Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

worst game ever ? please answer me

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
U

unmerged(676431)

Private
2 Badges
Feb 24, 2013
10
0
  • Crusader Kings II
  • March of the Eagles
I am really shocked how limited a game can be in 2013. The "diplomatic system" is just fake. There are only two coalitions possible. For example, if you play Russia, you can not ally to Austria. Only, if Austria is allied to GB and Russia is also allied to GB. Why ? Because it would be "too complex" ?
"We want to simulate the French-GB conflict" would just be a lame excuse.
And how can you publish a game where no nation cares about its capital ? Kopenhagen under siege by Sweden ? Who cares, lets move the danish army to fight a twice as big french army in Bremen. And so it goes all game long.

There is just a fake ai. The diplomatic system gives at best the illusion to simulate diplomacy.

Of course you will never be able to simulate history to 100%. But March of the Eagles only makes it to 5% to be polite.
What was the aim of this game ? "He, we have a working engine, lets use it for some more games, no need to care for ai.

it could be a wonderful game, it looks great, so many details are included - but it fails the basics in a terrible way.
 
You complain about diplomacy, but this is a war game. You're supposed to go out there and fight. In that regard, there isn't much to regret.
 
Totally agree. The worst thing Paradox have ever released, not in concept just actual implementation. Having had a damn good dig around in the files I don't have confidence that any aspect of this game is working as it should. Still they've supposedly been working on a patch for a while now and we have had some bizarre promise of the best war game ever so there is some hope. Damn I've had my engineers hat on again.
 
It serves it's purpose very well in my eyes, very well indeed. And also has brilliant battle AI, even if not so good in other areas. I've had a lot of fun with it.
 
c42walli said:
I am really shocked how limited a game can be in 2013. The "diplomatic system" is just fake. There are only two coalitions possible. For example, if you play Russia, you can not ally to Austria. Only, if Austria is allied to GB and Russia is also allied to GB. Why ? Because it would be "too complex" ?
"We want to simulate the French-GB conflict" would just be a lame excuse.
And how can you publish a game where no nation cares about its capital ? Kopenhagen under siege by Sweden ? Who cares, lets move the danish army to fight a twice as big french army in Bremen. And so it goes all game long.

There is just a fake ai. The diplomatic system gives at best the illusion to simulate diplomacy.

Of course you will never be able to simulate history to 100%. But March of the Eagles only makes it to 5% to be polite.
What was the aim of this game ? "He, we have a working engine, lets use it for some more games, no need to care for ai.

it could be a wonderful game, it looks great, so many details are included - but it fails the basics in a terrible way.
Click to expand...

What is funny in your complain is Nation that does not care abotu capital city is a somehow historically exact simulation (but I presume it was not designed for that) :

Vienne and Moscou were taken, without putting Austria or Russia out of the fight! After thetaking of Vienna , it have been Essling and the death of Lannes, and then Wagram, and it is only after Wagram Austria conceded defeat. I will not infuriate you (or insult you) by saying what happened after the taken of Moscou!

Even Paris in 1814 was not the key, the key was the marchals beign tired to fight, the government wishing peace and most of all personal greed from all those people and Talleyrand du periguard schemings.

On the other hand, I would agreed while it is historicall, it is also moronic, because you are totally right about the " lets move the danish army to fight a twice as big french army in Bremen" that is neither logic neither historical.

Now, after have spend moretime to read the files than to play, I believe the game we got is only a small part of what was planned.More than unfinished game, I would say a very light release of a more ambitious project.
 
Worst game ever? Not even close. Perhaps if you'd used weak instead of 'bad', and confined the range of your comparison to just Paradox's games.

Weakest game in the Paradox portfolio? Well, as you can see from my icons, I only play the HOI and EU series and I do have Vic 1 too, so I'm not the best person to make that call. Maybe it is. If it is, then they've got plenty to boast about.

AI is fake? I honestly think the AI in most Paradox games is pretty 'fake'. I allow the AI to control my forces and conduct my campaigns when I play HOI3 because if I do it, the poor AI doesn't have a chance in hell. And it does all the weird stuff that you find fake as well.

What I will agree with is that it lacks the detail and depth of the other games in their stable. However, if you'd read the Developer's Diaries, you'd know that it wasn't intended to be anything more than it is. This is not a bad game. It's never going to be the best game in their stable, but it's not bad.
 
only one things i need to say, this is a multiplayer game, and in this sense it work fine.

There are still little problems in game balance, like op guards ,
ships exploit idea (when you lose a fight with a galley you can 1 idea point and maybe save the galley , this is unfair) ,
the switch satellites nation during war (fake war) example,: i'm austria in war against france , i have hre and bavaria as satellite occupied by france, i make a fake war against prussia and i cede all my satellite to him, result, the france occupation is lifted, this is clearly a bug.

the lack of diplomatic options is a mutilation of the diplomatic deals , and for me need to be implemented.

the start power of a nation (especially in menpower terms) its hard to change during the campaign, the balance of power is a bit static and for minor states like spain and sweden in particular have a hard job doing something useful in an entire game.

