So.... Them Paradox games...

ancapailldorcha

These are really complicated. I mean, really complicated. Ok, I think I have Hearts of Iron 4 down reasonably well but unfortunately, I don't think I am all that keen on the WW2 setting given how many games, films and books are out there on the subject. Cracking game though. Especially the soundtrack.

So I go on to Crusader Kings II. I try the learning scenario after reading some guides and things. I get bored because it's awful as are all Paradox learning scenarios. I started a game in 1066 as my native Tir Connell. I'm 30 years in and haven't conquered a single territory. Apparently, Ireland has the moniker "Tutorial island" or "Noob island". Conquered Tyrone but turns out winning didn't give me Tyrone. Eurgh.

I think I'm picking it up. Usually I'd give up by now as none of the Total War or XCOM games were this complex to pick up. Maybe it's the map or a desire to increase the font of my country name.

Anyway, is it just one of those things where loads of playtime is required for things to make sense?

The Specialist

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

These are really complicated. I mean, really complicated. Ok, I think I have Hearts of Iron 4 down reasonably well but unfortunately, I don't think I am all that keen on the WW2 setting given how many games, films and books are out there on the subject. Cracking game though. Especially the soundtrack.

So I go on to Crusader Kings II. I try the learning scenario after reading some guides and things. I get bored because it's awful as are all Paradox learning scenarios. I started a game in 1066 as my native Tir Connell. I'm 30 years in and haven't conquered a single territory. Apparently, Ireland has the moniker "Tutorial island" or "Noob island". Conquered Tyrone but turns out winning didn't give me Tyrone. Eurgh.

I think I'm picking it up. Usually I'd give up by now as none of the Total War or XCOM games were this complex to pick up. Maybe it's the map or a desire to increase the font of my country name.

Anyway, is it just one of those things where loads of playtime is required for things to make sense?

I’m not a pc gamer but I did pick up Stellaris on PS4 recently made by this crowd - **** me it couldn’t be more impenetrable if it was 90 years old welded shut I’ve made 7 new games and each time I reach a dead end - a small empire ****ing destroys me in fleet power, I lose research ships to random **** beyond my control, I can’t get enough power or resources so go bankrupt, I build a social welfare nation of pops that doesn’t want to work etc. I’m watching loads of tutorials on YouTube but it’s almost like you need to a PHD in these games to play them properly.

Dave_The_Sheep

Haven't found them that difficult to pick up, to be honest. That not to take away from your troubles.

They're worth figuring out though.

The Specialist

The Specialist wrote: »

I’m not a pc gamer but I did pick up Stellaris on PS4 recently made by this crowd - **** me it couldn’t be more impenetrable if it was 90 years old welded shut I’ve made 7 new games and each time I reach a dead end - a small empire ****ing destroys me in fleet power, I lose research ships to random **** beyond my control, I can’t get enough power or resources so go bankrupt, I build a social welfare nation of pops that doesn’t want to work etc. I’m watching loads of tutorials on YouTube but it’s almost like you need to a PHD in these games to play them properly.

Stellaris is one of the most accessible ones too!

I love the idea of these games but similarly to the OP I've never really been able to crack them. I really don't like the monetization model (****tons of not cheap DLC, some of which changes their games hugely) they use either so I've sort of given up on their games.

Made a good attempt at EU4 a few years ago and didn't really like it. If I had time to burn, I'd give it another go, but something easy like CIV is more appealing for a few hours.

pixelburp

They're games that I look in at from the outside and think they're right up my alley, but the hours of commitment and concentration required, just to understand the key pillars and game loops feels too much. Stellaris is exactly the kind of game I've thought about as a cool idea, but I don't think I'll ever actually play it!

ancapailldorcha

The Specialist wrote: »

I’m not a pc gamer but I did pick up Stellaris on PS4 recently made by this crowd - **** me it couldn’t be more impenetrable if it was 90 years old welded shut I’ve made 7 new games and each time I reach a dead end - a small empire ****ing destroys me in fleet power, I lose research ships to random **** beyond my control, I can’t get enough power or resources so go bankrupt, I build a social welfare nation of pops that doesn’t want to work etc. I’m watching loads of tutorials on YouTube but it’s almost like you need to a PHD in these games to play them properly.

Stellaris is supposed to be a user friendly Paradox game!

pixelburp wrote: »

They're games that I look in at from the outside and think they're right up my alley, but the hours of commitment and concentration required, just to understand the key pillars and game loops feels too much. Stellaris is exactly the kind of game I've thought about as a cool idea, but I don't think I'll ever actually play it!

Well.... I may have splurged on all the DLC (including Sunset invasion which literally ruins games as Christian factions) so my sunken cost bias means I'm loathe to just give up.

ZeroThreat

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Stellaris is supposed to be a user friendly Paradox game!



Well.... I may have splurged on all the DLC (including Sunset invasion which literally ruins games as Christian factions) so my sunken cost bias means I'm loathe to just give up.

tbh I think I had more fun in the base game before I bought much of the DLC. Training up the next generation became way more complicated after some of the DLCs not to mention that having retinues made the game too easy from a military standpoint.

ancapailldorcha

ZeroThreat wrote: »

tbh I think I had more fun in the base game before I bought much of the DLC. Training up the next generation became way more complicated after some of the DLCs not to mention that having retinues made the game too easy from a military standpoint.

I was under the impression that Paradox release games in very poor states (like Imperator Rome) and then fix them with DLC so I bought the DLC. More fool me.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Stellaris is supposed to be a user friendly Paradox game!



Well.... I may have splurged on all the DLC (including Sunset invasion which literally ruins games as Christian factions) so my sunken cost bias means I'm loathe to just give up.

... and that's the other reason I stay away I usually nominate one "God Game" I'll stick with and for better or worse, Civ5 has scratched that "oh god it's 3am" itch. I get there are lots of differences in approach but you get my point ...

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

... and that's the other reason I stay away I usually nominate one "God Game" I'll stick with and for better or worse Civ5 has scratched that "oh god it's 3am" itch. I get there are lots of differences in approach but you get my point ...

Was Civ V hard to learn?

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was Civ V hard to learn?

Nope, though I'm a long time fan of the series so the basics I picked up quick enough by dint of familiarity (Civ5 did switch up some mechanics in pretty major ways, but the principles remained the same). It's one of those games that looks and feels simple, but depth spills out from playing. As opposed to Paradox games where they hit you with about 500 systems from the get-go...

Oh and you absolutely need the two (three?) DLCs as they add some pretty critical features.

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Nope, though I'm a long time fan of the series so the basics I picked up quick enough by dint of familiarity (Civ5 did switch up some mechanics in pretty major ways, but the principles remained the same). It's one of those games that looks and feels simple, but depth spills out from playing. As opposed to Paradox games where they hit you with about 500 systems from the get-go...

Oh and you absolutely need the two (three?) DLCs as they add some pretty critical features.

I think I already own the DLC's. I learned more from Youtube tutorials and Let's Plays about Paradox games than the tutorials for Paradox games. Shockingly bad tutorials. I thought XCOM: EU's had a bit of room for improvement perhaps but the tutorials for the Paradox titles are the same as they were pre-DLC.

tusk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Was Civ V hard to learn?

Civ 5 was the first I played, and it's not dificult to pick up at all.

a couple of short games to familiarise yourself and you should be grand

Colonel Claptrap

I enjoy Paradox games more when I set myself a unique target before setting out. Read up on it, plan ahead, identify your potential enemies.

In CK2 I like to unify Ireland. I've never succeeded in forming an Irish British Empire.

Other targets include: get 3 female rulers in a row.

Unify Spain.

Take over le Blob from the inside.

Become a heretic, take on a new religion and see how far I can spread it.

Play eugenics - try to get a family tree crammed with geniuses.

Insist simulator. Marry a daughter or three.

Ally Scotland with France, and carve up England.

Try playing as a Muslim and observe how different it is to playing as a Christian feudal lord.

Going in with the mindset that I must blob across europe will soon become boring. Set yourself some small targets. Use achievements for inspiration.

Colonel Claptrap

Quill18 has excellent tutorial videos for most Paradox games.

tusk

any good tutorials for starting CK2? I picked it up months ago, and looked at it for about an hour then got scared and haven't gone back since.

tusk

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Quill18 has excellent tutorial videos for most Paradox games.

whoah. you read my mind. Timetraveller!

pixelburp

I'd love to see Game Makers Toolkit (or any UX related perspectives) take on the Paradox games, to dissect how / if they can be made more accessible without sacrificing any of the key gameplay pillars. Feels like it should be possible, only needs the right UI/UX heads...

tusk

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd love to see Game Makers Toolkit (or any UX related perspectives) take on the Paradox games, to dissect how / if they can be made more accessible without sacrificing any of the key gameplay pillars. Feels like it should be possible, only needs the right UI/UX heads...

Has that kind of thing been done with other games? Sounds super interesting.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Quill18 has excellent tutorial videos for most Paradox games.

He is excellent. I learnt HoI4 from his videos. Shame he doesn't have one for CK2. Would've went to his birthday party if it wasn't in Edinburgh and I didn't find out a day before.

pixelburp

tusk wrote: »

Has that kind of thing been done with other games? Sounds super interesting.

Not that I'm aware of; occasional remasters might tighten up interfaces but I've never heard of a remake that wholesale changed the UI. Paradox seem like a studio crying out for some better engagement flows. GMT tend toward more action looped games, not sure how you'd even begin to unravel a more data driven game like Crusader Kings et al...

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Not that I'm aware of; occasional remasters might tighten up interfaces but I've never heard of a remake that wholesale changed the UI. Paradox seem like a studio crying out for some better engagement flows. GMT tend toward more action looped games, not sure how you'd even begin to unravel a more data driven game like Crusader Kings et al...

How do you mean "data driven?"

I think most of these titles, if not all are too old and too niche to benefit from such a remaster.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How do you mean "data driven?"

I think most of these titles, if not all are too old and too niche to benefit from such a remaster.

I suppose meaning games like Civ, CK et al that are less about moment to moment gameplay loops, and more a slower, thoughtful pace, the data being resource, tech, ancestry, diplomacy management - data There are a lot of quite complex ideas, that are all upfront pillars of the game, that would be harder to get players to ramp up into than more typical games. If that makes any sense?

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

I suppose meaning games like Civ, CK et al that are less about moment to moment gameplay loops, and more a slower, thoughtful pace, the data being resource, tech, ancestry, diplomacy management - data There are a lot of quite complex ideas, that are all upfront pillars of the game, that would be harder to get players to ramp up into than more typical games. If that makes any sense?

It does, yeah. I miss being able to pick just about anything up and have fun with it.

pixelburp

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It does, yeah. I miss being able to pick just about anything up and have fun with it.

Civ5 + DLC definitely lets you just get going; and it's super configurable, you can start with a small map so you're not spending the first 100 turns exploring for 'stuff'. (in fact with really small maps + a lot of other Civs it becomes a bit deathmatch'y ). Civ5's main flaw is that the late game things just grind to a halt, losing that fun momentum & discovery loop from the early stages...

TheValeyard

I do enjoy those games. Although I was absolutely terrible at Hearts of Iron IV at the beginning. I played as Germany and invaded Poland. Poland won, and invaded Germany.

While, Stellaris is a magnificent Space Opera, very slow paced (depending on map size) but the level of detail and crisis events keeps the player entertained. Not to mention to vast amount of customisation or style of species you can be, from a simple human, xenophobic Insectoid, a peace loving mushroom, a juvenile, assimilation collective, etc. I also enjoy expanding my empire and taking over other civilizations or spying on pre warp cultures.

tusk

FYI for anyone looking to start with Civ...

Civ 5 > Civ 6

pixelburp

Yeah, Civ6 really hasn't caught on, has it? I keep waiting for the article or post saying "It's good now guys!" and for a bit that seemed to be the latest expansion for 6, but Civ5 feels like Firaxis built themselves an apex of the series they won't surpass.

tusk

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, Civ6 really hasn't caught on, has it? I keep waiting for the article or post saying "It's good now guys!" and for a bit that seemed to be the latest expansion for 6, but Civ5 feels like Firaxis built themselves an apex of the series they won't surpass.

Some of the new mechanics in 6 were really good, but I could never put my finger on what it was that made me keep wanting to play 5 instead.

ancapailldorcha

I tried Civ V once. Tutorial made me pick Moscow. I'd no idea what I was doing and the game had a million start options so I never went back to it.

tusk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I tried Civ V once. Tutorial made me pick Moscow. I'd no idea what I was doing and the game had a million start options so I never went back to it.

I randed my first proper game. Ended up being Gandhi and getting the war victory hahaa

pawrick

Try using the cheat codes in CK2 to explore / learn the game quickly starting out and not have to worry too much about certain aspects until you are familiar with how things work.

CIV 5 is a great game, I moved on to CIV 6 because it's newer but some things drive me mad in it compared to 5.

