PDA

View Full Version : Paradox Games



Riekopo
03-08-2013, 02:52 PM
If any of you play any of the Paradox games like Europa Universalis 3 and Crusader Kings 2, what features would you like to see added to Rome 2 from them?

Queso
03-08-2013, 03:07 PM
Crusader Kings had these little moments that were like the book series "choose your own adventures". That gave more life to your characters. It would add a level of intrigue to Rome, and from speculating from watching the live action trailer, maybe they will do this.

DaveTheBrave
03-08-2013, 03:12 PM
The diffrent map modes like normal terrain, shows the factions in diffrent coulors, dimplomatic relations etc. I really like that in the Paradox games. In Shogun 2 it is only terrian mode and I would like to see some more modes to get a better eye on your factions and the other factions.

Riekopo
03-08-2013, 03:28 PM
I would like to see context sensitive historical events occur.

Mandy
03-08-2013, 03:40 PM
1) Real time gameplay,
2) As many provinces and regions+several cities in one province
3) Different map modes, not for the main campaign map but for the small map in the bottom that should become fuulscreenable
4) Rebels with goals and flags corresponding to the goal
5) Cultures,immigration,assimilation,religion and pop density (Victoria)
6) In the main menu you choose your nation from the Diplo-map and not by clicking the coats of arms (ck2)
7) War cassu bellis with corresponding war scores, detailed war information tab...etc
8) Possibility to delegate some territories to a lower rank character ex: your king and you have dukes (in rome it can be prefects) and you see it on the map and you can rise all the troops of your duke at once in a province of your choice that he owns
9) Difference regular proffesional armis and raised levies (CK2+all expensions)
.....Etc.

Other ideas:
Defensive walls like Hadrians wall
Possibility to migrate if you are a barbarian nation by abandoning your cities and converting their pop into a tribe of several armies+civilian vagons like inBarbaria invasions but + civilians
When you choose a faction you get an intro video for that specific faction something like the generique of the Vikings series
:D

Commisar
03-08-2013, 03:44 PM
i don't want paradox features in total war. if i did I'd go play those games. I have victoria and hearts of iron but I don't want anything from those games on here, accept improved diplomacy but I don't want it like those games as theirs is a mess!

Mandy
03-08-2013, 03:49 PM
You're not obliged to repeat their mistakes, just take only the good things

mmurray821
03-08-2013, 03:51 PM
Real time strategic play is not a good thing in my opinion. Hence the reason I play total war instead.

Itfan
03-08-2013, 03:51 PM
None of the distinctive features of the games of paradox. I don't want a real time map, prestige points, war bands etc.
I like some of the paradox games (eg Victoria and Hearts of iron 2), but they are of another genre. In this case i want a TW game, not a paradox game.

easytarget
03-08-2013, 04:20 PM
I would like to see context sensitive historical events occur.

Just no. The history you make in TW games is that of your own creation. And the agency TW games create IS the game.

Chris D
03-08-2013, 04:21 PM
I like Paradox games and I like Total War games but I think it would be a mistake to try to lift features from one to the other without thinking it through very carefully. The existence of the battles changes the whole emphasis of the games. War is one ingredient in a Paradox game while, unsurprisingly, it's the whole point of a Total War game.

If you wanted to create a full on grand strategy games you wouldn't want Total War battles in it, they're way overdesigned if they're only one element in a whole game about politics, economics and religion. Conversely you don't necessarily want the same systems from paradox games in Total War because you don't want to take focus away from the battles. Not that Total War can't or doesn't deal with those things too but they're handled less in depth than Paradox generally do and that's entirely appropriate for this type of game.

Game design is as much about what you choose to leave out as what you choose to put in.

easytarget
03-08-2013, 04:22 PM
Real time strategic play is not a good thing in my opinion. Hence the reason I play total war instead.

Absolutely true. There is no S when there's RT. Zerg swarm is what you get, not thought, not strategy, not even much that resembles tactics.

Ultramarine777
03-08-2013, 04:36 PM
Absolutely true. There is no S when there's RT. Zerg swarm is what you get, not thought, not strategy, not even much that resembles tactics.
But Total War actually is Real Time Strategy.... It's only turn-based on the meta map, not the battles.

Itfan
03-08-2013, 04:45 PM
But Total War actually is Real Time Strategy.... It's only turn-based on the meta map, not the battles.
Maybe real time tactic. Strategic aspects are turn-based.

shimazu_94
03-08-2013, 04:50 PM
Total War is a combination of real time and turn based strategy, not just RTS.
And for the campaign part, it should be TBS so that players have as much time as they want to do everything they need.
E.g. in Rome's expansion Barbarian Invasion, you may have to spend as much as 15 minutes in first turn when playing as Eastern/Western Roman Empire just to reorganize your messy empire. If the campaign is RTS, you may not have much time to think.

