Seems like good changes to me. I do wish they were going a bit harder on the land combat stuff but I know this is such a massive update that it can’t overhaul everything. In the dev diary thread Wiz does say that down the line there is more they want to do like a space/air/ground phase for invasions or something, but not this patch.
I had the same reaction, @MisterMourning. I wanted more, but I totally think they’re making the right call on keeping a ground target revamp limited in scope. They can always revisit it when they have more bandwidth to spare.
So this is on sale for 60% off right now in the Steam Winter Sale. I think it’s time for me to pull the trigger on this. Steam is offering a variety of packages, from the base game for $16, Nova Edition for $20, Galaxy Edition for $26, and a big bundle for $35.
I’ve played one of the EU games previously so I have some idea what to expect, but I’m not a heavy Paradox player. Should I just grab the base game or are there expansions/DLC that are “must haves”? I’d prefer to spend less, but will spend more if justified.
I’d take them all at 35 - the more recent expansions are especially important in improving the game. Bear in mind it is still a year or more from being fully cooked!
By general gaming standards or by Paradox standards? If it’s fully cooked by gaming standards, I’m good with it. Although refining/expanding games can be great, when I look at the list of DLC/expansions for the recent Paradox games, I wonder if maybe it’s too much of a good thing.
Well, the current version is completely playable, and there are a lot of neat things to do in there. I find wars eventually get to be pretty tedious and I kind of lose interest. There are a very very large number of changes in the next update that should make wars more interesting and with fewer pain points.
So, dev diary 100 is tomorrow, and it’s supposedly an important “thing”. It looks like player-buildable Titans are in but I would be disappointed if that was all it was. To justify the hints, it’s going to have to be something fairly significant, if only because the changes already announced are huge.
I just thought that tomorrow was when they would announce/unveil the expansion name and put it up for pre-orders on their website. That would signal that it should be out within 6-8 weeks, as opposed to the “very long time” they’ve always given as an ETA in the past.
I’d think that such an announcement would also coincide with a nice diary, but I guess we’ll find out!
I think it’s a 50/50 chance of announcing the expansion - finally! - and announcing a delay :-)
Yes, I am hedging my bets.
Apocalypse Expansion - Titans and Planet Destroyers
Also Ion cannon defensive stations with Titanic-class weapons.
Overall pretty nice, though I wonder how well the different types of planet-destroyers are balanced. I mean, I like blowing up planets as much as the next guy, but the prospect of instantly assimilating them all to the Borg sounds more economically efficient.
HELLO UR-QUAN KZER-ZA!
Global Pacifier: Encases the planet in an impenetrable shield, permanently cutting it off from the rest of the galaxy. A research station can be built to study the planet afterwards.[/quote].
I already knew this, but that still kind of blows me away. They’ve been talking about some really massive things so far that I forget they haven’t even mentioned expansion features until today.
For all the pessimistic talk of Paradox’ DLC or “The game should have ______ at release!”, this is the strength of their development model. HOI3, for example, was pretty horribly broken but if you wanted continued bugfixes and AI updates, you needed to shell out $30 for the expansions. In this case, owners of only the base version are going to be getting a significantly improved game 1.5 years after release.
Improved and chock-full of DLC-sized holes (if you haven’t bought them), but yeah, I suppose.
I think Stellaris’ issues have been far more related to swinging and missing at several design choices as opposed to “DLC-sized holes”.
Case in point: the changes that are going into the game with 2.0. They’re not charging for any of them, they’re all core game revamps to address issues. So in the case of Armageddon, the DLC-sized hole is what? Planet busters? The game was incomplete without them? Or are the issues being addressed more to do with core design problems, like the multiple FTL types?
Just to be clear: there’s a lot to criticize about Stellaris, especially at 1.0. I think the DLC thing is just intellectually lazy, though. Go back to HOI3, EU3, or Victoria 2 and there were mountains of (valid) complaints about those games, but alas, no DLC bugaboo to blame. Instead they were just flawed (in the case of HOI3, I’d err more towards “broken”) games, like pretty much everything else ever released.