J Mysterio

I also really wanted to like Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings etc, but they are ridiculously complex and - tbh - not all that fun. As another poster said, it seems you need to have a PHD in the mechanics just to get by.

Heart of Iron looks interesting as a concept, but the graphics etc are just so basic its prevented my looking at it more closely.

I enjoyed Knights of Honour for a while, which is basically a dumbed down, simplified CK. That is very accessible.

Mount & Blade: Warband, while a little dated, is still pretty fun and combines a tactical map/ empire management with first person battles which you control.

I get most of my grand strategy kicks from CIV, which I've been playing religiously forever. I agree that 5 is better than 6 overall, but it's hard to go back to 5 once you've played the new title, There are some nice new mechanics. Still though, diplomacy has not been improved and is very awkward. It annoys me too that the DLC is still not potted to the Switch after all this time.

The Total War games are brilliant of course.

X-COM, while a slightly different genre to the aforementioned, is also a favourite. I've been doing another play through the last few days.

Strategy games are a clear favourite for me, I just wished there was more choice!

pixelburp

I'm surprised Hearts of Iron has never had much of a graphical upgrade; perhaps Paradox is too small a company, the game too niche to afford a larger Graphics & UI department. Must be a very efficient little set-up. Agree about the graphics though, I just can't get behind the excessively 'board game' look.

Last Total War game I played was the much maligned Empire: Total War; not a fan of medieval / Shogun settings so this tickled my fancy a little more. I think I just enjoyed the kick of Ireland becoming a Despotic Monarchy and taking over England (as happened in a couple of playthroughs).

Spare a thought for us poor RTS fans; nobody makes them anymore, it's either MOBA or - at best - a Tower Defence game. What I wouldn't give for another proper Red Alert or Starcraft (minus the insane multiplayer mania)

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

I also really wanted to like Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings etc, but they are ridiculously complex and - tbh - not all that fun. As another poster said, it seems you need to have a PHD in the mechanics just to get by.

Well, I did splurge on the DLC for both so I feel a bit compelled to give them a proper go. Quill18 has tutorials for EU4 which might help but there's very little for CK2 that's not outdated.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Heart of Iron looks interesting as a concept, but the graphics etc are just so basic its prevented my looking at it more closely.

I quite like HoI4 but it's not a normal conquering strategy game. You're restricted with what you can do a bit more than with the other titles.

J Mysterio wrote: »

I enjoyed Knights of Honour for a while, which is basically a dumbed down, simplified CK. That is very accessible.

Mount & Blade: Warband, while a little dated, is still pretty fun and combines a tactical map/ empire management with first person battles which you control.

Might give these a look at some point.

J Mysterio wrote: »

The Total War games are brilliant of course.

Of course.

J Mysterio wrote: »

X-COM, while a slightly different genre to the aforementioned, is also a favourite. I've been doing another play through the last few days.

The originals look unplayable to me but the newer titles were a big part of what got me into strategy gaming. I think I even started them before Total War.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Strategy games are a clear favourite for me, I just wished there was more choice!

They're horrendous time vampires though. I don't think the lack of choice, if any is a bad thing at all.

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm surprised Hearts of Iron has never had much of a graphical upgrade; perhaps Paradox is too small a company, the game too niche to afford a larger Graphics & UI department. Must be a very efficient little set-up. Agree about the graphics though, I just can't get behind the excessively 'board game' look.

I actually like the glossy map look of HoI4 I have to say. It's shiny. On the flip-side, the games never age too badly as they never looked great to begin with! I don't know how big the company is but the complexity of these games for what must be a small dev is staggering.

pixelburp wrote: »

Last Total War game I played was the much maligned Empire: Total War; not a fan of medieval / Shogun settings so this tickled my fancy a little more. I think I just enjoyed the kick of Ireland becoming a Despotic Monarchy and taking over England (as happened in a couple of playthroughs).

Yeah. My first game was Rome: Total War. I moved onto Medieval II. Interest started to wane at Empire. I've never played Napoleon despite owning it which is a shame. Rome II and Attila though. The latter runs like a turd. What really grates though is the absurd one-on-one combat the units are stuck with (thankfully removed for Warhammer), the all but complete removal of settlement management (4-5 slots, really?) and the fact that Politics just comes down to spending money so your generals don't trigger a civil war. That's neither fun nor interesting. That killed my interest in the newer titles until Warhammer. Shogun 2 doesn't have this but I never got into that for some reason. Maybe it has too much of what's wrong with Empire. Wonderful aesthetic though.

