Those are a good selection of DLCs for this treatment, except the digital upgrade which I think was more meh.

They have previously taken features from some DLC and put them in the base game, replacing with other features in the DLC, because they wanted to include features that built upon the mechanics of those DLC. The one I remember was the Estates feature, introduced in the Cossacks DLC, but they wanted to have different unique estates for India or other places. So they moved basic estates to the base game and added to the DLC new interactions with the cossack estate and some government interactions as well.

Quoting: Anza

Quoting: Klaas

Quoting: amataiThis move is not so much a gift to players than a way for Paradox to reduce development cost.

Yes, that's probably the reason. It's baffling that a company that always pushes a huge number of DLCs makes such mistakes. Your example of two separate war systems remind me of the people that demand that Euro Truck Simulator 2 should have a paid DLCs that improve the quality of the base map (including older DLCs) creating two sets of maps that have to be supported at the same time instead of going over all the old content slower as free updates.

I haven't followed how the EU:s DLC model works, but with Stellaris they release free update with the DLC and will have some of the features in the free update. Doesn't entirely remove problem of potentially conflicting DLC:s, but reduces the conflict possibility. Even better would be just release free updates, but apparently Paradox earns enough with the DLC:s that the maintenance burden is still worth it.

They do that even more for EU4, as lots of stuff is less self-contained. So a lot of DLC is basically "the game change is in the game now, but the DLC gives you some buttons to increase the value at a cost or spend it for a benefit". Or everything follows the new system, but you only have 1 option of 4. It results in DLCs that are quite bad, as they have very little content but the little they have is far more important to playing the game (not just a different playthrough, but a nice QoL you always want or some important interaction with game systems).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheRiddickLooks interesting, but I could really do with a BattleTech-2 using a decent engine. (original used unity3d)

I'd take a Battletech 2 from Harebrained even if they made it using the old Infinity Engine.

Sadly Paradox kept the Battletech license (and all rights to the game), but if they just made a big tactical game of the same style it would be great in whatever setting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoteone Shadowrun fans might like to take a look at

I did really enjoy the Shadowrun games even though I don't generally get on with RPGs.

So did I. But this doesn't look turn-based. Cool and atmospheric and all, but I'm kind of crap at combat games so this is probably not for me.

Yeah I went through a small roller-coaster of expectations. "Oh no they are making an RPG this time, but wait their Shadowrun RPGs were these great tactical games, oh no the end of the trailer suggests it is not even turn-based".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

First I thought it was "200 watts" and found it intriguing, then I saw it was "200V" and it was such a what the fuck moment I had to check if I wasn't missing something, because surely there was something missing. Maybe it was a special model for some special "200 volt servers". Maybe it was not a processor but some NUC thingy. Maybe it was 2.00 volts. Because 200 volts for a processor is stupid, but the only thing stupider is naming your product 200V when it does not take 200 volts and after you just bricked two generations of processors due to excessive voltages.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hmm, as much as asking for donations is perfectly fine and good (I'd consider a distro removing such a benign request to be very rude, almost hostile)... I don't think a system notification is the right place for it. I'd rather have it all the time in the login screen than having it pop up as a notification, even once per year. Having a static donate button somewhere in the settings would be better than a daemon to show a scheduled ad.

Maybe it is because of trauma about so much stuff using "notifications" to advertise, but I think that is a functional part of the system that should not be used for developer communication with users (and neither should command line outputs for your package manager, wtf Canonical). The same reasons that make it more effective than using proper communication channels are the reasons why it is bad: it is intruding on something users pay attention to because it is meant for other things. It is using privileged access to the system to reach users in a channel they don't expect. If someone deliberately chose to not engage on social media, e-mail and your website, should you really force an engagement? (An always-on notice/button feels ok because it isn't trying to grab your attention, it is just there in case you want)

I'm not saying this is extremely bad or anything; Ubuntu has done worse, it is the status quo for commercial proprietary software. And again I consider requests for donations to be good, important enough to merit special considerations. It is just that this particular way irks me, even coming from a project I support, and I'd prefer a request that I wouldn't feel the need to disable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Damn I'm interested, gameplay looks more like a proper HOMM game than just another boring tactical RPG (like the later titles in the series did).

And in particular, graphically it looks really really good. The art style looks both evocative and readable, designs are neat and the "drawn" look is a good fit for the setting. The art manages to have the same atmosphere as the old games, without going for pixel art - and benefiting from the depth and multiple angles of view of 3d. Animations look good, models are just detailed enough to be cool even from a playable camera angle.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wytrabbit

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: wytrabbit

Quoting: Purple Library GuyKind of feels like Mono is a corpse they are graciously allowing the Wine people to bury for them.

