I'm convinced that this game is going to involve some kind of tactical battle scenarios. Terrain is important and now leaders are important. Is there any alternative?
Augustus - Teaser #9 - 4th of August 2015
- Thread starter Susana
- Start date
-
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.
rome II with leaders as hannibal barca,scipio,philips v of macedonia and battles more details,with variety in historical units and historical military organitation.
BullGod's Unit Cards mod is awesome. Rome 2 vanilla had horrible unit cards.
You haven't read the novels, then. Looking for alternatives is what they are doing the whole series. A combination of scientific failures and high-level interferences tend to stall the progress for a long, long time. And Spice enable space travel because it makes humans prescient and able to bend space, there isn't a technological way to travel the stars. The Dune universe is some kind of holographic universe, or one where the Copenhagen Interpretation works literally (it could very well be ours).
This is the simplistic Kurzweil reading on the matter. Evidence is piling up that consciousness is a non algorithmic process, so it can't be done by a classic Turing machine. Look up "computability of consciousness", if you are interested.
Not really look back at the last century how often did the name of the guy in the Kremlin matter? How often was he just 'the guy in the kremlin'. Not to mention the man in washington. Sure we remember some of the names but far from all of them (yes we can look them up that's not my point).
A character drivne game is not about some people from time to tiem mattering it's about every leader mattering, and the truth is they don't the ones who do we remember because they stood out and actually amttered as individuals. But empires today do not stand and fall with one man.
Augustus will be named Stellaris confirmed (i.e. space game confirmed?)?
Oh it does but there are plenty of key people in every government, far to many that one will matter as much as the kings and emperors of old. The governments of today rule over far to many people for one person to handle all of it. And the more he delegate the less he'll matter.
Are you saying that kings and emperors mattered less than dukes and barons, because they had to delegate more tasks to more people due to sheer vastness of their realms...?
I'm saying they mattered less (relative to their power) than the kings who mangaed to govern their realms themselves. I also may consider that they mattered less than the greater collective of their dukes and barons. The ideas that spread through the nobility at any one given time might actually have affected the fate of the realms of our history more than the rulers who sat at the top of it all. But that is a discussion for another time.
Also if you want the individuals who formed our history post renaissance you shouldn't be talking abut kings and generals but of philosophers and scientists. But not even them matter that much as individuals, if newton had not lived then someone else would have eventually figured out the things he (suposedly) did. It may have taken a lot longer but the progress of mankind did not stand and fall even with the (suposedly) greatest genius of the last millenia. (in fact the whole romantizised ideal of the genius is causing a lot of antiintulectualism in our modern society, people are holding out for 'geniuses' rather than trusting in the scientists and the method of science).
This strong leader ideal (and the cult of personality) basically caused the second world war, and how people consider it feasible or even desirable that it return is truly frightening. It shows how little faith people today have in our modern society and ideals.
Last edited:
It's more complicated than that. Society is composed of individuals who band together. While the collective can have far more power than any individual, at the same time said collective is doing what the leader - elected or not - decides. While emperor could've been less powerful than some of his subjects the system itself kept them in place, because they gave him power over them and risked being swarmed by other loyal subjects. What's really curious is - this is no different in modern times.
It mattered a great deal that George Bush was elected over Al Gore. It mattered a great deal that Obama was elected over McCain. It will matter a great deal who is elected come november 2016. It also mattered when Petraeus was appointed to Afghanistan, or who got appointed in countless important and influential decisions.
If you think individuals no longer matter, that just shows you don't actually follow politics all that well and don't understand the extend to which leaders let themselves be controlled by their individual whims and emotions.
Our societies work different now than they used to, but it are still individuals who run them. It is actually an unrealistic weakness of modern games like Victoria or HoI or even EU that they abstract the nations into single indistinguishable masses, without the idiosyncrasies and fancies of actual human politicians.
And within the context of a game, individuals are also abstractions representing larger societal forces like cultural movements and parties. Which they are in real life too, to a limited extent.
If you think individuals no longer matter, that just shows you don't actually follow politics all that well and don't understand the extend to which leaders let themselves be controlled by their individual whims and emotions.
Our societies work different now than they used to, but it are still individuals who run them. It is actually an unrealistic weakness of modern games like Victoria or HoI or even EU that they abstract the nations into single indistinguishable masses, without the idiosyncrasies and fancies of actual human politicians.
And within the context of a game, individuals are also abstractions representing larger societal forces like cultural movements and parties. Which they are in real life too, to a limited extent.
But what do I know
Try what the game actually is. What all of us here would like to know.
Eh... which kings managed to govern their realms themselves...? Do you really thing kings rule on their own? It's not that easy. They have to delagate power too. Not even to dukes and barons but to ministeriales too. They had officials too.
- Nov 5, 2013
- 923
- 1.135
Haha.. I was more refering to one of the posts further back about the trademarking name-thingie.
Edit: My bad, someone mentioned it in the #6, 7, 8 hint thread, and not this one.
Last edited:
From reading this thread, I guess the consensus is that it will be a space game.
Is the announcement on Day 1 of Gamescom -i.e., tomorrow (05-08-15)?
The elections being important, the portrait from yesterday's hint and this emphasis on leaders can only mean heavily character-based gameplay. So. As others have guessed: Dune?
Personally, it would be grand strategy, so I'm happy.
Is the announcement on Day 1 of Gamescom -i.e., tomorrow (05-08-15)?
The elections being important, the portrait from yesterday's hint and this emphasis on leaders can only mean heavily character-based gameplay. So. As others have guessed: Dune?
Personally, it would be grand strategy, so I'm happy.
MrNibbles is never going to reveal anything about the game. He'll have too much fun watching the forum implode on the official announcement to ever do that.
- Nov 5, 2013
- 923
- 1.135
Spot on... as I mentioned earlier. I really enjoy reading everyones speculations. And yes, I will be reading the forums when the project is finally revealed.
Marked! I hope there's a live stream on Twitch or something that we can all watch!
Edit: and there is - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/gamescom-2015-live-stream.873989/
I don't want any spoilers but tell me this, do you think will we be surprised? Do you think it will be a pleasant surprise?