The GRANDEST strategy game of all

[sjones25]

I usually get bored with an EU3 game long before the end year, and that game only covers 400-something years. I predict that if such a game were to be made, by the end of the Roman era most players will have conquered most of the Mediterranean, they will eat up most of Europe during the dark ages, they'll spend most of the Middle Ages sitting around waiting for the tech to be discovered that will let them explore the rest of the world, then (if they're not bored by now) they will launch a combined European invasion of the rest of the world, probably uniting the entire world long before 1800. Napoleon will be a minor general in the United Earth Empire. What is the player supposed to do for the rest of the game?

 

[Firenz]

You have almost all of the historical eras covered, in a period stretching from the Rise of Rome to the Second World War. So what about before and after that? Why keep making new expansions when you can just go all out? We all want, and you know we all want a game that begins at the beginning of civilization and ends, well, who knows when? Is something like this in the future for Paradox? The ultimate grand strategy game?

I apologise for saying this but isn't that just Civ 1-5? On this note I'd like to say that the difference in flavour of each of the paradox games is what makes them so appealing.
Fancy some intense strategic warfare? go for HoI!
How about a touch of conquest/colonisation and diplomatic shennanegens(sp?)? here's EU!
Feel like some light attempts at preventing your pops from migrating to the new world while industrialising and keeping those Russkies out of Europe? Vicky!
Or just a nice bit of crusading while keeping all your vassals where they belong and trying to divert the crown of your king onto the oh so worthy head of your son? CK!

 

[Sam L]

I apologise for saying this but isn't that just Civ 1-5? On this note I'd like to say that the difference in flavour of each of the paradox games is what makes them so appealing.
Fancy some intense strategic warfare? go for HoI!
How about a touch of conquest/colonisation and diplomatic shennanegens(sp?)? here's EU!
Feel like some light attempts at preventing your pops from migrating to the new world while industrialising and keeping those Russkies out of Europe? Vicky!
Or just a nice bit of crusading while keeping all your vassals where they belong and trying to divert the crown of your king onto the oh so worthy head of your son? CK!

That's true which is why I never play Civilization anymore. I wish I had discovered Paradox games earlier.

I love the character system that Paradox has going in Rome and CK which combines grand strategy with roleplay. I think it's also very realistic because history is driven by people not groups of people. I like the individualistic natures of those games where you're not jus ruling a country but you are also a person with your own interests and legacy at hand.

I look forward to expansions and sequels to those games and hope that Paradox taps into the classical antiquity and middle ages periods more. These styles of games, nobody else has. It's a niche and one that just needs to be discovered by fans.

Games like EU3, Victoria and HOI, imo, are just another nation running, warring type games. There are a lot of games like that. Sure Victoria may have the economic aspects etc.. But the really unique character system that Paradox has going I hope they expand that further. I just love it.

 

[Sir_Robert]

Well i never played Crusader Kings so i don't know about it but if yall where talking about my idea what i mean is that each era whould be sperated and that it would be more character developing and more role playing also you wouldn't be conquering all of europe before a certian period as my game idea would cause ways for you to fall. This was Sid's oringaial idea that he would make was for you to rise then fall and start all over. kinda like real history of nations like eqypt, perisa, the babylonians and others that rose then fell because of a lack of control over mass terriorty and actually i would say due to the lack of the amount of people that you could control. My game idea maybe in the future if i make it would some how implement this. Maybe by things like revolutions and for example you lived in the ancient world and a kindom dominated a mass area but the capital and most of the soliders and people who followed it live miles away why not estabilsh you own kindom and claim you rightful land. So this would be a creation systeme inside the game. So imagian in EU3 if you are playing as some nation and have terrority in the balkens and say that a lot of that terrority is one culture you could decide to cause a civil war or revolution what ever you like to call it and become that nation. But this will also happen either way if you don't do it. it may happen on it's one at certian times under certian conditions.

 

[Vesimir]

You people are so boooring! Seriously? You're against the very idea of an ultimate strategy game? Sad is all I can say.

I'm all in favour of such a game. Quite an easy way to handle it too. Let's Paradox announces Historia Universalis. An epic game spanning from 500BC to 2000 AD. And then they release the following games. Or rather, one game and four very big add-ons.

1. Historia Universalis : The Dawn of Civilisation - 500 BC to, let's say the start of the Dark Ages.

2. Historia Universalis : The Dark Ages - The medevial times.

3. Historia Universalis : The Rennesaince - From the end of the medevial times to the start of the Industrial era.

4. Historia Universalis : Empires - Industrial era.

5. Historia Universalis : The Dusk of Civilisation - The modern age.

All those games would have the same core. Technological trees, warfare, population and all that. And with each game the available units and techs would change while the mechanics stayed the same. In the first part, pops would be scholars, slaves, soldiers, etc. and in, say, the third we would have artists and such.

The mechanics would stay the same while the player would be able to experience the industrial boom as well as the introduction of feudalism. Another thing would be various transfer dates. If you developed the necesarry technologies in 100 BC, then you would go to the Dark Ages in 100 BC.

As a way of stopping complete domination of the world, the player would be able to take control of any nation that sprang up in the world by a pop up. You're playing Rome and the Goths have just become a Horde. In the pop up you can decide to take control of the Goths and lead them in their quest to destroy the Roman Empire. If the player would decide to stay the same nation all the time, he would find the game getting harder and harder with each century. If you would want to keep the whole Roman Empire together, you'd be getting crippling penalties in the Dark Ages, and if you continued into the Rennesaince, you'd be pretty much in a state of constant revolt as no-one would be listening to your rule and everyone would be attacking you. Of course, if you were a colonial empire that developed in the "Empires" you would face little problems in the early "DoC" but in the later parts of it, you'd be getting severe penalties in the colonies, leading to de-colonialism.