Glywysing
03-08-2013, 04:56 PM
Sorry but how anyone can claim that there is no strategy in an RTS game like Crusader Kings I have no idea. An utterly different style of game to Total War, far less emphasis on the "war", but with strategy coming out of its ears. You cannot really compare the two genres.

There are some features that I miss from CK when playing TW though, as I said the former isn't all about the war side of things and I wish there was more in TW games like that, but then again it is called Total War.

DaveTheBrave
03-08-2013, 05:04 PM
If the campaign is RTS, you may not have much time to think.

Pause the game and think what you should do. Move around troops, make diplomacy things etc. and the moves will be made when you unpause.

daelin4
03-08-2013, 06:04 PM
No I have not played any Paradox games, because I don't really enjoy the kind of features they have.

There's a reason why in a particular moment earlier in my life I preferred to try Rome Total War instead. This is that reason.

Rumpullpus
03-08-2013, 06:35 PM
i would really like to see the more in-depth diplomacy i see from EU3 in total war games but other than that there isnt much i can say i would like to see CA try to emulate.

Mandy
03-08-2013, 06:44 PM
I play both and i enjoy both,
and i'll enjoy both even more if they borrow best features from each other.
Tw has many features that paradox should consider incorporating to their games, same for Tw.
Real time/turn based difference is not as important as some think, in the first one you pause or play at slow speed if you can't think quickly in the second one the pause is imposed. LoL (for the multiplier if you want to play with more than 3-4 the first one is preferable)
Concerning the depth i think the tw is right to make the main game more simple (than paradox) to attract a greater public, but for those who want something more complicated and detailed there could at least be a DLC or an add-on.
Anyway i'll continue to like TW games even if i can't find 100% of features i want in it. They are awesome anyway

easytarget
03-08-2013, 06:53 PM
Pause the game and think what you should do. Move around troops, make diplomacy things etc. and the moves will be made when you unpause.

Doesn't work, because the feature when implemented permeates the game design.

Fortunately it's an academic discussion, it's never going to happen.

Tyer032392
03-08-2013, 09:43 PM
One important thing I would really love to see implemented, and actually was implemented in the original Rome is manpower. However, I would prefer to see a manpower ratio equal to that of Victoria 2, or HoI 3, as it would add in more depth and strategic thought as we would not be able to just spam countless armies now, and also make it for the AI as well. Probably even make it to where the smaller factions with smaller manpower reserves have more veteran units versus the larger empires.

mmurray821
03-08-2013, 10:01 PM
One important thing I would really love to see implemented, and actually was implemented in the original Rome is manpower.

I would really like to see that as losing a large army would take a long while to recover from. Varus couldn't replace those legions for a reason.

Centrops
03-08-2013, 10:12 PM
I would really like to see that as losing a large army would take a long while to recover from. Varus couldn't replace those legions for a reason.

And that reason has nothing to do with available manpower. The only reason why "Germania" was never pacified after the disaster of Teutoberg is this: Emporer Augustus called it off. While most Roman citizens screamed for revenge, Augustus didn't think that Germania was really worth the effort. It was dark, boggy, dense, and offered little for Roman culture. This decision would ultimately haunt Rome several centuries later, with the rapid invasion of "Germanic" tribes through a weakened empire..

Mackles
03-08-2013, 10:36 PM
I would really like to see that as losing a large army would take a long while to recover from. Varus couldn't replace those legions for a reason.

I may be mistaken but I thought Varus couldn't replace his legions because he was dead :P

Aside from that, Centrops nailed it - Augustus decided Germania wasn't worth the cost of conquering it. And the numbers of the 3 legions destroyed in the battle were retired and never used again out of shame!

Commisar
03-08-2013, 11:03 PM
Yeah man power wasn't the reason armies couldn't be raised, it was normally the cost side of things. Early total wars were good at that as the armies cost a lot and took more management.

I was playing Victoria 2 earlier and the only thinng I'd like transfered is the diplomacy option, I'd like to force my allies to stop waging war, if they come to my aid I'd like when I make peace for my allies to make peace as well. It annoys me to see my allies battling each other netiher gaining an uper hand and my trade suffering.

Also Paradox often make war the main thing. the entire HoI series is about world war 2! all of that game is about fighting wars. It does have some strategic parts but it's more where and when you wage war and where you deploy forces. Victoria 2 at least has more internal politics but again it's mainly about war and expanding your power base.

Aurelian
03-08-2013, 11:05 PM
Designing your faction leader, all those map modes, more family politics and options etc..

Seleucos of Olympia
03-08-2013, 11:58 PM
Doesn't work, because the feature when implemented permeates the game design.

