Well in the 17th and 18th centuries battle could last months...Neither is battles taking several weeks twoards the end of some games.
I'm not saying it should be done, just that it wouldn't break the game in the way panosmel thinks it would.
-
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.
Realistic battles would most likely be quite boring. Camping on a hill which is the most annoying strategy ever is actually realistic and would happen more often if we were to play realistically
A real-time battle involving thousands of units with various stats must be a HELL to code. Just look at the quantity of patches and mods improving combat on twcenter ...
I can not imagine PI investing say 10M€ in developing such an engine to just set a tent in Creative Assembly's garden .... and then what ? commercial war ? bha.
I can not imagine PI investing say 10M€ in developing such an engine to just set a tent in Creative Assembly's garden .... and then what ? commercial war ? bha.
does anyone remember when johan had criticised total war series' ai dumbness and then a creative assembly programmer joined paradox forums to answer that?
does anyone remember when johan had criticised total war series' ai dumbness and then a creative assembly programmer joined paradox forums to answer that?
Do you have the link?
My problem with real time battles in a Paradox game is that it takes me long enough to finish a game as it is, and often I quit around the last 75%, so if there were real time battles I'd never make it through a campaign.
I don't think that length of the battles would be an issue. You can always implement various speed modes - in fact, even TW does it to speed up the marching and pursuit phases and there are many mods which greatly slow the battles down, where higher speeds can be nice, too, although they are not always necessary. Also, if you want pretty graphics, the scope of battles have to be reduced, anyway, since few PCs would handle tens of thousands of soldiers on the map. Oh, and I did mention that we could have "autoresolve" option as well (perfect for easy battles)?
Concerning the shift between the strategic map and the tactical mode, I think that turn-based games are much better suited for this kind of thing and I would like to see whether the devs can create a good turn-based game.
Nevertheless, I think that the devs will most likely stick to the things they do best, i.e. making grand strategy games.
Concerning the shift between the strategic map and the tactical mode, I think that turn-based games are much better suited for this kind of thing and I would like to see whether the devs can create a good turn-based game.
Nevertheless, I think that the devs will most likely stick to the things they do best, i.e. making grand strategy games.
I'd say yes... but king arthur didn't even run on my computer. So my vote (not that we're voting) is yes but this time hire a decent external studio please.
I think a far more realistic and (for a paradox game) enjoyable way of implementing battles would be turn-based, fairly abstracted tactical battles. The main problem for involved, rt battles, outside of the technical and commercial ones, would be the break in the game. I don't want to have to fight every little battle, I want to manage every aspect of my empire. The best thing would be if all the military tech, decisions etc..., could be more transparently represented, and if players had an ability to make more choices in battles. So a small tile and turn based tactical 'mini-game' would make no great demands in terms of cost or processing power, and could be represented in-game. Combat must be integrated into the main game, or it just defeats the point of a paradox game.
Then autoresolve the easy battles... Yeah, I know, the autoresolve system was pretty bad in TW, but I think that the PI would do a better job here.
I wouldn't have a problem with a more detailed, but still abstract combat system, but then it wouldn't be a TW-like game anymore.
Well for one you guys were talking about wanting more realism. All battles finishing in one day would hardly be very realistic.
Erm, the vast majority of the battles in this period finished in one day. I can think of a couple of battles in the Napoleonic Wars that took two or three days, but no others.
As for the actual feasibility of an EU: TW game, I don't think it would be possible to control some of the larger end-game armies with a TW-style system whereby you order each individual unit around. But some more abstract battle engine -- say, you decide where to disposition your troops at the start of the battle, and then give quite broad orders ("Withdraw the infantry to provoke the enemy centre to a charge, then hit them in the flanks with our cavalry reserve") -- could be good if it were done well.
Although if they did, I'd like to see some method of synchronising troop movements, so that armies moving in from different provinces all reach their destination on the same day.
Erm, the vast majority of the battles in this period finished in one day. I can think of a couple of battles in the Napoleonic Wars that took two or three days, but no others.
As for the actual feasibility of an EU: TW game, I don't think it would be possible to control some of the larger end-game armies with a TW-style system whereby you order each individual unit around. But some more abstract battle engine -- say, you decide where to disposition your troops at the start of the battle, and then give quite broad orders ("Withdraw the infantry to provoke the enemy centre to a charge, then hit them in the flanks with our cavalry reserve") -- could be good if it were done well.
Although if they did, I'd like to see some method of synchronising troop movements, so that armies moving in from different provinces all reach their destination on the same day.
My dream would be for Paradox to take their inspiration not in Total War serie but in Dominions serie for a new battle engine (don't know if many people here know Dominions, it's an indie fantasy grand strategy turn based 4x with simultaneous turns).
Anyway I mean : no player intervention during battles (so no breakdown of the game between a strategic and tactical mode ala TW) but possibility to program troop placement and give precise battle orders in advance for each army corps and each phase of the battle, and an option to watch battles if you want in a less abstract form (no need of total war style graphics as well, one view of small soldiers sprites moving on a false 3d map is more than enough, main interest of watching battles is to see how your orders worked and what kind of orders/placement the opponent used in this kind of game) either in real time (maybe in the actual battle window) or after the battle took place (via a menu in provinces to watch the last battle that happened there), all that remaining completely optional.
Anyway I mean : no player intervention during battles (so no breakdown of the game between a strategic and tactical mode ala TW) but possibility to program troop placement and give precise battle orders in advance for each army corps and each phase of the battle, and an option to watch battles if you want in a less abstract form (no need of total war style graphics as well, one view of small soldiers sprites moving on a false 3d map is more than enough, main interest of watching battles is to see how your orders worked and what kind of orders/placement the opponent used in this kind of game) either in real time (maybe in the actual battle window) or after the battle took place (via a menu in provinces to watch the last battle that happened there), all that remaining completely optional.
Honestly, I'm not sure Paradox has the resources to commit to building a game engine like that required by the total war series. I know copies like Lionheart or w/e have been made but CA does spend quite a bit on the fancy graphics, physics, and battle engine. Sure you could make a more arcade like copy but that would defeat the whole purpose of making a more realistic TW. I love Paradox and all but I wonder if such a move won't be too draining on their resources since they're not exactly pulling in billions in revenue like Sega.
TW itself gets quite boring after a while; the same strategies over and over...
The only time the AI was challenging was in the original MTW.
I didn't actually like the real time battles of KoH. I auto resolved nearly all my battles since with high level generals, the AI fight them much better than I do. However, its campaign map was much funner than RTW and that was what I played it for. To me, KoH is more similar to Eu3 than it is to the TW series.
And was very much the exception to the rule. Like I said, the great majority of battles in this period lasted for one day, not the weeks or months they take in EU3.