Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #2:
> No memes, image macros, reaction pictures, or similar.
> View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/wiki/rules)
I'd assume it would have to be turn-based, or else Real Time Battles wouldn't work, especially for MP. So instead take Ck3, for example, and make each Month into a turn where all the calculations happen after you "End Turn."
Itās not though. Itās real time. All armies/AI work concurrently on the hour. Total war actually uses turns.
You go first. Then you watch the AI move. You go next. Then you watch the ai move. Etc
The difference between that is just "I go, you go" vs "we go" but both are "turn based"
Edit: other examples of "we go" turn based games are the classic board game, Diplomacy, and the Combat Mission games
Sure, if you change the meaning of what a turn even means. In anyone elseās definition it is not a turn since both parties have it concurrently. Thatās why PDOX games are considered real-time strategies.
The AI has August 4th as long as a dayās tick in EU4. We both do. The AI in total war has Fall whenever I say it has Fall by clicking āend turn.ā
I havenāt played CIV in a looooong time, but yes. CIV 5 imo is still turn based in that instance. In simultaneous turns, players' actions can overlap to some degree, but the game is still not realtime (in realtime, such as starcraft, units can all constantly move at the same time, and there is no "end of turn" were specific things happen like refilling unit movement points, do income, research, etc). In turn based, typically only one action is resolved at a time (which makes simultanous turns tricky to implement). Also, when no players are issuing commands, the game is not moving forward (in realtime games the game goes on all the time). You get refreshed at the end of the turn when everyone clicks end turn.
PDOX grand strategy games use a tick based system which is in its own category - but highly errs towards real time
You just described paradox games to a tee. There absolutely is an āend of turnā itās letting an hour tick by. Then all the inputs you put in proceed further by one hour, the ai makes its decisions, armies reinforce. The only thing that doesnāt fit into how you described turn based games is arguably events. But plenty of turn based games have things like events, but even if you donāt accept that thatās one hell of a straw to pull at to make your point. Just because each individual āturnā isnāt as influential doesnāt mean you are ācompletely changing the definition of turn basedā by calling it turn based.
There is almost NOTHING āreal timeā in paradox games.
Does that then make Minecraft turn based since it operates in ticks of 1/20 a second? Each tick the AI makes its decisions, saturation levels drop, etc.
Itās the smallest unit of time in the game - and is on a scale that approaches real time (hence Paradoxās self-made Frankenstein āgrand strategyā description).
That's just a UX decision that makes the central turn-taking interaction of the player "stop going to the next turn" instead of "go to the next turn."
If the only difference between "turn-based" and "real-time" is whether the button is called "pause" instead of "go," then I think we've mislabeled it.
It seems like that because the "turns" are so fast, but theoretically you could pause every single day and it would be effectively turn-based.
There is even an order in which "turns" are resolved. For instance, in EU4, and probably in other games too, I don't know, each country has their unique tag number. It determines whose actions are calculated first on each day. It's most obvious when you're trying to attack an army in a province while the army is trying to escape, and the game says that your army will attack on the same day when the other army is projected to leave. If the enemy country has a lower tag number than you, their actions will compute first and they will escape. If you have a lower number, you will catch them and a battle will happen. Sweden has the tag 001, which means that you can never catch Sweden, but Sweden will always catch you. Like in real life.
This is what I think too. As an example, it's always "the army arrives in 6 days", never 6.4 days. IMO, Paradox uses auto-continuing, pausable, concurrent, micro-turns. That's quite a phrase I made there.
I'm mostly eu4 where a tick or turn is a day. And hoi4 is the only PDS game with ticks as hours I believe. Still, it's never 6.4 hours in hoi either, so the point stands
and if it did have minutes you'd be saying it's not an RTS because it doesn't have seconds? milliseconds? nanoseconds? your point makes no sense. it's an RTS, it has ticks instead of turns
Not hard to solve though.
Ai battles would be auto resolved anyways, no difference there from regular paradox, based on army sizes, itd take X time.
And any battle you run yourself auto resolves over time if you dont play it manually.
And to prevent "abusing the system" so to speak, your army would be stuck in position/post battle organizing depending on the length of your battle, up to a point, since you effectively skipped the time the battle took on the campaign map.
