If your going that far back might aswell make it 13.7 Billion BC. I want my element creation game!
-
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.
If your going that far back might aswell make it 13.7 Billion BC. I want my element creation game!
The reason I'm not pitching Spore is that I think this can be made as a single, coherent game. Yes, there's variation in the details, in the same way that EU3 is different in 1750 than it is in 1400, but the broad forces of history don't differ as much over time as most people think they do IMO. It'd lose some detail compared to the individual games, and it'd be more complex, but frankly all four are so similar that the detail losses and complexity gains would be fairly minor. If you actually look at the proposal, everything I've suggested is either directly stolen from one of the existing games, a slightly modified version thereof(e.g., factions, randomized tech, infrastructure maintenance), or a plausible extension(e.g., tech loss). I was serious when I said that this could be made as a passable Vicky mod.
Also, is it bad that I halfway want to start writing dev diaries for a game that doesn't even exist?
Also, is it bad that I halfway want to start writing dev diaries for a game that doesn't even exist?
I'm afraid spending any developing resource into the converter will influence the quality of the main piece. And what's more, once the company has learned "how much they can get from the whole base of the fans", they won't be willing to stop and focusing onto making ONE specific decent game anymore. Some game companies I see in recent years have all turned into this dead-end one-way route, most famous one of them is the Blizzard.
So spending much time onto any specific game is what really good for us gamers, while making some easy kits to grind every coin from us are what the board is concerning about. However there is some balance between these two. Once the board has tasted some "easy cash", they will hardly turn back into the old "hard working" way. That's how money grinding company ruined the "cheap fun" of its customer base.
As a thoughtful player, I really cautiously look forward any easy "push" of the game development. Because easy "push" is like drug -- You will get into it easily, but hardly to get out.
would be amazing, BUT i would like it when it would contain the current eu4, hoi3, vic2 gameplay cause you CANT make a gamplay fits to all. so let me explain what i mean:
You start playing with an certain Interface and stuff, some things and Options unlock within the next 200 years, THAN when a certain date is reached, your ENTIRE UI changes and you get entire new Options/economic/war System. Like this: imagine you are in 1200. Then you have a gameplay ui and style similar to crusader kings. Once you pass the end of medieval Age, your Ui changes and you get another System, similar to eu4. Then when you pass another important date again, like 1701, you get a System like in Vic2, where you can build factorys, although you have to unlock it first and not ALL of the new ui is aviable at start. When you reach 1900 you get a ui and Options like in hoi3 (theatres of war and stuff), to make it possible playing with ww1 techniq.
Neverthenless, the map should have hoi3 size all the time. And to make it POSSIBLE for Paradox to complete that game, you can only start a game at cetain Benchmarks, additions would be Benchmark dlcs or mods. I would say 1 Benchmark every system Switch and before every important huge conflict. So i think for 3000 years of time (estimateing 1000 BC to 2000 AD) around 50 Benchmarks.
Of course the UI Switch would happen faster, if the Nation you Play develops faster, for example would China Switch much faster to eu3 like UI and gameplay, than europe, if it doesnt destroy hist fleet and go for Isolation.
You start playing with an certain Interface and stuff, some things and Options unlock within the next 200 years, THAN when a certain date is reached, your ENTIRE UI changes and you get entire new Options/economic/war System. Like this: imagine you are in 1200. Then you have a gameplay ui and style similar to crusader kings. Once you pass the end of medieval Age, your Ui changes and you get another System, similar to eu4. Then when you pass another important date again, like 1701, you get a System like in Vic2, where you can build factorys, although you have to unlock it first and not ALL of the new ui is aviable at start. When you reach 1900 you get a ui and Options like in hoi3 (theatres of war and stuff), to make it possible playing with ww1 techniq.
Neverthenless, the map should have hoi3 size all the time. And to make it POSSIBLE for Paradox to complete that game, you can only start a game at cetain Benchmarks, additions would be Benchmark dlcs or mods. I would say 1 Benchmark every system Switch and before every important huge conflict. So i think for 3000 years of time (estimateing 1000 BC to 2000 AD) around 50 Benchmarks.
Of course the UI Switch would happen faster, if the Nation you Play develops faster, for example would China Switch much faster to eu3 like UI and gameplay, than europe, if it doesnt destroy hist fleet and go for Isolation.
