Hello,
I have been a long-time Paradox customer for over a decade. With the exception of Hearts of Iron 3 your games have given me hours of enjoyment.
However the main issue I've had with Paradox is multiplayer. Specifically 2 things, connection issues and game length issues.
Point one is not worth going over in detail but I'd like to look at point two.
Game duration:
The trouble with playing a Paradox game with a friend is that games have to be schedualed in advance and often can take months to play.
I was a Blizzard custom map maker for a while, examples of my work can be seen here: http://photobucket.com/FockeWulf
The Blizzard custom map community evolved a forumla for a diplomacy game that only takes a fraction of the time to play. The cost of doing this is depth but the amount of time spent playing the shorter version of diplomacies against games like EU3 is vast. This evolution started back in StarCraft 1, onto WarCraft 3 and finally to StarCraft 2. Due to decisions made by Activision-Blizzard, however, the community has been pretty much alienated.
Paradox is with out a doubt my favorite game-developement company of all time and I'm curious to see what the reaction would be to taking up developing a game like this.
The genre is what I called the "1-hour Diplomacy". It can take all forms, from historical to sandbox to survival. I've made 3 myself.
My maps are the following:
World War Zombies: Reanimated
WW2 Diplo/Fate of the Empire
Great Lakes Diplomacy/Greed
Although the are in different eras and with slightly different focuses they all have the same general gameplay.
Its similar to the old Rise of Nations gameplay in the unit to area ratio and the amphibious systems are usually either a form of the Rise of Nations system or the WarCraft 3 variants.
Here is a community site that does both Paradox and these forms of maps: http://diplomunion.com/. Some very famous and popular ones are maps like "Azeroth Wars" which is a Diplomacy/Roleplay set over the entire WarCraft Genre. I have found that many of the Diplomacy players in the Blizzard games also own and play games like EU3 and HoI2 (the most common).
The "1-hour Diplomacy" genre has been a Blizzard monopoly for quite a while and I would like to see paradox grab a share of it. I think the "Free 2 play" or "Freemium" model would be best for this.
The general game play would indeed be very similar to the old Rise of Nations (a game that the global customer base has dearly missed for quite a while) in units to area (basically meaning that a certain amount of units would fill a certain portion of the map and the game balanced around that. This would mean more tactical and simplified gameplay but there are advantages too.
Here are a few potential advantages:
-A larger and broader player base. Paradox games for a very long time to play and this can turn away many players. Also there are incredibly complex and this is also a turn-off.
-More games being orginized. The simple fact is a multiplayer game of say EU3 is a large time investment. Whereas a game like this would be log in for an hour or 2 after school/work and play a few random games then get off.
-This is a market that is mostly un-tapped and as such Paradox can pratically gain a monopoly.
-Paradox getting more exposure from the customer base. A broader exposure via a more simplified and quicker multiplayer oriented game would help draw customers to other, more complex, paradox titles.
Here is how I would suggestion doing it.
There is a game engine used by "Wargame: European Escalation" that would be ideal for this. It allows for strategic play in a tactical environment and seems to be able to handle lots of units and terrain features without over-taxing the computer (this seems to be done by model detail vs distance from the camera. I've noticed what appears to be 3 stages. High-resolution/poly, low-resolution/poly and just a simple icon depending on zoom distance.
You can for instance do the following: Do a tactical version of hearts of iron over a map of Europe. It would restict the play area but then again the simplification and lowered time investment (to about an hour) would be it could fit into people's scheduals much more easily.
I had a layout for a premium map project that went something like this:
-World War 2 Historical and Diplomacy modes.
-Simple visual tech tree. I can provide a video is very similar to the one used in Hearts of Iron 2.
-Purchaseable custom texture packs, units, player flags, etc etc.
-Game played over western Europe and potentially later a full world map.
