>Does a global conflict involving well-definied factions in just as well-definied setting have enough lore for [insert anything]?
Why do you think a 18 yo cartoon is still being discussed and rewatched by people, and not just those old enough to watch it those 18 years ago?
Unironically yes the original crew of avatar did great world building and each government is unique. This video is a good overview https://youtu.be/ec4GfP6BMYg?si=lF0KCpdcmpl4afJD
But basically the fire kingdom is nationalistic imperialist nation like Japan, the earth kingdom is decentralized federation of kingdoms, the water tribes are tribal, and the air nomad temples are serious of disconnected oligarchies with weak governments.
when the scope is reasonable. Hidden agenda for DOS is great because you're only dealing with 4 cabinet ministers and few areas of interest. A good story, or at least a flow to the game adds a lot, an example could be suzerain.
If these two criteria are taken as the foundation, one may ask "well what is the greatest political simulator ever made?" and the answer is
LONG LIVE THE QUEEEEEEEEEN BABYYYYYYYYYYY
Complicated question, but I think there is a simple answer.
I like to think map-painting and empire management are different things.
Something like EU4 is just a risk with extra steps. And Risk itself is just a map-painter.
Clearly PDX caters to this market, because they have an autistic desire to make Roman Empire in all their games, just to appease map-painters.
So, the better question is, why map painting fun?
I can't really answer that, as I prefer empire management. But I think it's just a power fantasy, no different to 100-stab man in games like Mount and Blade
it's always 90% RP and 10% game. Most """historical""" strategies would be boring as hell if they were set in a parallel universe. Even in the case of Stellaris, the only reason people play is so that they can install the Star Trek mod so that they can use the game to RP in a universe that already existed.
In the most abstracted form they're about making decisions:
You make decisions that you are invested in because the narrative and context surrounding them engages you, and because you have some degree of understand regarding consequences on the game world and how it will impact that context to move the game forward.
The process of enacting those decisions is streamlined enough to not be tedious or create friction with the player just trying to play the game
The number of decisions is reasonable, and working through a list of decisions doesn't bog down the pace of the game or become a chore through sheer volume
When the decisions themselves are varied enough that you're not repeatedly making the same simple choices over and over turn after turn just to progress towards a direction you already decided on 20 turns ago
And at that point you realize that a grand strategy game is a lot like an RPG, and the key differences are in presentation. The essence of a strategy game is just making meaningful decisions, pacing those decisions out, making the UI easy to work with and adding some context and narrative to make it interesting. Where many strategy games stumble is that things scale up until there are too many decisions to make lategame, but raw numbers make it so that the prospect of failure is unrealistic--without stakes choices feel meaningless and the pacing becomes cumbersome, leading to a fun game becoming unfun.
The classics were as stripped down as they were by necessity, because they were made to run on PC98 or XP in computers with fewer resources than the modern phone. Modern strategy games tend to still too closely to the template of 90's era games not because it's a good idea but because they don't actually know how to design a videogame and rely overtly on nostalgia baiting to earn a quick buck on steam.
Doing things is fun when they have "real" political, economical and societal effects
Having to fight to the death with bugs, UI and AI problems that lead to them infinitely shitting out men and money isn't
Achieving real tangible goals(preserving a country, restoring the emperor as a Japanese vassal, Turkfying the Balkans, breaking apart the Soviet Union which leads to communism never taking off) is fun
Having your actions lead to no or next-to-no results isn't fun
Glad I could help
Larping. I like to larp as a fictional european country colonizing in eu 4. The game itself is utter dogshit at modelling this, but show me the alternative ? Theres American Conquest, which is an rts which only shows the new world, and quite innacurately. Theres no competitors.
I get to play as a nation
I sank 600+ hours in Stellaris, 70 into hoi4 and I am not planning to stop.
I played as space ancapistan launching a borad coalition against various threats, I was United Nations trying to navigate complex political situation and eldritch horrors, defended my nation to the last drop of blood and prepared for cold war.
For me it's unbounded mechanics, with which you can try to achieve fun stories or campaigns, that aren't really written, but come from decisions you made on a whim/circumstance during playing. That's how a province that I had to resiege almost ten times during one campaign became my most well fortified province, and soon after the military center of my empire
They're called "Grand" because You're playing one consistent nation, where none of the top level stuff is supposed to be happening off-screen, or between the missions.
There aren't any fights You didn't fight, or diplomatic decisions You didn't make.
personally for me, they are vehicles for CYOA type stories, watching my nation states rise and fall as I roleplay as leaders/peoples. It often makes for good stories.
... I thought no-game theorycrafting threads were only restricted to /tg/
is there even enough background political lore for an Avatar gsg
>Does a global conflict involving well-definied factions in just as well-definied setting have enough lore for [insert anything]?
Why do you think a 18 yo cartoon is still being discussed and rewatched by people, and not just those old enough to watch it those 18 years ago?
Because manchildren
I fail to understand why do murricans like this word so much.
that man was notorious idiot
everyone who isn't primarily making money is an idiot from the view of the middle class. the posture you find intelligent is probably just avarice
peak mitwit response
whereas no wit
made for corrective rape
Ck2 total conversion mod would suggest yes.
Unironically yes the original crew of avatar did great world building and each government is unique. This video is a good overview https://youtu.be/ec4GfP6BMYg?si=lF0KCpdcmpl4afJD
But basically the fire kingdom is nationalistic imperialist nation like Japan, the earth kingdom is decentralized federation of kingdoms, the water tribes are tribal, and the air nomad temples are serious of disconnected oligarchies with weak governments.
shitposting newbies like you have ruined many a board
>said the ESL
Making the player feel like he's actually in real life politics and not a map painting game.
challenge, immersion, realism
While correct, it's funny how many of them feature communist wank as well. Something something horseshoe theory, I guess.
Also, where the frick does Old World Blues fall?
it falls out
what's Equestria at War? Brony wank?
when the scope is reasonable. Hidden agenda for DOS is great because you're only dealing with 4 cabinet ministers and few areas of interest. A good story, or at least a flow to the game adds a lot, an example could be suzerain.
If these two criteria are taken as the foundation, one may ask "well what is the greatest political simulator ever made?" and the answer is
LONG LIVE THE QUEEEEEEEEEN BABYYYYYYYYYYY
Complicated question, but I think there is a simple answer.
I like to think map-painting and empire management are different things.
Something like EU4 is just a risk with extra steps. And Risk itself is just a map-painter.
Clearly PDX caters to this market, because they have an autistic desire to make Roman Empire in all their games, just to appease map-painters.
So, the better question is, why map painting fun?
I can't really answer that, as I prefer empire management. But I think it's just a power fantasy, no different to 100-stab man in games like Mount and Blade
it's always 90% RP and 10% game. Most """historical""" strategies would be boring as hell if they were set in a parallel universe. Even in the case of Stellaris, the only reason people play is so that they can install the Star Trek mod so that they can use the game to RP in a universe that already existed.
anuses envelope my Black persontongues
Lol no, star trek mod isn't even the most downloaded one
In the most abstracted form they're about making decisions:
You make decisions that you are invested in because the narrative and context surrounding them engages you, and because you have some degree of understand regarding consequences on the game world and how it will impact that context to move the game forward.
The process of enacting those decisions is streamlined enough to not be tedious or create friction with the player just trying to play the game
The number of decisions is reasonable, and working through a list of decisions doesn't bog down the pace of the game or become a chore through sheer volume
When the decisions themselves are varied enough that you're not repeatedly making the same simple choices over and over turn after turn just to progress towards a direction you already decided on 20 turns ago
And at that point you realize that a grand strategy game is a lot like an RPG, and the key differences are in presentation. The essence of a strategy game is just making meaningful decisions, pacing those decisions out, making the UI easy to work with and adding some context and narrative to make it interesting. Where many strategy games stumble is that things scale up until there are too many decisions to make lategame, but raw numbers make it so that the prospect of failure is unrealistic--without stakes choices feel meaningless and the pacing becomes cumbersome, leading to a fun game becoming unfun.
The classics were as stripped down as they were by necessity, because they were made to run on PC98 or XP in computers with fewer resources than the modern phone. Modern strategy games tend to still too closely to the template of 90's era games not because it's a good idea but because they don't actually know how to design a videogame and rely overtly on nostalgia baiting to earn a quick buck on steam.
Its fun when you dont play in china
Doing things is fun when they have "real" political, economical and societal effects
Having to fight to the death with bugs, UI and AI problems that lead to them infinitely shitting out men and money isn't
Achieving real tangible goals(preserving a country, restoring the emperor as a Japanese vassal, Turkfying the Balkans, breaking apart the Soviet Union which leads to communism never taking off) is fun
Having your actions lead to no or next-to-no results isn't fun
Glad I could help
Is Project Alice playable? Will I notice any difference between it and Vic2?
Larping. I like to larp as a fictional european country colonizing in eu 4. The game itself is utter dogshit at modelling this, but show me the alternative ? Theres American Conquest, which is an rts which only shows the new world, and quite innacurately. Theres no competitors.
I get to play as a nation
I sank 600+ hours in Stellaris, 70 into hoi4 and I am not planning to stop.
I played as space ancapistan launching a borad coalition against various threats, I was United Nations trying to navigate complex political situation and eldritch horrors, defended my nation to the last drop of blood and prepared for cold war.
For me it's unbounded mechanics, with which you can try to achieve fun stories or campaigns, that aren't really written, but come from decisions you made on a whim/circumstance during playing. That's how a province that I had to resiege almost ten times during one campaign became my most well fortified province, and soon after the military center of my empire
you get to feel smart by calling the strategy game that you are playing "grand," and LARP as a ruler
They're called "Grand" because You're playing one consistent nation, where none of the top level stuff is supposed to be happening off-screen, or between the missions.
There aren't any fights You didn't fight, or diplomatic decisions You didn't make.
What game is this from? Rare to see the proper/exact or at least very approximate borders of the five races of the ROC.
personally for me, they are vehicles for CYOA type stories, watching my nation states rise and fall as I roleplay as leaders/peoples. It often makes for good stories.
Imagination, same as every other game.
Nothing, just map painting for autist who jerk off to that shit.