-
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.
I really don't understand how dynamic movement can impact the depth of the games adversely. In my mind it's just the opposite! Can somebody explain?
@Burning
1 province 1 location makes a game brilliant?
Also, even with dynamic movement the regiments are still abstract. I'm talking about giving us finer control over where they move on the campaign map, the equivalent effect of smaller provinces, not some... I don't even know what you're thinking.
@Burning
1 province 1 location makes a game brilliant?
Also, even with dynamic movement the regiments are still abstract. I'm talking about giving us finer control over where they move on the campaign map, the equivalent effect of smaller provinces, not some... I don't even know what you're thinking.
i perfectly know what you mean, for some people that might be nice, but not for me, and i think not for the majority of the paradox fans(this is an assumption).
the idea behind the paradox games up until now are:
you are king and control the fate of a nation.
you send fleets and armies to parts of other nations or into a certain region.
as a king you want your armies to take away a province/state/fortress form an enemy, you don't care if they have to cross a river to do so or if they need catapults and ladders to do so.
you much more care to arrange a marriage between your son and the princess of nation yyy for your nation to have to chance to inherit their lands.
that is what the EU series is about.
Crusader Kings on the other hand is a character simulator. the focus lies on building a dynasty that rules as many states as possible.
the idea behind the paradox games up until now are:
you are king and control the fate of a nation.
you send fleets and armies to parts of other nations or into a certain region.
as a king you want your armies to take away a province/state/fortress form an enemy, you don't care if they have to cross a river to do so or if they need catapults and ladders to do so.
you much more care to arrange a marriage between your son and the princess of nation yyy for your nation to have to chance to inherit their lands.
that is what the EU series is about.
Crusader Kings on the other hand is a character simulator. the focus lies on building a dynasty that rules as many states as possible.
Why take away something so essential to the P'dox games?
I like small provinces the more the merrier, but I don't share your vision nor believe!
If we trash the provinces then how will you ever make an AI that can make historical borders?
The provinces are one of the things that makes the P'dox games historical and that's what their fanbase likes or else they wouldn't be here.
I like small provinces the more the merrier, but I don't share your vision nor believe!
If we trash the provinces then how will you ever make an AI that can make historical borders?
The provinces are one of the things that makes the P'dox games historical and that's what their fanbase likes or else they wouldn't be here.
I like the provincial system too. Yet we should not cover ourselves in "historical" excuses since most of these "provinces" changed several times its borders and names within the own Roman world.
Ebusitanus said:
Well if you've ever tried EU2 with a map mod yu should know it's possible to do such things... With an engine like EU3's the detail will be much poorer than EU2 was.
The Roman provinces were much bigger than normal provinces in any of the other P'dox games so I see no reason why it should be harder to show the borders for this periode...
There is, of course, the practical reason of not switching to dynamic borders, that being how much of a complete and total pain in the ass it'd inevitably be to make a save game converter. Other than that, you'd need a whole new model for the game's economic system, since in Paradox games economy and technology rely heavily on the province system. Now, with that, look at it from Paradox's perspective. They'd have to decide to take a tried and true system(even if it isn't perfect, it still works) and scrap it, then design a completely new and different system that A) May or may not work, B) May or may not be better, and C) Won't necessarily please their fans. If you contrast those variables against what actually would be achieved, is it really worth the risk? Though, I do enjoy the idea of something more along the lines of the Civ map, or even the RTW map if you could actually take over a salt mine instead of having to assault a city for it. Being able to make tactical decisions like that does intrigue me, because if you attack an enemy's key financial interests you can possibly draw them out of their strongholds, instead of having to fight siege battles all of the time(The computer is very reluctant to fight if it doesn't have to, ironically, and I don't always have the patience to wait for them to starve). Though, even with something like that, it still might be too much of a pain in the ass for people who aren't as interested in war.
General_Sun said:
I don't know about you, but that sounds exactly like how I play Victoria.
Rivers have an effect in HOI games, not in Victoria, but that is possible to model with the currently used province based engine. I don't understand what would provinceless map add to warfare. Only one thing, it would be easier to run away when enemy is going to attack you.
You realistically can't add things that would change battles to the grand scale map that is used in these games. You can't add bridges, passes, single swamps or hills. All of those would be too small to be used. You can only use one terrain type for a larger area, like used for provinces now.
You realistically can't add things that would change battles to the grand scale map that is used in these games. You can't add bridges, passes, single swamps or hills. All of those would be too small to be used. You can only use one terrain type for a larger area, like used for provinces now.
If there were no provinces, what would the map be made of? Just a plainnon-province map would make playing HoI a terrible nightmare. imagine operation barbarossa without provinces to ease the game..
you can keep provinces and still have free movement. Just allow the player to clip on an area on a map that u want him to move at. You can simulate border defenses better that way. Having an Army sit near a city all the time makes no sense to me.
If there were no provinces it would be much more difficult to move your units to the desired location. What if there were mountaneous area and plains adjacent to each other and you would want to order your unit to those mountains and prepare to defend the area? But accidentally you click one pixel too far and they end up into plains.
I dont dismiss the idea out of hand. Ideally I would love to see a grand strategy game where control of cities, towns and other strategic locations are important and not just large provinces. Your idea of much smaller "provinces" with only a few of which hold important strategic value is something along the same lines.
But I dont think it is appropriate for this game. This period was all about control of provinces and who you send out to try to take control of them and then later govern them.
So, while I like your idea, it probably has better application to other time periods. EG I would love to see a WWII grand strategy game combined with more tactical movements. If such a game came out I would have to quit my job and play it full time.
But I dont think it is appropriate for this game. This period was all about control of provinces and who you send out to try to take control of them and then later govern them.
So, while I like your idea, it probably has better application to other time periods. EG I would love to see a WWII grand strategy game combined with more tactical movements. If such a game came out I would have to quit my job and play it full time.
I would love that for HOI, or some other small timescale game based on napoleon or WWI.General_Sun said:
It wouldn't work well for a game that takes hundreds of years though, where the sole focus is grand strategy as a whole and not the tactics of insignificant battles among hundreds of many other battles which don't really mean anything.
Last edited:
No thank you. I prefer lots of provinces but there definitely must be provinces. If you want better movement, why not ask for hex-based provinces?
zero interest in that type of development. my favorite thing about these games is clicking on different provinces and checking out "stats." there's no stats in province-less oblivion. i also have zero interest in military maneuvers. if i did, i'd play a hex-game.
Personally I prefer the current system where I play the Roosevelt or Bismarck of my nation. If I was looking for a game where I was more focused on commanding tactical battles I'd look for a game that focused on the tactical end of warfare rather than the geostrategic element.
Having the current system also allows significantly easier modding for most. In EU3 all I have to do is open 3 folders, click a .txt file open and change a few Tags. If they changed it to allow free movement the engine would be completely re-done and modding would be more difficult. I also think that Medieval 1 was significantly better than the CA games that came after it.
General_Sun said:
But even if the provinces were gotten rid off, it would still not allow for a very detailed tactical level of play. And it would require a whole game of itself to simulate actual battles on that level. Instead Paradox games gives you the possibility to play as Caesar etc on the much neglected strategic level, where you economize your forces, calculate arrival times and risk opening a flank to make a surprise attack etc. Something, together with the actual Empire managing (however economically simplified it may be, still a lot more advanced than most games out there) that i and i would guess most Paradox users find more interesting than the actual tactical level of combat.