The third item needs a little explaining. I had in the American tech tree the M6 Heavy Tank as a default unit. However I intended that the player could either unlock or purchase access to the T29 Heavy Tank. Here are the respective tanks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T29_Heavy_Tank
The main difference in gameplay is that the M6 would be a average (but less expensive) heavy tank with a 90mm gun. It wouldn't be quite a match for the Tiger 1. The T29 on the other hand would be more expensive, meaning less of them, but be able to kill a Tiger 1 and even be able to hold it's own against a Tiger 2. The price for such a tank I viewed around 2-5 USD but that was considering that SC2 costs 60 USD initially. For this game the prices can be justifiably higher.
I had a second aspect I was working on. I called this "generals". These were pretty much your overall commander with various stats. For Germany I was thinking having 3-4 avaible at the beginning with others unlockable via perchase. So Rommel and 2 others are there by default. Rommel would give passive and active bonuses to armor. On the other hand a perchaseable one would be Kurt Student. He would allow different play via focus on paratroopers. Dropping units behind enemy lines would be more his style of play. Then another default, Von Kluge, would be more about infantry. He would have defensive bonuses for infantry as well as a manpower bonus allowing for a broad-front approach. The idea is that by playing the game the player would be able to unlock new abilities and "level-up" their general to make him more effective. He wouldn't be a game-changer or game-breaker but he would be able to exert a strong influence.
And this is just World War 2 Era. Paradox can release games across the broad spectrum that can appeal to all audiences using the same engine. Ancient Japan, Ancient China, a 3v3 American Civil War, Rise of Rome, and vertually any other era in history are all doable. If the engine, later on, allows for space games then you could do things like a 3v3 Star Trek: Dominion War as well as a Star Trek Universe game like both SC1 and WC3 had where all of the major empires are in a giant map pitted against each other for galatic supremecy. Again a single game should only take about an hour.
I would really like to see paradox develope a game for this market. I tried to encourage the audience on StarCraft 2 but I wound up being impeded by Blizzard every step of the way. I still very much want to play these types of games and I think Paradox deserves a broader audience. This is the sort of game I can come home from college, play for an hour or two, then do homework. I won't have to orginize a game, just have a spare hour to kill.
The advantage of a well-designed free to play game like this for paradox I think would be worth the time and effort as this is an almost completely untapped market.
Ok Well discuss/troll.
I have been a long-time Paradox customer for over a decade. With the exception of Hearts of Iron 3 your games have given me hours of enjoyment.
However the main issue I've had with Paradox is multiplayer. Specifically 2 things, connection issues and game length issues.
Point one is not worth going over in detail but I'd like to look at point two.
Game duration:
The trouble with playing a Paradox game with a friend is that games have to be schedualed in advance and often can take months to play.
I was a Blizzard custom map maker for a while, examples of my work can be seen here: http://photobucket.com/FockeWulf
The Blizzard custom map community evolved a forumla for a diplomacy game that only takes a fraction of the time to play. The cost of doing this is depth but the amount of time spent playing the shorter version of diplomacies against games like EU3 is vast. This evolution started back in StarCraft 1, onto WarCraft 3 and finally to StarCraft 2. Due to decisions made by Activision-Blizzard, however, the community has been pretty much alienated.
Paradox is with out a doubt my favorite game-developement company of all time and I'm curious to see what the reaction would be to taking up developing a game like this.
The genre is what I called the "1-hour Diplomacy". It can take all forms, from historical to sandbox to survival. I've made 3 myself.
My maps are the following:
World War Zombies: Reanimated
WW2 Diplo/Fate of the Empire
Great Lakes Diplomacy/Greed
Although the are in different eras and with slightly different focuses they all have the same general gameplay.
Its similar to the old Rise of Nations gameplay in the unit to area ratio and the amphibious systems are usually either a form of the Rise of Nations system or the WarCraft 3 variants.
Here is a community site that does both Paradox and these forms of maps: http://diplomunion.com/. Some very famous and popular ones are maps like "Azeroth Wars" which is a Diplomacy/Roleplay set over the entire WarCraft Genre. I have found that many of the Diplomacy players in the Blizzard games also own and play games like EU3 and HoI2 (the most common).
The "1-hour Diplomacy" genre has been a Blizzard monopoly for quite a while and I would like to see paradox grab a share of it. I think the "Free 2 play" or "Freemium" model would be best for this.