That's one of the biggest problems to face on a large scale game, to make a game work in this scope, you need to have a "dinamic game mechanic" that makes changes to the economy and military system as progress is made, somehow I'ld say it needs to be related to research, but I'ld hate it to turn into a Civ game... also, there's the blobing problem, and the possible problem of having a democratic overteched country with Ironclads and Tanks on 1500...
Granted, this is classically the problem with long-timescale games. But I think that the combination of random tech gain(so you can't blitz the powerful ones) and neighbour effects that provide rubberbanding will prevent it from getting too awful, at least between regional rivals. Across long distances...well, absurd tech leads that result in one region getting wiped out by another sounds pretty accurate to me.
Personally I'd would be just as happy with an official converter for each of the games.
The game the OP talks about already exists. It´s called Civilization. Not long ago they released the fifth game in the series.
Now sonny, listen up — I know for a fact that there's four games in the Civilization series. Always were, and always will be. Just as surely as the sun rises in the East, you see, and just as surely as Martin Scorsese went from »The Departed« straight to »Hugo«, there has never been a sequel to Chrono Trig— I mean, Civilization IV. And you'd do well to remember that. You see, I have opinions about hexagons, and paying gold for roads, and maritime city-states, and one unit per tile. And you wouldn't want to see me opinionated, like I remember I was on September 21, 2010, due to an entirely different matter.
Well, unless you want to, that is:
Well, unless you want to, that is:
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
I swear Paradox was actually planning to do this via a series of expansions for each of their games?
EU: Rome > ??CK2?? > EU3 > V2 > HoI3
EU: Rome > ??CK2?? > EU3 > V2 > HoI3
i would gladly donate money for something like this to happen.
But i also hope that something like this is their goal.
wouldnt it be epic!
from the year 0 to 2000!
But i also hope that something like this is their goal.
wouldnt it be epic!
from the year 0 to 2000!
Given how comically easy it is to conquer the map in CK2, I don't feel like a full grand campaign would be very fun. As a Muslim in CK2, you can easily do a world conquest in a hundred years, if you're a different denomination than the Seljuk Sultan. I'd rather just have an EU4 --> V2 converter.
Or give us good realistic anti-blob machanics, without destroying the fun, give us the possibility to do something without conquering the map.
You're thinking in such large terms, but the fact is no mechanics could reliably model the world and the way it was in the world over such a large span.
If you stick with the clausewitz engine in its current form, and develop EUIV to transfer to Vicky 3's timeline, combined with an HoI4, finally carrying over to East vs. West.
If they're in the same engine and have similar provinces/provinces that can be translated, you could have a decent megacampaign. Also, paradox, if you could make an efficient converter, imagine the publicity you could get for having a game that spans 900 years of history, in detailed fashion! No other series of games could compete!
You're seeing a growing interest in carrying-over of assets: Mass Effect showed this in the RPG market. Perhaps it's time for paradox to do the same for grand strategy.
This plan will of course take place over the next years, probably carrying over into 2016 and beyond. Oh, but it would be epic.
If you stick with the clausewitz engine in its current form, and develop EUIV to transfer to Vicky 3's timeline, combined with an HoI4, finally carrying over to East vs. West.
If they're in the same engine and have similar provinces/provinces that can be translated, you could have a decent megacampaign. Also, paradox, if you could make an efficient converter, imagine the publicity you could get for having a game that spans 900 years of history, in detailed fashion! No other series of games could compete!
You're seeing a growing interest in carrying-over of assets: Mass Effect showed this in the RPG market. Perhaps it's time for paradox to do the same for grand strategy.
This plan will of course take place over the next years, probably carrying over into 2016 and beyond. Oh, but it would be epic.
Its a nice idea, but essentially trying to squeeze what'd be a varying array of different mechanics into a single game brings back memories of how disappointed I was with Spore.
Though part of the disappointment with Spore was how they hyped it up as some kind of immersive scientific simulator, and what we got was essentially five minigames and Create-a-Sim, but with wacky animal parts. Terrific.
What?! Spore is awesome no matter what you guys say. And it always will be.
On topic, I don't think a game like this would work, simply because no nation has existed this long. You can't realistically play as one nation continuously from 0 to 2000 AD. Even Rome lasted "just" ~1500 years, and that's still only if you include the Byzantines.
On topic, I don't think a game like this would work, simply because no nation has existed this long. You can't realistically play as one nation continuously from 0 to 2000 AD. Even Rome lasted "just" ~1500 years, and that's still only if you include the Byzantines.
