How do we fundamentally solve a problem with all paradox games.

[sunsterson]

I love paradox games.

My top three are EU4, Vicky 2 and HOI3

The problem with all of these games that remain consistent are the following.

1) A.I is bad. This isn't as prevalent with the updates of EU4, but in general the ai cannot provide a reasonable strategy and is messed up by and unhistorical dows or events. ex. if poland uprising happens, the germany ai sends its entire army back from the USSR front to deal with it.


2) Lategame is horrid boring. I realize that most of the game such as EU4 and vicky 2 isn't focused on the later portions of the game which is fine. I just can't stand the slow days on speed 5, the huge micromanagement required, and that feeling that yes, at this point theres nothing better to do then wait and stomp. Of course this is also tied to 1, because usually a human player will just roll through and have nothing better to do.

3) Wackamole generic rebels.

This isn't a bash paradox thread at all, I just noticed these problems in nearly all paradox games and wanted to discuss on some possible solutions.

 

[Rommel909]

Well, yes, the rebels are generic in the titles you mention but what about CK2 rebels? Usually the CK2 rebels have a character who starts them up.

 

[Booti99]

1. yeah hard to solve :-(

2. easy, depending on your goal you can just make small mods, and load them on certain dates. As example, I had 5 mods for EU3 which changed AI bonus, Infamy, and gave the player some handicaps, so I just started them after 50 years, 2nd, after 100 ... and so on, AI didn't got smarter but the game got at least a little bit more interested.

3. easy too solve. Mod it that you get some general handicaps, like -10% MP, -5% money -10% IC/supply for HOI3... (what ever you feel rebels would cost you over time) and remove all the rebel modifier. This makes the late game blobbing much more fun

 

[delra]

I think Eu4 solves the first two as much as it's humanly possible to solve at this point in history, and beats all competition in this regard. The third thing - people get pissed as soon as rebels start to matter in a PDS game.

 

[Zarine]

I think Eu4 solves the first two as much as it's humanly possible to solve at this point in history, and beats all competition in this regard. The third thing - people get pissed as soon as rebels start to matter in a PDS game.

Yeah ! The 2k peasant rebel against my 700 soldiers in CK2 remember that well.

For 2, it's all about players wanting to go big and little challenge once the key mechanism are well handled.

 

[Jokurr]

Ever since auto-hunt rebels was implemented rebels haven't bothered me too much. Yes it can still be frustrating if rebels are popping up everywhere but I'd say that's generally a sign something is going wrong.

Some of the most fun I've had in VickyII is the great wars that occur late game and their aftermath .

 

[FOARP]

I love paradox games.

My top three are EU4, Vicky 2 and HOI3

The problem with all of these games that remain consistent are the following.

1) A.I is bad. This isn't as prevalent with the updates of EU4, but in general the ai cannot provide a reasonable strategy and is messed up by and unhistorical dows or events. ex. if poland uprising happens, the germany ai sends its entire army back from the USSR front to deal with it.


2) Lategame is horrid boring. I realize that most of the game such as EU4 and vicky 2 isn't focused on the later portions of the game which is fine. I just can't stand the slow days on speed 5, the huge micromanagement required, and that feeling that yes, at this point theres nothing better to do then wait and stomp. Of course this is also tied to 1, because usually a human player will just roll through and have nothing better to do.

3) Wackamole generic rebels.

This isn't a bash paradox thread at all, I just noticed these problems in nearly all paradox games and wanted to discuss on some possible solutions.

1) This will always be a problem. There's room for improvement, but AI is what it is.

2) They kinda don't care about this because reviewers/early players etc. don't care about this - it's something you have to have the game for a while after you buy it to realise. It's particularly annoying with Vicky given how much of the interesting stuff during the game period happened in the late-game (WW1 etc.) yet the game isn't optimised at all for simulating WW1 and even suggesting that it should be by implementing HOI-style move=attack combat seems to be anathema.

3) Huge problem. The solution is dynamic tagging (i.e., the game automatically creating a rebel state with its own tag using information already found in-game like the flags etc.) to turn rebellions into something meaningful, with abstraction of the low-level stuff into province modifiers (i.e., rather than a random rebel uprising, you get a 'terrorism' modifier that decreases income and increases dissent or whatever).

Why Paradox haven't implemented dynamic tagging into their releases is beyond me, though CK2 seems to have gotten nearly all the way there by assigning leaders to rebellions and essentially turning them into AI controlled states rahter than the usual generic whack-a-mole rebels.

Ever since auto-hunt rebels was implemented rebels haven't bothered me too much. Yes it can still be frustrating if rebels are popping up everywhere but I'd say that's generally a sign something is going wrong.

Some of the most fun I've had in VickyII is the great wars that occur late game and their aftermath .

Automation isn't at all an answer - it's kind of an admission by the devs that "hey, we understand that this part of game sucks, so we'll get the AI to do it for you". If a game feature sucks, then it just shouldn't be there.

And VickyII's combat is rage-quit-inducingly bad - battles end with the enemy retreating through your lines into your territory. It desperately needs move=attack.

 

[Jokurr]

Automation isn't at all an answer - it's kind of an admission by the devs that "hey, we understand that this part of game sucks, so we'll get the AI to do it for you". If a game feature sucks, then it just shouldn't be there.

And VickyII's combat is rage-quit-inducingly bad - battles end with the enemy retreating through your lines into your territory. It desperately needs move=attack.

