TeeWee said:
Yes, that would be ideal but the second one would probably have to be modded in. If there's already a generic succession wars then it's probably expecting a bit much for the specific one to be included as well in the release version.
Development Diary - 16th of August 2006
- Thread starter Johan
- Start date
-
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.
Yes, that would be ideal but the second one would probably have to be modded in. If there's already a generic succession wars then it's probably expecting a bit much for the specific one to be included as well in the release version.
Joohoo said:Only 6??!!
Yes... Now try figuring out WHICH ones from heart
I'll help... One of them was the Treaty of Tordesillas, another one the Council of Trent.
Vulture said:Yes... Now try figuring out WHICH ones from heart
I'll help... One of them was the Treaty of Tordesillas, another one the Council of Trent.
Reformation, Edict of Tolerance, Jean Calvin?
Chronologically, treaty of tordesillas, protestants, reformed, counter-reformed, edict of tolerance...
Hmm, i can't remember the sixth one...
Hmm, i can't remember the sixth one...
Ah! Technically, yes indeed. But a lot of monarchs had "forced" random events tied to them, based on true historical events. I'm curious of the total number if you count them.Johan said:
@DarthMaur : IIRC, the sixth is the changing flag of France.
I love EU2, because it's a game that strives for historicity - but I'm starting to fear I'll despise EU3. CK is purely a game, with entertaining events, but devoid of any real-life background, as in a few years the map usually becomes something not even the worse historian could confuse with historical maps. EU2 was different from the other games on the same scale because it strived to get historical, using the historical events to "guide it" along the "right" way where the engine could not help, yes, but also as a mean of "telling the story" to the player.
Otherwise, Civilization would be better. EU2 appalled to a precise "niche" of players, those who were interested in history more than in gaming. Its interest lies in a modest modicum of ahistoricity. Look at the popularity of AGCEEP, MyMap or EP : people want a game that follows the guidelines of history. CK does not follow those guidelines. Parting of the historical events and monarchs is going the way CK led. CK is fun - for a time. But CK is not a historical game, it's purely a game.
Moreover, EU2 and Vicky, much more than EU1 and CK, led me to learn more about history, to search explanations on historical events, to discover the History of different countries, biographies of people, analysis of events, etc. Because EU2 and Vicky give a context. A game that relies solely on generic events doesn't entice the same curiosity.
As said in another thread, in my opinion after seeing this week's Diary, this new game should not be named Europa Universalis 3, but Crusader Kings 2 : The Modern Times.
As I said earlier in this thread, that is far more the result of CK's focus on a dynastic system rather than a nationalistic systme. The events aren't the root cause of that patchwork change, although there's no question that over time they contribute to even further weirdness.Ambassador said:
Indeed. And as long as things progressed roughly historically those events were fine. What many people object to (myself included) is situations where there has been a large enough departure from history that the events that are triggering later in the game are absolutely rediculous considering the current situation.
Johan has stated (at least twice in this thread alone) that he is not interested in turning this into a modernized CK2; so why are you so sure that he wil suddenly change direction, abandon a design philosphy that he has already been working on for 2+ years, and go to an uber-random extreme? I just don't understand how you can be so negative and terrified about something without any real basis on which to found those fears.
Good example Ambassador... Why should Austria inherit Bohemia if Austria has by no means followed a policy of royal weddings?
ITYM appealedAmbassador said:
I'm not really sure if it will really solely on generic events. Looking at what's possible in the event system, I would be surprised if one cannot make specific/historic events. I suspect there will be a mix of generic and specific events when the game ships. And it wil be up to the mod community to tweak the mix to please their respective niches.
Looking at your sig, is it just the loss of historical monarchs which disappoints, or is it more?
Looks very good. Each update answers more questions but poses yet even more. Such a tease! But a good tease.
MrT said:
The basis is the lack of historical monarchs beyond the one you start with so that is now a known part of the game. Because a lot of events were caused or directly influenced by specific Kings/Leaders then this means a lot of events must be lost.
The worry is not really an uber random extreme, it's that events which trigger off specific conditions, so can occur for multiple countries cannot then refer to the leader of that country or conditions as they existed in that country at the time 'in real life'. In other words, the flavour of the events is lost and they become dry descriptions.
Like all of the event descriptions in CK, which I keep referring to because it's the best example of a condition triggered event engine
The more I hear about EUIII the more I want to play it. I like how the new game is going to be "historical" rather than "deterministic" (ie: things will happen like they did if the conditions are the same or similar, but not if they are different). Three hoorays for that!
As for those who want to learn history playing a computer game, there are strange paper things out there full of information about history. They are called books, and with some training you'll be able to decode them and gather that information.
As for those who want to learn history playing a computer game, there are strange paper things out there full of information about history. They are called books, and with some training you'll be able to decode them and gather that information.
Um....say what?Bodders said:The basis is the lack of historical monarchs beyond the one you start with so that is now a known part of the game. Because a lot of events were caused or directly influenced by specific Kings/Leaders then this means a lot of events must be lost.
The worry is not really an uber random extreme, it's that events which trigger off specific conditions, so can occur for multiple countries cannot then refer to the leader of that country or conditions as they existed in that country at the time 'in real life'. In other words, the flavour of the events is lost and they become dry descriptions.
Like all of the event descriptions in CK, which I keep referring to because it's the best example of a condition triggered event engine
Can you please tell me which event file in EU2 to look in to find any single event that is governed by a "monarch_id = xxxxx" or "leader_id = yyyyy" trigger. There are a few events with wakemonarch or sleepmonarch effects, but a cursary glance through the major event files hasn't uncovered a single event that I couldn't easily script with EU3's event engine.
(EDIT: or, for that matter, with a bit of work I might be able to achieve the vast majority of them with CK's event engine)
Watcher said:As for those who want to learn history playing a computer game, there are strange paper things out there full of information about history. They are called books, and with some training you'll be able to decode them and gather that information.
Argggghhhhh, stop it, stop it, stop it. Even with the smiley, when you've read that line for the three millionth time, it ceases to be fun. It's more entertaining than reading a book.
If you promise never to use that line again, I promise I'll never tell you to 'play Civ' - do we have a deal?
Arilou said:
For me EU1 was the thing that started the love affair with Paradox games (back in 2000). The idea of being taken back in time, all the way back to 1492, made me shiver with anticipation. I enjoyed the simulated medieval europe of 1492 tremendously.
Most of all I enjoyed the feeling that I mattered. My power was limited, bound by the potential of the country I had chosen, but still, I could change history. And I had hundreds of years to change it.
When EU2 came I was overjoyed...for a while. I loved the game (I still love it), and at first I also liked all the historical events that had been added after EU1. But then I started to be annoyed with them (when I noticed, that the events seemed to be happening no matter what I did.) In most of my games, the "historical" events that happened after 1600 were more or less out of place. Gradually I started to hate them.
The "set-in-stone-historical" approach forced me to play EU2 in a gamey way (waiting for a commander that I knew would be born soon, trying to accomplish as much as I could with my good monarch since I *knew* that he would be replaced by moron, waiting for my opponents to suffer catastrophes that I knew would come. That was stupid and killed much of the immersion, but I put up with it since other parts of the game were so well done.
I want to play a historical simulation - a solid starting place in real history, with adequate game mechanisms to simulate real world cause & effect. But after that I want to be set loose: I want the world to react to what I have done. Or what a particularly succesfull AI country has done.
I want immersion. Immersion comes from the fact that the world seems to have plausibility. That excludes "date & country" type "historical" events.
Johan said:
hee. people forget this little fact. I can't remember if there was much grousing how EU2's event system was a radical and unfortunate departure from that of EU.
MrT said:
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here - they occurred because of specific monarchs in charge at that time.
I've already mentioned two - the foundation of the Mughals and the Act of Supremacy. Without Henry VIII, why is there an Act of Supremacy? Without Babur, why are the Mughals founded?
The Act of Supremacy begins the religious conflict in England that will end in the Civil War. The Civil War is one of the driving forces which leads to colonisation of the new world which leads to the British empire....
Now, model all that without date triggers being the primary drivers
Edited for the proper king, though without a Henry VII, there wouldn't have been a Henry VIII....
Last edited:
Ambassador said:
And in many cases this resulted in a "shoehorn" effect, where things completely inappropriate to the player-made situation occurred. Spanish bankruptcies are probably the most egregious examples of events that slammed a nation without rhyme or reason, simply because they happened historically - completely ignoring the fact that the reasons for the historical bankruptcies might not exist in the player game.
Damn, but events like that were annoying.
The last decent Civ game was Civ 2. Civ 4 is the eye-candy low-brow bastard child of the series. I couldn't have been more bored if I'd spent the time idly scratching my ass and watching my lawn grow. If anything, Civ 4 simply reminded me that the team that created SMAC would never again rise from the ashes.
I wasted an inordinate amount of time on EU 2 and I certainly don't belong to that niche. Like most folks, I realized the moment I hit the "start" button I was entering an alternate history. THAT is what appealed, not a computer-based recreation of a bad documentary on Europe from the Middle Ages to Industrialism.
No, the people who made and played those mods wanted those things. The vast majority of gamers who bought EU 2 never downloaded a mod or visited this forum; they were quite happy with the game right out of the box. We don't hear from them because they don't come here.
That's true of most games, btw. The industry estimates that 90% or more of all gamers never visit a forum dedicated to the games that they buy, and a big chunk of those don't even bother with patches unless they're included as an 'update now' feature on the start menu. I don't see EU 2 being any different from any other game in that regard. It is, after all, just a computer game, and not a way of life (except for the people making money off it). It's how we kill time in an enjoyable fashion when we're not doing more interesting things out in the world.
It's nice that EU 2 is based in history, but the 'divine intervention' approach of EU 2 was entirely unbelieveable and often aggravating. The game's the thing, and now that I'm seeing the removal of the Fates from said game I'm happy as could be. In fact, it's the thing that convinced me (after throwing money away on HOI and HOI 2) to give EU 3 a go.
Max