Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

American Civil War Grand Strategy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
Mikalos said:
also, if you dont want them to make it, WHY ARE YOU SPAMMING THEIR FORUM WITH YOUR WHINING?

Go elsewhere with your "i want a ACW GS title" then. maybe somebody stupid will even make you one so you can be oh so happy and we can continue to not give a crap.
Click to expand...

A tad harsh, don't you think? AGEOD's business was built off the back of their Civil War grand strategy game, which recently received a sequel that was been well-received and had at least one expansion. 2 by 3 games also put together a Civil War grand strategy game/ There are actually more games in the 'Civil War' section of Matrix Games' catalogue than there are Napoleonic. There is a market for Civil War games, as is evidenced by the Civil War games that are selling successfully in the market. I doubt AGEOD was 'stupid' for making Civil War 2, they've done quite well from it ;).

And, given that 2 by 3 and AGEOD's titles play quite differently from Paradox's pausable RTS approach, a question of 'how about it' is hardly inappropriate. It doesn't mean that PDS should or will build such a game (particularly given the studios location, which means its less likely to have Civil War than Napoleonic or World War enthusiasts in it, given that most Civil War enthusiasts tend to be American), but automatically writing it off as stupid when a market clearly already exists seems a little presumptuous.
 
Axe99 said:
A tad harsh, don't you think? AGEOD's business was built off the back of their Civil War grand strategy game, which recently received a sequel that was been well-received and had at least one expansion. 2 by 3 games also put together a Civil War grand strategy game/ There are actually more games in the 'Civil War' section of Matrix Games' catalogue than there are Napoleonic. There is a market for Civil War games, as is evidenced by the Civil War games that are selling successfully in the market. I doubt AGEOD was 'stupid' for making Civil War 2, they've done quite well from it ;).

And, given that 2 by 3 and AGEOD's titles play quite differently from Paradox's pausable RTS approach, a question of 'how about it' is hardly inappropriate. It doesn't mean that PDS should or will build such a game (particularly given the studios location, which means its less likely to have Civil War than Napoleonic or World War enthusiasts in it, given that most Civil War enthusiasts tend to be American), but automatically writing it off as stupid when a market clearly already exists seems a little presumptuous.
Click to expand...

a market does not make the idea stupid.

they tried limited scope paradox games, it didnt work
 
P-51 said:
It didn't work because of poor execution. Not because they were bad ideas. If PI put the same effort into MOTE as they did into CKII it would have been great.
Click to expand...
Gameplay, perhaps. Marketwise, no.
 
Mikalos said:
a market does not make the idea stupid.

they tried limited scope paradox games, it didnt work
Click to expand...

Hence my point earlier that if they did try something like this, they should market it to the US Civil War crowd as well as the standard Paradox crowd. As for the stand-alone games, Sengoku (in particular) had very limited gameplay and MotE was poorly marketed (and named - a game about the Napoleonic wars that you can't tell is a game about the Napoleonic wars from the title is a naming mis-step of considerable size) but was actually a pretty good game - and as P-51 says, with a bit more spit and polish it could have been an excellent game. Just like the Civil War, there is a market for games about the Napoleonic Wars.

Again, I'm not saying it should happen, but writing it off as stupid (not my words) seems presumptuous given that there is a market for Civil War grand strategy games, and that PDS is very good at making grand strategy games.
 
P-51 said:
That sounds weird while that game is still being consistently updated. Maybe it is someone else?
Click to expand...

Here is a quote from the admin account on the UG website forums:


admin (UG Gettysburg forum) said:
If the game sells well and we can support ourselves for the next iteration - definitely yes.
We wanted to start the development with the grand campaign but decided to cut the content because we had resources to only make 1 thing perfect. That's why Gettysburg was chosen.
In the future there are definitely plans to add the campaign and experiment with other settings.
Click to expand...


Obviously I can't link to the post as it's against forum rules, but run a search yourself and you'll find this post. It was dated April 2014.
 
A good American Civil War game would have far more depth than many realize.

A good Vicky 3 should provide a good representation of the war, but it wouldn't be the same.
 
I am pretty sure the largest demographic of Paradox players is European and let be honest ACW is just one war and far to be the most important or interesting of the time period. It will be in Vicky 3, we can hope they improve the military side of the game this time around.
 
Johan said:
Too limited of a market.
Click to expand...
A reply that demonstrates just how global PI is, and how the US market, while important, is no longer enough on it's own to justify a project.

I would say, however, that I'd love a new, good ACW game. Doesn't have to be PDS, after all.
 
A while back, while playing Darkest Hour, I thought to myself that I would love a game similar to Hearts of Iron but with a Victorian setting.
Obviously I know they wouldn't change the battle/military mechanics of the Victoria franchise so drastically but if they were to make a separate franchise using HoI mechanics but with the scope of 1845-1900 with the ability to play as anybody in the world.

People told me that HoI gameplay doesn't make sense with the setting but I think it could. Obviously it wouldn't be exactly the same but with a few tweaks, it could work quite well.
Then you could have bookmarks for the Crimean War, American Civil War, Franco-Prussian War... maybe the Boxer rebellion? Not sure if that would work well though.
 
Nothing in my experience with paradox games suggests that a scaled down EU game would actuality represent the things that made the ACW interesting.

I'm glad this will not happen.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
k-59 said:
Nothing in my experience with paradox games suggests that a scaled down EU game would actuality represent the things that made the ACW interesting.
Click to expand...

So is PI incapable of producing a new design that would work well as an ACW game? Why are they bound to making EU-style games?

Of course you may be right. If "too limited of a market" is their reason to not make an ACW game then it seems difficult to justify making Victoria III or anything else that is not CK/EU/HOI-based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back