Robert E. Lee wrote:It's not sure. Johan told me they focus on steam. CK2's case however shows they do listen to us. CK2's was full steam initially. Now there will be a gamersgate version as well which is what i will get. It's important to keep the pressure as soon as sub-forum for the game is open in the Paradox forums.
Buddy3101 wrote:I just found a trailer and a behind the game clip:
Paradox Dev Team
"I'm really interested in this game, it seems like a Napoleonic HoI"
Thats one of the things we want with this game.
Hobbes wrote:"The game will come with lots of expansions on a long-term, multi-years programm: that's where players will be involved; they will be allowed to give their opinion and desires, help choose the subjects, and even get involved into creating content (graphic, historical, DB, etc...)"
This sounds pretty good!
PhilThib wrote:And one recent modding game (RUS) was attacked by grumpy souls which led to disouragement in the community rather than the contrary (and this despite the fact the game was good)...
emx77 wrote:i agree completely. For ageod fans it is a step back in two areas:
First, beautiful, hand drawn, maps are ageod trade mark. For me, they are important immersion factor. Also, it seems armies will be represented by generic 3d soldier figures. I don't like them. At least, please give us option to use scalable nato symbols like in hoi3.
Second, i never liked real-time mechanics of paradox games. I wonder how this will impact people who are preferring to play pbem game?
vaalen wrote: HoI has a much more detailed combat and production system than the other Paradox games, and that could be what Johan meant.
Flop wrote:I didn't know that RUS had a harsh reception.
wijse wrote:For what its worth, I'm going to buy this game, but not because i want to play it, but because i want to support them financially. I abhor clausewitz engine games and I am not going to play them. Looking forward to the next AGE game. When are we going to get some more information?
Flop wrote:I'm very excited to hear about the new AGE game, though, and I'm very much looking forward to more information. Please, please, please, let it be about the 30 Years War.
Duckman wrote:+1! Thirty Years War is gathering support int he forum! Yes! Please Phillipes, make 30YW game. The first ever in gaming history!
deoved wrote:Look, game timeframe will be only ten years (1805-1815) and as we clearly see on screenshots, time will pass one day at one tic, basicaly like Victoria or EU. So it troubles me even more: with gameplay close to Victoria II (minus industry, voting system, etc.) it will have only 1/10 campaign length of the former. I am sure there will be no scenarios aside of "Grand Campaign", cause they will be beaten in 5 min.
Whatever you do, please PLEASE don't use the Paradox combat model of two guys standing around shooting at each other for a month while a screen you can't control flashes faux "frontages" at you.
The Paradox combat model is a completely [color="Red"]nonsensical mess of mismatched concepts[/color]. If a "battle" lasts a month, then it must include some concept of maneuver. Fine. But then what do the shifting "frontages" represent? Does the tactical engagement last for a full month?!!?
Conceptually, I understand what they're driving at. The frontages represent tactical advantages gained by force composition, technical advances, etc. Fine. But the AGEOD engine does a far better job of presenting those same concepts in the form of pre-battle maneuver, followed by by a discrete battle. Same result but in a much more reasonable way.
[color="red"]The combat model is one area where Paradox needs to learn from AGEOD and not vice versa. [/color]Perhaps some hybrid of the two is best. But the Paradox model that has been around, with little change in the core concept, since EU1 is a major drag on the franchise.
Please no more guys who stand around for months and grunt at each other!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest