That's basically what i meant by resource management... Not just simple "this city has 3 bread and 2 hammers" nonsense... but more like "do I want to devote more manpower to mining, military, or farming?" etc...
-
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.
That's basically what i meant by resource management... Not just simple "this city has 3 bread and 2 hammers" nonsense... but more like "do I want to devote more manpower to mining, military, or farming?" etc...
I will say this. After the debouchery that was Civ 5 upon release and the lack of country management that I total war, I searched and found CK2. Was very pleased. Then found EU4 and was pleased.
- 1
What I meant by that is compared to PDS games a lot of games fall short i.e. anything not having to do with battles in Rome II or realizing the civ games have no depth
Honestly Rome 2 is my favorite TW game. For me TW games don't age well. I loved medieval 2 but the game is simply unplayable for me due to the advancements they've made with the series. I never did like the original Rome. I loved Shogun but it lacked a varying roster (I understand the timeframe limited that) but every faction outside of 2 were pretty much the exact same even the special units for factions werent different enough to feel better/different.
Attila, I just flat out dont like it. I think it has to do with the time frame
I am so on the fence on EU4 and I want to like it but I dont have all the DLC and for the life of me I cant figure out combat in that game. Battles I figure I'll win easily I'll lose so I end up avoiding war and then the game is just waiting for tech to happen and build buildings.
Play a brandenburg military game then... be on the winning side, even when you think you should have lost. Austrian main stack standing in the alps? ATTACK!~
Going all out militarily shows you, over the course of the game, what each mil stat does... and makes playing other nations a bit easier to manage, because you know what military ideas would fit your situation better. But other than that, morale, always morale. Get defensive in every game.
I suspect he meant it in a good way. Paradox games are so awesome that they've ruined all other games for him.
Oh. Oops, my bad !
This problem is, TW games are some kind of a classic. New TW games have excellent graphics that cannot be surpassed, but a strategy gamer should always take gameplay over graphics. For example, I wouldn't be playing SHOGUN 1 to this day if I followed you. It is an excellent game, but if graphics turn you off then it would be hard to play even if it is actually very smooth. Similarly, RTW and Medieval II are best TW games ever made, have most features, but they were made in the last decade and their graphics show that.
Attila....I haven't tried it out. I have RTW Barbarian Invasion expansion, and that excellent Invasio Barbarorum mod which is the peak of late-Rome themed mods, and I don't need a whole new game based on same scenario (which I find less interesting than Hellenistic/Early Empire era). But still, that game does seem to have improvements in the right direction.
For me, Paradox at the moment is the best strategy game making company. To CA: I played Rome I, Medieval II, Empire and Shogun each for hundreds of hours. I own Napoleon and Rome II too, but due to my not-so-up-to-date hardware, it really isn't fun to play these two. Sadly, I can't touch Rome I without mods anymore. I consider it the greatest game of my childhood together with Age of Empires, but even if I try to stay strong, the graphics just hurt. Medieval II with mods otherwise is even today my favourite, and don't ask why, but I like the graphics much more than the one from newers titles (maybe because this runs on high quality on my machine...). And yes, TW is all about the battle graphics.
Then there is Civilization IV and V, another two games where I sank (not wasted) maybe a thousand hours of my life. I liked Civ4 much more than vanilla Civ5 (no culture or religion, naaaah) but I haven't really played it with its expansions which are said to make the game finally excellent, so I should give it another go.
Paradox games finally let me desperate at the first attempts. So was EU3 and HoI3 and even EU4. After starting these games for the first time, I quit 20 minutes later and didn't touch them for a few weeks. But gladly I forced myself to play until I understood how to play properly, and it was not wrong to do this, because of all great strategy titles and series who are out there, EU4 is my favourite. And the new DDs are more than promising to me, as EU4 2.0 will be hardly comparable to any previous version. A new game, and thats for the cost of a little expansion. Not that Paradox would be better in their DLC pricing than other companies, but I don't just buy Paradox DLCs for the features I paid for (which would mean they are overpriced), I buy them so they keep working on the game. Otherwise we wouldn't see more patches and would likely stick to 1.9.2 forever while Paradox starts going for EU5. But they don't need to hurry, I don't expect that before 2020
Then there is Civilization IV and V, another two games where I sank (not wasted
) maybe a thousand hours of my life. I liked Civ4 much more than vanilla Civ5 (no culture or religion, naaaah) but I haven't really played it with its expansions which are said to make the game finally excellent, so I should give it another go.Paradox games finally let me desperate at the first attempts. So was EU3 and HoI3 and even EU4. After starting these games for the first time, I quit 20 minutes later and didn't touch them for a few weeks. But gladly I forced myself to play until I understood how to play properly, and it was not wrong to do this, because of all great strategy titles and series who are out there, EU4 is my favourite. And the new DDs are more than promising to me, as EU4 2.0 will be hardly comparable to any previous version. A new game, and thats for the cost of a little expansion. Not that Paradox would be better in their DLC pricing than other companies, but I don't just buy Paradox DLCs for the features I paid for (which would mean they are overpriced), I buy them so they keep working on the game. Otherwise we wouldn't see more patches and would likely stick to 1.9.2 forever while Paradox starts going for EU5. But they don't need to hurry, I don't expect that before 2020
Last edited:
I am talking gameplay. I hated in RTW and since Shogun 2 and Rome 2 the mechanics for ME2 are just outdated. Heck I still play Railroad Tycoon 2 and the original Ghost Recon so it isn't all about graphics for me either. Just the mechanical advancements in the TW series make prior games unplayable for me.
