Paradox Studio Thread

  • Registration closed, comedy forum, Internet drama, Sneed, etc.

Favorite Paradox Game?


  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

Kane Lives

Peace through power
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Big game companies seem to of collectively forget the power mods have to prolong a games lifespan. Classic DOOM still has a notable modding community to this day and people forget but Team Fortress and Counter-Strike of Valve fame were originally just mods. Its almost like the industry has regressed when it comes to embracing user created content.
Consider it from the company's point of view. These games being so long-lived means your potential customers are not buying your latest and greatest. Thus, each gamerchud still playing classic DOOM or Team Fortress 2 or Counter-Strike isn't playing... or more importantly, buying the latest $80 Cawl o Dooty.

Of course, you can always nitpick the idea that the audience for these four games are totally different, but the general idea remains. Each gamer clinging to their old games is another sale that may not be made. And these days, the number of games which one can feasibly play is more limited by time than anything else.

It's why they been aggressively crushing modding, and why they tried to elbow their way into the scene with paid mods (as an alternative to crushing it). Given that the latter has largely failed, expect AAA games to continue not supporting mods, and making it difficult to even mod. In the same vein, it's why game companies been aggressively pushing alternative monetisation streams, to try and grab some revenue from games after the point of sale.
 

Chuck Gruden

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 2, 2022
Because most devs know the mods will outclass their cash grabs dlcs by far. And also because they hate freedom, imagine the horror of people making something funny or political incorrect.
Yeah, most mods for HoI4 are leagues better than vanilla. Too bad a lot of times the mod teams tend to be a bit insane. See TNO, Kaiserreich, TWR, Kaiserredux, Red Flood, and other mod teams.
 

Traincake

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Yeah, most mods for HoI4 are leagues better than vanilla. Too bad a lot of times the mod teams tend to be a bit insane. See TNO, Kaiserreich, TWR, Kaiserredux, Red Flood, and other mod teams.
Oh fuck man, I know from first hand experience. Hell, it's how I got to this forum anyways, the flareup with TNO back in January of last year. God damn, it seems like a day and an age ago, doesn't it, with all that's happened since?

Edit: Also, the weirdest thing about the HOI4 modding scene is that the Pony Mod is one of the most sane and rational of the big ones. If that doesn't say anything about the scene, I don't know what does.
 

Breadbassket

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Things aren't going well for Crusader Kings 3 on console apparently:
ck3 console.png
 

Crabouse-united

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 10, 2021
I'm just about wrapping up my current vicky 2 playthrough after beating Japan and rediscovered why having manual control of armies is extremely important to the game and why PDX is making an extreme mistake with their AI controlled simplified war mechanics.
I continued with my current victoria 2 Qing China playthrough and managed to get through that rebel spam by enacting some of the liberal government reforms and later on got to the point of the Warlord era uprisings where the country gets torn up into multiple independent states and you have to manually annex each dissident tag either by sphering or warfare, Manchukuo gets automatically declared war upon by Japan to become their puppet so unless you go at them imediatelly the japs usually crush them in a month or two if they have a foothold in Korea.

Despite all of that I still managed to declare war upon half of the country and had about half of it under my control with the exception of Nationalist China and Guangxi within a year, which had become spherelings for Japan at the time, so I took my time and built my army tech up to acceptable levels and later on declared War on Japan in the mid 1920's for Manchuria and Taiwan and managed to somehow squeak out a victory after some very sweaty microing and planning.

I'd like to imagine that this win was only possible due to the fact that I was personally at the helm of the battle and managed to Blitz through Manchuria in about one month via human wave tactics and just not giving a fuck about attrition and China having damn near infinite manpower without even needing to mobilize. After that I went with my second stage of the plan and set up a baiting perimeter in North Korea and managed to straigh up trap 800 Japanese battalions in a mountain defensive battle where I was taking a little over a hundred losses a day and them around 1.5k where I, despite being 8 army techs behind them with only 90 Chinese battalions, held the bastards at those cliffs for months and watched them get grinded to a bloody pulp as the warscore kept piling up.
China 1.png
Another critical battle was after I had pacified Nationalist China in this same war, where Japan decided to naval invade me through the Taiwan Strait, sending in some battalions to attack one of my stacks that was hanging around the coast. Once I took notice I imediatelly encircled them and intentionaly left a gap for them to flee inlands instead of running away to one of their transport fleets. They took the bait and I set up a defensive force in the spot where they were going to retreat, they had nowhere to run and were forced to lose all of those troops, with many of those soldiers being mobilized conscripts so I effectively murdered not just soldiers but a sizeable quantity of their civilian pops, causing more war atrition.
China 2.png
All of these gaffes led to their loss to a bunch of hicks with large numbers and basically was the highlight of this run, despite the early game in China being one of the most shitty and painful experiences I've had in the game where you basically just get fucked by random events and can't really fight anyone due to all political parties having anti-war stances and the admin efficiency being shit due to only manchu being an accepted culture, It was worth it just to have this fun experience in the end and it would've been impossible without me manually microing each stack.
China 3.png
TLDR paradox is big dumb and has effectively destroyed one of the main cores of their games by not allowing us to manually control units in battle and It will basically make what I achieved here impossible.
 
Joined
May 14, 2019
I'm just about wrapping up my current vicky 2 playthrough after beating Japan and rediscovered why having manual control of armies is extremely important to the game and why PDX is making an extreme mistake with their AI controlled simplified war mechanics.
I continued with my current victoria 2 Qing China playthrough and managed to get through that rebel spam by enacting some of the liberal government reforms and later on got to the point of the Warlord era uprisings where the country gets torn up into multiple independent states and you have to manually annex each dissident tag either by sphering or warfare, Manchukuo gets automatically declared war upon by Japan to become their puppet so unless you go at them imediatelly the japs usually crush them in a month or two if they have a foothold in Korea.

Despite all of that I still managed to declare war upon half of the country and had about half of it under my control with the exception of Nationalist China and Guangxi within a year, which had become spherelings for Japan at the time, so I took my time and built my army tech up to acceptable levels and later on declared War on Japan in the mid 1920's for Manchuria and Taiwan and managed to somehow squeak out a victory after some very sweaty microing and planning.

I'd like to imagine that this win was only possible due to the fact that I was personally at the helm of the battle and managed to Blitz through Manchuria in about one month via human wave tactics and just not giving a fuck about attrition and China having damn near infinite manpower without even needing to mobilize. After that I went with my second stage of the plan and set up a baiting perimeter in North Korea and managed to straigh up trap 800 Japanese battalions in a mountain defensive battle where I was taking a little over a hundred losses a day and them around 1.5k where I, despite being 8 army techs behind them with only 90 Chinese battalions, held the bastards at those cliffs for months and watched them get grinded to a bloody pulp as the warscore kept piling up.
View attachment 3276085
Another critical battle was after I had pacified Nationalist China in this same war, where Japan decided to naval invade me through the Taiwan Strait, sending in some battalions to attack one of my stacks that was hanging around the coast. Once I took notice I imediatelly encircled them and intentionaly left a gap for them to flee inlands instead of running away to one of their transport fleets. They took the bait and I set up a defensive force in the spot where they were going to retreat, they had nowhere to run and were forced to lose all of those troops, with many of those soldiers being mobilized conscripts so I effectively murdered not just soldiers but a sizeable quantity of their civilian pops, causing more war atrition.
View attachment 3276088
All of these gaffes led to their loss to a bunch of hicks with large numbers and basically was the highlight of this run, despite the early game in China being one of the most shitty and painful experiences I've had in the game where you basically just get fucked by random events and can't really fight anyone due to all political parties having anti-war stances and the admin efficiency being shit due to only manchu being an accepted culture, It was worth it just to have this fun experience in the end and it would've been impossible without me manually microing each stack.
View attachment 3276093
TLDR paradox is big dumb and has effectively destroyed one of the main cores of their games by not allowing us to manually control units in battle and It will basically make what I achieved here impossible.
TLDR

Removing "micro" is bad because not being able to fight is boring
Done
 

Radola Gajda

Legionář, Lion of Siberia
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
So Vic3 dev diary about political parties is out.
Whole system feels backward and retarded.
There will be 11 parties.
IMG_20220513_064515.jpg

It is funny that they acknowledge existence of Agrarian parties when last week they made comment : Lmao peasants too dumb to come to elections even if given right to do So.
Also Anarchists lmao :story: Can't wait for hollesome 100 Anarchist runs that will be spammed in every place.