I adore the Warhammer titles. I've forgiven CA a lot because they ditched the one-on-one combat and the settlement management at least makes more sense. The characters and units have been brought to life in such a wonderful way that I'm forgiving the flaws instead of focusing on them..

pixelburp wrote: »

Spare a thought for us poor RTS fans; nobody makes them anymore, it's either MOBA or - at best - a Tower Defence game. What I wouldn't give for another proper Red Alert or Starcraft (minus the insane multiplayer mania)

I used to play Plants vs Zombies. Don't think I've ever touched RTS.

J Mysterio

This is due to come out in September: Phoenix Point.
Basically an X-Com game, but looks interesting.

pawrick

With all this talk of HOI i think I might give it a go again this weekend, never got in to it but maybe time for another shot as i like the time period it's set in.

Total war empire looks terrible graphics wise now but again i really liked the concept and time period, played it again afew months back. Napoleon is still payable graphics wise and I preferred it over Shogun.

ancapailldorcha

pawrick wrote: »

With all this talk of HOI i think I might give it a go again this weekend, never got in to it but maybe time for another shot as i like the time period it's set in.

Total war empire looks terrible graphics wise now but again i really liked the concept and time period, played it again afew months back. Napoleon is still payable graphics wise and I preferred it over Shogun.

I quite like Empire's period as well. It's partly why I bought EU4. It's interesting and you have the transition from Feudalism to early democracy along with the change in combat from knights to musketeers.

Anyway, Quill18's HoI4 tutorials are recent (including Man the Guns):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uCwrt-LkA

Kiith

Stellaris is easy enough to pick up, and is a fantastic game. Some great mods as well, with the Star Trek one being a standout.

Coulnd't get into Crusader Kings 2, but to be fair i didn't really give it enough time.

ancapailldorcha

I gave CK2 another go today. Invaded somewhere with mercs, disbanded merc and got invaded myself. Game over. Eurgh.

Colonel Claptrap

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I gave CK2 another go today. Invaded somewhere with mercs, disbanded merc and got invaded myself. Game over. Eurgh.

I often use Mercs and/or Jews in the early game for a single risky move to take over my first neighbouring county. If it doesn't go to plan, it's often GG and I'll start again.

Once the first and second county is taken over, I never really bother with Mercs. I have enough man power to steam roll. Same with the Jews.

I often have to remind myself that it's not a game of conquest, it's an RPG simulator. The war mechanics are fairly basic and uninteresting anyway.

My next playthrough will be to take part in a crusade as a Christian Spanish ruler. I've never paid much attention to crusades or the papacy. That's my short term goal. Everything else, including conquest is secondary.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I often use Mercs and/or Jews in the early game for a single risky move to take over my first neighbouring county. If it doesn't go to plan, it's often GG and I'll start again.

Once the first and second county is taken over, I never really bother with Mercs. I have enough man power to steam roll. Same with the Jews.

I often have to remind myself that it's not a game of conquest, it's an RPG simulator. The war mechanics are fairly basic and uninteresting anyway.

My next playthrough will be to take part in a crusade as a Christian Spanish ruler. I've never paid much attention to crusades or the papacy. That's my short term goal. Everything else, including conquest is secondary.

Thanks for this. I built a war chest to invade Tyrone so I could hire mercs as literally everyone seems to have more troops than me. I must've filled out the wrong cassus belli because Tyrone capitulated and someone else got it somehow. I'd to take the loan from the Jews just for the mercs' upkeep.

I get that it is character focused but ruling only Donegal does get a bit boring after a while. Also, it's called tutorial island by players and I've not conquered anything at all.

Colonel Claptrap

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thanks for this. I built a war chest to invade Tyrone so I could hire mercs as literally everyone seems to have more troops than me. I must've filled out the wrong cassus belli because Tyrone capitulated and someone else got it somehow. I'd to take the loan from the Jews just for the mercs' upkeep.

I get that it is character focused but ruling only Donegal does get a bit boring after a while. Also, it's called tutorial island by players and I've not conquered anything at all.

Try inviting people with high martial skill to your realm and appoint them as your martial and commander(s).
You can do this with the 'find a character' screen and filter on males who would come to your realm.

Also, don't lead armies yourself unless you have a decent martial skill.

