Terra Aeternalis - The story of Earth

[CompactDisc]

Hi people,

Have you ever wondered...
if the Roman Empire would have fallen if Julius Caesar had survived the 23 stabbings with daggers and pencils?
if the second world war would've happened without Hitler being in power?
what a combination of Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts or Iron would look like?

Of course you have! ...well, at least I have!

Regardless of whether you think it would be cool or it would be a bust, I think such a game is a terrific idea, not just for the players but for Paradox as two companies as well. So I thought of a little concept called Terra Aeternalis (I first thought of Homo Aeternalis, since it's about humans, but some people would probably react oddly to it) which can be either one game or a combination of multiple games unless Paradox can come up with a more epic concept. - I also thought of a base game-engine on which time-periods could be bought, but that seemed over the top. Maybe someone else could make it workable?

Anyway, this thread is about making 1 game that combines the others.

Contents:

1. Who would buy this?
2. What would the world look like?
3. How would you make this without losing complexity?
4. A storyline in a paradox game? Blasphemy!
5. This is why it should be made!
6. A note from the author.
7. Changelog

1. Who would buy this?
   
   Who would be interested in buying this game with such a potential to fail (or succeed)?
   First of all, it's made by Paradox Development Studios (PDS)! Well, at least it's a pro for people who actually heard of them.
   
   The problems are really the following:
   • Paradox isn't well known enough to risk such an investment since almost nobody would hear of it and thus buy it.
   • The gamer base might only be interested in specific time periods, why would they waste money on such a big game if they are only interested in a part of it?
   
   So here are some proposed solutions - Assuming Paradox is interested in attracting more attention to themselves:
   • Paradox has a marketing department right? If you're willing to take on such a big project to launch your company from relatively unknown to a widely known ground-breaker, they will need some more funding. I suggest opening up some sort of donation box for Paradox, since right now there seems no way to donate to the company or any of their projects - besides buying all the games multiple times. As soon as you have a decent amount of money together either from sales or donations, or both obviously, you can invest in a larger marketing campaign and thus larger projects altogether.
   • If the gamer base is interested in only specific time periods, give them the option to get only those for less money. This can be done by keeping the games in their current scheme, while making them fit into each other. Perhaps by actually adding installations up into a single game folder if you buy more than one with the option to enable or disable (a lot like mods in CK2).
2. What would the world look like?
   
   Now! On to the map I say!
   People tell me it's impossible to have a single static world throughout history, and they are damn well right!
   
   I introduce to you, the dynamic world of Terra Aeternalis:
   !Warning! I'm still writing on this section so I can bring it over a bit more structured and organized. This is not the final version, only the basic ideas, I do have a dynamic system in mind for the Countries/Regions etc.
   
   • Continents:
     I'm talking actual landmasses, like Eurasia + Africa or Afro-Eurasia, America, Oceania, Antarctica. Antarctica is a bit cold to live on early in-game, but during WWII there could be expeditions there already, with large investments maybe even colonies - This makes for great what-if scenarios.
     
     Civilizations spreading over more than one continent would suffer severe penalties in some games. This kind of penalties could lead to the easier splitting of large empires into new countries during low stability periods, like the USA or Australia did. Of course internal trouble could rise from secessions, like revolution. I like this effect, but not the cause, being mainly on another continent should not equal destruction of your empire.
     The effect could also be achieved by having supply lines to actually support those external provinces. The political loyalty could be determined by the speed at which envoys or messages can travel between both countries and the amount of laws and control a country has in its colonies.
     
     
     
     
     
   • Sub-Continents:
     The regions would be the bigger collections of land mass, like India, Britannia, Iberia,... (think Empires in CKII)
     Regions determined by alliances of countries and real historical empires and some alternatives perhaps (Scandinavian Empire anyone?). These would create new specialized interfaces like the Holy Roman Empire (EU3), Roman Empire (Senate, popularity,...) etc.
     
     
   • Countries:
     Country-size areas like Italy, England, Spain,... (think Kingdoms in CKII)
     Countries are ruled by kings, presidents, generals (military dictatorship), etc.
     
     
   • Regions:
     Smaller subdivisions of countries: Florence, East Midlands, Catalunya (think Duchies in CKII)
     Regions are made up of counties, shape and size depends on allegiance of counties.
     
     
   • Counties:
     Each County has some holdings or cities/forts in them but only one main capital. Yes like in CKII!
     Counties would be made up of districts, which districts depend on the history of conquest and governing bodies of the current owner. (more info later)
     Armies are managed at county level. Divisions are auto-dispatched to Districts like in CKII, sieging them one-by-one until the need to delegate those pops up (somewhere after industrialization) through (radio?) technology.
     
