4 ms·

I’ve played a lot of Crusader Kings and a lot of idle clicker games. I do not understand where this comparison is coming from. I’m trying to think of two genres

by aqme28 4y ago

I’ve played a lot of Crusader Kings and a lot of idle clicker games. I do not understand where this comparison is coming from. I’m trying to think of two genres that are further apart and I’m struggling.

slothtrop 4y ago
I'll bridge the gap for you: waiting is a core mechanic of the game, and you're having to elapse a lot of time for target changes to be reflected, or random events to pop up. Some games like dwarf fortress or rimworld don't share the same pitfalls because, notwithstanding events, you get fast and continuous results from your decisions, which translates to a lesser sense of "idling". I can only speak for CK since I never played Victoria. However, as something more analogous I have played Offworld Trading Company, having an economic focus, and in-game changes come rather fast there too.
- aqme28 4y ago
  I don’t think that’s very fair, since CK gives you ways to move the time, and also plenty of stuff to micromanage if you want to. I feel like your comparison is just that time is an element, which is a pretty fundamental aspect of a lot of games.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  In CK, if you find yourself "waiting" for something to happen, you should probably just speed up the game simulation... I find that things are constantly popping up that need my attention, and if I am going through a long slog.... I constantly speed up and slow down the game, depending on what I am trying to do.
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    Indeed I have, and I disagree that attention is demanded in equal measure every instance. I still think there's a lot of leap frogging and waiting anyway for things to develop or interesting things to happen. Most of the time exploring the menu I'm anticipating what I would do, but have to wait for conditions to be met. Waiting is the name of the game.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  I mean... based on how some people play Starcraft or Age of Empires, those are also idle games, lol. For these Paradox Games ... games... its not about "waiting" for time, but instead about "parallel" decisions. I haven't played Victoria, but it takes 2 years to build a Battleship in Hearts of Iron 3. You don't just, build one battleship and turn off your brain though. You decide to build a battleship, then move your troops around, or decide to equip artillery to all of your infantry divisions (which will take X months to build and deploy), or ... a myriad of other decisions. All decisions individually are simple. But these grand strategy games are about keeping "track" of all the individual decisions and building a larger picture from it all. ----------- I know some people cannot multitask and have no ambitions to learn the skill. But that's what these management simulators are all about (including competitive management simulators like Starcraft or Age of Empires :-p)
  - slothtrop 4y ago
    I think that's an arrogant misunderstanding of the misgivings people have.
    - orwin 4y ago
      I mean, i played MP Stellaris, Eu4 and Hoi4, and did learn a lot from it, but GP is right. You do have slow phases, but once it's war on a competitive server, especially if you're a major, your APM should be near one hundred, around the same as a diamond SC2 player, except you have to ingest a lot more data. Even at speed 3.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    No, in StarCraft if you stop giving orders, you'll never win, even against the easiest AI.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Starcraft's Campaign AI doesn't rush you ever. Nor does the Campaign AI group up or mass up their units. So even singular ships (ie: single Battlecruisers) can make surprising progress. Those players then come into multiplayer mode and get wrecked by the multiplayer AI or humans of course. But that doesn't change the fact that I've met these people (ie: my more casual friends who thought they were hot stuff in Starcraft back in the day).

by aqme28 4y ago

slothtrop 4y ago

I'll bridge the gap for you: waiting is a core mechanic of the game, and you're having to elapse a lot of time for target changes to be reflected, or random events to pop up. Some games like dwarf fortress or rimworld don't share the same pitfalls because, notwithstanding events, you get fast and continuous results from your decisions, which translates to a lesser sense of "idling". I can only speak for CK since I never played Victoria. However, as something more analogous I have played Offworld Trading Company, having an economic focus, and in-game changes come rather fast there too.

aqme28 4y ago
I don’t think that’s very fair, since CK gives you ways to move the time, and also plenty of stuff to micromanage if you want to. I feel like your comparison is just that time is an element, which is a pretty fundamental aspect of a lot of games.
ensignavenger 4y ago
In CK, if you find yourself "waiting" for something to happen, you should probably just speed up the game simulation... I find that things are constantly popping up that need my attention, and if I am going through a long slog.... I constantly speed up and slow down the game, depending on what I am trying to do.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  Indeed I have, and I disagree that attention is demanded in equal measure every instance. I still think there's a lot of leap frogging and waiting anyway for things to develop or interesting things to happen. Most of the time exploring the menu I'm anticipating what I would do, but have to wait for conditions to be met. Waiting is the name of the game.
dragontamer 4y ago
I mean... based on how some people play Starcraft or Age of Empires, those are also idle games, lol. For these Paradox Games ... games... its not about "waiting" for time, but instead about "parallel" decisions. I haven't played Victoria, but it takes 2 years to build a Battleship in Hearts of Iron 3. You don't just, build one battleship and turn off your brain though. You decide to build a battleship, then move your troops around, or decide to equip artillery to all of your infantry divisions (which will take X months to build and deploy), or ... a myriad of other decisions. All decisions individually are simple. But these grand strategy games are about keeping "track" of all the individual decisions and building a larger picture from it all. ----------- I know some people cannot multitask and have no ambitions to learn the skill. But that's what these management simulators are all about (including competitive management simulators like Starcraft or Age of Empires :-p)
- slothtrop 4y ago
  I think that's an arrogant misunderstanding of the misgivings people have.
  - orwin 4y ago
    I mean, i played MP Stellaris, Eu4 and Hoi4, and did learn a lot from it, but GP is right. You do have slow phases, but once it's war on a competitive server, especially if you're a major, your APM should be near one hundred, around the same as a diamond SC2 player, except you have to ingest a lot more data. Even at speed 3.
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  No, in StarCraft if you stop giving orders, you'll never win, even against the easiest AI.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Starcraft's Campaign AI doesn't rush you ever. Nor does the Campaign AI group up or mass up their units. So even singular ships (ie: single Battlecruisers) can make surprising progress. Those players then come into multiplayer mode and get wrecked by the multiplayer AI or humans of course. But that doesn't change the fact that I've met these people (ie: my more casual friends who thought they were hot stuff in Starcraft back in the day).