Parties will exists only in countries with elections it is not really historically acurate.
And Intrest groups will be "joining" parties.
So it will not be parties trying to get suport of groups by pushing agenda popular in that groups. But groups will be chosing one party .
Another problem is that IG will decide to back party and all In that interest group will do it. This is straight from Marxs book of bs.Muh class consciousness .When was last time group of potentially millions agreed on something?
 
Joined
May 14, 2019
Here is an idea I have long been toying with for how to make a better Paradox land warfare system, generic enough to apply to any pre-20th Century era (if the game starts around WW1 or later, HOI-style combat is already fine) while allowing for features of ancient, Medieval, modern, industrial warfare.

The ideas are based on a very old forum thread and developed from it.

Let's begin with occupations. Most warfare essentially revolves around occupying territory, since by seizing/destroying the enemy's assets you:
1) Achieve control of his resources, if that was your goal
2) Deny him his resources to stop you

So, in some sense, control of resources are what all war is about (not defeating armies), and armies are just a means to an end.
Control of a province is represented as a percentage, which all percentages must sum to less than 100%. That is, in a normal two-sided war whatever one side doesn't control the other one does, but you could theoretically have three or more sides involved, or have sections of province that are just lawless. The point is, Control, scored out of 100%, is something that rival governments/rebel groups share out of a province. It awards warscore (or whatever the equivalent is), it gives access to resources and logistical infrastructure, and there are at least two levels of Control that are particularly important, one low threshold at which you can move through the province into hostile territory and one higher threshold at which you are considered as occupying the province (ie, it shows up on the map as yours, and has other certain features).

By default, when an army moves into a hostile province, it gains a certain amount of Control outright (generally speaking, enough to clear that movement threshold, so you can move uncontested from province to province) and then rapidly occupies the remainder (like Victoria II). As long as an army, headquarters, or logistical hub is located within a certain radius of the province, it will remain occupied, but if not guarded in that manner it will liberate itself (Control falling down rapidly). If there's no enemy units around to contest you, though, a single garrison unit would be sufficient to keep the area locked down.

However, armies and fortifications can protect Control from being taken, which is how you defend your land. This then leads into four basic types of warfare: MOBILE (army vs army, like what Paradox games generally call battles), STATIC (trench warfare, essentially, also waged with armies), SIEGE (sieges as in CK2, EU4), and GUERILLA. In general, any given army unit can be thought of as being engaged in any one of those four modes, all of them using somewhat similar basic mechanics but with significant differences in the factors that influence them.

In mobile warfare - the warfare of armies on the march, skirmishes and field battles - the main concept is that of positioning, as generals compete to try to outmaneuver each other on an operational scale so as to maximize their effectiveness when battle is forced.

Mechanically, Mobile Warfare between armies consists of Skirmishes and Battles. Every day of mobile warfare, there is a chance of Battle occurring, modified by the combat stance (Seeking Battle / Denying Battle) of the two armies; if two armies are Denying Battle, chances are low; if two armies are Seeking Battle, chances are high, and if one is Seeking and the other is Denying, then the probability of battle shifts between the two weighted by factors like terrain, commander quality, unit quality, unit composition (lighter units, cavalry units), etc. In general, a small, light force in rough terrain with mobility-skilled commanders and cavalry will be more able to avoid a battle, a large, light force in open terrain with mobility-skilled commanders and cavalry will be more able to force a battle.

While Skirmishing, units face off in pairwise fights of a single/few rounds, the number of engaged units increasing as the total units in the field increase. The "pairwise" part of this is very important, as even if the smaller army of the two is so outnumbered that the entire army is forced to skirmish every round, it still is facing an army no larger than itself in those rounds; Skirmish inherently favors the smaller army. Victory in Skirmishing awards Positioning, and Positioning is also gained based, again, on the troop types, terrain, defender vs attacker, general traits, troop composition, etc.