For me the game work fine aniway, fine for the intended project, only things need some adjustment to become a great mp game.
 
Diplomacy need a some tweaking.
1) Coalitions -> I want coaliton system from EU 4, not only two,
2) Satellites ->
a) no options to release, annex of give territory to them.
b) also you can occupy all french satellites for 5 years, and nothing happen like puppet switch sides, or sth similar to HoI 3
c) satellites provinces cost too much in peace deal;/
3) AI--> in most cases I can complain only about too many garrisons everywhere, and that AI don't create big army stack (200k) . But I think SP is something like training , and chance to chill out, after CK 2, Vicky 2, or HoI 3...


But even withot fixes, this is great game, and I really enjoy when play on vanilla, mod ,both in SP and MP.

#Alabama
All games have exploits, in SP AI don't do this.
In MP are house rules.
 
c42walli said:
I am really shocked how limited a game can be in 2013. The "diplomatic system" is just fake. There are only two coalitions possible. For example, if you play Russia, you can not ally to Austria. Only, if Austria is allied to GB and Russia is also allied to GB. Why ? Because it would be "too complex" ?
"We want to simulate the French-GB conflict" would just be a lame excuse.
And how can you publish a game where no nation cares about its capital ? Kopenhagen under siege by Sweden ? Who cares, lets move the danish army to fight a twice as big french army in Bremen. And so it goes all game long.

There is just a fake ai. The diplomatic system gives at best the illusion to simulate diplomacy.

Of course you will never be able to simulate history to 100%. But March of the Eagles only makes it to 5% to be polite.
What was the aim of this game ? "He, we have a working engine, lets use it for some more games, no need to care for ai.

it could be a wonderful game, it looks great, so many details are included - but it fails the basics in a terrible way.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it sounds to me like you are looking for a different game.

How enjoyable would a game which follows history be? In the extreme case, this wuold mean the player can do nothing - not much fun in my opinion.

The game is not intended to be a visual encyclopedia covering the Napoleonic Wars, it is intended to offer the player an opportunity to fight during this time period. There have been some bugs reported, and Paradox are working on a patch to address as many of these as possible.

What exactly do you mean by 'fake' ai and diplomacy? There are some issues with the AI and some players would of course like to see more diplomacy options, but this has never been marketed or presented as an in depth diplomatic simulator - it is about war.

You must have also noticed that the game was far cheaper than most recent releases. Many Paradox games when they are released they cost around £40, and many titles cost £50 and upwards. March of the Eagles retailed for £15, so I was not surprised that the game was shorter, relatively, than other titles.
 
c42walli said:
What was the aim of this game ?
Click to expand...

Well given you have the game you should know! Did you not read the dev. diaries?
The game was never going to be on a par with the deep strategy games of HoI, Vicky, CK or EU (latest versions)
It was to:
- Model warfare during the napoleonic era
- Introduce the notions of competing coalitions rather than the alliance free-for-alls of other grand strategy games. Thus pitching all nations on one side or another.
- Introduce a more complex battle system (flanks, tactics, battleevents, combat phases etc
- ...and logistics at a operational warfare level (attrition & supply)
- Provide more combat oriented gameplay
- Introduce the concept of having a race between the competing sides, with the objective of taking certain locations before rivals.
- Allow quicker games to be fought. Therefore different pace. Different feel to other games.

In terms of comparing against other PDX products.... its something like HoI reduced to Sengoku or EURome. Think of it as alternative grand strategy product.

If you have ever brought a phyisical boardgame from the past (maybe also now), they used to have a complexity chart on the back to show how deep the game would be and hard to learn. If you take EU or CK2 as a 4 and HoI and Vicky as a 5. MotE would be a 1-2.

For me its a perfect entry level game to play paradox products, before you go on to their gold ribbon games.

3...

Though I dont need an entry level game, being a pds games vet. of sorts, I got to play a few full games in my time with it.
Sure it could do with some additions/adjustments, which the developers have mentioned they will look at. So the product isnt quite yet finished. At least for now. So depending on its success we could see alot more additions to the base game. Which I for one am hoping for!
 
I might have been a bit harsh. I've said this before but I have two hats when playing this game, a gamers hat and an engineers. As a gamer I have spent hundreds of hours with this and had a lot of fun, so I have had more than my monies worth out of it so can't complain there. As an engineer I just get infuriated. Two words have already been used in this thread, "unfinished" and "moronic", both sum the game's problems up pretty nicely.

I think all the issues with this game have been covered somewhere on this forum so I won't repeat them here, but as I said earlier, the fact that I can see so many things not working properly does not fill me with any confidence in the things that I can't see.

The thing is though, if someone else had made this, I would have expected little for the price, had a lot of fun with it, not moaned once, and then put it with all the other Napoleonic warfare computer games there have been over the years. This is PDS though, the bar is very very high, I had hoped that this was going to be the one, so all my criticisms probably come from a sense of disappointment rather than it being a terrible game.

