All of these games should be consolidated into one.

[Dr.Livingstone]

No, this is wrong. "All" that needs to be done is to cohesively bind all of the games together with a fluid conversion system. CK2 to EU4 is a strong starting prototype for just that, because it resolves the old issues by creating a mod for the next version of the game. If something like that could be created to bind everything from CK2 to HOI together, then we'd truly have a wonderful world.

I wouldn't mind a 'complete bundle', where one would gain all the games, dlc, and expansions in one ultra-pack. The Ultra-pack could include new games like an extended Rome 2 (Please not like the TW fiasco), a 'Worldwide' version of Ck2 (Rise of China and Reverse Sunset Invasion dlc anyone?) and a Victoria 3 (Please, please, please, please, please (a certain amount of time later...)) with the converter dlc connecting them all. Now of course, I wouldn't be able to buy such a thing until the cost reached a reasonable price (Such as five hundred thousand dollars, both my kidneys, and the collection of the eternal soul of Elvis Presley) but an internet user can dream, can't he/she/it/sentient organic robot thing? (You'll never know! )

 

[wingzero890]

Stupid of course. But Goring being an actual character creating actual problems (like his morphine addiction), rather than set of pre-made modifiers...?

But ok- You want something truly ridiculous? Than play EU4 and try not to end with huge blobbing empire, homogeneous in terms of both religion and culture, assimilated in matter of years, because "pops are for Victoria". Or completely flat rulers during renaissance age and later, as well as completely flat advisors- being nothing more than "+3 diplo points". Because characters are for Crusader Kings. Or westernization- going through 100k revolters (in XVI/XVII century) every month, because these guys are dissatisfied due to my policies? Seems reasonable to depopulate whole country to show how much they disapprove.

Truth is, that merging different titles to make them contain ALL features would do well. Because nations existed as long as civilization did, number of peoples existed long before math has been discovered, humans differed from each other not only in middle ages (seemingly in XIX century only people worth attention were generals? Because even queen Victoria isn't properly represented). There are countless more examples on how needlessly pointless are different features for different games. And yet- only thing that actually distinguishes EU3 from EU4 are trade system and monarch points- both being inadequately simplistic.

Good post but I think the core of the issue you are getting at is that EU is the easiest and most dumbed down title in Paradox's clausewitz engine. There is no reason EU4 shouldn't have shipped with pops from Vic 2 ((no jewish culture in eu4 wut)), and characters from CK2

 

[Jamey]

I think this is one of the worst things possible. Each Paradox game is based on the same engine, but the differences between them are what makes them suited to the era they portray:

• CK2 is a game of feudal relationships
• EU4 is a game of exploration, trade, and expansion
• V2 is a game of demographics, ideologies, and great powers clashing
• HOI3 is a game of total war

Each game would be better if their differences were enhanced. Blurring them together would make them worse.

 

[User29]

I think this is one of the worst things possible. Each Paradox game is based on the same engine, but the differences between them are what makes them suited to the era they portray:

• CK2 is a game of feudal relationships
• EU4 is a game of exploration, trade, and expansion
• V2 is a game of demographics, ideologies, and great powers clashing
• HOI3 is a game of total war

Each game would be better if their differences were enhanced. Blurring them together would make them worse.

aye.

What we really need is to ramp up late game play in ck2 and eu4 while also making games stemming back to the beggining of civilization, play from the dawn of man with your rising and declining civilization until the modern day.

We just need to crush the map painting problem the two first games have. and ramp it up in the last one

 

[Sarius1997]

aye.

What we really need is to ramp up late game play in ck2 and eu4 while also making games stemming back to the beggining of civilization, play from the dawn of man with your rising and declining civilization until the modern day.

We just need to crush the map painting problem the two first games have. and ramp it up in the last one

To be honest, i would rather extend Vicky some years towards the timeframe of EU, then see a lot of work been put in the late game of EU.

