Paradox announces Rome.

[String]

*click here*

Well, that part of the history was always missing from their timeline. Here's for hoping that the next game will deal with the dark ages.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: String

*click here*

Well, that part of the history was always missing from their timeline. Here's for hoping that the next game will deal with the dark ages.

"Punic Wars to the end of the Republic"

Here's betting their next expansion pack will be "Imperial Rome" [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[EUBanana]

Rock.

I still think they'll have a hard time topping Victoria: Empire under the Sun though.  [:D]

Trench lines scoring the earth of the Eastern US as in 1880 as the Empire exerts its will on the recalcitrant colonies...  [:D]

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: String

Well, that part of the history was always missing from their timeline. Here's for hoping that the next game will deal with the dark ages.

Why wait? Great Invasions

[Terminus]

To summarize my comment on the Wargamer forum: [>:][>:][>:]

[ravinhood]

YAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAAYYAYAYAY I get an ANCIENTS GAME ....oh well GIL now I guess you can take your time Paradox is going to beat you to it. You see, You see INDY I told you Ancients was due for a rise. You guys better get your Ancients games out around the same time if you wanna make some moola.

"A truly challenging strategy game portraying the Roman Era has yet to be released (ain't that the truth) and we believe strategy gamers have been kept waiting for long enough, said Fredrik Wester, Executive Vice President for Paradox Interactive. "

As good as "Crusader Kings" was after the last patch I can only imagine how good this one is going to be. An MY ANCIENTS oh my goodness I can hardly wait. But, of course I will because it will be buggy and flawed and CTD's upon release just like all other games and it's just stupid to pay full retail price for that crap. It's not like it won't be bargain bin. I've gotten ALL my Paradox games since HOI out of the bargain bin since they screwed me on HOI with all its flaws and crap. But, I'm still excited that there's going to be an EU engine ANCIENTS game none the less. RTW was such a let down to the grog fans Paradox should rake in a load of cash from them with this title.

[Hertston]

The only concern I'd have with Rome would be how many factions are genuinely playable, and particularly how many are genuinely playable without creating the same sort of unhistorical mess offered by RTW. I'm guessing that's why they plumped for the Republic, although the Punic Wars seem rather too late a start IMHO.

[ravinhood]

Who cares if it's historical as long as it's fun and challenging that's all that matters and is set in the ANCIENTS time frame. I really get sick of the historians coming in saying I wonder how historical it's going to be. Nobdoy really cares that's of any value to sales. It's got to be fun and challenging first, then it can have historical content. Crusader Kings isn't historical by a long shot, but, it's fun and challenging as hell and the dynasty building in that game is second to none. Time to get off your historical high horse and learn to enjoy the Paradox games for what they are. They aren't wargames never have been wargames they are just risklike strategy games like the Total War series only more challenging and more fun. (after the umpteen jillion patches of course) Only the makers of CoG and FoF can make a more historical game, they did a fine job on FoF giving what the historical whiners wanted and still giving it a broad range of choices to be "whatif". But, Paradox has always been "whatif" they've never made an historical game one, they are all whatif risklike games from the getgo.

[Terminus]

"Who cares if it's historical"? I see you're living down to your usual standards..[8|]

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Who cares if it's historical as long as it's fun and challenging that's all that matters and is set in the ANCIENTS time frame. I really get sick of the historians coming in saying I wonder how historical it's going to be. Nobdoy really cares that's of any value to sales. It's got to be fun and challenging first, then it can have historical content. Crusader Kings isn't historical by a long shot, but, it's fun and challenging as hell and the dynasty building in that game is second to none. Time to get off your historical high horse and learn to enjoy the Paradox games for what they are.

One of your more incomprehensible posts. Oddly enough, one of the reasons I enjoy Crusader Kings so much is precisely because it IS historical in many ways, not least of which is the importance of the dynasty building you were going on about. To me the whole point of historical games (the 'fun' and 'challenging' bit is implicit in 'game') is that they ARE historical, within reason. I like the Paradox games (and indeed Thibaut's Great Invasions, which I mentioned earlier) because, in addition to the aforementioned fun and challenge, you can actually learn something as well. It's not so much presenting historical events - if they were the same every time you wouldn't have a game at all - but presenting plausible alternative histories, something that all the Paradox games (bar HoI) do extremely well, particularly Victoria.

