• 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.
Why they do not play with dolls instead of taking part in a competitive game like this is a mystery for me. Probably they never played football when they were young. These guys never learned the art of fighting.

EU isnt really a very competitive compared to other computer games. Object isnt so much to defeat other players as it is to do well in your own country. The idea that if you dont study event and leader files your a game destroyer is just plain weird. EU takes enough time without doing such things. I only look them up between session occasionally when their is specific need really and i dont consider myself a game destroyer and neither is lurken.

Equally lurken saying it is gamey is wrong too. Looking at chat log is a little but i dont make a big deal of it.
 
Well, the only events I really looked up were the Ottoman ones, since I wasn't sure how the Hungarian inheritance worked and wanted to know before I invaded Hungary in a campaign ;)

For the rest, I have learned all events (and I do remember most of them) because of playing, without opening the event file.

I do look at Tonio's leaders DB before a session, to check which leaders I am going to receive and which leaders other countries will get.
 
cheech said:
EU isnt really a very competitive compared to other computer games. Object isnt so much to defeat other players as it is to do well in your own country.

Of course it is competitive, very much so. You defeat them by doing more well for your nation than they for their nation. Sometimes Cheech you are really funny :D

You for one is extremely competitive when it comes to the war aspect of EU. Less so perhaps in other aspects. But that is a choice of yours, nothing inherent in the game of EU. :D You do not need to resort to close combat to "compete", which you seem to believe. LOL. It is all up to the participators to decide how competitive they want to be and in what fields.

The most sad thing about EU is however not the noncompetitiveness of some of the players but the fact that EU lacks a good method to measure the outcome of the competition.
 
Daniel A said:
The most sad thing about EU is however not the noncompetitiveness of some of the players but the fact that EU lacks a good method to measure the outcome of the competition.

Yes and no... there is no victory or loss in a EU2 game. It's up to the players to judge their own success. That's one of the great things about it, IMHO.

I don't see what's so bad about playing a game to have fun, rather than being obsessed about winning. But each to his own...
 
Djeheuty said:
I don't see what's so bad about playing a game to have fun, rather than being obsessed about winning. But each to his own...

Well, although Daniel can be sometimes annoying when he simply attacks and dismiss other players way to play, he got a point actually.

A 'fun' player can play with a 'win' player and still have fun. But for a 'win' player, 'fun' players spoils the game: Victory is less interesting if the rest was not playing to win after all.
 
I guess this thread isn't really the place to point out issues with the scenario but there are some things I discover as I load up different nations. Today it was Denmark.

1. 15000 inhabitants in the provinces/cities of northern norway is vastly excaggerated in 1492.

2. Even 1000 inhabitants in Greenlandish settlements is.

3. Fyn is not a port. It being an island it apears weird to me.

4. Slesvig belongs to the Holy Roman Empire, this is wrong.

5. Holstein correctly has the same regent as Denmark but why isn't it a vassal/part of Denmark but an ally to the Hanseatic league?

6. I doubt the Danish possessions in the atlantic had settlements near 5000 inhabitants but it feels less outrageous than the Northern Scandinavian provinces.


As for events, why dont we remove all inflation lowering random events from the random event file? There is a random event set somewhere that makes them come at a price and eliminates some of the most excaggerated effects making luck less of a factor while still maintaining all that exquisite "randomness" some people like so much. why not use it instead of the grossly unbalanced, inappropriate, luck based original random event file?
 
Djeheuty said:
Yes and no... there is no victory or loss in a EU2 game. It's up to the players to judge their own success. That's one of the great things about it, IMHO.

I don't see what's so bad about playing a game to have fun, rather than being obsessed about winning. But each to his own...

Because it is fun and exciting to play for winning. LOL Art, you have discussed this with me before so you should know better by now. There exists no difference between us in regard to the basic aim of both of us: we want the fun and excitement, you do and I do.

