Total War and Paradox

[Pseudonym]

Eh, I never really got into total war. I played shogun a bit and found it confusing and I played rome a bit and found it a bit boring. I'll stick to Crusader Kings. I'd play EUIV too though paradox is rather annoying about the way they've been handeling dlc with EUIV lately. I'll pick that up again later and keep playing the version from before the latest update and it's accompanying dlc which unfortunately ransoms half of what makes the update interesting. That version coincidentilly is also a version that allows me to convert CKII savegames to EUIV savegames. I like CKII mostly as a simulation game. The gameplay is alright but the 'roleplay' or something like that is awesome. I really like that I can turn history on its head, invading Western Europe and Norway in a Great Holy War ordered by the high priest of the romuva faith that I reformed from my massive merchant republic of the Wendish Empire. Or the fact that I can unite the silk route under my rule and farm in that sweet money while biding my time for a moment when the arabian empire shows some weakness. I also really enjoyed that time in EUIV where I conquered/colonized all of south america, mexico, alaska, new zealand and parts of eastern russia with the inca's. I should perhaps also mention my several games of CKII and EUIV where I got crushed by some major force in the area before I could do much. RIP united Ethiopia, those Ottomans will get what they deserve later.

Anyway, from what I've heard of TW it is a relatively easy strategy game. As much as some gamers sing the praises of hard games the easy ones tend to be more popular. TW seems to be having a bit of a problem of being bad lately though. I've heard a lot of complaints about bugs and AI that is poor even by the standards of the genre.

Battle systems are fun, but they're also effectively cheats. A small human controlled force can almost always do disproportionately well by exploiting stupid AI. In a game like CK2 and EU4, even if the AI is still a bit derpy sometimes, the basic rules of the game prevent the human player from gaining a disproportionate advantage. Total War games can basically only create difficulty by giving the AI such vast mechanical advantages that it just swamps you with ridiculous and immersion-breaking numbers of troops.

If a game just owns up to its asymmetry it might work better. It worked for XCOM. Yes, the enemies where massively outnumbering and outgunning you but that was by design, not because the game wouldn't be hard enough otherwise but because that was the point of the entire game. Some people who have mastered EUIV have managed to beat the ottomans with the bizantines which I would have thought to be impossible. I don't know what the armies of the romans are like in rome total war but I expect them to be a challenge if you fight with a smaller entity. Though maybe the battles are just really too easy making the main game too easy.

Crusader Kings 3 should be interesting though, if Paradox ever learns how to make a UI, and affords the player more flexibility in game systems. Needs to be more random, less gamey.

You want even more randomness in paradox games? I have to disagree with that. I already find the randomness on offer now supremely annoying. I typically set the speed up during actual battles to prevent myself from looking at the numbers and the dices.

 

[RandV80]

I agree with OP, I too used to sink hundreds(thousands?) of ours into Total war games, but once I'd played enough Crusader Kings to know what I was doing, I just couldn't go back. I recently bought Shogun II since many people said it was the best Total War game, but after a few hours I just quit because either there wasn't much challenge, or the AI was miraculously able to afford three times as many units as me.
I do agree with some other people here that Paradox just doesn't have the epicness of battles that games like Medieval II captured so brilliantly. But if they did it would probably undermine some strategic aspects of the game, with human advantage in such set-ups.
So a combination of the two would be awesome, but sadly unachievable with today's AI.

I'm going off again in a different direction to the Civ-verse, but probably the best compromise I've seen for giving tactical combat without giving the human player too much of an advantage is Endless Legend. Overall I didn't enjoy the game as much as I thought I would, but I really liked the concept for combat. Looks like Civ V but keeps limited unit stacks, and when two stacks clash they spread out on the map one unit per tile and a 6 round battle with limited control commences.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

What needs to happen is that Paradox and Creative Assembly need to team up and make the strategy game to end all strategy games.

Imagine the diplomatic depth of EUIV with the tactical decision making prevalent in Total War titles. I would pay more than double for such a game. Hell, I'd pay for a mod that added diplomatic options like forcing someone to dissolve alliances and taking all their money while allowing me to take command during large scale battles(admittedly a bit condensed so my CPU doesn't explode).

Seriously, after Sega tanks, I'd love if Paradox picked up Creative Assembly. It seems like they'd be a natural fit with the niche gaming crowd that Paradox likes to attract.

