help but there's very little for CK2 that's not outdated.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Heart of Iron looks interesting as a concept, but the graphics etc are just so basic its prevented my looking at it more closely.

I quite like HoI4 but it's not a normal conquering strategy game. You're restricted with what you can do a bit more than with the other titles.

J Mysterio wrote: »

I enjoyed Knights of Honour for a while, which is basically a dumbed down, simplified CK. That is very accessible.

Mount & Blade: Warband, while a little dated, is still pretty fun and combines a tactical map/ empire management with first person battles which you control.

Might give these a look at some point.

J Mysterio wrote: »

The Total War games are brilliant of course.

Of course.

J Mysterio wrote: »

X-COM, while a slightly different genre to the aforementioned, is also a favourite. I've been doing another play through the last few days.

The originals look unplayable to me but the newer titles were a big part of what got me into strategy gaming. I think I even started them before Total War.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Strategy games are a clear favourite for me, I just wished there was more choice!

They're horrendous time vampires though. I don't think the lack of choice, if any is a bad thing at all.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm surprised Hearts of Iron has never had much of a graphical upgrade; perhaps Paradox is too small a company, the game too niche to afford a larger Graphics & UI department. Must be a very efficient little set-up. Agree about the graphics though, I just can't get behind the excessively 'board game' look.

I actually like the glossy map look of HoI4 I have to say. It's shiny. On the flip-side, the games never age too badly as they never looked great to begin with! I don't know how big the company is but the complexity of these games for what must be a small dev is staggering.

pixelburp wrote: »

Last Total War game I played was the much maligned Empire: Total War; not a fan of medieval / Shogun settings so this tickled my fancy a little more. I think I just enjoyed the kick of Ireland becoming a Despotic Monarchy and taking over England (as happened in a couple of playthroughs).

Yeah. My first game was Rome: Total War. I moved onto Medieval II. Interest started to wane at Empire. I've never played Napoleon despite owning it which is a shame. Rome II and Attila though. The latter runs like a turd. What really grates though is the absurd one-on-one combat the units are stuck with (thankfully removed for Warhammer), the all but complete removal of settlement management (4-5 slots, really?) and the fact that Politics just comes down to spending money so your generals don't trigger a civil war. That's neither fun nor interesting. That killed my interest in the newer titles until Warhammer. Shogun 2 doesn't have this but I never got into that for some reason. Maybe it has too much of what's wrong with Empire. Wonderful aesthetic though.

I adore the Warhammer titles. I've forgiven CA a lot because they ditched the one-on-one combat and the settlement management at least makes more sense. The characters and units have been brought to life in such a wonderful way that I'm forgiving the flaws instead of focusing on them..

pixelburp wrote: »

Spare a thought for us poor RTS fans; nobody makes them anymore, it's either MOBA or - at best - a Tower Defence game. What I wouldn't give for another proper Red Alert or Starcraft (minus the insane multiplayer mania)

I used to play Plants vs Zombies. Don't think I've ever touched RTS.

J Mysterio

This is due to come out in September: Phoenix Point.
Basically an X-Com game, but looks interesting.

pawrick

With all this talk of HOI i think I might give it a go again this weekend, never got in to it but maybe time for another shot as i like the time period it's set in.

Total war empire looks terrible graphics wise now but again i really liked the concept and time period, played it again afew months back. Napoleon is still payable graphics wise and I preferred it over Shogun.

ancapailldorcha

pawrick wrote: »

With all this talk of HOI i think I might give it a go again this weekend, never got in to it but maybe time for another shot as i like the time period it's set in.

Total war empire looks terrible graphics wise now but again i really liked the concept and time period, played it again afew months back. Napoleon is still payable graphics wise and I preferred it over Shogun.

I quite like Empire's period as well. It's partly why I bought EU4. It's interesting and you have the transition from Feudalism to early democracy along with the change in combat from knights to musketeers.

Anyway, Quill18's HoI4 tutorials are recent (including Man the Guns):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uCwrt-LkA

Kiith

Stellaris is easy enough to pick up, and is a fantastic game. Some great mods as well, with the Star Trek one being a standout.

Coulnd't get into Crusader Kings 2, but to be fair i didn't really give it enough time.

ancapailldorcha

I gave CK2 another go today. Invaded somewhere with mercs, disbanded merc and got invaded myself. Game over. Eurgh.

Colonel Claptrap

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I gave CK2 another go today. Invaded somewhere with mercs, disbanded merc and got invaded myself. Game over. Eurgh.

I often use Mercs and/or Jews in the early game for a single risky move to take over my first neighbouring county. If it doesn't go to plan, it's often GG and I'll start again.

