EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

[lord of the mark]

Now that that is on topic here.

Grand Strategy games, in a historical setting, with a reasonably high (exceeding Civ, at a minimum) degree of accuracy in scale, gameplay, with or without historical events. Grand strategy means considerable emphasis on economic development, diplomacy, internal politics, religion and culture, research, etc as well as war. Again Im thinking games more in the EU spirit than in the Civ spirit.

Only ones I can think of off hand would be WW2 games, like Axis and Allies, I guess.

There must be others, though.

edit

Grigsbys World at War would fit, wouldnt it? And there was some old board game on WW2 that had a PC port, I forget the name. I played the demo.

[Verrucosus]

The most similar game that I know would be Knights of Honour. It's real-time, it offers a wide variety of starting positions (countries) and it even has a message system very similar to that of the Paradox Games.

On a more abstract level, I would say that the main difference between the Paradox games and the Civilization games is not so much the difference between turn-based and real-time gameplay, but the fact that Civilization starts with an empty world whereas the Paradox games put you in a specific scenario shaped by hundreds of years of history that have already passed before the show starts.

I know that there are scenarios for Civilization, but to me the magic of that game comes from the idea of starting with a single settler in a virgin world. This 4000 BC mentality is something that I think is the common bond between most of the games that have their own corner at Apolyton (Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Colonization, Galactic Civilizations and Master of Orion to name the ones I've played in one version or another).

By contrast the Paradox games give you a specific historical situation to start from - it's no accident that the various setups are called scenarios. To me, the key distinction from the Civ games is not that the setup is accurate, but that there is a setup at all in the sense that the world (or a large part of it) is already filled with various powers of whom you can play one. From that perspective I would add Imperialism and Imperialism II as well as Shogun and Rome to the list of EUish games although all of these are turn-based (the last two have real-time battles, but the tactical part is not what we are talking about here).

Verrucosus

P.S.: I just remembered that Europa Universalis II has a "Fantasia" scenario where just a handful of players start with a single province each in an otherwise empty world. Under the aspect discussed above that's more of a Civ game than a Civ scenario.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Grand Strategy games, in a historical setting, with a reasonably high (exceeding Civ, at a minimum) degree of accuracy in scale, gameplay, with or without historical events. Grand strategy means considerable emphasis on economic development, diplomacy, internal politics, religion and culture, research, etc as well as war. Again Im thinking games more in the EU spirit than in the Civ spirit.

Only ones I can think of off hand would be WW2 games, like Axis and Allies, I guess.

WTF?

Seriously, though, I'd look more at gameplay similarities than requiring a historical setting.

[Main_Brain]

Which reminds me, there is a Game similiar to HOI out called Making History 2.0 - The Calm and The Storm, unfortunatly it doesn´t deliver the Fun of the Paradox Game IMO, but some of you might want to give it a try?

Demo: http://www.3dgamers.com/dlselect/gam...0demo.exe.html

Official Page:

http://www.making-history.com/

Back to OP:
So GalCiv is Grand Strategy but Supreme Commander aint?

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


WTF?

Seriously, though, I'd look more at gameplay similarities than requiring a historical setting.

1. Ive never played A & A. I thought there was at least an economic model of some kind. I think the game I did play was called Third Reich or something. You had a certain number of industrial production points, you could make divisions OR Aircraft OR ships, or whatever. Guns vs Guns. No Guns vs Butter, no happiness model, but still Grand Strategic in the sense that youre not accepting the Order of Battle as given. And when you capture provinces, your IP goes up.

Wasnt A& A like that? Is there some confusion cause the recent A&A was different from the original?

2. I was trying to focus on EUish games, in part cause thats what I thought DanQ was aiming at. Thats before DanQ surrendered. I thought that would mean history only. Also I have a hard time defining accuracy for a sci fi world - how do you say that a given feature of a scifi world is inaccurate (unless youre appealing to the canon of a particular non-gaming IP, like Star Trek) Anyway, I dont think anyone wanted SMAC in this forum.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Verrucosus
The most similar game that I know would be Knights of Honour. It's real-time, it offers a wide variety of starting positions (countries) and it even has a message system very similar to that of the Paradox Games.

On a more abstract level, I would say that the main difference between the Paradox games and the Civilization games is not so much the difference between turn-based and real-time gameplay, but the fact that Civilization starts with an empty world whereas the Paradox games put you in a specific scenario shaped by hundreds of years of history that have already passed before the show starts.

I know that there are scenarios for Civilization, but to me the magic of that game comes from the idea of starting with a single settler in a virgin world. This 4000 BC mentality is something that I think is the common bond between most of the games that have their own corner at Apolyton (Civilization, Alpha Centauri, Colonization, Galactic Civilizations and Master of Orion to name the ones I've played in one version or another).

By contrast the Paradox games give you a specific historical situation to start from - it's no accident that the various setups are called scenarios. To me, the key distinction from the Civ games is not that the setup is accurate, but that there is a setup at all in the sense that the world (or a large part of it) is already filled with various powers of whom you can play one. From that perspective I would add Imperialism and Imperialism II as well as Shogun and Rome to the list of EUish games although all of these are turn-based (the last two have real-time battles, but the tactical part is not what we are talking about here).

Verrucosus

P.S.: I just remembered that Europa Universalis II has a "Fantasia" scenario where just a handful of players start with a single province each in an otherwise empty world. Under the aspect discussed above that's more of a Civ game than a Civ scenario.

generally i agree -esp on RT vs TB not being decisive. I think its more than the set up though. Even most Civ scenarios have problems with movement factors and timescales that the EU games dont.(Im thinking of Civ2 scenarios) And the logistics model such as it is makes things very unrealistic.

I would not include the Imperialisms. Again the rule set is simply too abstract, the map too unrealistic, to be "EUish"

Ive never played the TW's though they are high on my list.

[Verrucosus]

I'm not quite certain in what sense the Imperialism rule set is more abstract than that of Europa Universalis.
I would agree however that the absence of random maps is a defining characteristic of the Paradox games, so in that regard Imperialism is much closer to Civilization.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Ive never played A & A. I thought there was at least an economic model of some kind. I think the game I did play was called Third Reich or something. You had a certain number of industrial production points, you could make divisions OR Aircraft OR ships, or whatever. Guns vs Guns. No Guns vs Butter, no happiness model, but still Grand Strategic in the sense that youre not accepting the Order of Battle as given. And when you capture provinces, your IP goes up.

Wasnt A& A like that? Is there some confusion cause the recent A&A was different from the original?

That's exactly like A&A, and IMO completely unlike EU (or more properly, HoI).

2. I was trying to focus on EUish games, in part cause thats what I thought DanQ was aiming at. Thats before DanQ surrendered. I thought that would mean history only. Also I have a hard time defining accuracy for a sci fi world - how do you say that a given feature of a scifi world is inaccurate (unless youre appealing to the canon of a particular non-gaming IP, like Star Trek) Anyway, I dont think anyone wanted SMAC in this forum.

SMAC is 4X TBS. I was thinking of games like SW: Rebellion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Verrucosus
I'm not quite certain in what sense the Imperialism rule set is more abstract than that of Europa Universalis..

No domestic politics model, no happiness model (well I suppose lower productivity workers when theyre starving is SORT of a happiness model) The Imps had a very detailed (if still unrealistic economic model) and of course lots of different military units (but still a very unrealistic military and movement model)

I dont know, I dont suppose theres a way to quantify the different unrealisms - I would just say that to ME EU2 feels like a grognardy game, while Imp feels more like an abstract strategy game (again, despite the granularity of the production mode)

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


That's exactly like A&A, and IMO completely unlike EU (or more properly, HoI).

2. I was trying to focus on EUish games, in part cause thats what I thought DanQ was aiming at. Thats before DanQ surrendered. I thought that would mean history only. Also I have a hard time defining accuracy for a sci fi world - how do you say that a given feature of a scifi world is inaccurate (unless youre appealing to the canon of a particular non-gaming IP, like Star Trek) Anyway, I dont think anyone wanted SMAC in this forum.

SMAC is 4X TBS. I was thinking of games like SW: Rebellion.

1. Im quite aware of how different the TR/A&A model is from EU. I wasnt thinking of games being that close to EU, as I thought Dan was trying to broaden this forum.


2. EU is also 4x. Im not sure that any historical grand strategy game prior to the last couple of decades is not going to be 4X. Thats historically what grand strategy was, largely. And it was that historical fact of empire building that inspired the computer game industry to the 4x concept.

Yeah SMAC is TBHS. Again, I was going by the shortlived forum title "grand strategy" not by TBS vs RT. Now of course theres LOTS of Grand Strategy that Dan couldnt have wanted in here. Like Civ, forex. Or SMAC. Now i suppose one could interpret what Dan meant as "RT Grand Strategy" and thats certainly far simpler than my approach. But doesnt jive with what to me are the important distinctions between Civ and EU.

3. Im not familiar with SW:Rebellion

[Kuciwalker]

1. I think that A&A belongs in a completely separate category, for a few reasons:
a) it can only be played multiplayer (it's no fun against a computer)
b) it's far more abstracted than EU
c) history is the backdrop for the gameplay, not the focus. The gameplay isn't really built around trying to emulate history.
d) all of your criticisms against Imperialism can be levelled against it more strongly

2. True, that's my mistake with language. I've always thought of 4X games (and this probably reflects the bias of which games I've played) as ones were you start with a "settler" and expand from there.

[DrSpike]

I guess the discussion is more of an academic one now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
1. I think that A&A belongs in a completely separate category, for a few reasons:
a) it can only be played multiplayer (it's no fun against a computer)
b) it's far more abstracted than EU
c) history is the backdrop for the gameplay, not the focus. The gameplay isn't really built around trying to emulate history.
d) all of your criticisms against Imperialism can be levelled against it more strongly

Well than I guess A&A isnt really like Third Reich.

[DanQ]

Re: Re: Re: EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. I was trying to focus on EUish games, in part cause thats what I thought DanQ was aiming at. Thats before DanQ surrendered.

It was, and still is -- it could be fair to say "Paradox Games" be interpreted as not only exact titles from that company, but like titles... and not necessarily from that company.

This is one of the reasons why I did not specifically name off the games in the forum title.

[Verrucosus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: EUish games by companies OTHER than Paradox

Originally posted by DanQ

It was, and still is -- it could be fair to say "Paradox Games" be interpreted as not only exact titles from that company, but like titles... and not necessarily from that company.

For lack a better term to catch the character of these games, this is a valid point of view.

(I'm not certain whether Paradox trademark lawyers would agree if a competitor took that view, but from a gaming site owner they will take it as a compliment.)