More and more hardcore...

[Malachi256]

I need some bling in my games, I'll freely admit.

I probably haven't given the Paradox strategy games enough of a try, but what I did try felt like I was playing a slightly upgraded version of a spreadsheet game - all data, very little "video game." I totally understand the appeal for some, but they just don't grab me.

 

[eternalblue]

The domination victory in bnw is a challenge if that's what you consider hard core sometimes. Domination could cause you to fail on even the emperor difficulty. As for going science or the other less challenging victories
... Immortal difficulty also makes these less challenging. ..

The problem that you can't see is: if in a civilization game to concuer it looks very hard to accomplish on hard difficulty, try a paradox historical game on "iron mode". And it will kick your ass.. Is very difficult to paint the map on EU IV or Ck II. You need some skills like in real life.those games are like a real leader or empire simulator. And that makes a lot of difference. Civ is so very light in this point of view.

 

[eternalblue]

Well, if you have a look at what Wikipedia has to say about "Grand Strategy" I don't really get why people think the Civ series does not really fit that description. Actually I would be so bold to claim Civ I and Colonization were some of the first real (and also genre defining!) "Grand Strategy" games ever - considering the "historic" background and the hardware technology available then. The only thing that really differentiates Paradox games from Civ is the given historical setting and focus on a specific era. The base mechanics of Paradox games also are quite simple at times (shockingly so actually consiering the hardcore hype!!!), so I don't think the snobbishness of real "Grand Strategy" players towards Civ is really justified. On the other hand with Civ games it is quite easy to create plausible scenarios in the whole span of human civilization. No big deal to create scenarios form ancient, medieval, renaisance or modern area. It's also possible to create SciFi or Phantasy scenarios. So the mechnics are there and the whole package is much more flexible, versatile, accesible and entertaining than a Paradox title. And I don't see that much difference between playing Civ IVs RFC mod or Europa Universalis - actually RFC is my "EU light" I played much more often than EU3.

P.S. Or one can also see it that way: the Civ series started as "Grand Strategy" but then became a trademark of it's own, while other companies pushed the limits of what today is considered widely as "Grand Strategy" - so much that Civ today (almost or actually, depending on what one consideres true "GS") falls out of that window.

Civ games they are not grand strategy games because of lack of complexity. A civ game can play a 12 years old boy because in every nation you have the same mechanics: techs, policies and units,buildings. Just a few bonuses to make a small difference and the random map. But every game you can play it in the same way if you want. There are no events, the diplomacy is just hello, goodbye, friends and war. Politics are just upgrades with bonuses every game the same and the religion doesn't have a role. The empires have no personalities and the ai can war and just give up his cities with nonsense. Civilization is far away from being nominated grand strategy. What makes a grand strategy is that when you are free to do anything and free to do nothing.. And all your decisions in politics ,religion ,economy,warfare,diplomacy and religion can be your doom or glory depending on the random events and the personalities that are ruling above your borders or in your borders like council or the people that can praise or revolt. Those important things are missing from a lot of games and for that paradox games give a lot of hundreds possibilities and decisions you can make , every game being a different experience because you are in command on everything with your plans on your free will... That makes them special, and makes you special after playing them...

 

[eternalblue]

I need some bling in my games, I'll freely admit.

I probably haven't given the Paradox strategy games enough of a try, but what I did try felt like I was playing a slightly upgraded version of a spreadsheet game - all data, very little "video game." I totally understand the appeal for some, but they just don't grab me.

Watch some paradox developers diary on youtube, some let's plays and you will see the difference and give them another try...

 

[eternalblue]

So there is like no goal to attain? Just a sandbox game like Sim City?

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

It is a goal.. Your own goal: "to acomplish every goal possible that you can think" . The game will not tell to you the goal like in civ games from a few choices....in paradox games you will need to decide the goal because you are the ruler and not the game !!! And sandbox like simcity I think civ is more closer to it. Because it feels that you have tools and bonuses...not decisions like in paradox games...

 

[zukkus]

the main problem I have with the paradox games is its always planet earth. England is always in that one spot. Gibraltar is always there. The new world always looks the same, etc etc.

Thats where CIV wins IMO.

 

[Magean]

The problem that you can't see is: if in a civilization game to concuer it looks very hard to accomplish on hard difficulty, try a paradox historical game on "iron mode". And it will kick your ass.. Is very difficult to paint the map on EU IV or Ck II. You need some skills like in real life.those games are like a real leader or empire simulator. And that makes a lot of difference. Civ is so very light in this point of view.

I don't agree with you, in my opinion Paradox games are much easier in single player than Civ. Baring challenges like conquering the world with Ryu Kyu

I don't play ironman mode because my computer would take so much time saving at every move I do, that I would be dead of old age before completing a game. But I don't save and reload when I fail, excepted for really stupid things like forgetting a navy that's taking attrition in the middle of the ocean . As for real decisions -- declaring a war, engaging a battle here or there, taking this idea slot instead of that one... -- I don't reload.

In CK2 or EU4, the snowballing effect comes quickly once you're set and it is huge. For example, I played a Karen game (the Zoroastrian satrap of Dihistan in the 867 start), which is supposed to be a somewhat hard challenge. Within 75 years I had reunited the old Persian empire (admittedly, my second ruler lived a long life and it helped) and restored the Moabadan Moabad. From there on, nothing could stop me, if I wanted I could holy war my neighbours indefinitely for the remaining 500 years of playing, there was no threat from outside or inside : my retinue was so huge and my treasury so full of money that any rebellion would have been pointless, and indeed none occurred. Seljuk has been no match for my empire, nor would have been the Mongols had I continued power-playing. So I started roleplaying instead, because things would have become boring otherwise : declare war, win, rinse and repeat.

In Civilization, early successes (getting a good start, stomping one or two neighbours) don't mean that the game is won. At least on Immortal/Deity.

In Paradox games, the AI doesn't only play to win ; it role-plays too, which means that it's much, much easier to exploit for a min/maxing player. In Civ V, the AI more competitive ; I didn't say more intelligent. But it surely plays to win, mostly.

In the end, I consider Victoria 2, EU4 or CK2 to be fairly easy games. Once you know a limited amount of tricks, it's not hard to success. I've been succeeding with backwater starts in older Paradox games since my middle school years. I still can't beat Deity in Civilization V.


EDIT : as for Paradox games being real empire simulators that require real-life skills... that's an overstretch if you ask me. The competitive aspect of Paradox games is not different than it is it any strategy game : you have resources, options, choices to make, and need to plan ahead. Magnified chess, so to speak. And I argue that it's actually much less complex than Civ is. More no-brainer choices, less adaptation needed -- the fact that we play in a world whose shape is known, and whose events are at least partially known (50 years left before the Mongol invasion, time to do this or that ; the reformation will soon come, time to prepare...), helps in this regard.

 

[eternalblue]

the main problem I have with the paradox games is its always planet earth. England is always in that one spot. Gibraltar is always there. The new world always looks the same, etc etc.

Thats where CIV wins IMO.

Yes civ series can win in randomness. You can start with French in Africa with national wonders like Handging gardens or piramids , boudists and surrounded by ice with citrics. Wtf? For fun is OK, but for a player who wants to learn history or to play through past in different ways, is a slap in the face... And every game you the same things that you need to do... The game dictate you a lot.

 

[eternalblue]

[/QUOTE]
In the end, I consider Victoria 2, EU4 or CK2 to be fairly easy games. Once you know a limited amount of tricks, it's not hard to success. I've been succeeding with backwater starts in older Paradox games since my middle school years. I still can't beat Deity in Civilization V.


EDIT : as for Paradox games being real empire simulators that require real-life skills... that's an overstretch if you ask me. The competitive aspect of Paradox games is not different than it is it any strategy game : you have resources, options, choices to make, and need to plan ahead. Magnified chess, so to speak. And I argue that it's actually much less complex than Civ is. More no-brainer choices, less adaptation needed -- the fact that we play in a world whose shape is known [/QUOTE]

I don't know what game have you played because I can't see them brainless, in contrary. Civ V you can play it for 30 hours and you know all the game and all the stuff you can do. A paradox game you play it for 700 hours and always is something new to learn and to do. Brainless is just the AI in civ V becauase the diplomacy suck so hard..and that tells everything. Hello.. Wanna be my friend? Goodbye, war!!! That's it... Religion is pointless, and the culture it works when you paint "monalisa". I think if you can give some time to the paradox games you will see the difference. The learning curve and the experience is so awesome. You don't need one of the 6 victory types to win it...in paradox games you have just one: you chose it! Is your own goal to accomplish...

 

[Asklepios]

I'm a fan of many of these games, and each provides a different experience, though I can see that they're similar enough for side by side comparison.

Things I'd like to see in Civ 6, borrowed from EU...:

1) A proper Casus Belli system. In Civ, there are diplomatic penalties for declaring war, and there's a diplomatic picture, but frankly its not great. I'd love to see Civ nations need a casus belli to declare war, and for different strengths of reasons for war to have different consequences. A well justified war should have minimal diplomatic impact (save with the nation you declare war on) and minimal repercussions at home. An unprovoked act of aggression should be met with international condemnation and damage to your own economy from discontent. Between the two extremes there should be a range of variations, from wars which are popular at home but not overseas (think Nazi invasion of Poland) to wars which are seen as justified by allies but not be enemies (think US invasion of Iraq) and so on.
2) Better religion. Civ religion is almost too abstract, and while I like the selection of beliefs and so on, I think it'd be more interesting if faith-buying was taken out, and the benefits of religion were once again represented in terms of societal cohesion and political geography. Religious schisms should have a place too, and religion should be seen as being both beneficial AND detrimental.
3) National ideas. Ideologies kind of cover this, but it'd be nice to see every nation have to make one-off choices each time an era rolls round to determine the character of the nation.
4) Changing national identity. I love in EU that you can found Italy, or the United Kingdom, through politics and conquest. I love the series of short term goals that let you consolidate the Kingdom of France, or unify Japan under one Emperor.
5) Heirs and succession. While Civ has always had one Gandhi ruling for millennia, I'd like to see that change. I'd like to see a succession of names, either from history or procedurally generated, with different stats for each ruler, and the death of the ruler marking a change in strategy and economics.


Things I'd like to see in the next EU, borrowed from Civ:

1) A proper tech tree. There's a lot of strategy in picking your tech path in Civ, less so in EU which just has several parallel tech lines rather than a branching tree.
2) A score, and victory conditions. In EU you set your own goals, and the objectives are optional. Thats cool, but when you reach the end of the timeline, the game just stops, and its back to the main menu. The sense of achievement is underwhelming. At the very least I'd like a summary screen stating my stats, and comparing them to other nations. I'd like to see a graph showing the progress of my military compared to other nations over time, and a map showing the world turning into my territory. I'd like achievements to flag up to acknowledge that I conquered the whole of North and South America with France, or that I survived without being conquered as Scotland.
3) A broader timescale. I don't necessarly want EU to cover the same scale of time as Civ, from first city to giant death robots. Rather, I'd like to see more games using the EU engine with modificiations that show us different times in history, such as the rise and fall of Rome or the War of the Three Kingdoms. I don't mind losing the globe map in order to focus on one region. Essentially, I'd like to experience time periods other than the Age of Exploration.

 

[Magean]

I don't know what game have you played because I can't see them brainless, in contrary. Civ V you can play it for 30 hours and you know all the game and all the stuff you can do. A paradox game you play it for 700 hours and always is something new to learn and to do. Brainless is just the AI in civ V becauase the diplomacy suck so hard..and that tells everything. Hello.. Wanna be my friend? Goodbye, war!!! That's it... Religion is pointless, and the culture it works when you paint "monalisa". I think if you can give some time to the paradox games you will see the difference. The learning curve and the experience is so awesome. You don't need one of the 6 victory types to win it...in paradox games you have just one: you chose it! Is your own goal to accomplish...

