Agceep?

[Rompa]

Does anyone know whether the AGCEEP crew will mod this game into a more historically accurate game? They did a great job on EUII.

If not, why buy this if I already got CK? It's basically the same as EU III, right? Without dynasties but with 3D graphics, of course...

 

[unmerged(57311)]

AFAIK CK is from the 11th to the ?14th/15th? century. EU3 is not (from 1453 to 1789 if im right). Its completely different even from EU2. The lack of historical events can be called as a feature because those EU2like events were "replaced" by the new engine which is capable of handling the things that may have occured during the timeframe without the need of scripting. Though that means things may not happen as they did historically....
I've had a great fun with it so far, so I think you should invest in it.

 

[gdo01]

AFAIK CK is from the 11th to the ?14th/15th? century. EU3 is not (from 1453 to 1789 if im right). Its completely different even from EU2. The lack of historical events can be called as a feature because those EU2like events were "replaced" by the new engine which is capable of handling the things that may have occured during the timeframe without the need of scripting. Though that means things may not happen as they did historically....
I've had a great fun with it so far, so I think you should invest in it.

Well the user is saying that in terms of events, CK and EU3 are the same in how they deal with them, by having as few as possible.

 

[Rompa]

AFAIK CK is from the 11th to the ?14th/15th? century. EU3 is not (from 1453 to 1789 if im right). Its completely different even from EU2. The lack of historical events can be called as a feature because those EU2like events were "replaced" by the new engine which is capable of handling the things that may have occured during the timeframe without the need of scripting. Though that means things may not happen as they did historically....
I've had a great fun with it so far, so I think you should invest in it.

Yes well, to be honest I was more interested in getting an answer to my first question. You wouldn't happen to if they (AGCEEP) will do it? I couldn't find any info on their home page.

PS. I did know the time frame o (1453 to 1789 is correct, btw)

 

[unmerged(40707)]

There is no info because we made no decision but some of us expressed personal opinion on this board.

Here is mine: currently, because of PI choices, it is simply impossible to see it happen. Of course, current database for map/provinces, starting situations, monarchs, leaders and advisors could be improved but almost all AGCEEP events can't fit EU3 "philosophy" and modders have no real control over AI.

See here for complements.

 

[Rompa]

There is no info because we made no decision but some of us expressed personal opinion on this board.

Here is mine: currently, because of PI choices, it is simply impossible to see it happen. Of course, current database for map/provinces, starting situations, monarchs, leaders and advisors could be improved but almost all AGCEEP events can't fit EU3 "philosophy" and modders have no real control over AI.

See here for complements.

OK, shame. I'll just stick to AGCEEP and vicky then. Don't wanna spend money on a game I'm pretty sure I won't like.

The historical events were half the enjoyment. Without that, I feel that they should call the game something other than EU. It seems more like a "new" type of game rather than an attempt to expand and improve the old, loved and fun game. But that's my opinion, though. So no one has to prove me wrong

 

[unmerged(40707)]

If EU3 was "compatible" with EU2, we could use best of both and switch from one mode to another (random / hard driven) when situation is appropriate.

Once again, this is my personal opinion.

 

[Yasko]

If not, why buy this if I already got CK? It's basically the same as EU III, right? Without dynasties but with 3D graphics, of course...

Its like Medieval Total War II, but without the tactical battles...

 

[ComradeOm]

If not, why buy this if I already got CK? It's basically the same as EU III, right? Without dynasties but with 3D graphics, of course...

EUIII is the game that CK should have been. That is, you have historical events but they are now context driven. I saw a lovely thread the other day about someone complaining that the Spanish Inflation event had happened to England!

I can understand the dismay of the AGCEEP team who have generally been staunch supporters of historical determinism. But I'd hope that instead of retreating to an old game they'd adapt to the "EUIII philosophy" and bring their expertise and skills to bear on the new game. There is a huge amount that they could contribute.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

EUIII is the game that CK should have been. That is, you have historical events but they are now context driven. I saw a lovely thread the other day about someone complaining that the Spanish Inflation event had happened to England!

I can understand the dismay of the AGCEEP team who have generally been staunch supporters of historical determinism. But I'd hope that instead of retreating to an old game they'd adapt to the "EUIII philosophy" and bring their expertise and skills to bear on the new game. There is a huge amount that they could contribute.

Personally I thought the AGCEEP events could get really over the top. Like playing ina stright jacket.

 

[Garbon]

I can understand the dismay of the AGCEEP team who have generally been staunch supporters of historical determinism. But I'd hope that instead of retreating to an old game they'd adapt to the "EUIII philosophy" and bring their expertise and skills to bear on the new game. There is a huge amount that they could contribute.

Our policy is to encourage historical outcomes...there really isn't room to shift to a "plausible/possiblee" outcomes model without disbanding the whole idea. As it would be against the very tenets of our mod, it would be disingenious for anything done for eu3 to be a successor to the AGCEEP.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

And we are not "retreating" to an "old" game, we just keep using the one that can make possible what we enjoy the most.
EU3 is a different game with different goals... but with the same name. That's all.

 

[coreymas]

Sounds like you have already made up your minds on this issue.....

So why not then just come out and say ...

No we won't do it cause it doesn't fit into our philosophy.

Corey

 

[contecorti]

And we are not "retreating" to an "old" game, we just keep using the one that can make possible what we enjoy the most.
EU3 is a different game with different goals... but with the same name. That's all.

Yodamaster wouldn't be possible to make dynamic historical events with all the limitations of the new engine?
What i mean is adding events which happened historically which are triggered if specific conditions are met.
This imply that all these events not necessarily should pop up in every game considering that all the different countries don't have a specific AI.
For example a treaty of Tordesillas would never happen if in game Spain and Portugal don't meet the necessary requirements, if Ottoman Empire is more interested in colonizing Northern America instead of conquering Balkan a "Bessarabian annexation event " will never popup.
Adding some of these events could be interesting also if people want to roleplay his country.

 

[Garbon]

Sounds like you have already made up your minds on this issue.....

So why not then just come out and say ...

No we won't do it cause it doesn't fit into our philosophy.

Corey

Because we haven't made a group decision. You're only getting the personal opinions of two contributors, in this thread.

 

[Evie HJ]

And certain high council members have shown themselves quite willing to mod for EU III - though not necessarily as AGCEEP III. Mad King James posted his shopping list of things to mod some time back, and Twoflower is one of the contributors to The Great Big Mod.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

@coreymas: as Garbon said and because, personally, I'm optimistic.

It is the other way around: it's EU3 that don't fit our (my) philosophy. PI could change this if they want to. Read post #5 again, and follow the link.

I do want to see historical events happen if they are still plausible and plausible events happen, if they are really plausible. I do not want to see only "plausible" events based on generalization/theorization of History.

@contecorti: this is already the case in AGCEEP, when conditions are not met, some (most?) historical event won't happen at all. That's why I said "almost all" events.
Other problem is dates. Something that happened in 1515, for example, could be plausible between 1500 and 1550 under certain circumstancies, why not, but really not sure for 1600 or after and/or with another ruler.
After reading Johan's EU3 scripting Bible, I'm not sure dates are relevant in EU3 for a specific day.

@Guillaume HJ: being HC member does not mean not being free. Read post #5 too.

 

[Evie HJ]

I never said it did.

I only wanted to point out (in response to those who were saying it looked like the decision had already been made) that the opinion expresed by Garbon and yourself was not necessarly shared by all of the High Council.

As for your comment about an event plausible between 1500 and 1550, yes - within our timeline. But when you really get down to it, the event was not plausible because the calendar said "1500" or "1550" - it was plausible because of social or political considerations at the time.

Most of these can probably be reproduced via the trigger system (though it does have its lacks)

 

[Mork]

How is EUIII the same game as CK?
As any Paradox game?

No historical events ala EUII. No dynasty ala CK. No tech spreading, cultural conversion, power splitting between population groups, regiment hiring, in fact I can only see one feature that is in CK which was, sorta, in EUIII, dynamic history (i.e. no historical events or historical leaders save for the starting year).

EUIII is like no other PI game. Though the game it feels most like is EUII (well, d'uh).

 

[Featauril]

Personally I thought the AGCEEP events could get really over the top. Like playing ina stright jacket.

I felt the same way. I once played russia where I regretted conquering territories because I realised there was an event that came later that would have given them all to me as cores. I didn't like feeling like I had to memorise a list of events in order to play the game well.