Amusing Aspects of the Discussion at Hand

[Duuk]

Amusing items I've seen in this forum.

1) People decrying situational events as "not realistic or historic", yet defending the EU2 model that allowed a 1-province Austria that was a vassal of France to inherit a 32 province Hungary that was marching on Constantinople.

2) People freaking out that the 3d game engine will require an upgrade to their computer. This is funny from both ends: the people that have a laptop built in 1995 that don't think they should ever have to accept that their machine is obsolete and the people who have a l33t g4m3r machine capable of running DOOMIII but thinking that EU3 will require them to buy a new motherboard. All without a WORD on system requirements from Johan or anyone else with the word "Paradox" in their title.

Anyone else noticed funny and/or ironic things like this?

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

Amusing items I've seen in this forum.

1) People decrying situational events as "not realistic or historic", yet defending the EU2 model that allowed a 1-province Austria that was a vassal of France to inherit a 32 province Hungary that was marching on Constantinople.

2) People freaking out that the 3d game engine will require an upgrade to their computer. This is funny from both ends: the people that have a laptop built in 1995 that don't think they should ever have to accept that their machine is obsolete and the people who have a l33t g4m3r machine capable of running DOOMIII but thinking that EU3 will require them to buy a new motherboard. All without a WORD on system requirements from Johan or anyone else with the word "Paradox" in their title.

Anyone else noticed funny and/or ironic things like this?

1) Well, to be honest, many people have seen the SE as difficult to implement, too abstract, too generic and a certain cause of losing the historical flavour of the series. I´d rather see the 32 province Hungary inherited by a 1 prov. Austria (Carlos V inherited Spain and Austria and half Italy anyway) than a game full of generic events that lack flavour and personality.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Well, speaking personally, I was pretty pissed that Civ4 demanded (more or less!) that I go out and buy a new video card for my 18-month-old PC in order to play it.
It's a no-win situation, really. One portion of the audience will flame 'em if the graphics aren't glitzy enough. Old timer-grognards like me will flame 'em for spending too much effort on the eye candy and making the game impossible to play on my old Kaypro 64!

 

[unmerged(7197)]

I find it funny when, 15 people in a thread decide: "The EU community have a consensus".

 

[KaRei]

5 pages of discussion if more religions are needed,
6 pages of discussion what to do with confucianism,
3 pages if split pagans,
7 pages if all pagans are same.
Almost 500 replies and nothing solved, this is FUNNY

 

[Smirfy]

Amusing items I've seen in this forum.

1) People decrying situational events as "not realistic or historic", yet defending the EU2 model that allowed a 1-province Austria that was a vassal of France to inherit a 32 province Hungary that was marching on Constantinople.

I agree with Amadís de Gaula on this no one is defending the EUII model per se, they believe that the EUIII model will better so that a "1-province Austria that was a vassal of France to inherit a 32 province Hungary that was marching on Constantinople." will not be as likely! So events if they are used, we prefer them to be historical.

Personally and burn me to death as a heretic for saying so, I just don't dig CK

Now if historical events are used, I'm sure they will be more dynamic than EUII. I hope they use a file system that can open and close event trees like the directories in windows, which would hopefully keep things more in tune with the game.

 

[lordy80011]

Well, speaking personally, I was pretty pissed that Civ4 demanded (more or less!) that I go out and buy a new video card for my 18-month-old PC in order to play it.
It's a no-win situation, really. One portion of the audience will flame 'em if the graphics aren't glitzy enough. Old timer-grognards like me will flame 'em for spending too much effort on the eye candy and making the game impossible to play on my old Kaypro 64!

I think that a partial solution -- or at least a decent compromise -- is for those who have older machines to simply wait until the games -- and their requisite hardware requirements -- drop in price and become a more reasonable expense. To expect the game developers to *always* cater to the the Commodore 64/TRS-80/Apple II crowd is quite a stretch in a market-driven economy, while at the same time, those of us with budgets are also stretched when, as you point out, we must buy a new video card to play a computer game.

But inevitably, the old equipment will breakdown (unless you are running System V on an AT&T 3b2.. those things are virtually unstoppable in my experience. ), and all of those games that I waited to buy, as well as the hardware that I didn't buy when it was the newest stuff on the market, is a heck of a lot cheaper now than it was when it was first released... This enables me to justify it's purchase, even if the games + hardware are still not exactly "cheap", per say.