I've been playing P'dox games hundreds of hours, if not thousands, since I discovered them back in 2007, with vanilla EU3. I've played EU3 & 4, EU Rome, Vicky 1 & 2, Crusader Kings 1 (not much) and 2 (a lot) and Arsenal of Democracy (improved HoI 2, though it's too war-oriented for my taste). So I can say I gave some time to them.

I've never said they were brainless. I'm just saying that the min/maxing part isn't usually that difficult to grasp.

Every strategy game is a competitive game. Purely abstract games, like chess, are purely competitive. Now, when a game gains some background, for example a historical or fantasy setting, it gains something more : immersion. There's a kind of role-play that's added, we feel a bit like leaders, or actors of that alternative history.

So, for me, most 4X strategy games have two aspects : competition and immersion.

In Civilization, competition rules. Immersion is a token.
In Paradox games, immersion plays a much bigger role.

Now, please allow me to quote my first post in this topic :

I play Paradox games and Civ quite a lot, and enjoy both.
But I enjoy them differently.

What I like in Paradox games, it's the immersion : feeling like I'm participating in an alternative history, both as observer and as active player... That's why I'm not interested at all in playing EU4, or CK2, or Vicky 2, in a fantasy world that means nothing to me. Of course, there are fantasy worlds I like because, you know, it's the Middle Earth, or Westeros, or the Forgotten Realms... but a totally random map wouldn't be interesting at all, for me.

At the same time, I enjoy civ V as a magnified chess game, or board game. I don't care that much about historical plausibility or immersion ; I want gameplay and replayability. I want to devise and experiment new strategies, not going for a "what if Zoroastrian Persia had survived, England had won the Hundred Years War"... and so on.

So these franchises offer me two quite distinct playstyles. I don't think they compete against each other.

Here's my view.

I play Civilization because I enjoy trying new strategies, or refining the ones I know. I don't care if culture is gained by painting Mona Lisa or whatever, I just want it to offer a diversity of playstyles. Great artists are just a pretext for another game mechanic.

In Paradox games, there's in fact much less strategical diversity. Yes they are sandboxes, and yes you can do whatever you want, because there's no set victory conditions. But if you just want to play efficiently, there's much less to learn. No build order to care about, for example. You just expand your empire, in the end. Internal management is quite a thing in Victoria indeed. But Victoria is perhaps the most niche-oriented of all Paradox franchises. In EU4, internal management is almost non-existent ; everything revolves around growing your base-tax, which is primarily done by expanding your borders.
Diplomacy, though much more developed than in Civ V (where it arguably sucks indeed), is not that hard to grasp. You have more options, that's true. They aren't complex to use, though.

Another example : when playing Civ, I'm thinking "What if I tried a combo involving this civilization, this policy, and this building ?" Things like that. With Paradox games, such considerations are far less important. There are less strategical choices to make, less viable paths to greatness ; instead, you decide whether you want greatness or not, and which kind of greatness... If you play efficiently strategy-wise, it often gets boring after the first 150 years in-game because you are so powerful that nothing will ever stop you.

That said, with CK2, I've spent multiple hours simply looking at hands-off observer games, without playing... I just found it entertaining to watch an alternative history unfolding before my eyes.

 

[gps]

What makes a grand strategy is that when you are free to do anything and free to do nothing.. And all your decisions in politics ,religion ,economy,warfare,diplomacy and religion can be your doom or glory depending on the random events and the personalities that are ruling above your borders or in your borders like council or the people that can praise or revolt. Those important things are missing from a lot of games and for that paradox games give a lot of hundreds possibilities and decisions you can make , every game being a different experience because you are in command on everything with your plans on your free will... That makes them special, and makes you special after playing them...

Well, I don't see anything here that would not fit the Civ series as well - so as said before:

I don't think the snobbishness of real "Grand Strategy" players towards Civ is really justified.

 

[Magean]

To make my point clearer : I can spend hours reading debates here on the strategy forum. Civ V may be unbalanced (what do you prefer, tradition-rationalism or honour-exploration ?) but there are still many interesting debates that never die. For example, the classical tradition vs liberty, when it comes to policies.

On the Paradox forum that I visit regularly, such debates are rarer, and often less interesting, because they don't matter that much, or the answer is obvious.

 

[eternalblue]

I've been playing P'dox games hundreds of hours, if not thousands, since I discovered them back in 2007, with vanilla EU3. I've played EU3 & 4, EU Rome, Vicky 1 & 2, Crusader Kings 1 (not much) and 2 (a lot) and Arsenal of Democracy (improved HoI 2, though it's too war-oriented for my taste). So I can say I gave some time to them.

I've never said they were brainless. I'm just saying that the min/maxing part isn't usually that difficult to grasp.

Every strategy game is a competitive game. Purely abstract games, like chess, are purely competitive. Now, when a game gains some background, for example a historical or fantasy setting, it gains something more : immersion. There's a kind of role-play that's added, we feel a bit like leaders, or actors of that alternative history.

So, for me, most 4X strategy games have two aspects : competition and immersion.

In Civilization, competition rules. Immersion is a token.
In Paradox games, immersion plays a much bigger role.

Now, please allow me to quote my first post in this topic :



Here's my view.

I play Civilization because I enjoy trying new strategies, or refining the ones I know. I don't care if culture is gained by painting Mona Lisa or whatever, I just want it to offer a diversity of playstyles. Great artists are just a pretext for another game mechanic.

In Paradox games, there's in fact much less strategical diversity. Yes they are sandboxes, and yes you can do whatever you want, because there's no set victory conditions. But if you just want to play efficiently, there's much less to learn. No build order to care about, for example. You just expand your empire, in the end. Internal management is quite a thing in Victoria indeed. But Victoria is perhaps the most niche-oriented of all Paradox franchises. In EU4, internal management is almost non-existent ; everything revolves around growing your base-tax, which is primarily done by expanding your borders.
Diplomacy, though much more developed than in Civ V (where it arguably sucks indeed), is not that hard to grasp. You have more options, that's true. They aren't complex to use, though.

Another example : when playing Civ, I'm thinking "What if I tried a combo involving this civilization, this policy, and this building ?" Things like that. With Paradox games, such considerations are far less important. There are less strategical choices to make, less viable paths to greatness ; instead, you decide whether you want greatness or not, and which kind of greatness... If you play efficiently strategy-wise, it often gets boring after the first 150 years in-game because you are so powerful that nothing will ever stop you.

That said, with CK2, I've spent multiple hours simply looking at hands-off observer games, without playing... I just found it entertaining to watch an alternative history unfolding before my eyes.

Thanks for your explanation , is very detailed and you are true in some aspects. But what civ needs is a personality of its own and more diplomacy. For me civ is more easy than a paradox game in its core and in its historical events. In civ when I play with 3 different nations with different cutures is the same. Found city chose tech and productions. And in the late game in the industrial era it is very boring managing and doing the same to accomplish one of the victories. A paradox game it starts flexible and it ends flexible. You can chose so much to do and you can enter in trouble so fast in a logical way, the ai is not pissed off without a reason like in civ and then makes to you declaration of friendship. And yes in paradox games is more about messages , map and numbers. But that's the point. You can imagine your own type of history like you are reading a book and writing it in the same time.. Without knowing what will be the end...

 

[eternalblue]

To make my point clearer : I can spend hours reading debates here on the strategy forum. Civ V may be unbalanced (what do you prefer, tradition-rationalism or honour-exploration ?) but there are still many interesting debates that never die. For example, the classical tradition vs liberty, when it comes to policies.

On the Paradox forum that I visit regularly, such debates are rarer, and often less interesting, because they don't matter that much, or the answer is obvious.

Debates such as this don't exists because in comparation with civ , what makes the paradox games strong is the historical accuracy and yes are debates about periods but in a light way because such problems don't exist. The civ is like a "random toolbox" and is normal that a lot of people trying to talk about those things combining the "jungle with tundra" and they want more in depth gameplay historically.. There are people who want more fun, and they are other that want fun and play historically and learn some history. That's the big difference... And if you watch in depth gameplay or read the forum there are interesting things to learn for you and to play with...

 

[eternalblue]

Well, I don't see anything here that would not fit the Civ series as well - so as said before:

Read more about them ... Not just the wikipedia...

