a few infrastructure/trade suggestions

[unmerged(212)]

For more fun ideas on railroads - go buy Railroad Tycoon II while you're waiting for EU2 to ship. Von Claus is right on with the timeframe; and for fun the RT2 campaign covers 1804 (if I remember correctly).

Since both rail track and steam engines were in known prior to 1804, it was theoretically possible to build engines even earlier in the time frame. We all know its possible for England to colonize most of the North American Seaboard prior to 1600, so why not the same alternate history for railroads?

 

[unmerged(267)]

Originally posted by Sidney
, building raods and grainaries would be a level of micromanagement

why does everyone dispise micromanagement.
maybe micromanagement is a good thing, it will keep the game interesting and besides how is telling a province to build a granary (or stockpile) different from promoting a bailiff or building a refinery.

 

[unmerged(267)]

Originally posted by nobody inpartic
as a leader you can't control wheter you save food or not, really. isn't that the job for farmers to figure out? micromanagement of some farm in kreblakestan transporting to the granery.

the farmers wouldn't save food individually, the whole province would save it collectively.

and again, what is wrong with micromanagement?
plus, you won't have to tell the farmer to transport grain to the granary, all farmers would do it automatically after each harvest.

 

[unmerged(267)]

Originally posted by Jiminov
- don't talk about granaries - its too much of a blatant Civ rip-off.

civilization is a timeless classic and will always remain close to my heart (except for the "Call to Power" series which sucks more than a New York hooker). i don't have a problem it being implemented in EU2.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Hetman Polski

why does everyone dispise micromanagement.
maybe micromanagement is a good thing, it will keep the game interesting and besides how is telling a province to build a granary (or stockpile) different from promoting a bailiff or building a refinery.

No, making me build roads isn't interesting. It is me clicking a lot more and something that can be subsumed into another function of the game.

The granary isn't an issue because there are no famine issues in the game so there isn't much point- I certainly don't want to increase the supply levels of my provinces and there is no mechanism to sell between states so building them would be building them for the sake of building something.

 

[unmerged(267)]

you're right, there is no famine issue, but there should be.
for one, i'm not satisfied with current EU infrastructure.
all i have to do is promote baliffs, legal concils, and mayors.
then i can build manufacturies and upgrade fortifications and all of the sudden my provinces are considerd the most advanced in the world.
well this doesn't work for me. i want to be able to have total control of my provinces, i want to build roads to improve trade, i want to build universities to improve my research, etc...
there's more to ruling a country than just waging war.

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Originally posted by Hetman Polski
you're right, there is no famine issue, but there should be.
for one, i'm not satisfied with current EU infrastructure.
all i have to do is promote baliffs, legal concils, and mayors.
then i can build manufacturies and upgrade fortifications and all of the sudden my provinces are considerd the most advanced in the world.
well this doesn't work for me. i want to be able to have total control of my provinces, i want to build roads to improve trade, i want to build universities to improve my research, etc...
there's more to ruling a country than just waging war.

Yes, but what this leads to is, dare i say it, tedium. Simply put, if i control 3/4 of the world, i don't have 48 hours to sit down, going from province to province, clicking on "upgrade to roads". Besides, are you telling me that cities of the time did not have roads? What? Did they have floating walkways above the city, and poles that you could slide down to get to your home...Hmm, new idea for EU3!!!!

On the point of famine issue, well, there is the factor of plague, and one of the reasons that plague happened was because of poor food suppply. So yes, i would say, have granaries, or if not actually have them, have it included in infrastructure, and have it so that even though you cannot build it, it is still there .

 

[AmbientOyster]

Yes, but what this leads to is, dare i say it, tedium. Simply put, if i control 3/4 of the world, i don't have 48 hours to sit down, going from province to province, clicking on "upgrade to roads

In EU2 you probably won't be controlling half the world but I agree that a lot of micromanagement equals tedium. The timespan of the game is so long that you have to keep it on a fairly basic management level or include a lot of automated functions (which noone will use because they invariably perform poorly).
It has been said many times but on a state level you hardly oversee details as the builing of an improved road network in a single province. I think that there is room for more improvements but they should be nation wide and not only for one province. Like land reforms and such. Maybe the new sliders in EU2 will reflect these things?

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Originally posted by AmbientOyster

In EU2 you probably won't be controlling half the world but I agree that a lot of micromanagement equals tedium. The timespan of the game is so long that you have to keep it on a fairly basic management level or include a lot of automated functions (which noone will use because they invariably perform poorly).
It has been said many times but on a state level you hardly oversee details as the builing of an improved road network in a single province. I think that there is room for more improvements but they should be nation wide and not only for one province. Like land reforms and such. Maybe the new sliders in EU2 will reflect these things?