Fortunately it's an academic discussion, it's never going to happen.
Have you ever even played a Paradox game? They are as detached from zerg rush tactics as you get - more detached than TW games, in fact, where you can rush enemy factions by training a lot of early tech troops (or hiring a lot of mercenaries) in the first rounds of the game. The only thing Paradox game designs have in common with the RTS genre is an illusion of real time provided by a time step of days or hours, depending on the game.

Charan
03-09-2013, 12:31 AM
I was playing Victoria 2 earlier and the only thinng I'd like transfered is the diplomacy option, I'd like to force my allies to stop waging war, if they come to my aid I'd like when I make peace for my allies to make peace as well. It annoys me to see my allies battling each other netiher gaining an uper hand and my trade suffering.



This.

more diplomatic options

AlJabberwock
03-09-2013, 12:42 AM
Diplomacy, while better in some ways in some Paradox titles, is still unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, and in some ways, occassionally just as baffling. I play a lot of Paradox titles, and have for years. There are some good ideas and some not so good ones there for TW diplomacy improvement.

I agree that one should take some of the 'good ones' but CA might just as well profit from finding their own way to a solution of some of the shortcomings and inchoate results of negotiating with a canned program...

Truth
03-09-2013, 12:49 AM
Some people already find Total War games too complex. I can't imagine the reactions if Total War included elements other than creating large armies and smashing enemy ones. Detailed economy, religion, diplomacy, or city/empire-management would be too much for people.

Then again, CA added a technology/research system, and they're now adding in faction traits (ala Civilization) as well as chained "events/dilemmas". Maybe, just maybe, they will continue to slowly add more elements than the regular army building and fighting.

Ultramarine777
03-09-2013, 01:09 AM
Maybe real time tactic. Strategic aspects are turn-based. It's a real time strategy game. The battle is part of the strategic aspect. This isn't an RTT. If you want to look at an RTT look at Men of War or Dawn of war 2.
The campaign has all the additional strategic features, but the core gameplay is real time strategy.

Centrops
03-09-2013, 01:54 AM
Some people already find Total War games too complex.

Any fan of strategy should not find Total War too complex by any means. If someone was a fan of shooters, then I could understand. If someone complained that Total War games are too complex to CA, their response should be: "Go play Battlefield 3".

Mandy
03-09-2013, 09:06 AM
That's what i said, they should make a simple Main game and then release a more detailed add-on for those who want a more detailed game.


Some people already find Total War games too complex. I can't imagine the reactions if Total War included elements other than creating large armies and smashing enemy ones. Detailed economy, religion, diplomacy, or city/empire-management would be too much for people.

Then again, CA added a technology/research system, and they're now adding in faction traits (ala Civilization) as well as chained "events/dilemmas". Maybe, just maybe, they will continue to slowly add more elements than the regular army building and fighting.

Clover
03-09-2013, 10:15 AM
Paradox is one of my favorite game devs, their complicated and extraordinarily grand strategy games are so addicting. They are such a welcome change from the simple stuff we seem to get so often. So many devs treat people like idiots who can't handle anything more complex than a button prompt, a single menu, or destinations not directly displayed on a map or compass. Paradox treats me like a capable adult, rather than an incapable child.

wilo1066
03-09-2013, 10:47 AM
Clover your right about complicated and extraordinarily grand strategy which is great if you love that type of game.But most devs would like to develope games like these but for moneys sake they go for what the they think appeals to the masses simple stuff easy to get into quick fix.I love complex games with great depth something to really get into and its not over in 12 hours.I cant see why CA dont put more depth into the game as there as always been the option to auto what features you didnt want to do your self .

Naisho
03-09-2013, 12:16 PM
Paradox unnecessarily complicates their games with poor UI, unclear instructions, and poor cause and effect relationship indications. If that means paradox games are complex then we should hang our heads in shame.

Now paradox games not real time strategy games they are in fact turn based. Events do not occur in real time but rather occur in a turn in the span of hours or days.

TW is a hybrid game, and when people suggest TW should move completely to real time dont realize how much time they spend in the campaign. It often takes 5 minutes to complete a turn and towards the end of a game turn length can increase to 15 minutes if you have a lot to upgrade and check.

Sashimig
03-09-2013, 12:41 PM
Real time strategic play is not a good thing in my opinion. Hence the reason I play total war instead.

quite frankly rts play doesn't work you're always slowing the time and then speeding it at max. When you got a big empire there are so many things that happens you can't cope with everything. Pop up screens can became a spam nightmare. TW games got the best formula.

Centrops
03-09-2013, 02:03 PM
I like Paradox games, they're not idiot proof, and the real time strategy works great for that type of game. Total War should remain a separate franchise, and shouldn't be compared with Paradox games because it's apples and oranges.

