Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Medieval creep

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis III 46143 EU3 - After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Fishman786

Fishman786

Maharaja
90 Badges
Aug 17, 2009
3.747
2.259
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • For the Motherland
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Island Bound
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Why does everybody seem to want to slowly add more and more medieval stuff to the game? Revived Roman Empire? Byzantine cores on central Turkey? Releasable Al-Andalus? A formable Caliphate? Surely these things belong in CK, not in EU, which is about the Renaissance and 'enlightenment' periods. The shift back to 1399 as opposed to 1453 was bad enough, but can be coped with. But EUIII doesn't simulate medieval politics at all, and pushing the game further back just makes things more and more unrealistic.
 
Voltigeurs said:
We should set the game from -50000 to 50000, then everyone would be happy :rofl:
Click to expand...
Or just inform people who want to play as the Byzantine Empire of an interesting little game called CK2, and move the start date to 1453 again. I know that I can just change the start date myself, but I miss out a whole load of content and stuff that way. Effort spent adding that content could have been used on improving Poland-Lithuania, making exploration more difficult and less tedious, or on the 'important' parts of the RoTW (like India, middle east, Russia etc).
 
People can just start on 1453? I don't see the problem. Those who want to play at 1399 start at 1399...
 
Iwanow said:
Well that would be fine if CK, would end at 1453...
Click to expand...

EUIII doesn't end in 1836, and EU:R doesn't end in 1000 AD. There is always a bit of a gap between the games. I can cope with 1399, since that's basically the very late middle ages, but adding lots of medieval mechanics just intrudes on the rest of the game. Look at all the effort put into Byzantium, for example. That time could easily have gone into more cool stuff for Poland-Lithuania, but it was instead used to create a set of fantasy missions for a dead Empire with only symbolic importance. Then there are all the releasable French minors, constant holy wars and a strange 'crusade' system.
 
Agreed. This really isn't a game about the middle ages, this one is about the early modern era.
Some added content for the 17th and 18th centuries would be most welcome.

EDIT: Not to say that I dislike the added features from the many expansions. But it does feel like the focus has changed a bit when all the new building upgrades we got were researchable before the first third of the game comes to pass.
 
Another problem with setting up a 1453 game is that the developers haven't really tested how well the gameplay works in the later years. The collapse of the Golden Horde and the Timurids change the dynamics of the game completely.
 
Everybody likes Rome because Rome is Rome...

In EU3 everybody likes Byzies, because thats as close to Rome as you can get without adding a whole new country, and ofc, you have one of the best antagonisms in history: Byzies vs Turks, clash of civilizations.

But yes, i agree, personally i think medieval stuff should stay out of EU3, and EU3 should be a game based around western Europe entering age of exploration and colonialism, too much effort and attention was put elsewhere, which is why we have unbalanced Eastern Europe etc.
 
Fishman786 said:
Why does everybody seem to want to slowly add more and more medieval stuff to the game? Revived Roman Empire? Byzantine cores on central Turkey? Releasable Al-Andalus? A formable Caliphate? Surely these things belong in CK, not in EU, which is about the Renaissance and 'enlightenment' periods. The shift back to 1399 as opposed to 1453 was bad enough, but can be coped with. But EUIII doesn't simulate medieval politics at all, and pushing the game further back just makes things more and more unrealistic.
Click to expand...
I enjoy a good Byzantium game, but maybe that's just me. I also enjoy the start-up scenario for the variety of states available; after all, there are only so many times you can play as England, France, Spain, Portugal, or the Netherlands before the game gets boring. I find it interesting to play as deceased states or minor cultures like Balkan nations, Greece/Byzantium, and other people that were absorbed and assimilated by the rising powers during this era.

Plus, most people play the start date which is, in fact, part of the Middle Ages.

