Paradox please make ETW type game

[woz]

Could you please look at making a ETW type game and team up with the makers of EIC.

Most people would know that CA has been heavily criticized by Paradox and also the general gaming community over ETW. How ever CA didn't take to kindly to being criticized by Paradox or anyone else for that matter.

There have been many patches that have come out but the game isn't still fix. CA said there will be no more patches to fix the game.

As far as i am concern i will never buy another CA game ever again.

So i would really like to see Paradox maybe commission Nitro the makers of EIC to make a ETW type game and show CA how it is done.

I am sorry if this is in the wrong thread i wasn't sure where to put it. But i do hope this will get Paradox attention.

 

[slugo]

this is a good idea. EIC has the missing link. imagine a paradox drand strategy combined with the EIC tactical battle engine. this is the missing link. paradox never seemed to want to get into writing tactical battle programming, but now they have a partner who has some experience with it.

 

[unmerged(89088)]

Also I agree woz. Nitrogame looks having mod-friendly concept and if the game have land battle engine, it will be more interesting for modders than ETW which is not easy to customize.

 

[woz]

Also I agree woz. Nitrogame looks having mod-friendly concept and if the game have land battle engine, it will be more interesting for modders than ETW which is not easy to customize.

I just want Paradox to make this game to show CA how to make a game. And CA attitude to gamers isnt helping them. I predict there next game Napoleon will be a flop. Because of ETW people wont bother buying it once bitten twice shy.

 

[unmerged(137712)]

Sadly I beg to differ. From the little exposure I have had to ETW it seems CA's stock and trade is Land Based warfare. Napoleon is primarily a land based game or essentially ETW with out the Naval aspect. So in that sense I see Napoleon as more of an add-on, with new uniforms, battlefields and tactics, than a new game. But I am sure the ground pounders out there will likely snap it up.

The problem I see with ETW is that they tried to apply the same land based control and battle system to a naval environment. The primary difference they overlooked is that land based warfare is primarily move to a position, STOP, then attack. You can not have your troops constantly on the move because they will be too tired to fight. In a seaborne fight ships do not come to a stop. But the biggest issue I have with EIC is the tactical control system. Until they come up with a way to issue orders that stay in effect until manually counter-maned-ed I do not see much future. Currently as soon as you go to direct command (the only way to get your feet on the deck) all previous waypoint orders are lost. Also EIC needs to have better speed control. The current system of fast, medium fast and drift just does not work really well. The ships tend to ride a bit high, the waves appear to much to close together and much too high for the wind speed.

Please do not mis-understand I would love to see EIC morf into a full blown sailing ship simulator. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Just my two cents.

Greg.

 

[unmerged(89088)]

Will Commander: Conquest of the Americas have land battle engine?

 

[unmerged(136238)]

I agree with OP. The basics of ground battles were worked out years ago with games such as Sid Meier's Gettysburg and CA has failed to learn from them. I had more fun playing he original Medieval Total War than any subsequent titles. Paradox doesn't have to get complicated in the 3D arena in order to exceed the current CA titles.

 

[unmerged(65128)]

I agree with OP. The basics of ground battles were worked out years ago with games such as Sid Meier's Gettysburg and CA has failed to learn from them. I had more fun playing he original Medieval Total War than any subsequent titles. Paradox doesn't have to get complicated in the 3D arena in order to exceed the current CA titles.

I agree too, considering land battles in this game "Take command 2nd Manassass" by Madminutegames far exceeds the CA land battles. In TC2M you have thousands of troops put on the map and shown in a realistic way the total war games arent even close to that games AI or magnificense.

It shows that you dont need an extreme graphic to make a game that people would love.

 

[Damascus]

That's just it. The graphics in TC2M aren't up to the Total War standards but the game is great. I think the audience for these complex games aren't as interested in eye candy as first-person shooter crowd.

 

[unmerged(91995)]

Well talking about paradox and total war...

First they have Lionheart: Kings’ Crusade (Neocore) Who specialise in medieval total war style land battles.
Secondly they have EIC for naval Land battles as well as for a potential trading system in the "Paradox total war"
Thirdly they have themselfes (paradox xD) for the campaign map of the whole thing Nobody could be better for that ^^

Combine all 3 and you have the perfect dev team for a game possibly greater than anything creative assembly could setup ^^

 

[unmerged(19173)]

I like the idea of adding to the Paradox strategic level depth a tactical (and operational) level battles.

I think along the lines that sometimes massive strategic superiority was defeated by superior tactical and operational skill: e.g. Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and etc.

I have and play all the Total War games even though their strategic level is inferior to Paradox. It is because it gives me a great pleasure against all odds to raise an obscure single province country to world domination, which wouldn't be possible if played on the strategic level only.