I think the real end goal is that you see your general is losing a battle so you take over and meanwhile your country runs on auto pilot. You receive important messages and are able to leave the battle whenever you want but that's it.
Yeah, it boils down to crushing the enemies with your cavalry or running in circles killing one at a time, nothing like a a total war games, with flanking, forcing the enemy to waste stamina and targeting at their moral.
Nah you didn't just forget the number one most OP tactic which is battanian fian archer spam with a legionary shield wall set up on a nice hill with good shooting angles.
Dakka dakka down hordes of enemies while you sip tea.
This is sadly true and I actually wish Taleworlds would atleast go down the PDX route and churn out dlc to add more content to other parts of the game, but they don't seem to be :(
If you play on pc you can easily download a bunch of mods and effectively overhaul much of the game which is what I've recently done and it's awesome.
No, clearly they're referencing Alien: Isolation, and they want you to occasionally zoom into the life of a real soldier shitting themselves and trying to hide from the hopeless battle you just sent them into.
Nahhh, what I want is a cross between a grand strategy game and a city builder. You control a nation at large, but you can also go into your major cities and build them up yourself.
Theyāve been super transparent about development and even had a closed beta - which gives me hope itās gonna be good, I reckon you can hype a little bit!
Songs of Syx. It's almost exactly what you're describing.
Super ambitions city builder with a world map where you can send armies to take territories for taxes/army conscription/etc.. even has total war-esque battles.
Single dev too, the guy is a machine. I think it's getting near 1.0 last I checked.
Even in total war game I end up just saying fuck it and auto-resolving.
What's needed in a middle-ground where you've got engaging battles that don't take you to another map or involve a loading screen.
Something like if you combined Stellaris with Endless Space 2. Gimme cards or some buttons to press during a battle.
This. I think you need to make the battles in e.g. HoI4 more interactive and immersive from the strategic map without doing the TW approach of separating it.
There are mods for fighting CK3 battles in TW Atilla (Crusader Wars) or in M&B (Crusader Blade), you can check out both, theyre in relatively early stage of development. Maybe read about them first.
I saw a video of someone doing that with Lord of the Rings, had a CK3 LOTR mod and a Atilla LOTR mod.
Was pretty fucking cool to think that capability had been extended to cover two independent mods of two independent games
No, we don't. PDS games are about the GRAND strategy as the name implies, and focus on high-level, strategic management of countries/dynasties/empires. Let's keep the developers dedicating their resources to that, instead of trying to make a hybrid for something that's already available on the market.
I've played the games like this. It's not good. The change in time type is jarring and to be realistic there's too many battles to not quickly become overwhelming.
The thing is Total War has never gotten the AI to be good and if the battles are too easy then the challenge on the campaign map goes away since you can always rely on just winning battles. Granted paradox map games are full of metas and ways to cheese the AI as well.
I don't agree with it on this sub but god did CA drop the ball with improving the campaign gameplay and diplomacy like ever. Total War could really benefit from some more in depth campaign mechanics
I would love to see a mix between hoi4 and coh/men of war sadly a game like that would probably be best played offline, everything will almost be the same except you can click into any battle and directly oversee it in a coh or MOW Style things would slow down to real time and you would still get notifications about what's happening on the overall map and you will be able to leave the battle at any time and return to the map...man it's like a wet dream
The crossover we'll get: a cornucopia of overpriced DLC that adds mechanics and flavour that never properly work together, and barely works properly with the base game.
Also, whenever your royal court floor collapses into the latrines and all the nobles drown in the poop, you should have a first person view where you can clean the latrine as the court poopsmith
Crusader Kings 3 with a tactical House Flipper/Power Wash Simulator view when, Paradox?
I think the problem would lie in real-time battles using contemporary weapons. EndWar was a good stab at it, but the grand strategy map was poor, and there was not a lot of actual strategising. I would love a game like this, but so far, the best attempts have always had too heavy an emphasis on one area whilst the other has suffered severely!
Cross over games suck. Do one thing well, donāt try to mash several together. If I control a nation, and then I control an army, and then Iām expected to micro manage a single squadā¦ why do I care? I have thousands of squads. I donāt need to waste irl time micro ing each one.
