Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
To me, the main problem is population growth is too easy. Apex Workers and Secret Police are extremely powerful, but it kills the population. It should force you to actually go for laws that have big downsides but allow you to get back some acceptable population growth to maintain a good population size.
Maybe, just maybe population growth should have a negative retro feedback, with the more people you have, the more it's difficult to increase the population growth ticker. This way, given a population growth total modifier except coming from total population (and except deaths, obviously), you'd have a target total population equilibrium you're slowly reaching over time (through increase or decrease of population): if you really want to have a somewhat high population, you really need to go and take population growth measures, because we're in dire circumstances where people don't think about making babies (rather than times of prosperity when people copulate like crazy). And it's even worse if you have measures that reduce population growth or outright kill your people (like Apex Workers, Automatons, problems with all five basic needs and such) and thus you have to go even more of an extra step to counteract such downsides.
The game would be more difficult, as any misstep can impact your workforce and thus your capacity to improve your situation. This way, you are interested in having at least some idle workforce as it stands like life points that can endure problems for a little while until you solve it or until there's no idle worker anymore and the situation worsens over time.
Balancing clearly does not assume Captain's Authority as baseline experience. Yes, there are clearly optimal ways to play. But consider all the players who are choosing morally right (if inefficient) options in every event. And the casual players, of course. Frostpunk 1's Extreme wasn't always trivial for me, I still recall how it took me some learning from amordron and snuggleform before I got there.
I'll tell you more, you can get by even without it. In fact, there's an achievement for it.
Equality as a whole is one big Soviet Union meme, so it makes sense for vodka-driven economy to be OP. But since you're a few steps away from Levelling which lets you nationalize means of production, money is quite irrelevant when going Equality anyways.
Best part? There's an achievement for spamming Levelling, so it's very by design and not something I ever see them changing.
As someone who rushes Steward's Militia and befriends Venturers for their ability, I don't even find myself in need of those...
Duh. It's a puzzle, and once you figure out a solution, there's no challenge anymore. First game was like that a lot, only it was more straightforward with fewer viable solutions.
I don't see them massively increasing difficulty for Captain, as people need to get those achievements somehow...
I really like the existing arcs that are consequence of some wacky law combinations, so them doing more of this would definitely be much welcome.
It's even more the case when you also realize it's a very cynical, political game where you benefit from planning solutions for problems you don't solve and wait until last moment, when people are fed up with their problems (like sleeping outside, having cold homes, having not enough hospitals, having too many bad meals in a row or having long shifts for too long) until you fully agree to their demands. Hope and discontent are easy to manage this way.
Back to FP 2, I agree balancing assumes you try to stay morally on a certain ethics viewpoint. Just like in FP 1, there are laws that you can enact that are overpowered (although less overpowered than in FP 2, they don't have the negative consequences FP 2 radical ideas have), but they have narrative consequences that are supposed to matter, because it's a narrative game. That's how you end up with endings such that "ok, you won, but was it really an actual win given what you sacrificed? Couldn't you do better than that? Was it necessary to go this far? " and such.
Whether you care or you don't about these "sacrifices" will necessarily change your take on the game and its balance. Like becoming a villain in a game where you're not really supposed to and there's not much in terms of downsides except a few people pissed at you and some mild negative consequences that nearly don't negatively impact difficulty.
The game assumes the domino effect is gonna hit you. Temperature plummets so your people get sick. They are sick so they can't work. They can't work so you can't produce enough food. You don't have enough food so people starve. And so on. 24 hour shifts allows you to prevent the domino and stay on top of challenges as they drop, trivializing the game.
Narrative has always been the strongest part of Frostpunk, but like before it hinges on you being a newbie.
Something I like to do in the sequel is you can invest into guard squads early on and designate a community or two as your "cash cows". They'll hate you, which is in fact exactly what you want - hostile communities drift into an opposing faction, and the faction you can kick off the vote with secret police and freely pass whatever you want long before you get Captain's Authority. All while trivializing money early on.