• 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.
The thing that I feel with Paradox is, they put too many weird restrictions in the games. Vicky2 is horribly railroaded, you cannot change capitals, you cannot release vassals, you cannot rename ships or brigades, cannot attack until 5 year truce ends (even at infamy cost) etc. The games are excellent, but restrictions are completely unnecessary and sometimes stupid.

V2 is quite railroaded, but I'm not sure I agree with any of these examples. 1836-1936 didn't see any peaceful vassal releasing as such (I'm not sure it's really even a particularly fitting term for the period and you CAN release colonies or be forced to free other nationalities). Renaming is just cosmetic. And the truce thing is a bad mechanic but not really railroading and instead more a result of other iffy mechanics -- namely infamy was always iffy in my opinion. Railroading like Sardinia-Piedmont getting the crown from the Redshirts even if another Italian is 10x stronger, Hawaii getting insta-annexed by a decision specific to only for the US, and Brazil and the US getting enormous bonuses to immigration regardless of other circumstances are more problematic.

They have remedied most of this with EU4

And I think this is the thing -- they're solving more of these forced-history elements with mechanics that make sense and more dynamic triggers. Hopefully the trend continues and Vicky3 does likewise.

Still, Paradox games endeavor a very different thing than Civ and will likely always have more restrictions. Who knows what TW is going for these days. They've put out some fun games, but I'm not always sure what the vision is besides "cool tactical battles."
 
V2 is quite railroaded, but I'm not sure I agree with any of these examples. 1836-1936 didn't see any peaceful vassal releasing as such (I'm not sure it's really even a particularly fitting term for the period and you CAN release colonies or be forced to free other nationalities). Renaming is just cosmetic. And the truce thing is a bad mechanic but not really railroading and instead more a result of other iffy mechanics -- namely infamy was always iffy in my opinion. Railroading like Sardinia-Piedmont getting the crown from the Redshirts even if another Italian is 10x stronger, Hawaii getting insta-annexed by a decision specific to only for the US, and Brazil and the US getting enormous bonuses to immigration regardless of other circumstances are more problematic.

Those 'cosmetic' things are very important for gameplay and roleplay, and so are releasing of vassals even though it might not have happened much in Victorian Europe. Why? Because it severely limits gameplay options, and sometimes break them (you cannot do a full WC for example) really bad. This is not even railroading, this is just extremely lazy design.

Meanwhile those other railroaded things you mentioned are absolutely right, and should've been removed.

Overall I felt Victoria II had excellent potential but hampered by very lazy development, railroading, and just plain design problems like the economy system (even though it mostly works).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
V2 is quite railroaded, but I'm not sure I agree with any of these examples. 1836-1936 didn't see any peaceful vassal releasing as such (I'm not sure it's really even a particularly fitting term for the period and you CAN release colonies or be forced to free other nationalities). Renaming is just cosmetic. And the truce thing is a bad mechanic but not really railroading and instead more a result of other iffy mechanics -- namely infamy was always iffy in my opinion. Railroading like Sardinia-Piedmont getting the crown from the Redshirts even if another Italian is 10x stronger, Hawaii getting insta-annexed by a decision specific to only for the US, and Brazil and the US getting enormous bonuses to immigration regardless of other circumstances are more problematic.



And I think this is the thing -- they're solving more of these forced-history elements with mechanics that make sense and more dynamic triggers. Hopefully the trend continues and Vicky3 does likewise.

Still, Paradox games endeavor a very different thing than Civ and will likely always have more restrictions. Who knows what TW is going for these days. They've put out some fun games, but I'm not always sure what the vision is besides "cool tactical battles."

The one thing that bugs me about Vicky 2 is the constant political rebellions around 1920s. I typically play Prussia and playing non stop whack a mole gets tiresome. I understand the reason for it is because of the political upheaval that took place during that time historically however that was due to World War I and I never lose great wars yet deal with the ramifications as if I did
 
Overall I felt Victoria II had excellent potential but hampered by very lazy development, railroading, and just plain design problems like the economy system (even though it mostly works).