 

[unmerged(199719)]

East India Company is a game focused on naval strategy but I think that the gameplay is poor, with some mistakes and It makes the game boring when you have played it during a month. First of all, being a naval strategy game, you can manage only 5, five ships per fleet and the biggest battles have only 10 ships! (including the ships of your enemy of course). Secondly, there are a lot of different type of ships and this is good but some of them are unnecessary in that game: sloop, schooner, cutter and xebec. I can´t imagine a cutter sailing from london to India. That's ridiculous! Long journeys need a lot of space in the hold of the vessel for storage of supplies. That type of ships were used in Mediterranean Sea but not to cross the half of the world. Another mistake I found is the galleon, 18-gun galleon? In 17th century galleons had up to 60 cannons. For instance, Red Dragon was a 38-gun galleon of English East India Company. Finally, the Battle of Trafalgar addon. OK, well... 15 ships per side is much better than 5 ships per side but historical documents tell us that franco-spanish alliance had 33 ships of the line in battle (15 spanish and 18 french) and 27 ships for english side. The smaller ships of the line had 64 cannons: Africa, Polyphemus and San Leandro. Santisima Trinidad has 46 cannons in the game! This is ridiculous, historical documents tell us that Santisima Trinidad had 140 cannons, the biggest ship of the line then with four decks.

Comparing with ETW, EIC game needs more historical accuracy. The battles of ETW have maximum of 20 ships per side, EIC have 5 per side and in Battle of Trafalgar 15 (insufficient). In ETW there are various types of ship of the line: first rate, second rate, third rate, fourth rate and five rate. In EIC ship of the line heavy and light. ETW is more faithful with Royal Navy, whose classification by type of ship of the line is precisely the one shown in ETW.

Finally, EIC ships look tiny compared with ETW ships with high detailed crews and vessels.

All these differences make ETW more interesting and entertaining than EIC.

 

[unmerged(207113)]

There is a certain irony to this, is there not?

Paradox's lead programmer criticising Empire: Total War is one thing, but I'm sure the chaps over at Creative Assembly must have had a collective stroke on having tried their hand at the 'historical' grand strategy tour-de-force that is Hearts of Iron III.

Paradox, indeed.

Regards,

Austen.

 

[unmerged(65128)]

There is a certain irony to this, is there not?

Paradox's lead programmer criticising Empire: Total War is one thing, but I'm sure the chaps over at Creative Assembly must have had a collective stroke on having tried their hand at the 'historical' grand strategy tour-de-force that is Hearts of Iron III.

Paradox, indeed.

Regards,

Austen.

It's atleast way more historical than total war will ever be.

 

[unmerged(207113)]

It's atleast way more historical than total war will ever be.

In your opinion, perhaps.

The scope for ahistorical results is far, far greater in Hearts of Iron III than in any Total War game. As poor as the Total War AI can be at times, its strategic choices tend to be more logical than many of those I have seen in the Hearts of Iron III forum.

Regards,

Austen.

 

[unmerged(128120)]

For Napoleonic land battles I have yet to find anything to beat "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" for realism and historical accuracy....If you can see past the rather dated graphics. I've even seen it as a free download, so you can't beat the price!
I still enjoy playing the Penninsular War mod by Davros et al. with it's stirring "Richard Sharpe" sound-track. And there was a follow-up in "Austerlitz-Napoleon's-Greatest-Victory"/ all using the Sid Meier's Gettysburg game engine.

And for the serious grognards among you there is: Jean-Michel Mathe's "Histwar-Les Grognards"

 

[unmerged(153936)]

For Napoleonic land battles I have yet to find anything to beat "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" for realism and historical accuracy....If you can see past the rather dated graphics. I've even seen it as a free download, so you can't beat the price!
I still enjoy playing the Penninsular War mod by Davros et al. with it's stirring "Richard Sharpe" sound-track. And there was a follow-up in "Austerlitz-Napoleon's-Greatest-Victory"/ all using the Sid Meier's Gettysburg game engine.

And for the serious grognards among you there is: Jean-Michel Mathe's "Histwar-Les Grognards"

I hit reply before I got to your last sentence about Histwar
Between JMMs continuing to improve the game and interact with the community, I think this will be the serious Napoleonic Wargame for a long time to come.

 

[unmerged(65128)]

For Napoleonic land battles I have yet to find anything to beat "Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle" for realism and historical accuracy....If you can see past the rather dated graphics. I've even seen it as a free download, so you can't beat the price!
I still enjoy playing the Penninsular War mod by Davros et al. with it's stirring "Richard Sharpe" sound-track. And there was a follow-up in "Austerlitz-Napoleon's-Greatest-Victory"/ all using the Sid Meier's Gettysburg game engine.

And for the serious grognards among you there is: Jean-Michel Mathe's "Histwar-Les Grognards"

Then you havent seen the game TC2M There are alot of good mods for that game. Heres some http://www.madminutegames.com/MadMinuteBB/viewtopic.php?t=11282

 

[unmerged(199719)]

Speaking about naval battles in both games (East India Company & Empire total war) these are the differences between both games shown in the following screenshots:

East India Company

Galleon



Ship of the line light (Santisima Trinidad in Battle of Trafalgar)



Ship of the line heavy



Crew of Ship of the line heavy



Battle



Empire Total War

Galleon



Ship of the line 3st rate



Ship of the line 1st rate Santisima Trinidad with mod



Crew of Ship of the line 1st rate



Battle



In East India Company I have max. settings in graphics and in Empire Total war medium to high settings because this game need a very good computer. I wish Commander Conquest of Americas was better than East India Company in naval battles.

 

[unmerged(150720)]

I <3 the ETW graphics, but most CA games suck nowadays...