Holy Crap! Europa Universalis 3!

[Naked_Lunch]

<strong>[ Game -> Update ]</strong>

<p><a title="d" target="_self" href="http://www.paradoxplaza.com/">Paradox Interactive</a> and <a title="ddf" target="_self" href="http://www.gamespot.com/">Gamespot</a> has just made my day! The developers of the outrageously awesome <a title="d" target="_self" href="http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/">Europa Universalis</a> and <a title="d" target="_self" href="http://www.heartsofiron2.com/">Hearts of Iron</a> games have announced the sequel to one of my favorite games of all time. GameSpot not only got a nice scoop, but a little Q and A as well:</p><blockquote><p>
<strong>GS:</strong> As a follow-up question, how would you describe the overall
direction of the new game compared to the previous Europa Universalis
games? Will it emphasize military operations more, or economic or
diplomatic strategy? In what direction is the Europa series going with
the new game?
</p><p>
<strong>JA:</strong> The actual direction of Europa Universalis III is to enrich
the gaming experience, making it more fulfilling while at the same time
making it easier for newcomers to the series and genre to get into and
love the game. We are not changing the balance of the game between
warfare, economics, and diplomacy, as we believe that precise balance
between all aspects of the game is what made the original game so
successful.</p></blockquote><p>Nice. Europa Universalis always handled the jack-of-all-trades dealie quite nicely, and it's good to see they're not trying to shift the focus into a specific facet of the game. Though that said, PLEASE PLAY OUT MILITARY CONFLICTS AS TACTICAL BATTLES A LA MEDIEVAL: TOTAL WAR! Seriously, you guys add that and I will personally tattoo the game's logo on my forehead. </p><blockquote><p>
<strong>GS:</strong> Finally, is there anything else you'd like to add about Europa Universalis III?
</p><p>
<strong>JA:</strong> We look forward to giving you more information soon on what will become the best game ever made.</p></blockquote><p>Let's hope.</p><p>Read the rest of the awesomeness <a title="LOL" target="_self" href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/europauniversalisiii/news.html?sid=6144284">here</a>. </p><p> </p><blockquote><p> </p><p>
</p></blockquote>

 

[Levski 1912]

If they do make tactical battles, CA should just go and hide in the corner for eternity. Excellent news.

Tattoing isn't extreme enough though, have "Paradox" branded on yer arse.

 

[Nicolai]

GalCiv 2, SE5, and now EU3? Oh man. B)

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Don't forget Frontline Nation. That game looks seriously hawt. Check out the interview I SLAVED over.

 

[Nicolai]

You can sign up for the EU3 beta here.

 

[kris]

I am unsure about refistring for BETA, my experiences with that isn't the best. On the other hand is EU2 the game I played more than all other games by far.

I'd be really interested in seeing the first screenshots to see where the direction is taken this time.

 

[Jason]

I signed up for the beta because it makes me feel like a big man.
The only negative aspect of beta testing (other than the time drain) is that it can possibly sour you on the finished product. It's the "already seen her naked" effect. That's also why you shouldn't date strippers.

 

[kris]

I signed up for the beta because it makes me feel like a big man.
The only negative aspect of beta testing (other than the time drain) is that it can possibly sour you on the finished product. It's the "already seen her naked" effect. That's also why you shouldn't date strippers.

Indeed that is my biggest complaint. Worse still is that you play the game in short phases where it is broken and you may end up feeling very frustrated by the experience. I was in the beta for Victoria and it was quite frustrating, especially since it was updated pretty much to often.

 

[VasikkA]

Holy Crap! The CODEX!

 

[Jason]

Don't you feel dirty now.

How'd you get the aiee smilie?

 

[VasikkA]

Do I have to start behaving now?

Edit: Imported from DAC

 

[Jason]

You'll have to teach us your mojo.

And no tubgirl allowed. This is a mature website.

 

[Araanor]

You know, I actually look forward to this game. I'm not sure when this happened the last time.

Though that said, PLEASE PLAY OUT MILITARY CONFLICTS AS TACTICAL BATTLES A LA MEDIEVAL: TOTAL WAR!

Won't happen. Ever. Europa Universalis' focus is strategy on a large scale, it's not about tactics. Johan is aware of this.

 

[LlamaGod]

I think it might detract if they tried to focus on getting deep battles in there. It would take time away from the rest of the game.

EU's focus is all about diplomacy and running a nation, there are battles to fight, but its not the focus of the series.

