-
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.
- Status
That was Mars One - a set of fruit cakes who are trying to crowd-source a mission costing billions. Nothing to do with NASA
OK. Well if they succeed then it doesn't really matter who was behind it, only the results matters. But if it is crowd-sourcing then it is very unlikely to be successful unless some very rich persons don't donate large amounts of cash (a highly unlikely event).
Basically the Obama administration cancelled the Constellation Program back in 2010 and replaced it with a plan to do things that Constellation was going to do this decade with a plan to do the same things next decade - basically punting the ball another 10 years down the line. Constellation itself was another product of punting, since what it was supposed to be doing this decade was originally proposed for the 2000-2010 period, which in turn was a delayed version of what was supposed to have been done in the 90's. Basically US manned spaceflight has been marking time for the last 30 years at least with practically zero to show for it in independent efforts. The ISS is the only thing any space agency can point to as a major accomplishment in this regard, and that's been a joint effort by all the agencies.
Basically, I and all the other manned space flight enthusiasts have spent our entire adult lives looking forward to manned space exploration that simply isn't happening. Back in the 80's our school books all talked about bases on the Moon and Mars being things that we could expect to see in the next couple of decades, and had any will be there they would have happened.
I support Mars One and Inspiration Mars simply because they are the only game in town for seeing progress in the manned exploration of space in the next ten years. I don't believe either mission will happen though - Mars One will simply never crowd-fund enough money to go to Mars, and Inspiration Mars can only happen with backing from the US government.
Eh. Space is scary, and I feel like people don't realise just how far away Mars is from us. And why would anyone want to live there in the first place?
Similar things could been said about the discovery of the new world. It took months to get over there. No clue what awaits you. Hostile environment. And don't forget about the natives.
I would love a space expansion colonization game with a non unified earth. Competing with other nations for the new frontier. Making outpost around other planets. All 4x games i know of have you control the whole planet. I would like to see several nations setting up their colonies on mars and the moon. Carving up the planet for the best spots. And proxy wars. Maybe the potential of an exodus on earth. Leading into an independent moon or mars. War over the control of the solar system.
Firstly, I would like to see XCOM style planet earth map. Not as a hologram green blob, but as a globe with paradox specific style. And similar globe maps for the potential colonizatiable moons/planets. And battles would take place on ground, on seas, on orbit but not in space.
Different planets would be acessible by pressing approriate map tabs buttons and the fleet travel between planets would take place through decisions where all the costs are marked in a tooltip.
Different planets would be acessible by pressing approriate map tabs buttons and the fleet travel between planets would take place through decisions where all the costs are marked in a tooltip.
Yes, but at least you could breathe and build relatively normal structures in the Americas. Not so much about Mars.
Technical problems that can be dealt with. What's really lacking is the will to do it.
The problem with this line of thought is that by "arcade'i" (?? lol?) I think you mean "not hiding all the information from the player."
All Paradox games do is have a hundreds of one-shot interactions so that you have to memorize a bunch of arbitrary interactions and hidden tooltip information. Beyond that the game is just as simple, if not simpler, than a game like Civ 5. All Civ 5 does is put all the information out in the open and have better graphics. That makes people like you say "arcade'i" (again, lol).
There are so many things about Civ V which are "arcadey". George Washington founding a civilization on a fantasy map is one of the ways it can start but it doesn't end there. The unit types, founding of cities, research tree, the way religion, espionage, political systems, warfare and diplomacy are handled are all arcadey and I cannot see how any reasonable person could argue any different. Paradox games or any game0 for that matter don't simulate things perfectly either but it's obvious they do a better job than Civilization. I'll concede it's more difficult for civilization because it covers a greater time period and I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad game but it's definitely an arcadey game as far as grand strategy games go. It's like comparing chess with Total War. Chess is a good game but it doesn't simulate ancient warfare better.
It might not be exactly what you're looking for, but my favourite strategy game is still Call to Power because it did go from stone age 4000 B.C. all the way to space colonies in 3000 A.D..
