How complex can we expect CK to be?

[unmerged(14180)]

I apologise for my silly comments between the lines.

Yes i was having a bad day, and then i see so many people Attacking Victoria and HOI......and the rest goes on.

Basically, I agree with people about the Initial release of HOI, it was Terrible.

Victoria is a hard game to first get everything into perspective, and yes, it can be difficult.

But for gods sake.....After reading Johans Sulky post about giving up the Victoria/HOI complexity games....I have to confess, i was not a happy camper.

There was also a Job related incident, but thats neither here nor there, and as i said before, i apologise for bringing it onto the board through my post.

Allow me to explain about my thoughts on going back to EU2:

Going back to the EU2 formula opens a couple of different things, without war, it eventually gets very boring, there is only so much anyone can do when not at war....make a few marriages, go and click incessently on the COTs, and generally upgrade an industry now and again, or send a few colonists.

Apart from that, you have no control over the destiny of your nation, or the direction in which it is going.

Victoria has its faults, but boredom has not been one of them, With the current patch i admit, things need some heavy adjusting, and many options are offline with some of the draconian measures brought into the gaming system especially through the Partisan army rubbish.

Before this, I honestly had no idea that so many people in here preferred the EU2 simplicity, i didn't know what to think.......Then as i said, Johans outbursts have not made anything easier.

At the end of the day, its only a game, if they wish to go and do something different, or release the same old games time after time for simplicities sake, thats up to them, but im certainly not going to be buying games that are like EU2 now, not after tasting better games that they have come up with.

So please, take what i have said earlier with a liberal grain of salt, and put it down to surprise, Disappointment, and outside influences.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Going back to the EU2 formula opens a couple of different things, without war, it eventually gets very boring, there is only so much anyone can do when not at war....make a few marriages, go and click incessently on the COTs, and generally upgrade an industry now and again, or send a few colonists.

Apart from that, you have no control over the destiny of your nation, or the direction in which it is going.

Victoria has its faults, but boredom has not been one of them, With the current patch i admit, things need some heavy adjusting, and many options are offline with some of the draconian measures brought into the gaming system especially through the Partisan army rubbish.

Before this, I honestly had no idea that so many people in here preferred the EU2 simplicity, i didn't know what to think.......Then as i said, Johans outbursts have not made anything easier.

At the end of the day, its only a game, if they wish to go and do something different, or release the same old games time after time for simplicities sake, thats up to them, but im certainly not going to be buying games that are like EU2 now, not after tasting better games that they have come up with.

I prefered the general simplicity of EU2, but I agree completely that peace is almost always just spent preparing for the next war... So my perfect level of complexity would be 5.5 (where EU2 is 4 and HoI is 6). More complex then EU2 and only slightly less complex then HoI.

And something about micromanagement: I LOVE having many options. In EU2 there wasn't much to do, few options, during peacetime. In Viccy there is plenty to do during peace too. But I DON'T love excessive mircomanagement, by which I mean searching through the hundreds of POPs in your empire to find that last unemployed Clerk, or to find a single bloke I can put in an underused Ironmine so I can stop importing Iron...

So: Many options = Good. Annoying mircomanagement = Bad.
Clear as Korvspad as we say in Sweden.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

I hope that CK will be even more complex than Vic.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

I hope that CK will be even more complex than Vic.

More micromanagement would mean directing the daily lives of each darn citizen in you Kingdom... Sims Feudalis, no thank you.

 

[unmerged(12746)]

I think from the time period the game is set we will have less complexity by default in comparison to Vic and HOI. Like it or not the world was a simpler place during the CK period, even for noble's. Where are these levels of complexity supposed to come from? Social reforms? Religion? advances in combat?

As I see it your "complexity modifier" (for lack of a better term) is somewhat limited to the political intriques of dynasties, unlike other games when you have major society upheavals.

There are the Crusades though...

 

[unmerged(12680)]

I think from the time period the game is set we will have less complexity by default in comparison to Vic and HOI. Like it or not the world was a simpler place during the CK period, even for noble's. Where are these levels of complexity supposed to come from? Social reforms? Religion? advances in combat?

I want a full FPS engine in the game so I can participate in jousting tournaments (complete with 20 different lances), fight in the battles and of course fight dragons!

 

[ArmchairGeneral]

Complexity

I like the complexity of Paradox games. I think Paradox could sell many more games if they would design a competent tutorial. I have been playing and buying paradox games for years now and I must admit that Victoria was difficult to learn. Most people don’t enjoy the large learning curve.

I for one like all the micro-management or at least the ability to micro-manage any thing I want to. Paradox could also make this easier for those players desiring simplicity by allowing the computer to do more for you. If Paradox starts to make more brainless shoot-them-up games to compete with other industry giants, I think most hardcore strategy gamers would be disappointed. I know that money is the master, but I’m sure with Paradox’s programming skills a medium can be found whereby all its potential customers can be satisfied.

