-
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.
How can you ever have historic events when the entire game is based on a dynamic dynasty model?DaPacemDomine said:Whaa? No historical events? I hope this is a joke.
Havard said:
Nice. So only historically plausible random events then? *rubs hands*
That's was my main issue with EU2, once you'd played a few times you'd know what to expect.
This is gonna be so good.
*shrugs* Just seems like a terrific loss. Part of what made Europa Universalis 2 so much better than the original EU were the historical events. To lose that, in my mind, draws worries that the game, for the player, will wind up stagnant and uninteresting after playing a few games. I realize it'd be near impossible to take into account the sheer number of dynasties you're representing, but still ... that's terrifically disappointing.
DaPacemDomine said:*shrugs* Just seems like a terrific loss. Part of what made Europa Universalis 2 so much better than the original EU were the historical events. To lose that, in my mind, draws worries that the game, for the player, will wind up stagnant and uninteresting after playing a few games. I realize it'd be near impossible to take into account the sheer number of dynasties you're representing, but still ... that's terrifically disappointing.
Well, I guess there are certain events still in place, like the Mongols, the Black Plague etc.
From a screenshot we see that Byzantium is given the option to hire the Varengians as their personal guard for example.
The events in EU2 were a mixed blessing for me. Sometimes they made sense, other times not at all. In once instance, as Viajiigiar (sp?) I had conquered all of India, but hell, I still got the "defeat at the hands of the muslims" event, which made no sense at all.
If CK can have semi-random events that occur when certain GAME SITUATION requirements are met, I am all for it. I don't want to get historic events thrown in my face just for the sake of being historic.
In the games i play, I've already created an alternate reality, and thrown all the historic events from *our* reality out the window.
In a way you are right. But in another way you are very wrong. The situation especialy with the different families and the ability to try and marry your sons/daughters to any Christian court means that about 20 minutes into the game things arent going to be the way they historicly happened.Nor will they be the way that you played the game last week. I mean you can still follow the historical process and there are random historical events but there wont be an event like "The De Hautville launches an invasion of Sicily" option a. Rock on. Gain 100000 troops option b. Be a meek little frencman, lose 10 prestiege.
It seems to me you are one of those people who go something like this "GOD DAMNIT. THE GAME DOESNT MODEL THAT TINY TOWN IN EAST SOUTH STETENFORD. ITS UNREALISTIC. WHY ISNT THIS LIKE FLIGHT SIMULATOR BUT IN HISTORY! ILL NEVER BUY THIS GAME"
Like realy buddy. Relax. Its a fun game in a historic setting.
AlexanderG said:
Chill out there. I'm well within my rights as a future consumer of this game to express my opinion about how the game should be. I never said anything about *not* buying the game - I'll probably be one of the first to buy it - your post is unwarranted. Oh, and the largest city in Europe at the start of the game is hardly some tiny insignificant town in some random province. It's just a little more important than that.
Firstly its a privelege.. Seconldy not in the combative tone of "OH man, you dont know what you are doing" and "Johan is wrong"
Right. Are we debating if its in or out ? No. We are debating on "What name will sound more historicly realistic"
You seem to be bent on having it your way, and since you are not geting your way Iam willing to bet money that within a day of geting this game you are going to be on this forum bitching about it. Which is a damn shame because this game is freaking awesome.
Oh and yes. When you are the human controling Byzantium you total own ass.
Last edited:
AlexanderG said:
Yes, it's a privilege that I have as long as I don't violate forum rules in doing it - which, of course, I have not done. As long as I continue to not break any rules, I have every right to express my opinion here. Second, that wasn't even a combative tone - I just said I don't think it's a good reason to make such a decision. Do you define 'combative' as 'something that you disagree with'?
AlexanderG said:
I'm not 'bent on having my way'. I'm expressing my opinion on the way it should be - but you seem to not be able to tell the difference when it's an opinion you disagree with. Perhaps you should look at your own posts for the definition of 'combative tone'....
Johan: Its Byzantium because I like Byzantium
You: "This is a bad argument. In fact Iam not the only one who will think so..." (implication, people will think this game will suck!)
You: "This is a bad argument. In fact Iam not the only one who will think so..." (implication, people will think this game will suck!)
AlexanderG said:
If you use quotes, you should use the words I actually typed, not what you think I typed. Here is what I really said:
me said:
I was trying to say that choosing a name 'because someone likes it' isn't a very good reason to make a choice in a historically based game, in my opinion, and that I thought that there were other people here that would agree with me (at least on this specific issue) - and that's exactly what I said.
Just because you misinterpreted my statements, you shouldn't change my quote to make it look like I said something else!
Fine then. I apologize. Iam sorry I read too much into the "And Iam not the only one ..."
i agree historical events wont be very appropriate for CK, if there were, you'd have to draw a circle of 10 provinces in every direction around the player's lands and the historical events would happen only outside it
no way predicting what the twisted mind of a gamer can do... tsk tsk
and it'll remove some absurd situations i've observed in eu2
still, there should be a good number of random events to fill the gap... historical events do add flavour and make the atmosphere more believable
no way predicting what the twisted mind of a gamer can do... tsk tsk
and it'll remove some absurd situations i've observed in eu2
still, there should be a good number of random events to fill the gap... historical events do add flavour and make the atmosphere more believable
IMHO good random events can easily replace most historical events, anyway if you really want historical events that will fit all weird situations that can occur, you need a lot triggers.von Loch Ness said:i agree historical events wont be very appropriate for CK, if there were, you'd have to draw a circle of 10 provinces in every direction around the player's lands and the historical events would happen only outside it
no way predicting what the twisted mind of a gamer can do... tsk tsk
and it'll remove some absurd situations i've observed in eu2
still, there should be a good number of random events to fill the gap... historical events do add flavour and make the atmosphere more believable
von Loch Ness said:
Depending on what is included in the game and what exactly the event triggers and commands are, I have quite a few ideas for random events that I plan on writing for the Byzantine Empire....
AlexanderG said:
You're probably right. But eh, old habits die hard. I trust there will be ample random events to more than make up for it, though? Last thing I want to do is buy a game and wind up watching the clock run, stopping only to propose royal marriages and wage war on the weakest neighbor. Having ravenously bought every game Paradox has put out since the original EU, I don't have the slightest doubt that CK will be more than worth the purchase, yet, I'm gonna miss historical events ... There go all dreams of a Fourth Crusade.
Well, except for what can be manufactured by the player through alliances and such.