If you've never played it and can find a working copy, I can highly advice it. Call To Power II is more polished, especially the UI, but is less focussed on the space part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization:_Call_to_Power
If you've never played it and can find a working copy, I can highly advice it. Call To Power II is more polished, especially the UI, but is less focussed on the space part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization:_Call_to_Power
Last edited:
You have to be kidding, this game is a ripoff of Civilization series and it is over a decade old. If a space game is to be named then at least name some real good space games like Galactic Civilizations 2 (Galactic Civilizations 3 will come out soon).
Randomized maps having nothing to do with "arcadey." Whether or not it is a deep and interesting strategy game is a totally different issue from whether or not the map is only played on an Earth-like map.
Because your definition of "arcadey" is apparently "anything that isn't a simulation." If you use stupid definitions you will get stupid results.
But even using your apparent definition of "arcadey", I would argue that EU4's tech is at least as arcadey as Civilization's (whether 1/2/3/4/5), and arguably more arcade. In both CK2 and EU4, you accumulate points (whether monarch points or tech points) and you spend those on techs. Techs increase linearly in completely predictable ways (Improved Keeps I, Improved Keeps II for example in CK2; in EU4 it's Admin 1-32, Military 1-32, etc). In EU4, techs provide new units, just like Civ. In Civ, at least, techs branch in realistic and descriptive ways. Techs aren't neatly divided into "military" and "admin" and "diplo." In Civilization you can't just tech straight military and never tech diplomacy. At some point you will need an earlier branch, like needing Compass->Navigation->Astronomy->Optics before you can develop Fiber Optics; you can't just rush up Electricity->Radio->Computers->Fiber Optics. Things build in on each other in a sensible way.
Ironically EU4 and CK2 techs are far more like RTS techs like Starcraft/Warcraft where you just develop things like "Improved Attack 2" for +10% attack or whatever.
Espionage in Civ has been handled in very different ways but it completely blows my mind you would say espionage in EU4 is less arcadey than Civ. In Civilization, for example, espionage was a matter of various missions you could use a Diplomat unit for; inciting unrest in a city, stealing technology, sabotaging buildings, etc. In EU4 espionage is far more "arcadey" - sabotage rep for automatic -50 to the target's relations. In CK2 it's "click here to assassinate."
Religion didn't exist in several Civ games (apart how its social elements connected to technology sometimes) and in Civ 4 it was already more intricate than EU4 or CK2. In both those games it mostly becomes a matter of "teams" - in CK2 and EU4 you can't do royal marriages outside of your religion group, despite this happening all the time historically (ERE princesses marrying Cumans, Muslims marrying Hindus, Mongol khans changing religion every few years, etc). In CK2 that also means no alliances across religious groups at all. The "holy war" CB in CK2 is the definition of arcadey. In EU4 it's more a matter of managing AE, meaning to conquering one religion doesn't piss off your neighbors of your own religion. But there's very little or no indication of the economic or social impact of religion. It's just a matter of setting up teams. Whereas in Civilization 4 and 5, religion does that to some extent, but it also greatly influences the nations themselves, particularly income from pilgrimages and the effect on trade.
Warfare became slightly more arcadey with "one unit per tile" in Civ 5, but in all the Civs were no worse than EU4. Both are a matter of random dice rolls between different types of units; in EU4 this means technology as well, not just unit static unit types. Terrain is a factor and generals too (generals being added in Civ 2, IIRC, but certainly by Civ 4 and 5). Typically the bigger stronger units win. Not really any different on either side. Neither presents a compelling or realistic vision of combat like a Total War tactical battle.
Diplomacy is fairly barebones in both games. Both come down to a bunch of predetermined modifiers that add up to a result, or don't. That determines whether a diplomatic option is available or not. CK2 basically has no diplomacy outside of Alliance / War / nothing. EU4 at least adds overlord statuses, but Civ 5 also has puppeting of cities, which is similar enough to vassals in EU4 (you don't control them directly; they give you some money; they fight on your side in a war).
Overall the "arcadey" thing doesn't seem to have any basis in reality. I can't help but think you mean "Civ has higher production values" which you equate with "arcadey."
No Paradox game "simulates" anything. It abstracts a bunch of stuff together so that you can do things like "click here to advance Military technology" or "click here to assassinate" and "using your perfect omniscient sky vision, click here to send your fleet from England to Egypt." These are NOT simulations. They are just as gamey and abstracted as any Civilization game. The only question is what each game designer decided to abstract.
