Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21
    Network Hub Dead Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    196
    Mulitplayer doesn't mean playing a game with your friends anymore. Multiplayer means playing an online game with a one or more random, loud-mouthed, self-aggrandizing, anonymous dipshits who's one true goal in life is to insult every person in the universe by equating them with fecal matter and then subsequently suggesting that they had copious sexual relations with their mother.

  2. #22
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, US
    Posts
    82
    @Dead Herald
    In this case you are completely incorrect. Most people organize a group to play these games and the folks I have played with (who were relatively random) were all very decent to me and to eachother. One guy helped out other nations even though it was against his own best interests.

    @Pakoita
    It depends on the sped, but I think that 12 hours will probably be enough to finish a game (maybe a bit more) and you can save easily. Our host restarted the match multiple times due to a player leaving (and thus swapping him out for another player) and some other issues and each time we were right back to were we started. If the host has an idea as to what to do the process can be very smooth.

  3. #23
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Heliocentric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,536
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    Pretty much this.

    "Grand strategy" and "multiplayer" are fancy ways of saying "I have too many friends and need a clean and efficient way of getting rid of them."
    Solium Infernum's hell war narrative goes quite some way to apologise for the the bastardry.
    I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
    http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/

  4. #24
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus pakoito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Spainishtan
    Posts
    1,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Herald View Post
    Mulitplayer doesn't mean playing a game with your friends anymore. Multiplayer means playing an online game with a one or more random, loud-mouthed, self-aggrandizing, anonymous dipshits who's one true goal in life is to insult every person in the universe by equating them with fecal matter and then subsequently suggesting that they had copious sexual relations with their mother.
    Have we played before?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atrophy View Post
    @Pakoita
    Dude, not cool.

  5. #25
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus vinraith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the angry dome
    Posts
    3,659
    Considering that this is really AGEOD's Napoleon's Campaigns 2, with the awkward break with AGEOD having come in the middle of it's development such that it was finished up by Paradox, I don't have a lot of hope for it. That it's multiplayer-focused would make it uninteresting regardless, however, and I'm honestly not all that fond of the period either.

  6. #26
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, US
    Posts
    82
    No Pakoita it is very cold here, not as bad as elsewhere, but we have definitely hit the 10 degree mark.

    I honestly know very little about the development, I just know that so far I really like the game. I only heard about it about a month ago.

  7. #27
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kelron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Ok, first impressions. This is from about 3 hours of multiplayer with 8 players (all the major powers) which took us from 1805-1810. Most importantly, considering Paradox's record, it's stable. We encountered a few minor bugs but no crashes or sync problems.

    If you've played EU3 the interface will feel very familiar, but the similarities are mostly aesthetic. It's a war game, and it doesn't share the tedium of conducting large scale wars in EU3. Each country has its own set of strategically important provinces it must acquire for land and naval dominance, and a country must be the only dominant nation in both areas to win the game. So your wars are more directed, you can push straight for your objectives with minor provinces in between serving as supply lines, and you don't necessarily need to occupy an entire country to get the peace treaty you want.

    Armies have a lot of depth to them. Obviously none of us have had a chance to play the game much so far, so our tactics didn't progress far beyond gathering big armies and throwing them at each other, but there's important mechanics influenced by other Paradox games as well as AGEOD's. An army without supplies will not only take losses from attrition, but will also fight poorly, so securing your supply lines and providing supply wagons is important. Leaders gain traits from battles, giving them bonuses and penalties to different troop types and situations, while national ideas also give large bonuses in different areas. Tailoring your army compositions to suit your nation and leaders seems important.

    Diplomacy is simpler than EU3's, as you'd expect. There's no cassus bellis or royal marriages here, but Paradox have taken what I think is a wise decision of restricting alliances mechanically, even in multiplayer. Coalitions can only be formed against the dominant powers, and disband when the war is over. This keeps the focus on checking the power of whoever is in the lead, rather than human players ganging up on weaker countries with improbable alliances. Our multiplayer session saw plenty of switching allegiances and arguments as nations with conflicting objectives were temporarily allied.

    Obviously single player will lose a lot of the diplomacy, but I hear the AI is no pushover. I was worried it might be like EU: Rome, where there's not much to do beyond waging war. But there's plenty to occupy your attention in March, and so far it's looking like a war game that manages to be accessible without losing too much depth.

  8. #28
    Network Hub Dead Herald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrophy View Post
    @Dead Herald
    In this case you are completely incorrect. Most people organize a group to play these games and the folks I have played with (who were relatively random) were all very decent to me and to eachother. One guy helped out other nations even though it was against his own best interests.
    Lucky you. My experiences with multiplayer gaming have been less than optimal on that front. So I am not incorrect, I am simply seeing it differently than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by pakoito View Post
    Have we played before?
    Who knows, I've stopped keeping track of such things.

