Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

One little detail about NCP2.

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
SAS said:
100% wrong in my opinion, please elaborate on why you feel this way.
Click to expand...

The EU game series are the most boring and ugly of the market, even after the large number of patches (HoI 3, EU III, etc) and expansions

AGEOD, however, produced excellent and beatiful WARGAMES, so far

Is my opinion, sorry, but I see nothing revolutionary for good

I estimate that my opinion did not like, and they admire anything that has the seal Paradox... Luck
 
Johan said:
NCP2 is the first game me and Philippe Thibault are working together on for over a decade.

What was the previous game we made together?

Europa Universalis I...

Just saying... Revolutionary things in the game industry has happened before when we have worked together...
Click to expand...

Now you have made me even more eager for this game. I am glad you are working together, and i look forward to a masterpiece!
 
nadia911 said:
The EU game series are the most boring and ugly of the market, even after the large number of patches (HoI 3, EU III, etc) and expansions

AGEOD, however, produced excellent and beatiful WARGAMES, so far

Is my opinion, sorry, but I see nothing revolutionary for good

I estimate that my opinion did not like, and they admire anything that has the seal Paradox... Luck
Click to expand...

.....:rofl:
 
nadia911 said:
The EU game series are the most boring and ugly of the market, even after the large number of patches (HoI 3, EU III, etc) and expansions

AGEOD, however, produced excellent and beatiful WARGAMES, so far

Is my opinion, sorry, but I see nothing revolutionary for good

I estimate that my opinion did not like, and they admire anything that has the seal Paradox... Luck
Click to expand...
So it's Paradox's most successful franchise why?
 
Well, with out the AGE engine I don't see this game being that good. The AGE engine is very good and I really like it.
Buying a game using the AGE engine is a no-brainer. It's going to be great because AGEOD guys rocks.

I'm probably won't buy this game because of the fact it doesn't use the AGE engine, isn't really a turned based game.

Just not my style. Back to the old real AGEOD games.

So sad. :( I guess will wait and see how this new game turns out. I hope it's good.
 
I don't understand why people are disappointed. If you like Napoleon's Campaigns and you like the AGE engine then play the game that already exists and has both of those features.
 
For all those who complain about it not being an AGE based game, if you are a fan of AGEOD and you shun this game, that makes the chances of there never being another AGE game that much greater.

As mentioned, I am not the biggest fan of the Napoleonic era but I'll buy it to support AGEOD. They are good people. :D

I wonder if Pride of Nations could be adapted to the Clausewitz engine? It's an absolutely brilliant game IMO and it's only significant drawback is the in between turn waiting times. Perhaps that could speed it up somewhat?
 
I think the real dissonence between the two is that NCP is/was a War Game, all about units, leaders, maneover and attack - while EU series has a lot more character driven and social concern elements (style of government, ministers, treaties, relationships) and a lot less focus on the War Making/Units/Battles. I am hoping for a more historic War Game than even HoI3 is which is entirely possible with either game engine - it will be the Designers that push how historic and how WarGamish the final product will be.

I've played both - and I have to say that the NCP game was frustrating for me (very, very hard to win) but was informative, interesting and I eventually learned something about how to manage supplies in their game design. EU has an ease to its interface and lots of things to weigh when ploting your expansion/survival but I was quickly bored to tears with the pokey pokey shoot shoot battle interface. I hope that some elements of the AGE battle screens will come over to (and maybe help other) Paradox games.

I am more interested in War Games than Social Sims - and I dom't mean that term as an insult but as a definition of the category of game that concentrates more on the Civic/Social building of nations than the projection of the force of arms. I would hope the first Dev Diary would define if this is more War Game or Social Sim.

(Example - a bit extreme, yes - A Social Sim would have Josephine Bonaparte as a character. If she is in the game, then I am out. I don't care who she is sleeping with or what bonuses it might give the Little Emperor.)
 
I'm lamenting all about EU (graphics, AI, Units, history... all), Total war saga is superior in every way (and sales...), both are aimed at the same public, basic wargamers not looking for a high quality product as PRE-PARADOX AGEOD wargames, in a vague attempt to capture more public the quality is down, so can play someone with no experience, the true grognards be removed to find another source of challenge and fun.
Firaxis applied the same policy and was not bad, but the current players are not the same as in Civ3 or Alpha Centauri, the sales increased, but comparing the CIV 5 with CIV 3 the low note on the final quality is notorious, atleast for me ...

Bye
 
nadia911 said:
I'm lamenting all about EU (graphics, AI, Units, history... all), Total war saga is superior in every way (and sales...), both are aimed at the same public, basic wargamers not looking for a high quality product as PRE-PARADOX AGEOD wargames, in a vague attempt to capture more public the quality is down, so can play someone with no experience, the true grognards be removed to find another source of challenge and fun.
Firaxis applied the same policy and was not bad, but the current players are not the same as in Civ3 or Alpha Centauri, the sales increased, but comparing the CIV 5 with CIV 3 the low note on the final quality is notorious, atleast for me ...

Bye
Click to expand...
TW throws entire regions under 'Rebels'. Now it's not supposed to be a history sim (It's not even remotely close), but it makes the world feel very empty and not even close to history. Also, when did TW have an AI?

You are comparing completely different games. EU was never a Grognard game and neither is TW. AGE are.
 
In EU I have seen many rebels appear as in TW, neither are historically correct.
The TW 3D map is much better than the EU map, light years away
The EU-HoI AI is very poor, almost as TW, the AI in Shogun I and II is much better than, say, Hoi III (I have seen Italians landing in Finland!!!) o EU (Portugal o Venice became the greatest superpower in history??)
In the rest of the TW saga, the AI is really bad...
If you analyze it shows they are fairly similar games, not identical...but for the same public, neither better nor worse , just another public no-grognard

"EU was never a Grognard game and neither is TW. AGE are"
We fully agree on this point, THE point

Regards
 
Whats wrong with the Italians landing in Finland? Why would you bother to play a game if its going to be exactly the same every time and you know what is going to happen?
 
Total War has it's good points and bad points.

Empire: Total War however, was also an embarrassment to the PC gaming industry. Biggest waste of money I ever spent.

Shogun II is a Steam exclusive. Just like Civilization 5 and they are both shallow games with not much to them after you scratch the surface.

NCP2 will be a good game and will be a lot better and a lot more in depth than the shallow Total War series.
 
From a realistic point of view I really prefer real time strategy. The turn by turn strategy have the problem that it is totally unrealistic and depending on what number you are on the "faction rotation" you will be smartly helped/disadvantaged.

But then don't compare these games to TW serie. TW is very casual, the strategy has no real impact on the victory, the only thing that count is that you are better than the AI in battle... And moreover since ETW, CA is taking a really bad relationship with custommers (yep, DLC, no modding, they look like the Cod of Strategy).

Anyway, France and Sweden are too great countries, so it's not really necessary to overpowered them, they already are (which is not the case of England :blush: (this is a joke, not a troll !) )
 
StilgarSinople said:
From a realistic point of view I really prefer real time strategy. The turn by turn strategy have the problem that it is totally unrealistic and depending on what number you are on the "faction rotation" you will be smartly helped/disadvantaged.
Click to expand...
AGEOD games have simultaneous turn resolution. Hence, no player is at an advantage.
 
De_Spinoza said:
AGEOD games have simultaneous turn resolution. Hence, no player is at an advantage.
Click to expand...

Yes. To be more exact, all sides issue orders at the same time. Once orders for all sides (in RuS three sides +, in PoN far more, earlier games just two sides) are in, the engine resolves the turn, moving forces simultaneously each day (lets call it an impulse as technically a turn could be any length, not just the common 2 week turns divided into 15 days for movement resolution). Some orders end up essentially cancelled as their excecution has been made impossible by another side's moves (or simply because a previously hidden enemy is discovered)...

By the way, even turn systems other than WEGO (what Age uses) tend to be far more realistic than so called realtime (exceptions would probably for skirmish games where realtime would be the better approach). There are numerous ways to avert the old "problem" of one side always moving first, the other second. You could have initiative settings determined by national doctrine, leadership, logistics and many other factors determining who goes first anew every turn (allowing for double moves at times which can nicely simulate surprise, unprepardness etc.). Alternatively you could have a sucession of impulses where one side can move one or a few units, then the other side one or a few and repeating this until all units of both sides have been moved (or a random end of turn, or a semi-random end of turn, or ...). There are so many ways to use turn mechanics, some are appropriate for only some types of game, others generally work well. So called realtime on the other hand assumes that reallife commanders are always reacting to events, are always under stress and have no time whatsoever to consider their different options. You just have to consider one question. If your game scale is 1 day executed in 1 second of game play, where is the realtime? In fact you have a 1/86400 compression of time, that is in reallife you'd have far more time to consider your options than you do in game (even if one assumes a reallife decision is far more complex, but than you'd also have to consider the staff helping a reallife commnder, which we the players obviously don't have). Ah but there really is no point to explaining this over and over. There are good reasons why grognards and veteran wargame designers have preferred turn based systems these past 20(ish) years (essentially how long computer wargames have been about)...

I've been playing and designing (mostly unpublished) wargames for the past 30+ years now and I've never seen a realistic realtime (non sim) game, not even one able to effectively simulate some aspects of command...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back