Itfan
03-09-2013, 03:20 PM
The fact is that the play philosophy of TW and paradox game is different.

I find no sense to put the mechanisms of paradox in TW games and vice versa. It is not a matter of complexity or difficulty. They are different.

Spartan Hoplite
03-09-2013, 05:10 PM
First of i really like both series. Easily my favorites.

Although they are really different one from another i still think that RTW2 could improve in some areas that lags in comparison to Paradox games. First and foremost diplomacy is really limited and uninteresting when compared to that of Paradox games. IMO this also due to the fact that alliances are really not that useful in TW games. Usually, if the AI doesn't gang up too much against you, you are able to pull it of. Even if you are faced with a much larger AI opponent you can outsmart them in the battlefield. On the other hand i remember many times in EU3 that i was kept in game only due to forging many alliances with other minor powers against a big AI empire.

As for difficulty Paradox games provided a bigger range you could start large and powerful (like England or France) or really weak and puny like (The Knights or Cherokee / good luck creating an empire with the last one).
I really hope that this time around CA will make it more of a challenge for people that want to play as the Iceni, the Arverni or the Suebi.

Having said all the above i really love watching as huge armies line against each other on the battlefield and charge at my command:cool:!

wilo1066
03-09-2013, 05:17 PM
I think what people are saying here that they would like a bit more depth to the game i no its that old kettle of fish thet you cant please everyone.But by giving you the option at the start of the game would perhaps bring many more to the game.A sort of happy medium.Or put in various features to give the game depth and auto them for anyone that likes it as its always been

Clover
03-09-2013, 05:57 PM
you cant please everyone


They can please the most important people; me and everyone that agrees with me.

mmurray821
03-09-2013, 08:54 PM
They can please the most important people; me...

Who are you again?

:D

Hardwaremaster
03-09-2013, 09:26 PM
I cant think of anything really that I would like to have in RTW2 that isn't already in it from what ive read so far, in one form or another. Especially not paradox games, TW should stay far away from Paradox games IMO. A balance between the two wouldn't be too awful though, I wouldn't quit playing TW if it had a balance.

easytarget
03-09-2013, 09:48 PM
I've always said, nothing guarantees your results are a creative masterpiece like trying to borrow as many individual ideas from as many different places as possible, incongruous or not, pouring them all into one creative soup, and setting to boil.

This approah most certainly beats out pursuing your own creative vision of what you intend to make.

daelin4
03-10-2013, 12:51 AM
Who are you again?

:DClover's about #2 on our "Must try to find loophole to justify arbitrary ban" list.

You know, THAT list? >.>
Seleucos is #1 BTW

Commisar
03-10-2013, 04:22 AM
I'd say Rome 2 by the current releases is going to be a much more complex game, the politics is ment to be getting more detailed. But I'm just hoping the tech tree is more in depth than Shogun 2s, I hate that system, I'd rather have multiple chains I can follow for different benefits.

it will have more tactics which leads to strategy. most Paradox games strategy is the unit and tech you research and where you place forces, total war where you fight has more impact and in Rome 2 it's going to be an even bigger impact as the same battle field can appear, I'm hoping we have the chance to scout the battlefield first. I'm tired of my defending army on Empire deploying on the low area of maps -_-

saravan
03-11-2013, 05:57 AM
I like Paradox Games (especially EU III), but I really don't want most of those features in a Total War game. The focus is too different.

Sertorius
03-11-2013, 06:04 AM
The best Paradox game for me is still Knights of Honor, I think I suggested a couple of things from it years ago before the release of Medieval 2 and I alluded to copying features from Knights of Honor.

Clover
03-11-2013, 04:42 PM
Clover's about #2 on our "Must try to find loophole to justify arbitrary ban" list.

You know, THAT list? >.>
Seleucos is #1 BTW


You may break my body, but my spirit will haunt the forums for eternity!

Litovoi
03-11-2013, 08:54 PM
The best Paradox game for me is still Knights of Honor, I think I suggested a couple of things from it years ago before the release of Medieval 2 and I alluded to copying features from Knights of Honor.
knights of honor was a combination between paradox games(eu2 and ck) with total war games. but was to simplified in diplomacy and battle. other combination between paradox and total war games is the MMO Dawn of fantasy

Anna_Gein
03-12-2013, 08:59 PM
A few diplomatic details are a must for me. Truce and proper Alliance Leagues are a must. By Alliance leagues I mean that when one occur all allies of both side may join the war but under the leadership of the most powerful states of their sides. This states and only this one may negotiate in the name of the alliance and settle peace between all participants. But on the other side every "minor" participant may negotiate for themselves.

A Visible or invisible warscore could be useful to prevent the impression of steamroll that appear in the mid-game. War goal could be useful too to give more meaning to each war.

And manpower should definitely be present.