• 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.
AGEOD's games mechanically work the same as Paradox games, it's just that you only get to intervene every X number of days. All movement is resolved simultaneously.

A system like that of Civilization or Total War simply won't work with Paradox style multiplayer. I feel it also tends to enable all kinds of gamey nonsense that isn't possible in real time, such as very orderly retreats by an entire frontline. Of course, you can pile on all kinds of zone of control and attacks of opportunity rules to prevent it...or just say screw it, make it real time and avoid the problem entirely.
 
Turn-based RPG with multiplayer-support and procedurally generated worlds, spells equipment and lore. Then I'd be sold with a turn-based game.
 
Well, in mp you can't really say our games are turn based, since people so rarely pause. But in single player I think most people tend to pause as soon as they have a lot going on.
I really feel our mix is the best for the kind of games we make. I was really frustrated when I played "80 Days" for example, as I think that would have been a great pausable game, but as real-time, I found it too stressful for my liking. It has really great reviews though, so I'm probably missing something...

Also, as for pure turn based, they might be easier on your computer at the start of a game, but towards the end, the turns take forever. So I'm not sure which is better on old hardware, I think it will differ, and not be the same answer for every computer/game combo.
 
  • 19
  • 1
Reactions:
No i wouldn't. Pdx system is just better, doesn't send to sleep the cpu for the whole turn but it constantly uses it (in the so called microturns) giving you way more things to do and interact in 1 year than Rome II or civ V. Those two games are waiting 90% of their time for the human player and in the end of the turn calculate everthing, related or not to the player moves. It's worse and conceptually time consuming since most AIs aren't even interacting with the player in that turn, so better have the cpu calculate their moves while you're calculating yours, no?
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Also, as for pure turn based, they might be easier on your computer at the start of a game, but towards the end, the turns take forever. So I'm not sure which is better on old hardware, I think it will differ, and not be the same answer for every computer/game combo.
As someone who grew up with Civilization and Total War, I can tell you turns may take forever, but the solution is to read a book in between. Seriously, I used to read maybe a hundred pages in two-three hours while I was actually playing these games. Late-game lag in real-time games feels far worse than long turns, although I prefer pausable real-time in general.
 
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
As someone who grew up with Civilization and Total War, I can tell you turns may take forever, but the solution is to read a book in between. Seriously, I used to read maybe a hundred pages in two-three hours while I was actually playing these games. Late-game lag in real-time games feels far worse than long turns, although I prefer pausable real-time in general.
I have two screens, so I just use the other for whatever else I feel like. Reading, facebook, another game... :)
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Personally I much prefer the PDS approach to turn based games. In turn based games there is always the tendency to do everything possible every single turn, while the continuous pausable time means that doing something a bit later than possible feels fine. To the extent that it is difficult for me to enjoy turn based games ever since I discovered Paradox :(
 
It's sort of like asking "Should Johan dye his hair green?" I'm sure he could pull it off, but his current color is just fine.

It's not the color of your hair, but how you wear it. Or something like that...
 
turnbased games are just too boring, so no.

To be fair, turn-based makes sense for certain games but it wouldn't work well with Europa Universalis IV due to its nature. It really depends on what game you play.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
TLDR: Turnbased strategy is rebranded chess.

Well, in mp you can't really say our games are turn based, since people so rarely pause. But in single player I think most people tend to pause as soon as they have a lot going on.
I really feel our mix is the best for the kind of games we make. I was really frustrated when I played "80 Days" for example, as I think that would have been a great pausable game, but as real-time, I found it too stressful for my liking. It has really great reviews though, so I'm probably missing something...

Also, as for pure turn based, they might be easier on your computer at the start of a game, but towards the end, the turns take forever. So I'm not sure which is better on old hardware, I think it will differ, and not be the same answer for every computer/game combo.

I don't think you can equate pausing to 'turn-based'.

Historically, turn-based games developed because it was too hard for the then-current hardware to calculate graphics AND player decisions at the same time without clogging up and causing huge, unplayable lag. So the two got separated completely, necessitating that there be some kind of limit on what you could do each turn ... just so that there would be roughly equal wait times each time the PC had to crunch numbers.