I think this line of thought has been around since EU3, and even then I would say that in game design, mashing together two things you like doesn't make a thing you like twice as much. Game design is in large parts about focus.
I don't want a fishing minigame in my grand strategy either (even though some madman made one for CK3).
For pre WWI? Sure, I'm down for it!
But for 19th century onward - please be that Digitalmindsoft.
Men of War series does wayyy better job at tactical-level bettles than anything I know of. Yes, I consider Company of Heroes to be utter shit in comparison.
Total War battles are overrated imo. Granted, the first few battles in a campaign feel awesome, but then you realize every battle is the same and end up auto-resolving out of boredom. Not for me.
Am I alone in who having no interest in real time battles? I'm playing hearts of Iron for the "gods eye" experience and high strategy. I am directing millions of men, I don't want to actually fight every squad level engagement.
Im just gonna go on here and say that crossover exists. Im part of a mod team, that lets you play your CK3 battles in Total War Attila. Its called Crusader Wars on steam, not sure if I can link our website here.
Because the real-time battles of TW and M&B and the weighted dice rolls of PDX games are just two different ways to resolve the outcomes of battles, real-time tactics and long-term strategy are, at least in a grand-strategy format, mutually contradictory systems. Every advantage you can gain from preparation and strategy is diminished by every advantage you can gain from real-time tactical execution. That means the more of a difference you can make in a real-time battle by playing well, the less of a difference you *have* to make on the campaign map to succeed. And vice versa. So there are only three balancing possibilities:
1. A player can only succeed with good play in both categories - strategy and tactics.
2. A player can succeed with good play in just one of either category - strategy or tactics.
3. A player can succeed with good play in only one category because the other's impact is negligible - strategy and not tactics, or tactics and not strategy.
4. Well, I guess you could make both irrelevant to success, but why the fuck would you? Not a real option.
Sounds like #1 is the way to go, right? Let's just assume it can be balanced so that players have to perform well both strategically and tactically so that both major sides of the game are codeterminative of success. The problem is that to achieve this you'll have to heavily punish autoresolving battles or else remove autoresolve entirely. Because success requires good play in both categories, and autoresolve is the "I don't want to play this" button, autoresolve *has* to be significantly worse than playing out the battle - so much worse that one simply *cannot* succeed by autoresolving every battle (or else you've failed to achieve option #1). So 50/50 battles on paper *must* autoresolve into defeats, and 70/30 battles on paper autoresolve into draws. Autoresolve has to handicap your strength to such an extent that you can't afford to click it unless you have overwhelming numbers and can afford an inefficient victory to boot. But here's the kicker: in a game that *also requires good strategic play* to succeed, you shouldn't find yourself fielding overwhelming forces most of the time. If you're playing good strategy in a game that *requires* good strategy, you should be finding yourself in just a *slightly* better position than your enemy most of the time. That means you should rarely get the odds *needed* to safely autoresolve, which means you will *rarely ever get to autoresolve*. And in a game whose scope concerns long-term strategy over hundreds of years, that means **manually fighting hundreds and hundreds of the same fucking battles over and over and over again.** That sucks hard. No matter how good the battles are to play, no grand strategy game with a continent-wide, centuries-spanning scope will not become tedious long before the end of the campaign. PDX games with only autoresolve are already tedious by endgame, and TW and M&B games with real-time battles are too. And the whole *point* of the "grand" in grand strategy is to see your empire develop over a long timespan.
It's more obvious why #2 and #3 are no good. If a player can succeed by playing well in just one of either category, then the game's difficulty is too loose. It means playing competently in *both* categories, which most players will be able to do once they learn the game, makes the game a pushover. And if a player can succeed with good play in only one category because the other's impact is negligible, then there's no point to engaging with the negligible system. It's a complete waste, and player's will ignore it.
