[HN Gopher] Collections: Teaching Paradox, Crusader Kings III, P...
___________________________________________________________________
Collections: Teaching Paradox, Crusader Kings III, Part I: Making
It Personal
Author : DMell
Score : 36 points
Date : 2022-09-17 16:03 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (acoup.blog)
(TXT) w3m dump (acoup.blog)
| hourago wrote:
| > Crusader Kings III doesn't actually feature any states in the
| narrow sense of the word; none of these rulers have a monopoly on
| the legitimate use of force
|
| I find this kind of adaptations incredible interesting. Most
| games look at the past with modern eyes and create duplicates of
| all institutions from Judges to teachers. But it is not as simple
| as that.
|
| I hope to see more this kind of approach in more movies and other
| mass media, even if it could be more historical accurate.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > none of these rulers have a monopoly on the legitimate use of
| force
|
| It's a bit of a weird thing to say. It's an internal definition
| i.e. legitimacy is defined by the sovereign. There's no
| external force that grants legitimacy on a state or its
| actions; within a state, the sovereign (even popular ones) will
| attack uses of force that it hasn't sanctioned.
| johnyzee wrote:
| I love the idea of the Paradox grand strategy games, but they
| seem to me to be almost gratuitously complex. Everything has so.
| many. parameters. In turn, this seems to make the games (1)
| require learning a lot of details that are 'coincidental
| complexity' rather than 'essential complexity' (like a staggering
| number of unit types and combinations), serving only the purpose
| of having a (superficially) richer backdrop, and (2) involve a
| lot of micro-management at the most miniscule levels, again
| seemingly just to have those things in there, not necessarily
| because they make a big difference in how the game plays out.
|
| This has kept me from jumping in. From my point of view, I would
| love it if there would be simple way to dumb down some of the
| systems, have the game handle some of the micro-management,
| possibly remove some of the nuance of units, traits, and so on. I
| know it exists in the games to some extent, but from what I have
| seen enabling these things in itself required quite a bit of
| work. Perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.
|
| So for now I am resorted to watching youtube playthroughs with
| some fascination. Maybe one day when I have a few _weeks_ of time
| to spare, I will try my hand at one of these games.
| ajudson wrote:
| It's still fun even if you aren't hyper optimizing and playing
| perfectly with every mechanic
| yelskcol wrote:
| I think Paradox games tend to scare people away by leading them
| to think that all of the minutiae of their mechanics matter far
| more than they actually do.
|
| It _seems_ incredibly complicated at a glance, but as you say a
| lot of the details might as well be inconsequential unless you
| 're somebody obsessed with min-maxing your game experience.
| [deleted]
| djbebs wrote:
| I may be biased since I have literally thousands of hours in
| pdx games, but honestly the games are only superficially
| complex, and they could really use additional complex8ty and
| meaningful mechanics.
| SleepilyLimping wrote:
| Man, I wish I could get into 4X games. Stellaris and CKII are
| games I've tried to put "tutorial time" into, but they don't
| catch as much as Factorio or Rimworld.
| 0x457 wrote:
| I find Stellaris 100% easier to grasp than any other Paradox
| game. I think it's due to a fact in other Paradox games you
| essentially start in a middle of someone else's save. In
| Stellaris, for the most part, everyone starts at the same time.
|
| Just start as a fanatic militarist monarch, and you're playing
| a nearly regular strategy at this point.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-17 23:01 UTC)