Paradox, please continue to make your games!!! Total war, although appealing in its combat aspects, fails to provide adequate entertainment. The government models, industry, markets, diplomacy, and grand strategy aspects of your games far outstrip anything your competitors can produce. If you want to sell more games, just simplify the learning curve and more people will get into them.

I look forward to any of your future products, and I have been patiently awaiting the arrival of Crusader Kings. Medieval Total War bored me after a week!!!!! (Lousy diplomacy, grand strategy model)

Three Cheers for Paradox

 

[unmerged(12680)]

I look forward to any of your future products, and I have been patiently awaiting the arrival of Crusader Kings. Medieval Total War bored me after a week!!!!! (Lousy diplomacy, grand strategy model)

There was Diplomacy???

I remember that old thread on Medival:Total War before it came out, and some crazy fanboy couldn't stop talking about how great the Strategic Portion of the game would be...

 

[unmerged(19226)]

More micromanagement would mean directing the daily lives of each darn citizen in you Kingdom... Sims Feudalis, no thank you.

More doesn't mean what you said.
For example if in Vic we were able to choose with which state we want to trade and with which we don't I wouldn't called it Sims.

 

[qvcatullus]

I want a full FPS engine in the game so I can participate in jousting tournaments (complete with 20 different lances), fight in the battles and of course fight dragons!

No, no, no. The first priority should be a Patriarch of Constantinople FPS --

Pick up book. Read book (what are those funny letters?). Now hit 5 to switch to your censer and bless the altar: 83% accuracy!

 

[unmerged(12680)]

More doesn't mean what you said.
For example if in Vic we were able to choose with which state we want to trade and with which we don't I wouldn't called it Sims.

That would mean more OPTIONS added, which I find good. I would like options to support indepedance movements in my enemies empires, for example.

More micromanagement would mean stuff which could very well be called Sim Feudalis, which I find bad.

 

[unmerged(19057)]

does any1 know what we can expect in the game as far as dissent? or sumthing like the BB of europa? im expecting one not-so-harsh, considering it was more acceptable in the period to just march in and conquer another country...but there should still be dissent 4 domestic reasons, of course

 

[Nikolai]

Yes, I REALLY hope the BB system is not as before, both because of your argument and because I think the limitations regarding the size that is possible for an empire to have(that Johan have said is there) will be enough.

 

[Martinus]

does any1 know what we can expect in the game as far as dissent? or sumthing like the BB of europa? im expecting one not-so-harsh, considering it was more acceptable in the period to just march in and conquer another country...but there should still be dissent 4 domestic reasons, of course

I would say it was much less acceptable, unless you had a valid casus belli/claim.

 

[unmerged(6160)]

does any1 know what we can expect in the game as far as dissent? or sumthing like the BB of europa? im expecting one not-so-harsh, considering it was more acceptable in the period to just march in and conquer another country...but there should still be dissent 4 domestic reasons, of course

Actually in this period you should not be able to conquer another soverign realm ie. France taking over Spain without a claim (Royal or Papal). But outside of Christiandom (to Catholics everything non catholic) you should conquer as much as you see fit but would probably have to create new vassal states or kingdoms and a Kingdom would rule very little land directly.

 

[unmerged(19057)]

i agree, conquering another christian state would have severe consequences, i was mroe referring to pagan tribes and muslims...guess i should have been more detailed..

 

[InnocentIII]

It'd be nice to see an AAR, which would tell us alot about complexity and many other things.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

It'd be nice to see an AAR, which would tell us alot about complexity and many other things.

Ebbesen conquering the world as Earl of Orkney(?).. Plantagenets would be just much too easy

 

[Spruce]

Victoria isn't complex, complex is a negative word just meant to break something down so you don't have to worry about it,

Victoria is more of a challenge compared to the boring EU2, not complex. Victoria is well manageable,

Victoria isn't about world conquest, it's about getting first place either by means of prestige, military or industrial rating,

the impact the gamer has - in Victoria - on these ratings is much directer, so after starting with EU1 I really fail to see why you guys are always looking back on EU2 as the "best" game,

the truth is that the game scope of both games is totally different and I like them both,

 

[Snall]

Victoria isn't complex, complex is a negative word just meant to break something down so you don't have to worry about it,

Victoria is more of a challenge compared to the boring EU2, not complex. Victoria is well manageable,

Victoria isn't about world conquest, it's about getting first place either by means of prestige, military or industrial rating,

the impact the gamer has - in Victoria - on these ratings is much directer, so after starting with EU1 I really fail to see why you guys are always looking back on EU2 as the "best" game,

the truth is that the game scope of both games is totally different and I like them both,

Pfff, I almost conquered all of Europe with the US...it was fun...