Yeah, those things could work. I hope the super secret project which Podcat was talking about, is aiming in this direction 
-
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 anyone is interested in playing in a Megacampaign I've started a new one starting in CK II (using the republic dlc) over here starting saturdays
When (assuming It does) victoria 3 comes out the community will an EU IV-victoria 3 converter (or even better some-one manages to make an EU IV-victoria 2 one but the stuff with the engine differences and blah blah blah) though It'd be a good idea to have, I'd pay alot of money for It.
Being a bit of a corrective pedant here, but nope, nation-states in Europe were beginning by EUIV's time period; England and France becoming nation-states over the course of the Hundred Years' War.
With that aside, I think this type of game would have evolving mechanics. The way Rome would be run would be nothing like the feudal era, which would be nothing like the early modern period, which would be nothing like the industrial era, which would be nothing like the Cold War, etc. etc.
So you can see that this is a problem. I also dread how the world would like in 1988 after a long grand campaign, with a patchwork of states and horrendous map borders that would include communist Sumeria in Siberia and capitalist Parthia in Congo.
These problems aside, this game would not only be a Holy Grail in strategy gaming but a tool that would surely be used in academia if it resembles an accurate depiction of how the world could evolve.
Looking at this from a business perspective, this would be a suicidal move. Why would Paradox create one game for quintuple the cost for an audience only marginally larger than each one of its flagship audiences are?
I think, though, if we're looking for examples, Vic2 would do this best, unchanged. It would need more of a character focus, but in terms of simulating populations, competing powers, technological advancement, inventions, economic and cultural development and party politics, it does it best.
EU4 comes in a close second, but only because it abstracts everything to hell anyway.
I think, though, if we're looking for examples, Vic2 would do this best, unchanged. It would need more of a character focus, but in terms of simulating populations, competing powers, technological advancement, inventions, economic and cultural development and party politics, it does it best.
EU4 comes in a close second, but only because it abstracts everything to hell anyway.
Last edited:
impossible, anyone noticed how slow CK2 and even EUIV starts to run in the last 150 years? To run a campaign over 3000 years would require a monster PC. Save files would also explode, and seriously, I don't want 1 GB saves...
I prefer historical depth over breadth. That's why I don't enjoy Civ games that much.
I'd prefer to have specialized games with a converter linking them all together -- one that ideally alters the core game mechanics to deal with altered political map of the world.
I'd prefer to have specialized games with a converter linking them all together -- one that ideally alters the core game mechanics to deal with altered political map of the world.