  9. #29
    Lesser Hivemind Node frightlever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    617
    I propose that a niche strategy game that costs money and has a limited pool of players is going to have a more helpful community than a F2P MOBA. Controversial, I know.

    I don't have the time or inclination for strategy multiplayer, or the skill to feel comfortable playing team-based shooters. Give me a freeforall deathmatch and I'll spend twenty minutes on it, maybe.

    I maintain that most people play games solo. There's clearly a market for multiplayer, but it isn't THE market.

  10. #30
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,272
    Never heard of it before this thread, then noticed it last night on Steam.

    So I'll put it down to another blunder by Paradox who really do not know how to handle game releases.

  11. #31
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Sakkura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    1,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesus_Phish View Post
    Never heard of it before this thread, then noticed it last night on Steam.

    So I'll put it down to another blunder by Paradox who really do not know how to handle game releases.
    They're a small fish and this is one of their smaller projects. What did you expect?

  12. #32
    Lesser Hivemind Node Velko's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura View Post
    They're a small fish and this is one of their smaller projects. What did you expect?
    Also they took over it from AGEOD mid-development, which to my experience never bodes well for the actual game.

  13. #33
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Jesus_Phish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Sakkura View Post
    They're a small fish and this is one of their smaller projects. What did you expect?
    After their recent statement of improving on releasing games, made I believe after the release of Dungeonland, some improvement.

    I wouldn't count Paradox as small fix either. They're obviously smaller than most of the other publishers, but they're still large enough in their own respect. Between Magicka, Mount and Blade, Crusader Kings, War of the Roses, they're a fairly well known PC publisher/developer.

    This is the second or third game in a row that they've just released without much attempt to market. Even look at Impire, their other game that just stumbled out last week that took people by surprise as "oh, that's out now?".

  14. #34
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kelron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    RPS have posted about it a number of times over the last few months, and I believe other gaming sites have too. I'd understand if Paradox didn't consider it a good use of money to buy giant banner ads etc, grand strategy doesn't tend to generate a lot of hype regardless. Also bear in mind that it's a budget price release. I know 15 seems expensive to some in the age of Steam sales, but it's still half the price of most game releases.

    Arguments about Paradox's marketing strategy aside, I don't think its fair to still be assuming it's a bad game. In 9 hours I haven't had any crashes or major bugs, and to my knowledge neither have any of the other people I've been playing it with. I've also had the chance to play a bit of single player now, and while I don't think it will have the same lifespan multiplayer does, it hasn't been neglected either.

    I'm not going to tell you all to go out and buy it, its more accessible than most war games, but the military focus probably won't appeal to some fans of Paradox's other games. But if the premise interests you, it's definitely worth trying. Don't dismiss it because you haven't seen any adverts, or because of assumptions about Paradox releases.

  15. #35
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    205
    How the single player? I'm guessing it's more like previous AGEOD games rather than EU/HOI, but any significant changes?

  16. #36
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus pakoito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Spainishtan
    Posts
    1,850
    The whole single player campaign is available in the demo, so you can try it yourself.

  17. #37
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Kelron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by dsch View Post
    How the single player? I'm guessing it's more like previous AGEOD games rather than EU/HOI, but any significant changes?
    I think quite a few of the mechanics are similar to Victoria and HoI, neither of which I've played much. The AGEOD influence is noticeable in the supply system and the expanded battle tactics options.

    Quick list of big differences from EU3:

    - Much more depth to army composition. 3 flanks + reserves, frontage (space the army needs to fight at full effectiveness), multiple unit types, supply trains.

    - Battle tactics. Can have up to 4 generals per army, 1 in overall command and 1 per flank. Flanks with generals can use special tactics provided they have the right mix of units, making them much more effective in battle. Entire armies can be ordered to try and avoid combat or to retreat into a fortress rather than leaving the province.

    - Sieges can seriously tie up resources. They hold more men, assaults can be very costly, and a fort with a depot and unblockaded harbour can hold out a long time.

    - Occupation: no need to siege every province one by one. Only the major towns need to be sieged, the minor surrounding provinces can be instantly captured and serve to open supply lines. Forts are usually concentrated on the borders with inland towns having minimal defences, and new forts are expensive to build.

    - Supply lines. Armies can carry food with them, but they need open lines to a city under your control to resupply. Amount of supply generated depends on the city, you can build depots to improve it. An army carrying well stocked supply trains gets a 10% bonus in battle. An army carrying no supplies gets a 50% penalty, as well as heavy attrition losses.

    - Everything's about the war. You don't need cassus bellis, you don't have infamy points. Everyone's out for themselves, your decisions will be based on whether you think you can win a war, not whether you have cause to start one.

    Sometimes playing multiplayer I've been wishing I could pause it for 5 minutes to reorganise my armies and make sure I'm using the best leaders for each position, and trying to orchestrate multiple groups of skirmishers trying to cut french supply lines at the same time as making sure your main armies don't get overrun isn't easy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •