3524

I think when you make the jump to EU5, you have to have a pretty substantial change in the core design of the game. It might not have 1:1 feature parity, but if the game is substantially different, I think that can be OK. It’s a little bit apples and oranges and I dislike the game myself, but take Civ4 vs Civ5. Unlike the former, Civ5 was missing religion, trade, and other mechanics. While this absence was noted (and certainly complained about by myself), since it was so different with 1UPT, I think you can kind of get away with it. Yes, it lacks features of the previous game, but it’s acceptable because it’s clearly a different game.

When EU4 was first announced, I actually wondered that exact thing. EU3, with all its expansions, had so many additions I just wondered how EU4 could compete. Turns out that EU4 largely rolled up all the content from the previous game, all the way up through Divine Wind, but at the end of the day it was still a substantially different game with Ideas replacing sliders and with the concept of Monarch Points becoming central to the design. Even if it was missing things from EU3, it was enough of a different game to make it enticing.

I think a shift to EU5 would have to have a similar fundamental changes to how the game is played. It certainly is going to be dicey, but I think of the game is different enough they might be able to pull it off (albeit with a lot of complaining and grousing, I’m sure. Likely from yours truly. :)).

3525

To the point of making Utopia even more pointless to buy. OTOH, it makes me respect the team a lot more for making the base game stronger and more expandable, which makes me happier to throw money at it.

The games are mostly the same, but with less flavor or QoL without the DLC. Exceptions are things like transfer occupation and development in EU4 and CBs in CK2 and blitz in HOI4, with development being the most egregious mistake by far. Wiz is putting his foot down to avoid the situation, let’s hope it continues.
You can go back to earlier versions, in various states of brokenness, but I like the added systems, for the most part.

3526

I suppose there is some sort of “compression” that the designers can take advantage of in a sequel. You can drop unpopular features easily. You can come up with mechanics that simplify and combine multiple earlier mechanics. Re-implementing a proven mechanic involves less painful exploration than doing it the first time.

3527

Just buying into one of their existing franchises can be daunting. Stellaris at least only has a few DLC’s at this point. I caught the Crusader Kings 2 bug a while back and that was painful. Even with sales it’s an expensive proposition to get the DLC that you want (minus the ones you don’t want.)

3528

It used to be you could get almost all CK2 DLCs bundled twice a year for like $15, except for the latest and greatest one, which always lagged behind.

Seeing as I don’t own any Stellaris DLC despite the fact that I have the collector bug for this stuff, means it’s never been proper cheap like that. Don’t know when Paradox stopped bundling but they need to get back to it if they are going to stick with this model.

3529

Why the heck would you buy all the DLC’s for CK 2? Start the bloody game, and play it, you grow to like it, add more DLC of the flavour you want. Same with Stellaris to a lesser degree, base game now is great, no need to add ANY DLC.

I think this is almost more a compulsive issue than rationale?

3530

I agree, but at the same point to someone looking to get in they can’t tell that. Unless you research ahead of time how would you know that you don’t want or need the DLc to start.

3531

All Stellaris expansions are now on sale by a 50% or more, so the OC types reading this should starting feeling for their wallets…

It’s been nearly 6 years since the release of CK2, and the last DLC is planned, so I read on Reddit, for 2019. CK2, or any other PDX game, is not being sold or produced as games have been since forever.

Paradox games are essentially being sold as companion books and supplements used to be for pen and paper RPGs. The difference is that now I can bag the “suppplements” dirt cheap when a new one is published.

Did anyone ever need to buy every Chaosium game book? Or every FASA Battletech book? Nope. Either I could be very happy with the “starter” kit or make friends with a collector willing to play with me.

3532

Because I like the features in the DLC?

Sure the DLC for flags or character portraits or new music are just nice to haves, but the others, the “main” DLCs, they have real things in them you might want.

But please, keep on telling me why I shouldn’t want the thing I want.

3533

Where are you seeing this? IsThereAnyDeal.com is showing max 23% off Synthetic Dawn.

3534

My bad - it was Leviathans at 50% off - I was working a hazy memory of the newsletter email.

3535

I like what they’re planning for Cherryh. (Er, that’s a reference to CJ Cherryh, yes? I read one of her books and had a love/hate relationship with it! She is good at making villains.)

But I’m not particularly interested in planet-busting thingies. They sound depressing.

In fact, in general, I’m not all that interested in war in my 4Xs of any stripe: Stellaris, Civ, whatever. I guess I want a 3X! I love the exploring, the exploiting, the expanding; those are all more interesting to me than the exterminating. Don’t get me wrong; I love wargames – it’s just that I prefer to play grognard wargames for my combat fix.

3536

Yes. I believe they got her support. IIRC she was interested in the game and they sent her a free copy.

3537

Hyperlane density options:

3538

That’s generally how I like my 4X games as well. I like the threat of war, having to worry about expansionist/aggressive neighbors, etc. I never play the warmonger myself, though, I get more enjoyment out of building up my civilization and defending it from those that want to tear it down.

When war does come to me in this game, though, it’s what eventually makes me shut it down. Once my empire grows beyond a certain size, trying to chase fleets around just becomes too obnoxious, especially when they can just run willy-nilly through your space and destroy all your infrastructure. I get frustrated by the lack of ability to defend territory or restrict enemy movement, at which point I just quit and start a new game.

It’s for that reason that the update appeals to me so much, even though I’m not a warmonger kind of player.

3539

Ooo, nice. I think I prefer the low density myself, that looks nice. High density will probably appeal to those who feel hyperlanes are too restrictive.

3540

I don’t think I’d want to play on either of those maps, but it does show the range at least. I imagine the second map would feel a lot bigger.

3541

I actually sort of like how Endless Space 2 handles hyperlanes - they exist, and are quicker to travel along, but you can also travel through space without hyperlanes - just much slower (though heroes can help). Mid-game, ‘wormholes’ provide additional travel between previously disconnected hyperlane networks. It’s a very successful compromise. But there is less ‘stuff’ to pillage in ES2 compared to Stellaris.

Anyway, I think this is a good move for Stellaris. Lacking the significant important parts about SotS movement rules, this sort of ‘geography’ is needed to provide any sort of sense to war in space.

3542

I don’t know, the one game I played with star lanes I got boxed in fairly early by high level aliens. I could do nothing but sit and wait until I could get my technology levels up. It made for a very boring game that I ended up scraping. I don’t think I would want to play at the densest level either though, there needs to be some restrictions.

Really looking forward to this update, it can’t come soon enough.

3543

Yeah, that’s currently a problem with going hyperlanes-only in the current version of Stellaris. That’s something that they’ve addressed in 2.0, though.