 

[lordy80011]

I agree with Amadís de Gaula on this no one is defending the EUII model per se, they believe that the EUIII model will better so that a "1-province Austria that was a vassal of France to inherit a 32 province Hungary that was marching on Constantinople." will not be as likely! So events if they are used, we prefer them to be historical.

Personally and burn me to death as a heretic for saying so, I just don't dig CK

Now if historical events are used, I'm sure they will be more dynamic than EUII. I hope they use a file system that can open and close event trees like the directories in windows, which would hopefully keep things more in tune with the game.

I, too, prefer the historical events. It is definitely disappointing when they occur in a framework that is entirely unbelievable, but since I tend to play within a quasi-historical framework when I play, it doesn't bother me too much, usually!

 

[arcorelli]

Amusing items I've seen in this forum.

1) People decrying situational events as "not realistic or historic", yet defending the EU2 model that allowed a 1-province Austria that was a vassal of France to inherit a 32 province Hungary that was marching on Constantinople.

Er, what is so un-historical about a very small ruler getting giant lands by inheritance? As Amadis pointed out that was exactly how Charles V (Charles of Burgundy at his beginnings) got his giant empire. His initial holdings were quite, quite small after all.

 

[Smirfy]

I, too, prefer the historical events. It is definitely disappointing when they occur in a framework that is entirely unbelievable, but since I tend to play within a quasi-historical framework when I play, it doesn't bother me too much, usually!

Thats why I mentioned a kind of directory system if you were for instance Spain and you turned Protestant all events linking you to domestic Catholism would be closed down and an Event tree with protestant events for you would open. (Since like me you play the game quasi historically you would hardly turn Spain protestant)

A Protestant Spain would still have its other event trees open, as for instance Carlos II would still die childless whether he was Catholic or Protestant!

Like wise if an Reformation event tree was used the it would be a tree with branches in every country rather than the EU system just having country event files. Its up to you whether you want to follow your countries historical course or try something else. More realistic more dynamic and gives the alt history boys a chance to mod the direction of countries if they dont choose historical.

Yes I am a genius

 

[Duuk]

Er, what is so un-historical about a very small ruler getting giant lands by inheritance? As Amadis pointed out that was exactly how Charles V (Charles of Burgundy at his beginnings) got his giant empire. His initial holdings were quite, quite small after all.

Because Hungary was only inherited because the Hungarian King was killed in a battle with teh Turks who were sieging his capital, and essentially the Ottomans and Austria partitioned Hungary. It had nothing to do with "best claim" and everything to do with "a claim and the ability to seize some before the Ottomans got it all".

And, since I need to repeat it AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

Situational events does NOT mean "all random events", it means that the events are set up so that ANY national that meets the historical guidelines for "the Dutch Revolts" will get the event series "the Dutch Revolts" and it won't need to be tied to FRA ENG AUS SPA BUR.

Why do people insist on thinking that Situational Events means "all random events"? Why? Do people just not get it, or will their brains simply not process the fact beyond what they want to hear?

Situational Events means that if Spain doesn't conquer Mexico and South America, then they won't have the Spanish Bankruptcy events, since that happened historically due to all the American Gold they had been deluged with. It means that if England stays Catholic, they probably won't have a catholic gunpowder plot, but they MIGHT have a protestant one!

It means that ANY country that has a huge naval presence on the Atlantic Seaboard and a massive interesting in overseas trade will probably get the Magellan events, and not just Portugal.

It means that if you should choose to remain as Castille and not switch to Spain, but you do all of the historical things that Spain DID, you will still get the events that Spain would even though you have the CAS tag instead of the SPA tag.

SITUATIONAL MEANS LESS RANDOM, NOT MORE RANDOM!

Situational Events means that if Muscovy is a 1 province vassal of Poland, they probably won't get the "It All Belongs to Mother Russia" events... but if Ryazan rises to prominence in the east, THEY WILL! All without having to code 17 versions of the Mother Russia Events (which is how it would have to be done in EU2!) Why is this so hard a concept for people to understand? WHY?

<quietly sobs in corner>

 

[unmerged(21937)]

<quietly sobs in corner>

There there Duukie, you should take some relaxation to your nerves by arguing senselessly about Granada.

 

[Registered]

5 pages of discussion if more religions are needed,
6 pages of discussion what to do with confucianism,
3 pages if split pagans,
7 pages if all pagans are same.
Almost 500 replies and nothing solved, this is FUNNY

Summarize that one!