Once the first and second county is taken over, I never really bother with Mercs. I have enough man power to steam roll. Same with the Jews.

I often have to remind myself that it's not a game of conquest, it's an RPG simulator. The war mechanics are fairly basic and uninteresting anyway.

My next playthrough will be to take part in a crusade as a Christian Spanish ruler. I've never paid much attention to crusades or the papacy. That's my short term goal. Everything else, including conquest is secondary.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I often use Mercs and/or Jews in the early game for a single risky move to take over my first neighbouring county. If it doesn't go to plan, it's often GG and I'll start again.

Once the first and second county is taken over, I never really bother with Mercs. I have enough man power to steam roll. Same with the Jews.

I often have to remind myself that it's not a game of conquest, it's an RPG simulator. The war mechanics are fairly basic and uninteresting anyway.

My next playthrough will be to take part in a crusade as a Christian Spanish ruler. I've never paid much attention to crusades or the papacy. That's my short term goal. Everything else, including conquest is secondary.

Thanks for this. I built a war chest to invade Tyrone so I could hire mercs as literally everyone seems to have more troops than me. I must've filled out the wrong cassus belli because Tyrone capitulated and someone else got it somehow. I'd to take the loan from the Jews just for the mercs' upkeep.

I get that it is character focused but ruling only Donegal does get a bit boring after a while. Also, it's called tutorial island by players and I've not conquered anything at all.

Colonel Claptrap

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thanks for this. I built a war chest to invade Tyrone so I could hire mercs as literally everyone seems to have more troops than me. I must've filled out the wrong cassus belli because Tyrone capitulated and someone else got it somehow. I'd to take the loan from the Jews just for the mercs' upkeep.

I get that it is character focused but ruling only Donegal does get a bit boring after a while. Also, it's called tutorial island by players and I've not conquered anything at all.

Try inviting people with high martial skill to your realm and appoint them as your martial and commander(s).
You can do this with the 'find a character' screen and filter on males who would come to your realm.

Also, don't lead armies yourself unless you have a decent martial skill.

Try spit out a daughter or two and marry them to an English or Scottish heir. That gets you a non aggression pact that can be turned into an alliance. This is a handy way to get a stack of free troops at your disposal. Make sure Tyrone doesn't have a non-aggression pact with them though.

If your wife's family connections are no longer working for you, have her killed and replaced. Henry VIII style.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Try inviting people with high martial skill to your realm and appoint them as your martial and commander(s).
You can do this with the 'find a character' screen and filter on males who would come to your realm.

Also, don't lead armies yourself unless you have a decent martial skill.

Try spit out a daughter or two and marry them to an English or Scottish heir. That gets you a non aggression pact that can be turned into an alliance. This is a handy way to get a stack of free troops at your disposal. Make sure Tyrone doesn't have a non-aggression pact with them though.

If your wife's family connections are no longer working for you, have her killed and replaced. Henry VIII style.

I've just been marrying off my own family members and searching for traits. Never did too much about non-aggression pacts. Do you marry off your whole court?

I've two guys who apparently have to be on the council though which is annoying. Apparently, my own guy's martial stat (which is a bit small) has a huge impact on the levies I can raise.

MOH

Did they ever come up with an in-game solution/mod for adjusting font sizes? I've always found pretty much all their games unplayable because I'll go blind after 20 minutes trying to read the tiny font. Especially when you're trying to learn at the start and need to read a *lot* of text

ancapailldorcha

MOH wrote: »

Did they ever come up with an in-game solution/mod for adjusting font sizes? I've always found pretty much all their games unplayable because I'll go blind after 20 minutes trying to read the tiny font. Especially when you're trying to learn at the start and need to read a *lot* of text

I watched part of a Let's Play from Many a True Nerd where he did something. I forget what it was though.

Colonel Claptrap

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've just been marrying off my own family members and searching for traits. Never did too much about non-aggression pacts. Do you marry off your whole court?

I've two guys who apparently have to be on the council though which is annoying. Apparently, my own guy's martial stat (which is a bit small) has a huge impact on the levies I can raise.

By and large, traits only matter for heirs you intend to play as. Bar a few exceptions. An ambitious pretender to the throne is a problem.

You can marry off your court, but in reality only dynasty members count towards n-a pacts and alliances. Your siblings and children primarily.

There should be an option to move that martial guy to another seat on the council, without suffering a relationship penalty.

Then import a better martial from abroad.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

By and large, traits only matter for heirs you intend to play as. Bar a few exceptions. An ambitious pretender to the throne is a problem.

You can marry off your court, but in reality only dynasty members count towards n-a pacts and alliances. Your siblings and children primarily.

There should be an option to move that martial guy to another seat on the council, without suffering a relationship penalty.

