Yeah common guys! seriously! You can't sail across the ocean you will fall off the edge of the world! And you can't go to the moon it is impossible! Think Damnit!
Crusader Kings 2 merged with Mount and Blade: Warband
- Thread starter cassius769
- 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.
- Status
Yeah common guys! seriously! You can't sail across the ocean you will fall off the edge of the world! And you can't go to the moon it is impossible! Think Damnit!
↑ Well, "technically" he didn't say it was impossible, he said it was not easy. =)
though I'm afraid something like what we want would require a full re-build of the game code
so, it would only be possible in CK 3. ^^'''... or 4.
though I'm afraid something like what we want would require a full re-build of the game code
so, it would only be possible in CK 3. ^^'''... or 4.
The total war series shows that you could cobble the system together. But look at the compromises in the total war series. The tactical AI for the titles (Both medievals and Rome) I played was not challenging. I'm not sure you could create a challenging AI for a game that tactically plays out the battles. Humans are just a lot better at fighting than computers. The battles became a chore in the total war series pretty quickly because it was easy to win.
But forget simple gameplay issues. If you are talking integrating this with Mount and Blade, image how many battle maps you'd have to create. If you've played some of the mods for mount and blade (and they are excellent this is not a criticism of any of these games) you start to recognize the maps pretty quickly because making good maps in mount and blade is hard. Then you'd have to skin the units, make the weapons, and do all of this content development for all of the cultures. Then you'd have to overcome all of the technical challenges of getting a code base to work between a two dimension strategic layer and a three dimensional tactical layer.
All of this development cost would have to be completed on a budget for a game that would appeal to an audience that is interested in simming middle ages dynastic struggles (I love us but we aren't quite as big as the Madden football crew).
Finally you'd have to turn out a coherent product that focussed on what: tactical battles, dynastic expansion. I do software development for a living and hearing the careless uttering of, 'Oh, it should be easy' is something I hear way to often by well meaning people that simply have no clue how not easy what they are suggesting is. This would be hard to put together technically, from a game play standpoint and maintaining some kind of coherent product.
The mods for Medieval 2 make the AI much smarter and although no match for a seasoned player, a huge improvement over the vanilla AI.
You should really check some of them out if you haven't already.
I do agree that a tactical battle doesn't fit with the gameplay of CK 2 though.
You should really check some of them out if you haven't already.
I do agree that a tactical battle doesn't fit with the gameplay of CK 2 though.
I enjoyed medieval 2 for what it was and The mods did significantly improve the gameplay. I do hope no one equates my critique with a critisism of Medieval war 2. I've never played a tactical war game where the ai gave anything like the challenge a human opponent gives and i think thats because people are better at fighting than computers.
It will never happen and everybody in this thread knows it. But it's nice to dream though 
It will never happen and everybody in this thread knows it. But it's nice to dream though
It will happen if there is demand for it.
Yes maybe, but not because of a thread with so few replies and the same 5-10 guys replying over and over
+ serveral of the ppl replying is against it. I am neutral myself but i am relatively logical in my way of thinking, so i don't believe they will put work into something like this.
uhhh.... highly doubtful.
Yes maybe, but not because of a thread with so few replies and the same 5-10 guys replying over and over
says it best
Yes maybe, but not because of a thread with so few replies and the same 5-10 guys replying over and over
Even if it was easy to implement (which it isn't) it would still be a silly idea. Games which have both tactical battle and strategy map, like UFO: Enemy Unknown or Medieval: Total War focus mostly to that battle and keep the strategy part simple. It is understandable, because when people play games like those they spend most of their playing time on battle map. I mentioned UFO earlier, because personally I find turn based tactical battles more challenging and interesting than real time tactical battles. UFO has bit too small scale for CKII style battles, but maybe something like Steel Panthers -series would work (even if the series is ancient it's AI offered better challenge than Total War AI). However this speculation is as unrealistic as the rest of this thread. The truth is that when I play CKII I want to spend my evening plotting and fabricating claims, not staring some tactical map and thinking which way is best for river crossing and if there's an ambush in the forest etc. When I want to play tactical battles there are plenty of other titles which do it much better than CKII ever could.
However now that we are talking about CKII battles, I wouldn't mind if they added some more variables into it. I don't mean anything as complex as HoI battles, but maybe some more options for flanking, more meaningful terrain and general's traits bonuses etc. would do the trick.
I stated myself earlyer in this thread that, if i wanted to play a game like M&B warband i would simply do that. This games war system isn't "perfect" as it tends to become a game of sieges from midgame to late game. If anything they could maybe reduce the time it take to siege. Another thing is that, if they make every singe game into the same experience i would get bored after a few hours since i have seen it 1000 times before.
King Arthur was nice with its mix of rpg and realtime strategy and in my opinion very good game. I bought those two you mentioned and even if they made the newer ones better I don't think they made them that much better that I would ever waste my money in them.
I have pondered the idea of an MMORPG made by paradox set in a medieval world. Use the engine of the new war of the roses game as a combat system. And have a map full of provinces that players can claim and become feudal lords over. Combine also elements from the new Salem game into that and you got the best MMORPG in the world.
Like a Planetside but with Cavalry charges, Pikes and Bowmen?
I'd sell a kidney for that game
Trying to perfect more than 1 type of playstyle and merging of different game engines usually results in flops or worse, Development Hell and then flop. For every example of a market success there's countless others that just plain bombed or never made it out of Beta. And even those "successes" are only so in terms of units sold. Once the hype is over, it's a different story.
Battlecruiser 3000 ring a bell? (oh man I'm showing my age...)
Battlecruiser 3000 ring a bell? (oh man I'm showing my age...)
Can you name any "merging" of two separate games off different genres that has ever occurred?
Since when Warband and Crusader Kings are so far off you would call them different genres?
- Status