 

[User29]

To be honest, i would rather extend Vicky some years towards the timeframe of EU, then see a lot of work been put in the late game of EU.

I agree. Vicky is the most underrated Paradox game. but EU is made after that board game so I don't see them cutting years, also, CK2 mechanics work a lot better in the first century of the game than EU mechanics what with the whole Austria inheritng Spain, War of the Roses and etc.

So we should cut the 18th century and the 15th century?

EU just needs to flesh out the late game, and Vicky will be great if they just give the extra 15 years we need from 1820-1836.

 

[Sarius1997]

I agree. Vicky is the most underrated Paradox game. but EU is made after that board game so I don't see them cutting years, also, CK2 mechanics work a lot better in the first century of the game than EU mechanics what with the whole Austria inheritng Spain, War of the Roses and etc.

So we should cut the 18th century and the 15th century?

EU just needs to flesh out the late game, and Vicky will be great if they just give the extra 15 years we need from 1820-1836.

I think that the last years should be cut from EU. IMO, you can see from 1750 that the concept of EU starts to fail, and the napoleonic war and the french revolution are just, well, very, very mediocre. Even the colonial revolutions are still, even with CoP, are not simulated very good. I think that it might be a better idea to have Vicky be extended to the late 18th century, so the political implications of the french revolution are better represented, or maybe even have a new game, from, maybe 1763, to 1815, so the whole revolutionary erea would have a good working game.

 

[Demarque]

...1. Sounds like you're looking for Civilization...

But Civilization is far from having the same depth of the Paradox games.

 

[Emren]

Such a game should surely be balanced as a multiplayer game.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

There's one massive problem that people haven't mentioned.

Time.

I can play through the whole middle ages in two hours in Civ5 and go from 4000 BC to 1980 and victory in 9 hours. One monarch wouldn't last 3 turns in Civ5. CK to HoI in one game could take like 30 hours and if the timescale stayed the same then WW2 would be over before I knew what I was doing since 6 years is nothing in EUIV. If I ever wanted to actually play the Victorian period in this game I would either have to play for 26 hours or choose a later start date in which case I might as well play Victoria 2. People with Jobs and responsibilities might take 6 months real time to finish a game.

Most people would give up a quarter of the way through anyway, meaning Paradox wasted all that time developing the second half of the game.

Only way to get round this is to make time go faster like in Civ in which case you lose depth and don't really have a middle ages game at all because its just a springboard to the Age of Exploration game, but you have to waste all that time in the middle ages.

 

[Sarius1997]

I fail to see the problem with playing 27 hours until i get to the Victorian age. An full game of Vicky already takes around this long (or maybe even longer), and i always feel like i have unfinished business when i end it.

 

[User29]

I fail to see the problem with playing 27 hours until i get to the Victorian age. An full game of Vicky already takes around this long (or maybe even longer), and i always feel like i have unfinished business when i end it.

cause Vicky is only 100 years. never enough time, I hope Vicky 3 gets an 1821 expansion in a dlc at least.

 

[bussoloni]

The degree of difference between CK2 and Hearts of Iron is small. In fact, each game is at the core the same but each has its own gimmick that radically alters how gameplay pans out: CK2 is dynastic, EU is, ultimately, geopoiltical, being halfway between CK2 and Vicky, Vicky is the ultimate state experience, and, although I've never really played it, I assume Hearts of Iron is about strategic war.

.

the only thing in hearts of iron that is anywhere close to CK2 is the minister system.
Other wise, the games are completely differint.
HOI3 is about ww2 so its mostly railroaded during 1936 to 1939. After that, it is railroaded less.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

The degree of difference between CK2-Hearts of Iron is small. In fact, each game is at the core the same but each has its own gimmick that radically alters how gameplay pans out: CK2 is dynastic, EU is, ultimately, geopoiltical, being halfway between CK2 and Vicky, Vicky is the ultimate state experience, and, although I've never really played it, I assume Hearts of Iron is about strategic war.

