PROPOSAL ! Turn Based, that's how EU should have been !

[nukkxx5058]

Some gamers compared COG to EU and this comparison is sound. Both are complex games (based on the board game for EU), with rich diplo, eco, war possibilities etc.

But personaly, I didn't like EU computer version from paradox precisely because of the continuous time (real time) system ! (it sucks to make it short lol [:D] )

If EU would exist in turn based (1 month turns like COG) it would be great !

So, my PROPOSAL is that the next version of COG covers 4 centuries of history ! with such a great game system, it would be ... woooooww !

What do you think guys ?

[Hoplosternum]

I really wish EU2 etc had been turn based. Monthly turns would have been just great. But I won't hold my breathe for anyone making such a game [:D]

[wodin]

Hey all of Paradox games should have been turn based.

To me its a ridiculous system.

[steveh11Matrix]

That's what I thought too - until a friend of mine persuaded me to give Europa Universalis a try. I've been hooked ever since.

This is not a zero-sum situation, guys. You don't have to pick one and discard the other - in both cases (EU and, I'm sure, CoG) their respective systems work.

That's not to say that I don't think that a 400 year span based on a CoG engine wouldn't be a 'Good Thing' - far from it! [:)]

Steve.

[Reiryc]

I enjoy the continuous time of eu just fine. The game is quite entertaining and the continuous time adds a nice flavor for the game.

I would love to see this system do some kind of 400 or even 200 year campaign with the attendant additives such as more tech advances to choose from in the civilian areas and a separation of army and navy based on different factors such as docks for navy and barracks for army.

[jchastain]

I definitely prefer turn based. In fact, I originally didn't buy the EU series precisely because it included the dreaded words "real time". One day, long after Eu2 was released and all of the patches were out, I found the original EU in a discount bin for $5 and bought it thinking there wasn't much to lose. 24 hours later, I was totally addicted and bought EU2. It was a great game and a neat change of pace. But overall I still prefer turn based games. But I'm not sure I would buy a turn based EU2 replacement. After the newness wore off, I grew tired of the colonization micromanagement required for EU2 and I'd be scared that any replacement title would end up with the same situation but without the "new and cool" factor that kept EU2 fresh for quite a while. I'd have to see the game to be sure, but right now I am glad that this game is what it is.

[ravinhood]

That's why I prefer "Colonization f/Win95", basically the same thing, but, a lot less micro managment, in fact a fun micro management and you can play it within a days time and it has enough to be entertaining for years to come, still on my hard-drive, best colonization type game around.

Plus I just prefer turn based games as well, but, the way you can slow down the time in an EU2/HOI it's really not that noticeable guys, and though I'm a big proponent against Paradox as a publisher, their gameplay isn't that bad, it's just their AI's suk and their games are buggy as hell out of the box and the fact it just takes too many patches to finally get a fair game, yet, the AI still suks and just all that combined doesn't bode well for me an Paradox company as a whole. I'll continue to buy their games out of the bargain bin, but, nothing they have produced has stood out and grabbed me for a retail purchase. But, really I can say that for Matrixgames as well as far as reaching out and grabbing me, only the "Tin Soldiers" series did that, the rest of their line of games is just too familar with past games I have of the same era WW2, the same battlefields, Barbarossa/Korsun Pocket, HTTR (a bridge too far), Normandy Invasion, North Africa, Italy. WitP. COG has my eye, but, I'm still fence sitting waiting on more detailed reports of a completely finished game instead of the few, "I won a battle against the AI, it suks" lines I'm reading so far. lol

Empire in Arms is really the one I've had my eye on for a long time now. I may just wait on that one since it's been stated maybe in the next 2 months it will be ready.

[jchastain]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
...I'm a big proponent against Paradox as a publisher, their gameplay isn't that bad, it's just their AI's suk and their games are buggy as hell out of the box and the fact it just takes too many patches to finally get a fair game, yet, the AI still suks and just all that combined doesn't bode well for me an Paradox company as a whole.

