Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

FTG and EU3

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.
Show only dev responses
Emperor_krk said:
A game, you forgot to add, built on an engine that is some 8 years old already, a game that isn't going to be much more than an enhanced EU2? Yes, I did expect it to be cheaper than a much newer game that e.g. Rome is. And Rome costs right now 19.99 EUR.

I respect the amount of work that the source code team has put into FTG so far, I really admire it, and am - contrarily to many people who post on this subforum - very positive about the project. I anticipate it highly, and will buy it regardless of the price, unless it's really ridiculously high (20EUR isn't that yet, but anything above that would be). I would just like to state that the price is a bit too high for this kind of software, in my opinion.

Of course, unless FTG turns out to be something completely revolutionary, with not only enhanced, but completely remade game mechanics, and so on. If that happens, I shall happily reverse what I wrote here, and pay anything for For The Glory.

The thing is, as yet, nothing denotes that.
Click to expand...

20 euro is already way too high for me to go back to eu2 engine.

atmosphere is paramount for me, and eu2 map, graphics and music has it. but, it doesnt justify scaling back on what amenities eu3 engine brings, especially after straightening the graphics a bit with TOTC or the maps of magna mundi, and putting up eu2 mp3 playlist through winamp in background.
 
YodaMaster said:
Thanks. Some players don't like EU3, some won't never go back to EU2 philosophy (and thus FTG one now) and some like them both as different games.
Click to expand...

just what the hell are those philosophies ?

i read all pages of this thread, everyone talks about it, yet noone mentions what the hell those differences are !?!?!

i played both eu2, eu3, and i dont see any particular 'philosophies' still ?
 
Balor said:
ehh? Eu2 was profitable, but..

When Eu1 sells X copies, Eu2 sells a small fraction of that and then Eu3 is back up to X copies, it is a kind of indication that a large majority of paradox gamers want an open ended sandbox game.

There is a group of people who want historically rigid games. For the Glory will be for those people, and we may do other such projects for them in the future.
Click to expand...

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

that.

now i get it. alright.

well, on my part, i can say that i already know about history, and dont need to redo the same things over and over with different countries. same old movie.

what i wonder is 'what ifs'. that is the question hangs in the mind of the individual who starts to learn a little bit about history.

what if italians discovered america.

what if chinese didnt stop expeditions in 1400s.

what if venice didnt turn on byzantines.

what if what if. endless.
 
Samilou said:
I'd say that being an open-ended sandbox game was not at all the reason for EU3's financial success, I am fairly convinced that the many more features and details within the game (it is possible that a majority prefers detail before historical flavour, but not necessarily sandbox before historical flavour) combined with superior marketing, were the deciding factors behind it.
Click to expand...

for sure we do.

for what some call 'detail' are actually the mechanics with which the actual social and political circumstances are simulated in a game.

you could as well assign 'power score' to countries, modify that single value with decisions-sliders and then drop everything else including commerce, army, navy building and anything and resolve things through those power scores.

but that wouldnt be anything like a simulation at all.

detail is needed. the historic socioeconomic circumstances need to be accurately modeled, so that the player can feel like s/he is REALLY back in 1399-1789. (or whatever time period)
 
I am ready to pay 3000 rubles (approximately 120 US dollars) and more for this game if it will be really new game with smart artificial intelligence. I have nothing against usage of old engine, (at least the graphics is not the main thing in such kind of games) but I want a NEW game, not just an officially published disbalanced mod. I think it is fair enought.
 
unity100 said:
20 euro is already way too high for me to go back to eu2 engine.
(...)
Click to expand...

Engine is not everything.
You should appreciate hard work done to make game better.
I dont't really see difference between 12.99/15.99/19.99$.

unity100 said:
(...)
the historic socioeconomic circumstances need to be accurately modeled, so that the player can feel like s/he is REALLY back in 1399-1789. (or whatever time period)
Click to expand...

Well I don't know whether 6 years old game engine allow to create some "modeled circumstances" of any kind...
 
Unity100 that was five posts in a row. You know you can edit your posts right? To answer some of your questions then I would like to state that EU3 was a random game with a historical start. EU2 is a historical game in the sense that the player will always change the path of history and the AI will also. Events have multiply choices and you can always take another path. It is not like you are forced into picking a certain option. And there is an option for the AI to pick randomly between options instead of the chance set by the creator of the event or the default chance if nothing has been added.
 
cool-toxic said:
Unity100 that was five posts in a row. You know you can edit your posts right?
Click to expand...

no i cant. first, they were all read and replied to at different times to people who posted in different times.

second, creating a huge wall of text with heaps of quotes and responses is bad for legibility, noone can easily make out who is replying to whom, whether the person is replying to individual quotes of the same person or someone else. the people who are actually replied to cant make it apart either.

there is no difference in making it a huge big post or 5 separate posts, when the difference in the scrolling will be just 200 pixels or such due to leaving out the reply buttons etc. i run 3 community forums, and also do web development, hence i come up against this issue way too often.