I agree that rebels can be much improved upon and dynamic tagging would be a great way to achieve that, but I’m not sure if I would consider it one of the worst problems with Paradox games. Before it definitely was, but as I said I think automated rebel hunting has solved much of the previous tedium that existed. Before it was just awful, now it's something that occurs in the background.

I also agree that move = attack is what Vicky 2 (or 3 considering it's never going to happen in 2) needs, but I still enjoy the late game. My interpretation of the OP was not that he found late game combat frustrating but boring because by this point he is too powerful and nothing can stop him. “Wait and stomp” as he called it. I think that has more to do with play style in anything, yes if you are in world conquest mode from day 1 the late game becomes boring. Personally I usually don’t play that way and I’ve found the great war mechanic and the cascading alliances resulting from it can make for some challenging world wars that were a lot of fun. But yes, I agree with you that the combat needs a lot of love.

 

[FOARP]

I agree that rebels can be much improved upon and dynamic tagging would be a great way to achieve that, but I’m not sure if I would consider it one of the worst problems with Paradox games. Before it definitely was, but as I said I think automated rebel hunting has solved much of the previous tedium that existed. Before it was just awful, now it's something that occurs in the background.

I also agree that move = attack is what Vicky 2 (or 3 considering it's never going to happen in 2) needs, but I still enjoy the late game. My interpretation of the OP was not that he found late game combat frustrating but boring because by this point he is too powerful and nothing can stop him. “Wait and stomp” as he called it. I think that has more to do with play style in anything, yes if you are in world conquest mode from day 1 the late game becomes boring. Personally I usually don’t play that way and I’ve found the great war mechanic and the cascading alliances resulting from it can make for some challenging world wars that were a lot of fun. But yes, I agree with you that the combat needs a lot of love.

CK2

OK, if I were to identify two things that are a major problem:

1) World Conquest - yes, I know, players say they want to be able to pull off a Honduran WC or whatever, but really this is the lamest form of game play, and cattering to it is just silly. WC should be very, very difficult even playing as the strongest power in the game.

2) Lame mechanics put in as a kludge to prevent WC - yeah, I know, it's kind of contradictory to complain about WC being possible and then complain about Paradox trying to prevent it with obvious kludges, but hear me out. The way a lot of the games try to stop you getting WC is by imposing lame numerical limitations that make no sense and just kill your immersion and often don't seem to really work. Let's compare CK2, Vicky 2, and HOI3 here:

• As usual, CK2 leads the class - even though its the game that imposes the strictest limitations, those limitations seem plausible given the set-up. CK2 limits your demesne size, which makes sense considering how you'll have to manage the demesne personally. It limits the number of titles you can have without people getting jealous, which makes sense if you imagine your subjects as a bunch of player-haters. It also makes other races/religions difficult to rule over, which makes sense because that's just what people are like. Sieges take a long time, but that's just how things were then, etc. The best thing about the way CK2 prevents WC is that, except for demesne size, it's not straight numerical limits, but the hatred/jealousy of others that stops you conquering the world. The one exception is claim-manufacturing, which feels a bit gamey.
  
  
• Vicky 2, on the other hand, imposes restrictions that make little/no sense in game-terms. Firstly, in conquering territory you have to spend a long time 'occupying' it, when historically this was just a case of Robert E. Lee, Sherman, Moltke or whoever just marching into the local government office and changing the flags there. Secondly, you can only claim a limited amount of territory off an enemy you have defeated, regardless of how hard you've beaten them, whilst historically entire nations were occupied and annexed in this period (Romania and Serbia being two examples). Thirdly you have a numerical 'infamy' score, which just leads to numerical play (what, they can't remember 20 years back? really?). Fourthly each peace results in a five-year treaty that can't be broken without massive infamy, but this just results in the 'war every five years' syndrome that, coupled with the awful nature of warfare in Vicky 2 (implement move = attack!) just makes the game a chore.
  
  
• The worst thing about the way that HOI3 tries to avoid random WC is that it doesn't really work the way it's supposed to - if you're Peru randomly conquering countries in South America, the mechanism that's supposed to stop you doing this (i.e., a threat score that causes other countries to band together against you) doesn't really result in this. Amphibious warfare AI is so bad usually that intervention by a major power from overseas isn't much of a threat. In reality, Peru setting out to conquer Ecuador should cause first a warning to limit your annexation to your existing territorial claims, and then, if you actually proceed with full annexation and the other states are sufficiently powerful to stop you, a declaration of war from an alliance of neighbouring states to liberate Ecuador.

 

[Rex Ursus]

Paradox games are like a child with severe behavior problems but with so much potential that you just can't let it go. The concepts are there but the computing power is not. I truly believe that with the next generation of computers Paradox will come into their own. I have been wargaming since the 70's and have therefor been modding for nearly fifty years. I have some answers but they are not within the scope of this short post.

I am thinking of going back to HOI3 and trying to help the ICE and or the WW1 guys. I am holding my nose (due to Steam), and buying the euIV game next week just to see what they have done with the multiplayer aspect of the game.

I really hope they have found a way to automate features with solid AI decision making so as to make Multiplayer enjoyable.

Personally I think they should come out with a new engine that is able to organize a HOI4,5,or 7 game and let us take a shot at the twentieth century again, Hell we are getting on to being one fifth the way through the twenty first century so why not?