Besides you fight like a devil when you are in war, aiming to win it, just like anyone else. The difference between you and me is not that we generally view the aim of the game differently but that you and your alikes permit yourself to focus your competitive spirit to some aspects of the game while I fight on all fronts. You are like a football forward that becomes very eager when he gets the ball betwen his feets but is very lazy when the ball is somwhere else. I fight all over the area trying to do my best while you do not. That makes me into an opponent that it is a challenge to beat for you. The opposite is not true. To beat you would give me no sense of the basic aims, the fun and excitement, because I know that you have not given your best. You have tied one hand on your back and then gone into the fight. To state

"But each to his own...."

means you view this game basically a SP game where you do not interact with other players. You cannot let each have his own in a game where you interact with other people if you want all to achieve their aim with the game. Only in Solitaire you can allow that.

The ideal world would be one where we would have no trouble filling all slots in campaigns for your type of player and other where we had no trouble filling the slots with my kind etc. Unfortunately I doubt we have that many players and it also takes some time to get to know what type the other players belong to.

Just the other day I heard of a player who tried to avoid losing a war. He got 8% inflation in an 14 year session in the early 16th century because of this. I do not want to have that kind of player in a campaign I am participating. He does not play for the longterm benefit of his nation. He only fights to avoid defeat in a war, a defeat his ego apparently is not fit to accept.

To each his own, yes but not at the same time in the same campaign. I would say: to each kind of player his own kind of campaign. :cool:
 
arcorelli said:
Well, although Daniel can be sometimes annoying when he simply attacks and dismiss other players way to play, he got a point actually.

A 'fun' player can play with a 'win' player and still have fun. But for a 'win' player, 'fun' players spoils the game: Victory is less interesting if the rest was not playing to win after all.

Arco, after two years where you constantly arrived at the opposite side of me in any argument I had, I have recently experienced a change :eek: :)

But now I guess Fredrik does not want me to write anything more on this topic (a favourite of mine). I hope my fingers won't itch again and I am forced to write another post. :D
 
juv95hrn said:
I guess this thread isn't really the place to point out issues with the scenario but there are some things I discover as I load up different nations. Today it was Denmark.

1. 15000 inhabitants in the provinces/cities of northern norway is vastly excaggerated in 1492.

2. Even 1000 inhabitants in Greenlandish settlements is.

6. I doubt the Danish possessions in the atlantic had settlements near 5000 inhabitants but it feels less outrageous than the Northern Scandinavian provinces.
You must remember, the city sizes should not be taken seriously. Northern Norway having such large settlements is probably only because of the manpower and tax rules.
 
Daniel A said:
The ideal world would be one where we would have no trouble filling all slots in campaigns for your type of player and other where we had no trouble filling the slots with my kind etc. Unfortunately I doubt we have that many players and it also takes some time to get to know what type the other players belong to.
--------------
To each his own, yes but not at the same time in the same campaign. I would say: to each kind of player his own kind of campaign. :cool:
Thats why its good if the first post of a gamethread summarizes the general strive of the game. For example Battlefront or Thirst for Glory (i think) have a pronounced competitive atmosphere. Even though i know you shun those games for other reasons, they fulfill that demand that i think you and i and many more share:).
On the other hand there is the "Chill" campaign, which is centered on the fun of the game, without competitive flavor. Though i doubt that even there, any sort of pure element of "fairness" or "balance" exists.
 
FAL said:
What do you mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyn
Funen (Danish: Fyn) is the second largest island of Denmark, it has a population of 445,000 people. [...]The city's shipyard Odense Steel Shipyard has been relocated outside of Odense proper.
He means that there is no port in the game, at least how i interpreted it :).
 
FAL said:
Hehe, and Daniel has joined the chill game ;)
Aye, i am confounded that he has joined those games, when he is clearly a player that strives for the opposite :). Or maybe the "Chill" name has lost its meaning, much as the Machiavelli series lost theirs? If so, i think Daniel has been the main reason for this, in true Morgothian fashion :D.
 
