A what if thing...

[Redmeth]

What if CA would subcontract or something the diplomacy and strat map part of their future total war games to the guys that make Europa Universalis i mean they could combine the great CA made battle engine with the smart AI and great strat map complexity made by the Europa U. developers...
I know it's way off topic but what do you think?

[adishee]

I'm confused, do you mean subcontracting out the source code? I don't think this would do much good; I doubt, for all their talent, the EB team a) has a decent C++ programer b) with that amount of time (i'm assuming RTW is built from C++, but who knows).

The AI isn't any better, EB just tries to trick it into being smarter.

And historically, mod purism is tainted by commercial watered-down-ness.

[alatar]

Never going to happen, they move in different ways.

Although a RTW game where the camp map and battle map are the same...

Like a traditional rts, only much bigger and cities expand on a menu, not with builders.

Imagine, you could have legion colums for suplly, and you get attacked. You then have all units in the area pile in, so that battles woould last days.


Would require a PC that isn't possible yet but...

[Maeran]

"Reinforcements delayed?

Your co-consul, like Fabius, is more cautious than you, and is waiting for a safe moment to attack. Whether or not you are still alive by then is another thing."

But I don't see what that has to do with Europa Universalis AI, which does exist and work on normal PCs. I don't know what EUIII's AI is like, because I haven't played it, but I feel that EUII's AI was just as bloody minded as RTW.

As for co-operation between the companies. I suppose it's possible, but very unlikely since they are competitors.

[bovi]

I love both games, for different reasons. While both are strategy games they are not direct competitors. EU3 has an incredibly rich diplomatic and strategic component, while battles are really simple. RTW has a great battle engine, while the campaign strategy has a lot less impact as you can trounce the enemy on the battlefield with inferior forces, and diplomacy, well, isn't. I like their focus on their own strengths, and they attract different gamers. And some like me who like both, sometimes I want cool battles in the ancient world and sometimes I want to see just how impossible it is for an introverted Indian tribe to maintain their freedom facing the conquistadors.

[Lusitan]

Me beeing a die-hard Paradox fan, who spends most of his life in their forums, have to point out another reason this can't happen.

Paradox doesn't do Turn-based games. And TotalWar's strategic maps are always turn based - can't see how they could be any other way really.

[Sheep]

I doubt, for all their talent, the EB team a) has a decent C++ programer b) with that amount of time (i'm assuming RTW is built from C++, but who knows).

The AI isn't any better, EB just tries to trick it into being smarter.

He said Europa Universalis (a completely different game), not EB. Just sayin'

[LorDBulA]

I hate this type of comparison.
Its like compering apples with oranges or chess game with draughts (checkers).

Sure EU can do very good AI for draughts but that doesnt mean they can make as spectacular AI for chess game.
RTW is much more complex. It gives much more option and tactics.
Its really flexible and well humans are very good at exploring this.
If Your tactic/strategy fails well no problem there are thousands more to try out and maching human ingenuity with AI its incredibly difficult task.

[Ypoknons]

The OP isn't comparing the two games. He's asking about what you think of a EU / TW hybrid with the map of EU and the battle system of TW.

[LorDBulA]

He's asking about what you think of a EU / TW hybrid with the map of EU and the battle system of TW.

I understood it like EU making AI for RTW campagne. And this implies that EU can do better job.
Changing RTW/MTW2 campagne map to EU style map is just moving backward (we had this in MTW and shogun - but turn based).