I don’t disagree, but all Paradox games nowadays have DLC-sized holes if you don’t buy the DLC. As in there are game mechanics that are missing something (found in a DLC), game balance off (because the game mechanic that balances it is behind DLC), very clear options that you can’t choose (because they are behind DLC), and so on and so forth.
Sure, Stellaris has bigger issues, but even if it improves markedly, the DLC-sized holes will remain there or get even worse, because that’s Paradox’ business model now. So, even in the case Stellaris improves by leaps and bounds, this will remain being an issue unless you buy all the DLC.
I guess what I’m saying is… we shouldn’t pretend Stellaris without DLC is the full game, or the real vision Paradox has for the game. It’s not and it will never be. That’s what Paradox is these days - the old Paradox is gone.
I agree, and I think that’s a very good thing that Old Paradox is gone. I feel like there’s some rose-tinted nostalgia about the state of Old Paradox games, especially at release.
To use the worst example of Old Paradox, compare the purchaser of vanilla HOI3 versus vanilla Stellaris. Or if the latter is too recent, replace it with EU4.
Are there missing pieces, toys, dials or levers if you don’t have the DLC? Yes. I’d say you get maybe… 70% of the new stuff/experience? What percentage of new features and improvements did the vanilla HOI3 or EU3 player get without expansions? Even core fundamental bugfixes to major components like the completely broken supply system?
I’m not a huge Paradox game fan, but that DLC sized hole argument just bugs me. If the game without the DLC is fun and not handcuffed, there shouldn’t be a problem with enhancing the game with DLC. I mean Stellaris not being good is besides the point. I played Europa Universalis IV at launch and never did I think, boy this game needs DLC to complete it.
Does DLC add stuff to games? Sure and that is great. Do you need to buy it if you want it? Sure, but what do you expect? The same holds true for the Civ IV expansions, or pretty much any other expansion.
At some point during development, you need to decide that a game needs to be feature complete. Anything else is going to need to be in an expansion or DLC. That costs money to develop and it is perfectly fine for them to make money off of it.
I hope Armageddon release signals a price drop for Utopia.
I miss the Paradox that made EU2 and HoI 2 and CK1. They were all games that had clear designs and were not released as broken, with patches provided for free that fixed bugs and problems without changing the game in fundamental ways.
EU4 at launch and EU4 without DLC now are two very different games. One had a complete vision without DLC. The second doesn’t. Just saying.
I’m not averse to DLC that adds stuff. I’m averse to DLC that adds stuff and makes sure to let you know without fault what you’re missing if you’re playing the base game. Remember that DLC NPC in Dragon Age Origins? I hate that kind of thing.
Anyway, it’s a bit of a pet peeve to me. I like to feel what I’m playing has a “full vision” even if it has stuff added to it later. I can play Dark Souls without the Artorias DLC and not even notice it’s missing - though it’s nice to know I can buy it if I want more Dark Souls. I can play Euro Truck Simulator 2 and have a great experience, and if I want more places to go or to carry more kinds of cargo or to paint my truck with special paintings, I can buy them.
Those games feel complete even without the DLC. No Paradox game has felt like that in a loooong time now.
But, again, pet peeve.
Mostly I’ve been playing Paradox games with most of the DLC. So I think if you took the DLC away, I would definitely feel that there was something missing. If you don’t get the DLC and don’t read about the neat things you can do in it, maybe not?
I think it’s a really hard thing to keep evolving the core gameplay of a strategy game and adding “meaty” DLC without having some effects on the base game. I want to see those significant gameplay changes, and the brute fact is that this can’t be done for free. So if half the changes make it into the base game, and half the changes you have to pay for, that’s fine for me. I think EU4 base game now is still a better game than EU4 at release, even if you can perceive some missing pieces now.
I do wonder if, long-term, they aren’t painting themselves into a corner. At some point you have to make a jump to a new base game engine, and you won’t be able to bring over most of the old code and assets. They can’t charge $150 for EU5 out of the gate, but if it releases as a $40 game, it will be years at this point before it becomes as detailed and feature rich as the current EU4. Paradox hasn’t yet had to release a sequel to a game that has seen so much development. It could be pretty rocky, but the alternative is to never have those super-detailed feature-rich strategy games at all.