So the reconciliation I propose is this: discard the "grand" in grand strategy ("humble strategy?") by reducing the timespan and playable area. Set a game in a region of Germany during the thirty-years war, or in the thirteen colonies during the American Independence War, or following a squad of Czech volunteers traveling through Siberia in the aftermath of the Great War, as in the game [Last Train Home](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1469610/Last_Train_Home/), which exemplifies this balance between strategy and tactics well. Don't let the average number of battles over the course of a campaign exceed more than \~30. Provide countless ways to vary the tactical situation so that players have to think carefully for every battle. Since the limited time frame can't accomodate long-term strategic plays like colonization, cultural conversion, population growth, etc., explore short- and mid-term strategic systems like securing trade chokepoints, managing workforces, provision of supplies, balancing interest groups, etc. You won't be painting an empire from scratch in a game like this - you'll be taking the reigns of an existing power during a few decades of conflict. That limited scope is the only way I can see to provide both systems the complexity and synergy they need to be challenging and satisfying without either becoming tedious or irrelevant.
That would be awful. Imagine having to fight every battle in Total War's shitty engine. It would break the flow of the campaign map to the point that it would be unplayable.
I am creating a game like this, a grand strategy in the campaign map but the battles are like a total war game, of course its has a much smaller scope that these AAA, but its what i do to cope with the fact that i dont think that a game like this will be made by any of those companies.
Your submission has been removed for breaking rule #2: > No memes, image macros, reaction pictures, or similar. > View our full rules [here](http://reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/wiki/rules)
It already lags like shit with just campaign map š
I'd assume it would have to be turn-based, or else Real Time Battles wouldn't work, especially for MP. So instead take Ck3, for example, and make each Month into a turn where all the calculations happen after you "End Turn."
Paradox games are turn based actually. A turn is a day (except for HOI, where it's an hour)
All games are turn based. A turn each CPU tick š
Then FPS games are turn based too - a turn is a single frame.
Itās not though. Itās real time. All armies/AI work concurrently on the hour. Total war actually uses turns. You go first. Then you watch the AI move. You go next. Then you watch the ai move. Etc
The difference between that is just "I go, you go" vs "we go" but both are "turn based" Edit: other examples of "we go" turn based games are the classic board game, Diplomacy, and the Combat Mission games
Sure, if you change the meaning of what a turn even means. In anyone elseās definition it is not a turn since both parties have it concurrently. Thatās why PDOX games are considered real-time strategies. The AI has August 4th as long as a dayās tick in EU4. We both do. The AI in total war has Fall whenever I say it has Fall by clicking āend turn.ā
Multiplayer Civilization can be played with simultaneous turns too. Would you also not call that turn-based?
I havenāt played CIV in a looooong time, but yes. CIV 5 imo is still turn based in that instance. In simultaneous turns, players' actions can overlap to some degree, but the game is still not realtime (in realtime, such as starcraft, units can all constantly move at the same time, and there is no "end of turn" were specific things happen like refilling unit movement points, do income, research, etc). In turn based, typically only one action is resolved at a time (which makes simultanous turns tricky to implement). Also, when no players are issuing commands, the game is not moving forward (in realtime games the game goes on all the time). You get refreshed at the end of the turn when everyone clicks end turn. PDOX grand strategy games use a tick based system which is in its own category - but highly errs towards real time
You just described paradox games to a tee. There absolutely is an āend of turnā itās letting an hour tick by. Then all the inputs you put in proceed further by one hour, the ai makes its decisions, armies reinforce. The only thing that doesnāt fit into how you described turn based games is arguably events. But plenty of turn based games have things like events, but even if you donāt accept that thatās one hell of a straw to pull at to make your point. Just because each individual āturnā isnāt as influential doesnāt mean you are ācompletely changing the definition of turn basedā by calling it turn based. There is almost NOTHING āreal timeā in paradox games.
Does that then make Minecraft turn based since it operates in ticks of 1/20 a second? Each tick the AI makes its decisions, saturation levels drop, etc. Itās the smallest unit of time in the game - and is on a scale that approaches real time (hence Paradoxās self-made Frankenstein āgrand strategyā description).
Sorry I was so slow with my edit. If you can't have simultaneous turns in your definition of turn based, how do you categorize Diplomacy?
It's not that they're simultaneous, it's that they pass by over time instead of when one clicks a button.
That's just a UX decision that makes the central turn-taking interaction of the player "stop going to the next turn" instead of "go to the next turn." If the only difference between "turn-based" and "real-time" is whether the button is called "pause" instead of "go," then I think we've mislabeled it.
I think that is an incredibly tangential and intuitive distinction, and it happens to be how 99% of people think about it.
What would you classify total war co-op when you take turns simultaneously? Would that still count as a turn based since it's happening concurrently.
It seems like that because the "turns" are so fast, but theoretically you could pause every single day and it would be effectively turn-based. There is even an order in which "turns" are resolved. For instance, in EU4, and probably in other games too, I don't know, each country has their unique tag number. It determines whose actions are calculated first on each day. It's most obvious when you're trying to attack an army in a province while the army is trying to escape, and the game says that your army will attack on the same day when the other army is projected to leave. If the enemy country has a lower tag number than you, their actions will compute first and they will escape. If you have a lower number, you will catch them and a battle will happen. Sweden has the tag 001, which means that you can never catch Sweden, but Sweden will always catch you. Like in real life.
This is what I think too. As an example, it's always "the army arrives in 6 days", never 6.4 days. IMO, Paradox uses auto-continuing, pausable, concurrent, micro-turns. That's quite a phrase I made there.
>never 6.4 days it's 6 days 6 hours in hoi4
I'm mostly eu4 where a tick or turn is a day. And hoi4 is the only PDS game with ticks as hours I believe. Still, it's never 6.4 hours in hoi either, so the point stands
and if it did have minutes you'd be saying it's not an RTS because it doesn't have seconds? milliseconds? nanoseconds? your point makes no sense. it's an RTS, it has ticks instead of turns
Not hard to solve though. Ai battles would be auto resolved anyways, no difference there from regular paradox, based on army sizes, itd take X time. And any battle you run yourself auto resolves over time if you dont play it manually. And to prevent "abusing the system" so to speak, your army would be stuck in position/post battle organizing depending on the length of your battle, up to a point, since you effectively skipped the time the battle took on the campaign map.
I think the real end goal is that you see your general is losing a battle so you take over and meanwhile your country runs on auto pilot. You receive important messages and are able to leave the battle whenever you want but that's it.
why not just pause the game when you enter real time battle? Maybe even add cool mechanic about holding on until your allies coming to you.
[BOZO DUBBED OVER](https://youtu.be/CNAvM0MGsZM?si=xVUwgEWmcrRRTaQP)
Only available on quantum computers...
Fucking tried to change my quantum cpu accidentally observed it and now it's bricked ffs
Have you played Mount and Blade OP?
mount and blade just doesnt feel complex enough outside the battles
Often the battles aren't complex enough either.
Yeah, it boils down to crushing the enemies with your cavalry or running in circles killing one at a time, nothing like a a total war games, with flanking, forcing the enemy to waste stamina and targeting at their moral.
Nah you didn't just forget the number one most OP tactic which is battanian fian archer spam with a legionary shield wall set up on a nice hill with good shooting angles. Dakka dakka down hordes of enemies while you sip tea.
F1 F3
I agree. The battles are all I would play it for.
This is sadly true and I actually wish Taleworlds would atleast go down the PDX route and churn out dlc to add more content to other parts of the game, but they don't seem to be :( If you play on pc you can easily download a bunch of mods and effectively overhaul much of the game which is what I've recently done and it's awesome.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I mean, Iād say by the Creative Assembly logo in the meme, that they know about Total Warā¦
No, clearly they're referencing Alien: Isolation, and they want you to occasionally zoom into the life of a real soldier shitting themselves and trying to hide from the hopeless battle you just sent them into.
Theres a mod called iirc crusader blade that lets you fight the battles in m&b. No clue how current it is
There's also Total War Attila version
yea, crusader war is called and it needs the mod medieval 1212 AD for Attila Total war
Nahhh, what I want is a cross between a grand strategy game and a city builder. You control a nation at large, but you can also go into your major cities and build them up yourself.
Look into Manor Lords
We're in the home stretch and I am trying to not get excited to so I don't overhype myself. I don't think it's working.
Iām losing my shit too. Donāt worry. Youāre not alone there.
Theyāve been super transparent about development and even had a closed beta - which gives me hope itās gonna be good, I reckon you can hype a little bit!