     
   • District:
     Each district has one holding/city in them. And some smaller surrounding towns not worthy of mention. They work like holdings in CKII.
     Districts are the only unchangeable parts of the map, making up the counties and up. Divisions are positioned here and siege the city.
     
     
   • Tectonic Activity:
     The continents won't shift since the game doesn't span millions of years obviously, but earthquake and volcano events should most likely happen around those locations. Volcanoes are usually not changing too much in this short of a historical timespan, but rarely a new one pops up somewhere on a fault line, could be an in-game event destroying cities or villages and troops. Earthquakes happen all the time destroying cities, decimating populations and causing other bad things.
     
     
     
     
     
   • Exploiting resources:
     Resource locations have always been quite static, except for being able to be mined out or stripped. Forests can disappear if they are not replanted, early steel industry can grind to a halt if coal runs dry. This can lead to depressions, especially in small countries.
     
     Material deposits:
     - Add several resources to each district, make sure each has different amounts per 'level'.
     - A level is difficulty to reach a specific resource, you need more technology to access the higher levels.
     - You also need higher techs for actually finding these resources.
     - Materials can/need to be converted to higher materials for some technologies/units to be researched/produced. A bit like oil in HOI 3.
     - Trade is much more interesting this way (And harder to program, muhahaha! Well, it's not too bad. There are good systems out there already, check out SuperPower 2 for a good trade system for multiple goods per country. But please make it less buggy.).
     - EVERY province would need resource files, including the ocean - for oil rigs, fish, etc. This could lead to a much bigger game file.
     
     
   • Power over the water:
     Damming rivers may change the flow of rivers or create lakes, it should be possible to completely flood a district and destroy all holdings in there, just because it happens in real life and it would be an awesome mechanic. Same with flooding down the river, it could disrupt life and kill many down the stream. Regular flooding doesn't need to be visible on the map, but a lake or flooded district should show up clearly.
     
     I suggest making rivers flow across pre-programmed borders which don't have to correspond with district borders. Lakes can be formed on smaller scale near the river and would flood any cities that end up in the lake. They form upstream from where the dam was built. I can imagine floods to be hard to program like this, but I'm sure it's doable since I saw similar mechanics made by 2 of my co-students in college for the final exam in programming.
     
     Now, seas might be a bit hard, but I suggest dividing the coasts of seas and oceans into smaller parts. This way every coastal district can have its own harbor (including the ones near rivers) and people like the Dutch could dry up small inland seas and make land there. Remember, we don't control the oceans, even in this day and age, so please don't make it possible to terraform the planet into a giant dust ball.
   
   
   

   
   - Originally posted by Svip​
   
   
3. How would you make this without losing complexity?
   
   If you read the above part, you can see it's actually getting more complex already. Wait until you see the next part! I try to keep the programmers in mind though, I hope I'm not getting people scratching their heads yet.
   
   !Warning! I'm still writing on this section so I can bring it over a bit more structured and organized. This is not the final version, only the basic ideas. This section will be expanded on.
   
   • Interface
     The interface poses a lot of problems like how would you keep all that is currently in the games together without half the GUI being useless or the entirety being cluttered. That is why we need an evolving GUI that changes over the ages. The GUI would depend on your government type and technology. In the beginning men had smoke signals! Now we have satellites, cellphones, internet, telepathy... err, forget I said that last one. Every menu would be part of a technology researched or a change of government.
     
     What this basically boils down to is deciding where to start and where to end:
     Start with a village overview counting populations, clubs, food and water supplies, end in HOI3 style overviews and menus.
     Or should we start with the Romans since that's where the first game starts?
     That way we can already focus beyond the districts and think on a slightly bigger scale. It would definitely be easier for the dev team to start there.
     
     Menus should only appear when valid in the world, by making them grow over time it's easier to keep them in line.
     
     
   • Technology
     Technology trees should not show far future research, there should be a possibility to research something but get completely unexpected results like a leap in progress or a bad side effect. There could also some 'alternative' research paths when deviating from historical routes (think Leonardo Da Vinci, or any alternative designs that theoretically should work in real life).
     
     If you can't think of alternative paths: hold a contest for the player base to think of something. I'll add suggestions in this thread if I ever get suggestions from other people.
     