Well, one can always hope

 

[unmerged(485)]

All the money you pour into infrastructure tech goes into doing things like this for you. You just set the buget and the province governors do the tasks to improve your infrastructure i.e. roads/bridges/granaries and whatever else you can think of that is part of infrastructure (God, I'm beginning to hate that word).

 

[unmerged(212)]

Originally posted by Sonny
All the money you pour into infrastructure tech goes into doing things like this for you. You just set the buget and the province governors do the tasks to improve your infrastructure i.e. roads/bridges/granaries and whatever else you can think of that is part of infrastructure (God, I'm beginning to hate that word).

Sonny - what I don't understand is why you would want to have a high level of abstraction or loss of your direct involement in the infrastructure development of your nation. To me, this line of reasoning suggests that they player should also have minimal involement in the other aspects of the game. If you were to apply this thinking to the construction of the army units; you wouldn't worry about the composition of the three types of troops - because after all - the generals know best.

It's clear that most other components of EU2 are being beefed up; so I hope this applies to the infrastructure options as well. Specifically, I'm hopeful that there is an increased variety of manufacturies; and that they can be upgraded over time.

 

[State Machine]

A very good observation about levels of abstraction, Jiminov. But I disagree with your conclusion.

I don't think the entire game needs to have the same level of abstraction. In fact, I think the opposite.

Sorry for being pedantic about this. I think "level of abstraction" refers to how general or specific a game feature and subsequent player actions are. Every game has essential features and other features. Differing levels of abstraction for these features are necessary to put emphasis on the bits of the game the designers want the player involved in (lower levels of abstraction) versus features the designers want in the game, but don't want the player too involved in (higher levels of abstraction).

My quick assessment (arbitrary scale) puts the levels of abstraction in EU I as follows:
* Technology - very high. The player can only manipulate how much money is invested.
* Trade - high. The player can send traders to different CoT's, but getting into the CoT and getting money is outside of the player's control.
* Colonization - medium to high. The player sends colonists. The player has more control compared to Trade (a chance of success is given to the player).
* Military - medium. The player builds different types of units, moves the units, and chooses how much maintenance to pay on them. On the other hand, the player has no control over combat.
* Religion - very high. the player sets tolerance to the different religions. Consequences (revolts, diplo relations) are outside of the players control.
* Diplomacy - low to medium. The player can take many different actions that directly effect relations.
* Other economic - medium to high. The player can build manufactories and so on. These have specific economic effects that are of a "low" level so are worth calling out.

My conclusion is that EU I is a diplomatic/colonization/military campaign game, with some other bits thrown in to make it work. It is not an economic game, even though economics have a profound effect on the game. The measure is what player actions can effect things. The player can only effect economics indirectly. And to your argument, technology even more indirectly.

Now, this is 15 minutes of analysis, not the several days that the subject needs, so there is probably some real crap in this post, but...

And to your specific point, I like a high level of abstraction for infrastructure. I'm interested in diplomacy, wars, and so on; not the internal transport network, or whether I can spin thread in a cheaper manner, and so on.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Jiminov


Sonny - what I don't understand is why you would want to have a high level of abstraction or loss of your direct involement in the infrastructure development of your nation. To me, this line of reasoning suggests that they player should also have minimal involement in the other aspects of the game. If you were to apply this thinking to the construction of the army units; you wouldn't worry about the composition of the three types of troops - because after all - the generals know best.

I guess here is the difference:

In Civ, the "infrastructure" level of your city is built on what you have actually built in the city. There is no global level of infrastructure.

In EU, there is a basic gloabl infrastructure level. If you are buillding roads and grainaries etc. I don't see what the infrastruture you are researching is for since if you are building all these structures then those are what is creating your infrastrutcure level. I know you can add some features but in general your "research" is your build costs for all practical purposes in the game.

I'd really prefer some intermediaste step. I'd like your research infrastructure costs to be lowered but once you complete the research (whihc is really a simulation of gaining the appropriate level of local consent, enlisting local nobles to aid in the project, drafting ordiances and all the other "laying the groundwork type stuff) then you have a build cost per province to upgrade ALL the infrastructure. This way you'd not have everything at the same infra level at the same time and also conquered provinces would notautomatically upgrade as they fall into your empipre. This to me seems an optimal balance between control and abstraction.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Jiminov


Sonny - what I don't understand is why you would want to have a high level of abstraction or loss of your direct involement in the infrastructure development of your nation. To me, this line of reasoning suggests that they player should also have minimal involement in the other aspects of the game. If you were to apply this thinking to the construction of the army units; you wouldn't worry about the composition of the three types of troops - because after all - the generals know best.