I don't think you can really say V2 had 'lazy development', or even lazy design - try to remember all the stuff that's going on behind the scenes, which is fiendishly complex and required positively insane levels of design work. Railroading was also considerably less of a problem than it was in the previous generation of games (V1 would quite happily force you into the Crimean War regardless of how inappropriate it was for the game situation, and I still have nightmares about a China GC game of EU2 I once played); the examples provided were more just stuff that couldn't really happen naturally but did happen IRL. This is the kind of thing where, if it doesn't happen, you get a 10,000 post threadnaught demanding its inclusion, but if it does happen you get accused of railroading (for example, the initial absence of Taiping caused a massive forum kerfuffle, now it's present, people complain that it's railroading). There were some pretty severe design problems, though, most of which were basically impossible to predict in advance and so fundamental that they couldn't be corrected in hindsight. I doubt we'll be seeing anything as complex as V2 from Paradox ever again, really.

Anyway, as to the subject of the thread, I know that after-hours LAN games of Civ 5 were popular at Paradox (I've even argued with some of the devs in an effort to convince them it was a dreadful game that outright murdered the integrity of the franchise, and even Jon Shafer's own renunciation of pretty much every change he made doesn't seem to change Podcat's mind), and that Beyond Earth was pretty eagerly anticipated in the office.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Hey all,

Sorry for necroing this thread but I just had a quick question as someone who is a fan of Paradox games but is mostly a Total War player. Do Paradox have any plans to start incorporating real time battles into their games?

Watered down campaign strategy and weak AI are making me very disillusioned with the Total War series and I'd love to see some direct competition from Paradox. Apologies if this is about the millionth time this has been discussed!
 
It would suffice for me if battles would somehow be made more transparent on the screen. I never know for sure how the combination of tactics, discipline, technology, generals, morale, terrain and unit pips will ultimately turn out in battles. We all know that those elements are there, but it's nevertheless not clear why the outcomes were in your favor or against you.

If the developers would find a way to make a sexier and more complex and informative battle interface, with nice graphics representing the environment and army lines moving, retreating and recomposing, that alone would help a lot making their games infinitely more interesting. If players could clearly visualize and understand the development phase details of battles and their outcome, there would be no need at all for real time battles.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Hey all,

Sorry for necroing this thread but I just had a quick question as someone who is a fan of Paradox games but is mostly a Total War player. Do Paradox have any plans to start incorporating real time battles into their games?

Watered down campaign strategy and weak AI are making me very disillusioned with the Total War series and I'd love to see some direct competition from Paradox. Apologies if this is about the millionth time this has been discussed!

Just my 2 cents:
They would be expensive to produce (lots of assets)
We would compete against CA which would frankly be better than us at it
Real time battles would not work in multiplayer
Personally I don't think it fits well into the PDS grand strategy gameplay anyhow.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I for one don't want that during the 400 years of play in EU4 to be stopped every time I get into a war because I have to command my troops manually. Ugh during one play through, just imagine how many battles that would be, I would pull my own hair out.
 
  • 20
Reactions:
I for one don't want that during the 400 years of play in EU4 to be stopped every time I get into a war because I have to command my troops manually. Ugh during one play through, just imagine how many battles that would be, I would pull my own hair out.

And here I was, hoping that the next CKII DLC would let you conduct battles as if you were playing Chivalry...
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm a fan of all three studios. :) But it is hard to meet up since CA is in the UK and Firaxis is in the US. I've talked to some Firaxis people and heard some talks, and they all seem to enjoy Paradox games. I think that PC strategy studios are so rare that they don't really compete much with each other. Everyone is just happy that strategy games are made.
Will the 3 studios ever consider some form of cooperation? Say, an attempt to make a fusion game of say Total war and the Paradox grand strategy games? Or, civ+total war? or Civ in real time?(Paradox style) Or a combination of the Three?(real time with battles, from the beginning of history)
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Will the 3 studios ever consider some form of cooperation? Say, an attempt to make a fusion game of say Total war and the Paradox grand strategy games? Or, civ+total war? or Civ in real time?(Paradox style) Or a combination of the Three?(real time with battles, from the beginning of history)

That is a quite interesting prospect. Let Paradox handle what they do best ( realtime strategic campaign ) and let CA handle what they do best ( awesome grand 3D battles with thousands of soldiers running around ).

The biggest hurdle is that Paradox games are real-time, so while a battle is resolved the rest of the campaign needs to be paused.

