• 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.
A dating sim. It will be a period piece beginning in the early/mid 19th century and will chronicle your character's efforts to woo other, less developed characters into joining them in their sphe...beds. It will also chronicle their marriages and divorces, fights and colon...outreach with other characters. You can play any character you want, but the canon character is a girl named Vicky.
 
Last edited:
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
I'd like a game set in the near or quasi pre-history of the Hellenes invading northern Greece, the Dorians doing the same in the south of Greece, the collapse of the Minoans and Mycenaean, the appearance and rise of the Hittites and up through the invasions of the Sea Peoples.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Historical: A game about the dawn of civilization, the Near East region (and Greece) from 3000 to 500 BCE, pre-Rome. Tribe-based gameplay, with generally a smaller scale and difficulty in maintaining control, but still culture-based not character-based. By necessity it would cover less space and more time per unit gameplay than most Paradox titles. Probably more focus on environmental change, for instance.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like to see a game focused on the Early Modern Period, my favorite historical epoch, which doesn't rely upon anachronistic and highly abstract mechanics. Basically a Pike-And-Shot dynasty game centered around the rise of the centralized monarchies as an exercise in state-building. EUIV should really be split into two games- one from 1444 to 1650/1700 (the Age of Empire), and another focused from 1700 to 1850 (the age of Revolutions) as neither period is addressed properly by the engine as it stands.

Specifically I'd like to see the Italian Wars and Thirty Years War given proper justice.

Perhaps also a game centered on the Mongols, stretching from China to Europe.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
I've been having this idea floating around in my mind for the last week or so of a game that mixes elements from ck 2, eu 4 and Stellaris in a post apoc setting. Initially you start off in an isolated settlement/enclave/bunker with a handful of settlers and you have to explore the world, resettle it and find out what happened to it. Could preferably be on the fantastical fallout-esque side with mutated monsters, murder robots and psychic powers.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I've been having this idea floating around in my mind for the last week or so of a game that mixes elements from ck 2, eu 4 and Stellaris in a post apoc setting. Initially you start off in an isolated settlement/enclave/bunker with a handful of settlers and you have to explore the world, resettle it and find out what happened to it. Could preferably be on the fantastical fallout-esque side with mutated monsters, murder robots and psychic powers.

This sounds like a lot of fun, not gonna lie.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
A business game revolving the Industrial Revolution would be cool. Almost like a tycoon-type game, where you can invest in different industries, using the new technologies and funding entrepreneurs developing new ones
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I would like to see a game set in ancient egypt, similar to CK2, starting in pre-dynastic times and ending sometime around the historical Persian conquest.

The game would also cover the immediate neighbourhood, probably up to Eufrat and Tiger.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Lots of support for antiquity game :D
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Would love Volkswander: The Great Invasions. A game where you play a tribe in the chaos surrounding the fall of the Roman Empire. Sure, you control territory, but you're not leading a state, you're leading a people (represented by pops). You could conquer vast lands, but you only have a certain number of pops to populate that land with, and your conquered peoples are still there. If you spread yourself too thin you could end up like the huns and disappear. Of course, if you don't expand at all you'll also vanish into the dustbin of history. Over time, you could assimilate related peoples into your own kingship, and a thriving tribal people will of course grow to include new pops. Diplomatically a smaller tribe can also create or join a tribal confederacy, where several weaker tribes come together to increase their influence, at the cost of internal cohesion and the possibility of collapse if things don't go well. Defend against the Huns, exploit the collapse of the Roman Empire, and quiver against the unstoppable might of the Muslim conquests.

You'd have a very different experience ruling over Rome or Byzantium, as you'd have a greater focus on exploitation of land than management of your pops. They'd be much richer than tribes but pack less military ability per pop. These empires can settle allied tribes within their lands to improve the military fortunes of the empire, but if you don't keep them happy you might be inviting in your own doom.
I imagine you'd play from about 400 AD up until the (edit) death of Charlemagne in 812. I'm imagining a rather fluid pop-based game where control of land isn't as important as who the people occupying it are. The tribes I'm talking about are not even a little bit related to the way they're portrayed in CK2.

I would end with the congquest of Justinian. The eastern empire going on a genicidal rampage into the west, serving only to destroy its most civilized nations, is exactly the kind of intense, depressing, and climactic ending a paradox game needs. Imagine that you are the Ostrogoths. You have, after much politicing and war, settled in Italy intent on making the peninsula a thriving center of western civilization. Then suddenly your Balkan and Sicilian holdings are under attack by the ERE, dragging you into a decade of devistation. Nearby nations come to your support knowing what an ERE victory means for them and in doing so dragging the war on for years, devistation get both sides militarly and rendering the Italian peninsula a backwater. It would be like the not-so-fallen empires of Stellaris. Out to restore its former glory and not caring how many "barbarian" kingdoms need be anhilated in the process. Given that it is a game about European fall into darkness ending on the note which ensured Rome would never be reformed is a perfect finisher.
 
Eastern affairs, mainly because the Paradox games do a decent enough job with the West but fall a bit short when it comes to ROTW (Victoria 2 gimps all uncivs not named "Japan," EU4 has Ming as this monstrous paper tiger that might explode into confetti if you look at it funny while the Qing rarely ever form, and CK2 doesn't even have China in the game).

Seeing as China alone (not to mention Japan, which is the size of Germany, Korea, which is the size of Italy, and SE Asia and beyond) is the size of all of Europe and it operated under vastly different rules than those in the West (tributary systems, for one, weren't really a thing in post-Roman Europe), it would be a nice change of pace. At least in my opinion.

Just imagine, the Qin fighting the Maurya in a battle of Empires (almost all of China vs. almost all of India). Or sweeping across Asia as the Mongols. Or managing the Silk Road. There's just so much that could be.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 1
Reactions:
Eastern affairs, mainly because the Paradox games do a decent enough job with the West but fall a bit short when it comes to ROTW (Victoria 2 gimps all uncivs not named "Japan,"

I disagree. I've turned many East Asian states into secondary powers and/or GPs. They all have pretty much the same strategy. i.e. conquer your neighboring uncivs for faster westernization and wait for a European power to get busy in a major war and snatch up their colonies. This works for almost every independent unciv in the 1836 start. Sure, you might get unlucky, but most of the time this works, and it's quite fun.
 
I disagree. I've turned many East Asian states into secondary powers and/or GPs. They all have pretty much the same strategy. i.e. conquer your neighboring uncivs for faster westernization and wait for a European power to get busy in a major war and snatch up their colonies. This works for almost every independent unciv in the 1836 start. Sure, you might get unlucky, but most of the time this works, and it's quite fun.
When I say gimp, I mean more along the lines of "there's absolutely no flavour." The whole westernization process is dull, repetitive, and really rather horrid. Plus, there's no sense behind the infamy system for outside of Europe, considering taking OPM 35k POP Makran can give you the same amount of infamy as conquering Belgium (no scaling based on RGO, POP, state size, etc.). It's all rather contrived.

Aside from Japan, Qing, Persia, and Ethiopia, there are very few uncivs with any amount of flavour (aside from the generic opium, military arms, etc., which doesn't count for much). Turning most uncivs into GPs is pretty basic stuff (excepting Nepal, Tibet, Ryuku and the like) but there's just that feeling that you aren't really playing Victoria 2 until you westernize 30-60 years in. You have 0 access to technology, industry, and are handicapped in diplomacy and there's nothing entertaining to replace those in the early decades. Seeing as those three are the selling points of Victoria 2...I'd say that they're gimped. Not in terms of strength but in gameplay.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I would end with the congquest of Justinian. The eastern empire going on a genicidal rampage into the west, serving only to destroy its most civilized nations, is exactly the kind of intense, depressing, and climactic ending a paradox game needs. Imagine that you are the Ostrogoths. You have, after much politicing and war, settled in Italy intent on making the peninsula a thriving center of western civilization. Then suddenly your Balkan and Sicilian holdings are under attack by the ERE, dragging you into a decade of devistation. Nearby nations come to your support knowing what an ERE victory means for them and in doing so dragging the war on for years, devistation get both sides militarly and rendering the Italian peninsula a backwater. It would be like the not-so-fallen empires of Stellaris. Out to restore its former glory and not caring how many "barbarian" kingdoms need be anhilated in the process. Given that it is a game about European fall into darkness ending on the note which ensured Rome would never be reformed is a perfect finisher.

Way too early though. Having it end with Justinian (who died in the 560s) means the game only goes for a hundred and 50 years, and totally misses out on the Muslim conquests. Honestly the rise of Charlemagne with a single nation reaching hegemony seems much more fit both timewise and themewise. Justinian is just one of many events that take place in the meantime.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Way too early though. Having it end with Justinian (who died in the 560s) means the game only goes for a hundred and 50 years, and totally misses out on the Muslim conquests. Honestly the rise of Charlemagne with a single nation reaching hegemony seems much more fit both timewise and themewise. Justinian is just one of many events that take place in the meantime.

I feel that having the game be a fast paced series of invasions which lead to the destruction of roman civilization in the west is what it should initially be about. Keep in mind that Victoria 2 has a similar time frame and it doesn't suffer from it. Islam can be added as a DLC down the line. Focusing on tribal, nomadic, and imperial governments exclusively for the vanilla game while adding feudal and Islamic mechanics in a timeline extending DLC would be best.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
I do see where you're coming from, and it makes sense, but there's a difference between extending timeline earlier and extending timeline later. If the games pacing is developed towards a 150 year timeline, suddenly making the game 400 years changes the pacing and flow of the game dramatically.
On the plus side it does let you focus more on the core experience.

Definitely Islamic and feudal/imperial mechanics should be saved for later, but I think the game still probably has to be designed to go that long at the start. Otherwise you end up with severe pacing issues when your old endgame is just the midgame now
 
By now? An actual Grand Strategy game that is not centered on being the PC version of Hungry Hungry Hippo: The Deterministic Diaries.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
A 2100-2200 era space game, focusing on the consolidation of the planet into a single sate, nonstate actors and rebellions/revolutionaries/counter revolutionaries would be huge. You'd start with a few hyper powerful nation states and the game would be built around them eventually overcoming the others (or... not? but probably) all while averting various ecological, economic, biological, etc. crises. It could even be called "Late Great Filter" and to win the game, you construct an infrastructure in your solar system and develop the technology to build an ftl method. Then a simple export mechanic to make the world government you've created into a stellaris start.
 
  • 2
Reactions: