History ends 1492. After that let THE GAMER create the history.

[unmerged(3492)]

I just want to ask the ppl at Paradox not to get too caried away with historic accuracy in a way that would make the game just a representation of history.

We need freedom and open possibilities. I have no problem if turkey expands to america. It could have happened (well.. ..)

The game should reach the perfect balance between historic accuracy and gameplay freedom.
Many ppl in the forums talk about historic accuracy, forgeting that this may limit the openess of the gameplay.

We dont need more hardcoded limitations and events.

History ends 1492. After that let THE GAMER create the history.

Furthermore, less hardcoded limitations/tendecies, would give the mod/scenario creators more potential.

 

[unmerged(1726)]

I'd say Paradox agrees with you Kav. There's no phalanx v battleship here but there is open ended possibility. I think patches such as IGC have the right idea by trying to ensure that whilst countries do get opportunities historical limitations remain a contributing factor.

This is one shortcoming of games such as Shogun. There's no difference in feel playing one Clan to the next. But play England or France or Venice or Poland-Lithuania for example in EU and the differences right from the start in terms of possibilities, goals and strategies are immense.

 

[Sumer]

I concur on the most part. People should not complain about historical accuracy in this game. I am playing the GC right now with England and I have re-created the 13 original colonies in America. But, I did this because these provinces held lucrative benefits for England at this time. I think Russia should be able to expand in the American east coast as easy as England can. So, make your own history, don't go by the books. That's the beauty of this game.

 

[unmerged(2105)]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by having history end in 1492 but I think I agree and disagree to an extent. I agree in that it is kind of awkward to have the historical monarchs and leaders appear no matter what. In one game as England I heard the dirge for Hank in something like 1522 before Eddie was even born. I was destined to spend a quarter of a century in Regency waiting for a King who would not have been born had his father died before his conception? In a situation like that there would have been a new monarch from another line entirely. By the same token the English have a leader named George Washington who "dies" in 1775 to make way for the American leader. If the British leader dies before 1775 guess what? The Americans would still get their first President. Some of these are anomalies. Others are serious. I know, playing as the English, to begin building ships in Muster for J. Cabot. I know to build ships and troops in Andalusia for the flood of conquistadors and explorers I will get as Spain. I know to time my wars in the east as Russia so that I have an open gate to Siberia by 1560 when I get my first conquistador. There should be just a little more of a random element here. I would favor having an option for random monarchs and/or leaders certainly.

On the other hand I have to disagree. Giving everyone the same number of colonists per year for example sounds balanced but it's not. For one thing there are historical trends which I think it would be a mistake to ignore. If I'm playing as Spain I don't want to be racing the Russians to Mexico in 1500! I also don't want to play as the Turks and find out that my military is no better or worse than anyone else's in 1492. I also prefer games where the Dutch appear even if it's an inconvenience and they will be bitter foes. I'm glad the Dutch revolt is hardcoded into the game, although even that is not certain. They might not appear at all.

All in all I think there's a fine line to be walked between keeping it historical and letting the player play. I think EU walks that line very well. Could it be better? Slightly. Could it be worse? Heh. How many games have you played set in this era? How many do you still play?

 

[laurent]

On the overall, I do agree with you, Olaf. I too would like to see random leaders instead of historical ones (more exactly it should be an option) and have some surprises, and also that the leaders appearing were somehow related to the current situation (If france is reduced to 3 provinces, she shouldn't have tons of excellent generals under the reign of Louis XIV. If some obscure state become an important power controlling a coastal area, it should have a chance to receive random admirals, etc...

And like you, I don't want a Sweden exactly identical with Turkey at the beginning of the game.

Also, I don't want that the freedom to play and the game mechanisms allow ridiculous situations, like being able to conquer China if I begin playing with Milan...There should be an option severely limiting the use of the unrealistic tools you can use to achieve such a ridiculous situation (Only an option, since I'm sure there's plenty of people who love this kind of stuff). I understand I can put up limitations by myself, but it's not really fun if they aren't included in the game since :

-I know i could do it. Thinking : "I could easily seize the whole spanish empire but I won't because it makes no sense so I'll only take say, these 3 colonies" is not at all the same than struggling because the game mechanisms (I'm not refering to the AI competence, here) make seizing the said 3 colonies a real challenge.And if I refrain from conquering India, it should be because after balancing the cost and the advantages, I come to think it's too difficult to be worth it, not because I consider it would be ridiculous (and not, either, because the game forbid it, not totally unreasonable things should stay possible if you really want *that hard* to achieve them at the expense of other goals)

-The AI won't play with the same limitations. I can decide I won't create a 50 k army in this 5000 inhabitants colonial citie to conquer India, but the IA will have no problem deciding that it will seize my poorly defended colony with a 20k army created in the town just next and protected by a level 6 fort. I lke it when everybody is on the same ground...yes, I know, if the AI has the same limitations, it'll always be easy...but one can dream...

Ideally, I'd like to be able to win (VPs wise) playing Milan because I managed wonderful achievments like unifying the *whole* Italy and having explored part of the coast of *Africa*, despite tremendous odd and not because I used all the tricks and quirks of the game to become the universal ruler. But I understand such a thing wouldn't be easy to implement.

 

[laurent]

And yes, I'm spoiled...

 

[unmerged(598)]

I think that the game as it is now strikes a nice balance between historical constraints, and open ended play. It's not impossible for Milan to colonize India, or the English monarchs to be named Holy Roman Emperor, but it is difficult. I like the fact that strange things happen in almost every game, while Russia attacking Kazan and Turkey attacking the Mameluks before Hungary appears to happen each time.

It would be nice to have the option of all post 1492 events -monarchs, historical leaders, colonial dynamism etc based on the actions each nation takes, but we may be a long way from that kind of dynamic game.

There are anomalies in the way the game works now, particularly when a monarch who rules two countries is at war with himself, or when a nation with no military success continues to receive their historic leaders, but each nation has almost limitless possibilities. I do like the fact that you are constrained by the historical role nations played but may still stike out on your own path. I certainly wouldn't want to lose that aspect, but would also like the dynamicaly generated simulation.

I guess, I just want everything

 

[unmerged(2917)]

hehe, the evergoing discussion about realism/history/gameplay.

I believe that the setup should be historic(and it seems like it is, more or less) and from then it's kinda up to you how things fare...

I have no problem in seing Milan as a world dominator and I think that should be a possibility in the game. Also, I have no problem seeing France taking over the known world because the player is smart enough to use the game mechanics. What we need, as I see it, is more dynamic missions, perhaps even based on every possible nation on the game. Also, make these goals "sensible" instead of the "Vassalise France" I got playing Granada, it would perhaps be more fair to give more points for Royal marriages and alliances to small nations, then you could still compete with the large nations.
Also, all nations should have a minimum amount of settlers(and that minimum not being zero ) exploration and settlement is not ONLY sea based.. :=)

Love the game, I just wish I knew how to edit the different files so that I could have the aztecs do research and a little bit of expansion, then I would be a happy trooper

 

[unmerged(1641)]

With open and expanded AI scripts and an good editor, evrynone should and will have the the opportunity to make what scenario he ever want.

This is an very big disandvange on this game and if a game like EU should live longer it needs to be included in next version.

just my 2 cent's..

 

[unmerged(2105)]

First Surprise:

Agreed! Once I finish my Polish AAR (which I need to post an update too, preferably after sleeping and organizing my notes ) I'll begin working on an ambitious scenario. I'm looking forward to it and dreading it at the same time. Scenario design could be a much more user friendly proposition. Making the process easier will lead to alot more user designed scenarios and alot more excitement about the game.

laurent

Agreed. In my current Polish AAR (normal/normal) I have already sacked Constantinople and I'm only 30 years into the game. I'm not even sure I've been playing particularly well either having never played Poland before now. Still, I would think that the first occupation of Constantinople should take more than 30 years even for an experienced player. My goal was Polish occupation of Judea and Samaria before game's end. I suspect I've set the bar too low! Maybe I should set my sights on a race across Siberia and the conquest of China with 4k of cavalry.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I would like to see some randomness in the allocation of minor country leaders after the country had been "historically" defeated. I was playing Milan - quite fun after you get to three provinces but I will save that for the AAR - and after 1530 or so all I got was an endless stream of 1-0-1-0 leaders. Surely if Milan survived there would be some better leaders. I'm not asking for a Frederic the great just the occaisional 2-3-2 or similar leader (a naval commander after you capture your first port would be nice too!).

Derek

 

[laurent]

Originally posted by First Surprise
With open and expanded AI scripts and an good editor, evrynone should and will have the the opportunity to make what scenario he ever want.

Yes..you're right..at least concerning the editor. Don't really know about AI scripts, but it sounds interesting...

 

[unmerged(2424)]

It is probably a lot easier to make an open-ended game than one which is hardcoded for a degree of historical accuracy. Personally, I like historical accuracy - one of the things I really hated about Imperialism and Imperialism 2 were the fact that you couldn't really play on the real world; and there were few differences between the different countries. EU is editable enough already, so one could if so inclined remove a number of the 'historical' events.

Speaking for myself, I am very happy with EU as is, and would appreciate more rather than less conformity to real historical events. I suspect that if Paradox can make an ultra-historical scenario, they can ALSO include in the same game the exact same scenario minus the historical events, thus pleasing everyone.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

Originally posted by Olaf_the_White
All in all I think there's a fine line to be walked between keeping it historical and letting the player play. I think EU walks that line very well. Could it be better? Slightly. Could it be worse? Heh. How many games have you played set in this era? How many do you still play?

This Olaf agrees with the other Olaf. The historical "nudges" along the way are what make EU so unique. The hardcoded events and differences between nations (colonists, tech lavels, etc.) actually make the the game more replayable. While perfect open-endedness sounds great, I think we would find that one nation would actually play pretty much like any other, with the only differences being starting location and size. Although I enjoyed the Imperialism series, that was its biggest weakness - there really wasn't enough difference between countries to warrant firing the game up for a third or fourth campaign. I've already replayed EU much more than that and I can easily imagine returning to it occasionally five years from now.

 

[laurent]

Originally posted by wangshibo
It is probably a lot easier to make an open-ended game than one which is hardcoded for a degree of historical accuracy. Personally, I like historical accuracy - one of the things I really hated about Imperialism and Imperialism 2 were the fact that you couldn't really play on the real world; and there were few differences between the different countries. EU is editable enough already, so one could if so inclined remove a number of the 'historical' events.

Actually, playing Imperialism, I didn't feel the need for more realism. These games are so abstract and unhistorical, that I didn't care about that. But paradoxally since EU is really an historical game, I feel much more concerned when I notice a feature which seems to make few sense to me.

By the way, I enjoyed Imperialism I much more than Imperialism II. I'm wondering if it's just me or if a lot of people have the same opinion....

 

[unmerged(1104)]

Originally posted by laurent
By the way, I enjoyed Imperialism I much more than Imperialism II. I'm wondering if it's just me or if a lot of people have the same opinion....

Laurent, I enjoyed Imperialism I better than Imperialism II as well.

Regards to this game, I agree with the two Olafs and Sean9898.

 

[Rictus]

Imperialism 2? Bah. Imperialism 1 was much better.
This has just led me thinking, will the same happen to EU?

If all countries were the same, (same colonists, diff but similar leaders and so on) replaying the game would loss its appeal, for instance, as England, I enjoyed colonising America and expanding in France along the same lines of Sean9898, then, as Persia, it was a whole new ball game, no colonists and pair of powerful enemies on my border.

BTW, sorry if I repeated anyones arguments, I have a sort memory

 

[unmerged(1813)]

Originally posted by kav

The game should reach the perfect balance between historic accuracy and gameplay freedom.

History ends 1492. After that let THE GAMER create the history.

The first statement above is impossible. No two players or people will ever agree exactly on what is a 'perfect balance' between historical accuracy and gameplay. EVERY decision made concerning these issues will be a compromise of some kind.

The second statement is simply untrue. History has inertia. The weight of events that went before 1492 is an avalanche that flows right past 1492, and to ignore that is to manufacture a fantasy game with no meaningful historical background at all. "Starting Positions" of economics, political and economic infrastructure, customs, religion, language, and geography affect the AI and human players long after 1492 in any historically-based game, or why bother with them?

Those things being said, I agree that some of the hardcoded historical events need to pay more heed to the flow of gameplay instead of being independant of it. Although it would have taken some extra effort on the part of a government to start it, should Russia start colonizing overseas possessions in the 16th century, I'd expect to see colonists, conquistadors, and explorers show up in Russia, even if the explorers were all foreigners that had to be hired by Ivan IV! If Henry VIII drops dead, I'd like to see a realistic result in game terms: a regency if his (historical) son were underage, a Succession Crisis if he has no son yet: Royal Families have to be programmed into the game, not just Monarchs or Leaders.
But start making all these changes with the firm knowledge that there will never be a perfect balance between history and gameplay that pleases everyone. That's the best reason I know to make as much of the game engine as possible accessible to the gamer for revision, modification, or additions. For example, see Call to Power II, a largely botched game which is saved by the fact that between slic codes and text files almost everything about it can be changed or modified by the gamer...

 

[unmerged(3115)]

I think EU goes a long way to proving just how random/lucky the creation of the modern world really was.

Im mean, seriously, how the heck did England rise to being such a world power and wat the hell happened to the spaniards?
And i think it was luck more than ne thing that created Bismarkian Germany. Just look at all those petty squabling states in 1492 :O

 

[unmerged(1641)]

Originally posted by laurent



Yes..you're right..at least concerning the editor. Don't really know about AI scripts, but it sounds interesting...

---------------

K, I don't exactly know how to advaced it's to write good AI script's (programing the function) but I have used editor's for it in Age of King's and other games (so It's a long way from impossible to make that kind of function) and all I can say is that most of the custom made AI script's works much better then the original's.

The only thing in EU u can change is that u see in the AI files and that is for sure not much (if they are used, don't know havent seen so much differen's when I have changed the warmonger value).

An good AI script is there u can have setting's for evrything u want that the AI should do and how high priority it shall have for it with an random factor included.

Ex.
1. how the mix of troop's the AI should use for each contry.
2. how big army it should build comparing to the size of the country.
3. how many percent of the totally army it should keep back for defen's in a war and wich provinces who have the higest priority.
4. how many percent of the totally army it should have in colonies and in the "main" land.
5. how the AI should use calculation's before "he" takes part of an alliance war or start's to move troop's form one side of Europe to the other side (easy calculation with one answer = worth it or not ? before "he" does it).
6. how it should invest in tech's depending on wich country it is.
7. how it should invest in upgrade's (ex. fortifications) and infra (ex. manufactories).
8. always use calculation's before it build something , whatever it is ( an computer can do this much better then we can do it in ouer's heads I think)with an question : Is it worth it ?, Can I afford it ? Do I need it ? with an random factor included offcourse.

a.s.o

With other word's, an script with setting's for evrything the AI has to do and handle. And this shell NEVER be hardcoded , only an idiot or an incompetent "game engine or AI script constructor" makes this as hardcoded stuff and all "he" get's for it is trouble in a game like EU.

How ever u make an AI in a game like this u must have all thoose setting's somewhere otherwise the AI will not do a "shit".
Offcourse It's not easy to make an good working AI, but u can at least as a company try to do it in an correct way as many other companies have done it their's games (familiar to EU) and in many case's with an very good result.

Give the player's the Tool's and open up the script's for editing and let them do the "hardwork", then after a while u will as a companie have very good working AI's if u have supported the AI script's with an good working game engine.

I personnaly can't see any advantage on to have "copyright" on an pretty usless and in many part's not working AI who are hardcoded in many cases.

It's just the same as to have copyright on stupidity, not so much to be proude of..or am I wrong Paradox ?

just my 2 cent's (or Swedish öre, perhaps)....