     
   • Trade
     The multiple material deposits from the map section would make for an interesting trade system, but it shouldn't be magical as it is in most games. Trade and supply convoys should always be part of this game series, always, since it allows sabotage, destruction and diplomacy affecting economy which is good! Again, look at Super Power 2 for a similar trade system, but I suggest allowing the menu to trade specific goods with specific countries for all the micro-management lovers out there.
     
     
   • Game Pace
     There should be a pace setting like short/marathon as there is in Civilization 5, but that's probably the only aspect you should take from that game. It could be based on difficulty, but that would just make it more difficult for marathon players to survive. That's why I suggest just slowing down income and technology rates to realistic rates. Or speed it up for the shorter versions obviously.
   
   The game would be real time, like the other games are right now. The game pace can be altered with + and - like they always could have, but a bit more now. Maybe if it is necessary for multi-player, have some automated slowdown set up, but it seems a bit unnecessary. Time would pass from hours to years per minute, basically from the slowest setting in any PDS game to the fastest. In multi-player it would be easy to control, speed would just slowly decrease over time. Though if anyone has a better idea, feel free to contribute.
   
   
4. A storyline in a paradox game? Blasphemy!
   
   Yes it is.
   BUT! You make your own story using characters from your dynasty! Like in CKII, your dynasty defines you as a player. If your dynasty dies out however, your game is over. This enables you to revolt against your own country and start revolution if you ever lost power in your country. (Like in an elective republic or any democracy.) This allows for a lot of diplomatic intrigue and of course requires a working political campaign system to win votes (in other words, a bribing and blackmailing spy network).
   
   
5. This is why it should be made!
   
   Benefits for the corporation:
   • Combining all the PDS grand strategy games would be a first in gaming history, there isn't a single decent game out there that completely encompasses all of human history on a global scale.
     -> This means Paradox might finally get the credit it deserves and become a globally known competitor for the Civilization series (which in my opinion is already inferior, just more popular).
     -> I'm not 100% sure, but people on the Total War forums seem to like paradox a lot since there is an entire sub-forum devoted to their games. They might spread their knowledge throughout Total War people.
     -> !Warning! this requires very careful marketing. Look at CCP Games, they are doing something similar at the moment, trying to break boundaries that others were afraid to break, they own another niche market.
   • This will also make the entirety more stable (since everyone works on the same base code, hence getting more bugs fixed)
   • Bring out more things, faster.
     - Developers spend less time on making maps and data files because there is only one game.
     - Developing only 1 game will make it faster to develop since the team can work together on just 1 main project.
   • Instead of making Game version 1,2,3,... you can bring out expansions for much longer, maybe even for ever, since you have less other game to delegate to.
     -> If you want to make a new game in the same era that is radically different, I believe it should be possible to do it in an expansion instead of a new game. But then again, I don't work with Paradox, so I don't know for sure.
     -> This way instead of making a new version every so many years you can keep supporting (with expansions and dlc, not just help and small fixes) the older games technically forever. Fans appreciate this immensely. Look at any decent MMO - So not WoW (or anything similar) - EVE Online would be a good example of support and player input (except for Q1 2011 which was quite bad).
   
   
   Benefits for the developers:
   • More coding challenges! I know you guys love those! (And I think it is worth it too.)
   • Less work managing the different projects for the games if it is made into one.
     -> One game can be split into projects that are, in my humble opinion, easier to manage than an entire game.
   
   
   Benefits for the players:
   • Expansions and Mods
     -> If there is only one game, there could be major updates, like entire engine-revivals, in expansions that can be enabled or disabled.
     -> You can also make mods easier to manage using the same system.
     -> I read your Modular Expansions text here that seems to provide the perfect solution for this:
     http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...sion-policy-for-the-Internal-Development-Team
   • No longer will google searches for Europa Universalis turn up results for all three games! Well, it will, but Terra Aeternalis wouldn't! - PS: this is a joke, not an actual argument.
   
   
6. A note from the author.
   
   Please remember that this is a work in progress an in no way a finished idea. This is just a quick draft which I hope to complete using ideas from the community in the hopes that Paradox will pick up on this idea and start realistically thinking about this game.
   
   Images and more stuff will be added as soon as I figure out how to lay-out things a bit better (like resizing pictures).
   
   I hereby grant the right to Paradox to claim/use anything in this thread as their own as long as they at least say thanks to the community.
   
   
7. Changelog:
   

   1.00 Made the page
   
   1.01 Some additions and edits in response to Svip
   

   • Updated Game Pace
   • Nerfed some rather naïve advantages for the corporation.
   • Removed all references to the concept of multiple games for the sake of simplicity and focus.
   • Updated Map Concept slightly - A lot to change and be added, just didn't have the time to put it in now.
     