I am definitely with you there. I still feel cheated that I bought HOI (the original). It was awful and the eventual fix was sold as an entirely new product. In general, their titles are innovative but unplayable upon release. With the ease of patching the industry in general releases products with far lower quality than was done in the past, but Paradox takes that trend to an uncomfortable extreme. I've bought a couple of their games, but I've really grown tired of that engine anyway so it is unlikely I'll buy any more of their products - even from the bargain bin.

[sol_invictus]

jchastain, your in the same boat as me. I bought EU1/2 and absolutely loved them, even though they were what I call pseudo real time. I gave HoI a pass because I'm sick of WW2, but eagerly bought Victoria at release. Swore afterward that I would never buy a Paradox game again until reading many reviews and at least five or six patches had been released. Haven't bought a Paradox game since. I might pick up the Strategy 6 Pack but CoG is keeping me occupied.

[benpark]

I'm not interested at all in a game covering more than a 15 year time span. These civ building games lose any sense of grounding in history (and I'm not just talking about following it). Just look at the Paradox forums. There are all kinds of issues with worldwide, long games that don't just relate to continious time(crazy AI, etc).

I would much rather see the next game set in the ACW or late 18th Cen. Americas(Fr and Indian War/Amer Revolution), holding to the template set out in CoG.

[sol_invictus]

I agree, no game can try to cover 400 years of history and not have things go absolutely crazy after 50 years have passed. Nice tight and focused era of no more than 20-30 years should do nicely.

[bluemonday]

I strongly agree with the above two posts. It's too easy to just start throwing everything into a game. Better to pick your spots, choose your period, and make rational design decisions based on that period, rather than trying to accomodate everything from the beginning of navigation to nuclear submarines or some such. Deciding what to leave out of a game is much more difficult than deciding what to put it, and it is a mark of a good designer that his game is not overburdened by detail, or lack of focus.

An ACW game using this system would be great, as would Amer. Revolution/Fr.-Indian Wars.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

So, my PROPOSAL is that the next version of COG covers 4 centuries of history ! with such a great game system, it would be ... woooooww !

What do you think guys ?

I think they should do a nice game covering just 2 sides and 4 YEARS of history, 1861-1865 [;)]

[Heartland]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx
Some gamers compared COG to EU and this comparison is sound.

But personaly, I didn't like EU computer version from paradox precisely because of the continuous time (real time) system ! (it sucks to make it short lol )

I agree, they are both complex games requiring quite a bit of effort to master, utilizing a province system, etc.
Can't agree on the real-time versus turn-based with regards to EU however, I thought it worked perfectly to be honest. While being a turn-based guy at heart, the wide range of speed settings and ability to pause at will completely negated almost all negative aspects of real-time and removed most of those associated with turn-based.

In my opinion, EUII with the latest patches is one of the finest pieces of gaming software to see the light of day. Paradox are a very low-budget developer with some quirky publishing habits, but so far I have not been dissapointed by any end product purchased out of EU/EU2/HOI/HOI2/CK.

If EU would exist in turn based (1 month turns like COG) it would be great !

Well, it could certainly work and would be a nice change of pace. On the other hand, the tactical battles are one of the big draws for me, and doing 400 years would take an insane amount of time!
[X(] [:D]

As such it might be wiser to aim for a shorter time period. The American Civil War could be a good choice, as would the Thirty Year War, for example. I don't mind leaving the more long-term gameplay to the excellent Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis II combo.

[Reg Pither]

ORIGINAL: Fredrik Rask

While being a turn-based guy at heart, the wide range of speed settings and ability to pause at will completely negated almost all negative aspects of real-time and removed most of those associated with turn-based.

Totally agree with all that. [:)]

[YohanTM2]

It is always interesting to see how different folks like to play. I bought EU but really could not get into the real time nature.

I thought the game had merits but just not my cup of tea. Very glad CoG is out and hoping after a few patches and tweaks it is ready for prime time.

[Titanwarrior89]

I think COG is great but I think in many ways EU2 is much better. But I do Hate RTS games. That killed it for me in EU one and two. Spent most of my time hitting pause.[:D]

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

ORIGINAL: Fredrik Rask

While being a turn-based guy at heart, the wide range of speed settings and ability to pause at will completely negated almost all negative aspects of real-time and removed most of those associated with turn-based.

Totally agree with all that. [:)]

Yup, my experience as well.