For me, Paradox at the moment is the best strategy game making company. To CA: I played Rome I, Medieval II, Empire and Shogun each for hundreds of hours. I own Napoleon and Rome II too, but due to my not-so-up-to-date hardware, it really isn't fun to play these two. Sadly, I can't touch Rome I without mods anymore. I consider it the greatest game of my childhood together with Age of Empires, but even if I try to stay strong, the graphics just hurt. Medieval II with mods otherwise is even today my favourite, and don't ask why, but I like the graphics much more than the one from newers titles (maybe because this runs on high quality on my machine...). And yes, TW is all about the battle graphics.
Then there is Civilization IV and V, another two games where I sank (not wasted
Paradox games finally let me desperate at the first attempts. So was EU3 and HoI3 and even EU4. After starting these games for the first time, I quit 20 minutes later and didn't touch them for a few weeks. But gladly I forced myself to play until I understood how to play properly, and it was not wrong to do this, because of all great strategy titles and series who are out there, EU4 is my favourite. And the new DDs are more than promising to me, as EU4 2.0 will be hardly comparable to any previous version. A new game, and thats for the cost of a little expansion. Not that Paradox would be better in their DLC pricing than other companies, but I don't just buy Paradox DLCs for the features I paid for (which would mean they are overpriced), I buy them so they keep working on the game. Otherwise we wouldn't see more patches and would likely stick to 1.9.2 forever while Paradox starts going for EU5. But they don't need to hurry, I don't expect that before 2020
Paradox games when I first get them I play for like 20 minutes and quit angrily and come back an hour later and eventually chip away at the mechanics until I get though HoI games still elude me
Mechanical advancement...like naval battles and graphics? Because they haven't added anything more to these games (except Shogun 2, which has unique new features but they only really fit Japan). What is so unplayable about old games?
- Dec 14, 1999
- 22.085
- 263.933
Naval-land combined battles, unit replenishment, provincial management, army stances, unit progression (upgrades), dynamic fire, siege escalation, horde mechanics. Need to think what to construct in provinces, instead of building everything everywhere. Working more-or less diplomacy instead of "Accept or we will attack - please do not attack" or AI asking for peace treaty and same turn breaking it?
Army traditions? Keeping records of most events through the game?
- 1
Prepare to face completely unnatural weather changes, manmade famines, and abandonment of entire northern sphere of the earth due to a new ice age - 395 AD version.
By Lord Rama, this is nostalgia! I remember spending great amount of time laughing whenever AI presented this deal to me in RTW. Especially when I had them reduced to the last city and they barely accepted peace.
Those additions are nice though, although units did get upgraded in previous games, and Medieval II even outdid Rome II in this respect (with visible armour upgrades, ability to custom tailor the level of armour on troops etc.). RTW BI had hordes, provincial management is minimal (although they might've upgraded it in Attila).
But indeed, Napoleon TW had the best (and working) diplomacy out of any TW game, with most options altogether. The new games add a lot of new options, even if they aren't as enjoyable as the old ones since with TW games it is 1 step forward - 2 step back scenario.
Of the three companies, paradox is currently the one that release better games. Firaxis had Civ IV, one of the best games I have play. However they ruin it with Civ V and their successor s ( xcom is good also, but it isn't a comparable game to paradox titles or Civ) . CA games are really enjoyable once you use an ai mod, because the combat ai sucks. There are things I don't like of paradox (the over 9000 dlc for each game for example) but their products are all really good and Vic 2 for me is an strategy game well above the rest
"Accept or we will attack - please do not attack"
Funny thing is... every time I "accepted" this, they attacked 2 or 3 turns later.
Funny thing is... every time I "accepted" this, they attacked 2 or 3 turns later.
.png){kind=avatar}
Used to
I still play civ though.
I Used to love total war, and stalk every upcoming game till it came out on Mac. Then I saw CK2 and EUIV.
I still play civ though.
That's why I said - working diplomacy (AS in now) instead od things like "accept or we will - please do not attack", and constant retarded war decs.
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.
They have remedied most of this with EU4, but you still have stupid things in CK2 like being forced to stick with idiotic churches built by Pope in Rome for no reason, because apparently they forgot to create a demolish/change holding button.
TW games used to be open mostly. There are so many excellent mods in the older games. But they started going downhill with Empire, and now TW games have lots of hardcoded areas and life is hard for modders. Worse thing is, the same modding community they are suppressing is the reason for their games' successes in most cases.
Civilization 4 has been the most open game for me overall. And possibly one of the best strategy games. But then comes in Civilization 5, which had enormous potential but failed because developer made too many unnecessary changes.
To me that always happened right next turn, with me assassinating the diplomat just for bothering me with empty threats and taking away precious time, if he was going to attack anyway.
They have remedied most of this with EU4, but you still have stupid things in CK2 like being forced to stick with idiotic churches built by Pope in Rome for no reason, because apparently they forgot to create a demolish/change holding button.
TW games used to be open mostly. There are so many excellent mods in the older games. But they started going downhill with Empire, and now TW games have lots of hardcoded areas and life is hard for modders. Worse thing is, the same modding community they are suppressing is the reason for their games' successes in most cases.
Civilization 4 has been the most open game for me overall. And possibly one of the best strategy games. But then comes in Civilization 5, which had enormous potential but failed because developer made too many unnecessary changes.
To me that always happened right next turn, with me assassinating the diplomat just for bothering me with empty threats and taking away precious time, if he was going to attack anyway.