Multiplayer I think is a minor issue. Easy to solve by letting everyone join the Battle to spectate or even take part commanding a few of their allies less important formations, or even having a hostile player taking control of all the enemy troops instead of the AI.

CK2 style strategic character development that unlock total war style abilities in battle... oh exiting possibilities :) Not so relevant for the HoI franchise though...
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
That is a quite interesting prospect. Let Paradox handle what they do best ( realtime strategic campaign ) and let CA handle what they do best ( awesome grand 3D battles with thousands of soldiers running around ).

The biggest hurdle is that Paradox games are real-time, so while a battle is resolved the rest of the campaign needs to be paused.

Multiplayer I think is a minor issue. Easy to solve by letting everyone join the Battle to spectate or even take part commanding a few of their allies less important formations, or even having a hostile player taking control of all the enemy troops instead of the AI.

CK2 style strategic character development that unlock total war style abilities in battle... oh exiting possibilities :) Not so relevant for the HoI franchise though...
The idea adds a lot of strategic depth. Basically, if you want to fight the battle yourself.... then the timer on the map will still tick in the backround. Otherwise it will be a paradox style battle(auto resolve).... While in direct command you lose control of your kingdom(getting news multiple ticks after they occur) to the ai and you can leave the battle at any time to return to the map,(returning ai control of the troops to RNG) now in order to directly interfere after the battle starts(get a message to interfere with no penalty when the battle engages), it takes say days ticks based of distance from the capital.(to simulate travel time for your king who appears as reinforcements with a body guard thereby adding extra risk if you lose your general.) Also while travelling you can cancel your order to join the battle, and while moving to the battle or back to the capitol you can see the map details(possibly spawn a really fast unit, perhaps have bandit units that the enemy can send or that can randomly ambush him if he lacks protection meaning your kings at risk), but, can't only give delayed orders based of your distance from the capital.

Finally, generals just improve the ai control's RNG(Amazing for huge nations,) and allow you to insta travel to join the battle. (Whereas deciding to join your leaderless armies doubles-quadruples depending on tech your kings speed to reach the battle.)

They could also do simultaneous rule via sending your heir to the battle(so more control of map, somewhat of battle... Split screen?) vs sending your king(better for the battle worse for on the map) only available for people with both an heir and king who are of age. If your king dies in battle your auto ejected from the battle and unless you have a living heir, leave the armies fate to the gods. This means your king's survival and having both a of age monarch, and an of age heir will now be critical. Also when in battle(not auto, king/heir) no pausing, only going speed 0.1(special speed for battles).

I have more ideas for such a prospect, if you want me to continue. (Diplomacy in wartime, tech, administration, provinces, pop/manpower, money and forts)
 
The idea adds a lot of strategic depth. Basically, if you want to fight the battle yourself.... then the timer on the map will still tick in the backround. Otherwise it will be a paradox style battle(auto resolve).... While in direct command you lose control of your kingdom(getting news multiple ticks after they occur) to the ai and you can leave the battle at any time to return to the map,(returning ai control of the troops to RNG) now in order to directly interfere after the battle starts(get a message to interfere with no penalty when the battle engages), it takes say days ticks based of distance from the capital.(to simulate travel time for your king who appears as reinforcements with a body guard thereby adding extra risk if you lose your general.) Also while travelling you can cancel your order to join the battle, and while moving to the battle or back to the capitol you can see the map details(possibly spawn a really fast unit, perhaps have bandit units that the enemy can send or that can randomly ambush him if he lacks protection meaning your kings at risk), but, can't only give delayed orders based of your distance from the capital.

Finally, generals just improve the ai control's RNG(Amazing for huge nations,) and allow you to insta travel to join the battle. (Whereas deciding to join your leaderless armies doubles-quadruples depending on tech your kings speed to reach the battle.)

They could also do simultaneous rule via sending your heir to the battle(so more control of map, somewhat of battle... Split screen?) vs sending your king(better for the battle worse for on the map) only available for people with both an heir and king who are of age. If your king dies in battle your auto ejected from the battle and unless you have a living heir, leave the armies fate to the gods. This means your king's survival and having both a of age monarch, and an of age heir will now be critical. Also when in battle(not auto, king/heir) no pausing, only going speed 0.1(special speed for battles).

