Thought experiment: Problems with a grand campaign game?

[Pellaken]

I wanted to ask a very very specific topic that does not fit in with the other thread and get some feedback/thoughts from other users.


So there are 4 "main" games everyone knows and loves.

Crusader Kings, which has a lot of focus on things like personality and dynasty etc
Europa Universalis, which has a lot of focus on things like trade and colonization etc
Victoria, which has a lot of focus on things like economics and industry etc
Hearts of Iron, which has a lot of focus on things like tactics and strategy etc

Any quality grand campaign game would need to have all of this, all in the same game.

But how would a dynastic focus fit into a WW2 style game? Well clearly wou'd need to tone down it's importance over time. Industrial Growth would have to be limited in the dark ages to reflect realty. Colonization is limited on either extreme, etc.

The question therefore is what sort of problems, like these, would be faced by such a grand game?

 

[FOARP]

I wanted to ask a very very specific topic that does not fit in with the other thread and get some feedback/thoughts from other users.


So there are 4 "main" games everyone knows and loves.

Crusader Kings, which has a lot of focus on things like personality and dynasty etc
Europa Universalis, which has a lot of focus on things like trade and colonization etc
Victoria, which has a lot of focus on things like economics and industry etc
Hearts of Iron, which has a lot of focus on things like tactics and strategy etc

Any quality grand campaign game would need to have all of this, all in the same game.

But how would a dynastic focus fit into a WW2 style game? Well clearly wou'd need to tone down it's importance over time. Industrial Growth would have to be limited in the dark ages to reflect realty. Colonization is limited on either extreme, etc.

The question therefore is what sort of problems, like these, would be faced by such a grand game?

The fact that it could not conceivably be developed at a cost that the buying public would pay.

 

[General Baker]

The fact that it could not conceivably be developed at a cost that the buying public would pay.

Try me :3

On subject: I think the main issue here is that currently, each of these games have very specialised mechanics to simulate the oddities and nature of the time periods, factions etc, and not to mention making the game fun. A game of a larger scope would have to have much more of a generalised, interconnected mechanisms... a tad like reality... to drive plausible geopolitical evolution, instead of magically placed restrictions, help-me-ups and the likes.

You're asking for a simulation of human history, which is something I'd love a company like Google, or a massive research institution to attempt, rather than a games developer.

 

[GC13]

Personality and dynasty are pretty much out for any modern game, as power structures are designed around keeping particular types of people in power as opposed to keeping particular bloodlines of people in power. I'd argue that tactics and strategy are also out, as that's not something that leaders really concern themselves with. Really I think Victoria 2 is closest to the platonic ideal of what a grand strategy game should be like. For all its flaws, it really nails how crucial a nation's economy is to its power and while it heavily abstracts the concept still gives us the most detailed representation of it. In all of Paradox's other grand strategy games if you're not expanding or keeping other people from stealing your territory then you're bored. In Victoria 2, however, you can get plenty of interest out of industrializing.

 

[Augustus93]

Personality and dynasty are pretty much out for any modern game, as power structures are designed around keeping particular types of people in power as opposed to keeping particular bloodlines of people in power. I'd argue that tactics and strategy are also out, as that's not something that leaders really concern themselves with. Really I think Victoria 2 is closest to the platonic ideal of what a grand strategy game should be like. For all its flaws, it really nails how crucial a nation's economy is to its power and while it heavily abstracts the concept still gives us the most detailed representation of it. In all of Paradox's other grand strategy games if you're not expanding or keeping other people from stealing your territory then you're bored. In Victoria 2, however, you can get plenty of interest out of industrializing.

Strategy and tactics are out? On which planet? Not Earth at least...

 

[GC13]

When's the last time you heard about the same people who decide who to declare war on deciding which brigades need to go into a division that's being prepared for deployment in Italy, then once it's in place giving it orders to attack at 8:00 AM, two hours after the bombing starts? It was exceptional for Johnson to pick bombing targets. These days most countries have a different chain of command.

I'll give you basic control of the military just because it's such an honored Paradox tradition, but on the "grand strategy" level you really shouldn't be involved in the war once it's declared. You call war goals, and rely on the nation and the military you built to carry the day. We shouldn't be involved in the operational level like we get into on HoI3—even the other games take us down to Strategic, as the categorization is often understood.

 

[FOARP]

When's the last time you heard about the same people who decide who to declare war on deciding which brigades need to go into a division that's being prepared for deployment in Italy, then once it's in place giving it orders to attack at 8:00 AM, two hours after the bombing starts? It was exceptional for Johnson to pick bombing targets. These days most countries have a different chain of command.

I'll give you basic control of the military just because it's such an honored Paradox tradition, but on the "grand strategy" level you really shouldn't be involved in the war once it's declared. You call war goals, and rely on the nation and the military you built to carry the day. We shouldn't be involved in the operational level like we get into on HoI3—even the other games take us down to Strategic, as the categorization is often understood.

I think the idea here is that essentially you're doing what Adolf Hitler did - controlling the war down to a low level.

 

[General Baker]

When's the last time you heard about the same people who decide who to declare war on deciding which brigades need to go into a division that's being prepared for deployment in Italy, then once it's in place giving it orders to attack at 8:00 AM, two hours after the bombing starts? It was exceptional for Johnson to pick bombing targets. These days most countries have a different chain of command.

I'll give you basic control of the military just because it's such an honored Paradox tradition, but on the "grand strategy" level you really shouldn't be involved in the war once it's declared. You call war goals, and rely on the nation and the military you built to carry the day. We shouldn't be involved in the operational level like we get into on HoI3—even the other games take us down to Strategic, as the categorization is often understood.

I think the idea here is you should be able to dive in to whichever part of the national machine you like, a la HOI3 and it's optional AI-control toggles for Diplomacy, Production, Warfare etc.

 

[salvettic]

At first I was very interested in something like this, over time however I understood that the more ground the game covers, the more generic and abstract it has to get... in the extreme you have Civilization. Civ is pretty good at what it aims, I prefer PDS games thou, and instead of a mega-huge game that covers CK-EU-VIC-HOI game, I would prefer other things like a CK of the whole world, a Dark Ages game, an actualized Rome with CK mechanics... this kind of things.