To Paradox Games, or not to Paradox Games?

[Vaarna_Aarne]

You know what burns my ass with Pdox interfaces? The fact there's no Subsidize All button in Victoria! Whenever elections are coming it's essentially "motherfucker if the goddamn liberals/libertarians win again..." grumbling every election because it just means I'm going to have to manually subsidize every factory again after I throw those stupid capitalist assholes out of the office.

 

[Burning Bridges]

the only problem with TW games is those are not strategic games, those are not even tactical ones, those are arcade games with nice graphics and battles. And no AI at all.

Polish bro is absolutely correct. Though it was not so crass at the beginnings (STW&MTW).

But at least I think it's possible to make realistic games with an interface that is intuitive and pleasing. It should actually not even be hard if you have the right ideas and don't come from a spreadsheet mindset.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I will not bash Paradox, because I like only turn based games. But Paradox needs to fire a lot of people, especially the guy who designed the map engine.

Sure their latest hardware accelerated 3d/2d engine is impressive but what good is it if they have no clue how to make use of it?

This is an example of what you will deal with in Paradox latest offerings:

and another example of a map that is more simple yet also more intuitive and visually attractive:

How hard is it by comparison to get an overview of important information, the size and quality of your armies and leaders, etc?

I think in their heart of hearts Paradox is an enterprise software company, but they went into games design. Their games have a lot of depth but they still have no clue in the art / UI department.

Maybe it's my familiarity with Pdox, but the first map, you can change the map mode and get province information, economic information, vassal information, etc.. Anyway, I still don't get this "art direction" argument, and for the most part, I like the way that Paradox provides all information to the player, and normally separates it in a logical way. The second map is fine if you want to play Risk, but there's nothing wrong with also wanting something a little bit deeper than Risk.

And I can get why some people would say that Paradox games aren't their cup of tea. I don't recommend Paradox games to everybody, because it takes a certain... aspieness, for lack of better term. With that in mind, the first map is more attractive to me than the second, because I can see all of the variables that are in play with Paradox combat. I can see that I will not be attacking the province with snowcapped mountains because that would spell doom for my attacking army, and would be more likely to try to draw the forces on to the plains... When I see the S:TW map I see... well, I see Risk.

 

[Sergiu64]

yeah, much prefer the first map there.


Also mods help. For example EU3 is soooo much prettier with MEIOU mod on.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Another thing with the mountain provinces is that they give you a clear idea as to where have a standard defensive line for your border, or through which you're prepared to attack. Similar thing with the river provinces, but more oppoturne for amassing forces since the supply limit is higher and movement isn't penalized. Similarly, you can tell that the best course of attack if you want a quick war is through the North, for the distances between provinces there are shorter, allowing for a rapid advance and thus accumulation of warscore. Not to mention small provinces are usually valuable, due to giving you access to many more resources.

As for UI, it should also be pointed out that you can access almost everything quickly and easily through the quickbars around the mini-map and other panels.

But mang, what would I give if all Paradox games had the Front Width system as the basis of combat. It would be so awesome from a strategic and tactical perspective, and it would make Quality > Quantity much better, and enable technologically inferior defenders to mount devastating losses on the superior attacker who doesn't take care. A good example is the direction HoI3 has been taking Finland.

 

[Burning Bridges]

What was said is all correct yet my comparison with the "Risk" map was not to compare games, but to give hints how to present information in the right way, how to structure UIs to reduce the workload so that it is more fun than work to use.

If you look at the STW screen, how long does it take to judge the position, composition, quality, size of armies, the strength of commanders? How long do you need to assess the same amount of information in a Paradox game, colored thematic maps and other gimmicks notwithstanding? (STW had that too btw, press shift key to see provinces colored by loyalty)

Depth and clarity are not at odds. And depth is not a killer argument against nontransparency, yet an often used excuse for incompetence. This is not to say that a good, complex game with an incompetent UI is not a good game. It's just something that irritates greatly.

 

[Burning Bridges]

As to the question do I like Paradox games, I admit that I tried many times to get into Paradox games and failed every time.

But it has more to do with the realtime philosophy. I guess I like a certain causality of actions and in realtime this is lost to me. That I did not like the art and UI is only a secondary factor, but it's still something that I think is very important in any game.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I don't find the UI in any way overly complex, given the amount of information that is presented. Also, you're comparing apples and oranges here. The fact is, TW has next to zero strategic complexity (once again a comparison to Risk, instead solved with tactical combat instead of dice rolls), while Paradox has an infinite higher level of strategic complexity. The UI of Paradox games serves it's purpose quite well, as it gives you quick access to all pertinent information. With more information, more time is necessary to get that information.

The TW maps are "streamlined", primarily because a) they are wargames, and that is all the information that is really necessary, and b) there just isn't that much information to show. On the Pdox map I see the province selected and it's improvements, who rules said province, as well as quick access to other information (I don't know how military is controlled in Sengoku... I'm going to guess it's CK-like). The higher complexity will naturally require a less stream-lined approach, but to prevent screen clutter, Pdox hides a lot of their options in various menu screens, which is a perfectly acceptable alternative for me.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

It should also be pointed out that in all Paradox games you are presented with more information in regards to the armies and the battlefield than in TW. Since instead of a bar and stars, in Pdox games you are given either a number of regiments present and their types or in case of HoI series you can also see the unit type composition of the main enemy force by switching to NATO counters (with more information available should you have the intelligence required).

It should also be pointed out that in Pdox games the map has overlays that allow you to inspect infrastructure, economy, diplomatic status, revolt risk, etc.

 

[Burning Bridges]

It should also be pointed out that in all Paradox games you are presented with more information in regards to the armies and the battlefield than in TW. Since instead of a bar and stars, in Pdox games you are given either a number of regiments present and their types or in case of HoI series you can also see the unit type composition of the main enemy force by switching to NATO counters (with more information available should you have the intelligence required).

Besides the question of NATO counters and INT (according to your theory I lack it), can you visualize a Paradox game with the unit graphics on the STW screen? Do you understand why think this would be more easy to use? Is this really such a bad idea?

Also, you're comparing apples and oranges here. The fact is, TW has next to zero strategic complexity (once again a comparison to Risk, instead solved with tactical combat instead of dice rolls), while Paradox has an infinite higher level of strategic complexity.

And since I assume you all played TW, you should know it is not risk, it is 100x times more detailed. I dont see that much difference to Paradox games other than Paradox made many variables analog (floating numbers) whereas in the "risk" philosophy they are "digital" (integers). I find the wording "infinite higher amount of complexity" a bit off.

 

[Lord Chambers]

How does the complexity/spreadsheet factor of a Paradox relate to a game like Patrician 4? Managing a country seems like it would be even more complicated than a trade fleet and some industries.

I played Patrician 4 and found it quite enjoyable, but definitely started to taste the spreadsheet once I got over the theme at which point I start wondering why I'm playing a game that is indistinguishable from work.

 

[Burning Bridges]

That's because Patrician is german. I find a lot of german games play like "Bundesliga Manager", and are essentially nothing but work

The same with the japanese and their A-Train games.

According to that theory Paradox is probably a swedish thing. Very heavy built but a bit ugly.