But... WINE has put a lot of effort over the years into supporting programs for old defunct Windows releases. Microsoft no longer needs it, and they're recommending all new code to use their modern fork, but these are like receiving the exam answers ahead of time. Now WINE no longer needs to guess and reverse engineer Mono related code, saving them time and money.

But Mono was already open source. It started as an open source thing to try to deal with the problem that was MS' .Net, which originated basically as a platform to exclude Linux. So I don't see why WINE would have needed to do any of that. MS are just saying "We have no more use for it, how about you guys maintain it?"

But how much of that could WINE use without the Mono project keeping an open source license? Since WINE would redistribute Mono with installations, possibly modifying it as necessary, it seems to me like they'd be in a delicate position. Sure it's open for us but we're protected by "personal use".

Microsoft did the opposite, they re-licensed Mono as MIT instead of GPL (worse for software freedom, but better for people wanting to fork it). Mono is fully open-source, it could be forked at any time, and in fact most other .NET stuff is also open source these days and supports Linux and all. Microsoft long ago realized that, like Google, they can keep lots of control without draconian licenses that scare people off.

What they gave was control over the upstream, the "name", so that the WineHQ people don't need to fork it and then promote their fork to everyone: "hey mono is dead, so we made this fork which is a successor to mono, and you might not know us but we are the real deal". Microsoft handed them the project and now they are the "real" mono. Does this matter? Idk.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Sounds a lot like a "we are no longer putting resources to support this" kind of deal for a "we are transferring control of the project" deal.

I guess it is better than the alternative, since they could just unilaterally drop it. But mostly it raises questions about how Microsoft can just directly buy direct competitors and choose what to do with them.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BTREInsisting that "Romans remain Roman and the Zulu, Zulu" is incredibly deterministic and is not better than your alleged (and unfounded) "presentism". Cultures change significantly in terms of language, social norms, religion, law and everything else. A modern Greek person has very little culturally common with someone who lived in an ancient city state; the late Roman empire was culturally and functionally radically different than the republic thousands of years prior; modern China is very different to that first state. If such radical change happens consistently in real history, why should a video game sandbox develop in the exact same way?

Posting to empathically agree with BTRE's entire post (not quoted because it's long), but specifically to add on this point. The concept of "national identity", national borders, people belonging to a particular state with a definite language and culture... that is absolutely modern invention, starting only on the 17th century. There were states before, and various identities based on origin, language, religion, tribe, and such. But those weren't really connected as we understand it now. Having "civilizations" in 4000BC with borders and distinct national identities is anachronistic, is very much presentist if we are debating that point; no state from that time would work like that.

Projecting national identities into the past is a pervasive political instrument, by which (would-be) nation states try to legitimize themselves through a connection to previous states and cultures, creating a national identity out of an idealized or fabricated past. Think of Germany in the 19th century, during its unification under a national state, seeking connections to the Germanic barbarian tribes from millennia past, trying to find a common identity between the hundreds of small, separate states but distinct from their neighbors. Not that this tactic of connection to earlier peoples or kingdoms was new, rulers loved to claim mythical origins, but the concept of nation itself - and projecting it back to people that didn't use it - was. And this isn't outdated politics, irrelevant to the present day: in many places people still are still fighting wars for the self-determination of their nation.

So yeah, the fundamentals of Civilization are extremely political. A game about empire building, war, and governing cities can't avoid it, politics are the very premise of it. If some things look "less political", it is because you haven't looked hard enough. There is plenty to be critiqued in the particular choices made (for example, the emphasis on "great people" as opposed to the contribution of the population at large is... contentious), but it requires a lot more depth and nuance than "they are making ideological changes!" - because you need to justify why this supposed new ideology is better than the existing one, which was absolutely all but neutral.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Alright, I was without power so I'm a bit behind on all the news, but seems they also lifted a streamer embargo for people that went there and played the game (though they didn't record it, it is all stock footage provided by firaxis). For example, a youtuber I like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ5YGamtSjI (but others have also covered it, youtube has a bunch of videos).

And just from the first short video, the game looks so much better than the trailer, wtf. The UI looks good, the leaders have great animations and cool designs and are well done... I expected it was going to look a lot more unfinished because they didn't even have anything to put in the trailer. Also, they are really revealing a lot about gameplay changes this early.

View this comment - View article - View full comments