But I see no reason why these all cannot be integrated into one and the same game.

I also see no reason why this integrated game could not also integrate the tactical battle map of the Total War series as well. After all, I don't fight most of my battles in the Total War series, only key ones. When I would play Total War, my concentration is always focused on the management side. But the management experience delivered there is substantially inferior to what a Paradox game provides. Nevertheless, especially in EU, the ability not to be able to fight your own battles is crippling. I definitely find myself longing for this feature, in such a way that I do no understand why must there be two games, each deficient in one aspect, when there could be one game, which boasts the possession of both.

But I digress.

I see no reason why CK2 should be entirely focused on the dynastic and religious, when it could just as well incorporate the state-running of Vicky 2. Indeed, that was part of a medieval society as well, if not more so. Incorporating the state-running experience of Vicky into CK2 would not diminish the medieval focus of the game but only enhance. Incorporating a greater emphasis on economic matters would not detract the focus of the game, but once again enhance it.

The incorporation of all of these features into one single game that spans the breadth of time four separate games occupy would make one truly unsurpassed game. Not only do I have to worry about my dynasty but also the resources of my lands, the class orders, taxation rates, inflation, etc.

I have always advocated for this but it is always met with hostility. "Why not play Total War then?" Because these games in most aspects are superior.

You speak of the future my son. Though the future is not the present. Don't sell the future short though. It starts in ancient times this future game.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

There's one massive problem that people haven't mentioned.

Time.

I can play through the whole middle ages in two hours in Civ5 and go from 4000 BC to 1980 and victory in 9 hours. One monarch wouldn't last 3 turns in Civ5. CK to HoI in one game could take like 30 hours and if the timescale stayed the same then WW2 would be over before I knew what I was doing since 6 years is nothing in EUIV. If I ever wanted to actually play the Victorian period in this game I would either have to play for 26 hours or choose a later start date in which case I might as well play Victoria 2. People with Jobs and responsibilities might take 6 months real time to finish a game.

Most people would give up a quarter of the way through anyway, meaning Paradox wasted all that time developing the second half of the game.

Only way to get round this is to make time go faster like in Civ in which case you lose depth and don't really have a middle ages game at all because its just a springboard to the Age of Exploration game, but you have to waste all that time in the middle ages.

Time would be dynamic. The time would move at the pace the player wanted.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

Such a game should surely be balanced as a multiplayer game.

Imagine the discussions about 'westernization', 'op', and 'nerfing' on the forums..

Anyway, I'm fine with them being separate games. They are very much different, while they do have commonalities. The only thing I miss is converting a game to the next era.
And sometimes I wonder why one game has this awesome feature, and the other has another awesome feature, but the third game has neither although it would be awesome.

All in all Paradox does a lot to make awesome games.

 

[No idea]

Capture Stalin's son as Germany - then land him and press his weak claim on the Soviet Union.

Arggg. The game is not even made (yet) and already thinking ways for a WC?

 

[ringhloth]

Capture Stalin's son as Germany - then land him and press his weak claim on the Soviet Union.

That's ridiculous.

Stalin's son would have a strong claim, but only after Stalin had died!

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Time would be dynamic. The time would move at the pace the player wanted.

Works a lot easier in a turn based system.

Paradox games have too many independent actors to give the player absolute control. If you could speed it up to decades per second you'd miss too much and be conquered if you blinked after someone declared one in you before you could slow down the game speed.

 

[Mikebloke]

Spore mentality.

But Spore had separation because each stage was seen at a 'different' or renewed level, not a continuous process. Multiple-mechanics in a Paradox Game would have the complications of things like the map, as we ignore glaring issues as we accept it wont be the same when its converted from one game to another. Also the 'sudden' mechanic changes would be frustrating when in the middle of a war, for example (not even mentioning time frame between ticks, going from 1 tick for 1 day to 1 tick to 1 hour?).