Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

My plan was originally to drive up through Mexico, but years of constructing supply bases and the Germany's annoying tendency to declare war on every. single. south. american. nation. makes it nigh impossible. I could drop in to Miami through Cuba and then ship over a second army, but like I said I'm not sure I could make it all the way up to DC and NYC.

EDIT: Also people seem to be raging that this is like... the worst Paradox game ever made. Which I think is a little silly, it's actually quite fun and already has a fair amount of replayability.

It's a bit of a bandwagon and they're not criticizing it sensibly. "DLC Train! Wah!" is a bit silly when Fallout4 has already released more of a DLCtrain than EU4 or CK2 has (or close to) and it's barely been out for a year. And they don't mind IT.

Though some are valid points, like how it's "too simple", since that's something that has actually been changed between HoI3 and 4.

To be fair, Paradox games do draw a bit of a different crowd from Bethesda games, especially among people who have been with Paradox since the days of HoI and EU 1 or, even further, the Two Thrones and Crown of the North games.  A lot of those people, I suspect, are no more enamored of Bethesda's DLC practices than they are Paradox's, so pointing out that "these people are even worse" doesn't actually address the main issue they're bringing up.  It's like arguing that a gunshot to the head is worse than a gunshot to the leg while advocating for the latter; strictly true, but I doubt you'll find too many volunteers for either.  That said, I personally don't condemn Paradox for the practice because I feel they have been rather decent about free content in patch updates, and I also remember the old expansion pack system of EU3 (where if you weren't up to date on expansion packs, you couldn't really look forward to much of anything in continuing support) or, predating that, the absence of such expansions for EU1 and EU2 (where people could only gaze from afar at the Far East versions of the game for map stuff we'd never get), so I can't exactly pretend to be the same as them.  You also run into how there's always a bit of a "worst game ever" crowd after every release since EU3...that one, I have been a bit more guilty of, but for them, the reason the arguments won't work is simply because it's an excuse, and were it not DLC, it would be another.  I suspect that to some degree there's also this comparison that exists with preceding games, even though those are mature games that have been bugfixed, expanded upon with free and paid content, and modded to heck and back. ^_^

[Exerosp]

-snip-

Expansions cost about 50bucks back in the days, no? Then there were a few expansions even. I was arguing that they called it a DLC train when it ISN'T.

[Culise]

-snip-

Expansions cost about 50bucks back in the days, no? Then there were a few expansions even. I was arguing that they called it a DLC train when it ISN'T.

Ah, maybe I misunderstood what a DLC train is, then.  I thought it was just a sequence of DLC (that is, smaller penny-packets of direct and focused content, to be contrasted with the expansion pack model that could be characterized as a wider spread of features more akin to, say, a DLC bundle today) being put out by a company.  I missed the perjorative connotations of the term.  My apologies. 

But anywhere from $10-$30 per expansion pack with anywhere from 1 (for the popular, but less so, CK and Vicky) to 3 (for the flagship titles, EU and HOI) expansion packs per title could be expected.  However, consider that when I preordered Vicky 2, for instance, it was only $40.00.  Prices went up, yes, but they went up across the board. 

[Orange Wizard]

Pdox's DLC model is fine IMO. Base game gets support, pay for some new content if you want. If their games were shit I'd be salty about it, but they actually try to make them good (even if some decisions are weird/bad).

[Rex_Nex]

The DLC model is fine, yeah. They do have a habit of bundling in fairly necessary "why is this not in a patch" features in with their DLC though, which can be really rough if you want to enjoy the game later in its life cycle.

My only complaint is sort of both a good and bad thing - their games get far, far better with both time and the amount of money you spend on their DLC. If you come from a game that has years of DLC (CK2, EU4) into one of their new titles expecting similar quality and quantity of content, you're not going to be very happy. Very few companies will put out a game with 1/100th the content of some of their previous releases, market it as just as good, and then slowly work on it until its up to par a couple years later - but that's the paradox way, and you have to know that before buying into their games.

[WealthyRadish]

One issue with the paradox model is that features that get locked behind DLC will usually receive very little in the way of future updates, modding support, or full integration into the game. This is very evident in something like EU4, where mechanics like development, estates, subject interactions, factions, and some other DLC features grow ever more out of sync with the rest of the game, and for each paid mechanic it effectively forces two versions of the game to be maintained parallel to each other (with or without the DLC).