It's clear that most other components of EU2 are being beefed up; so I hope this applies to the infrastructure options as well. Specifically, I'm hopeful that there is an increased variety of manufacturies; and that they can be upgraded over time.

Although you have a little more control over army composition (and I'm really not sure that is a good thing because it can be abused) you only have three choices - infantry - cavalry and artillery. With infrastructure you have one choice - $$ or not (although you have a seemingly infinite number of settings for the $$$ - this would equate to the almost infinite number of army composition combinations).

I too hope for beefed up infrastructure (i.e. more directly affecting the game) options in EUII but I don't want to build bridges/roads/granaries etc.

I would also like a more reasonable/understandable economic system but I don't want to have to visit a CoT and set the price of wool/wine/grain etc.

But as State Machine says I like the diplomacy, war and colonization aspects of the game. I do enjoy the infrastructure development in the Imperialism games but in EU I like it abstracted - maybe not quite as much as it is now but then EUII is gonna fix that (hope hope).

 

[unmerged(212)]

State - I completely agree with your assessment of the relative levels of abstraction for each game component. It looks like that EU came exist in its current form as it was modeled on a board game that was classic war strategy. I'd never played the board game but I think I have a pretty good idea of what it was liked based on my all the youth I wasted on Avalon-Hill games. Essentially it's clear that military/diplomacy and exploration/expansion are the two strong pillars of the game. I'd simply like to see infrastructure/economy beefed up in terms of gameplay; they're already crucial for viability in the GC.

Sidney - Yep your analysis of the infrastructure issue in Civ to EU is right on. Civ is a builder's paradise; and even though the combat and diplomacy components of this game were rough (relative to EU), they made the game much more fun & challenging for me than Sim City ever was. EU has much better (& realistic) combat, trade colonization & diplomacy than Civ 2 or even SMAC/CTP. It looks like you're also hoping to see more involvement in this part of the game

Sonny - I second your motion in regards of not needing to visit a CoT to obtain not needing to obtain these items. I also agree that stringing roads all over the place can be tedious in big empires. An option to develop manufacturies over time or at least more of them would be an initial good first step for me. I'd love to see railroads introduced on some level; since it would be late in the game it would be a semi-wonder: little direct impact on the game but big victory points as it would suggest your nation is poised for the industrial revolution.

 

[State Machine]

I like Sydney's point about researching technology vs. implementing it. I've posted in some other thread about seperating those two things for military technology. Why not all technologies?

 

[unmerged(212)]

Yes, I agree with breaking out the two factors also. I just attempted to summarize the issue "Sharing Tech. in an Alliance" thread which is now current.

 

[tonhur]

Hmm, its bit problematic. I do like micromanagement in small scale but it gets VERY boring when you have to micromanage wast empire. Also while in my opinion exact micromanagement playing minor small nation is both important and fun (you have to allocate your limited carefully and effectively) you should not be forced to concern your self with minor sincle province/colony/towm matters when you controll waste and rich world empire. Games should allow player to consentrate the things he/she wants when he/she want.

In EU as majors you have about enough things to take care of in the begining as you usually controll quite few provinces from start but later in game controlling (promoting officials, building walls and refineries etc.) all lands you have conquered/colonised, remembering locations of all your fleets/armies etc. becomes pain in the a**. (I've lost fleets in sea and large armies low support provinces because I have forgotten them god knows where, I've found out that country x have taken over province that I have forgotten to fortify and so on.).

On the other hand when starting as minor couple province nation you really dont have much to do and your option are quite limited (going to war is mostly only option for economic growth in any reasonable scale).

So I really hope EUII adds more micro management but also I hope that it can be automated if player wants. I also would like to see more ways to win the game and to have more ways (other that war) to strenghten your nation and win thru those means. (In EU1 only ways to win are conquest, colonisation and diplo annexation. There should be more 'peacefull' ways to win the game.)

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by tonhur

There should be more 'peacefull' ways to win the game.)

As far as points are concerned you are right there should be a peaceful way to win and I think that is what missions help you do (if they were more sensible) but the time frame of EU & EUII was not a peaceful time. War was what it was all about and so that is what is most likely to bring about victory.

 

[unmerged(212)]

I'm looking forward to better missions as well.

But to address the point of winning by peaceful measns - building special manufacturies that are only available at very high tech levels should result in significant victory points. The logic for this position is the fact that the end of the EU2 period is the beginning of the industrial revolution. The player may not gain much production advantages from this late game building, but the nation would be positioned for long-term competitiveness - therefore you get big victory points.