[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/games/ - Video Games

Video Games
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1701645752172.jpeg (25.03 KB, 474x379, 474:379, OIP.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb


It's the only game that really got me addicted haha (with mods), on Sundays I would wake up and play 2 full games and fall asleep, only going out to eat and shower (sometimes)


File: 1701763087665.jpg (423.64 KB, 2405x3262, 2405:3262, mussolini.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

It got me so addicted I got scared, deleted it and vowed to never play a pardox gsg ever again. Unifying Italy was fun though.


File: 1703020327571.png (1.07 MB, 1366x768, 683:384, unnamed.png) ImgOps iqdb

An old game of mine without bordergore


A stabilizing power like England, that wants to preserve the status quo balance of power, and not allow any border gore


Didn't like the reliance on economy simming in vick games, feels very autistic


someone did an experiment where he cheated to give russia all the advanced tech in 1834, but without a modern economy to sustain it, building modern weapons quickly bankrupted him. so it has that level of realism no military superstructure without economic base


Don't put economy micromanaging in games, let someone make a mod. Or they should have had it like how it is in europa universalis because at least it's a small facet of the game


Yeah my fav game as a kid was a 1995 edition of this with better graphics.

It had an incredibly simple economy and production system. get points for occupying bases, and build inf, tanks, air, ships. and it was fun to just play and replay it.

But I don't think anyone would ever make such a simple strategy game today even for casuals, as the whole point of strategy is the complexity.


The whole point of strategy is simulation but when you add a grand economy system like you see in Vic2 and 3 it becomes less about strategy and ruins the simulation.


well EU4 covers a vast era 1444-1815 and is focused on dynastic power. while Vic3 covers a much smaller period 1834-1920 dominated by the industrial revolution. If it was exactly like EU4 it would just be a short mini-game like that Napoleon Eagles game they made.


Sorry but I've tried vic 2 and vic 3 and it feels like I'm playing with an excel worksheet


I don't know if I'm autistic or something, but the game is stupidly easy to learn after a few days.


Don't care how easy you find it, have you ever worked in an office where you've had to work on excel sheets? That's what it feels like to me. Completely killed it's enjoyment.


That's how all Paradox games feel to me. HOI4 is probably even more intricate having to manage such small military units on top of it all


>filtered by HOI4
tut tut tut


I would just keep jumping between nations in HOI4, let the AI build an army for me, use it, wreck it, switch to the next nation.

I feel like a lot of conspiracy theories of history, basically come down to, the same guy is running both sides in an HOI4 game.


You should look into who funded the weapon and artillery contracts and who owned the businesses.


File: 1703129405781.png (25.76 KB, 600x296, 75:37, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

It's not all that common, supplying both sides.

But it happened for real in Iran-Iraq War where both sides were hated by the world. And the biggest global alliance faction was "both sides".

[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]