If Paradox went for turn-based, would you support it?

[Axe99]

Turn based could very well work for Paradox- IF THEY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PLAYERS.

I'm going to use War in the West/East by Gary Grigsby as an example.

Both have a 7days/turn system, and are infinitely more complex than Hearts of Iron 3. These games are able to be due to the turn based system allowing more system usage for decisions than an RTS. They manage this by reducing the players to Axis and Allies only. This kind of system would not work in Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings due to the 4 billion states, but smaller games would work.

They could also try to do it in something like Victoria, but that would mean dumbing down the smaller nations to non-players. You wouldn't be able to play as Hannover or Hessen for example, and their actions would be reduced to just simple things in order to reduce turn times. The trade off is essentially depth for size. I think the majority of players would be fine with that because most don't do a German unification with Luxembourg, but it would just depend on Paradox's mindset.

While I'm a big fan of War in the East (haven't gotten around to WitW, but expect I'll enjoy that too), a couple of points:

- I wouldn't argue, for a second, that WitE is "infinitely" more complex than HoI3. Its production model is hands-off and railroaded, it's political model non-existent, its naval side of things equally non-existent. Yes, it tracks equipment and manpower at a far more granular level, and tracks combat at a more granular level, but from a gameplay perspective this just feeds into combat results. HoI3's supply system is definitely far more complex (and, I'd argue, far better at simulating logistical difficulties over longer distances). Both games are quite complex, with different focusses, but on an overall gameplay level, I'd rate HoI3 as more complex than WitE (but WitE as a more difficult game, as it's AI is more challenging than HoI3s, although it still has some issues).

- My average turn time on a clear turn in WitE when I'm on the offensive is around 65 minutes. However, when I'm on the defensive it's closer to 30-40 minutes. No problem in single-player, but in MP that's a lot of time sitting around for whoever's on the wrong end of the offensive.

- Most of the system usage in WitE is for tactical decision making, with a bit less for operational, made more complex by the size of the theatre in question. There's no reason this couldn't be applied to multiple nations (although it would, of course, result in slower running when there's warfare going on larger and more complex than Barbarossa).

On topic, I'm sure I'd enjoy a turn-based PDS game, and if they wanted to do one would give it a go, but plenty of people already to turn-based strat titles, and very few indeed make anything like PDS does, so if they're happy doing what they do, I'd personally prefer they keep doing what they're doing .

 

[Sabotage13]

Turn based could very well work for Paradox- IF THEY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PLAYERS.

I'm going to use War in the West/East by Gary Grigsby as an example.

Both have a 7days/turn system, and are infinitely more complex than Hearts of Iron 3. These games are able to be due to the turn based system allowing more system usage for decisions than an RTS. They manage this by reducing the players to Axis and Allies only. This kind of system would not work in Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings due to the 4 billion states, but smaller games would work.

If Paradox games can handle that kind of decisionmaking in real time, I don't see why they couldn't during AI turns.

 

[brifbates]

If they made something new a turn-based game I might even do mp but I can't stand even 2-player co-op mp as EU IV currently stands for a few reasons, not the least of which being I am terrible at quick click sequences...

I used to love Stars! mp back in the day...

 

[DerMaulwurf]

I really like RT with pause in general and I think that it is a good fit for Paradox games. It allows you to pause and think over specific actions for as long as you like and let things roll elsewise.

Besides that Paradox games compute all their variables in discrete units, units move by day and decisions are made in certain time frames. Ever wondered why EU4 truces only cleared at end of month without reloading? Paradox games are one of the nearest thing to turn-based gameplay without being actually turn-based. Which makes the RT snobbery in this thread quite absurd.

And yes, one of the most important challenges in modern theoretical physics is to find a proper quantum field theory for general relativity. If that succeeds all 4 dimensions of spacetime including time would be confirmed to be quantized and therefore reality would be turn-based.

 

[Kikaider]

turnbased games are just too boring, so no.

I would say "Nintendo's Fire Emblem and Atlus's Shin Megami and Etrian series say hi," but I realized while typing that those games have plot, so maybe that's the issue? That in the absence of things to fill in the space of a turn-based game, real-time ones are more fun? But then board games like Pandemic and card games like Pathfinder and Sentinels of the Multiverse (all 3 can/are played as singleplayer turn-based solitaire games) are also fun...

So I dunno, I both see your point but can't agree with it?

 

[Mujado]

Turn based system would make the AI so much more competitive, just look at Total War Series the best AI is still Shogun and Medieval 1 before the map went to 3d nightmare..

However after many years I'm not sure I'd get use to that in Paradox games, I love the current system and hopefully it just improves and improves with time.