 

[Smirfy]

Because Hungary was only inherited because the Hungarian King was killed in a battle with teh Turks who were sieging his capital, and essentially the Ottomans and Austria partitioned Hungary. It had nothing to do with "best claim" and everything to do with "a claim and the ability to seize some before the Ottomans got it all".

You still don't get it do you, we want Austria to inherit Hungary or at least be given the choice. We want the Anglo-Dutch naval wars not the Irish-Bremen naval wars the French wars of religion the Spainish Armada etc etc etc.

You are putting the event system ahead of the actual game which in my very humble opinion is wrong.

The best way to develop a game is actually get a game first then mod!

 

[Lucky]

2) People freaking out that the 3d game engine will require an upgrade to their computer. This is funny from both ends: the people that have a laptop built in 1995 that don't think they should ever have to accept that their machine is obsolete and the people who have a l33t g4m3r machine capable of running DOOMIII but thinking that EU3 will require them to buy a new motherboard. All without a WORD on system requirements from Johan or anyone else with the word "Paradox" in their title.

Actually I can understand this fear. My current compy was bought near the end of 2001, its graphic card has been updated since and it even has more memory now, yet Civ IV runs rather badly with it. That game has left us all in a horrible state of paranoia.

Fortunately I should be getting a new computer before EU3 comes out.

 

[Registered]

You still don't get it do you, we want Austria to inherit Hungary or at least be given the choice. We want the Anlgo-Dutch naval wars not the Irish-Bremen naval wars the French wars of religion the Spainish Armada etc etc etc.

But if the Dutch are commercially insignificant Anglo Dutch wars are completely senseless.* If Austria is a one province minor under siege by Bavaria there is no way they should inherit a Kingdom, said kingdom would simply look for another heir.

 

[Duuk]

You still don't get it do you, we want Austria to inherit Hungary or at least be given the choice. We want the Anglo-Dutch naval wars not the Irish-Bremen naval wars the French wars of religion the Spainish Armada etc etc etc.

You are putting the event system ahead of the actual game which in my very humble opinion is wrong.

The best way to develop a game is actually get a game first then mod!

So if England is a land power because they conquered France, and the Dutch are a minor provincial vassal of Germany with no trading empire, they should still have a trade war that is triggered by their overseas empires?

I fail to understand how what you're saying makes ANY sense whatsoever. You want the Hungarian King to die always on a day that, historically, he only died because he lost a war to the Ottoman Empire. But what if Hungary manages to conquer Anatolia? Should he still die on that same day?

A butterfly flaps its wings in Beijing, does Hurricane Katrina still strike New Orleans?

 

[Duuk]

There there Duukie, you should take some relaxation to your nerves by arguing senselessly about Granada.

At least there I can write the "OMG NO!" answers off to nationalism

 

[Waldzwerg]

You still don't get it do you, we want Austria to inherit Hungary or at least be given the choice. We want the Anglo-Dutch naval wars not the Irish-Bremen naval wars the French wars of religion the Spainish Armada etc etc etc.

You are putting the event system ahead of the actual game which in my very humble opinion is wrong.

The best way to develop a game is actually get a game first then mod!

Yeah, but instead of playing a game read a good history book instead? Probably far more satisfying and enlightening. While being far from perfect, the CK event engine is the only half way satisfying one so far. The EU2 event engine is in reality one giant exploit (especially in MP) and horribly broken. The point of an good event engine would be to have enough flavour to give the player the feeling of being part of history, not to reenact it faithfully. This is utterly impossible for a game spanning hundreds of years. Make as much EU2 style events as you like for specific scenarios, but please leave them out of the grand campaign.

 

[unmerged(7197)]

While Im all for situational events, how the AI cope with them got me worry.

In EU2 with the current, lets call them "directional events", Russia, Ottoman, Prussia, Spain, England and Portugal are too often a joke. So I dont think situational events would help them, rather mess them up more.

On the other hand, who I am to think those countries will be as impaired in EU3 than EU2. Maybe the 1453 starts will solves most of the issues said countries face in EU2. Maybe with new game mechanics, said countries will be overpowered. Etc.

Overall, I think you need all kind of events, historical with ahistorical path, situational, directional, random, flavors, etc. I also happen to think the less is handle by events, the better it is.