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

[TheLoneGunman]

The reason a Total War-style map would not suit well with a Paradox-style Grand Strategy game is because one game mode is turn-based, while the other is much more of an RTS (we can debate semantics over whether or not each 'tick' is a turn, but I'd prefer not to, since it's been done to death).

For the Total War-style campaign map to function correctly for a player without hours of frustration, it needs to be turn-based.

Look at War In The Pacific: Admiral's Edition.

How many people do you see demanding that game get rid of its turn-based system and adopt a real time setup?

At the scale we want to play at, it's just not feasible.

Even 4x Space Sims are usually turn-based for the same reason, or else they have to incorporate a very limited scope and/or lots of AI assistance to make up for the fact that a human being cannot manage several hundred to thousand units over hundreds of planets that cover vast distances.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[unmerged(150945)]

What I think would be a good idea is tiny provinces, grouped into regions. You manage the regions with buildings etc and the buildings are placed in a random province within the region, however units move through the provinces. If a region is split between 2 nations each nation controls their part. For example Roma (Roman Empire) and Roma (Carthage) if both Carthage and the Roman Empire owned parts of the Roma region.

 

[unmerged(189386)]

Tiny Provinces

Don't bother messing with "Regions".

Give me tiny provinces where each province represents a castle/fort/whatever, and let me choose where to build.

You can scale down economic formulas to handle the map as needed.

Although if you get the provinces small enough with enough provinces around you'll still have maneuver issues.

As for the earlier stuff, Civilization suffers from all sort of bad timescale issues.

The territory of your starting city in 4000BC takes 160 years for your troops to walk across, but you can relocate your workers the same distance instantly. In EU games the timescales make sense.

 

[unmerged(150945)]

Don't bother messing with "Regions".

Give me tiny provinces where each province represents a castle/fort/whatever, and let me choose where to build.

You can scale down economic formulas to handle the map as needed.

Although if you get the provinces small enough with enough provinces around you'll still have maneuver issues.

As for the earlier stuff, Civilization suffers from all sort of bad timescale issues.

The territory of your starting city in 4000BC takes 160 years for your troops to walk across, but you can relocate your workers the same distance instantly. In EU games the timescales make sense.

That would mean a lot of useless areas. If it was just provinces, then a provinces right next to the city of Rome would be completely useless if you didn't build anything in it. But if they were grouped into regions, then a single city covering one to three provinces with a lot of infrastructure would benefit the entire region.

Economics are calculated for the whole region, production is handled by the entire region, but borders and tactics are by province.

 

[SirGrotius]

Nothing's more enjoyable than clicking through provinces and finding the richest ones to take over.

 

[JDMS]

Nothing's more enjoyable than clicking through provinces and finding the richest ones to take over.

I wholeheartedly agree with this! :rofl:

 

[unmerged(105391)]

supreme ruler-like map

i would certainly like the map to be like that from supreme ruler 2020

 

[unmerged(180662)]

Originally I thought this thread was going to be about regions. I somewhat wish I could create my own. A system could be in place that allows you to create a certain number of regions according to statistics about your empire. It would possibly add another level of management but in a way it would be more realistic, and to me, satisfying. A few times, in my conquests, I have lamentably had a half dozen one province regions.

I can't help but echo the senitment that a freer movement system would be great. At the very least, somehow fixing the irrationality (I don't know what else to call it) that troops moving from one provice to another for 100 days can end up in the first provice if you cancel on the 99th day. That would be fixed with a freer movement system such as something similar to the total war games.

My ideal game would have such a freer map system, the political system of Rome and presumable other EU games, and a combat system not necessarily the same as, though I respect it greatly, similar to the total war games. Its unfathomable to me that my generals in Rome don't know about rudimentary combat tactics like flanking by the time they are youthful officers still learning to master riding the horse.

I suppose that is my main complaint with the game as a whole however... that you have no tactical control over battle at all in the slightest. To me it is entirely frustrating as most battles have pre-ordained or worse, somewhat random outcomes. Just as the completely shallow husk of a political system in the total war series irritates me and is unsatisfying. I don't see either as perfect or even games that provide a "complete experience" but I see very good elements in both series. The civilization series as a whole I personally have found so disatisfying and problematic I won't bother mentioning it beyond this one sentence.

TheLoneGunman:
You make some really interesting points some of which I had not considered! I guess RTS might not work for a freer movement map. There is of course a reason I stopped playing RTSs. Maybe it is a matter of personal opinion, but I'd gladly be willing to accept week long turns or something and I don't imagine it would impact game play in a significant way.

One thing I really like abut Rome is the time scales as they feel very realistic as opposed to one ship taking a few years to cross the mediteranean or something silly.