Then import a better martial from abroad.

Thanks! Yeah, I learned to avoid ambitious people from my Let's Play.

I've a lot of umarried people in my court. Sounds like that's not too important.

There was an option but I'd no unfree spaces and didn't want to antagonise anyone.

Donegal might have been a poor choice to start as. I think the border dispute I used to start the war might have been a bad idea and may have contributed to my getting ganged up on.

MOH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I watched part of a Let's Play from Many a True Nerd where he did something. I forget what it was though.

Cheers, thanks, must check that out. It's the one thing that's always put me off playing

Zillah

I have decided Paradox are really pissing me off with their DLC system. They sell the game for, say, 20-50 quid, and that's fine; but then they start releasing DLC, so after a couple of years there are, say, 6 relatively large DLCs available. But whether you buy them or not they get added to the game. So you get resource counters or faction tabs or references to mechanics in the DLC, which are actually just inert placeholders unless you buy the game. Which is obviously designed to make you feel like your game is missing chunks, enticing you to buy the DLC and leaving you unsatisfied if you don't. It's not always even apparent what is missing. I've made game decisions trying to make X happen, but it turns out X isn't even in the core game, despite being alluded to in my UI.

But the real kicker is that each DLC is something like 50% the cost of the base game, so instead of being able to buy them all in a pack for a price of maybe doubling the base game cost, the total could be three, four, five...times the cost of the base game, and you realise that you're not going to have the 'full' experience that they keep shoving in your face unless you just open your wallet wide. And most of the DLC really don't even add that much. The handful that I have paid for were super disappointing and I felt a bit foolish for letting them bait me into it.

It gives me the same bad taste as mobile gaming does generally. It really sours my opinion of them and makes me want to not touch any of their games ever again.

ancapailldorcha

MOH wrote: »

Cheers, thanks, must check that out. It's the one thing that's always put me off playing

My pleasure. He seems nice without being edgy. His campaign was only started last year so his build should be reasonably updated but I don't think he has all the DLC.

Why did I have to buy the DLC...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbrlO8vuZS0

Colonel Claptrap

The DLC policy is certainly controversial.
I'm a massive fan of Paradox so get a lot out of each DLC (which I only ever buy when on sale). But I can understand why an average player would get lost or pissed off at the large number of DLC.

I haven't touched Imperator. Sounds like it needs a lot of work.

ancapailldorcha

The DLCs for CK2 and EU4 are nearly £500 between them. I got them on sale and spend feck all on games so it's not the end of the world but it seems excessive.

pixelburp

500 pounds? That's ... insane. Though I'll see your £500 and raise you ...

... ... €7,340 to download all the DLC for Train Simulator.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/24010/Train_Simulator_2019/

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

500 pounds? That's ... insane. Though I'll see your £500 and raise you ...

... ... €7,340 to download all the DLC for Train Simulator.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/24010/Train_Simulator_2019/

£250. They were on sale.

Did you buy all that?

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

£250. They were on sale.

Did you buy all that?

Naw just knew Train Simulator by repute for its insane DLC totals. Makes me yearn for the innocent days of expansion packs

The Specialist

Just to chip in on my stellaris adventures on PS4 - found out its miles behind the PC updates at the moment (this is 1.x while PC is around 2.2). That wouldn’t be so bad if 2.0 didn’t overhaul loads of the systems to make them more user friendly such as planet management (no longer done through the wreck head tile system since 2.0!). Think I’m just going to have to park it for now and see what further updates appear, I just can’t get my head around all the layers needed to even get up and running

Shame as I loved games like Total War when I had a PC and would have lost whole nights on them. This just isn’t in the same ballpark at the moment.

Revoker88

I gave up on stellaris for many reasons,the ridiculous amount of confusing DLC packs was one.

The second was after playing it for awhile and getting the hang of it i realised that once you get past the intial phase of a game the middle is just a slog and boring. You spend ages doing things like getting fleet power up to a level to just match your neighbours,nevermind gain an advantage.

Diplomacy is just a bit silly. Just constantly spending resources to keep enemy states from the door which in turn hinders your progress to build your own empire to match that enemy.

Meh,got bored after about 15-20hrs.

Shiminay

I think I'm one of the very few people who prefers Civ VI to V, especially now with the latest DLC.

The problem I have with a lot of the Paradox games is that when they release a new DLC, they fundamentally reconfigure a big chunk of interface or mechanics and tbh, I don't have time to relearn how it works cause it tends to be several months in between games for me.

s7ryf3925pivug

I remember slowly expanding across the globe in Europa universalis 3 or 4 as Spain. The globe is pretty big and it aspent a long time until I deleted it. But it was interesting in a stir up interest in history way before it got silly.