Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Battle System

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
I think even the option of tactical battle would blur the whole idea of the game. To me it seems that an emphasis on the gathering of prestige requires strategic and not tactical planning. Granted, certain Kings rode out in battle, but that's the exception and not the rule. Indeed, I wonder if the King who led his troops into battle did not tarnish his prestige? I mean, prestige is a matter between monarchs (right?), and I don't think they'd take too kindly to bellicose (and dangerous) examples set by their wayward peers. I hope I just made sense, it is rather late.
 
Optimally a game would include all kinds of games that where all very well done. But in the end game fare best when they focus on one aspect of gameplay. MTW was not much on the strategical scope and if they would put in a tactical game in CK it would only make the overall experience worse.

Hey why not have "the sims" minigame with your family? Like trying to make that bignosed princess fal in love with you for that strategic marriage, put furniture in your castle and...

No! Now I know it. "Battlefield crusades" minigame. Yeah, where you battle trough the crusades as either the europans or the muslims. Please let me be the sniping longbowman.

or maybe... "GTA: Byzanticum"! I would love driving over those pedestrians with my chariot. And I can imagine the chaos I will let loose when I get hold on the elephant.
 
Jkris said:
Optimally a game would include all kinds of games that where all very well done. But in the end game fare best when they focus on one aspect of gameplay. MTW was not much on the strategical scope and if they would put in a tactical game in CK it would only make the overall experience worse.

Hey why not have "the sims" minigame with your family? Like trying to make that bignosed princess fal in love with you for that strategic marriage, put furniture in your castle and...

No! Now I know it. "Battlefield crusades" minigame. Yeah, where you battle trough the crusades as either the europans or the muslims. Please let me be the sniping longbowman.

or maybe... "GTA: Byzanticum"! I would love driving over those pedestrians with my chariot. And I can imagine the chaos I will let loose when I get hold on the elephant.
Click to expand...
:D
 
SirGrotius said:
I think even the option of tactical battle would blur the whole idea of the game. To me it seems that an emphasis on the gathering of prestige requires strategic and not tactical planning. Granted, certain Kings rode out in battle, but that's the exception and not the rule. Indeed, I wonder if the King who led his troops into battle did not tarnish his prestige? I mean, prestige is a matter between monarchs (right?), and I don't think they'd take too kindly to bellicose (and dangerous) examples set by their wayward peers. I hope I just made sense, it is rather late.
Click to expand...
Actually, most rulers were present one way or another on the battlefield during this era. The concept of a ruler sitting in some capitol and ordering his troops from afar is quite modern and gained prominence only after the rise of national countries. In fact, a ruler who has never taken to a battlefield ran a significant risk of having the matters unfold quite opposed to his initial plans, as they were beyond his control - not to mention he would be considered cowardly and lose prestige. (Cant say more because of NDA, but let's just say that CK has some nasty surprises for those rulers who think everything can be done with the hands of their vassals and commanders).

That being said, I personally prefer leaving tactical battles out of the game, as it would only interrupt the flow (MTW is not really a good example of merging strategy and tactics, as it is basically a tactical game with vestigal strategic options added for "flavour" - but far from the strategic options available to EU or CK players).
 
Havard said:
:D
Click to expand...

I'd just like a decent idea of what is happening, and why.
 
And you will. And multiple reasons too.
 
Jkris said:
No! Now I know it. "Battlefield crusades" minigame. Yeah, where you battle trough the crusades as either the europans or the muslims. Please let me be the sniping longbowman.

or maybe... "GTA: Byzanticum"! I would love driving over those pedestrians with my chariot. And I can imagine the chaos I will let loose when I get hold on the elephant.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

Well said. The focus of Paradox is strategy, not tactics, which is a wise choice, IMHO.
 
Marcus Valerius said:
I'm just thinking back to how great it was prior to the release of Victoria, when Johan and Patric were there so often to answer our questions about that game....
Click to expand...
The more time they spend on answering pre-release questions, the less time they have to program the game. The more time they have to program the game, the better it will be and the sooner it will be released.

While I can understand your anxiety, I am sure in the long run you will prefer the latter. :)
 
Martinus said:
The more time they spend on answering pre-release questions, the less time they have to program the game. The more time they have to program the game, the better it will be and the sooner it will be released.

While I can understand your anxiety, I am sure in the long run you will prefer the latter. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with you, for the most part. I just wish it wasn't a 180 degree change from Victoria, though. It seemed like someone was always there to answer questions, and here I can't recall a single question raised by a poster that has been answered by a developer. I certainly agree that I don't want them to be spending all of their time here on the forum, but is a little bit here and there too much to ask? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back