 

[CJL78]

I can't help but echo the senitment that a freer movement system would be great. At the very least, somehow fixing the irrationality (I don't know what else to call it) that troops moving from one provice to another for 100 days can end up in the first provice if you cancel on the 99th day. That would be fixed with a freer movement system such as something similar to the total war games.

My ideal game would have such a freer map system, the political system of Rome and presumable other EU games, and a combat system not necessarily the same as, though I respect it greatly, similar to the total war games. Its unfathomable to me that my generals in Rome don't know about rudimentary combat tactics like flanking by the time they are youthful officers still learning to master riding the horse.

I suppose that is my main complaint with the game as a whole however... that you have no tactical control over battle at all in the slightest. To me it is entirely frustrating as most battles have pre-ordained or worse, somewhat random outcomes. Just as the completely shallow husk of a political system in the total war series irritates me and is unsatisfying. I don't see either as perfect or even games that provide a "complete experience" but I see very good elements in both series. The civilization series as a whole I personally have found so disatisfying and problematic I won't bother mentioning it beyond this one sentence.

I echo this sentiment as well. I love TW's battles and free movement and EUR's politic/civilization setup and day-to-day 'turns'. I hate the irrationality of TW's 2 year turns and EU's movement. The EU movement and combat is all-around gamey and not realistic and in any sense of the word: I've been marching my army across the Alps to the west for two months and right before I reach that province an enemy army appears in the east. No problem - I'll just warp my army back to where they were when they started that trek two months ago so they can defend it. And ping-ponging: Are you f*ing kidding me? That's the downright stupidest shit I've ever seen in a game that tries to "realistically" portray anything.

And this idea that Paradox's games are "grand strategy" but TW is a "war game". They are both "historical grand war strategy take over the world" games IMO but have very different priorities, or approaches to it. I can at least dream of that ultimate game that would combine the best both have to offer, can't I?

 

[Alwin von Arlt]

I can see what the original poster is saying. For the HOI series I could definitely see his type of set up, however since HOI3 runs so slow as is, adding that to the battlefield would up game requirements that many of Paradox's fans consider too high as is. Also the grand strategy games last long enough, this will just make the whole campaign... THAT much longer.

For HOI Series maybe one day, but the amount of RAM and processing would need to go up ALOT, cause the game is already slow enough without this change, which means less sales from their target audience.

For other games that maybe don't utilize a world map, like if there is a CK2 or Rome2... Yeah with their smaller maps and use of warfare and much less diplomacy, I could see it.

For EU4 or Vicky 3.... yeah way out there if ever in the future... I don't see a need. Diplomacy is more important in those games, and that tactical system is one more thing to worry about. In EU and Vicky I've played entire games just focused on the economy, without any need for wars except defensive.

The AI and system resources needed to SUPPORT and make the Computer player a respected foe, rather then a pushover is also necessary, as well Multiplayer wars, etc... would just crash the system down.

Honestly to do the system proposed Right, maybe a baseline of http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5353379&CatId=4929 can support it on a world map.

More provinces = more system resources = slower game... people are already having slow games -> See HOI3 where this system makes MORE SENSE in context
I don't mind the idea as long as it wasn't mandatory... there would need to be a yes/no option.

In the end, the bigger, more detailed game you get... the more system resources are used and less people are willing to buy the game if they see they have to upgrade... I recall when EU3 min reqs came out... so many people got upset that they needed to upgrade...

I've been programming now over a decade, and I don't see how a tactical combat system DONE RIGHT would work with current system resources, especially considering how slow HOI3 is, and really EU3 and Rome are hardly speed demons in their own right for the average player... And at this point, tactical combat would have to be considered as 2 thumbs down... UNTIL the average player has a system as I posted above.

Its nice to dream, but this I don't see it happened from Paradox, they have their formula for success, and it won't go here anytime soon. And for me Gameplay/Strategy means more then pretty pictures or animation... hence why I'd prefer a MUD to say WOW lol. And Paradox delivers that to me AS IS in multiplayer... Strategy and Gameplay... in MP a true Tactical combat system would be too system draining to be considered, considering everything else the game keeps track of anyways... There's A LOT to consider the more I think of it, but rather then mumble on about that... I got a Japanese invasion of Brazil to plan in MP EU3

 

[rjf101]

It would be a lovely idea, to have completely free movement, it certainyl made Total War one of the most addictive games ever because of the limitless possibilities in warfare. However, I'm just not sure if it can work without turn-based sustem. I mean, think about it: you're Rome, and then carthage declares wra on you. A few months later, Macedonia declares war on you. So, nopw you're fighti9ng a two-front war, every few seconds another day goes by, and the enemy can just slip right by your armies as you try to manage dozens of units spread accross thousands of miles. It would just be very difficult, I think, to implement successfully.

But a good idea none the less.