Development Suggestion

[Doomdark]

Ah, the KOEI games... How I miss them. No matter that they were in EGA with pathetic sound effects, they were still excellent. I loved the dynastic model, the tactical combat, and the way you could persuade enemy lords to defect to your side. I wonder if they still keep making such games over in SE Asia...

EU is the first game in this genre to come out in ages!

In my opinion the way to make the game infinately challenging is to allow a player to play any nation.

Exactly my opinion as well. When the AI becomes too predictable, you should always be allowed to play a harder nation. I hear that you can do this in EU, just by hacking a config file or two. Still, it would be better if the option existed in-game.

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 16-05-2000).]

 

[Johan]

Well, I'm also a fan of old KOEI games. I remember I loved to play Genhis Khan.

/Johan

 

[Doomdark]

Commander Poland,

You know more than me about the play balance and game mechanics of course, but why would it require adjustment? I mean, it's supposed to be harder playing Sweden than France. Not to mention the challenge of playing Pskov or Moldavia. Why is play balance an issue?

/Captain Sweden

 

[Doomdark]

Commander Poland,

Sweden maybe more difficult to play in the beginning, but later it develops into a power. Poland is easy to play from 1492-late 17th century because it was a power then.

Are you saying that there are hidden factors that influence nations so that they develop in a way that corresponds to real history? I was under the impression that this was not the case...

Poland has been voted as top 5 most favourite countries to play as the human, which is swell..

That is good, but it does not surprise me. Poland had an interesting location. Then again, there are only 7 playable nations in the GC (which is two or three too few IMO).

I don't know whether non player nations in EU have the correct statistics / names / years / dates of military leaders.

Ok, this is a real problem. Still, it could be made obvious to the players that these nations used 'generic' names. One possibility would be to use the names/stats of some famous mercenaries for humans playing minor nations. Anyway, I am pretty happy with only having to modify some text files. I hope that generals and leaders are also open for modification...?

Also, what about countries outside of Europe. Sure its EUROPA universalis

Yes, this is a game about Europe. Nations outside of Europe should not be playable IMO.

Poland was easy to establish into the GC because it was already playtested quite considerably. It only took my crying / ranting / followed by hard facts to change Johan's mind.

You should be happy that your campaign was more successful than mine. Not even the hard facts on Sweden has managed to sway Johan

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Of course this game should be as accurate as it can possibly be...

However, I would rather play a minor nation with generic names than not at all. Luckily, you can do this, even if it is sort of unofficial.

You can be sure that if it is at all possible to do so, I will research a couple of minor nations and add the names/statistics of their leaders and generals.

I imagine that if the game turns out to be good enough, there will probably be a world-wide effort to fill in all of the 'blanks'.

/Doomie

 

[Johan]

Actually most regents and leaders for all minor countries are in the game.

/Johan

 

[Doomdark]

Ah, even better then!

But now I am even more confused as to why it should be a problem to make nations playable in-game...

Being a programmer, I anticipate no hassle hacking a few script files, but it could possibly be a bother for other players.

Sapura refers to play balancing, but I still don't see why it should be necessary to play balance all the minors when the game seems to take a non-deterministic approach to history... I.e. events are not fated to happen.

The only reasonable explanation is that there is some special sort of balancing/uniqueness going on with the major powers... Ah well.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

My Dear Count,

I must say that this is very comforting:

And after say twenty such games I have not one single time been of the impression that a downgraded country, say France, have acted differently from being a major power.

Great news indeed, because I intend to do just like you when the game comes out. I.e. downgrade all other majors so that I can annex them if fortune should happen to favor me...

Besides, the mere fact that you have played so many 'variant campaigns' implies that the game has no problem handling human controlled minors.

All this 'I want x to be in the GC' stuff is actually pointless. As they all can.

Is it really pointless?

Answer me this question then, my lord Count, because no one else has...

What is the reason that you are not allowed to select any nation in the GC, in-game?

There has to be a reason, I am sure, because this is such an obvious, cool feature to increase replayability ad infinitum. A mere seven playable nations strikes me as terribly limited, considering the reputed fact that you can play any nation without upsetting the game mechanics...

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 17-05-2000).]

 

[Doomdark]

Ok, thanks Greven.

I think I see what you mean: The game has come a long way from the early design stages when it was decided that there would be playable and non-playable nations. As it happened, it turned out that all nations might just as well be playable, but the GUI was already finished. I.e. it is too late to change the game design.

Fair enough, I say. I won't gripe anymore about it as long as the scenario files (and as much as possible of the game data) remain unencoded and uncompressed in the final release.

I love games with 'open' data. Warlords II Deluxe and Civilization II spring to mind, where you could even alter the graphics to some extent.

I just read that 'Black & White' from Peter 'Populous' Molyneaux is going one step further, with at least partly open source! A fine precedent that I hope other game developers will follow.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

I would guess that if you played a minor like Sweden, Scotland & Erie that colonizing would not be an issue.

On the contrary. Sweden historically did some colonizing and could easily have become a major colonial power if it had not been so embroiled in constant wars with its neighbors... It is a choice that should definitely be open to anyone playing the nation.

The Swedish colonization effort is actually a compelling reason why Sweden should have been considered a major power in EU. Refer to my original post in the thread 'Ten Reasons Why Sweden should be in the Grand Campaign'.

Furthermore, I see no reason why Scotland and Eire (if it exists) should not be able to colonize; their locations are certainly suitable.

Minors like Moldavia, Austria and Hungary could probably never be very active on the colonial arena though.

/Doomie