Also I'm shocked that in a thread about Mars games nobody has mentioned that the guy who made SMAC is making a Mars colonization strategy game:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/08/soren-johnson-interview-civilization-mars/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/08/soren-johnson-interview-civilization-mars/
Randomize maps have a lot to do with it being arcadey if you accept my definition which you have for argument sake. It's not a stupid definition either, it's a common definition. Play a good sports game for example like NBA 2k14 or a flight simulator like warthunder. If they have sliders affecting gameplay they usually call their unrealistic settings arcade and on the other end of the spectrum they call them simulations.
Diplomacy in all Paradox games exceeds civilization primarily because there is more than 8 or so other factions. In civilization V you even get quest to improve relations with minor powers because of how lacking the main diplomacy is. Even CKII which you said had "basically has no diplomacy outside of Alliance / War / nothing." has more. There are marriages (which are alliances nicely represented) bribes, appointments to positions, chancellor being sent to improve relations, fabrication of claims and various types of demands.
Warfare in civilization is far weaker than any Paradox game I've played. Not only the one unit per tile but what that unit represents. There is no information at all for what the unit represents, in paradox games you get realistic representation of the armies of the time. In EUIV you may have a stack of 50 but everyone who has ever watched a battle unfold or seen the ledger knows a stack of 50 represents 50k as each unit represents 1k. In ckII it is more plain as it is with HOI. All of the games have attrition which is of huge importance. You have leaders but unlike civilization they aren't rare super units that can magically construct instant wonders like the pyramids and so on. In paradox games they are essential for a proper functioning army not like civ. Tactically though they are still abstract but better than civ still. There is more than two or three stats which affect combat. There are flanks, supply limits, different attack phases, terrain modifiers, leadership modifiers and so on which all are affected by a more detailed (yet still abstract) combat values of the troops themselves. You said "Ironically EU4 and CK2 techs are far more like RTS techs like Starcraft/Warcraft where you just develop things like "Improved Attack 2" for +10% attack or whatever.", I could mention HOI but I won't, instead I'll just say it's hardly any different to getting a new unit which has +1 attack and the combat system doesn't allow for stupid dice rolls were the infamous spearman beats tanks scenario happens like it can on Civ.
Religion in paradox games means more than religion in Civilization. In civilization it's a mix and match rpg like upgrade tree for bonuses. Which is very arcadey. In paradox games there is a college of cardinals and an independent pope with real power. In CKII your character can get piety by demonstrating various virtues throughout the course of there life. Not marrying outside of a religion is a very minor thing but it can be done in CKII and I have done it before. Religion is more complex than that though. You get heresy's if your religion is weak, your population is likely to revolt if you aren't of the same religion and so on and so on.
Diplomacy in paradox games is vastly superior (and less arcadey) than Civ games. For starters you can have upwards of 40 nations in which to interact with and the strategic choices therefore is greater. You need or atleast it is in your benefit to actually have some sort of justification for war, unlike CIV. You can do things in EU that you cannot do in CIV. For example, you can proclaim guarantees without alliances, you can get fleet basing rights and so on.
All and all these are all obvious things if you've played both Civ and paradox games. I've could have went into more details about the various paradox games, used there strongest games (as far as simulation goes) like HOI for warfare examples, and Vicky for social examples and so on but I just tried to be fair and not exaggerate the differences as I could make my point using your examples. That's not to say paradox games are simulations and I never said that, all I argued is they are less arcadey than civilization. A game where George Washington can form a cilization in 3000 bc spreads across a make believe land by having his settler units click build. I didn't expect to have to justify it, it is obvious.
Why would you be shocked? Considering the thread is older than the announcement I think it makes sense.
PS Soren Johnson didn't make SMAC, he is most well known for being the lead design for Civ IV.
Aha, you're right. For some reason I thought he made SMAC.
The announcement was over 2 weeks ago, anyway.
I don't mean exclusively that. By arcade'i, I mean too abstracted gameplay from reality. Gimmicky features what's only reason of existence is not that they fit in there or that they belong within that perticular game, but because people have come to expect every game like it to have that feature regardless if that fits into the game style. One of such gimmicky feature is the people's expectation that a space game has to be maddening micromanagement simulator.
