You're right, actually. In 1701, for example, only 36% of the British Army was recruited in Ireland. I hope Doombunny feels suitably chastened for being 4% out in his estimate.
The 3 tiers...
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
I still hope there'll be a chance for Burgundy to morph into the Netherlands by focusing on its Dutch possessions, OR choosing to maintain a French focus which may cause strong independence movements in the Netherlands. It wouldn't be a republic if formed by the first route, but would still be focused on mostly the same things, I'd guess. After all, the Dutch provinces (esp. Holland) managed to fight trade wars with the Hanse while under Burgundian dominion.
Which is why I don't get how a corner of northern Europe is more vital than the biggest and most powerfull empire on the planet for probably most of the games timeframe...
It's not that bad. 36 pages in 2 months for a topic started by the devs. The one about cultures in the Balkans managed to get 27 pages in just 11 days, and it's started out of pure speculations (as the devs are yet to comment about cultures there, or not in which case we'll see what they did upon the game's release). I`m not even gonna mention the one about the New World...
- Dec 14, 1999
- 19.706
- 114.111
The irony though... 90% of the job on these is alredy done
As in:
"The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time."?
Purely my own opinion, but I think there is some value in a discussion like this even if the devs have made up their minds already. It creates interest, we can elarn from eachother and who knows, maybe at some point if more UHE wer eintroduced, this thread could be used to gauge interest for various countries.
The Tiers should have been spread out a bit more geographically. Like one guy from Africa and one guy from each of the Americas. It should be possible to play a nice, immersive, engaging game that isn't just "Blob for 400 years" on every continent. I don't care if you have to make shit up :laugh:
I'll admit that this is asking too much for the vanilla version, but a nice Cherokee or Iroquois League / Five Nations path to major power mod would be very cool. Different possible paths towards survival and adaptation and all. Dang.
I'll admit that this is asking too much for the vanilla version, but a nice Cherokee or Iroquois League / Five Nations path to major power mod would be very cool. Different possible paths towards survival and adaptation and all. Dang.
Russia and Sweden winners? Well considering that Poland was attacked at every front, then yea, they were winners, doesn't really means that they were stronger and more important in middle ages.
Well considering that Poland was attacked at every front, then yea, they were winners, doesn't really means that they were stronger and more important in middle ages.
Last edited:
Then the thread speculating on which contries were going to be in the top eight would still be going strong; I think this is better.
That would be against the point of the tiers, which is to have actual historical content in the nations, such as the English War of Roses or the Russian Time of Troubles. If there is too little known about an area in the period (As much of Africa and America suffers from) then tiers can't really apply to them.
If they have to make things up, then it's not these tiers you're looking for anymore.
As for who deserves the most historical dynamic content and who should have the most features tailored to them... The problem here is also one of what will be experienced most, what brings them most customers. I would like exquisite detail on the whole world, but I recognise how much such a game would cost, if it could be launched at all. Between Austria, France, Ottoman Empire and China, I would pick the three European-theater powers. Between Sweden and China I would probably pick China, but I don't think I will be missing anything the way it is looking right now.
History as we know it is going to be hopelessly derailed after the first twenty years of game time in basically every game you play since it is trivial for the player to do "better" than historical to a hilarious degree. Making cool semiplausible shit up is what a history game should be going for, rather than having the player use hindsight and the tooltip numbers to pick a slightly-better-than-historical option in a linear procession of "historical" events that would never have happened like this in the timeline of the instance of the game the player is currently in
oIMO at least vOv
I am not sure we're reading the same thread here or the same Dev. Diary.History as we know it is going to be hopelessly derailed after the first twenty years of game time in basically every game you play since it is trivial for the player to do "better" than historical to a hilarious degree. Making cool semiplausible shit up is what a history game should be going for, rather than having the player use hindsight and the tooltip numbers to pick a slightly-better-than-historical option in a linear procession of "historical" events that would never have happened like this in the timeline of the instance of the game the player is currently in
IMO at least vOv
The tiers as explained in Johans OP here is not about doing better than history or forcing a historybook-esque gameplay. It's about flavour and AI bahaviour.
The DHEs are somewhat "by the books", in that if the conditions that led to the real world events are there then the events are likely to happen. Those we have been told of yet are the War of the Roses, English Civil War and the Russian Time of Troubles.
These will give the player and AI setbacks.
I can't see how ANY SORT of historical flavour should emerge from making stuff up.
If we get a game where history has been abandoned after the startdate and everything else is made up, why set the game into a historical setting at all?
I like fantasy strategy games and RP games and so on, but I tend not to play games set in a fantasy world but sold as plausible.
But it is. From the moment you start playing history starts to diverge more and more. You are making stuff up. Thus such historical stuff makes little sense, and contributes to implausible. With insane amounts of factors that contributes to specific events 100, 200 years later, you simply shouldn't be able to reproduce them just like in real history. You can like such EU2-esque philosophy, as it gives you predictable, familiar results, but to say that it's realistic is wrong and naive.
It's a thin balance though. We do like to be as historically accurate at start as possible without doubt. Many of the later "flavour" (tag specific events, decisions, ideas and so on) have roots in things that happened even before the start date. Many do like to roleplay the game as well. As such it's nice that tags like Spain and England have better chances of becomming colonial powers. And even though I like it to be non-determined, I still enjoy a game where Russia is formed, Netherlands revolts and becomes something and so on. But still you'd also like to se Denmark win the Battle of Scandinavia sometimes, Poland, Lithuania og perhaps Teutonic Order becomming the great power in the East, perhaps even the Mongols. The Timurids staying united. The Mamelukes becomming the great muslim power. Aragon staying indenpendent and becomming a great naval power. England winning the 100 years war.
The tier system shouldn't reflect their power as much as their uniqueness and potential power. To me the tiers looks fine. But Sweden in tier 1? Have you hired Harry Turtledove to write Sweden's great power events and decisions?
None of the tier 2 tags should be in tier 1 either, even though some are more qualified than Sweden, like Prussia and Netherlands. Not sure about Poland though. Just like Sweden, Prussia and Denmark they were a regional power. Netherlands however was a global power during the EUIV timeframe, but has so small chance of unifying compared to Prussia. But the designers are Swedes, so this is the chance of picturing the great power Sweden that no one else in the world have heard of. (except the swedes of course)
I don't think I am the only one having that impression. Not sure why you are sticking around when all you have to say about the game is negative.
That's because EU3's about the Renaissance and Imperialism. By contrast, China was quite introvert for the entire span of the game which made it rather uninteresting.
Brandenburg was not a major player until the Austrian Succession War which was near the end of the game. By contrast, the eight Tier 1 countries all played much more significant role over the entire span of the game. If this game occurs between 1700 to 1950, then sure. But it isn't.
Poland was mostly a victim in this period. Not very interesting to focus on.
Then again: Is this a game of historical alternatives, or a simulation which shows you again and again and again and again what happened historically in Europe? If the first, why is it necessary to make Poland raped in 99% of the scenarios? And why need an Europe-wise mostly insignificant Sweden (they barely did anything else than sit in Scandinavia) have more treatment than other far more potential and interesting countries, or ones with far more interaction with the others? And if this supposed top be a global game, why do they ignore the rest of the world almost completely?
Or, if it's merely a simulation, why do they bother to make it look like a game?
Or, if it's merely a simulation, why do they bother to make it look like a game?
- Status