 

[Svip]

You have still not touched on the most important aspect; how are you going to incorporate the game mechanics? That is a far more important question than the interface. Once you have decided for the game mechanics, much of the interface designs itself.

You mention game pace, but not whether the game is turn based. Is the game going to be like regular PDS games, where 'turns' are one day (one hour in HoI) and effectively the game becomes a 'pausible real time' game? Or will it be turn based like Civ?

You also mention the concept of the map (a discussion I also lead in the Ask Paradox thread), and you seem to have taken some inspiration from what I wrote, but you don't mention how the map is going to appear to the player. Will factories still be built on 'State' level as in Victoria 2? Will armies be moved through counties or districts? And if districts, do we really need that combat depth until a game like Hearts of Iron 3?

 

[CompactDisc]

You have still not touched on the most important aspect; how are you going to incorporate the game mechanics? That is a far more important question than the interface. Once you have decided for the game mechanics, much of the interface designs itself.

You mention game pace, but not whether the game is turn based. Is the game going to be like regular PDS games, where 'turns' are one day (one hour in HoI) and effectively the game becomes a 'pausible real time' game? Or will it be turn based like Civ?

You also mention the concept of the map (a discussion I also lead in the Ask Paradox thread), and you seem to have taken some inspiration from what I wrote, but you don't mention how the map is going to appear to the player. Will factories still be built on 'State' level as in Victoria 2? Will armies be moved through counties or districts? And if districts, do we really need that combat depth until a game like Hearts of Iron 3?

I'm playing Victoria 2 right now looking at every single aspect, after I did that I'll improve on the map part. And you're right of course on the army movement. I just took a long time to right this all down and will expand on it further asap. I have to admit, I didn't think about the speed of the game increasing over time. I'll have to take a look at that, everything else, I got covered in my mind, now I just have to put it on paper.

 

[Svip]

[*]This is why it should be made!

These thoughts are very optimistic, perhaps encouraging but also naïve at times. Let me break it down.

Benefits for the corporation:
[*]Combining all the PDS grand strategy games would be a first in gaming history, there isn't a single game out there that completely encompasses all of human history on a global scale (besides Rise of Nations, which was very limited in terms of global conquest to say the least -still an awesome game though).

Doesn't Civilization already do this? I mean just if you play on the Earth-map or use one of those 'historical accuracy mods'?

-> This means Paradox might finally get the credit it deserves and become a globally known competitor for the Total War series.

As much as I love Paradox's games, I think it is a falsehood to assume they are a direct competitor with Total War. I doubt many people ask themselves; should I buy Empire: Total War or Europa Universalis 3? The Total War series is famous for its tactical battles, an area that PDS games will never touch (and nor should they).

If anything, such a game as you describe would most likely be considered a 'Civilization competitor', because that is more in spirit with the scope.

(Yes I know it's totally different, but let's be honest, a lot of people compare the two all the time, including me tbh.)

I thought they did that to mock the simplicity of the diplomatic system in Total War games.

-> !Warning! this requires very careful marketing. Look at CCP Games, they are doing something similar at the moment, trying to break boundaries that others were afraid to break.

I would think the fact that Paradox continues to focus on niche markets is quite honourable, other than other developers who sell out and make more dumbed down versions of their games. See Maxis, for instance.

[*]This will also make the entirety more stable (since everyone works on the same base code, hence getting more bugs fixed)

What makes you think that the older Paradox games will suddenly reach end of life?

[*]Bring out more things, faster.
- A lot of the history data is already gathered for the previous games, but mods usually expand on that even more. Look to them for even more data, so there is no need to re-research, which saves a lot of time.

I am sure they used a lot of the research gathered from Crusader Kings 1 in Crusader Kings 2. But I doubt it is going to be the data that is going to be the large obstacles.

- Developers spend less time on making maps and data files because they are all shared.

True, but all PDS games' data files already follow a similar format, so I am pretty sure a lot of it is copied over from older games. Particularly considering they all use the Clausewitz engine nowadays.

- Developing only 1 game will make it faster to develop since the team can work together on just 1 main project. If it's still all games separated, the common base will be done quicker

Actually, more people working on one project can slow it down, because it means more bureaucracy. Just ask Microsoft. If anything, this project should be split into smaller projects, so each developer focused on their thing, probably together with someone else.

[*]Instead of making Game version 1,2,3,... you can bring out expansions that add huge things, like engine upgrades to all games at once:

You mean like they did for EU3, HoI3 and V2?

