How do you feel about Paradox games getting a BATTLE MODE like in TW?

[IZob]

Every time theres a battle in EU3, just load up the correct TW game and play out a custom battle: M2TW, ETW, NTW, S2TW



Paradox could add TW-style battles to their games. It's just, that kind of micro management doesn't really fit with the Paradox games. It would certainly have to be an optional feature, primarily for SP. In a large MP game, it probably wouldn't be suitable, as most players wouldn't take any part in each battle.

@Musty, the AI in the TW series is getting better. Long gone are the RTW days, when I could use a single regiment to take down a whole army.

[Mogstah]

My only thought on the matter is that if I wanted to play Total War, I would probably just load up a Total War game. Games like HoI and Vicky 2 just would not be as enjoyable if they became Total War clones instead staying firmly in the realm of grand strategy. Plus, if PI had such action oriented battles, the trailer for their Old Gods expansion wouldn't have been nearly as hilarious.

[Kanaric]

lol i don't play paradox games for TW style battle modes, NO THANKS

If you want easymode battles where medieval soldiers are using chariots and ninjas for some reason and you have danish housecarls in the 16th century a game exists for that already.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

I like both games for the aspects they bring. When i have plenty of time to play, govern, and micromanage a nation with great complexity, ill play paradox.

I dont however, have that much time all the time. I'll have maybe 30 minutes or so after work or school, and playing a couple years in eu3 isnt as satisfying a playing a large tw battle online. The arcade style is nice sometimes as well. Most of my friends can get into tw then paradox and i dont have to sacrifice tons of time to play it.

However, i still with the was more competition in this section of gaming. One company could make more arcadish games while another one could offer much more realism. That way you could get the best of both worlds.

So, if a game was to incorperate features from tw and paradox, i wish it would be made by an entirely new company. That way there is alittle something for everyone.

[Ketzerfreund]

Imagine HoI3 with full blown battles à la Combat Mission. You'd need a week to get through just one in-game day.

[darkranger85]

I dont want them

Not having the tactical battle mode allows the games to remain more of a strategic game.

Also, it's easier to do games that move past the era of airplanes when you don't have to worry about how to integrate them into the tactical mode.

I'm perfectly happy with the battles remaining as they are.

[The Great Consul]

No way, I play Total War games when I want to be Joe Tactician and slide "units" across the field. Keep Paradox realistic please. It would be a bloody miracle if they could incorporate battle visuals accurate to the armies actually engaged in a battle though, without destroying other aspects.

[Neoton]

I'd prefer them to use their time and resources on improving the "big map" rather than creating a whole new thing that would probably suck anyway.

[Hetman Khmelnytsky]

It would be fun, but it will be a lot of difficulty putting the battle mechanics in.

[Col. Tartleton]

March of the Eagles has the sort of battle system I think they should limit themselves to. Flanks, reserves, sub commanders with their units.

Anything more than that would make war fighting something the player wants to avoid for the sake of game play.

I think the order of battle is adequate complexity for a grand strategy game.

[absinthia]

Impression Games made something like that for Lord of the Realms III, and that was the last anyone saw of either...
while i enjoyed LotR III i hardly played battles. the way i remember the combination or real-time bttle and real-time campaign, one could loose ones whole realm while figthing one single battle...

for this to work campaign would have to pause while battles being fought and that would kill multiplayer campaigns.

after palying Rome II with hardly anyting happening on campaign mode and EU IV with no battle mode, while both being nation-simulators, EU IV hit the spot while Rome II fell flat on its face.

further more, compared to games like War of the Roses and even good old Mount & Blade, i find TW battles lacking epicness. i have had more epic feeling battles in M&B, with 150 men, than any TW game ever. heck, even M&B sieges are intense and exciting...

[Okuto]

I would like it

mainly because it'd force the total war series to pay attention

Paradox could make another "brand" so not to mislead from the established ones already(hearts of Iron, EU, etc)

[Kanaric]

I would like it

mainly because it'd force the total war series to pay attention

Paradox could make another "brand" so not to mislead from the established ones already(hearts of Iron, EU, etc)

that is not what they could do it is what they should do with this because I wouldn't want to play a EU5 with tactical battles that would be ing annoying.

[Dargaron]

I would actually prefer a Mount And Blade/Paradox Grand Strategy Game crossover more than a Total War-style one. With Mount and Blade, you can represent more kinds of interactions than a Total War game (low-level warfare, smaller political units, etc). Ideally, it would be a series (like CK2-EU3-Vicky2-HOI3), with the first installment being from either 711 (conquest of Visigothic Spain) or 750 (Abbasid conquest of Baghdad) to 1453 or 1500. In my dreams, the map would extend from Spain to Japan, up to Norway and down to the Sudanic belt of Africa. A more reasonable map might be similar to CK2, but with DLC expansions into areas like the Sudanic Belt, India, Central Asia and "the East." The game would follow your family, for which you build the first character (using a GURPS-style points system), and interact with the world around you.

[The Thracian]

If a battle mode was added into Paradox games like in Total War it would need to done around the quality of Total War. Otherwise it would be pointless because there would be complaints of why was it even added in the first place and it would be a feature more criticised than praised. Considering Paradox Games are currently deeply engaging and immensely enjoyable as they are I don't think a battle mode needs to be added.

[Kanaric]

this balkanite is one of those people who plays EB on his pirated copy of medieval 2.

[Holger Danske]

I'd love to see Paradox do a TW-styled game, just to see how much better it would be than anything CA can even imagine.

[TheCenturion24]

If it had a real time battle mode, it wouldn't be Paradox. The end. Seriously, you guys go play Histwar's demo, and tell me that Total War's comparatively basic battle system could even be COMPARED to the big boys.

[Garensterz]

If paradox did this. It wouldn't be fun playing each of the 20k plus men in a single battlefield after all. So it's kind of a useless feature for me.

[prithupaul]

I would love it, since I know paradox will do it in a realistic way.

I would not want something like total war. I would prefer something slow-paced, tactical, where you spend most of your time on a map giving complex commands. Hope it has chain of command also. Basically something like Airborne Assault.

Best if it is "seamlessly" (for lack of a better word) integrated into the strategy layer, so as to realistically portray reinforcements etc.