I have more ideas for such a prospect, if you want me to continue. (Diplomacy in wartime, tech, administration, provinces, pop/manpower, money and forts)

You know I have been thinking of different ways you could put in real time battles with something as huge as PI games. I think there is a spot in the gaming world for a game that includes both, It would just take tons of resources and will need to have a good approach. I would love to hear more of your ideas. I dream is to have it online, and different people can play different roles it's just It needs a lot of design and thought, and tons of money. Every time I think of it I write down different ideas, I just have not been able to connect them together to make something that would be easy to use and interesting for players. Not to mention work correctly and make each player feel they have control over the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You know I have been thinking of different ways you could put in real time battles with something as huge as PI games. I think there is a spot in the gaming world for a game that includes both, It would just take tons of resources and will need to have a good approach. I would love to hear more of your ideas. I dream is to have it online, and different people can play different roles it's just It needs a lot of design and thought, and tons of money. Every time I think of it I write down different ideas, I just have not been able to connect them together to make something that would be easy to use and interesting for players. Not to mention work correctly and make each player feel they have control over the game.
The first order of business would be the decision pertaining to the map. Paradox style maps in detail, or total war style. Having each province have a fort should not be affordable (#PTSD from Empire siege battles. #first world problems)
Second would be pop and manpower and which is best(in my opinion) represented by vic 2.
Money would be used to develop provinces ie build buildings expand farming promote guilds etc.
Monarchs... should be useful in a combined eu4 and empire total war state. (traits that give bonuses, but maybe a system for points that help with tech)
Monarchs would have to have possible routes for education(like in ck2) so as to somewhat give control to the player and wars shouldn't be for unlimited lands with no repercussions ie Empire. (Nor arbitrary realm divide ie shogun)
I'd love to continue, maybe I'll make a thread soon... But, not until after my finals.
 
You know I have been thinking of different ways you could put in real time battles with something as huge as PI games. I think there is a spot in the gaming world for a game that includes both, It would just take tons of resources and will need to have a good approach. I would love to hear more of your ideas. I dream is to have it online, and different people can play different roles it's just It needs a lot of design and thought, and tons of money. Every time I think of it I write down different ideas, I just have not been able to connect them together to make something that would be easy to use and interesting for players. Not to mention work correctly and make each player feel they have control over the game.

Budget, it needs budget,

Its maddening to see so many great small to medium Game developers around genres like strategy and simulation put real thought and effort into their titles but can never really reach that inner potential or try something too ambitious out of fear that one badly received product or overinvestment could kill the company.

While big triple a developers kill their franchises with volleys of annual sequels that add little to nothing new and sometimes even decrease in quality but linger on because over hyped marketing keeps them on a sort of public relations life support .

Longterm, the question around battles will have to come up, the success of more militarily focused games like March of the Eagles shows that we all need to fill that Creative Assembly shaped void in our gaming lives, to scratch that tactical itch that flares up every tie we lose a battle for an unclear reason, or lose that heir were sure would still have lived if this was Rome, Medieval, or Shogun TW
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Budget, it needs budget,

Its maddening to see so many great small to medium Game developers around genres like strategy and simulation put real thought and effort into their titles but can never really reach that inner potential or try something too ambitious out of fear that one badly received product or overinvestment could kill the company.

While big triple a developers kill their franchises with volleys of annual sequels that add little to nothing new and sometimes even decrease in quality but linger on because over hyped marketing keeps them on a sort of public relations life support .

Longterm, the question around battles will have to come up, the success of more militarily focused games like March of the Eagles shows that we all need to fill that Creative Assembly shaped void in our gaming lives, to scratch that tactical itch that flares up every tie we lose a battle for an unclear reason, or lose that heir were sure would still have lived if this was Rome, Medieval, or Shogun TW
.... maybe construct a sub-thread talking specifically how such games could work? Could be rather interesting, granted highly unlikely. Also that's why I like the real time simulated time warp as explained above. It would mean Total war itch scratched... with the scale of a game like eu.
 
EA distributed Archon, one of the greatest games ever made. Of course, that was in 1983.

Oh, that was a great game!

And to answer the original poster - I don't think I currently know anyone personally at CA or Firaxis, but I certainly have played their games a LOT. If I have to pick a favorite from each it'd be Civ 4 and hmm... Rome II or Empire.
 
  • 5
Reactions: