Paradox Studio Thread -

Favorite Paradox Game?


  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Vic 2. As I recall, it goes:
Southern Democrats - State Capitalist
Democrats - Interventionist
Republicans/Whigs - Laissez-Faire

This is completely ass-backwards and is just because they designed the parties with an assumption that Conservative = More control and Liberal = less control.

That dynamic may be true in Europe, but it's not in the Antebellum United States. The conservative party, the Democrats, were laissez-faire (very little intervention) and the Whigs/Republicans, the liberal party, were very pro-intervention. Very lazy, shows a minimum of research on the part of the developers.
You're mostly right, but there were some Democrats of that period who were definitely pro-economic intervention

I checked and the Whigs are correctly labeled interventionist although the Republicans aren't.
This was also true in Hoi 3. Republicans were social conservatives and democrats were social liberals IIRC, but that political realignment didn't happen until the 60s.
They seem to have gotten better at it though.
New England Republicans were pretty conservative and less pro-government intervention, and there were definitely liberal Democrats. But I think it's mainly to represent FDR's New Deal policies. I think "Market Liberal" would fit the Republicans better really. Democrats can stay at "Social Liberal" since that's what they were and as a whole weren't as left as some minor political groups like the Socialist Party.
 

Slap47

Hehe xd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I can't really blame paradox for getting the parties wrong. Both parties constantly changed and had different factions.

The Whigs, Republicans and Democrats all radically changes within decades.

Oh yeah, in Hoi 4 the USA also starts out with 1% communist support in 1936. That seems rather generous.
It probably had much more. Only 20 years ago they had a serious political candidate. it was also the great depression in the Soviet Union was at its all-time high propaganda wise.
 
You know what grinds my gears? Paradox gives up on ideas because they don't work when they execute them poorly.

For example, they gave up on multiple startdates because nobody played the later start dates. Newsflash: nobody plays that shit because it's broken. They would play them if you attempted to even make them functional. I would play EU4 from the Napoleonic Wars start dates all the time... but it's completely fucked up.

When they did the 1861 start date for Vicky, they fucked it up so bad that they didn't even include the Taiping Rebellion and made Texas be a Union state. Complete garbage. (They fixed both issues later.)

Another thing they fucked up: March of the Eagles. I would have been the first to buy it if it had been HOI4: Napoleonic Wars edition, which would have been amazing. But, when they announced that it wouldn't have anything outside of Europe, that killed my interest. I bet you it would have done way better if they hadn't made the scope so narrow.

yeah as soon as I saw that free week offer I knew the game truly had to be shit.
They're improving it (I say, based on the dev diaries; I didn't buy it), but it will take a long time.

In the long run, it'll probably be a better game than EU4, but they fucked it up at the start.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li

Splendid

Castigat ridendo mores
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I can't really blame paradox for getting the parties wrong. Both parties constantly changed and had different factions.

The Whigs, Republicans and Democrats all radically changes within decades.



It probably had much more. Only 20 years ago they had a serious political candidate. it was also the great depression in the Soviet Union was at its all-time high propaganda wise.
I don't think that revolutionary communists (the kind that that faction represents) were ever super popular in the USA.
Plus, by your logic, the modern day mod needs to add 1% Green Party support since they've managed to throw races too.
 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
You know what grinds my gears? Paradox gives up on ideas because they don't work when they execute them poorly.

For example, they gave up on multiple startdates because nobody played the later start dates. Newsflash: nobody plays that shit because it's broken. They would play them if you attempted to even make them functional. I would play EU4 from the Napoleonic Wars start dates all the time... but it's completely fucked up.

When they did the 1861 start date for Vicky, they fucked it up so bad that they didn't even include the Taiping Rebellion and made Texas be a Union state. Complete garbage. (They fixed both issues later.)

Another thing they fucked up: March of the Eagles. I would have been the first to buy it if it had been HOI4: Napoleonic Wars edition, which would have been amazing. But, when they announced that it wouldn't have anything outside of Europe, that killed my interest. I bet you it would have done way better if they hadn't made the scope so narrow.



They're improving it (I say, based on the dev diaries; I didn't buy it), but it will take a long time.

In the long run, it'll probably be a better game than EU4, but they fucked it up at the start.
I almost always used later start dates in CK2 because CK2 sucks at simulating early medieval Europe. Apparently I was alone in that though.

I don't think that revolutionary communists (the kind that that faction represents) were ever super popular in the USA.
Plus, by your logic, the modern day mod needs to add 1% Green Party support since they've managed to throw races too.
Wasn't Eugene Deb's version of socialism breaking double digits in terms of approval at one point?
 
I almost always used later start dates in CK2 because CK2 sucks at simulating early medieval Europe. Apparently I was alone in that though.
Well, I do admittedly not play later startdates much, kind of undercutting my point. But that's in large part because 1066 is so good. I still like that I have the option; I do intend to do later start dates sometime. Part of the problem is that both my laptops are crap now (I have a new one that runs fast enough, but barely works and can't be closed without cracking the case open, and an old one that's basically fine but is a little too slow), and also too busy to really play games.

But even then, they claim that their data shows that the vast majority of players start in 769, which I find really odd. It's not like anybody actually finishes entire games anyways; it gets boring and repetitive past a few hundred years, unless perhaps you switch off to a different character. But every one of the big three start dates in CK2 has an experience that I really like, so I play them all on a regular basis. Russia, Scandinavia, British Isles should be played in 867. India should be played in 769. Spain and England (William the Bastard, though I guess I should try a Norway run sometime) in 1066. Spain 1066 is the single best start, El Cid setting and great gameplay. I like starts that have a historically significant character who is still small but can snowball fast.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Splendid

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
Well, I do admittedly not play later startdates much, kind of undercutting my point. But that's in large part because 1066 is so good. I still like that I have the option; I do intend to do later start dates sometime. Part of the problem is that both my laptops are crap now (I have a new one that runs fast enough, but barely works and can't be closed without cracking the case open, and an old one that's basically fine but is a little too slow), and also too busy to really play games.

But even then, they claim that their data shows that the vast majority of players start in 769, which I find really odd. It's not like anybody actually finishes entire games anyways; it gets boring and repetitive past a few hundred years, unless perhaps you switch off to a different character. But every one of the big three start dates in CK2 has an experience that I really like, so I play them all on a regular basis. Russia, Scandinavia, British Isles should be played in 867. India should be played in 769. Spain and England (William the Bastard, though I guess I should try a Norway run sometime) in 1066. Spain 1066 is the single best start, El Cid setting and great gameplay. I like starts that have a historically significant character who is still small but can snowball fast.
I like playing the newer Iron Kingdom start. Europe is broken, as it is in 867 but doesn't have all the Karlings to unify it in a generation, nor does it have vikings sieging every port for 100 years.

If you're looking for a challenge, Spain in anything before 1066 is tough but do able. You have to be very opportunistic while maintaining good relations with France for back up, but it's very satisfying when you finally manage to make the Empire and rid the peninsula of kebab.

Actually an Alfred from from 867 is fun too, though playing as a vassal during the great horde attacks is annoying.
 

Save the Loli

kiwifarms.net
Wasn't Eugene Deb's version of socialism breaking double digits in terms of approval at one point?
It was, but it wasn't communism (although some communists were in the party, but they were a minority compared to reformist socialists). Lenin listed one of the SPUSA's most prominent politicians Morris Hillquit as someone whose ideas had no place in the Comintern.
Well, I do admittedly not play later startdates much, kind of undercutting my point. But that's in large part because 1066 is so good. I still like that I have the option; I do intend to do later start dates sometime. Part of the problem is that both my laptops are crap now (I have a new one that runs fast enough, but barely works and can't be closed without cracking the case open, and an old one that's basically fine but is a little too slow), and also too busy to really play games.

But even then, they claim that their data shows that the vast majority of players start in 769, which I find really odd. It's not like anybody actually finishes entire games anyways; it gets boring and repetitive past a few hundred years, unless perhaps you switch off to a different character. But every one of the big three start dates in CK2 has an experience that I really like, so I play them all on a regular basis. Russia, Scandinavia, British Isles should be played in 867. India should be played in 769. Spain and England (William the Bastard, though I guess I should try a Norway run sometime) in 1066. Spain 1066 is the single best start, El Cid setting and great gameplay. I like starts that have a historically significant character who is still small but can snowball fast.
I never liked the earlier CK2 starts. Too much blobbing and it always felt even less historically accurate than 1066 CK2. But I like to occasionally start a decade or two after the 1066 start anyway because the map's more interesting with better Byzantine and Spanish position.
 

Splendid

Castigat ridendo mores
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Wasn't Eugene Deb's version of socialism breaking double digits in terms of approval at one point?
I had to look him up. Seems like the guy was a big time wobbly and definitely not the kind of person I would throw in with the commies.
 

Intelligent Calcium

kiwifarms.net
Shit is going on again...


He is right about the very strange coverage of the Event.

They are Censoring everything about this on their Forum.

Its breaking my heart, they were sooo good with people just a year again.
He said on twitter he quickly got a "really hard" reply from Paradox and would make a follow-up soon, but that was almost two weeks ago.
 

Gangster Talk

kiwifarms.net
Is anybody playing the Monarch's Journey challenges?

I've done pretty well on all the Christian leaders, getting mostly gold with a couple silvers. The Byzantine doux is probably my favorite and I really want to try to reform Rome from a game starting with him. The Muslim rulers suck though. I can't tell if their starts are less interesting or if playing in the Muslim world is just more of a bore than I remember, or if I'm just bad at them.
 

Jarolleon

kiwifarms.net
Well, I do admittedly not play later startdates much, kind of undercutting my point. But that's in large part because 1066 is so good. I still like that I have the option; I do intend to do later start dates sometime. Part of the problem is that both my laptops are crap now (I have a new one that runs fast enough, but barely works and can't be closed without cracking the case open, and an old one that's basically fine but is a little too slow), and also too busy to really play games.

But even then, they claim that their data shows that the vast majority of players start in 769, which I find really odd. It's not like anybody actually finishes entire games anyways; it gets boring and repetitive past a few hundred years, unless perhaps you switch off to a different character. But every one of the big three start dates in CK2 has an experience that I really like, so I play them all on a regular basis. Russia, Scandinavia, British Isles should be played in 867. India should be played in 769. Spain and England (William the Bastard, though I guess I should try a Norway run sometime) in 1066. Spain 1066 is the single best start, El Cid setting and great gameplay. I like starts that have a historically significant character who is still small but can snowball fast.
I suspect their data is only collected from people who are using Ironman Mode (i.e. achievement hunters), since achieves require you to be logged into your Pdox account. Most achievements are easier to get when you have more centuries to blob, and aside from Khan of Khans the ones which require specific later start dates tend not to take as long.
 
Tags
None