-> This way instead of making new games you can keep supporting the 'old' games technically forever. Fans appreciate this immensely. Look at any decent MMO - So not WoW (or anything similar) - EVE Online would be a good example of support and player input (except for Q1 2011 which was quite bad).

No new games? Really? That's an acceptable solution for an MMO (for obvious reasons), but people are wondering when EU4 is coming, which will be fundamentally different in some aspects from EU3, changes that could not have been made in an expansion. Once some fundamentals are decided in a vanilla version, they are either very very difficult to alter or impossible.[/quote]

Benefits for the developers:
[*] More coding challenges! I know you guys love those!

I love them as well, but only of they are fun. And for a company like Paradox, only if they are also profitable. That is going to be hard to convince, particularly considering new-found popularity for Crusader Kings 2. I forgot to ask; will your game have characters or not?

[*]Less work managing the different projects for the games if it is made into one.

Actually, I think one big game this complex is going to be more management.

Benefits for the players:
[*]No longer will google searches for Europa Universalis turn up results for all three games! Well, it will, but Terra Aeternalis wouldn't!

That sounds like a meek benefit.

[*]Game save compatibility when still making multiple games.
-> If you bring out the games one by one, you can update the previous games with inter-compatibility patches/expansions.
-> I read your Modular Expansions text here that seems to provide the perfect solution for this:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...sion-policy-for-the-Internal-Development-Team

Wait, what? I thought this was going to be one big game. So it is going to be the same games but with less detail because they are all required to follow a uniformed format?

 

[CompactDisc]

These thoughts are very optimistic, perhaps encouraging but also naïve at times. Let me break it down.

Doesn't Civilization already do this? I mean just if you play on the Earth-map or use one of those 'historical accuracy mods'?

As much as I love Paradox's games, I think it is a falsehood to assume they are a direct competitor with Total War. I doubt many people ask themselves; should I buy Empire: Total War or Europa Universalis 3? The Total War series is famous for its tactical battles, an area that PDS games will never touch (and nor should they).

If anything, such a game as you describe would most likely be considered a 'Civilization competitor', because that is more in spirit with the scope.

I thought they did that to mock the simplicity of the diplomatic system in Total War games.

You're absolutely right about Civilizations, and I fixed it in the text, although I left a Total War reference, because they have a PDS dedicated forum, which to me means that there is at least a considerable PDS fan base on there. About the diplomacy; it's not only that, people keep saying that PDS games have more historic accuracy and detail. Most people there wish PDS games had a better unit movement system and/or real-time combat, but in general PDS fans seem to gain the upper hand in debates.

I would think the fact that Paradox continues to focus on niche markets is quite honourable, other than other developers who sell out and make more dumbed down versions of their games. See Maxis, for instance.

I agree that this is quite honourable, I'm not saying it isn't, I'm saying they could improve popularity of their games.

What makes you think that the older Paradox games will suddenly reach end of life?

I think the old ones already did, there are no more DLCs, no more expansions. That is what I mean, really.

I am sure they used a lot of the research gathered from Crusader Kings 1 in Crusader Kings 2. But I doubt it is going to be the data that is going to be the large obstacles.

True, but all PDS games' data files already follow a similar format, so I am pretty sure a lot of it is copied over from older games. Particularly considering they all use the Clausewitz engine nowadays.

Absolutely true, I removed those from the list.

Actually, more people working on one project can slow it down, because it means more bureaucracy. Just ask Microsoft. If anything, this project should be split into smaller projects, so each developer focused on their thing, probably together with someone else.

Actually, I think one big game this complex is going to be more management.

You're absolutely right again, I went to school for this, I'm supposed to know all that. Can I blame it on being tired?
I edited the section on work and management.

You mean like they did for EU3, HoI3 and V2?

Actually, I mean bigger changes even, complete revamps of the game mechanics. Basically the difference between Crusader Kings II and HOI 3, that kind of changes.

No new games? Really? That's an acceptable solution for an MMO (for obvious reasons), but people are wondering when EU4 is coming, which will be fundamentally different in some aspects from EU3, changes that could not have been made in an expansion. Once some fundamentals are decided in a vanilla version, they are either very very difficult to alter or impossible.

Well, what I suggest is basically similar to making it an MMO. Just making a modular game that can be altered by buying expansions and DLC. That would make something similar to switching from EU3 to EU4 optional in the launcher menu. Modular development with micro-transaction is the future, and as CKII has shown it is quite possible with this series.

I love them as well, but only if they are fun. And for a company like Paradox, only if they are also profitable. That is going to be hard to convince, particularly considering new-found popularity for Crusader Kings 2. I forgot to ask; will your game have characters or not?

Terra Aeternalis would be very similar to Crusader Kings 2 in terms of modularity, and it takes a lot of game-play aspects from all the games in the series. Mostly from CKII again, since it is the best game ever made by Paradox. The game would have characters, I posted a short introduction in the storyline section, will expand on that later, same with everything else. This is supposed to become a monster thread

That sounds like a meek benefit.

It was a joke, don't worry about it

Wait, what? I thought this was going to be one big game. So it is going to be the same games but with less detail because they are all required to follow a uniformed format?

My bad, I didn't make it really clear. I suggested either 1 big game or all games separately, but modular so they can be installed in one folder. Basically added into each other to form one game. I changed it all to 1 game so it is clearer for everyone.

 

[Svip]

Well, it should definitely be one big game, otherwise the individual games may each seem unfinished.

You know why people like Crusader Kings 2? It's not just because it captures the late middle ages in Europe, but because of the characters.

By making a uniformed system, you will need to sacrifice some of the uniqueness of each game. Because even if each game is 'separated', they are still inherently biased by the 'Uniformed Format'. Because if the format is to support characters, then technically each game must support characters, because they must support the format. But characters might be a bit unusual in a Victoria 2 setting. The same is the case for POPs.

So rather than giving people a couple of games, that each seems to be lesser games than their former counterparts, give them one big game. People are not going to be impressed by having save games more easily convert from one game to another, if everything else is gone.

You may be interested in looking at how Spore did its progress. Now, admittedly, Spore did dumb down its efforts and produced a terrible game, but its evolution of the interface would be interesting. Obviously, because of the depth of the game, that one would expect, you will need more detailed technologies than those in say Europa Universalis 3.

Each (or most) (major) technology or technology era (to borrow an idea from Civilization) should bring about a new feature to the game mechanics, which could modify the interface as well. Indeed, it would be troubling if the changes between each are simply just fixed dates. But the whole penalties at science-fiction technologies should still be in place, it's a good way to ensure things mostly progress as it did.

But you are still going to have a problem with the Dark Ages. Since the Dark Ages are often considered a fall back from where we were, players may feel the need to avoid doing the same mistakes our ancestors did and leap past the Dark Ages, continuing ruling a strong Roman Empire throughout. You need some way to A) create downfalls for large empires, B) technological backslash when it occurs and C) make the ensuing chaos interesting for the player.

 

[CompactDisc]

Well, it should definitely be one big game, otherwise the individual games may each seem unfinished.

You know why people like Crusader Kings 2? It's not just because it captures the late middle ages in Europe, but because of the characters.

This is the reason I like the game, and I'm completely aware of that, though I feel confident that the Character mechanic can be pulled through from the start to the very end of the game. You just have to make sure that your dynasty stays in power in whatever country you rule. If you are a democracy you'd be losing power in your country every once in a while unless you play it very smart, so yes, that MAY need a mechanic to stay in power without too many penalties.

By making a uniformed system, you will need to sacrifice some of the uniqueness of each game. Because even if each game is 'separated', they are still inherently biased by the 'Uniformed Format'. Because if the format is to support characters, then technically each game must support characters, because they must support the format. But characters might be a bit unusual in a Victoria 2 setting. The same is the case for POPs.

So rather than giving people a couple of games, that each seems to be lesser games than their former counterparts, give them one big game. People are not going to be impressed by having save games more easily convert from one game to another, if everything else is gone.

You may be interested in looking at how Spore did its progress. Now, admittedly, Spore did dumb down its efforts and produced a terrible game, but its evolution of the interface would be interesting. Obviously, because of the depth of the game, that one would expect, you will need more detailed technologies than those in say Europa Universalis 3.

I know how Spore worked since I have it, I was quite pissed at the makers for screwing things up. Darn maxis... Oh well, I am not saying that the games should be lesser, but you can include a basic version of nearly every mechanic in all the other games. Take POPs for example:
In Roman times, there would be the ancestral difference between Patricians, Plebs and slaves. The plebs and slaves would mostly do the production, while the Patricians did administrative and other senatorial business. The different classes were important back then, and the people could already be divided in classes automatically depending on what resources have the most focus for you as an emperor/king. This later became manorialism including serfdom with Peasants (Freemen, Villeins, Slaves), and the advent of the feudal system which was kept in place for a long time to come. Again, those classes are all separated in terms of jobs. Only during and after industrialization, real delegation is required.

