Paradox games like EU would 100X better with real battles

**TheBromgrev** · August 04, 2012, 06:32 PM

Comparing TW and Paradox games are like comparing apples to a steak. Yes, you can eat both apples and a steak, but that's where the similarities end. Paradox games are strategy games, while TW games are tactical ones. Yes, both fall under the Strategy genre, but the scale of their focus is completely different and how time works in both games is entirely different as well. If you've ever played HOI3's eastern front then you'd see that the OP's idea would be a nightmare of epic proportions.

**Nutsack** · August 05, 2012, 02:32 AM

It's a common thought we've all had.

Total war --> Paradox games --> wanting to mix the two because you liked paradox better but miss the battles of TW

**Cuahtemoc** · August 05, 2012, 11:36 AM

Imagine trying to stop hordes of millions of Soviets in full 3D-think about that!

I must admit, I do miss the visceral RTS action of TW or say Company of Heroes when I play HOI3.

**nhytgbvfeco2** · August 05, 2012, 03:20 PM

The battles in hoi3 though are across entire borders, its impossible to represent really

**Kanaric** · August 05, 2012, 11:04 PM

Please keep battles out of my paradox games, thanks. If I want a

broken battle system i'll buy a

CA game.

**I WUB PUGS** · August 07, 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2

The battles in hoi3 though are across entire borders, its impossible to represent really

You can already do this with IrisZoom.

There are plenty of technologies out there that could work for this, but they all belong to different companies.

HOI could be really good if they could implement a proper battle system, but it would be very intensive. Auto resolve would be key.

I don't really see a point to it with EU3 or CK2. You already have the right sized battles in M2TW for the period, well with mods anyway. EU3 is just too big and I think CA could do the right thing and make a game as large as EU3 or close enough in a few years time when the general level of tech in the PC market allows for it. 100k in a battle is acceptable. It's not like all battles were the size of Waterloo or Borodino. The battle sizes in ETW were actually spot on for the period if only looked at the colonies.

The problem with CA is that the campaign depth takes a back seat to the battles. That's what we all really want, more depth from CA. You don't go to Paradox expecting great 3D action.

**Carach** · August 08, 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade_Rory

CA seem to be a pretty "proud" company and I doubt we'll ever see them openly allowing themselves to be inspired by the Paradox games.

im not so sure. i think u can already see in their more recent games a movement towards more immersive campaigns.

shogun 2 had more factions than i was expecting thats for sure. still fails utterly at diplomacy compared to paradox but ive given up waiting for CA to back up their repeatedly 'overhauled diplomacy' promises many years ago.

Ive been there since the start (shogun 1) and lack of diplomatic options and the retarded tendency of AI to betray regardless of whether it's suicidal to or not is THE one thing that angers me and there has been, as mentioned above, to this day only slight improvements (couple more options, ai aiding in wars on the odd occasion).

just realised i started out defending CA to a point and then didnt really back that up lol...so if we should put some belief in CA for rome2 that politics is going to be more than simple conquest and inevitable betrayal no matter what you do, as they have kind of implied (with increased complexity promise with roman characters and factions etc), then we will come back to this thread and say "CA have learnt from others"

i make a muddle of explaining myself..

**wrcromartie** · September 25, 2012, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Nutsack

It's a common thought we've all had.

Total war --> Paradox games --> wanting to mix the two because you liked paradox better but miss the battles of TW

This. Yes. What is Paradox doing with their King Arthur 2 engine? They should slap together a CKII + RTS battles mashup. I would pay $55 to play CKII with the M2TW engine hotrigged to fight battles...and I've already paid $55 for CKII and collectively probably $80+ on M2TW because I bought the games way-back-when and again on steam.

The time issue is easy to workaround - just play the RTS battles one at a time if they are simultaneous then show the results on the campaign map "playing out" in campaign time when you're done with them all.

**Nutsack** · September 25, 2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2

there is a support limit, and while you can walk in larger armies they will quickly die and use up your manpower

Except that this gets completely neglected when your army is in friendly territory. Just because I own the west coast of Greenland shouldn't mean that I get to put 10,000 soldiers there with no attrition. In the year 1500. During winter. The current rules of EU3 still doesn't make sense. I can still place far too many soldiers in enemy territories where I shouldn't be able to.

A mod, MEIOU I believe it was, made attrition a bit better. They made it so that you would have stronger attrition during the winter, I believe this wasn't a function in vanilla, but I could be wrong. Either way that's how I would like it to be, greater attrition during the winter because rarely, when in enemy territories, would you organize supply chains during the earlier eras, especially for regions such as Finnmark, Iceland, or

ing Greenland. Most of the time food would be collected from the region the army marches through, which is also why you wouldn't want any armies other than your own to march through your lands.

**nhytgbvfeco2** · September 26, 2012, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by wrcromartie

This. Yes. What is Paradox doing with their King Arthur 2 engine? They should slap together a CKII + RTS battles mashup. I would pay $55 to play CKII with the M2TW engine hotrigged to fight battles...and I've already paid $55 for CKII and collectively probably $80+ on M2TW because I bought the games way-back-when and again on steam.

The time issue is easy to workaround - just play the RTS battles one at a time if they are simultaneous then show the results on the campaign map "playing out" in campaign time when you're done with them all.

and then you finish the battle, it starts playing out on the campaign map and woe and behold: enemy brings in more troops. will you have to redo the entire battle every time 1 man join either army?

pretty sure there is attrition in your own lands.

**HissingNewt** · September 27, 2012, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2

and then you finish the battle, it starts playing out on the campaign map and woe and behold: enemy brings in more troops. will you have to redo the entire battle every time 1 man join either army?

pretty sure there is attrition in your own lands.

Like I said on the first page, when the battle begins you can have a bit of time on the campaign map to order other armies towards your location. If the battle lasts long enough for them to arrive, they get locked into that path on the campaign map and the battle will then play out over those days on the campaign map to the exact numbers you had in the battle. The only issue with this system is to prevent the ability of almost every player to rout the enemy in one day making the system useless.

**nhytgbvfeco2** · September 28, 2012, 02:16 AM

not only will it make the system useless, but also annoying. say you have 2 stacks of 30,000 moving in to attack 50,000. one of your stacks arrives on the 26th, the other on the 28th. battle plays out, and your army, which should have won if not these battles, is outnumbered for the first 2 days and the AI manages to kill it before your other army arrives. this system will just

up everything.

**HissingNewt** · September 29, 2012, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by nhytgbvfeco2

not only will it make the system useless, but also annoying. say you have 2 stacks of 30,000 moving in to attack 50,000. one of your stacks arrives on the 26th, the other on the 28th. battle plays out, and your army, which should have won if not these battles, is outnumbered for the first 2 days and the AI manages to kill it before your other army arrives. this system will just

up everything.

Dividing your forces is risky, so I don't really see an issue with that. There's plenty of examples of a divided enemy being destroyed by a force that is superior only locally.

**atheniandp** · September 30, 2012, 07:25 PM

CA needs to adopt Paradox style campaign features, not vice versa.

**General Maximus** · October 06, 2012, 09:29 AM

I'd love to have real time battles, but we will need much more massive computers to run them.

I prefer that they script a heavy tactical simulation and AI and allow us to move and position units in battle in our way, in that small battle screen. That would be enough for me.

Or they can allow 2d battles with nice quality sprites, that will also do for me.

But first, I think you all already know this, they need to make a proper battle system. Paradox battle system can sometimes be worse than Mount & Blade autoresolve, which is the worst autoresolve I have ever seen in my life.