How many of you would prefer a WEGO system ?

[PointOfViewGun]

Paradox (EU4 for instance) system is WAY more complex than TW, it's real time and it does not annoy me in the slightest, even when EU4's empires tend to be much bigger and you have to take care about a lot of more stuff. Actually, I've never been so annoyed with any Paradox feature (maybe except for Victoria 2's satellite system and EU4 papal council system) as i have been with the tedious TW construction system, which as you say, is really annoying when the empire grows (and hey, its a turn based game).

Does EU4 has a campaign map similar to Rome II or are regions are just tiles on the map that units jump through?

[HigoChumbo]

Does EU4 has a campaign map similar to Rome II or are regions are just tiles on the map that units jump through?

It's tiles, but in real time. It takes a time to move from tile to tile which simulates the movement of the army.

That's exactly my point, a free-moving map like TW's but in real time (as EU4) would, in my opinion, be ace. Definatelly not a high-selling game since slow-paced games are not for everyone but that would totally make my day personally (but of course having separate campaign and battles would totally kill it, so i guess the game i'm asking for can't really be made for todays average pc).

[PointOfViewGun]

It's tiles, but in real time. It takes a time to move from tile to tile which simulates the movement of the army.

That's exactly my point, a free-moving map like TW's but in real time (as EU4) would, in my opinion, be ace. Definatelly not a high-selling game since slow-paced games are not for everyone but that would totally make my day personally (but of course having separate campaign and battles would totally kill it, so i guess the game i'm asking for can't really be made for todays average pc).

I believe the tiles makes it hell of a lot more easier to do it. It lets you view the strategic map at a much zoomed out manner. The details are taken out to make that system not annoying. The decision making process is simplified. It boils down to personal taste though. Annoyance is a subjective matter after all. I can see it working, but, I also see people pausing excessively or playing the game at a very slow pace. Both could make the campaign cumbersome. It's certainly not level of sophistication that Total War games aim for. As you said, not a high selling point for a lot of people.

[Lord Baal]

One thing I would miss in a real time system would be the time immersion: when there's no turn ending, it becomes less obvious 20 years passed during those 30 mins, and so we could end feeling less attached to our generals/faction leaders because we wouldn't be paying attention as the time passed

Hence the option of segmenting the game in "turns" or "fixed pauses". Measuring not by time but simultaneous execution of "action points" or whatever.

I believe the tiles makes it hell of a lot more easier to do it. It lets you view the strategic map at a much zoomed out manner. The details are taken out to make that system not annoying. The decision making process is simplified. It boils down to personal taste though. Annoyance is a subjective matter after all. I can see it working, but, I also see people pausing excessively or playing the game at a very slow pace. Both could make the campaign cumbersome. It's certainly not level of sophistication that Total War games aim for. As you said, not a high selling point for a lot of people.

Exactly.

[Yayattasa]

Hence the option of segmenting the game in "turns" or "fixed pauses". Measuring not by time but simultaneous execution of "action points" or whatever.

Well, then if you are moving toward an enemy army in the FoW you can only hopelessly watch your armies enter their zone of control.

[HigoChumbo]

I believe the tiles makes it hell of a lot more easier to do it. It lets you view the strategic map at a much zoomed out manner. The details are taken out to make that system not annoying. The decision making process is simplified. It boils down to personal taste though. Annoyance is a subjective matter after all. I can see it working, but, I also see people pausing excessively or playing the game at a very slow pace. Both could make the campaign cumbersome. It's certainly not level of sophistication that Total War games aim for. As you said, not a high selling point for a lot of people.

Yeah well I don't think many people here have any hopes of CA ever doing something like this, we are just daydreaming (and praying that Paradox gets more resources).


That said, I don't see why tiles makes it easier. As said before, you obviously need a different game design, but its as doable as with tiles. You can zoom out and have a strategic view and zoom in and have a detailed, 3d, real time battle map, Wargame and Ruse have proven this is doable, we just need a bigger scale, that's all.

Check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x74nEyleqIs&t=0m31s

No tiles, no nothing. Granted is not a management game, but you get the idea.


The good thing about pausing is that every player can decide for himself how many times does he want to pause, so everyone would be happy. The fact that some guy in Sri Lanka is pausing his game 2 times every 5 seconds does not make my experience any less enjoyable. Also, the game I have in mind would have a pace slow enough to make pause not needed save for particularly tight situations or for when you just want to review some information tab or something like that.

Having a slow pace can be a good or a bad thing. Depends on the player and also on the type of game. In this case, a slow pace could be a positive thing. Not only prevents the game from being cumbersome, also makes everything have a bigger impact and forces you to plan your actions in advance instead of just disconnecting the brain and reacting to what happens in every moment (s"o, i forgot to place an army guarding that mountain pass and now the godamned frenchs are coming through, i could send the army but it would take x time to get there and it will probably be too late, also, these bastard cousin of mine has rebelled and i have to deal with him too... what to do.. .decissions, decissions... damn, i should have guarded that mountaint pass").

I don't think its a matter of "taking details out". It's a matter of streamlining. Also to decide what features (when it comes to decission making) are important and impactful for the game. For a wargame, having to build aqueducts is not. You could for instance use sliders to decide what ammount of your budget goes into public health and just adjust it every now and then instead of having to click in every city of your empire building aqueducts.

[Lord Baal]

Well, then if you are moving toward an enemy army in the FoW you can only hopelessly watch your armies enter their zone of control.

As well as they do in yours. It's called an ambush.

When it happens when the two armies are moving it's called battle.

[Yayattasa]

As well as they do in yours. It's called an ambush.

When it happens when the two armies are moving it's called battle.

I'm not talking about hidden armies: if you can see their armies it's not an ambush, it's a stupid general not stopping to access the situation.

[Lord Baal]

If the army is commanded to reach a point and another intercepts it then they have to fight it out or retreat, it's simple. If you can see their armies, you command your army to go some place and the enemy army maneuver to intercept yours and accomplish it then you are screwed.

But I get what you mean. Perhaps you can have an option to command what to do when about to be intercepted. Also I think it would be fun if there's an option or higher difficulty where the traits (personality) of the general dictates what to do. Of course it wouldn't be a Total War in the classical sense but it would be an interesting war game too.

[Lord Baal]

Oriental Empires works to a T what I meant.