I would prefer it if they either fully committed to the large expansion model (in the vein of their older games like EU3 and HoI3) or focused on cheaper DLC that's either just cosmetic and non-gameplay stuff (EU4's nation replay, the random new world, CKII's ruler designer, etc). As it is, the modern paradox DLC model seems to me to have resulted in DLC that is simultaneously overpriced and underwhelming, while still managing to make the game feel incomplete without it, so it makes the game feel worse for everyone.

[EnigmaticHat]

Its become divorced from its origins.  In the early stages of the CK2 DLC additions, the game was always mechanically the same between regardless of which ones you owned, you were just locked from playing as certain people that would most directly make use of the new features.  So for example the decadence features and such from the Muslims were *there* in the game if you didn't own the DLC, you just didn't get to directly interact with them because you couldn't play as a Muslim.

Prior to CK2, every game would get 2 or 3 feature based updates, but they followed a progression and you were supposed to get them in order.  So you could play base Vicky, and the existence of Heart of Darkness wouldn't have any effect on your play experience (aside from knowing you could be playing a better version of the game).  Now, we're getting oldstyle universal feature upgrades, but in the style of CK2's more numerous piecemeal expansions.  So now not only is EU4 one of several different games depending on which nation you chose to play, its *also* one of like a hundred different games depending on which combination of major DLC you have, and the only one that's really getting balanced around is the one where you own all the DLC.

[Orange Wizard]

Oh yeah, the current DLC for EUIV in particular is really disjointed. Would be wonderful if they'd spend a dev cycle or two making mechanics work together in a more rational fashion.

[EnigmaticHat]

Does anyone know if its possible to produce newer planes without upgrading obsolete models?  My newest fighter was researched ahistorically early so I'd feel ok putting the previous generation in the sky.  Its numbers that are my concern...

At the very least, is upgrading faster than producing?

[mainiac]

It should upgrade the old ones as the new are available, not pull them from the frontlines.  But you can designate a wing not to use new planes.

[EnigmaticHat]

Yes but if an old plane gets upgraded the result is new plane, whereas if a new plane gets produced the result is old plane + new plane.  Since my old planes are still combat worthy, I'd like to keep them.  I believe you answered my question anyway.

The war has finally happened and its too late at night for me to deal with it.  Oddly enough my concern isn't Germany, its Italy.  I have only a thin line of mountaineers in between me and the Italians.  They have a *lot* of divisions, and unlike in RL I don't think the Italian divisions are terribad and unprepared in this...

[mainiac]

Playing France I see?

The trick with Italy is to rotate your divisions as they try to meatgrinder their way through the mountains.  You only need three or so divisions on the attacked province but you need to keep rotating in new ones.  Oh and in a pinch the Italian front ranks can be fleshed out with 20% trained green units as long as they have an engineering company.

[EnigmaticHat]

Yeah unfortunately mistakes were made and I do not have nearly enough divisions to do that.  It sounds like a good strategy tho :/

I might be able to plug the gap if things go well for me, otherwise I'm in trouble.  Maybe I can give Germany a bloody nose before I go, they seem to not be bothering to defend their eastern borders and maybe that will give the USSR time to take advantage of their weakness.  Either way its 2 in the morning here so this will just have to wait.

[mainiac]

Give up ground along the coast, which is hardest to defend and easiest to retake.  This will give you time to rush 8 divisions over from the German front to stabalize the line.  Start training 12 colonial brigades immediately and plunk them on the italian frontline the moment they hit 20%.  Put them two per province in a defensive role, freeing up your trained divisions for Germany or a counter offensive at the coast.

Create a duplicate of the colonial division, add an engineer company to it and give it high priority.  Swap your italian front colonial brigades to this.  They will be so untrained they wont know how to use a rifle but they'll know how to use a shovel and that's the important thing!  They wont be much use for rotation (unless you give them artillery) but they'll be fantastic at shrugging off attacks with their ridiculous entrenchment level.

[Orange Wizard]

Yes but if an old plane gets upgraded the result is new plane, whereas if a new plane gets produced the result is old plane + new plane.  Since my old planes are still combat worthy, I'd like to keep them.  I believe you answered my question anyway.

Old planes will still be used if you don't have enough of the new ones to fully reinforce everything.