[ravinhood]

Lol what a load of rubbish Herston about Paradox games being historical hahahaha talk about incomprehensible hahahaha you win the cupie doll for that one. hahahahahahah You Paradox fanbois never quit though do you? hahaha I found an old post during the Victoria days of Paradox burning. Let me remind you of those days

J30Vader
But there were so many obvious flaws in Vic one main being how unhistorically accurate it was. When I had to un-install and re-install to get the game to save, ( a beta tester solution btw) I knew there would be trouble.

The concept is nice. One gets tired of the almost endless WW2 type games after awhile. I like games that cover otherwise neglected areas of history.

But the publish early and patch often at this stage of the company's developement is, to me at least, no longer acceptable. If it meant I payed a little more for ver 1.0 to be where 1.03 puts it, so be it.

Here is how someone else thinks about it. From the [font=arial]Paradox[/font] boards.


A friend wrote the following. She could not post it as her computer went down. She wrote it after reading threads at another site, the wargamer. Those threads she alludes to were lost when they got hacked.
I cleaned it up a bit.


" I have been considering a [font=arial]Paradox[/font] game for some time now. I have been perusing the two threads on this board, and the [font=arial]Paradox[/font] forums. Gentlemen, I am convinced.

I read these posts, and I am appalled. The indignation, the vituperation, the bile. Directed not at the companies responsable for releasing games in such a state that they need patches within a week or two after release. Heavens no.

It is directed at those who have the major brass to complain about obvious flaws. Or how badly tested said games are. Or those who would rather wait and get a far more complete game cheaper than paying full price for an unfinished one. Or dare I say it, a beta version.

You know those people. They are called *consumers*. AKA *paying customers* You know, the ones who buy what these companies sell. The ones that a company needs to stay around. If a company like [font=arial]Paradox[/font] fails, it, and you, have only yourselves to blame.

All through these threads, I never came across anything that I, as a consumer, would make me want to support these games.

Instead of solutions, all those who love companies like [font=arial]Paradox[/font] can do is attack. They leave the distinct impression that you *must* buy this game. Call a game unfinished, or flawed, and they act as if their baby was kidnapped. Beta tester get personally offended if you catch them on missing the obvious. No one has stood up and said " I screwed up. "

For example: Ships of the Nelson era destroying a fleet of Jutland era battleships. All I ever saw was excuses for it. Excuses like " They were outnumbered. " No one stood up and said " Hey, we screwed up. we missed it. And we will fix it." Took two patches....

Suggest that it would be better if a game is delayed so it doesn't need a patch on release. What do you hear. " The company can't afford people like you. " Which is an ignorant statement.

Commit the ultimate sin, and state that you will buy the game when it drops in price.
They have no solution other than whine " The company will go out of business.." Or some such tripe. Or they go into pitbull mode against you. One would think that it would be more fruitful if they spent the energy on making it a product that you would want to buy.

Or you hear about how the company has to release a game unfinished because they can't afford to wait. Or how much a website cost. Or how small the company is.

Gentleman, as a consumer I don't care what the site cost. That is part of doing business.
If a company is in the position of publish or perish, then it is screwed up. Time to get new management, someone who knows business. I don't care how small the staff is. It is a problem that is not for me to fix.

Publishing games too early is bad business. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourselves.
Why is this the only industry where it is tolerated? You would not buy a twelve speed bike if you it had six gears. Or a pen and pencil set sans pen.

I bought an expensive TV set awhile back. It was supposed to come with a chair. I knew it would be a week before said chair arrived. Ok, fine. After the week was up, I was informed the chair was no longer available. Fine. So I said I will take the value of the chair. They offered me $25.00, which is what the chair cost them. I wanted $100.00 which was the retail value of the chair.

Short version, the $3000 tv went back.

[font=arial]Paradox[/font], your rabid fan boy club has convinced me that not buying any of your products is the way to go. I don't want the grief if I point out flaws. I don't want to hear excuses for how said flaws got past testing. Or grief for not willingly paying full price for a game that takes at least three patches to bring it where it should of been. ( According to a list I saw on these very boards. ). I don't want to hear about how your company will go broke, or how how many people work there.

