IMHO Paradox as a company made a deep dive and we have lost one of the more interesting company for strategic fans.

There is just such a big difference in development of a fully finished title, where any expansion will come later after players made a deep analysis of the game and everyone understand the weaker aspects that could be overhauled, and development of a title as a blank slate that could be later upgraded every half year.

Just look at this video. It doesn't tell you anything. It's not even interesting! Now compare it with CK2 videos of Seven Deadly Sins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAYY3BvviE [External Link]

The difference in a fun, informativeness and so on is astonishing!

Sorry for the rant.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

b-but, we already have Warcraft 3. And with a easily digestible (more traditional) races.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

IMHO, all the Abbey games had problem with me.

When I heard "God game, where you can make your religion!" It was sold to me. But when Liam came with its review: "Dancing simulator with JRPG-like combat" I was done.

Similarly with the previous game with the giants that could change terrain. I imagined that I would have a single giant with associated tribe and battle against other giants and their tribes. Not that I would need to combine natural powers to make a habitable planet.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Fuck yes!

I love Caesar, Pharaoh, Zeus and Emperor! I like the isometric point of view with carefully crafted sprites (instead of less detailed and more blurry 3D models). And this looks exactly like those games!

My only hope is that they will get military and walls right. In previous games, it was very hard (essentially impossible and useless) to create true walled city with towers and so. They were paper thin and it was always better to just block enemy with soldiers instead.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyWhoosh. That sounds good, and yet I'm not sure I want to invest the time it would take to get good at it.

Thats exactly summarize my problem with this game. Its amazing, but require a lot of time investment.

Especially if you require your stuff to not suck. If you can accept that your engine would be inefficient, that your ships might be seriously underperforming, its fine. I have problem with not being efficient enough. I want to understand stuff, not just slap a few things together.

So yes, the game requires serious time investment. There are however mods, one that concentrates on WW2 ships and provide a lot of prebuild "simple weapons" -- weapons that you just place and works. You can also download templates -- weapons/engines/hulls that were created by someone else and you can just place them and they will work.

Also I haven't played it for year maybe coz I run out of time and patience. (same with Factorio, at least in factorio the complexity builds over time)

For fans:
You can design rockets as torpedos, anti-missile, flares (with heat signature against heat-seeking torpedos), frags, impact, high-explosives. You can set them to be short or long-distance based on how much fuel they have, how nimble they will be depending on how many wings you put on them. They can be stupid, even without propulsion as a bomb, buoyant so they float (water mines). Or they can be heat-seeking, laser-guided, either by themselves or through lasers on your ship. You can even have them tied to a rope and work as harpoons.

And then you have two (or three with coilgun?) types of artillery and lasers, each of those can be set up in many different ways for many different purposes. Sooner or later, you will need to think about layered armour, protection against missiles (active, such as minigun, or anti-rockets that destroy enemy missiles, or semi-active such as flares), lasers (through smokers) and so on.

If you have time and like to fiddle around, go for it. Its very creative game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: riidomHow is the multiplayer? I see currently 338 ppl in game, thats even less than Robocraft.. is the match making done in a way that the low numbers doesnt matter much?

Don't think Robocraft. From the Depth is as similar to Robocraft as it is to Minecraft in the sense that you build stuff from block. It is more similar to Factorio that you build complex machines (that can move).

Robocraft is like pew pew game where you can build your vehicle, but it is primarily pew pew game about using that vehicle to combat other people.

From the depth is about building complex vehicles. You don't just plop laser or gun on your ship/tank. You need to construct the gun from dozen of part *types*. Depending on how you assemble your gun, the number of reloaders, gun chambers, ammo magazines and many other parts, then your gun will perform, you can build it as a minigun-type cannon firing really fast, but fairly weak. You can build a howitzer type cannon with huge shells with shaped charges that will make serious damage to slow and well-armored ships, but won't hit anything fast. You then put AI computer on your ship and configure it so that it behaves like you want. You can even script your own AI in LUA (which you probably should if you want to do some well-honed airships that dodge shots, missiles and stuff thanks to their fast and chaotic fly patterns).

Similarly, every vehicle needs engine that most often runs on oil/gas. Right there you get stuck into complex engine patterns that do various tradeoffs (and some are just better than others) with space, power and efficiency (which you will get by pumping hot air back to the engine cylinders or so, forgot the details). The place where I stuck a lot is that your engine might be just bad (compared to the well-honed designs). Thats still fair. Problem is that your gun might be bad becuase there are some breakpoints and so on... a lot of stuff to know and experiment.

So the game is mostly about SP and building your stuff. Campaign is that you go against several predesigned factions that have different ways of building ships (slow armored vs fast flyers). I believe you can play the campaign in MP as coop or design stuff together in vehicle tester. But don't think about competitive multiplayer.

In fact, this game won't work in competitive multiplayer. Is f-ing compex. I wanted to say that you need PhD to understand it, but I have PhD and still got lost (by flying ships flipped for some reason, didn't flip X version ago though, probably different design, I went for single-turbine before instead of multiple ones).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Sorry Liam, I don't want to sound negative, you might even consider me a fanboy, but I couldn't overlook some of your comments:

considering how basic it is

Its not basic. Its incredibly deep with a relatively simple system. You wouldn't call Go "basic" as well, would you? Especially considering that:

it wasn't even revolutionary

It was. And it is. Seven Kingdoms combines a simple resources->product->customer network from trade simulations (a lot of the code is identical to Capitalism, buildings are still called "Firm"), direct representation of population (I don't think that any game did it to this detail), everyone has skill like in "RPG" and skill-based abilities. Add spies, politics (could be improved), reputation, loyalty (you need to pay your people), different nationalities and their effect on loyalty, taxes...

And thats not some Grand Strategy Game or Turn Based game, but RTS!

No other game combined all of these things, hell even half of these things, in a complex, yet quickly understandable package.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Teodosio

Quoting: Colombo

Then I have good news for you: Paradox's model fits you perfectly. Wait seven or eight years until development has stopped and buy the "complete edition" at 40€, giving you option C.

Never happened with EU or any other Paradox game.

Ready for you:
https://www.greenmangaming.com/games/europa-universalis-iii-collection/ [External Link]

In a few years you will find the same for EU4 and CK2, once development has stopped.

Thats EU3, thats before the new DLC policy. Tell me when it happens to EU4, HoI4 and Stellaris.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Then I have good news for you: Paradox's model fits you perfectly. Wait seven or eight years until development has stopped and buy the "complete edition" at 40€, giving you option C.

Never happened with EU or any other Paradox game.

The base game offers more than enough content to keep you busy for dozens of hours

Dozens, dozens! Dozens of hours of mostly waiting because there is little happening in the base game.

That would royally piss off 99% of Paradox fans and that's a conservative estimate.

Except that the same critique comes from Paradox fanbase quite often.

As someone who actually plays Stellaris: The price + DLC really doesn't concern me.

Thats nice that it doesn't concern YOU. But it might concern others. I paid $20 bucks for Civ 5 and played it 800 hours. Stellaris can never came close to this, especially when it came in half-released state and it seriously needed major revamp. And I don't care if other people spend $60 bucks for FPS that they play for 2 hours. Or $174 bucks for game that they play for dozens hours.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Dude is quite funny and sincere. Definitely looking towards release.

View this comment - View article - View full comments