The general game play would indeed be very similar to the old Rise of Nations (a game that the global customer base has dearly missed for quite a while) in units to area (basically meaning that a certain amount of units would fill a certain portion of the map and the game balanced around that. This would mean more tactical and simplified gameplay but there are advantages too.
Here are a few potential advantages:
-A larger and broader player base. Paradox games for a very long time to play and this can turn away many players. Also there are incredibly complex and this is also a turn-off.
-More games being orginized. The simple fact is a multiplayer game of say EU3 is a large time investment. Whereas a game like this would be log in for an hour or 2 after school/work and play a few random games then get off.
-This is a market that is mostly un-tapped and as such Paradox can pratically gain a monopoly.
-Paradox getting more exposure from the customer base. A broader exposure via a more simplified and quicker multiplayer oriented game would help draw customers to other, more complex, paradox titles.
Here is how I would suggestion doing it.
There is a game engine used by "Wargame: European Escalation" that would be ideal for this. It allows for strategic play in a tactical environment and seems to be able to handle lots of units and terrain features without over-taxing the computer (this seems to be done by model detail vs distance from the camera. I've noticed what appears to be 3 stages. High-resolution/poly, low-resolution/poly and just a simple icon depending on zoom distance.
You can for instance do the following: Do a tactical version of hearts of iron over a map of Europe. It would restict the play area but then again the simplification and lowered time investment (to about an hour) would be it could fit into people's scheduals much more easily.
I had a layout for a premium map project that went something like this:
-World War 2 Historical and Diplomacy modes.
-Simple visual tech tree. I can provide a video is very similar to the one used in Hearts of Iron 2.
-Purchaseable custom texture packs, units, player flags, etc etc.
-Game played over western Europe and potentially later a full world map.
The third item needs a little explaining. I had in the American tech tree the M6 Heavy Tank as a default unit. However I intended that the player could either unlock or purchase access to the T29 Heavy Tank. Here are the respective tanks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_heavy_tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T29_Heavy_Tank
The main difference in gameplay is that the M6 would be a average (but less expensive) heavy tank with a 90mm gun. It wouldn't be quite a match for the Tiger 1. The T29 on the other hand would be more expensive, meaning less of them, but be able to kill a Tiger 1 and even be able to hold it's own against a Tiger 2. The price for such a tank I viewed around 2-5 USD but that was considering that SC2 costs 60 USD initially. For this game the prices can be justifiably higher.
I had a second aspect I was working on. I called this "generals". These were pretty much your overall commander with various stats. For Germany I was thinking having 3-4 avaible at the beginning with others unlockable via perchase. So Rommel and 2 others are there by default. Rommel would give passive and active bonuses to armor. On the other hand a perchaseable one would be Kurt Student. He would allow different play via focus on paratroopers. Dropping units behind enemy lines would be more his style of play. Then another default, Von Kluge, would be more about infantry. He would have defensive bonuses for infantry as well as a manpower bonus allowing for a broad-front approach. The idea is that by playing the game the player would be able to unlock new abilities and "level-up" their general to make him more effective. He wouldn't be a game-changer or game-breaker but he would be able to exert a strong influence.
And this is just World War 2 Era. Paradox can release games across the broad spectrum that can appeal to all audiences using the same engine. Ancient Japan, Ancient China, a 3v3 American Civil War, Rise of Rome, and vertually any other era in history are all doable. If the engine, later on, allows for space games then you could do things like a 3v3 Star Trek: Dominion War as well as a Star Trek Universe game like both SC1 and WC3 had where all of the major empires are in a giant map pitted against each other for galatic supremecy. Again a single game should only take about an hour.
I would really like to see paradox develope a game for this market. I tried to encourage the audience on StarCraft 2 but I wound up being impeded by Blizzard every step of the way. I still very much want to play these types of games and I think Paradox deserves a broader audience. This is the sort of game I can come home from college, play for an hour or two, then do homework. I won't have to orginize a game, just have a spare hour to kill.
The advantage of a well-designed free to play game like this for paradox I think would be worth the time and effort as this is an almost completely untapped market.
Ok Well discuss/troll.
Last edited:
