Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[Zardnaar]

My problem (as with all Paradox games) is rather on the opposite end of the spectrum, that their game end up bloated after tens of DLC. And also the conundrum at release "is it even worth it to buy the game before the first five years, considering it will be completely unrecognizable later ?".

That is a problem I had to relearn CK2 and Stellaris.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My problem (as with all Paradox games) is rather on the opposite end of the spectrum, that their game end up bloated after tens of DLC. And also the conundrum at release "is it even worth it to buy the game before the first five years, considering it will be completely unrecognizable later ?".

GoG had HoI one, two, and three on sale, all complete, and I was certainly tempted. I have too much other stuff I'm in the midst of so I passed, but for me there isn't even a question; I don't buy Paradox games until they are done with them and move on. Same with Civ, actually.

 

[Akka]

That is a problem I had to relearn CK2 and Stellaris.

It was my main problem with Stellaris and EU4 : I loved the original version but they were lacking depth and had a lot of bugs. But the versions that fixed the bug also completely changed the game, in a way that I absolutely didn't like. So either I had to play a unfinished and buggy game, or one which had a design I disliked.

GoG had HoI one, two, and three on sale, all complete, and I was certainly tempted. I have too much other stuff I'm in the midst of so I passed, but for me there isn't even a question; I don't buy Paradox games until they are done with them and move on. Same with Civ, actually.

Civ at least stays largely the same and simply improves. Paradox games completely alter even the basic mechanisms, so if you liked a specific version of one, you can get the game ruined under your feet. And if you wait for the game to be "complete" (so you don't get used to a mechanism that will be mauled down the line), you end up with a game bloated with countless DLC features that often drowns the gameplay (I know I can't touch EU4 anymore).

 

[Zardnaar]

It was my main problem with Stellaris and EU4 : I loved the original version but they were lacking depth and had a lot of bugs. But the versions that fixed the bug also completely changed the game, in a way that I absolutely didn't like. So either I had to play a unfinished and buggy game, or one which had a design I disliked.

Civ at least stays largely the same and simply improves. Paradox games completely alter even the basic mechanisms, so if you liked a specific version of one, you can get the game ruined under your feet. And if you wait for the game to be "complete" (so you don't get used to a mechanism that will be mauled down the line), you end up with a game bloated with countless DLC features that often drowns the gameplay (I know I can't touch EU4 anymore).

EUIV is the poster child for DLC gone bad.

CK2 is done, hence why I'm starting to play. I fell behind around Rajas of India/The Old God's and alot changed.

Stellaris got massive overhaul that broke the game.

 

[Kyriakos]

It was my main problem with Stellaris and EU4 : I loved the original version but they were lacking depth and had a lot of bugs. But the versions that fixed the bug also completely changed the game, in a way that I absolutely didn't like. So either I had to play a unfinished and buggy game, or one which had a design I disliked.

Civ at least stays largely the same and simply improves. Paradox games completely alter even the basic mechanisms, so if you liked a specific version of one, you can get the game ruined under your feet. And if you wait for the game to be "complete" (so you don't get used to a mechanism that will be mauled down the line), you end up with a game bloated with countless DLC features that often drowns the gameplay (I know I can't touch EU4 anymore).

EUII was basically an improved version of EUI. With semi-standalone "For the Glory" being EU2.5

EUIII, by contrast, was a very new game, which took some adapting to, but ultimately was better imo. Other than the soundtrack, cause while Eu2 had an awesome soundtrack (cause they stole every classical and medieval piece in existence; I doubt they paid any rights to those recordings either...), the OST for EUIII was ridiculously poor.

 

[AmazonQueen]

EUIV is the poster child for DLC gone bad.

CK2 is done, hence why I'm starting to play. I fell behind around Rajas of India/The Old God's and alot changed.

Stellaris got massive overhaul that broke the game.

The massive amount of DLC I'd have to catch up on is one reason I've hardly played EUIV, the other being I prefer games set in the earlier time periods..

CK2 was a good game with good DLC but I think some of the later DLC tried to add in things that the base game mechanics struggled to cope with.
Hopefully although CK3 won't have everything on release they will start out with a better idea of what they want to add and how they are going to do it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I liked EUIII, didn't play I and II.

Is it the Ckauswitz and Europa engines?

 

[Zardnaar]

The massive amount of DLC I'd have to catch up on is one reason I've hardly played EUIV, the other being I prefer games set in the earlier time periods..

CK2 was a good game with good DLC but I think some of the later DLC tried to add in things that the base game mechanics struggled to cope with.
Hopefully although CK3 won't have everything on release they will start out with a better idea of what they want to add and how they are going to do it.

Hopefully with CK III they won't expand the map. No horselords, Rajas on India, Jade Dragon etc.

 

[Arakhor]

The massive amount of DLC I'd have to catch up on is one reason I've hardly played EUIV, the other being I prefer games set in the earlier time periods.

As with their other games, all you really need to do is buy the best three or four expansions and you're good to do. For EU IV, that's typically Art of War, Rights of Man and Common Sense.

 

[Kyriakos]

As with their other games, all you really need to do is buy the best three or four expansions and you're good to do. For EU IV, that's typically Art of War, Rights of Man and Common Sense.

Does Britain have William Hague as leader?

 

[AmazonQueen]

As with their other games, all you really need to do is buy the best three or four expansions and you're good to do. For EU IV, that's typically Art of War, Rights of Man and Common Sense.

I'm their ideal customer though. I may end up playing the same few civs much more frequently than others but if theres an expansion that adds to the experience for starting as some obscure culture I'll want it

 

[Arakhor]

There's plenty of those too, so get strapped in and open your wallet.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Does Britain have William Hague as leader?

Have you no shame, read your Tom Paine.

 

[Yeekim]

Join the club

 

[Zardnaar]

There's plenty of those too, so get strapped in and open your wallet.

Most of them aren't that obscure.

England, Muscovy, Brandenburg.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hopefully with CK III they won't expand the map. No horselords, Rajas on India, Jade Dragon etc.

Better, they could just start with those. Else how to compete with their own earlier title?

Running a time period of 1066-1444 and not including mechanics like Mongol invasion or Timur seems...odd. I guess the China interactions were janky though, same with event troops in general.

Given recent releases I have no trust in Pdox, for reasons completely unrelated to this thread. Apparently they won't even use Deus Vult now, I heard that went the way of the "ok" sign. Stupid.

 

[Zardnaar]

Better, they could just start with those. Else how to compete with their own earlier title?

Running a time period of 1066-1444 and not including mechanics like Mongol invasion or Timur seems...odd. I guess the China interactions were janky though, same with event troops in general.

Given recent releases I have no trust in Pdox, for reasons completely unrelated to this thread. Apparently they won't even use Deus Vult now, I heard that went the way of the "ok" sign. Stupid.

I think they will use it just not advertise it.

Mongols invasion was in CK2 and was an off map invasion. I mean don't expand the map.

The reasons are mostly technical it made the game chug and it took them ages to fix it.

I have doubts as well after Imperator so might just wait and see what the reviews say, talk to some steam friends.

 

[Yeekim]

Apparently they won't even use Deus Vult now, I heard that went the way of the "ok" sign. Stupid

Censoring a historical phrase is stupid. Making a huge fuss about it, like the morons who whine about it, threaten to boycott Paradox and review bomb CK2 on Steam, is stupid on power three.
I'll bet dollars to peanuts that if Pdox had just dropped it quietly, or just translated it to English, no-one would have even noticed. It's... what, present in 1-2 event localisations? Hardly a critical part of game experience.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Good to see them doing something about a phrase adopted as a dogwhistle by the alt right, I notice they that paradox already banned the phrase "remove kebab" which is also a dogwhistle with genocidal and anti Islamic undertones not to mention most likely racist

 

[Zardnaar]

Good to see them doing something about a phrase adopted as a dogwhistle by the alt right, I notice they that paradox already banned the phrase "remove kebab" which is also a dogwhistle with genocidal and anti Islamic undertones not to mention most likely racist

Paradox isn't a alt right company despite what some claim online

Some if their games do attract alt right crowd though. Hearts of Iron series in particular.

Remove kebab didn't get used much on the forums, kebab by itself did. It referred to the Ottomans.

Ottomans are the most powerful nation so expect them to get gangbanged in MP.