I could go on and on but I'm lazy by nature and don't feel like continuing. And if you ask "What's the difference with the original Europa Universalis series?", my answer is "The same core leading to conversions with no problems whatsoever and with the possibility to build the Frankish Empire on the ruins of the Seleucid Empire in the Balkans, and fight off the catholic norse while upholding the values of the Great Sun God in your quest to develop rockets with which you shall colonise Mars in the year of our lord 1864."

 

[unmerged(40731)]

We Paradox fans love your grand historical games and the tried and true (and enjoyably complicated) system they have utilized since EU began all those years ago. I personally feel a sense of pride in knowing that I have mastered a system that would confuse a phD-holding mathematician. The short, keep the games coming and don't change a thing. But what's next?

I keep noticing on all the forums for EUIII, Victoria, HOI3, etc., everyone continuously asking "when is the new expansion coming out?" The modding community is dedicated and telented, and works wonders. However, I secretly wish for you great folks at Paradox to give us what I know all of us in the Paradox community really want...a historical strategy game in the grandest scale.

You have almost all of the historical eras covered, in a period stretching from the Rise of Rome to the Second World War. So what about before and after that? Why keep making new expansions when you can just go all out? We all want, and you know we all want a game that begins at the beginning of civilization and ends, well, who knows when? Is something like this in the future for Paradox? The ultimate grand strategy game?

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but I'm pretty new to the forums, so I apologize for beating the proverbial dead horse.

Wow --

starting with EU:Rome -- going thru Crusader -- then to EUIII, then Vick, then HOI

damn -- were looking at OVER 2000 years of history

a funny thought is to play the romans and have them play thru and start WW III .. - AGainst the Tang Empire ..

 

[Saulot]

Think how many Tags this game would have to have... You would need a supercomputer to have it not slow to a crawl

 

[LeeDub]

I can just about imagine guys jumping out of helicopters, with spec ops gear and a SPQR flash stitched on their uniforms. How would this game even simulate the rise and fall of distinct civilisations? It would degrade into pure fantasy by the end of the first few hundred years and go even more wacky from there. There would need to be an outrageous amount of content, events and mechanics to keep it interesting.

 

[Sir_Robert]

You people are so boooring! Seriously? You're against the very idea of an ultimate strategy game? Sad is all I can say.

I'm all in favour of such a game. Quite an easy way to handle it too. Let's Paradox announces Historia Universalis. An epic game spanning from 500BC to 2000 AD. And then they release the following games. Or rather, one game and four very big add-ons.

1. Historia Universalis : The Dawn of Civilisation - 500 BC to, let's say the start of the Dark Ages.

2. Historia Universalis : The Dark Ages - The medevial times.

3. Historia Universalis : The Rennesaince - From the end of the medevial times to the start of the Industrial era.

4. Historia Universalis : Empires - Industrial era.

5. Historia Universalis : The Dusk of Civilisation - The modern age.

All those games would have the same core. Technological trees, warfare, population and all that. And with each game the available units and techs would change while the mechanics stayed the same. In the first part, pops would be scholars, slaves, soldiers, etc. and in, say, the third we would have artists and such.

The mechanics would stay the same while the player would be able to experience the industrial boom as well as the introduction of feudalism. Another thing would be various transfer dates. If you developed the necesarry technologies in 100 BC, then you would go to the Dark Ages in 100 BC.

As a way of stopping complete domination of the world, the player would be able to take control of any nation that sprang up in the world by a pop up. You're playing Rome and the Goths have just become a Horde. In the pop up you can decide to take control of the Goths and lead them in their quest to destroy the Roman Empire. If the player would decide to stay the same nation all the time, he would find the game getting harder and harder with each century. If you would want to keep the whole Roman Empire together, you'd be getting crippling penalties in the Dark Ages, and if you continued into the Rennesaince, you'd be pretty much in a state of constant revolt as no-one would be listening to your rule and everyone would be attacking you. Of course, if you were a colonial empire that developed in the "Empires" you would face little problems in the early "DoC" but in the later parts of it, you'd be getting severe penalties in the colonies, leading to de-colonialism.

I could go on and on but I'm lazy by nature and don't feel like continuing. And if you ask "What's the difference with the original Europa Universalis series?", my answer is "The same core leading to conversions with no problems whatsoever and with the possibility to build the Frankish Empire on the ruins of the Seleucid Empire in the Balkans, and fight off the catholic norse while upholding the values of the Great Sun God in your quest to develop rockets with which you shall colonise Mars in the year of our lord 1864."

Wow that is very similar to my idea but some of it is different but seems like both you and me can basicly make the same game.

 

[Wildy]

There's another reason to be against a single GRANDEST strategy game of all.
It will give only 1 icon.
While making many games for different eras gives more icons.
Not counting expansions, gold, collector's editions.

 

[Sir_Robert]

Actually my game idea is different games but all connected so different icons for the different eras. If i grow up and work for paradox and if we decide to make my game ideas we wounden't make another EU game or Vicky or HOI but just add it where you could transfer your files over. So Like if would be a Dawn of Civ game then a Roman era game then Dark ages game then EU like 6 or later then Vick 5 to 7 depending on how many they make before i get there if i grow up to work for them. I highly dout it but just an idea insted of me having to make games just like EU VICK AND HOI. But games would go in this order and all be transferal but nations wouldn't be able to conquer everything and most nations would collapse and revolutions and conquerzations would happen through out history to keep things simi-historical.

also Widy do you have ever game paradox makes it looks like it to me!!!