Things i gathered
- turn based
- made by 1 guy
- no monarch mana
- spans all of history and into the future
- has mechanics which EU lack
Yeah, that'll work out fine....
I can see this guy shoving in so much shit and not being able to work on even a fraction of it.
These Paradox game clones always look like horrible shovelware, but who knows?
Early Paradox games didn't look any different~
It's kinda fascinating to see the repetition of national colours across different game series.
I don't mean the apparent ones, like blue for France and red for the Ottomans, but that salmon pink for Poland that keeps popping up, as well as England often being that dark orange.
Makes me wonder where some without precedent got going, like that orange coming from Civilizations choice of faction colour for England that other devs grew up on and used consciously or not afterwards.
2. Over-ambitious "from dawn of human civilization to the future" time-period playthrough. Which means a watered-down game, because its harder to make such mechanics truly atemporal. So, he will need more abstraction.
I hate when the player effectively becomes an immoral guiding hand for a nation for thousands of years that refuses to allow for cultural change unless the game provinces incentives to do so, like Paradox decisions that change Brandenburg to Prussia and then to Germany rather the the course of the game causing divisions and fragmentations of what you've built up. The only challenge would be to make such a mechanic without it being arbitrary, like "You've built up the Roman Empire, but now after all these centuries the different Romanized cultures have developed in regions and now wish to go their own way, so despite all you've done the Roman Empire is arbitrarily fragmented into separate states because an event triggered rather than as a direct outcome of the development of how you built it up".
Would be neat if a game like this would put in some mechanic where you had to chose when you directly controlled things and for how long you could, then outside of those eras your faction would be run by the AI to emulate in a way the rise and decline of empires and nations.
You might be able to do well in your latest set 500 span of direct control, but then the AI does things that totally undermine your accomplishments leading you to take control over a rump state or successor culture struggling to come back from the brink.
Regardless, I love fragmenting factions in games like these. I loved that mechanic in Civ2 and 3 where if you captured an large empires capital without doing much else besides that it had the chance of splitting the civ into a rump state and new one that would spawn and take over half of their empire. I feel that doing that towards the player as they constantly fight to map paint is the only real way of striking a balance between gameplay limitations and the ruthless snowballing the player always does in these games.
The only thing I fear is, no matter how organic it could be made, most people would bitch and throw a fit over it ruining their map painting rather than them go with the flow of history enjoying their triumphs and falls.