CK3. EU5, "Rome 2", Vicky 3/4, etc. - The Next Generation

[Strager]

So as we move into 2015, it occured to me how old the engine powering EU4, CK2, etc. really is. I posted tutorials on how to work with the editor for EU3's demo way back in 2007. I'm sure Paradox is painfully aware of this, and if they have not already started doing so should be looking into the "Next-Generation" engine.

Please don't use this as a place to vent about bugs and issues with the current titles, but what would you all like to see in the next generation engine?

For me I'd like to see a smooth integrated converter (or a single-engine game ((See below)) ), and random map generator. Both of these features were "tacked on" after the fact with the current engine, and neither worked as well as we would like.

I would also like to see models in a format that is easier to edit using free tools. The community could do so much more with mods if they could freely create and release models. I realize that adding models to the base game is integral to your pricing model, but I'm sure you guys are smart enough to find a way to do both.

Lets not forget the game itself - I'd like to see a "unified" combat engine that could handle everything from ancient greek slingers to trench warfar to modern day drone warfare. What I mean by this is that the engine uses the same scale (so even though they are in different games, the power etc. of a CK2 British knight could be directly compared to an HoI 4 Panzer) and combat methods across games - this makes transitioning between games easier, simplifies modding, and I think would be a huge improvement..... this of course would be mandatory for the suggestion below....


Which brings me to my BIG suggestion - Make the series a "Single Engine Game" - what I mean by this is that rather than make a CK3, EU5, etc. at all make a singular "EU Ultimate" like game - The Base game could be set in the age of Alexander and last until around the founding of Rome. DLCs would be released until a specified timeframe, at which point a new "Standalone DLC" would be released - essentially the base game wrapped around a new start date ((in essense this is the same as putting out a new era game like a new CK or EU, but with the advantage of being both DLC for the original game and a standalone title on its own)). Rinse and repeat all the way through the modern age! This couldn't be done with the current engine, but with a flashy new engine taking advantage of the last decades worth of technology this not only should be "doable" it would make for the most EPIC game of all time. Imagine being able to pick up and play from any point in history from Alexander the Great, to Putin the Weakminded ( ).

 

[Zupanicarr]

This would be impossible to make.
They've already said they would never do anything like this, partly because they're so small, and partly because they have enough trouble making games like Victoria 2, or Europa Universalis on time, this would take a decade.
Aside from no one having a computer to run something on that scale, each game would lack it's own flare.
There are things you would need to do in a game like Crusader Kings, that would never work mechanically in Hearts of Iron, and same flipped.

In theory this is a great idea, but in execution I can't believe this would be a good idea. I'll give you props for ambition and creativity, but I don't think it would work.:sad:

 

[LumberKing]

HoI4 is next gen, as will V3 or any other subsequent game should Paradox decide to make them.

 

[Axe99]

I think a new engine may or may not be a good idea (scalable fonts are the biggest thing I'd like, but if an engine do-over gave them more AI options, that'd be good too), but the 'one game split into different eras' thing would probably be a step backwards. You'd be left with legacy systems that no longer really reflected the period, and lots of stuff that'd be clunky (jack of all trades, master of none systems), or you'd have such an incredibly complex game only the most dedicated would be able to follow it. No harm in throwing the thought around though .

 

[justin6477]

HoI4 is next gen, as will V3 or any other subsequent game should Paradox decide to make them.

Sort-of? Thing is, the engine has been Clausewitz for a while.... however, they've been updating and upgrading Clausewitz after each release. I believe they labelled CK2 as Clausewitz 2.0, EUIV was ~2.5 or so, and I don't think they've slapped a V3 onto the HoI4 engine. If there's going to be a new engine, CK3 would be the title to release it on. The only way I could see it happening with V3 is if they decided that the current engine just won't cut it. Personally, I'd rather get V3 in two or so years than wait for Paradox to finish wrapping up a new engine.

 

[Strager]

This would be impossible to make.

Back in 2007 when EU3 was developed that was the case, but not any longer. Read on to learn why.

They've already said they would never do anything like this, partly because they're so small, and partly because they have enough trouble making games like Victoria 2, or Europa Universalis on time, this would take a decade.

They already spent nearly a decade on Clauswitz - Doing it this way doesn't change anything. They also aren't as small as they used to be, and at one point were working on 4 simultaneous projects.

Aside from no one having a computer to run something on that scale

Not really. You'd need multi-core for sure but the specs wouldn't be vastly higher by any stretch of the imagination.

