• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

unmerged(940)

Corporal
Feb 13, 2001
44
0
Visit site
EU is a wonderful game (and problem-free for me), but something is lacking and I've been spending the past several days racking my brains trying to determine what that is. I think I know now and it came from a fellow strategy gamer...

'being there' is so important

Because of the design of EU (and its genesis from a BG), you don't feel like you are there. Neither with Civ2, but that's just a fun 6 year old game. With today's technologies, we can become more immersed into a strategy game that ever before. And I guess, that is what some of us (or at least myself) expect, not just a complex computerized boardgame.

What I mean about 'Being There' can take several forms. I think what convinced me that EU is not immersive is the battles. They fight just like in Civ2, which is not a bad thing at all, but again, that's an older game. Shogun Total War has the same type of campaign map (but without the religious and diplomatic complexities) but when you fight a battle, it really brings you into the game. Two animated gifs fighting on a flat map just doesn't have the right feel, even though the battle results are well done. I don't expect EU to have Shogun-type battles (even though that would be a great idea), anything more than two animated units would be better. That's just one example of how EU can take you from a boardgame to 'Being There'. Other examples might include a more personable diplomacy instead of options on a menu, or having a ground-level view of your city that reflects your national architecture.

Before anyone accuse me of wanting fluffy 'eye-candy', I am a 40-something gamer who hates AoE and RTS games of that style. I definitely prefer TBS and RTS games where you play very slowly with a pause. I prefer text-based sports sims over sports arcade games, and I hate anything to do with console gaming.

Folks here have told my friend John-SJ to wait until 1.08. I don't see this patch (and any others) changing the design of the game, nor should they. I will play EU occassionally, mainly because of the scenarios. I am anxious to try the Amer Revolution scenario and any others that anyone here might develop (can someone please do an Age of Piracy scenario? Please?). In the meantime, I'll continue to say good things about EU, but also discuss the perception that it is not as fun as it can be because you are just playing a computerized boardgame.
 
Here, Here Steve.

You've put your finger on what I found lacking in this game. That and the memory hogging problems have prevented me from playing this game for a while.

I do like this game, but the immersion factor is a bit lacking... perhaps with EU2, eh? :)
 
I was never immersed in another game as much as in EU. 'Being there' is a good metaphor, but for me this never had anything to do with graphics. I always could and still can be totally immersed in a hexfield wargame pushing counters around for hours. :) If the gameplay is fitting I still can tremendously enjoy CGA graphics after all these years....

Hartmann
 
Originally posted by Buccaneer
Shogun Total War has the same type of campaign map (but without the religious and diplomatic complexities) but when you fight a battle, it really brings you into the game. Two animated gifs fighting on a flat map just doesn't have the right feel, even though the battle results are well done. I don't expect EU to have Shogun-type battles (even though that would be a great idea), anything more than two animated units would be better.

To each his own. I played Shogun on the strategic level only; couldn't get into the tactical combat. EU's combat system suits me fine. Its attention to the details of history, along with its diplomatic and economic models, provide a fine sense of 'being there' for me.
 
While I agree that there could be more 'flash' about the game, I don't think that anything visual could make it more immersive. Tactical combat might add hundreds of hours to a game, and add nothing of value (remember Imperialism). A good simulation of Medieval and Rennaissance tactical combat would require a game to itself.

Personally, a wider variety of diplomatic options might add to the 'being there' value for me, but if this game becomes any more addictive then I may need rehab.

As for Shogun, I enjoyed playing it for a while, but after hearing 'The enemy Daimo is running like a whipped dog,' 30-40 times, it went from amusing to annoying. How many games add those video cuts, and voice acting, and how long do they last before you shut them off in the options panel? For me, gameplay is what makes the game real, not repeated videos or graphics.

Now the graphics in EU are not going to win an award, but they are functional, and better than stated in the previews and reviews I read. But to ask you all a question, would you rather that Paradox spent 1000 hours making the game look prettier, or 1000 hours adding features to the game, and AI?
 
Originally posted by sean9898
Now the graphics in EU are not going to win an award, but they are functional, and better than stated in the previews and reviews I read. But to ask you all a question, would you rather that Paradox spent 1000 hours making the game look prettier, or 1000 hours adding features to the game, and AI?