Each (or most) (major) technology or technology era (to borrow an idea from Civilization) should bring about a new feature to the game mechanics, which could modify the interface as well. Indeed, it would be troubling if the changes between each are simply just fixed dates. But the whole penalties at science-fiction technologies should still be in place, it's a good way to ensure things mostly progress as it did.

But you are still going to have a problem with the Dark Ages. Since the Dark Ages are often considered a fall back from where we were, players may feel the need to avoid doing the same mistakes our ancestors did and leap past the Dark Ages, continuing ruling a strong Roman Empire throughout. You need some way to A) create downfalls for large empires, B) technological backslash when it occurs and C) make the ensuing chaos interesting for the player.

That Dark Ages thing is something I have long considered but not really found a solution to. I always thought that a game based in this period would be all about rebuilding after the great decline of the Roman Empire which basically destroyed most culture and economy in all of Europe. Of course, I think Paradox can come up with something cool as a concept for that, but I'd like to give it a go myself. The only thing is, I based myself on the other games for the rest, this one would be a whole new concept, thus may take a while to form as an idea.

 

[Svip]

This is the reason I like the game, and I'm completely aware of that, though I feel confident that the Character mechanic can be pulled through from the start to the very end of the game. You just have to make sure that your dynasty stays in power in whatever country you rule. If you are a democracy you'd be losing power in your country every once in a while unless you play it very smart, so yes, that MAY need a mechanic to stay in power without too many penalties.

Maybe we should wait and see what Paradox does for Republics in Crusader Kings 2 to see how. Or look at the character system in Rome? Those are plausible areas for inspiration to deal with this beyond monarchies.

I know how Spore worked since I have it, I was quite pissed at the makers for screwing things up. Darn maxis... Oh well, I am not saying that the games should be lesser, but you can include a basic version of nearly every mechanic in all the other games. Take POPs for example:
In Roman times, there would be the ancestral difference between Patricians, Plebs and slaves. The plebs and slaves would mostly do the production, while the Patricians did administrative and other senatorial business. The different classes were important back then, and the people could already be divided in classes automatically depending on what resources have the most focus for you as an emperor/king. This later became manorialism including serfdom with Peasants (Freemen, Villeins, Slaves), and the advent of the feudal system which was kept in place for a long time to come. Again, those classes are all separated in terms of jobs. Only during and after industrialization, real delegation is required.

I have no doubt that POPs can work outside of the Victoria 2-era, but there is a reason they are not in the other games; it takes a lot of resources for very little in those games, unlike Victoria.

That Dark Ages thing is something I have long considered but not really found a solution to. I always thought that a game based in this period would be all about rebuilding after the great decline of the Roman Empire which basically destroyed most culture and economy in all of Europe. Of course, I think Paradox can come up with something cool as a concept for that, but I'd like to give it a go myself. The only thing is, I based myself on the other games for the rest, this one would be a whole new concept, thus may take a while to form as an idea.

Look at Civilization, rather than dealing with the problematic of the Dark Ages, it merely diminishes the significant of the Ancient Era to balance it out. One might argue that in those fictional worlds that Civilization portrays, it may not always be necessary to have a Dark Age period. Ancient civilisations may have continued into modern times and sped up innovation to a point much faster than ours.

However, this is about Earth (as your title describes it), and a Dark Age period is interesting, but it needs some serious thinking, because you need to convince the player that his empire diminishing is a good thing. And don't just have the player do it, because it is next, but rather because he wants to go that step. It's not trivial, I know, but that is the important thing to remember.

Additional, you should probably refer to the Games in this grand game as Eras, and be defined by where they start. Unlike Civilization, technology should obviously spread a lot faster (like neighbour bonus) throughout the world. I mention this because in Hearts of Iron 3 all technologies are tied to a year (as are they in other games, but I am using this as an example). If you enter the 'Second World War Era' already in 1910, all the technologies will be unavailable before anything can happen, so instead their years should be relatively to when the Era begins.

The transaction between Eras should also be fluid. For instance, between Victorian and War, the combat system should slowly become more and more complicated as newer technologies engage in that field.

 

[CompactDisc]

Sorry for the late response, I was gone for the weekend and then some. I really appreciate your input, together we could make this idea work, I'm sure. And it also makes me feel like there is at least someone who cares about this, nobody else has done so much as responded to this topic, not even to put a negative comment or anything.

Anyway, I didn't know they were adding republics in CKII, I always loved to play as one and will try it out no doubt. Oh and the POPs, if it's just one game I'm sure the resources devoted to it will be worth it since it is an awesome system.