Fishman786 said:
EUIII doesn't end in 1836, and EU:R doesn't end in 1000 AD. There is always a bit of a gap between the games. I can cope with 1399, since that's basically the very late middle ages, but adding lots of medieval mechanics just intrudes on the rest of the game. Look at all the effort put into Byzantium, for example. That time could easily have gone into more cool stuff for Poland-Lithuania, but it was instead used to create a set of fantasy missions for a dead Empire with only symbolic importance. Then there are all the releasable French minors, constant holy wars and a strange 'crusade' system.
Click to expand...
What? 1399 wasn't the "very late" Middle Ages. The Middle Ages didn't really end until the fall of Constantinople, the end of Burgundy, the discovery of America, or even the start of the Reformation.

That is a good fourth of the game and the only fourth that most people play. A previous poll held by Johan shows that most players start in 1399 almost exclusively, and if you look at the Post your Empires thread, you'd see that most people stop playing around 1550/1600. Personally, I've never played a game starting in 1399 past 1700 either.

That said, I think you'd be highly displeased to know that most major mods set the start date back to 1356.
 
You also have to keep in mind that a large majority of people only play about the first 50-100 years of the game and rarely go further than that. Thus, they are essentially playing a late renaissance game. On top of that, EU3's mechanics greatly favor the first 100-200 years. Once you get to the enlightenment era, the game essentially stops modeling anything in particular. Not only that, but the game is designed in a way that makes the early game the most dynamic, meaning us modders have a much harder time fleshing out the mid to late game than the beginning, because the mechanics available to us go backwards much easier than forwards.
 
Fishman786 said:
Why does everybody seem to want to slowly add more and more medieval stuff to the game? Revived Roman Empire? Byzantine cores on central Turkey? Releasable Al-Andalus? A formable Caliphate? Surely these things belong in CK, not in EU, which is about the Renaissance and 'enlightenment' periods. The shift back to 1399 as opposed to 1453 was bad enough, but can be coped with. But EUIII doesn't simulate medieval politics at all, and pushing the game further back just makes things more and more unrealistic.
Click to expand...

A releasable Andalusia is reasonable and within the time fame of the EU3

The Morisco Revolt (1568−1571), also known as War of Las Alpujarras or Revolt of Las Alpujarras, in what is now Andalusia in southern Spain, was a rebellion against the Crown of Castile by the remaining Muslim converts to Christianity from the Kingdom of Granada. If it wasn't for the not so bright and drunkard of a Sultan (called Selim the second), who rather wanted to conquer its favorite wine territory then supporting this revolt... Things could have changed a lot with the help of the Ottomans and the North Africans.
 
Fishman786 said:
EUIII doesn't end in 1836, and EU:R doesn't end in 1000 AD. There is always a bit of a gap between the games. I can cope with 1399, since that's basically the very late middle ages, but adding lots of medieval mechanics just intrudes on the rest of the game. Look at all the effort put into Byzantium, for example. That time could easily have gone into more cool stuff for Poland-Lithuania, but it was instead used to create a set of fantasy missions for a dead Empire with only symbolic importance. Then there are all the releasable French minors, constant holy wars and a strange 'crusade' system.
Click to expand...
these things are in the game because over the course of the game + 4 expansions lots of core players campaigned for them to be included-i personally would like to see this game start around 1345 to match the start of the 100 years war and the great plague, but it wont happen now that they have gone with CK2.
 
I personally LIKE what has been added to the game in the early stages. I don't particularly like the type of game play CK2 has, EUIII's game play I like a lot. Personally I would love a somewhat earlier start date, 1345 would be great, but I can live with 1399. If EUIII still started in 1453 I would find it less enjoyable. Now I would prefer that if anything new is added its put in the 1600s and 1700s as those years need some love but I do quite like the early stuff that is in now.
 
simon chatfield said:
these things are in the game because over the course of the game + 4 expansions lots of core players campaigned for them to be included-i personally would like to see this game start around 1345 to match the start of the 100 years war and the great plague, but it wont happen now that they have gone with CK2.
Click to expand...

You can't have a start date before 1356 because of the whole Golden Bull thing: That's when the HRE became the HRE of EU3(ie an elected Emperor by electors).
 
You can have a start date before 1356, you just have to program the game to maybe evolve a HRE.

What's all this talk about simulating politics well? EU3 doesn't simulate any politics well, it is just one extremely elaborate game of Risk. And a very good one at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back