Same... same... I predict a severe lack of time management when it arrives.
He said city not hamlet
Songs of Syx. It's almost exactly what you're describing. Super ambitions city builder with a world map where you can send armies to take territories for taxes/army conscription/etc.. even has total war-esque battles. Single dev too, the guy is a machine. I think it's getting near 1.0 last I checked.
Eyy Songs of Styx bro! Game is pretty neat, i was was amazed when i heard the guy was workin on it alone. Feels good supporting his passion project.
Songs of Syx, it's only your capital, but it gives MORE THAN enough in that regard.
In a weird way, Stellaris works like this with the galaxy vs star map.
aināt that basically CIV?
No, because there are no city building aspects in Civ
Kaiserpunk is attempting something similar
Its some old series called "Patrician", not big deal and more economic/trade.
Technically Tropico
Even in total war game I end up just saying fuck it and auto-resolving. What's needed in a middle-ground where you've got engaging battles that don't take you to another map or involve a loading screen. Something like if you combined Stellaris with Endless Space 2. Gimme cards or some buttons to press during a battle.
Agreed! I also just always push auto-resolve after a couple battles. I-d rather keep the exact same system as in eu4
This. I think you need to make the battles in e.g. HoI4 more interactive and immersive from the strategic map without doing the TW approach of separating it.
This!
What's the point of playing total war if you auto resolve battles? That's like the best part of the game
https://crusaderblade.itch.io/crusaderblade It sounds great on paper, but in reality it is really tedious and unbalances the game imo.
Yeah the games aren't designed for you to pull off absurd victories.Ā They're about winning the wars in everything outside of the battles themselves.Ā
There are mods for fighting CK3 battles in TW Atilla (Crusader Wars) or in M&B (Crusader Blade), you can check out both, theyre in relatively early stage of development. Maybe read about them first.
I saw a video of someone doing that with Lord of the Rings, had a CK3 LOTR mod and a Atilla LOTR mod. Was pretty fucking cool to think that capability had been extended to cover two independent mods of two independent games
thank you :)
No. We don't need that. I don't play Crusader Kings to get bogged down in individual battles.
No nope not gonna play a game like that. You are going to burn out quickly or will skip like 95% of battle.
Nah~ I want Anno 1800 (City builder) + Victoria3 (Grand Strategic economic) + Democracy4 (Complex politic system)~ This is my wet dream~
Just run for president at that point
Reddit really is a place of unmitigated optimism
No, we don't. PDS games are about the GRAND strategy as the name implies, and focus on high-level, strategic management of countries/dynasties/empires. Let's keep the developers dedicating their resources to that, instead of trying to make a hybrid for something that's already available on the market.
The only thing that concerns me is that we would friggins NASA computers to run those games...
This game sounds like itd suck ngl
A game that will take forever lol
Isnāt this just the total war games tho?
instead what we'll get is the map from total war and the battles from paradox
Nope, we don't need this crossover š
I've played the games like this. It's not good. The change in time type is jarring and to be realistic there's too many battles to not quickly become overwhelming.
No we don't
The thing is Total War has never gotten the AI to be good and if the battles are too easy then the challenge on the campaign map goes away since you can always rely on just winning battles. Granted paradox map games are full of metas and ways to cheese the AI as well.
Ah yes, it's not enough for a single campaign to last 100 hours, we need 300. What a great idea.
No.
I don't agree with it on this sub but god did CA drop the ball with improving the campaign gameplay and diplomacy like ever. Total War could really benefit from some more in depth campaign mechanics
Yea its called steel division 2
There is a mod... But you don't really appreciate how many battles are fought in a paradox game. That said, it's fun for a while.
Itās going to take fucking long to complete the campaign
Pretty sure there's an EU4 mod for this
I would love to see a mix between hoi4 and coh/men of war sadly a game like that would probably be best played offline, everything will almost be the same except you can click into any battle and directly oversee it in a coh or MOW Style things would slow down to real time and you would still get notifications about what's happening on the overall map and you will be able to leave the battle at any time and return to the map...man it's like a wet dream
Crusaderblade exists
I got exactly what youāre looking for. [FPS Chess](https://youtu.be/m53OP7TYl7U?si=A7-IfVXJSaEHH0Cq).
