As for the lack of stacking in recent Civ games. That's a step in the wrong direction, from a strategy POV because it increases micromanagement of battles; and it's a very gamey mechanism that has nothing to do with simulation. That is certainly something I'd hate to see in Paradox's grand strategy games. Besides that is hardly a "fundamental" innovation, since it's just totally obvious you can stack or not… Hex based maps are as old as war games are…
Not really adding to the discussion … but this comment just brought me back …
On release, sure - here is a quote from my review of the PC version:
But the game itself was pretty amazing - super deep and involved. And by the time I reviewed the Mac version it was super clean.
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.
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.
Its not a game, its rolling dice ten thousand times.
As I stated like to see more options for combat in EU games.I don't won't fully active combat like in total war series(which don't get me wrong is good series)but some small options like synchronization of attacks from multiple provinces(present in HoI 3)would be good imption for manual position divisions in march of eagles(last game in Clausewitz engine I can recommend it to people trying to get in Paradox grand strategies ) was nice but it required some knowladge of how warfare of that time worked.
I don't think they WANT the game to be that abstract - and fans defending it deserve a good dose of scepticism. Certainly, I don't think there are that many people who actually prefer the abstract over the tangible.
On the contrary, I think they fully intend a level of abstraction, In fact that's the whole point of grand strategy games - you aren't concerned with the details of what every member of your population is doing. This is the main problem with the Civ genre, the games have increased in complexity, but they haven't abstracted away the details, you still have to manage every one of your units independently. That's fine at the start of the game when you have one or two cities, but as your empire grows the micromanagement burden becomes onerous. Who are you meant to be in Civ - are you the ruler of a mega civilisation or sergeant Bilko with his catapult squad or Fred the oil spillage cleaner?
…Compare upcoming EUIV with EU2, and you'll find an entirely different game…
On the contrary, I think they fully intend a level of abstraction, In fact that's the whole point of grand strategy games - you aren't concerned with the details of what every member of your population is doing.
But I truly doubt most of you REALLY prefer adjusting sliders to having your hands in the thick of things.
How such a small team manages to recycle so much and convince people it's all new - over and over - is amazing
I actually prefer this approach with sequels or series, assuming I like the first game of course.
It gives time to maximize the potential of the games rather than building an entirely different game every time.
I definitely didn't mind all the infinity engine games based on the same engine and if DA2 would have just been more DAO with a few tweaks I would have been thrilled.
I used to just automatically preorder sequels to games I liked but now you never know what your going to get.
As I stated, I like to see more options for combat in EU games.I don't won't fully active combat like in total war series(which don't get me wrong is good series)but some small options like synchronization of attacks from multiple provinces(present in HoI 3)would be good imption for manual position divisions in march of eagles(last game in Clausewitz engine I can recommend it to people trying to get in Paradox grand strategies ) was nice but it required some knowladge of how warfare of that time worked.