HoI:IV vs Stellaris
- Thread starter Geronimo1
- 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.
It could to easiely be done, since that puts way too much focus on something that is completly out of scope for an grand strategy game and would completly overload the game. Total War games have realtime battles, yes. But at the same time they lack any depth on the global map, where you basicly only really can do some generic diplomacy and build some buildings and recruit units. GSG games and RTS/TBS games have completly different focuses which rarely work if fused together.
Besides that, as i already said. Sure, lets say they would implement that feature somehow and for some unknown reason. You said an battle would be over in 20-40 minutes. Great, now you only have roughly 1000 more to go untill you defeated the Soviet Union. It would end up in you playing maybe 1 battle a hour and automate all others, which would make this feature completly out of place. Total War has only a few battles compared to an GSG game like Hearts of Iron.
Another problem would be, how you exactly controll those units. You surely cant put literaly hundreds if not thousands of tanks and 10.000 Soilders on the battlefield and expect anyone to be able to propperly command them or even be able to propperly run that on their pcs at all.
Putting them in Total War style regiments would be completly outdated and unrealistic and even RTS games that put alot of effort into realism like Theatre of War, where guns have realistic ranges, you dont even come close to controlling even an fraction of those troops.
- 3
YYes you would play only those battles you deem important,,,same as you do it Total War,,nothing new there. Secondly game of this scope does not exist yet not cuz nobody would want to play it but rather cuz our computer technology is not advanced enough, can you imagine how Hearts of Iron would look like in 20 years???
- 3
No, nobody does it because it is simply very poor game design. You cant overload an game with content where you basicly have to skip half of it. Thats why we have 5 seperate IPs that focus on seperate timeframes rather than one big game that goes from 1444 to 1948 for example.
As the Hearts of Iron Dev team already stated multiple times, if you implement an feature that most people will just skip/automate most of the time, then it is anything but an good feature and has no room in the game. That why there is no more 100% automation in HoI IV and why even the army AI only executes your orders rather than managing the war on its own.
Grand Strategy Games have completly different focuses than Realtime Strategy or Turn-based Strategy games. As much as i like the idea, dont get me wrong, they simply cant translate it into an gameplay that would make remotely sense and would be playable at the same time.
- 4
I totaly Agree with you that anybody desining game like that would have a lot problems on his hand to solve (gameplay wise)...But just imagine how would you build Total War: WW2 edition, it is clear that in that case turn based strategy on world map would not work, you would truly need something more similar to Hearts of Iron 4 plus some realy advanced AI far beyond what we have now. It might turn to look more like Total War or it would be more Grand Strategy based, but it would be an interesting game to play non the less.
Not really sure what all this nonsense is about, the ONLY thing i care for is dat rubber from United Tea Land.
- 2
I'm thinking the scope of work for a developer to combine a GSG with RTS would be so intense that we wouldnt see it until an artificial intelligence could build the game on its own. Paradox is having a hard time with HoI4 with many features missing and plenty of balance tweaks in the future. To throw an RTS into there on the scale of a WW2 battle would be near impossible. Although I love the idea and it is fun to dream... You would need a 100 man team just to control one major country so a chain of command would be needed for the players with a small group of them at the highest rank calling the shots. Now that would be fun!
If you swap the setting of total war to ww2 you also run into the problem that ww2 combat wasnt line and formation combat as it was basicly untill ww1. It was much more dynamic and much less static. Simply puting 150 panzergrenadiere into an regiment and letting them march into an 25 by 6 formation simply wouldnt work.
Infact, when Creative Assembly was asked about an possible ww2 setting they said that wouldnt work, but that they would be interested into looking into the possibility of an ww1 total war at some point in the future.
Thats of course not the only problem developers run into. They also cant make an game that completely overwhelms the customer with content. More isnt nessesariely better. As i already stated above, that is one reason why we got ck, eu, hoi, vic rather than one game covering all of their timeframes.
I will wait for HOI4, just as it is more of a known quantity and I have never really been a space nut.....know if someone makes are really good Star Wars mod that puts all those species and planets in it and I can be the Sith Empire, well that is a different story.
I pre-purchaser Stellaris after watching them play it for hours and hours. Unfortunately work has stopped me from being able to play it however after looking at all the reviews i feel everyone should go buy it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will also be pre-purchasing HOI IV as soon as its available as both look like amazing games for different reasons.
Well I've put in a couple of hours on stellaris and I've enjoyed it a lot, I was gonna get hoi first but I can't wait another month for a new pdx game.
I have to say though that I think hoi IV is gonna be the better game, pdx have poured their souls into that game for a long time to get it right.
Still I'm very glad to have a good game to keep me busy in the meantime, been playing a lot of Vic 2, and I'm burnt out, I also got euiv but just don't care for it that much(I had the same problem with eu iii).
I have to say though that I think hoi IV is gonna be the better game, pdx have poured their souls into that game for a long time to get it right.
Still I'm very glad to have a good game to keep me busy in the meantime, been playing a lot of Vic 2, and I'm burnt out, I also got euiv but just don't care for it that much(I had the same problem with eu iii).
- 1
Happy to say Stellaris so far (3 or so hours, looking forward to more) goes very well, but HoI4 also looks exceptional. I expect to spend more time in HoI4 than Stellaris, but I think it'll come down to personal preference, as I reckon both games are likely to be tops, and be a lot of fun for a very long time. Between the two of them, I doubt I'll need any other games this year at least 
.
.
Played five hours of Stellaris last night, it's pretty good! It's one of those games where you play for 10 minutes and 2 hours pass though.
Not something I'd want to see in one game.....BUT.....
The concept of being able to use a GSG like HOI to generate files that could be imported into a Tactical game, which in turn could generate result files that would be importable back into the Strategic game, would allow you to play out specific battles of a larger campaign. In essence, it's the best of both, with individual (but linkable) games for each aspect. They could be played individually, or used together to provide "everything".
Total War, on the other hand, has a rather rudimentary strategic level which is only a little more than a scenario generator for the individual battles.
I will probably look into Stellaris at some point, but it's not on my priority list. I like sci-fi, but I like WWII and ancient warfare better. I'd love to see Paradox tackle the ancient period, something along the lines of Slitherine's old "Chariots of War" grand strategy game, only with a lot more diplomatic and economic depth.