So devs, what news on a patch? I know that "no news is good news" but I'm starting to feel that its MIA status is about to be changed, and not for the better.
 
ericB said:
What is funny in your complain is Nation that does not care abotu capital city is a somehow historically exact simulation (but I presume it was not designed for that) :

Vienne and Moscou were taken, without putting Austria or Russia out of the fight! After thetaking of Vienna , it have been Essling and the death of Lannes, and then Wagram, and it is only after Wagram Austria conceded defeat. I will not infuriate you (or insult you) by saying what happened after the taken of Moscou!

Even Paris in 1814 was not the key, the key was the marchals beign tired to fight, the government wishing peace and most of all personal greed from all those people and Talleyrand du periguard schemings.

On the other hand, I would agreed while it is historicall, it is also moronic, because you are totally right about the " lets move the danish army to fight a twice as big french army in Bremen" that is neither logic neither historical.

Now, after have spend moretime to read the files than to play, I believe the game we got is only a small part of what was planned.More than unfinished game, I would say a very light release of a more ambitious project.
Click to expand...

Sorry ericB, but you do not get my point. I complained that it makes no sense for Denmark to send the whole Danish Army to Bremen where a French army twice as big waited for them and crushed them. While the city of Copenhagen is under siege by Sweden.

All you say about Moscou and Vienna is right. But it is a very different situation to what I described, don´t you think so ?
 
alabama joe said:
only one things i need to say, this is a multiplayer game, and in this sense it work fine.

There are still little problems in game balance, like op guards ,
ships exploit idea (when you lose a fight with a galley you can 1 idea point and maybe save the galley , this is unfair) ,
the switch satellites nation during war (fake war) example,: i'm austria in war against france , i have hre and bavaria as satellite occupied by france, i make a fake war against prussia and i cede all my satellite to him, result, the france occupation is lifted, this is clearly a bug.

the lack of diplomatic options is a mutilation of the diplomatic deals , and for me need to be implemented.

the start power of a nation (especially in menpower terms) its hard to change during the campaign, the balance of power is a bit static and for minor states like spain and sweden in particular have a hard job doing something useful in an entire game.

For me the game work fine aniway, fine for the intended project, only things need some adjustment to become a great mp game.
Click to expand...


Well, I play this game with a friend- and this does not work for us. He plays France, I play Russia. So he fights Great Britain, that sends an army of 100k to the Netherlands - all gone within 3 month. Next he fights Prussia and Austria - both with big armies. But sadly both Prussia and Austria always DIVIDE their troops so France just has to wait for the next brilliant split to beat any stack with 2-1 or better ratio. And during all that time I ask Great Britain again and again to be allowed to enter the coalition against France. But Great Britain says no, again and again. No matter if I am not war with France or if I declare war to France and ask then again. This is absurd.
But well, I will simply form my own coalition against France then ? NO!! Because there is only one coalition possible. And this is ridicules.

I think the game will work well with many human players. Or it would do so if you would not be restricted to two coalitions.

But the ai of the game is simply a shame for the concept of artificial INTELLIGENCE.
 
You can form a coalition against anyone. I've seen it happen, especially coalitions vs. Russia -- those evil Rus. However, moreover my young padawans this game is mostly made for multiplayer, tactical war simulation. And it serves that purpose beautifully. I have a plethora of hours on MP. 8-man games, almost over 100 hours of it. Just amazing, especially since I always wipe the floor on everyone lol :3.
 
JakobWerle said:
You can form a coalition against anyone. I've seen it happen, especially coalitions vs. Russia -- those evil Rus. However, moreover my young padawans this game is mostly made for multiplayer, tactical war simulation. And it serves that purpose beautifully. I have a plethora of hours on MP. 8-man games, almost over 100 hours of it. Just amazing, especially since I always wipe the floor on everyone lol :3.
Click to expand...

well, it might be possible to "form a coalition against anyone". But there can exist only ONE(!!!) coalition. In the whole game, just ONE coalition can be in effect at any time, NEVER two. Did I made my point clear now ?

When I once played a single player game with GB, I did not form a coaltion against France myself early in the game. And when I wanted to do so after about 4 or 5 month, I learned that there is already a coalition, so I could not create one myself.
 
c42walli said:
well, it might be possible to "form a coalition against anyone". But there can exist only ONE(!!!) coalition. In the whole game, just ONE coalition can be in effect at any time, NEVER two. Did I made my point clear now ?

When I once played a single player game with GB, I did not form a coaltion against France myself early in the game. And when I wanted to do so after about 4 or 5 month, I learned that there is already a coalition, so I could not create one myself.
Click to expand...
So... you should join the anti-French one?
 
Grubnessul said:
So... you should join the anti-French one?
Click to expand...


sigh... did you read my complaints, all of them ? Do I really have to say that the AIM TO JOIN does not mean that you will succeed ?
Of course it would make sense to join this coalition, as well for the coalition and GB that wants to join it. BUT THANKS TO THE AI I was NOT ACCEPTED.
Ok, you can argue "your onw mistake, GB should always form the coalition in MotE". And you would be right.

But it is also a fact that it is a terrible, arbitrary limitation to the diplomatic system that there is only one coalition possible.
And if the ai can´t handle the coalition system (not inviting, not accepting a nation that would strengthen the coalition) the whole system is useless.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back