, each game would lack it's own flare.
There are things you would need to do in a game like Crusader Kings, that would never work mechanically in Hearts of Iron, and same flipped.

Systems could be turned on/off due to avg. tech, events, year, and other factors. It would take some thinking, but this could be done relatively easily I think.

 

[Zupanicarr]

Back in 2007 when EU3 was developed that was the case, but not any longer. Read on to learn why.
They already spent nearly a decade on Clauswitz - Doing it this way doesn't change anything. They also aren't as small as they used to be, and at one point were working on 4 simultaneous projects.

I suppose, but it'd still be a pain in the ass to make. Keep in mind, though they've grown, the dev teams are still pretty small. Also keep in mind they wouldn't do them in chronological order, if I'd hazard a guess, it'd be something like Rome2-Vicky3-CK3-EU5-HoI5 etc, and that's not counting minor spin-off games. Not to mention the 1000+ hours it would take to play through it, and how most don't play past 100-200 years of their games, I get the feeling it just wouldn't be worth it.

Not really. You'd need multi-core for sure but the specs wouldn't be vastly higher by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, I'm not sure what I was thinking with that one.

Systems could be turned on/off due to avg. tech, events, year, and other factors. It would take some thinking, but this could be done relatively easily I think.

This I just plain don't think would work, the others, with time, possibly. This would require a LOT to get working properly, and I get the feeling would be mindlessly buggy and conflicting after the first few games. The combat system alone would need to change to fit everything, games like Victoria or EU already have combat systems that barely simulate the late games, and keep in mind you can't really change them much in those games.
I would also like to point out that this would probably cost a lot of money and resources, too much, probably, for Paradox.

I like your ideas, I do, but I think you should aim a bit lower here. There are plenty of reasons this (probably) won't be a reality for a long time.

There have been some ambitious developers in history, I'd say Paradox is one of them, but until recently their games were terribly buggy because of it, and bigger devs with bigger budgets have failed on lesser things, but give Paradox some time, they've only really become a big company in the last few years.:closedeyes:

 

[unmerged(371768)]

This is obviously a hopeless idea.

1) Only very few games of CK or EU are played to the very end. Noone will take the same savegame through all four games (plus the Alexander era). Most gamers dominate the World heavily within 2-300 years even if starting as a Count in Charlemange. And then you still have more than a thousand years to do what exactly?

2) Each time frame has different game needs. CK depicts feudal mechanisms and crusades (while playing as a dynasty), EU has colonization, reformation, rennaisance and revolution, Vicky covers the industrialisation and birth of ideologies while HoI is extremely military-focused. Why combine this in a "one size fits all"-game? How would that improve the gameplay for any gamer?

The only converter, I am really interested in is Vicky->HoI. You never quite have enough time in Vicky and a really good converter to HoI would allow a perfect climax to your Vicky games, who are already geared to develop into great war situations by 1900 and onwards. This converter would make sense in a gameplay manner - if it is done properly.

 

[CountRushmore]

For the next generation (EU5, Vic4, HoI5) I want the maps to be globes and not cylinders anymore.

 

[Vedinu]

For the next generation (EU5, Vic4, HoI5) I want the maps to be globes and not cylinders anymore.

See how much black? That's the problem, you'll always see space if you have a globe. Good for space game, not others.
I would want a new engine though. Even a globe-using engine, if they replace space with clouds. (It would look out of place, but better than space anyways.) But I would not want a grand unified game. I don't think it would work.

EDIT: Since I'm on holidays, I took a little time to make a picture of the cloudy option.

 

[Jango40]

They will need to make a new engine anyways, at some point. Clausewitz is already showing it's age and limits, it will only get worse.

 

[Strager]

Only very few games of CK or EU are played to the very end. Noone will take the same savegame through all four games (plus the Alexander era). Most gamers dominate the World heavily within 2-300 years even if starting as a Count in Charlemange. And then you still have more than a thousand years to do what exactly?

Empires rise and Empires fall. Rome managed pretty close to a WC (at least as far as the "map" goes in that games era) but it still fell apart by the middle ages. Similarly, empires that are too powerful can be made to collapse. The trick here is to not make it feel like you are punishing the player. As for players not finishing a game, the reason most people abandon their games is because they either get Stale, or they rage-quit due to bugs etc. - This system would largely prevent the former, and a new engine would likely help deal with the latter.

Each time frame has different game needs. CK depicts feudal mechanisms and crusades (while playing as a dynasty), EU has colonization, reformation, rennaisance and revolution, Vicky covers the industrialisation and birth of ideologies while HoI is extremely military-focused. Why combine this in a "one size fits all"-game? How would that improve the gameplay for any gamer?

By "rolling" each system into the game you actually would improve upon each of the systems:

EU Colonization: This system really should be present from the ancient era through the early 1900s. Obviously colonization efforts differed in different eras (and it could be easily made to reflect this) but the basic goal - take population and move to empty province - is the same. Why reinvent the wheel here when you can use the same system just modified for the era?

Religions: this is one that is largely the same between games. A special system could be initiated for reformations etc. and this would have the added advantage of being able to be fired in any era.

POPs, and Other Vicky-Specific stuff: Again, like the EU stuff systems like the POP system could be gradually turned on. As the player advances into the late EU4 timeframe, more advanced nations begin seeing POPs, a new trade system is enabled, etc. Players who are less advanced still have tracked POPs, but they have less that they can do with them and would largely still be playing with the EU4 rules.

Think about it this way- Right now when you play Vicky as the United States or as Persia, the game is largely the same. In reality, the far more "primitive" Persia should still be playing as if it was in the late CK2 or early EU4 timeframe.

This I just plain don't think would work, the others, with time, possibly. This would require a LOT to get working properly, and I get the feeling would be mindlessly buggy and conflicting after the first few games. The combat system alone would need to change to fit everything, games like Victoria or EU already have combat systems that barely simulate the late games, and keep in mind you can't really change them much in those games.

This is why you need a unified combat system. The big problem with the current systems is that with the exception of HoI, warfare changed radically even within a single era. In 769 you have hundreds of soldiers fighting a war - by 1400 you have tens or even hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting wars. Both scale and complexity changed radically, and similar changes happened in each era.

This would allow you to model things like a WWII tank VS a Knight for example, and get accurate results. While the output of that engine (what the player sees), and the controls for it (setting generals, leaders, whathaveyou) could differ greatly, the underlying engine would still be able to handle anything - so even if players are in different "eras" combat could still occur. The current combat systems don't model their own timeframes accurately because they aren't designed to be able to handle anything - thus when you have something "outside" the norm, they have to make something up to make it fit. Using a system like this, if combat was significantly different for any reason a new "frontend" for the combat engine could be developed that reflects the actual combat scenarios.

They will need to make a new engine anyways, at some point. Clausewitz is already showing it's age and limits, it will only get worse.

I know! I'm just throwing ideas out there right now, but I really want to see the next-gen engine be something special.


BTW Guys - Love the globe idea when you zoom all the way out, but at what point would you have it "flatten" so that you could have a fullscreen map?

 

[Montem]

see how much black? That's the problem, you'll always see space if you have a globe. Good for space game, not others.
I would want a new engine though. Even a globe-using engine, if they replace space with clouds. (it would look out of place, but better than space anyways.) but i would not want a grand unified game. I don't think it would work.

Edit: Since i'm on holidays, i took a little time to make a picture of the cloudy option.

this is glorious

 

[wolfing]

I approve of this idea, but doubt it'll happen.

 

[paradox97]

Half of me thinks this could work if the game was divided to stages, kind of like Spore.

 

[Zupanicarr]

Half of me thinks this could work if the game was divided to stages, kind of like Spore.

An example of a really ambitious game that got cut down and failed miserably. Luckily Paradox isn't EA, and they likely wouldn't end that sadly.

 

[Old Man Jenkins]

This must be done, with the stages!

 

[EU3NOOB]

An example of a really ambitious game that got cut down and failed miserably. Luckily Paradox isn't EA, and they likely wouldn't end that sadly.

Ignoring the fact that Paradox has less resources than EA...

 

[heliostellar]

I don't have any particular problem with the engine. This niche of games does focus much more on under-the-hood calcs and mechanics.

I just hope for the love of all that's holy that Vicky 3 will be cruising in on a clipper ship in 2015. Considering all of the improvements to war and battle in CKII and EU4, I find it annoying to play Vicky 2 now and it's really my first true love of Paradox games.... well technically Vicky 1.

 

[Zupanicarr]

Ignoring the fact that Paradox has less resources than EA...

I didn't say they could do it, I said they wouldn't fail as badly as Maxis did with Spore, and keep in mind, it likely wasn't Maxis' fault, it was probably the EA higher ups for reasons of budgeting and evilness.
In case you didn't know, early footage and what was promised of Spore was a hell of a lot more than what we got, that's not unusual in the gaming industry, but the thing is they appear to have come close to succeeding...before they got cut down anyway.
Though honestly, the in-game creature designer was pretty awesome and redeemed some of it, even if everything else in the game was "meh".