 

[Furtherado]

I have played alot of different strategy games, and for me, the ever-branching options, and the either-or aspects of them are what appeal to me.

Unfortunately most strategy games, whilst having alot of choices and screens with different variables really boil down to following a more or less "optimal strategy." In EU4 this is illustrated by the historical background; if you play Norway for example, you HAVE to find a way to break free of Denmark, otherwise you get annexed and lose the game, this is the case with every vassal nation.

Of course i have different strategical options to achieve that goal, but there`s only a few of them that are viable, since my military will never be able to defeat both their ally Sweden and Denmark, so i need to get someone else to get to war with them. After I have broken free however, i have several options, but most of them involve branching out my navy and taking over trade, or exploring the new world. Its not the only option, but it`s pretty much the one I`ll always have the greatest success with. This is also true for many other nations, in that you get the greatest rewards for going in the direction the game is pushing you.

In Civ5 you also have this, except it goes for every civilzation. You either go tall or wide, and you either warmonger relentlessly, or sit around waiting for the other victory conditions to occur, while fighting any neccessary wars. You have to go the sciencey route to be competitive at higher difficulties: Libraries to NS to universities. For a military you always build the units from the ranged tree etc...

In Total War, where you focus on tactic battles mostly, the old " shoot with archers/musketmen, pin with infantry, flank with cavalry"-formula never fails.

The most enjoyable experience is multiplayer IMO, because most of these faults are due to bad AI.

 

[gps]

Read more about them ... Not just the wikipedia...

You mean something like the manual - or actually playing the game? Maybe you should do so yourself as well, and then we can continue discussing which game for example has a more complex, sopisticated and realistic combat mechanic: Civ IV/V or EU3 for example. As said: after all the hardcore hype I was positively shocked to find out how simplisitc EU3 combat results are calculate. Which does not make it a bad game per se, far from that. But for me at least it kind of puts the hype into the right perspective.

 

[eternalblue]

You mean something like the manual - or actually playing the game? Maybe you should do so yourself as well, and then we can continue discussing which game for example has a more complex, sopisticated and realistic combat mechanic: Civ IV/V or EU3 for example. As said: after all the hardcore hype I was positively shocked to find out how simplisitc EU3 combat results are calculate. Which does not make it a bad game per se, far from that. But for me at least it kind of puts the hype into the right perspective.

First we are talking about EUIV and latest Victoria crusader kings and heats of iron not EUIII
Second the paradox games are not focused in combat, civ neither...if u want focus on combat try total war. We are talking about the entire game not just combat...
And third its a difference between strategy and grand strategy and for that civ isn't. The manual just explains you the game not what is a grand strategy. If you want info about grand strategy Google it...

 

[Tyrus]

Yes civ series can win in randomness. You can start with French in Africa with national wonders like Handging gardens or piramids , boudists and surrounded by ice with citrics. Wtf? For fun is OK, but for a player who wants to learn history or to play through past in different ways, is a slap in the face... And every game you the same things that you need to do... The game dictate you a lot.

Civ 5 is not a "slap in the face." I think you should take a step back and realize that no video game comes even remotely close to approaching reality. At first glance, yes, EUIV looks to fall under the label "realistic." But how is it you are aware of everything happening on earth simultaneously? People respond to your orders instantly. Your maps are perfectly drawn my magic cartographers. There is no interminable bureaucracy hampering your decisions. "Monarch Points" determine the fate of your empire. This is all arcade stuff, guys, it doesn't matter which game it is. My question is, "Does the game work as a game? Does the game stay true to the spirit if not the realities of the subject matter?"

EUIV takes place over a few hundred years. Civ 5 is a HUGE game that attempts to fit all of human history and civilization into a 4-10 hour match. What I love about Civ is even if there were no American knights, the feeling of exploration, strategy, advancement through the ages and WINNING the game are just spot-on. It's like Risk or another board game, but then again the same could be said of EUIV. After all, if you wanted a realistic game, you'd be looking at a virtual desk getting handed letters all day and having people write letters back. That's all monarchs really did, not hover over Earth like space-Jesus and telepathically command armies and dictate local policies.