And most of all I don't want to hear how I, or others, are supposed to support you.

I have Imperialism II. I will buy War! Age of Imperialism instead. No one who supports those games jumps down your throat when you find and state flaws. Or make nonsensical excuses. ( see above ). And neither one got patched twice in only two months. "

Thank you gentleman. You have made my choice easy. "

Some made sport of the TV. They failed to realise that because the store failed to deliver the chair or the money so she could buy the chair, they lost a $3,000 sale.

The hard core fans will buy anything PE puts out. And that is fine. I know people who only buy games done by their favorite designer.
But PE will not grow if they continue on this path. And having people download patch after patch after patch is not the way to expand a customer base.

I think Johan himself said something like "People think many patches=broken." I think he is more right than he knew.

I would really like to see a game on the Roman Empire. At least from Agustus to Romulus Agustulus. PE is probably the only company that would attempt a game of that scope. But, given its history, it would also take 3-5 patches before it could be considered finished. [align=right]

[/align]

I applaud this gal for she certainly knows her Paradox publisher and its fanbois. It's pretty obvious though to see really, but, when you turn your blind eyes to facts you just can't see the truth about Paradox games I guess. Hardly historical, though they do fall into historical "WHATIF" time frames. That's the only historical atmosphere they will present. They put you into the time period with colorful units, throw some abstract diplomacy and economy at you and off you go into 'imagination land" of if ony I were king. But, the history ends the moment you set out and start conquering the lands and before you know it you've conqured the ENTIRE MAP in a supposedly historical game?? hahahaha

[Terminus]

I wonder what sort of mental disorder makes you sit down and actually write out your own laughter...?

EDIT: I looked it up; it's called Spollism, a combination of Spamming and Trollism.[8|]

[ilovestrategy]

Paradox has never been realistic but I do love their games. You can bet your money I'll be getting this one!
I like strategy games of all types, realistic or not.
I'm with ravinhood on this one.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

YAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAAAYYAYAYAY I get an ANCIENTS GAME ....oh well GIL now I guess you can take your time Paradox is going to beat you to it. You see, You see INDY I told you Ancients was due for a rise. You guys better get your Ancients games out around the same time if you wanna make some moola.
"

Western Civilization Software heeds no timetable but it's own, so there's no chance we'd have tried to rush out a grand strategy ancients game just to be the first to have one out there. (And anyway, we can't even start on one for many months, because of more important projects in the pipeline.)

Regarding the "Who cares if it's historical as long as it's fun and challenging" issue, I'll just say that I'm a Ph.D.-carrying ancient historian, and am friends with a game-playing, Ph.D.-carrying, Yale-educated ancient military historian, so when we do do an ancients game (or multiple ancients games) there will be no questioning its/their accuracy. Or its/their fun and challengingness...[;)]

[Gil R.]

I just found this link over at Wargamer. Personally, I think it looks fun and wish I could be a playtester, but that might be a conflict of interest...

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/eur ... alls;img;1

[jimwinsor]

As I feared, it's going to be using the EU RTS engine.
 
RTS = deal killer for me.  Ick.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

Paradox has never been realistic but I do love their games. You can bet your money I'll be getting this one!
I like strategy games of all types, realistic or not.
I'm with ravinhood on this one.

Bout time hehe. You know some of these wargaming developers could take a lesson from Paradox games. I don't like the company Paradox because of their release and now their patching policy, but, let's face it their games are popular and WHY are they popular other developers should ask....because they don't stick to STRICT historical values. They put you in the setting, give you what socalled history SAYS was there at a specific time and then LET YOU GO with it. I mean I thought it was silly as hell that Brazil could help take out Italy and Germany and did in fact do most of the taking in HOI (before they killed every minor being able to do anything with patch 1.05 and higher), but, at the same time I found it FUN and CHALLENGING if not a laugh as well. The best games are the ones that allow one to play both ways, strict historical features and restrictions and then whatifs like GIL and company do with Crown of Glory and now Forge of Freedom. BTW have you "announced" your next game GIL what is it? When you do the Ancients game can I be a beta tester?

