View Single Post

Default 

August 1st, 2013, 09:24
Originally Posted by Nerevarine View Post
I think I understand a little bit where you are coming from, but for me, I'd have to say that I have the complete opposite opinion. Removing "stacks of doom" is what revived my interest in Civ, having "burned out" on Civ up to that point - I never could get into Civ 4 because I was so tired of how warfare played out, and because warfare is such a major part of Civ, I just couldn't stomach the stacks anymore. If Civ had the same depth as Paradox games in other facets of gameplay, I might not have minded the stacks as much, but to me, throwing stacks at each other just made the experience seem a little bit shallow.

Paradox's games, however, don't focus quite so heavily on warfare. Sure, it's there in heavy doses, but it has so much more depth to the other mechanics that I don't mind the simple warfare aspects. Still, I would greatly appreciate more direct control in these situations. A grid or hex-based solution might not have been the best answer for Civ, but for me, it added much more tactical depth and actual meaning to troop type, placement, formations, battle-lines, movement, etc.

Basically, I personally prefer as much direct control over outcomes as possible, especially when it comes to warfare. Whether I win or lose should depend on my tactical abilities and awareness, not how big my stack is.
Thoughtful post. But, I think, at heart Paradox games are historical political and economic simulators. From that point of view "War is the continuation of politics by other means" (Von Clausewitz); you should win wars if your country is better prepared politically and economically for war, has developed apposite doctrines etc. There is some strategy in how you deploy and balance your units, but that is also related to your country's unique situation (terrain etc) and doesn't overshadow the work you did in advance to prepare your country for war and the political mood of the population.

If you have a battle system that is a mini game in itself, with a rule system that has little bearing on the political and economic situation, then it devalues those aspects of the game. The allies won the second world war, not because of the genius of generals such as Patton, but because of the vast resources of Russia and the industrial might of the United States (not to mention blunders in the German High Command). There was some strategy involved, of course, but at the high level of a grand strategy game the decisions you should be making are high level ones, to do with the movement and logistics for whole armies over the entire globe, not having to micromanage individual units in real time.
Roq is offline

Roq

Seeker
RPGWatch Donor

#24

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Somerset/London UK
Posts: 974