Try spit out a daughter or two and marry them to an English or Scottish heir. That gets you a non aggression pact that can be turned into an alliance. This is a handy way to get a stack of free troops at your disposal. Make sure Tyrone doesn't have a non-aggression pact with them though.

If your wife's family connections are no longer working for you, have her killed and replaced. Henry VIII style.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Try inviting people with high martial skill to your realm and appoint them as your martial and commander(s).
You can do this with the 'find a character' screen and filter on males who would come to your realm.

Also, don't lead armies yourself unless you have a decent martial skill.

Try spit out a daughter or two and marry them to an English or Scottish heir. That gets you a non aggression pact that can be turned into an alliance. This is a handy way to get a stack of free troops at your disposal. Make sure Tyrone doesn't have a non-aggression pact with them though.

If your wife's family connections are no longer working for you, have her killed and replaced. Henry VIII style.

I've just been marrying off my own family members and searching for traits. Never did too much about non-aggression pacts. Do you marry off your whole court?

I've two guys who apparently have to be on the council though which is annoying. Apparently, my own guy's martial stat (which is a bit small) has a huge impact on the levies I can raise.

MOH

Did they ever come up with an in-game solution/mod for adjusting font sizes? I've always found pretty much all their games unplayable because I'll go blind after 20 minutes trying to read the tiny font. Especially when you're trying to learn at the start and need to read a *lot* of text

ancapailldorcha

MOH wrote: »

Did they ever come up with an in-game solution/mod for adjusting font sizes? I've always found pretty much all their games unplayable because I'll go blind after 20 minutes trying to read the tiny font. Especially when you're trying to learn at the start and need to read a *lot* of text

I watched part of a Let's Play from Many a True Nerd where he did something. I forget what it was though.

Colonel Claptrap

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've just been marrying off my own family members and searching for traits. Never did too much about non-aggression pacts. Do you marry off your whole court?

I've two guys who apparently have to be on the council though which is annoying. Apparently, my own guy's martial stat (which is a bit small) has a huge impact on the levies I can raise.

By and large, traits only matter for heirs you intend to play as. Bar a few exceptions. An ambitious pretender to the throne is a problem.

You can marry off your court, but in reality only dynasty members count towards n-a pacts and alliances. Your siblings and children primarily.

There should be an option to move that martial guy to another seat on the council, without suffering a relationship penalty.

Then import a better martial from abroad.

ancapailldorcha

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

By and large, traits only matter for heirs you intend to play as. Bar a few exceptions. An ambitious pretender to the throne is a problem.

You can marry off your court, but in reality only dynasty members count towards n-a pacts and alliances. Your siblings and children primarily.

There should be an option to move that martial guy to another seat on the council, without suffering a relationship penalty.

Then import a better martial from abroad.

Thanks! Yeah, I learned to avoid ambitious people from my Let's Play.

I've a lot of umarried people in my court. Sounds like that's not too important.

There was an option but I'd no unfree spaces and didn't want to antagonise anyone.

Donegal might have been a poor choice to start as. I think the border dispute I used to start the war might have been a bad idea and may have contributed to my getting ganged up on.

MOH

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I watched part of a Let's Play from Many a True Nerd where he did something. I forget what it was though.

Cheers, thanks, must check that out. It's the one thing that's always put me off playing

Zillah

I have decided Paradox are really pissing me off with their DLC system. They sell the game for, say, 20-50 quid, and that's fine; but then they start releasing DLC, so after a couple of years there are, say, 6 relatively large DLCs available. But whether you buy them or not they get added to the game. So you get resource counters or faction tabs or references to mechanics in the DLC, which are actually just inert placeholders unless you buy the game. Which is obviously designed to make you feel like your game is missing chunks, enticing you to buy the DLC and leaving you unsatisfied if you don't. It's not always even apparent what is missing. I've made game decisions trying to make X happen, but it turns out X isn't even in the core game, despite being alluded to in my UI.

But the real kicker is that each DLC is something like 50% the cost of the base game, so instead of being able to buy them all in a pack for a price of maybe doubling the base game cost, the total could be three, four, five...times the cost of the base game, and you realise that you're not going to have the 'full' experience that they keep shoving in your face unless you just open your wallet wide. And most of the DLC really don't even add that much. The handful that I have paid for were super disappointing and I felt a bit foolish for letting them bait me into it.

It gives me the same bad taste as mobile gaming does generally. It really sours my opinion of them and makes me want to not touch any of their games ever again.