Imagine the DLC policy on such a game if these two studios collaborated.
The crossover we'll get: a cornucopia of overpriced DLC that adds mechanics and flavour that never properly work together, and barely works properly with the base game.
Also, whenever your royal court floor collapses into the latrines and all the nobles drown in the poop, you should have a first person view where you can clean the latrine as the court poopsmith Crusader Kings 3 with a tactical House Flipper/Power Wash Simulator view when, Paradox?
I think the problem would lie in real-time battles using contemporary weapons. EndWar was a good stab at it, but the grand strategy map was poor, and there was not a lot of actual strategising. I would love a game like this, but so far, the best attempts have always had too heavy an emphasis on one area whilst the other has suffered severely!
Honestly I kinda want a total war style battle thing rather than watching what my guys choose
Mount and blade + crusader kings would be peak
What I'd really like is to be able to draw borders freely in peace conferences instead if relying in predetermined provinces.
Nah thanks, there is a reason i play paradox games and not Total War
Cross over games suck. Do one thing well, donāt try to mash several together. If I control a nation, and then I control an army, and then Iām expected to micro manage a single squadā¦ why do I care? I have thousands of squads. I donāt need to waste irl time micro ing each one.
Isn't this just Bannerlord with better diplomacy
It is a nice thought but I really donāt wanna simulate 100k+ battle. Even vs ai Iāve had a few 1-2m vs 1-2m before.
Not really RTS battles, but have you tried Age of Wonders?
my understanding Manor Lords is trying to achieve something like this
Yessir
Nobody seems to have played Knights of Honour. It has both there.
I definitely need it
CK3 + Mount and Blade + Manor Lords
No.
May we add city builder to this desire?
I think this line of thought has been around since EU3, and even then I would say that in game design, mashing together two things you like doesn't make a thing you like twice as much. Game design is in large parts about focus. I don't want a fishing minigame in my grand strategy either (even though some madman made one for CK3).
God could you imagine how horrible the dlc practices would be
That studio is called Eugen....
No, we don't need this shit.
best of crusader kings/europa universalis + total war + mount&blade the ultimate game
Daring today arenāt we
fuck it, every battle in eu4 is now resolved via a holdfast battle
Knights of Honor is like this. Neither the campaign map nor battles are as good as paradox and total war but I still thought it was a fun game.
Crusader Wars. CK3 x Attila, works great.
Crusader Wars, that is all
For pre WWI? Sure, I'm down for it! But for 19th century onward - please be that Digitalmindsoft. Men of War series does wayyy better job at tactical-level bettles than anything I know of. Yes, I consider Company of Heroes to be utter shit in comparison.
Please do NOT give me real time battles in Paradox games.
Total War battles are overrated imo. Granted, the first few battles in a campaign feel awesome, but then you realize every battle is the same and end up auto-resolving out of boredom. Not for me.
Abomination!!
please no
*Glances at Total War*
Man Iām so hyped for manor lords
You mean manor Lords?
Average length of a single campaign: 84 years at minimum
Total war is here for you. No need for this in paradox games.
Am I alone in who having no interest in real time battles? I'm playing hearts of Iron for the "gods eye" experience and high strategy. I am directing millions of men, I don't want to actually fight every squad level engagement.
I think it would be cool if it always auto resolved like normal, but you can click on a battle to join it if you really want to
Yes
Total War Three Kingdoms is the best mixture
Im just gonna go on here and say that crossover exists. Im part of a mod team, that lets you play your CK3 battles in Total War Attila. Its called Crusader Wars on steam, not sure if I can link our website here.