 

[ERaptor]

I play games from both Dev's. And I don't think you can really compare them. TW is more about battles, while CK and EU are more about Politics and management.

Also to OP, to be quite honest the AI in Paradox Game isnt a whole lot smarter than the one in Total War. The difference is that AI flaws are much more appearant in battles and direct politics. If you know what you're doing you can make the Paradox-AI do the stupidest things. It's very noticeable in CK 2 in particular, where the AI will have NPC's set up assassinations with absolutely no personal benefit, instigate wars they cant possibly win, and of course NPC's loving you after a bribe or two. Even tough you assassinated everyone they ever loved, took all their stuff, and burned their house down (I am a horrible person).

Also, about Total War in general. I have dropped over 200 hours into Shogun 2, and it's probably my favorite to this day. Rome 2 on the other hand was a disaster. I think this was mostly due to CA promising too much. Rome 2 was hyped for a good two years before release, they kept promising new features, amazing graphics and all that stuff. What we got was a buggy mess. Either they should've taken more time, or just make a cut here and there. Attila was basically what Rome 2 should've been on Release.

Now Total Warhammer. I'm a huge Warhammer Fan, so I will be one of those people who will play the game even if it is a compelte buggy mess. But to be honest, I'm fairly confident. Rome 2 got absolutely slammed after release. And I think they will try to avoid another debacle like this. I'm still hoping that we'll get a Beta. Because I do feel that it would basically eliminate the risk of the game sucking on release. Let the people voice their major complains before putting it out.

 

[Fractral]

I love CK2 and EU4, but I find CK2 far too easy outside of a few well known hard starts. Once you know how to do certain stuff like inherit other kingdoms you can blob out of control within a few hundred years. I'm not so good at EU4 but I love it for the deep and complex diplomacy. Once of the things that annoys me about every other game is that they make no distinction between occupying and conquering, whereas in CK2 you're likely to occupy a lot more land than you end up annexing.

I did try Total War: Shogun 2 which crashed every time I entered a battle. I also gave Medieval a go but the interface put me off. I might try them again if EU4 ever bores me, but that has yet to happen.

 

[sonofliber]

Paradox made a game where incest, genocide and family murder are normal thing. Paradox created the best game ever

 

[Amaror]

Also to OP, to be quite honest the AI in Paradox Game isnt a whole lot smarter than the one in Total War. The difference is that AI flaws are much more appearant in battles and direct politics. If you know what you're doing you can make the Paradox-AI do the stupidest things. It's very noticeable in CK 2 in particular, where the AI will have NPC's set up assassinations with absolutely no personal benefit, instigate wars they cant possibly win, and of course NPC's loving you after a bribe or two. Even tough you assassinated everyone they ever loved, took all their stuff, and burned their house down (I am a horrible person).

Well i can just say that i disagree and i found the AI in Total War in generall much more stupid than EU 4 or CK 2. True the AI in EU 4 or CK 2 sometimes does stupid things. They commit to battles, even if you have backup right in the next province, they declare some questionable wars and so on, but it's always at least somewhat sensible.
In Total War it more often then not makes absolutly no sense. The AI rejects mutually benefical Trade Agreements when they love you and are allied to you and accepts them sometimes when you are their mortal enemy. The AI barely makes an effort to win the war and conquer Provinces. I had them often declare war on me, just to sit in their land and wait for me to come to them.
I agree that expecially in Ck 2 the Paradox AI isn't perfect either. It almost never is in Strategy games, their just too complex for that. But i generally found the flaws in the Total War AI much more numorous and problematic.

I love CK2 and EU4, but I find CK2 far too easy outside of a few well known hard starts. Once you know how to do certain stuff like inherit other kingdoms you can blob out of control within a few hundred years. I'm not so good at EU4 but I love it for the deep and complex diplomacy. Once of the things that annoys me about every other game is that they make no distinction between occupying and conquering, whereas in CK2 you're likely to occupy a lot more land than you end up annexing.

I did try Total War: Shogun 2 which crashed every time I entered a battle. I also gave Medieval a go but the interface put me off. I might try them again if EU4 ever bores me, but that has yet to happen.

Don't fret my fellow Grand Strategylover, because Hearts of Iron 4 is pretty much on the horizon next year. So even if you should get bored with EU 4 you will have something to pick up.