FAL said:
Hehe, and Daniel has joined the chill game ;)

There is a strong competitive spirit in the Chill games AFAIK. I participated in some 250 years of Chill2. I see the "chill" stamp more as a hint to players to not overreact on petty arguments, rather than to tone down their competitiveness.

In the current setup we have players like me, Bob and Aladar and we are competitive, you can bet on that :D
 
juv95hrn said:
I guess this thread isn't really the place to point out issues with the scenario but there are some things I discover as I load up different nations. Today it was Denmark.

1. 15000 inhabitants in the provinces/cities of northern norway is vastly excaggerated in 1492.

2. Even 1000 inhabitants in Greenlandish settlements is.

3. Fyn is not a port. It being an island it apears weird to me.

4. Slesvig belongs to the Holy Roman Empire, this is wrong.

5. Holstein correctly has the same regent as Denmark but why isn't it a vassal/part of Denmark but an ally to the Hanseatic league?

6. I doubt the Danish possessions in the atlantic had settlements near 5000 inhabitants but it feels less outrageous than the Northern Scandinavian provinces.
Then try ask ryo, why he gave the prov boghuslan to sweden a 150 years too early? He doesn't care about those facts only what he thinks balances the game. Notice that sweden aint a vassal either, he has really screwed too much with the scenario now. I think time we restore this back to how it should be in the 1492 campaign. If I where starting as Denmark and Sweden was not a vassal, I would crush him in no time, simply because there is no incentive not to, and he owns the danish core of boghuslan.

I am currently considering to remake the 1492 scenario, with the new watk3 map. So that it is more suited for MP than Ryo's, primarly because he has gone too much off track, and ruined too much.
 
Of course it is competitive, very much so. You defeat them by doing more well for your nation than they for their nation. Sometimes Cheech you are really funny

Dan i really wish you would read what i write especially when you actually put in in as a quote :)

I didn’t say eu isn’t competitive I said it wasn’t compared to other computer games which is true. MOST people get reward from the game because it is not winner takes all like for example AOE or C&C. It is more relaxed and chilled. Yes it can be competitive. Some games are more than others depending on the players. You are competitive in economy I know this. I consider myself to be above average competitive/ambitious. The fact that you state clearly there are no clear victory conditions is in itself proof that it is not a very competitive game. How in the hell can a game be ‘very competitive’ when there are no clear victory conditions.

You are the one that is funny for missing this blatant contradiction :)
 
cheech said:
Dan i really wish you would read what i write especially when you actually put in in as a quote :)

I didn’t say eu isn’t competitive I said it wasn’t compared to other computer games which is true. MOST people get reward from the game because it is not winner takes all like for example AOE or C&C. It is more relaxed and chilled. Yes it can be competitive. Some games are more than others depending on the players. You are competitive in economy I know this. I consider myself to be above average competitive/ambitious. The fact that you state clearly there are no clear victory conditions is in itself proof that it is not a very competitive game. How in the hell can a game be ‘very competitive’ when there are no clear victory conditions.

You are the one that is funny for missing this blatant contradiction :)

You are right, I was a little sloppy. Change my statement

"Of course it is competitive, very much so. You defeat them by doing more well for your nation than they for their nation."

to

"Of course it is very much competitive. You defeat them by doing more well for your nation than they for their nation."

The point of my post was that you by stating

"Object isnt so much to defeat other players as it is to do well in your own country."

showed you did not understand that it is perfectly possible to compete although one does not "defeat" other players in the way your statement implicated, namely military, you can defeat them in other ways.

Your new response show that you now do understand this fact. :)
 
Last edited:
Did anyone actually examine the minimal event file? I just found a modified Spanish bancrupcy event set there that would take care of that entire discussion. (+20% inflation unaviodable if Spain owns any of the gold mines if I understand the events correctly). I'm not sure about the rest of the events so what is the discussion concerning them?