I like the graphics somewhat, other that some rough edges here and there, perhaps if I boost up to 32bit, that will cure that.

Anyway, I also like the graphics in risk and axis and allies too. So, cant we split that thousand hours, 500 towards graphics enhancements and 500 towards adding new features, and refining the features it has to make them more intuitive. Perhaps also adding a 'why you cant do that' system to the game, or a major hints system, so when the game tells me that there are no more merchants in xx province, you can click on a hint button and it will tell you what you need to do to rectify the problem.

The more I think of this, the more this kind of feature (hint system) would open this game to all kinds of beginner players (like myself), in that when something happens, it would guide me towards the correct solution. Hmmmm, I really like that idea and would really help me to play EU instead of struggle with it. Of course I would also suggest that this type of system can be turned off so as to not burden experienced players with unnecessary clickable items.
 
Originally posted by sean9898
Now the graphics in EU are not going to win an award, but they are functional, and better than stated in the previews and reviews I read. But to ask you all a question, would you rather that Paradox spent 1000 hours making the game look prettier, or 1000 hours adding features to the game, and AI?

The time required to develop Shogun-like tactical battles would be far better spent on the underlying game and AI. Shogun had great tactical battles, but the campaign was a joke, with nothing like the depth and complexity of EU. What makes EU so unique is the complexity of the game model and Paradox is wise to focus its efforts there.

Shogun was pretty revolutionary in its battle model. Asking EU to do the same - on top of its complex game modeling - is a bit unrealistic. Some other day perhaps, but for now the game's the thing.
 
I brought up Shogun because that was the only game I could think of that fits this time period (but Shogun had the flaw of a campaign game not being replayable, which is the exact opposite of EU). I know fully well that it would be way too much to ask that battles in EU be like Shogun, but I'm thinking it has to be more than what EU gives you now. I know some games give you a 'chess-board'-like battlefield to resolve battles between stacked units, maybe that would be a solution. Since EU is not a wargame (though it can be played like one), only part of the development/playing efforts goes into a different combat model - one that gives you more control without the extraordinary increase in time. Perhaps a tradeoff of using some of the ideas in reducing micromanagement while increasing combat (or perhaps diplomacy, etc.).

In a review I wrote, I gave EU an 8 out 10, it is that good. Civ2, for me, still rates a 9.5, though. The 1.5 difference is perhaps the 'fun factor' but I'm not sure yet.
 
Go Hartman

I too still enjoy pushing around stacks of units on a hexgrid - but I far more enjoy it now because now we can push them with a mouse - and the stacks don't fall over - and you opponent can't say 'wait I didn;t mean to move that there...'

Even though I have fallen asleep in front of the computer while playing EU (tired not bored) I too feel a little like there is something lacking in the 'being there' department. But it is not the feeling of being there, but of caring about your country or units or commanders etc. This is what really gets you involved. Other games make things more personalized, but with the scope and time span of EU it would be impossible to have a picture of the new leader pop up when he appears etc. Some folks like to re-name their units - this again doesn't seem like a biggie to some people, but others like the 'feel' of knowing that such-and-such a unit is doing well (or not). In other games you nurture you units and watch them advance in skill, morale and so on - units don't 'mature' much in EU with the exception of morale which recovers very fast.

One thing that might help is in the battles to have a fuller description of what is going on (which you could turn off if you didn't want it). I know, before I said that some sort of message gets repetitive but some sort of a narative like the messages in The Operational Art of War may let you feel like you know what is going on - maybe mention leaders etc.

Anyway, I think the game is quite immersive and effort should go to inproving the diplomatic/bad boy portions of the game.
 
IMHO the best thing with battles would be to be able to turn off the sound. If you get into a down and dirty war lasting any length of game time you can be listening to those annoying sound effects for hours.......

On the question in hand though I have to say I'd prefer a better AI than more 'eye candy'. For me the period, the countries, the religions, the relationships, the map (which I love), the leaders and the random period events provide plenty of immersion.


Patrick
 
I definately think EU don't need anything that takes anything above a minor increase in time....i.e. please no proper tactical combat. But a minor tactical element a bit like the board game Empires in Arms where you choose formation or something similar would possibly nice, as long as it was implemented properly... (and could be turned off). But I agree that the game possibly should have an option to rename your armies and fleets as well as possibly changing the ranks of your leaders and or giving special status to units.. Like I pay this unit double pay and I get a special unit with better morale f. isnt.
Even though I definately feel like I'm there... actually a lot more than with Civ where f. inst. the leaders you had diplomacy with definately gave me the wrong idea.... like meeting Gandhi in 2000BC :(

In the graphics department, what would be handy is increased resolution... up to 1280x1024 maybe.....
As a last comment as has been said...the game is more than immersive enough...

Cobos
 
One very simple way to help you care more would be to allow you to change the names of your armies and naval squadrons. At least then you'd have a bit more personal stake in their outcome.

The suggestion about tactical battles is a bit dicey. Imperialism I and II had a tactical battle model - you fought on a standard tactical map and moved individual units in a hexagonal sort of way. The battles required a degree of strategy and you certainly could get better as you gained more experience with them.

I liked them. But a lot of other folks didn't. They felt they were just a tacked-on component that didn't really fit the strategic nature of the game. In fact, a lot of folks have said that the absence of such a tactical model is a plus for EU.

On a related note, the best tactical battle model for an otherwise strategic-level game was the chessboard setup in Conquest of the New World. It was quirky but a lot of fun in its own right. But a lot of people hated it.
 
First time I've posted in a couple of weeks, some of which I've spent playing my first CG. While I have enjoyed the game a good deal, I too find the 'immersion' aspect lacking to some degree. Not sure I really agree that something as massive as a fully micro-manageable 3D battle experience is called for, but hey, we're all different.

My 'issue' has been that I don't have a strong sense of being sucked into the time period, nor of the passage of over three hundred years of time. And I spent weeks before the game came out trying to 'crib' for it, reading books that could draw me into the historical background so I'd have more of a feel for the subject matter when I started playing. And given the time limitations, I thought I did an OK job, but it hasn't really worked out that way.

I'd like to see an EU2 that is not about a different timespan or adding military unit types or anything like that. My recommendations would be more along the lines of
additional eye and ear candy, but not necessarily such that it would require a whole new set of programming skills.

-- The music. So repetitive and for me not all that reflective of the time. Would it be possible to use actual music of the time? It would be very nice to have half a dozen or more excerpts to cover each, say, 50 to 100 years of gameplay. In this way the music would also reinforce the sense of time passing.
-- Make use of real period artwork. It would be great if the popup message boxes could have relevant paintings attached...messages from diplomats could carry images of noblemen, etc. Again, vary the groups of images every 50 to 100 years to show changes in dress, painting styles, etc.
-- Maybe modify the map itself (in a cosmetic sense only)every 100 years to show developments in cartographic styles.
-- Diplomacy really SHOULD feel more like a human interaction if possible. One thing Shogun did but did rather poorly was the cut to the partially 'throne room' graphic where an opposing diplomat enters and speaks. Something similar but more robust and believable could be employed in EU to good effect. My only reservation about seeing such a thing implemented would be the additional time it would add to a game which is already quite long.
Maybe this ISN'T such a good idea....?

Just my two cents, but I think that all but the last suggestion might be implemented without turning the whole program on its ear and would really help bring the period to life.

Kurt
 
In reading these posts, I'm beginning to see somewhat of a trend. I don't think 'immersive' (or lack thereof) is the right term because EU is immersive on many levels, no matter how you choose to define it. What I'm thinking it is...is that you are too distant in managing your country and units. How to narrow that distance between gamer and game is something I don't know.

When I mentioned a 'chess-board'-type combat model, I only had one example in mind and that is from my 2nd favorite strategy game of all time...Conquest of the New World (which Olaf brought up). I didn't know if anyone here remembered that vastly underrated title but I guess I was in the minority in absolutely loving that simple, yet effective combat model.

In all, perhaps if we can have the game do some of the micromanagement tasks for us (like mustering, ships in port, etc.), that'll give us more time for battles, colonizing and diplomacy?
 
Kurt: You named the two things I also miss: Artwork and music corresponding to the time period one is actually just playing in. As it is now, people don´t get a grasp on HOW different 1492 actually was from 1792. Original music and art snippets could add much to the atmosphere without destroying the strategical feel of the game by adding some tactical skirmishes.

Buccaneer: Despite what I wrote above, I also liked the 'chessboard' of 'Conquest of the New World'. I also liked the little 'realtime' tactical battlefield of 'Centurion' - anyone remembering this really old Electronic Arts title? :)

Hartmann
 
The game definitely makes you feel 'distant' from alot of what is going on. I attribute this to so many hidden game mechanisms. It also requires alot of micromangement for boring stuff with little detail on interesting stuff.

Particularly in combat. It is so hit & miss with no explanation. For example, building & moving ships and land forces to minimize attrition is a real micromangement nightmare. However, the actual naval battles are less fun than watching paint dry. I don't need to have a full battle simulator, but after all that work to concentrate & manuever my forces, give me something to inspire the thrill and horror of combat. Or at least let me know why I won or lost.

Furthermore, the game really contrives to keep you from pursuing non-historical strategies. I.e. - The Treaty of Tordesillas keeps every power other than Spain from going after the Aztecs and Incas. OR the limits on which religions you can convert to and the hard coding of province conversions. (Why can't Portugal convert to Paganism, it might be civil and diplomatic suicide, but give me the option so I can try to ally & peacefully annex China)

There ought to be some additional set-up options. Especially turning off just The treaty of Tordesillas. Also, randoming Protestant conversion affect, etc. Or increased colonial growth potential. (more colonists, cheaper colonizing & higher growth rates.)

Give a little more variability. After all, what is the point of a historical game if you are forced to do what happened historically?
 
Last edited:
In order to gain a feeling of development (and pride) over time for land and naval units I would like to make one suggestion:

When a unit is created, EU already gives it a distinctive name. As that unit moves through history, it should develop into a more fearsome and respectful fighing force; in game terms, higher combat values.

Support for this concept is based on increased unit cohesion, respect, training, moral, and downright reputation as it performs in sucessful battles year after year. Historically, after a while, these units were known over a wide geographic area and would strike fear into their enemies just by their name alone; foes would be fighting an experienced and professional fighting force.

Some examples (just in the UK) can be found in the Coldstream Guards (1650), 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment (1689), 78th Highlanders (1640), the King's Regiment (1685), Royal Scots (roots to 1415). These may not be the names these units use today, but the concept is still valid. In America, one only has to look at our own U.S. Marine Corp (1775) as an example. Each and every major power in the world has these units (my apologies for not naming them here) that create tremendous national pride.

I realize EU somewhat models this through the use of historic leaders. However, my suggestion is to supplement the leader experience with 'unit' experience.

Experience for military units should both increase and decrease over time based on winning and losing battles. This would help enormously bringing a sort of role playing element into EU by developing the reputation and effectivness of their nation's units

Curt -
 
Originally posted by Keifer
Furthermore, the game really contrives to keep you from pursuing non-historical strategies. I.e. - The Treaty of Tordesillas keeps every power other than Spain from going after the Aztecs and Incas.
Why can you not go after the Incas or Aztecs? There is no guarantee that Spain will attempt to seize your land, and if you fortify and garrison the provinces then Spain will have to fight for them.

OR the limits on which religions you can convert to and the hard coding of province conversions. (Why can't Portugal convert to Paganism, it might be civil and diplomatic suicide, but give me the option so I can try to ally & peacefully annex China)
A temple to the Flaying god in Lisbon, Buddhists in Cologne, Poland converting to Shinto and losing all their allies but the Druids in The Hanseatic League. Would definately for an interesting and a very different game :)
 
Originally posted by Porteous


To each his own. I played Shogun on the strategic level only; couldn't get into the tactical combat. EU's combat system suits me fine. Its attention to the details of history, along with its diplomatic and economic models, provide a fine sense of 'being there' for me.

Wow. You sure missed the point of Shogun. The strategic part of the game was about as much fun as computer battleship.