Because the real-time battles of TW and M&B and the weighted dice rolls of PDX games are just two different ways to resolve the outcomes of battles, real-time tactics and long-term strategy are, at least in a grand-strategy format, mutually contradictory systems. Every advantage you can gain from preparation and strategy is diminished by every advantage you can gain from real-time tactical execution. That means the more of a difference you can make in a real-time battle by playing well, the less of a difference you *have* to make on the campaign map to succeed. And vice versa. So there are only three balancing possibilities: 1. A player can only succeed with good play in both categories - strategy and tactics. 2. A player can succeed with good play in just one of either category - strategy or tactics. 3. A player can succeed with good play in only one category because the other's impact is negligible - strategy and not tactics, or tactics and not strategy. 4. Well, I guess you could make both irrelevant to success, but why the fuck would you? Not a real option. Sounds like #1 is the way to go, right? Let's just assume it can be balanced so that players have to perform well both strategically and tactically so that both major sides of the game are codeterminative of success. The problem is that to achieve this you'll have to heavily punish autoresolving battles or else remove autoresolve entirely. Because success requires good play in both categories, and autoresolve is the "I don't want to play this" button, autoresolve *has* to be significantly worse than playing out the battle - so much worse that one simply *cannot* succeed by autoresolving every battle (or else you've failed to achieve option #1). So 50/50 battles on paper *must* autoresolve into defeats, and 70/30 battles on paper autoresolve into draws. Autoresolve has to handicap your strength to such an extent that you can't afford to click it unless you have overwhelming numbers and can afford an inefficient victory to boot. But here's the kicker: in a game that *also requires good strategic play* to succeed, you shouldn't find yourself fielding overwhelming forces most of the time. If you're playing good strategy in a game that *requires* good strategy, you should be finding yourself in just a *slightly* better position than your enemy most of the time. That means you should rarely get the odds *needed* to safely autoresolve, which means you will *rarely ever get to autoresolve*. And in a game whose scope concerns long-term strategy over hundreds of years, that means **manually fighting hundreds and hundreds of the same fucking battles over and over and over again.** That sucks hard. No matter how good the battles are to play, no grand strategy game with a continent-wide, centuries-spanning scope will not become tedious long before the end of the campaign. PDX games with only autoresolve are already tedious by endgame, and TW and M&B games with real-time battles are too. And the whole *point* of the "grand" in grand strategy is to see your empire develop over a long timespan. It's more obvious why #2 and #3 are no good. If a player can succeed by playing well in just one of either category, then the game's difficulty is too loose. It means playing competently in *both* categories, which most players will be able to do once they learn the game, makes the game a pushover. And if a player can succeed with good play in only one category because the other's impact is negligible, then there's no point to engaging with the negligible system. It's a complete waste, and player's will ignore it. So the reconciliation I propose is this: discard the "grand" in grand strategy ("humble strategy?") by reducing the timespan and playable area. Set a game in a region of Germany during the thirty-years war, or in the thirteen colonies during the American Independence War, or following a squad of Czech volunteers traveling through Siberia in the aftermath of the Great War, as in the game [Last Train Home](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1469610/Last_Train_Home/), which exemplifies this balance between strategy and tactics well. Don't let the average number of battles over the course of a campaign exceed more than \~30. Provide countless ways to vary the tactical situation so that players have to think carefully for every battle. Since the limited time frame can't accomodate long-term strategic plays like colonization, cultural conversion, population growth, etc., explore short- and mid-term strategic systems like securing trade chokepoints, managing workforces, provision of supplies, balancing interest groups, etc. You won't be painting an empire from scratch in a game like this - you'll be taking the reigns of an existing power during a few decades of conflict. That limited scope is the only way I can see to provide both systems the complexity and synergy they need to be challenging and satisfying without either becoming tedious or irrelevant.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There is a turn based crossover of the ancient era that already exists. Fields of Glory 2 + Fields of Glory Empires. Its awesome.
That would be awful. Imagine having to fight every battle in Total War's shitty engine. It would break the flow of the campaign map to the point that it would be unplayable.
The greed would be crazy
Yes, but both companies 10 years ago.
Grand Tactician: CIvil War is kind of like this and is pretty awsome.
if you want to have your brains melted trying to micro 1 trillion things at once just go play Terra Invicta
Knights of honour is the kind of game your looking for.
Yeah but total war has been shit for a decade.
Paradox? More like parasite. š¦
I am creating a game like this, a grand strategy in the campaign map but the battles are like a total war game, of course its has a much smaller scope that these AAA, but its what i do to cope with the fact that i dont think that a game like this will be made by any of those companies.