Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

New wednesday game: Ordinary Fire

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
Ofcourse we would have more than currently stated. But the current leaderfile always tend to put the heavy fighting in the last 50 years, while a randomized leaderfile would spread the largescale wars that are so fun over a much longer period.

You should see us in Test of Skill, where we only just ended a worldwar spanning over 30 years involving all nations.
 
Aladar said:
Ofcourse we would have more than currently stated. But the current leaderfile always tend to put the heavy fighting in the last 50 years, while a randomized leaderfile would spread the largescale wars that are so fun over a much longer period.

You should see us in Test of Skill, where we only just ended a worldwar spanning over 30 years involving all nations.
Click to expand...

I favour randoms, too. New Experiences! On the other side ive played only one France as perm (and not to the end if i remember right; campaign ended before nappy era).
 
Test of Skill was a campaign with all nations having the same situation and starting attributes, a normal game is not.

And your point of historical leaders causing all wars in the last 50 years is ridiculous. World wars only happen then because the naval powers have got enough income to build a fleet of warships and cannon and actually make a difference around the world, nothing to do with leaders.
And major wars are always present, look at C&C3, it had many more wars than Test of Skill did at that point (if you take KJ out of teh equation it is likely ToS would be a hypertechers paradise).
 
What's the point of making this a clone of all games since the start of eu2 MP? No, begone with historical leaders, set routines and obvious choices. I vote for ONLY random leaders. (Without MT-system though, as it is under some discussion, and I want to start as soon as possible :p.)
 
FJ! said:
What's the point of making this a clone of all games since the start of eu2 MP? No, begone with historical leaders, set routines and obvious choices. I vote for ONLY random leaders. (Without MT-system though, as it is under some discussion, and I want to start as soon as possible :p.)
Click to expand...
Its the setup of players that is what is interesting in a new game, IMVIO :).
 
Dr Bob said:
Test of Skill was a campaign with all nations having the same situation and starting attributes, a normal game is not.

And your point of historical leaders causing all wars in the last 50 years is ridiculous. World wars only happen then because the naval powers have got enough income to build a fleet of warships and cannon and actually make a difference around the world, nothing to do with leaders.
And major wars are always present, look at C&C3, it had many more wars than Test of Skill did at that point (if you take KJ out of teh equation it is likely ToS would be a hypertechers paradise).
Click to expand...

ehrrm, no since hyperteching would not reward such good leaders, and would ultimately force someone to act, to come out ahead in the powerscale.
 
Historical leaders are not only a question about wars. The importance of some nations gettting early conq. and explorers must be considered too. How will that make Portugal, England, Spain, Russia (?) etc?
 
Mulliman said:
Its the setup of players that is what is interesting in a new game, IMVIO :).
Click to expand...
Yeah, the setup of old farts that do the same thing every game they play. How VERY (un)interesting.

EDIT: I mean COME ON! Some of you have played this game for over 4 years! Are you afraid random leaders might get you to change a deep set routine?

A game without obvious warwinning generals as GIIA, Freddy or Nappy would actually be different. Different from the 30 odd numbers of games you've play thus far...
 
FJ! said:
Yeah, the setup of old farts that do the same thing every game they play. How VERY (un)interesting.
Click to expand...
If Daniel joins, we put him in BB. That should make it impossible, or at least really hard, for him to get to China. ;)
 
FJ! said:
I mean COME ON! Some of you have played this game for over 4 years! Are you afraid random leaders might get you to change a deep set routine?
Click to expand...
Well, the last two campains I played/subbed had random leaders. So, historical leaders are a change for me. ;)
 
cobjor said:
Well, the last two campains I played/subbed had random leaders. So, historical leaders are a change for me. ;)
Click to expand...
You're not helping here you know :D

and Mullifjant, don't post in this thread! :)
 
Reminder for Absolut

SUMMONS​
Absolut​
Ordinary Fire-campain

You are hereby summoned to participate in the Ordinary Fire-campain, on Wednesday the 10th, or 24th, of August at 19 - 23 CEST. You are to enter apperance in person online or by a so called sub; and you or the sub should be prepared for war, diplomatic affairs, teching and spamming. You are required to apper before your fellow gamers unless prevented from so doing by reason of illness or other lawful excuse for non-apperance as further defined by Dr Bob. Should you fail to enter appearance without a lawful excuse for non-appearance, you may be ordered to a penalty desided by Dr Bob. You may also be declared a "loser" and forced to play the nation of Switzerland. Should you be prevented from appearing, you are to inform your fellow gamers wihtout delay. Please remember, however, that the present summmons will remain effective until you are otherwise notified.



;)
 
FJ! said:
Yeah, the setup of old farts that do the same thing every game they play. How VERY (un)interesting.

EDIT: I mean COME ON! Some of you have played this game for over 4 years! Are you afraid random leaders might get you to change a deep set routine?

A game without obvious warwinning generals as GIIA, Freddy or Nappy would actually be different. Different from the 30 odd numbers of games you've play thus far...
Click to expand...


no historicle leaders and a mt system ? nice its a intresting change for once
 
Dr Bob said:
Test of Skill was a campaign with all nations having the same situation and starting attributes, a normal game is not.

And your point of historical leaders causing all wars in the last 50 years is ridiculous. World wars only happen then because the naval powers have got enough income to build a fleet of warships and cannon and actually make a difference around the world, nothing to do with leaders.
And major wars are always present, look at C&C3, it had many more wars than Test of Skill did at that point (if you take KJ out of teh equation it is likely ToS would be a hypertechers paradise).
Click to expand...

100% agree with Bob :)
 
FJ! said:
not surprising since thou art an olde fart..
Click to expand...

Being an old fart (I prefer 'veteran' by the way :D) doesn't mean you haven't tried out other things but the standard scenario.

What you fail to realise is that I *have* played with random leaders only ;)

It doesn't work if you don't change other things too.
 
I won't waste too many words on this, but I support FJ. Leave those generals and admirals aside and start winning by using skill rather then with some über-leader.
 
Bah... perhaps you want to remove events as well? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back