Of course everything in this game will be a gradual change, unlike Civilization style eras. I'd like to see technological and cultural evolution really happen in an organic way. Not some fake pre-programmed age entering or instant transform. What I didn't like about Europa Universalis III was the change of government being so fast. Click a button and stab hit, that's it. I'd like it to be gradually changing laws as to reflect a new government model.

 

[Svip]

I have begun considering how it should play out or at least the eras which should be considered (italics indicate games):

• Ancient world[1]
• Rome
• Dark Ages[2]
• Crusader Kings
• Europa Universalis[3]
• Victoria
• Hearts of Iron
• Cold War[4]
• Clash of Civilisations[5]

Notes to the list:
[1] Here I mean most civilisation prior to the founding of Rome, such as Ancient Egypt and Babylon. Obviously, at this point, the character and POP system would greatly diminished in scope and complexity, but both of these will grow through Technologies, Developments and Social Changes.[6]
[2] The Dark Ages is particularly problematic, because the period should technically be avoidable or at least diminishable. If there is no large Roman Empire at any point or any other large Empire for that matter, there won't technically be a sudden huge drawback, as neighbouring tribes begin moving into the area. The Migration Period will happen regardless, I gather, but we should allow the player to 'try to avoid' the most damage of it. A result of a lack of a Dark Age, will unbalance much of Europe for a good deal of time (of course, by any Renaissance period, this will probably be far more balanced).
[3] While Europa Universalis is a good yard stick for the Late/High Middle Ages, the Renaissance and the early Enlightenment period, it still tries to cover perhaps too much, and we at least should try to ease the game over to the Victorian era near the end.
[4] We can still create some form of a basis for a World War in the previous session, where one of the three competing ideologies is bound to fall, and the remainder shall be a conflict between the two remaining. Obviously, there is choice to engage in all out war or maintain a more peaceful stance like the actual Cold War.
[5] This is primarily from the since the end of the Soviet Union, but it is too reflect the modern world in a new way, that not all political and military entities are necessary states. Examples include terrorist groups, but also the drug cartels in Mexico which have reached proto-state like levels.
[6] I am not comfortable using the Civilization method of abstracting every human development into a technology tree, but we need some basic ideas, such as (yes) Technologies, but also Developments (which include basically any technological advancement that isn't done by direct interference (such as Innovations in Victoria 2)) and Social Changes, which could include the Enlightenment period, etc. Social Changes occur gradually and based on Technologies and Developments, but can also be helped along by decisions, such as allowing Free Press, and so forth.

All this makes me realise that throughout this game, it is very unlikely that we can expect the player to be playing the same country he was when he began. What is thus required is to consider how we are going to allow the player to jump from one country to another, while still maintaining some linage. Dynasties is the way in Crusader Kings 2, but it is equally unlikely to think that one dynasty will last that long. Instead, the game should attempt - at its best according to its rules - to try and maintain the player in the game, and not so strict that an heir of a wrong dynasty will end the game.

It will be a long game. Especially if retain the turn system of one day (which I would still recommend) (a Tactical Precession Technology may change that to one hour). So at least the game will require pre-set scenarios that showcase each part of the game.

Regarding technology, I am thinking we might want to what Crusader Kings 2 does at its basic, i.e. each province has a technology level. This will allow for the spreading of technologies to be more natural. Of course, later in the game, technologies will spread faster, so one may not even pay attention to the fact that it is province-based.

 

[CompactDisc]

Some nice ideas in there, I especially like the non-technological advancement of human development.

I have to disagree on the Dark Ages part though, I would suggest (on a longer game) that there is a dark age in any region where a large empire falls to smaller tribes. There could be a Dark Age in Asia or in Europe, even in the Americas depending on how we'll deal with that. There would have to be a bigger incentive for many smaller countries to attack a bigger foe though, especially for the AI.

About those developments; I'll still have to play some more Victoria II since I haven't really done much of it, though I played all the other games through several times. Which is odd since I love that time period, I'll let you know some more things once I know how those innovations work.

Also, my girlfriend is staying over today so won't be putting much text here, though I think I have enough to start expanding the initial topic to almost twice its size. I'll keep you posted and I really want to stress how I appreciate your help! I'm putting you in the credits if you don't mind

 

[unmerged(228565)]

I just read these posts and I think this is a great idea for a game and if it was done with the ideas you have it could be one of the best games ever made. I would definitely buy the game if it was made and I think many other fans of PDS games would too.