This would be considered the crowning achievement of any political leader irl but in eu4 it's like 2 or 3 EASY wars depending on the CB.
Why is there no strategy game where doing something like this this actually challenging?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Because despite of what, even myself, would like to see better portrayed in the game with a gazillion mechanics and 6 million modifiers, an actual real life simulator is NOT FUN
If you have half a million army invading Russia, reach Moscow only for the AI to refuse peace and have your army die of attrition which then causes you to lose the war and your empire in a game... That would be an instant alt+f4
I've played Magna Mundi, it is fun damn you
>Magna Mundi
>fun
Do you also watch paint drying for entertainment?
Like
said, extreme realistic measures are just not fun. let's even use a situation related to that image as an example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia declared their first war since 1968, not counting wars declared on it or wars they joined to support the defender, and the response was global sanctions and a giant coalition feeding money and supplies to Ukraine. 54 years between wars and it still wasn't long enough to not go over "infamy".
i was gonna ask how moronic you would have to be to focus on
> 54 years between wars and it still wasn't long enough to not go over "infamy".
but then remembered where i was and had my answer
>Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia declared their first war since
they didn't, neither the ukraine
its ato for ukraine and smo for russia
It is honestly quite hilarious how neither side wants to call it a war in any kind of official sense and outside of frontline both sides population just go along their lives as usual.
>It is honestly quite hilarious how neither side wants to call it a war in any kind of official sense
How moronic you are?
>54 years between wars and it still wasn't long enough to not go over "infamy".
The United Nations has explicitly condemned wars of aggression, so they all have a x100 infamy modifier.
>actual real life simulator is NOT FUN
I see this moronic assertion from paratrannies all the time, yet nobody can point to an actual attempt at making one of these and failing to prove it.
>it's le hard, unfair and and you would fail a lot
literally entire genres exist based on the appeal of this concept
>yet nobody can point to an actual attempt at making one of these
There are eu4 mods that try to do it and the player have to deal with internal power struggles and uprisings. Is realist just like we want but you didn't heard of those mods (I wonder why)
I personally dislike the dumbed down version of geopolitics that eu4 offers but i at least recognize that is hard to come up with something better while having in monde the balance of realism with fun. Specially with the lefty pink haired devs that plagues the current landscape of game development AND the paradox playerbase
>literally entire genres
Feel free to contribute to the thread then
>but you didn't heard of those mods
I have. Frick off with your assooming, redditor moron. I played MEIOU and it's a definite improvement on the game, but it gets hampered by the straightjacket that are the base EU4 mechanics. A mod is not a game. You can't polish a turd. A game has to be devoloped with the core mechanics in mind. I've yet to see a game that tried and turned out to be "not fun".
>Feel free to contribute to the thread then
What do you mean? You want examples? Roguelikes, soulslikes, bullethells are all based on the concept of being difficult and having to recuperate from your failures, then try again. These genres all have a popular following. There is no reason why the same concept wouldn't work in a strategy context.
>Roguelikes, soulslikes, bullethells are all based on the concept of being difficult and having to recuperate from your failures
In those games you get to start again either from scratch, or from a stronger position. If you fail in a realistic geopolitics simulator, you don't really get to immediately try again from the same or stronger position in any similar way. Yea, Germany tried another World War twenty years later, and got stomped again, and haven't tried a new one. If you lose all your territory as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and get partitioned and disappear from the map, how is that comparable to a roguelike, if the aim of the game is to be realistic?
Roguelikes would not be popular if that genre was synonymous only with "hard game lol". There's more to it.
The War in the East games are pretty hardcore about their realism, aren't they?
>Soviets are hard coded to lose 50k to attrition
>minimum
lol
lmao
wait really?
Set everything to minimum, and don't do anything. Then take a turn.
This is realistic though.
Russians were and still are terrible at planning and logistics. A good proportion of their losses were self inflicted before combat even began.
If you're making a wargame that tags realism as a defining feature I'd be upset if the Russians didn't lose a proportion of their fighting force to those factors.
Blow it out your ass, you stupid homosexual.
Yeah! Why doesn't anyone just conquer the world like in my vidya games?!
It comes from games having simple models for what happens inside states. In order to stop something like this happening you would have to model the internal functioning of the state, probably with multiple layers of elites and legitimacy. That gets in the way of the fantasy of bigger number go bigger.
Ugly border gore. At least blob into Lithuania and Belarus as well
? if the difficulty scale between irl and fiction is 1:1 just go and do it irl
what's the point of vidya if they're not easier than reality?
almost like grand strategy games only exist so chuddies' clitties can get hard painting a map
>durr why is playing poland easy during their golden age????
start in 1795 if you're looking for a challenge, that's pretty much the equivalent of doing it in 2023
>that's pretty much the equivalent of doing it in 2023
I don't remember Poland recently losing quarter of its territory, but I might be wrong
If anything last elections indicate, is that their western parts are under German occupation.
same geopolitical status tier. Decisions about them are made without them
Because the games that "try" and be "Realistic" are boring, buggy and broken messes.
Not sure what your point is, the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was created by an agreement between the ruler and nobles written on a piece of paper.
Like, what more do you want? It was really that easy irl. You become a ruler of 2 countries at once through dynastic shenanigans, make your people agree to it and done.
Vast majority of strategy gamers don't want difficult games and will reload their save if they lose a single battle let alone a war.
GREY EMINENCE WHEN
the expected happened
Why would it be difficult?
Lithuania conquered half of Kievan Rus in 30 years.
Maybe you are referring how colonizing the Steppes was impossible because the Tarars would slaughters all colonist, and it wasn't colonized later than by the Cossacks who mastered self-defence against the Tatars
>country of butthurt trannies who will do nothing but seethe at russia all day and remain forever a debt slave to germoney and the ~~*IMF*~~
lol
lmao even
The biggest issue is that well, people die. No leader lasts forever or usually rules for more than 1-2 decades. At the very best, priorities will change because you've got a different guy in charge. At worst?
You have a nitwit that dooms the nation.
By any chance, did you get that thought from my video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ_B6yEUSK4)?
Or did we come to the same conclusion independently?
NTA, but it's something that everyone can intuit.
This is why I actually like the Total War: Saga and Kingdoms. Also, why I enjoy Nobunaga's Ambition and Three Kingdoms titles by Koei. Having to fight a war in a smaller but denser and more detailed theater is more enjoyable than blobbing my way across Eurasia.