Crusader Kings is fun and challenging for the same reasons, but, let's face it you can start out as the Count/Duke of Narke and by the end of the game control the entire map. That's just not historical or realistic, but, the atmosphere is there and that's what makes it a fun game. I sometimes get lost in just watching the AI play damnit lol. The dynasty building is fun as well. But, cmon successful assassinations reduce BADBOY points? lol That right there wasn't realistic or historical that people thought better of you if you assassinated your own court members. lol But, it was fun and definitely could backfire on you.
I am looking forward to this next expansion coming out for CK thouogh. It's suppose to add some rivalries and friendships and hopefully keep players from building up these huge rediculous dynasties. There's not enough revolt or breaking away as an independent in the 1.05 game for me.

[Gil R.]

The best games are the ones that allow one to play both ways, strict historical features and restrictions and then whatifs like GIL and company do with Crown of Glory and now Forge of Freedom. BTW have you "announced" your next game GIL what is it? When you do the Ancients game can I be a beta tester?

Nope. The next new project is under wraps -- there's nothing to be gained from saying what it is this early in the process (i.e., alpha testing). That said, we have publicly announced that we're working on a COG expansion -- no secret there.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

As I feared, it's going to be using the EU RTS engine.

RTS = deal killer for me.  Ick.

Now as Arjuna would usually pop in and say it's " pauseable continous time" not rts lol. The EU engine really isn't real time or that RTSy kiddy clickfest like most are. It's "continous time" and at the very slow setting it's so slow that if you think of turns in two week intervals on a board game well you have about 10 minutes or a bit more to make your moves in most of Paradox's games, the difference is you are constantly in a 10 minute turn cycle. I've never really checked that for total accuracy, but, I've never felt rushed playing a Paradox game. It also has an onscreen PAUSE button so it's not like you can't stop play when you want to (I don't use the pause button per se, but, I will use the slowest game speed setting). ALSO the POPUPS can be set to PAUSE the game at the intervals they popup. So, there's many things that can and do stop the game during play. You can set EACH ONE to do what you want it to do as well. Most of Paradox games there's not really an awful lot to do anyway except a bit of trading and sending your troups off to an area to fight. If any game is streamlined for that the Paradox series is. You can combine units into stacks or move them all one at a time if that's your wish.

As much as I hate RTS games and I don't think anyone hates them as much as I do I think you should give the Paradox games anther chance (after they reach bottom dollar bargain bin prices that is. ) You can get a lot of them now under $10 and I think they have a Crusader Kings/HOI special at Amazon.com some under $5 there.

[Hertston]

Hardly historical, though they do fall into historical "WHATIF" time frames. That's the only historical atmosphere they will present. They put you into the time period with colorful units, throw some abstract diplomacy and economy at you and off you go into 'imagination land" of if ony I were king. But, the history ends the moment you set out and start conquering the lands and before you know it you've conqured the ENTIRE MAP in a supposedly historical game??

That's better.. we've lost the idiotic laughter track. M*A*S*H was improved a lot that way too.

Your first sentence is precisely the point I was making. If you recall, the game I was actually making comparisons with was not some hyper-realistic historical simulation but Rome: Total War.

Of course diplomacy and the economy is 'abstract'. Firstly it is necessary to have a playable game. Secondly, nobody has ever successfully simulated either 'realistically', anyway, particularly in a historical context. Vicky does a pretty good job, IMHO. As to conquering the entire map, I've won games in CK and Victoria conquering nothing further than my relative backyard.. indeed I have never even attempted to conquer the map, or even significant parts of it. Both games are as 'historical' as you wish them to be. I find it hugely ironic that, as I recall, your major gripe with Great Invasions was precisely that it didn't let you "conquer the map!" Paradox are just catering to the Ravinhood's out there [;)] (have you actually played Victoria, BTW?)

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
As I feared, it's going to be using the EU RTS engine.

RTS = deal killer for me.  Ick.

For the first, and probably only, time in this thread Ravinhood is speaking some sense . The engine really isn't 'RTS' at all; you could pretty much switch the games over to a turn based engine and hardly notice.