I'll agree that it's a workable definition for those genres, but for the strategy genre I don't think it works at all.
The problem is that there is no convincing way to simulate running a country or a civilization, because nobody really "runs" such a thing. It's an attempt to simulate something that doesn't really exist. While players really do play basketball games and pilots really do pilot planes, there is no "player" that runs a country. CK2 is somewhat more accurate than EU4 in that regard, but EU4 is equally as gamey and unrealistic as Civilization is.
That doesn't follow at all. You get the exact same missions in EU4. "Form an Alliance with Navarra" on day 1 as Castille in EU4? How is that different than such a quest in Civ?
And how does the number matter? Moreover, the main thing that happens in EU4 is the continuous blobbing effect. After a few hours of gameplay there's usually nothing but 8 factions or less in Europe.
That's internal realm management, not diplomacy. Between realms the only thing is Alliance (marriage, but only possible with same religious group), War, and nothing. If you are trying to count internal politics, then of course Civilization has much more anyway because of city and budget management.
Not remotely realistic. For one thing, if you hit a particular tech upgrade at the right year, you will suddenly have invincible armies that will slaughter everything before them with virtually no casualties. In Civilization, there is almost never such a power gap. You might be one unit tech ahead and do a lot of damage, but your unit will eventually slow down to cumulative damage. In EU4 your armies will automatically reinforce to full strength from around the world with no problem.
And in EU4, all units move at the same speed. Exact same speed. An army of 10,000 cavalry moves at the same map speed as 10,000 artillerymen and their cannons. Totally ridiculous. At least in Civilization units have different speeds, even if the concept of "unit" itself is more abstract. Further, it doesn't really matter what a "unit" is since a Civilization's ability to maintain "more units" is directly proportional to its size and wealth.
And then there's the EU4 map, which for warfare means you have a completely ridiculous setup where units can be "travelling" from one province to another for weeks, but then, the day before they "arrive", the unit can decide to stay where it is. Units ONLY teleport between provinces and provinces are arbitrarily sized. The Clausewitz engine is a complete and utter joke in that regard. Combat revolves around pausing the game and calculating dates. You end up with utterly ludicrous situations like ping-ponging between provinces because of how mandatory retreating and other nonsense works.
Tank vs spearman problems haven't happened since Civ 1, really. The addition of firepower stats and hitpoints mean it never really happens anymore.
And you seem woefully ignorant of how Civilization combat is actually calculated. There ARE flanking modifiers, there ARE supply limits, there ARE formation bonuses, and a host of other modifiers like morale, strength versus specific other units, and traits that add to defense at home and other stats. Not sure why you are going to argue that when Civilization games have all the same concepts.
Piety is just another currency you can spend on things like switching religion or doing things like attacking an ally or getting people to like you or recruiting Holy Order troops. It is just like spending Faith points in Civ 5 for bonuses or more units. It serves exactly the same gameplay function. You get it by doing things and you spend it to do other things. Picking up traits on your character for the purpose of getting more piety is exactly like picking religious traits to get more Faith points Civ 5. You are just listing things that both games do identically.
You don't need a justification for war in EU4. And Civ does have justifications for war which cause less impact if you use them. If you launch an unprovoked war in Civ 5 the other countries will like you much less. If you have a legitimate reason to declare war the diplomatic impact is lessened.
And in EU4/CK2, half the time your CB is a fabricated claim (or, in CK2, a courtier's claim). So what if you have to send a diplomat to a province for 6 months before you start a war? How is that not "arcadey"? Your diplomats are running around the world fabricating claims as if that were some kind of universal activity that can just be done as a matter of course? THAT is the definition of arcadey and gamey, that these are generic actions that can always be done on any neighboring province. It's the reduction of complicated historical, legal, and documentary issues to something as simple as "click here to fabricate a claim."
This is the PERFECT example of the senseless elitism that Paradox fans undeservedly maintain about Paradox games. EU4 is no better than Civilization in terms of gaminess, arcadeyness, whatever you want to call it. EU4 is just as ridiculous as Civilization in nearly every regard.
Arguing that your position is "obvious" is surefire evidence that you haven't remotely thought about. To quote Tolstoy, "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
- Status