I would prefer EU 2 to be 1492-1792 improved. However, I would love to see other games using the same engine! E.g. Ancient Empires ca 100BC - 200AD, Volkwanderung 400-700, Viking Era 766-1066, etc...
-
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.
I would prefer EU 2 to be 1492-1792 improved. However, I would love to see other games using the same engine! E.g. Ancient Empires ca 100BC - 200AD, Volkwanderung 400-700, Viking Era 766-1066, etc...
OK, I found the game Colonial Conquest and the proper emulator. How exactly do I play this? Does anyone have a manual or at least can someone describe the rules of this game?
Amen to that. First of all, I'm still chomping at the bit to get my hands on EU. There was a thread on features for EU ][ a few weeks ago, but a few items on my wish list are:
1) A randomizable New World... after all, why go right for the Aztecs if the Sioux have an equal chance of diamond mines?
2) An expanded timeline... if the game started in 1066, William the Conquorer/Bastard would be a key leader. Maybe Marco Polo would provide Venice with a path to super-power status?
3) A new technology model... see the thread on Innovation for details.
There should be a Middle Ages game ending in 1492 with the option to then continue using EU or EU ][. This would be a great way to come up with intersting alternate history starting positions.
The randomizable option could also include much of Africa and Oceania, making for much more interesting exploration. Of course, the important tribes should be randomized too.
I think someone else pointed out earlier that a vastly expanded timeline in the same game just wouldn't work though. It's too broad to put under one system without encountering the same problems that a game like Civ has.
Like I say a few days ago, I prefer a 1792-1914 game with an option to continue the last EU savegame.
------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Originally posted by yndenwal:
Devin, Colonial Conquest also existed on Atari ST (and I must admit that I still play it sometimes on my PC using an ST Emulator)
In CC, the whole world was devided in provinces/countries (perhaps 200). Each province gave money, with money you build armies and navies (more or less efficient and more or less expensive depending on the country), spied on other province or fortifed them. And there it went, put troops in ship, land somewhere, crush the natives/enemies and hop ! the province is now yours beautiful English rose, Franch green, US blue, German grey, Russian red and Japanese Yellow...
At the end, you could look back at the historical track, showing how the world evolved to end all in one colour (yours of course).
Fairly basic but really fun, especially when the map was generated randomly (my 150.000 valliant Japanese troops crush the 98.000 native defenders of St Helena, yeah ! !)
I've learned my geography on this game on my old ST !
That was funny even if it was totally unreallistic (Galapagos worth 2.700.000$ income, whereas Persia was sometimes a mere 200.000$) and Russian army were crap but were multiplying as fast as rabbits in Australia when you were able to attain a certain level of conquered minors...
It's nice to encounter some gamers who remember the old classics. Sure, they were ugly and the AI was weak, but they seemed somehow more epic. I'm only 28, but I've begun to feel like I'm outgrowing computer games, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's these inane RTS click-fests and fantasy/sci-fi cliches that are causing me to lose interest in strategy games. I'm glad someone is making a game for those of us who prefer a little more intellectual depth.
It's too bad there isn't a bigger market for grand strategy games in a historical setting. There are deep strategy games where you have the opportunity to colonize the Zeta sector with your race of bird-people and lead your army of elves to glory. But is that as gratifying as establishing a Danish colony in North America or orchestrating Scottish hegemony over the British isles? Usually not. Games that are not set in the real world don't give you the same sense of acheiving something truly exceptional because you have no frame of reference in these alternate worlds.
It's too bad there isn't a bigger market for grand strategy games in a historical setting. There are deep strategy games where you have the opportunity to colonize the Zeta sector with your race of bird-people and lead your army of elves to glory. But is that as gratifying as establishing a Danish colony in North America or orchestrating Scottish hegemony over the British isles? Usually not. Games that are not set in the real world don't give you the same sense of acheiving something truly exceptional because you have no frame of reference in these alternate worlds.
I'm 28 in two weeks and EU is the first computer games I've been playing for quite a long time. And I like it!
Or having Montcalm kick out Wolfe and all English from North America?
EU is really great for this.
Exacly my feelings as well. Who doesn't want to change history? (However, I have absolutely nothing against conquering planets with Bird People.
)
If you want a little assistance for that, I am your man ...
We can also replay the battle of Fontenoy ...
------------------
Si vis pacem, para bellum
It's funny to see how people with the same background tend to have the same wishes (ie French players wishing to -at last- win something against the Brits).
I was wondering how a player without any historical culture would play EU? Continental expansion for England? Poland major sea power and colonisator of the Indian Ocean?
It reminds me of some World in Flames AAR I read which were very interesting because players had amended themselves of what happened historically and followed fairly original strategies...
I was wondering how a player without any historical culture would play EU? Continental expansion for England? Poland major sea power and colonisator of the Indian Ocean?
It reminds me of some World in Flames AAR I read which were very interesting because players had amended themselves of what happened historically and followed fairly original strategies...
I have the impression that EU strikes a great balance between reality (geography, technology, attrition effects, etc.) and flexibility (military strategy, diplomatic alliances, colonization sites, etc.). I have grown so tired of games with linear story lines & repetitive objectives and click-fest unit management.
I like games that give you the option to play on a pre-set map or else generate a random world. Imperalism (despite its other problems) was good in this way since a random world really increased the degree of replayability. When exploration/colonization is a major component of what the game offers, not knowing what lies beyond the curve of the horizion is crucial.
I like games that give you the option to play on a pre-set map or else generate a random world. Imperalism (despite its other problems) was good in this way since a random world really increased the degree of replayability. When exploration/colonization is a major component of what the game offers, not knowing what lies beyond the curve of the horizion is crucial.
I don't know if anybody still have a manual, but I played this game over and over when I was a teen. AsI'm 27 in a couple of months, that makes a certain number of year I didn't play and I never had a manual anyway. So if I remember well...
You choose a date line (one of the scenario or the one with a full world to colonize), after you choose the nation you want to play (set on human player) and choose wheter others coutries are neutral (ie don't do anything) or computer (you can choose their level from 1 to 9).
The year is divided in 4 seasons. You can build armies and ships only in Winter with the money you raised from your terrtories. You can do other thins like spying a territory (to have an idea of its military force), fortifying a territory (cost more to spy and better defence), bribe (basically reduce the military forces in the terrtoies and if it get down to , its yours!), etc...
You can move your armies from a territory to an adjacent one or board them on a fleet and send them on territories having access to sea.
The best is to try and see what happens...
Ask if in need of more precise answer...
Poland major sea power and colonisator of the Indian Ocean?
Johan once played a game as Poland and made her into one of the premier sea powers of the GC. This was done at the expense of loss off most of the Polish eastern provinces to the Russians though, but that didn't bother him too much because most of the richer ones were in central / western Poland. It's certainly possible to create vastly different paths for nations who weren't so well known or regarded for various endevours during their heydays.
Sapura
Johan once played a game as Poland and made her into one of the premier sea powers of the GC. This was done at the expense of loss off most of the Polish eastern provinces to the Russians though, but that didn't bother him too much because most of the richer ones were in central / western Poland. It's certainly possible to create vastly different paths for nations who weren't so well known or regarded for various endevours during their heydays.
Sapura
Colonial Conquest seems bound to make a great come-back on our screens I see!
Falp, your memory is flawless. Just add that if you choose a 'historical' scenario, provinces' value and armed forces are fixed and fairly realistic (as much as CC could be).
If you choose the scenario where the world is empty for colonization, value and armies are generated randomly. Prepare to land your 250.000 Russian cosacks to crush the 327.000 defenders of the wonderful riches of Galapagos islands...
Armies and Fleets of different nations have different costs and values. If I remember:
Country-fleet cost-fleet strength-army cost-army strength (1 the best I think)
England-300k-1-600k-1
Germany-400k-2-400k-2
France-300k-3-500k-2 or 3
USA-300k-2-400k-2
Japan-300k-3-500k-3
Russia-200k-4-700k-4
Falp, your memory is flawless. Just add that if you choose a 'historical' scenario, provinces' value and armed forces are fixed and fairly realistic (as much as CC could be).
If you choose the scenario where the world is empty for colonization, value and armies are generated randomly. Prepare to land your 250.000 Russian cosacks to crush the 327.000 defenders of the wonderful riches of Galapagos islands...
Armies and Fleets of different nations have different costs and values. If I remember:
Country-fleet cost-fleet strength-army cost-army strength (1 the best I think)
England-300k-1-600k-1
Germany-400k-2-400k-2
France-300k-3-500k-2 or 3
USA-300k-2-400k-2
Japan-300k-3-500k-3
Russia-200k-4-700k-4
That good because I'm not that old and wow, that means no mad cow disease in near future expected then. Good news for me.
Historical scenario were pretty boring, especially when considering that my old version had problems like explosion of number of troops in a land to several millions in the last provinces or centre of a main powers (always happenned when I attacked US after crushing them in south then cental america...