Teaser #6 - 16th of May 2018

[Plastic_Duke]

i see thats a huge change compared to last time when warhammer 2 was still on e3 . rome 2 was the most played back then but seems everyone is hyped now for fantasy

Well, I hate to be that guy but I really don't think the success of Warhammer TW can be related to any kind of fantasy hype in truth. A Warhammer fan doesn't have to be a fantasy fan. Just like a Star Wars fan isn't what I'd call a Sci-Fi fan. Those are legendary franchises in and of themselves. I mean, I play Warhammer TW because it's a part of my childhood and I love its atmosphere, and also because it's a really good game. Part nostalgia, part gameplay. But at this point in my life, I could not care less about fantasy in general.

Just saying it's not a point I would consider on a marketing perspective. Warhammer is Warhammer, and Total War is Total War. Those were made to go together at some point. I don't believe a fantasy trend is involved.

 

[Sakakaka]

This is why there won't be a modern world game ever.

I don't get it. It's a conflict between Sunni and Shia islam + what I said before. Nowadays, religious problems are not important. It's all about money.

 

[Nicolas-]

Whatever the game may be:
I'd like to see a focus on society, economy, trade , politics and diplomacy.

I want a game where you can really compete against other nations and beat them without the need to wage a war. I think Cold War and Modern Day would really fit that, but I don't know.

 

[Sakakaka]

Whatever the game may be:
I'd like to see a focus on society, economy, trade , politics and diplomacy.

I want a game where you can really compete against other nations and beat them without the need to wage a war. I think Cold War and Modern Day would really fit that, but I don't know.

Absolutely. Society was always ignored and pushed away. I want a game in which people are alive!

 

[Badesumofu]

About time for a new teaser, I reckon!

 

[Plastic_Duke]

About time for a new teaser, I reckon!

"Diplomacy is a big part of the game."

There. Does it help?

 

[Palando]

About time for a new teaser, I reckon!

"The title contains at least one vowel."
Would be as helpful as this one:

"Diplomacy is a big part of the game."

There. Does it help?

 

[Badesumofu]

"The title contains at least one vowel."
Would be as helpful as this one:

Actually that would rule out 'SPQR', so it would be somewhat informative.

 

[furrykef]

That would still discount SPQR.

(EDIT: Dang, beat me to it.)

 

[Palando]

Actually that would rule out 'SPQR', so it would be somewhat informative.

As there's already a game called SPQR, I wouldn't say it helps at all. Could be Rome: SPQR though.

 

[furrykef]

There's literally nothing keeping them from just naming it SPQR if they want to. A trademark only exists if you continue to use it. That game's trademark is surely dead by now.

 

[Badesumofu]

As there's already a game called SPQR, I wouldn't say it helps at all. Could be Rome: SPQR though.

22 years ago a game was released called SPQR: The Empire's Darkest Hour. I'd be shocked if that prevented PDS from now releasing a GSG called SPQR. At worst they might have to pay a pittance to buy the name.

 

[Plastic_Duke]

"The title contains at least one vowel."
Would be as helpful as this one:

Hey, I also got :

"It's important to keep an eye on your manpower."

or

"Naval dominance might be useful at times."

Pick one. Whatever.

Edit : Johan, if you need anymore ideas, just PM me. I'm not going anywhere.

 

[furrykef]

"The game has military units."

 

[Palando]

Hey, I also got :

"It's important to keep an eye on your manpower."

or

"Naval dominance might be useful at times."

Pick one. Whatever.

The latter one rules out a game about Hordes and Genghis Khan.

 

[furrykef]

"It is important to manage one's finances."

 

[MateusMat]

Whatever the game may be:
I'd like to see a focus on society, economy, trade , politics and diplomacy.

Problem is... only a post WW2 game can do that. Victoria doesn't have that much focus on warfare... you can play and almost never wage war... but it's not optimally.

The issue is that the more the riches of a country is generate through natural resources... the best way to acquire that wealth is to get the land its sits upon.

Today wars of conquest are virtually non-existent because it doesn't make sense. First most countries wealth is not determined by natural resources anymore, if I want to conquer Canada for its wealth, I will end up destroying it in the war... and second because of Globalization now it's actually cheaper to buy the resource than to try conquer it.

One example is the supposed "War for Oil". If the Iraq war was really a war to secure oil... look how much the United States have spend prosecuting this war. It just doesn't make sense in the modern world.

Any game set before the Napoleonic Wars, can never have a system where it's optimal to play tall and not wide because it just doesn't make sense. Until the modern world it was always more optimal to conquer resources than to buy it.

 

[Plastic_Duke]

The latter one rules out a game about Hordes and Genghis Khan.

You sure about that? I thought the Kamikaze destroyed the mongol fleet and saved Japan from the mongol yoke once or twice.

 

[Nicolas-]

Problem is... only a post WW2 game can do that. Victoria doesn't have that much focus on warfare... you can play and almost never wage war... but it's not optimally.

The issue is that the more the riches of a country is generate through natural resources... the best way to acquire that wealth is to get the land its sits upon.

Today wars of conquest are virtually non-existent because it doesn't make sense. First most countries wealth is not determined by natural resources anymore, if I want to conquer Canada for its wealth, I will end up destroying it in the war... and second because of Globalization now it's actually cheaper to buy the resource than to try conquer it.

One example is the supposed "War for Oil". If the Iraq war was really a war to secure oil... look how much the United States have spend prosecuting this war. It just doesn't make sense in the modern world.

Any game set before the Napoleonic Wars, can never have a system where it's optimal to play tall and not wide because it just doesn't make sense. Until the modern world it was always more optimal to conquer resources than to buy it.

Agreed, which is why I said Perhaps Cold War/Modern World would best fit this concept.

But quite frankly, I doubt Paradox will make a modern day game. It's never done anything like that in the past.

 

[Fishman786]

I don't get it. It's a conflict between Sunni and Shia islam + what I said before. Nowadays, religious problems are not important. It's all about money.

It's this tendency to reduce entire societies to chaotic evil crazed lunatics raving about their gods whilst reserving real human motivations and interactions for Europeans and Americans (or one's own tribe/nation if one comes from somewhere else) that prevents the resolution of world conflicts in the first place. Real people don't kill over god. They don't kill over their country. They don't even kill over money. Instead the motivations behind violence are subtle and sophisticated, the results of dozens of personal, psychological and external influences all working at once. Real people have vastly more complicated inner lives than the kind of cartoon versions we are presented with by the news and by other commercial entertainment media.