For sure. The Civilization series is really the exception rather than the rule. They pretty much dominate the market with the TBS genre and I can't think of (m)any genuine competitors.
-
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.
- Status
They also tend to be more complex, micromanage-intensive and have a steeper learning curve, so I think that it's not that simple. Sometimes it's hard to compare real-time and turn-based games...
Also, some of the most fun strategy games are turned-based ones, like Civilization, Panzer General, Galactic Civilizations etc. Even HOMM, although it's more of a mix of a strategy game and an RPG game.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.197
- 80.329
I never thought about the Total War games. I just think they're total garbage for the most part.
Well from a business point of view I can understand what Johan says. he is right, TB games don't sell well compared to RT. So it makes sense not to invest in them. They happen though to allow for more complexity and a more flexible playing experience both as SP and MP: I don't have much time anymore to play with work and kid and all, and with TB games one can play 20 minutes to get a turn done than be away from the computer working or something still being able to think about his next move. And for MP it of course allows not to play at the same time, etc...
So I perfectly understand Johan's point of view, but as a matter of fact, I used to play a fair bit of RT games as a student (EUII, CK, VIC, HOI) in the early 2000s. Now that I am too busy, RT is better for me, and therefore the AGEOD system. It is not hostility towards Paradox, in the end the companies tailor to different markets and demographics. I happen to lean towards the AGEOD/MATRIX type of games now. I hope it works out for the best for both companies.
So I perfectly understand Johan's point of view, but as a matter of fact, I used to play a fair bit of RT games as a student (EUII, CK, VIC, HOI) in the early 2000s. Now that I am too busy, RT is better for me, and therefore the AGEOD system. It is not hostility towards Paradox, in the end the companies tailor to different markets and demographics. I happen to lean towards the AGEOD/MATRIX type of games now. I hope it works out for the best for both companies.
They're a bit of both. If you just play at a strategic level it's only going to be turned based for you. Battles are the real time element, which are theoretically optional.
what Johan means I suppose (and I'd tend to agree with him) is that the turn based "strategic" level has not much depth and is not the selling point of the title.
Oddly enough it's about the only aspect of it I enjoyed until recently.
Clausewitz as a combat engine is kind of light - good where the warfare is relatively simple or just one aspect of a strategy game, but a Napoleonic warfare game is going to have to focus mainly on military operations. I was hoping that Clausewitz could be Jomini'd somewhat with aspects of how AGEOD represents the flow of military operations in the pre-armored warfare era.
Susana said:
I wonder if this will have any effect on the 'sandboxyness' of the game? (Assuming the initially planned game would have been as focused on historical details as other AGEOD games).
Everybody should do what they're good at but Paradox should definitely concentrate on making short time perioded games. 3-4 centuries in a single game is very difficult to reflect and this is the real problem with most of the Paradox games. If you compare HOI and EU series for example you will see what I mean.
To be honest, the splitting of both companies was one of the two possible options which were (very) likely to happen: either that one or the other that PI France would completely cease to exist (all PI only).
I think that PI France / Two Phils simply didn't see their ideas and ideals well implemented under PI - to create a RTS Napoleon II in the first place was indeed far away from their original settings, and I could never understand the merging except from an economic (and a somewhat branch specific aspect.
Well, at least they have now the chance to enhance AGE (multicore, turn times etc.).
As always, good luck to both of you.
I think that PI France / Two Phils simply didn't see their ideas and ideals well implemented under PI - to create a RTS Napoleon II in the first place was indeed far away from their original settings, and I could never understand the merging except from an economic (and a somewhat branch specific aspect.
Well, at least they have now the chance to enhance AGE (multicore, turn times etc.).
As always, good luck to both of you.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.197
- 80.329
So NPCII is now going to be a RT game intsead of turn based??? OMFG I am so dissappointed. Well it is one I will take off my list.
Yeah, it was turn based from the beginning, as posted a little bit up the thread it was even France's idea.
I disagree with this. There are people who plays TW games without any battle. I mean, only the strategic part. The mod community can make mediocre games like RTW (Well, not so mediocre...) into jewells as Rome Surrectum 2. If you are thinking in EU:Rome 2, please lurk a bit aroun twcenter mod forums, you will see interesting things.
But both companies (PI and AGEOD) have done the best thing, each one is good doing some things, better they continue that way. We want the best of you two.
NPCII was a Clausewitz RTS game from the start, it was never going to be a TBS game. In fact, I believe Johan has said that it was AGEOD's idea to try a Clausewitz game.
- Status