Like-wise, Total War's combat would probably end up not as cool if they tried to put in EU's diplomacy.

 

[kris]

Putting in tactical combat (and then I mean in a good way) basically means they need one more development team for that. We talk about separate art, engine and everything. It should also be noted that with a real-time engine like the EU one having separate tacitcal battles does not work as they can't exist as a vacuum in the time continuum. To add to that some of my favourite tactics include getting in reinforcements for battles... Something that happened IRL too.

also battles/fighting was vastly different between the early stages of the game and the late stages to the point of possibly several tactical games needed to be developed. And for a shitorical game I wouldn't want some tactics as historical incorrect as in a RTS game like empire earth.

EDIT - The total war games took the opposite route. They focused on the tactical games and put on the turnbased strategy as a means to get to those tactical battles. In Shogun the strategic part was woeful, but they improved that with every game and hopefully will that be even better with Medieval 2.

 

[VasikkA]

EDIT - The total war games took the opposite route. They focused on the tactical games and put on the turnbased strategy as a means to get to those tactical battles. In Shogun the strategic part was woeful, but they improved that with every game and hopefully will that be even better with Medieval 2.

The strategical views in Rome and Medieval were quite different. In Medieval, the strategical view was used for pooling and organizing the units and getting them to the battlefield, much the way you described. Rome's system reminds a lot of HOMM and made the strategy part more dynamic and strategically deeper. I wouldn't say the strategical part is some kind of a 'sub-game', definitely not in Rome, but rather an equally important aspect of the game. Then there's people who skip the tactical battles and instead focus on strategical manouvres. :susan:

I've played Hearts of Iron, but the game is a bit too board-gamey for my taste. Perhaps I'll take another look if they decided to add a steamy tactical hotdog between the board game buns. The historic aspect could function as mustard.

 

[S4ur0n27]

:susan: ? Coincidence? I do often skip the battles and focus on general strategies. And I usually played the battles involving few units in which you can control and see absolutely everything as it happens.

I just hate managing a gigantic siege on a city and having asshole soldiers doing random shit in my back while I'm looking at some other units or at another side of the city.

 

[Astromarine]

the problem with adding tactical combat is that it removes a lot of the deterministic aspect of combat that you rely on for the strategy side. If the have the component in, they pretty much HAVE TO allow you to beat the computer using really poor odds, unless they have 20 Brad Wardell clones programming their AI. Otherwise you feel like you're just going through the motions. This screws up the balance on the strategic side a great deal. It becomes a completely different game by necessity.

 

[S4ur0n27]

Maybe I'm thick but I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Astromarine]

If you have a purely strategic game, you win battles in a deterministic fashion. I.e. 3 tanks will win out against 2 the vast majority of the time. However, in a tactical game, the whole point usually is winning with inferior forces, or suffering the minimum possible casualties when fighting equal battles. If you mix the two, then the strategic game has to be completely rebalanced around the expectation that your units will always be better, more efficient, than the computer's units, which is a bit unrealistic. It's possible, of course, but it would make EU not EU.

The alternative is coding your AI really really well (i.e. LOADS better than the typical CA game) so that *at best* your results if you fight tactically will be as good as the "deterministic" approach. Meaning, if you have two tanks, and you're fighting three, the best you can hope for on average is to hurt the other guy a bit before dying. That would hardly be any fun, though :D

 

[Avé]

Adding tactical battles to EU would kill it for me.

That said, I pray to god they arent fucking re-using EU1/EU2/Victoria/HoI1/HoI2 engine.

 

[Araanor]

It's in 3d, baby.

 

[S4ur0n27]

With particle effects?

Also, Astromarine, good point.

 

[chaedwards]

Damn you Astromarine, you keep making my points before I have a chance. As I said in a previous thread, I just don't think having tactical and strategy levels in one game works very well, mainly because I try to have overwhelming force before commiting to a battle in a strategy game, making the tactical element pointless. But you have to play, as otherwise you lose more units than you should. Similarly, as AM says, unless the tactical AI is a genius, it just makes the game either far too easy, or unfair on the strategy side.

I enjoy Legion Arena because its good tactical combat without the strategy management. Similarly I enjoy the Civs etc because they're good strategy games with no tactical element. But I loathe Age of Wonders, Total War because they mix the two.

 

[Levski 1912]

I found AW to be harder tactically than TW, but maybe it's just me. But due to that, I think a system to AW wouldn't be too bad if implemented in Paradox' games.