When is Paradox going to get rid of the province system?

[crazy canuck]

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.

The ultimate game would do both. Strategic decision on one level with the option to get your hands dirty with the tactics as well. Medieval games made an attempt at this but the strategic level is nowhere near where it needs to be. It is really a tactical game with a nice map.

For me the holy grail of games would be one that has both exceptional strategic and tactical control. So that you can jump into the shoes of the head of state in one interface and the general on the field in the next.

 

[ZhugeKongming]

This is a false dichotomy. There's no reason that you can't have provinces as an administrative/geographical entity with the ability to move freely within those provinces (and beyond).

 

[Burning]

the one thing i am dreaming of would be:

• EU3 with Victoria's economy and politics system
• character/dynasty building as in CK
• optional(!!!) battles like in Rome/Medieval2 with command on battle/company level,
  maybe even a bit of base building(trenches, catapults...),
  regiments should gain experienced and can be "recycled" if outdated(for a cost of course
• possibility to take over one single character in such a battle
  with command over a squad or a company (remember dungeon keeper)

yes, i know, it is just a dream and contains all the features where companies failed on games like C&C Renegade, Rome. The only game to succeed at point 3 i remember was dungeon keeper, the option to take over one of your minions was great!

 

[comagoosie]

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.

(agreeing with spl )
just think of EU3 (the only Paradox game I own) without MM or TN or MEIOU, I just can't imagine. And what are the modders going to do now that they aren't going to be able to mod? I sure hope that they would be making good choices.

 

[Swamp Rat]

the one thing i am dreaming of would be:

• EU3 with Victoria's economy and politics system
• character/dynasty building as in CK
• optional(!!!) battles like in Rome/Medieval2 with command on battle/company level,
  maybe even a bit of base building(trenches, catapults...),
  regiments should gain experienced and can be "recycled" if outdated(for a cost of course
• possibility to take over one single character in such a battle
  with command over a squad or a company (remember dungeon keeper)

yes, i know, it is just a dream and contains all the features where companies failed on games like C&C Renegade, Rome. The only game to succeed at point 3 i remember was dungeon keeper, the option to take over one of your minions was great!

With the experiences from the TW series i think that its a gamebreaker to have both the tactical and empiremanaging in one game. I found myself playing either to build up my empire and eventually skipping the battles because they took too much time from that, or playing for the battles, in which case i could as well choose skirmish and set up the opposing forces exactly to the degree of difficulty that i wanted.

No thanks. The level of detail combatwise is sufficiently covered in HOI, and i wouldnt mind having less detail (which it most likely will be) in Rome on account of the grander scope of things.

 

[spl]

(agreeing with spl )
just think of EU3 (the only Paradox game I own) without MM or TN or MEIOU, I just can't imagine. And what are the modders going to do now that they aren't going to be able to mod? I sure hope that they would be making good choices.

Well, the makers of those mods are geniuses, I'm sure they could mod a more difficult-to-mod game. I am aware of some large decent mods for the new CA games. But it takes a lot more than to change a couple values and a tag

 

[Burning]

With the experiences from the TW series i think that its a gamebreaker to have both the tactical and empiremanaging in one game. I found myself playing either to build up my empire and eventually skipping the battles because they took too much time from that, or playing for the battles, in which case i could as well choose skirmish and set up the opposing forces exactly to the degree of difficulty that i wanted.

No thanks. The level of detail combatwise is sufficiently covered in HOI, and i wouldnt mind having less detail (which it most likely will be) in Rome on account of the grander scope of things.

that is exactly why i wrote "optional". and i agree, for RTW/MTW it was a game breaker. but the idea is good, again i allready wrote that i don't know of any game that succeeded in including those features.
I am far more happy with a Paradox game without battles than with a TW game that makes no fun because it tires to do everything, but is not good at anything.

 

[Mr. G]

When they get 900 000 000 €.

 

[Pro]

I don't think that getting rid of the province system is a good idea. But allowing some movement inside the province will be a good idea once technology get's to the point that everything on the subprovince scale can be delegated to the AI

 

[orwell]

The ultimate game would do both. Strategic decision on one level with the option to get your hands dirty with the tactics as well. Medieval games made an attempt at this but the strategic level is nowhere near where it needs to be. It is really a tactical game with a nice map.

For me the holy grail of games would be one that has both exceptional strategic and tactical control. So that you can jump into the shoes of the head of state in one interface and the general on the field in the next.

Your gonna get a PM in a week or so.

 

[comagoosie]

When they get 900 000 000 €.

well if they just wanted that, they could set up a donation box. People could donate at Stockholm or over the web. The question is, would you donate?

 

[Tayran]

The ultimate game would do both. Strategic decision on one level with the option to get your hands dirty with the tactics as well. Medieval games made an attempt at this but the strategic level is nowhere near where it needs to be. It is really a tactical game with a nice map.

For me the holy grail of games would be one that has both exceptional strategic and tactical control. So that you can jump into the shoes of the head of state in one interface and the general on the field in the next.

Svea Rike 2 had tactical combat

For those of you who dont know about it; one of paradox earier games, featuring nordic setting.

 

[ComradeOm]

For me the holy grail of games would be one that has both exceptional strategic and tactical control. So that you can jump into the shoes of the head of state in one interface and the general on the field in the next.

Which would require the developer to essentially build two games. You'd also need an AI that could do an excellent job of managing both strategic and tactical affairs in case the player was not interested in one or the other

 

[unmerged(85016)]

Why are people bandying around tactical and mods?

This has nothing to do with mods and nothing to do with tactical. All I asked for are smaller spaces of movements, which would be best done without arbitrary borders.

And what does that have to do with stats, it's ridiculous to suppose that provinces have anything to do with whether or not stats are displayed.

Like everyone else that's posted here, I'm not interested in the tactical either. I think tactical games like RTW is a seperate genre that Paradox wouldn't benefit from. But a more interesting war display is!

 

[ComradeOm]

This has nothing to do with mods and nothing to do with tactical. All I asked for are smaller spaces of movements, which would be best done without arbitrary borders

Which would completely transform the military aspect of the game by placing a huge emphasis on manoeuvre and require far more management.

With the current system the player orders his army to advance to X province and that's that. Even with HoI* he only sets up the attack before leaving the rest to the computer. That's the sort of level that most grand strategy fans are happy with. There's no worrying about valleys or manoeuvring around the enemy's flanks - its all abstracted. If I did want to worry about guiding my armies on the march I'd play an operational level game instead

*Incidentially how would you propose to model the vast fronts of HoI and late Vicky?

 

[unmerged(85016)]

Have you ever played Civilization? In that game hills and valleys are represented very abstractly, as % bonuses, rather than actual placement like in Total War.

The game should work nearly exactly like it does currently, but some facets of war could be simplistically but very fruitfully modeled.

Some kind of unit cap for how many regiments can be in one space (that'll model your front), and some kind of bonus for attacking in multiple directions. Two very simple changes that'll add depth to the game.

I can only imagine that being a good thing.

 

[Burning]

Have you ever played Civilization? In that game hills and valleys are represented very abstractly, as % bonuses, rather than actual placement like in Total War.

The game should work nearly exactly like it does currently, but some facets of war could be simplistically but very fruitfully modeled.

Some kind of unit cap for how many regiments can be in one space (that'll model your front), and some kind of bonus for attacking in multiple directions. Two very simple changes that'll add depth to the game.

I can only imagine that being a good thing.

no, thanks, i for my part would not be interrested in such a game.
i know the civilization series, and i played it since the very first dos(or was it amiga?) version.
civilization was great
civilization2 /civnet were nice enhancements
but civ3/civ4 are a step in the wrong direction imho.

 

[unmerged(85016)]

no, thanks, i for my part would not be interrested in such a game.

Me neither.... if that was the game. But EU or whatever the game may be, would be the game. This is only how the troop movements work, something to add depth to warfare.

I for my part is not familiar with Civ1/2, I only started playing video games in 2003 (I know, huge newbie).

Civilization 3/4 were huge bores. I can't believe a turn base game is still more popular than a RTS like EU.

 

[coreymas]

To the OP,

This is not the first time that a dual system of Grand Strategy with a Tactical plug in has been suggested (I should know -- cause i suggested it almost 2 years ago).

I did some research (I am a software developer with gaming programmer contacts) and the shear number of units (in a WW2 Setting) combined with free movement on a map just representing the European theatre would bring even a 64 GIG Memory Server class machine with Quad Core CPU's to its knees in about 5 minutes.

Since most Paradox gamers are not on the bleeding edge of technology i would say that this is a no-go from a Technical perspective.

Corey

 

[comagoosie]

Svea Rike 2 had tactical combat

For those of you who dont know about it; one of paradox earier games, featuring nordic setting.

not to mention it is not in english.

{...}would bring even a 64 GIG Memory Server class machine with Quad Core CPU's to its knees in about 5 minutes.

dead on. One would need a super computer to run it, and the only super computer I have seen is at a college campus.