Positioning serves as an abstract representation of the preparedness of an army for battle, and relative Positioning as an abstract representation of the overall advantage over the enemy. When Battle occurs, all Positioning is expended on calling in troops, so higher Positioning means more units in the Battle, better/more appropriate units, and higher Positioning relative to the enemy means bigger dice roll modifiers. This is not stuff you manually choose; it's more like if you imagine your units and advantages as a deck of cards, more Positioning means more draws from the deck? Also, this means that Battles don't necessarily involve your entire army. So, the idea here is that a nimbler, superior force can reduce the advantage of a numerically superior attacker by building up Positioning quickly, forcing a battle before the other side catches up, and then engaging them on more equitable terms; sort of picking them off in pieces on an operation scale. Battles proceed in several rounds and can potentially last days. (For most of history one day, divided into many rounds, is reasonable, with extremely large battles like Gettysburg lasting several days; for modern warfare, combat is essentially continuous, and this system doesn't really represent it well.)

The point of winning Battles is twofold. Directly, winning transfers Control with the amount depending on the decisiveness (damage done to the army as a whole), and if you can get them to 0 Control they are forced out of the province. Second, Battles do major damage to Morale. When Morale is reduced below the retreat/rout threshhold, the unit is forced out of the battle; if the army as a whole falls below the threshold, the battles is lost. Morale must recover to a certain level before the unit can face another battle without auto-retreating. If you could force a Battle when no enemy armies are capable of standing and fighting, or their army as a whole auto-retreats, you can rapidly seize Control. Thus, beating Armies in Battles both directly transfers Control and reduces their ability to withstand you in future Battles.

Overall, a lot of these concepts already exist in Paradox games: there ARE defensive bonuses to things like terrain, bonuses to high mobility generals, etc. What this adds is more detail to it and the ability to deliberately play a slower, defensive strategy without having to just wall up behind rivers and such. Instead of microing through AI exploits and terrain and such, you "micro" by observing the situation and choosing when you switch between Denying and Seeking Battle for your different stacks, between playing on the defensive and playing on the offensive.

Static warfare is mostly irrelevant for history, except for arguably cases of armies building temporary forts (like the Siege of Alesia). I mainly included this because of Victoria, which sees the shift from Napoleonic warfare to modern warfare with frontlines.

In Static Warfare, the big change from Mobile Warfare is that an army, instead of actively going out and dancing with the enemy for Control of the province, decides to sit on its ass and just guard its corner. Mechanically, this is like a 100% chance of Battle if the enemy attacks and a 0% chance if the enemy doesn't, and instead of guarding all the Control, each unit only guards a portion. However, the static defender also gets a bonus to defense, too. Because the bonus can be very steep, armies in Mobile Warfare will, by default, not engage armies in Static Warfare, and vice versa; in addition to the Seeking/Denying Battle choice, there is an additional toggle of options for Static Warfare (essentially, passive skirmishing, active skirmishing, bombardment, and offensive - going over the top).

Since the static defender is static, there is no real positioning; rather, the operative number is Advantage, reflecting a mixture of intelligence, sabotage efforts, and others. Historically, armies engaged in trench warfare actively used things like trench raids to capture/assassinate officers and sabotage property, attempted to gain little advantages like ideal sniping positions, and would mine under each other, all in preparation for the big push. In Passive Skirmishing, this sort of activity is minimized, so Advantage gain is reduced but so are casualties. In Active Skirmishing, both are notably heightened. Bombardment, reflecting the often multi-day massive bombardments of enemy positions prior to an offensive, often constrained by logistical limits, attempt to kill in large numbers and nullify defensive advantages (maybe a modifier of trench health, which goes up over time up to a tech limit, and can be reduced considerably by Bombardment). Finally, Offensive is open Battle, linear Battle, with a specific objective; if a Breakthrough occurs (not necessarily the army as a whole retreating, but say a unit retreating with nobody there to replace it), it shifts into a field battle with the attacker having the advantage, and victory shifts the line forward (if an auxiliary line is set up), or into open Mobile Warfare again if there is no fallback line.

Technology and army sizes play a huge role in this; each unit and technology level raises the amount of Control shielded by an army. Historically, anybody could have put up a trench line even if they had Stone Age slingrs, but if you had a tiny army of a few hundred men in a province, your frontline wouldn't exactly be solid (just go around it lol). Machine guns made individual men able to hold down a large section of land, and massive conscript armies meant enough men to spread across a whole frontline in that manner. Technology likewise increases but then decreases the effectiveness of defenses. In ancient times, you might be able to have an army build a proper fort and become quite impenetrable, but time is needed. In the Crimean and Civil Wars, precursors to trench warfare were seen, but muskets in a trench just weren't as threatening as machine guns. On the other hand, as people figured out the proper tactics to circumvent trenches and also breakthrough weapons like tanks spread, you could get beyond them. There is a short, golden period in time where trenches can allow any army with a few days before battle enough time to massively increase its defensive strength, resulting in stalemate. Even later on, this system can sort of represent modern frontline warfare, just that the defensive bonus is reduced so that the frontline will shift frequently as Breakthroughs come easily. When tech and armies are both too low, the Control awarded from Static Warfare may not be enough to prevent the enemy army from just walking through the province, while at high levels you may be able to control the province outright.

As with Mobile Warfare, you mainly interact in Static Warfare by setting your stance towards the enemy's line. An auxiliary/fallback line may be an option where you can take some non-artillery units out of the skirmishing, reduce your Control by that amount, but also gain the ability to have another line ready; these should be limited somehow (like, say, there must be 20 Control "between lines" or something like that).

Siege Warfare, reflecting cases that are similar to Static Warfare but distinguished by the fact that logistics are cut off, mostly represent forts and castles being placed under siege, but can also potentially represent cities that have to be cleared gradually. I would not consider something like Stalingrad a "siege" (since it was not cut off) but an urban battle, while I would consider something like Fallujah a siege. Siege warfare takes place in buildings, cities, and such, which come with their default garrisons but could also be garrisoned by army units.

Siege warfare largely works like Static Warfare does - the two sides skirmish with each other racking up attrition kills, bombardments attempt to knock down the structural integrity of the walls, and you can order assaults and sorties - but with the added novelty that there is some supplies resource which dribbles down for the defender. There are basically three ways to win a siege: starve them out (running out of water is functionally the same), go and take it the hard way (easier if their walls are rubble already), or force a surrender, which is sort of a combination of the two in practice (demoralized from casualties AND bad supply situation). In all, not worth talking about a lot.

I do think that a Medieval game, like CK2, could do with a system where you choose what to do with a settlement before seizing it. Historically, you tended to demand that a city surrender under pain of some threat, like destroying the city entirely. The way this would work, as I see it, is that you can deliver ultimatums (and this could also have an auto-ultimatum feature) to besieged forces, in which you threaten a certain level of looting if they don't surrender and promise a certain level if they do. More lenient surrender terms increase the likelihood of ultimatum acceptance as do harsher resistance terms; however, if the ultimatum is rejected, surrender chances decrease if the terms are harsh. Violating your ultimatum, if allowed, should result in stronger resistance (if harsher than promised on a voluntary surrender, they know you are a liar and not worth trusting; if more lenient than promised on resistance, they know the consequences for holding out are not real).

If a province had enough fortifications, it could potentially stay garrisoned

Guerilla warfare is a bit odd to think about. The gist here is that you have special units which are basically in a state of constant skirmishing, but can shift Control around not through battles but control of the population. Guerillas also raise attrition in general and especially target logistical infrastructure. In a guerilla war, guerilla units and occupying units have Control set points (based on all the relevant modifiers), and Control naturally drifts towards the set point. Guerillas have a chance of increasing their numbers (and the set point), while counterinsurgents have a chance of gathering useful intelligence to entrap or hunt down a guerilla unit, essentially a Battle of that unit versus some others to the death. So, the counterinsurgents want to either suppress the guerilla's sway over the territory (by hearts and minds or by terror) or eradicate the guerillas, and the guerillas the opposite.

Guerillas can spawn in naturally like rebels do, can form from standard army units being defeated badly in Battles, or from government operations (like HOI4 spy missions). They can transfer between contiguous provinces with some level of friendly control and can also go on the offensive, in the end, becoming standard units fighting battles to drive out the occupying army in the guerilla equivalent of a sortie. However, guerillas that spawn in are not by default "controlled" by the government (able to be ordered around).

You get a single supreme commander, and depending on the time period the game is set in, maybe a General Staff you can assign commanders to, all of which give entire military-wide bonuses, mostly of logistical nature. Then, at the bottom, you have generals of individual doomstacks, with very combat-focused bonuses. (Same generals, at different levels of command, can have different bonuses). In between are Theater-level generals. If armies are within a certain radius of their head general, they get bonuses (mixed combat and logistics) from him. Generals can but don't have to command multiple levels (you can be supreme commander, general of a Theater, and general of a doomstack at the same time).

If you went with a Vicky III approach, generals would do all the stuff previously mentioned by themselves, except you could do things like give battleplanner-style instructions. I've mentioned before ideas about uncertainty in general traits, and I also like the idea of general traits having interactions not just with their terrain/unit types but also with other generals/specific nations. With generals, friendships between cooperating generals and rivalries between both cooperating and enemy generals; with nations, things like a general having a bonus or malus against a specific nation. (CK2 has stuff like this with Holy Warriors who get attack bonuses against heathens.)

I like the idea of named character generals always being available in unlimited number, but the degree to which you've developed your officer corps (both in the sense of education like war colleges and in the sense of practical war experience) should determine the probability of good generals appearing with a penalty for existing generals.
 
Joined
May 14, 2019
So Vic3 dev diary about political parties is out.
Whole system feels backward and retarded.
There will be 11 parties.View attachment 3276183
It is funny that they acknowledge existence of Agrarian parties when last week they made comment : Lmao peasants too dumb to come to elections even if given right to do So.
Also Anarchists lmao :story: Can't wait for hollesome 100 Anarchist runs that will be spammed in every place.

Parties will exists only in countries with elections it is not really historically acurate.
And Intrest groups will be "joining" parties.
So it will not be parties trying to get suport of groups by pushing agenda popular in that groups. But groups will be chosing one party .
Another problem is that IG will decide to back party and all In that interest group will do it. This is straight from Marxs book of bs.Muh class consciousness .When was last time group of potentially millions agreed on something?
I'm kind of bothered by how "leaders" (characters) have ideologies that entire interest groups follow. The concept of interest groups is really nice and fills something Victoria II was missing, but at the same time Victoria II already represented that certain occupations were more likely to support certain ideologies (Fascist Officers, Reactionary Aristocrats, Communist Craftsmen, etc.).

I'm not convinced that all of this new system actually does anything useful, which unfortunately is how I feel about, well... pretty much everything they've shown of this game.
 

Radola Gajda

Legionář, Lion of Siberia
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Speaking of reactionaries where are they? They have fucking anarchists and free trade party .
But there are no reactionaries or monarchists?
Are they
going with leftist meme: conservatives = reactionaries = fascists?

leader's gender to indeterminable

As for stellaris in this one case it is kinda justified considering you can play as AI, hive minds and various star slimes.
But it still doesnt excuse removing content from game
 
Joined
May 14, 2019
Speaking of reactionaries where are they? They have fucking anarchists and free trade party .
But there are no reactionaries or monarchists?
Are they
going with leftist meme: conservatives = reactionaries = fascists?



As for stellaris in this one case it is kinda justified considering you can play as AI, hive minds and various star slimes.
But it still doesnt excuse removing content from game
Monarchism is an ideology, so treated by the game as a sort of trait an interest group can adopt. American "aristocrats," for example, would not be monarchist whereas Russian serfs would.

Still helps expose how dumb removing pop-level ideologies is.
 

crows in guns

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
If you want to hatewatch something I give you this overthought pseudointellectual bullshit
In short the lack of nation states in Africa is blamed on "eurocentrism", you know, instead of the actual lack of nation states. These people are arguing for ruining the gameplay for the sake of revising history so that Africa isn't 90% tribes and kingdoms with no potential for stopping the colonial powers, rather than wanting the developers to give more thought and attention towards the few powerful factions that did exist in Africa, they want the developers to dot the lands with hundreds of tiny nations that ultimately do not matter. Prepare for a absolutely horrid gameplay sessions where you'll have to micro manage wars against dozens of shitty tribal states that pose no challenge just to participate in the colonial race. Also no wonder Victoria 3 can't handle having a market simulation in the background when it has to simulate a hundred new african factions instead.
another guy earlier in the thread pointed out this guy maybe a tranny,
 

Spud

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 12, 2022
I'm thinking about getting Victoria 2, what DLC's do I need to get the complete experience? I've put over 1900 hours into Factorio so I'm good on the autism aspect.
 

HeyYou

YOU BETTER RUN!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
I'm thinking about getting Victoria 2, what DLC's do I need to get the complete experience? I've put over 1900 hours into Factorio so I'm good on the autism aspect.
The two expansions are really all you need. The sprite packs are more for flavor.