In Paradox games, what you can do is not limited by 'timesteps' (eg one day in EU, one hour in HOI, etc) but by what amount of troops you have, provinces you control, prerequisites you've fullfilled for decisions, events that pop up, et cetera. The possible amount of actions to take at the same time differ widely in amount through time and between players/nations, whereas turn-based games always have the same or very nearly the same amount of gameplay options between players. In fact, it is a staple of the genre to give players a chance at procuring an 'extra one decision' or even 'one extra turn' because they are essentially what dictate the gameplay.

Turn-based gameplay is fundamentally all about exploiting the amount of actions you can take in the best possible order, whereas realtime games (particularly strategy) are all about positioning and timing. Not doing anything when it is opportune to do so is a valid option in realtime strategy; it is a complete and unrecoverable loss in just about every turn-based game. That right there is what distinguishes one from the other, and why turn-based strategy is with complete certainty utterly unable to to provide mechanics as deep as Paradox games do. Within the confines of those mechanics, without the ability of 'not doing anything' as a realistic move, it is simply not possible to balance against each other the amount of moves that Paradox games have, because each move added to a turnbased game increases its game-tree complexity superlinearly. Think of the daunting task of calculating chess moves as an example, because it's exactly that.

That's why things like ...

turnbased games are just too boring, so no.

... are said.

The mathematics of our reality simply don't support the possibility of turn-based games with wide decision complexity (what we would call 'deep mechanics') yet computational complexity low enough to finish a gameplay session within a single human lifespan ... let alone design and debug it ... because it lacks 'time' as an essential pruning mechanic. Turnbased games are simple and thereby 'boring' by necessity rather than any conscious choice to make them so.

... God I'm happy you guys aren't into making them.
 
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
The mathematics of our reality simply don't support the possibility of turn-based games with wide decision complexity (what we would call 'deep mechanics') yet computational complexity low enough to finish a gameplay session within a single human lifespan ... let alone design and debug it ... because it lacks 'time' as an essential pruning mechanic. Turnbased games are simple and thereby 'boring' by necessity rather than any conscious choice to make them so.
I find it difficult to interpret what are you trying say here. If you mean that deep turn-based games are practically unsolvable, that's true, but it's not a requirement for the game. It makes it more difficult to create strong AI, but generally game developers just create AI good enough to challenge new player and after that they start giving AI bonuses, so it's not really a differentiating factor. If you mean that nobody can learn to play it perfectly within a single lifetime, I view it as a good thing. For example, consider Dominions - it has a massive decision tree (much larger than Paradox-style games), but it easily deals with computations it needs to perform - it doesn't even require particularly powerful computer. It does have a rather long learning curve and mastering it is probably a lifetime commitment. It's also sort of a game where you have to think about every turn (which doesn't stop people from playing blitzes :)). So it has complexity that is tough on human player (whether it's a good quality or not is obviously subjective). The result is that people play far from perfect, but it's the same for everyone. Some people will call it "boring" (I am not sure if that's what you were trying to say or not).

Regardless, I hope developers first decide what kind of game they want to make and then choose more suitable format. So if Paradox decides to make a new game that fits well into turn-based format I will be a happy customer.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 3
Reactions:
^
This. Once I played the original EU I was ruined.

Curses.

The original EU was a board game :) An incredibly dense and difficult one to play, and of course, turn based - with half a billion subphases per turn.

Yet someone at Pdx decided to run with it, 'boring' TBS notwithstanding, and here we all are.
 
Well, in mp you can't really say our games are turn based, since people so rarely pause. But in single player I think most people tend to pause as soon as they have a lot going on.
I really feel our mix is the best for the kind of games we make. I was really frustrated when I played "80 Days" for example, as I think that would have been a great pausable game, but as real-time, I found it too stressful for my liking. It has really great reviews though, so I'm probably missing something...

Also, as for pure turn based, they might be easier on your computer at the start of a game, but towards the end, the turns take forever. So I'm not sure which is better on old hardware, I think it will differ, and not be the same answer for every computer/game combo.

80 days is great. It wouldn't be a 80 days game if you weren't in a rush. (and despite the light time constraint i find it quite relaxing actually)