To answer some of your questions then I would like to state that EU3 was a random game with a historical start. EU2 is a historical game in the sense that the player will always change the path of history and the AI will also. Events have multiply choices and you can always take another path. It is not like you are forced into picking a certain option. And there is an option for the AI to pick randomly between options instead of the chance set by the creator of the event or the default chance if nothing has been added.
Click to expand...

even in that case the events still happen from throughout the choices the event scripts offer to the ai and the player. so its still rigid.

the reality is that, if you take the real history and rerun it from the same time, most of the results would be different. especially in 1399-1789, whereas the on-paper decision to make some individual an heir to a certain estate/demesne changes a lot.
 
It's a rather futile debate IMO if some players just prefer the EU2ish approach, and some more the one from EU3. To argue who is more right doesn't make much sense in a question which is mainly about personal preferences to me.
 
unity100 said:
well, on my part, i can say that i already know about history, and dont need to redo the same things over and over with different countries. same old movie.

what i wonder is 'what ifs'. that is the question hangs in the mind of the individual who starts to learn a little bit about history.
Click to expand...
So if U don't like the historical philosophy of FTG than don't buy it. I don't like sports games, I don't buy them. Isn't it simple? FTG is for those players who like historical or half random game, you like random games? Play random games (or create a random mod) :)
 
what i wonder is 'what ifs'. that is the question hangs in the mind of the individual who starts to learn a little bit about history.
Click to expand...

The "what ifs" are meaningless without historical structure to provide context and contrast. Good "alternate history" isn't the result of the random flailings of a retarded AI.
 
unity100 said:
even in that case the events still happen from throughout the choices the event scripts offer to the ai and the player. so its still rigid.
Click to expand...
True for all script engines, including EU3 one. This is only about triggers. When an event must appear according to scripted conditions, it will. This is only a matter of time. Intelligence is in the way to write the conditions in order to avoid event firing out of context.

unity100 said:
the reality is that, if you take the real history and rerun it from the same time, most of the results would be different. especially in 1399-1789, whereas the on-paper decision to make some individual an heir to a certain estate/demesne changes a lot.
Click to expand...
The reality is that it has been debated when EU3 was released and you should have seen such (endless) discussions... Some like EU3 approach, some don't and prefer the EU2 one... and some like both. You have the choice with two up-to-date games now.
 
Last edited:
TairosAurelius said:
The "what ifs" are meaningless without historical structure to provide context and contrast. Good "alternate history" isn't the result of the random flailings of a retarded AI.
Click to expand...

you provide the historical context with the precise socioeconomic dynamics present that is at the start of a scenario.

since the outcome of history was too often decided by a few people's whim back then, every sampling of the history from a given date might end up differently.

therefore, if you model the socioeconomic structure well enough, whatever happens next is a possible alternative outcome.

whereas, with the 'eu2 approach' some of you favor, events are scripted to happen with 3 possible outcomes. so, even if the socioeconomic situation is to the contrary, one of those 3 outcomes are forced on the player and the ai.
 
unity100 said:
you provide the historical context with the precise socioeconomic dynamics present that is at the start of a scenario.

since the outcome of history was too often decided by a few people's whim back then, every sampling of the history from a given date might end up differently.

therefore, if you model the socioeconomic structure well enough, whatever happens next is a possible alternative outcome.

whereas, with the 'eu2 approach' some of you favor, events are scripted to happen with 3 possible outcomes. so, even if the socioeconomic situation is to the contrary, one of those 3 outcomes are forced on the player and the ai.
Click to expand...

So what, even in EU Rome you have events where there are only some outcomes, that's the nature of such events in games these days. The only difference is that the events there aren't modeled after certain concrete historic situations, but rather general ones fitting to the ancient Roman timeframe.

But in the end you have to accept the choices which are presented to you by the game, and these are not unlimited possiblities.
 
unity100 said:
the reality is that, if you take the real history and rerun it from the same time, most of the results would be different. especially in 1399-1789, whereas the on-paper decision to make some individual an heir to a certain estate/demesne changes a lot.
Click to expand...

So what?
I want to play the Real History that happened in our world.

Not start on some vague historical day 1 and by day 2 have everyone and their mothers essentially erase their brains and act as if there was never a yesterday. Because that's what EUIII system is, fantasy land set in 1453-1800.
 
Davisx3m said:
You say and make a double post ;)
Click to expand...

He was speaking as moderator in that one, so he's aloud.

Besides, Unity100 is doing it everywhere, his post count has shot up from 40 to what it is now in about a week, mostly by quoting everyone's post in a thread seperatley, and then ranting on endlessly with alot of self opinionated piffle. To be fair to him, he has said something noteworthy or accurate from time to time (he is bound to eventuall I suppose!), but I have by and large stopped reading his posts.

As for this endless debate, I am starting to find it really tedious. IMO it took EU3 2 expansion packs and a massive user made mod (Magna Mundi) to be as much fun as EU2 + AGCEEP.

Secondly, the AGCEEP became very sophisticated at following alternate lines of history.

Thirdly, I like EU3 NA + IN + MMP. I also like EU2 + AGCEEP, and see no reason why both games cannot be enjoyed by the same player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back