Paradox Interactive games

[Rub'Rum]

Not that topic again!

 

[cardgame]

What a terrible waste of a thousandth post.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Oh look, yet another meaningless numerical milestone passed. If you want cardgame, we can have the mods delete some of your posts so 1002 becomes 1000.

 

[cardgame]

 

[Yeekim]

Compared to Wild West: Total War?

Compared to Wild West: Total War it might, indeed suck a little bit less.

Anyways, even then, it does not necessarily have to be a game about just those two nations, but rather, it could be sort of an expansion pack. You cant tell me it wouldnt be cool to play through a civil war campaign on the Total War engine.

It seems that is what the generals of the time were actually trying to do... you tell me whether this was actually such a good idea.

I say a battle where the best tactic, for realism's sake, would be to dig trenches, is not very appealing to me.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Well then discount WW1 from the Total War series. No WW2: TW either, since WW2 has been overdone. What are we left with? Modern Warfare: Total War?

 

[Yeekim]

Well then discount WW1 from the Total War series.
No WW2: TW either, since WW2 has been overdone. What are we left with? Modern Warfare: Total War?

Even if WW2 was not "overdone"... How would you imagine, for example, 7 months long battle of Stalingrad to play out? Why on Earth would you want to expand into times and warfare Total War engine is absolutely NOT designed to handle/represent?
An idea to try and make a Total War game for anything post-Napoleonic seems, frankly, absurd for me.
Let CA go ahead and make Rome 2. Or Sengoku 2. Actually, a game set in Warring States period China could be very good.
There are aspects within the game that can use improving without taking on new periods. Sid did not need to invent four alternate universes for four civilization titles, we still start and finish at the same dates.

 

[Dachs]

I say a battle where the best tactic, for realism's sake, would be to dig trenches, is not very appealing to me.

Why'd you play Rome: Total War then?

 

[Yeekim]

Why'd you play Rome: Total War then?

I don't remember trench warfare being the defining feature of Roman-era warfare. Sure, it was done on occasion (siege of Alesia comes to mind), but are you saying Surena's tactics against Crassus were sub-optimal because of that?

 

[Dachs]

I don't remember trench warfare being the defining feature of Roman-era warfare. Sure, it was done on occasion (siege of Alesia comes to mind), but are you saying Surena's tactics against Crassus were sub-optimal because of that?

Trench warfare wasn't the defining feature of Hellenistic and Republican Roman warfare any more than it was the defining feature of the fighting in the American Civil War.

By the way, classical siege operations aren't the only ones to have involved fortifications. Trenches were famously dug for battlefield operations at Chaironeia in 86 BC, and Hellenistic armies utilized fortifications most notably at Gaza in 312 BC and Raphia in 217 BC. There's the old tale about the nightly Roman castramentation, and so forth.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Gents I do believe we're heading in the wrong direction.

 

[Yeekim]

Trench warfare wasn't the defining feature of Hellenistic and Republican Roman warfare any more than it was the defining feature of the fighting in the American Civil War.

Yeah, well, as I said, Civil War generals still believed in frontal cavalry charges, marching against enemy lines in tight formation and so forth.
Point is that these techniques were effective in earlier centuries, but proved disastrous at this particular setting.

EDIT: Also. awesome new word.

 

[Dachs]

All right, I'm done now.

Yeah, well, as I said, Civil War generals still believed in frontal cavalry charges, marching against enemy lines in tight formation and so forth.
Point is that these techniques were effective in earlier centuries, but proved disastrous at this particular setting.

Aaaaaaaagh. Take some advice from notarapper, man!

EDIT: Also. awesome new word.

 

[RedRalph]

Time for a new thread

 

[RedRalph]

2nd Vicky2 DD

Well time for instalment number 2 of the developer diary process. In order to inject some much needed controversy we decided to go for something everyone can disagree about, the map.

The map it is one of the most important parts of a Paradox game. Therefore we do put a lot of thought into the map. We do this for two reasons. Firstly you are going to spend a lot of time staring at it so it was to feel right and secondly it is the canvas on which the game is played so it has a game play function to fulfil as well.

Well you’ve seen a mock up of the map and we also have a handy map screenshot from the real game (see bottom of the developer diary) to see what we were thinking. As you can see the map is far brighter than the Hearts of Iron 3 map. World War II was a pretty bleak era with terrible global warfare taking death and destruction across the globe, but we felt that this look did not fit the 19th century. The 19th century was a more optimistic era where the belief in the unlimited potential of scientific and moral progress was taken for granted. To reflect this we went for a much brighter look for the map.

Then we are left with the ever so simple task of how do we divide up the world into provinces. When we first began this process we started from the angle that, well, we already have a perfectly good map for Hearts of Iron 3. We felt that if we moved a few provinces from places that were important in the Hearts of Iron 3 era to places that were important in the Victoria era we would have a perfectly serviceable game map.

However this idea was ditched even before the map began to be created. Basically, the Hearts of Iron 3 map was built for war; for armies moving around, for sweeping encirclements and massed battles, but that is not Victoria. Victoria is about the rise of new nations and the break up of old empires, painting Africa your colour, of empires, nationalism and imperialism. Essentially, the Hearts of Iron 3 map just did not fit the bill. So we had to go back to square one.

We are back to a blank map of the world with no provinces at all; we need province boundaries for political rather than military purposes. We felt that to capture the essence of the Victoria era we need to capture the shifts in country borders very specifically. We needed the countries to look good and be able to shift in an historical manner. Just where could we find a map that looked like that?

Fortunately for us there was a perfectly good map buried in the scenario and modifications forum for Victoria, going under the title CLIO. So we sought permission to use the map and the people agreed (we felt it was a bit rude to just take it), and began from there. Here was a perfectly good map of the Victoria era, with the added benefit that the community made it so no one is going to need to complain about the province boundaries.

Here is a screenshot of Scandinavia. I sense a certain amount of bias to that region amongst my co-workers. However that aside we had one clear objective with provinces in Victoria 2, that the terrain type should be clear. So we have tried to make the provinces a single terrain texture for clarity. Now those of you with a keen eye for detail will notice a shortage of rivers and province names on the map, this because we haven’t added those yet.

View attachment 234757

 

[Olav]

Time for a new thread

Why? Why can't we keep this one?

 

[RedRalph]

Usually any thread that exceeds 1,000 posts gets closed.

 

[Dachs]

That's mostly for ceremonial purposes in OT. There's no longer a technological reason for it, IIRC.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Usually any thread that exceeds 1,000 posts gets closed.

That was the rule before the server change, now CFC is much more efficient and can handle more, and closing at 1000 isn't needed.

In OT the rule is still used because it makes things easier for the mods to well... mod.

 

[Maniacal]

Thumbnail screenshot is fail.